l convince us that you are honest about dealing with us? and for the u.s. to do the same for pakistan. i think the u.s. can play a huge role in delaying pakistan's concerns and removing their concern about india and india's role in pakistan. india can play a role, too. there is much i am glad to hear that clarification. i think one of the reasons why so many cling to it and i confess i think i used the expression yesterday in describing something is because it provides a framework to understand why it is pakistan would wish to support the group's it supports. it is not just cash mayor- directed. if it were, your argument would be the proverbial slam-dunk. the problem is that for many,

understanding the relationship with the taliban and all these various other extremist groups, really is almost hard to fathom. except when viewed through that understanding of thinking about control of other territory. help understand that, i know pete wants to jump in. >> i will be brief. having talked to enough people inside pakistan and also within the military establishment, there is debate going on on this issue, haqqani for instance. it is a view that pakistan needs are gets. they are pashtun on both sides of the border, they want to make sure there is representation in cobble -- kabul. haqqani has never ruled

afghanistan and no one would allow them to gain that power. one has to be realistic. i am not sure that we have seen the last pakistani position on this and i would hope that there is some active introspection going on in light of what has happened recently to take a fresh approach to the relationship of afghanistan. there have been meetings with president karzai and there will be other meetings. i hope this matter will be laid to rest. one thing i should state quite clearly, i do not think that anyone in the pakistani establishment, looking to have a new government in kabul -- >> i agree. i want to say for my pakistani

friends. the pakistani leadership swags a lot about their problem in pakistan because they have many pashtuns in afghanistan. to say that they are all pashtuns is to miss the important differences in the context in which they have been functioning. in particular, pakistan is a federated state in which most of the pashtun population has lived under a unique legal system and circumstances and so forth that have set it apart from the central government and so forth. afghans and pashtuns have never live that way. it is not the way they see the problem. i do think a fair amount of the communication difficulty we have when you strip away different interests is that the pakistanis are contemptuous of

the notion we can understand anything about afghanistan and supercilious about their comprehension. i think they bring to that understanding a great degree of category mistake by imagining these are the same people. >> i want to build off the fact that what happened over the weekend is -- it is in some ways a defining moment. it creates an opportunity. we have to look at this in context whether what -- of what happened over the weekend in the -- and the next six months. what happened over the weekend sends a message that america is learning how better to fight this war on terrorism. we are confident, that we can now be more confident and perhaps once again, we can be feared. i am sure that our friends that

are allied with us woke up one monday morning and said this is why we are allied with the americans. they have the ability to learn and improve. for the people on the fence, they may be getting good at this and maybe now is the time to make a decision to get closer. for our allies, most of the people woke up on monday and said, what are we going to do today to make sure that we are alive at the end of the day based on a treasure trove of information that we may have gotten out of the compound. it provides the kind of opportunity and redefining of the u.s.'s image in terms of competence and confidence as we move forward which will then -- we can build off of what is going to happen. this was this talk about an accelerated withdrawal of troops in afghanistan kind of scares me. we should not be pulling out. we can enhance the image we've built over the weekend by what we do this summer in afghanistan

to show again, we are persistent, we're confident, and we are confident we are going to be successful and put the resources in so we can be feared and respected because of our capabilities. this is the opportunity this presents for us to redefine our perception. i can tell you sitting on the committee for eight or nine years, it was kind of a cancer every time the community would come in and you have to ask the question if the director is in or someone else. tell us about the search for bin laden. what do we know and for seven or eight years, it was kind of like, what we do not know but if we have to make a guess, we think he is in this part of pakistan. it is kind of like, now we know and we acted on it. the military acted incompetently. we were successful. take that and build one of the

summer with the work that fred has been doing and it gives us an opportunity to redefine who we are. >> i want to ask a question that is out of large-scale but i cannot resist the opportunity because i want to know what you will say. sorry, it is about what i am interested in. we have bin laden which is important in many ways and less important in others. there is very little debate about the reality. the way we got him, persistent intelligence, following the tracks, information about the ourier from khalid sheikh mohammed. what does this mean for the next guy? i do not want to take anything away from the president because he deserves all the kudos,

especially as to the navy seals. what about next time? >> next time will be harder. i give the president a tremendous amount of credit. i believe he gave the direction to leon panetta that said maintaining a high priority, i want to maintain a high priority on capturing or killing bin laden. the president gave that direction to leon panetta and every time we got briefed, he made that clear that was still a priority. the bottom -- what he has done is he has given the intelligence community fewer tools to do their job against bin laden or against other high-value targets. it is a combination of not been able to use enhanced interrogation techniques, not having any interrogation strategy at all. the other thing that is still out there that has been written about today and one of the first things that crossed my mind, i

hope the president and eric holder moved back from the threat to prosecute the cra folks who may be engaged. the cia folks who were involved in that process. congress, justice, and these people did what the american government elected -- the american government, elected government wanted them to do. they're under the threat of prosecution. you have folks within the community who are risk averse to taking the kind of chances that will give us the kind of information and intelligence we need to be successful in the future. the president is pulling away the tools that enable them to do their job effectively and reducing the tools they have at their dupont -- their disposal. >> i want to comment on this. high-value targets and interrogation, you get the guy

and he spills the beans and you act on this information. i would explain the success in capturing bin laden as a cumulative knowledge that has been collected by the u.s. and the experience and training in knowing the country, knowing the people, working with locals, and a network that has clearly been established inside pakistan. working independently from all appearances of the pakistani intelligence services which is why the raymond davis case became such a huge issue. i think yes, interrogation are capturing and other high-value target would help. it is the nuts and bolts, the bread-and-butter intelligence work that matters and the analysis of that information. it is not just the technology, it is the people behind the technology that matters.

we're seeing improvements. >> i would agree. it was not a single -- it was just good, hard work. i drove in from dallas on the airport -- dulles at the airport monday. the success on sunday was the result of a lot of hard work by people that started eight, nine years ago. i got done -- and down, and the cab driver said i am one of those guys. i said what you mean? >> he said i was in the afghan region working for the u.s. government. i do not know what he was doing. translation or whatever. he served his time serving our country and he said, thank you. it is amazing. you know some of these guys, probably. he is back driving a cab in the u.s. but seven or eight years ago, he said i am tremendously

proud, and he said, i feel part of the ownership for what happened on sunday. >> that is remarkable. i want to open up the floor to questions. we have not change these rules. identify yourself, raise your hand, i will call on you, wait for mike and identify yourself. brief and succinct. thanks. >> frank fletcher. my question is -- >> if you are directing it to someone, please tell us. >> there are any number of people who speak and write saying bin laden was a symbol and was inspirational. general haig then spoke at a conference sponsored by the marine corps university. i paraphrase. he was there last week. he was an inspiration and a symbol, but he was more than that. he was still capable with his

circle of engaging in operational planning. that does not take away from the fact that there are franchisees and affiliates and the principle of decentralization that there are people who could act, affiliated with al qaeda but without his direction. what does this say if it was true about al-qaeda's organizational capability and the importance of secretary -- zawahiri and others? >> my answers -- my initial answer is always unsatisfactory. answers, we will not know until we see. we're probably going to see some play out within al qaeda central, although i expect al- zawahiri is the more gifted theoretician and he is in many respects a better rhetorician

but he is not in any way of inspirational figure. he does not have the credentials in the same way. you may see struggles within the top leadership. i think that we will have to see how that plays out in terms of a fact on operational capability. we kill something like 10 al qaeda operational directors over the past several years and it does have an effect on the organization. nine have stepped up or 10 have stepped up and the operations have continued. i would also refer you to the 6 -- the historical example in iraq when we killed zar qawi. he was the operational commander for it and his role was very important. he was replaced by 0 laz 3

-- al-nasri and was much more ruthless and effective. i am not suggesting this is the case but i am saying we need to be cautious in imagining that because you remove, even if you are -- were operationally relevant, the operation will degrade perhaps. almost certainly in the short term, but these organizations tend to be resilient. that is why the point that was made and that pete made were and how important -- were important. this is why it was a long fight and where we have to stop looking for the exit ramp and looking for the ok. now we have the excuse to declare victory and leave. these are extremely tough, entrenched, resilience organizations that we generate leadership, -- that regenerate leadership and they have been at

that for long time. al qaeda is the epitome of that. we're not done with these guys by any stretch of the imagination although it was a good hit and was satisfying. >> we have been concerned about the franchise operations. if there is any retaliation in the short term, for this event, i think it will come out of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula with a locking -- al-laqi. >> go ahead. if i could add to that. if you were looking for brand figure to replace osama bin laden, particularly in this age of global connectivity, laal-

laqi will fit the bill. it is a long fight and we have to be prepared to take the message of islam back into the islamic world and to use islam to fight it at the community level, at the provincial level, and at the national level. >> what do you mean? >> which means to help people understand what is being purveyed in the name of islam by these groups, like in the heartland of pakistan is not islam. it does not fit in with the teachings of the koran or the prophet. that brings me to the final point. unless we support good governance in these countries, all is lost. if we continue to work with autocratic regimes and

technocrats and look the other way because they are serving our purposes, we have defeated the whole enterprise. >> i wanted to piggyback on that for a moment. if you look around the world in the last three or 35 years at the revolution and regimes that have actively propagated this idea of islam witches at war with how is, as practiced by most people, the three that come to mind are pakistan, saudi arabia, and iran. the largest significance is getting that reorientation outside of pakistan's borders. it is that. this perversion has been peddled by these trichet -- three regimes much more by others. >> there is a difference. it is interesting but there is a difference. i want you to your correct me if i am wrong. -- i want you to correct me if i am wrong.

it is -- i do not want to call a national identity. this is a national political agenda that is wrapped up with religion, that has a lot to do with the identity of the state. in pakistan, it seems to be much less integral to pakistani -- and much more to do with a mistaken sense about exercising a variety of strategic options. am i wrong? >> yes. >> you are saying i am wrong. >> at a personal level, it is true that that is how it is grim. you have this question that goes back to pakistan. they are two competing ideas. you have one idea which we can call the idea that is a homeland

and islam -- it does not have to be shot through every aspect of the state but there is a competing idea that you can use a shorthand, the idea of duty. if that is all you wanted, why do need a new country? this has been going on for a long time and since the 1970's, starting with benazir bhutto. the side which has said, it is not enough to adjust the a homeland for muslims. -- to just be the homeland for muslims. we have to have this pan- islamic identity that has been gaining ground. it is a contest and that the deeper ideological -- the question of who am i that you raise that exists in iran and saudi arabia exists equally in pakistan. >> with apologies to the

audience because we would like to hear your questions. it is interesting for me as someone who came from pakistan, the part of pakistan that have the greatest population which is now bangladesh has reversed direction and has actively and correctly, in my view, separated religion from the state. there refers to various other things that happened in pakistan that they inherited -- but they reversed -- they reversed various other things that happened in pakistan that they inherited. the lesson pakistan needs to learn is from their cousins 1,000 miles to these. >> i think it is important to make a sharp distinction between iran and saudi arabia on one hand and pakistan on the other. granted, the debate that goes on

in pakistan about what is the basis of self definition and the argument that it is about is long, i would submit that although he belongs to a particular school, the debate is more than what -- how much islam should be running the show. the iranian regime is based entirely exclusively on the principle of a very specific islamist radical ideologies that serves as the justification for the current regime in a way that there is no parallel in pakistan. in saudi arabia, there is the hobby -- wahabi school thought -- school of thought. you have a commitment to two into irritations of islam which i am prepared to argue, both of

them are heretical in the long view of mainstream islam. i think the debate in pakistan is open and pakistanis could have a debate in the role of islam in the role of the state and how it functions and is broader in terms of which version of the misinterpretation you want to pursue. >> will come back and open the part of questions again -- we will come back and open the part of questions again. i cannot believe -- to leave it hanging there. -- i cannot leave it hanging there. >> i want to ask a two-part question. the first is, from some distance, meaning weeks, months, which factor will have had the

greatest negative influence on al qaeda? the arab spring or the assassination of bin laden? second, if you were given a poison dart and you have an opportunity to aim it at one of three people, mullah omar, i meant al-zawahiri, or haqqani -- al-zawahiri or haqqani, which would have the biggest impact on the struggle? >> always provocative. do you want to start this one? >> >can i have three guards? [laughter]

i would not use it against haqqani because the network is and resilience and structured for succession. killing a single leader in that movement would be satisfying but of limited impact. i am torn between whether to use it on omar or zawahiri. i do not know yet what direction al-zawahiri will take. my inclination would be to use against mullah omar who has shown himself to be an effective ideologue and inspirational figure. that would not end that insurgency either. if we're doing targeted killings, that is what i would do. i'm not looking for poison darts. any of those would be satisfying, but none of them are going to bring us to success in

this endeavor. it will take the kind of long struggle we are talking about. if the arabs spring moves in the direction that we all hope that it will, the direction of more representative governments, more and close of governments in the middle east, and a general -- more inclusive governments in the middle east, that will have been of more significant blow to al qaeda then the killing of bin laden. >> right appear. -- right up here. >> thank you. many people are asking if osama bin laden should have been brought to justice in 2001, not in 2011. there are the millions of people who were affected. including millions in india.

i have been saying this for the last 10 years to the white house, the state department, the pentagon that osama bin laden is living like a maharajah and is protected. >> what is the question? >> i am asking two things. he is not or is in pakistan. as i said all along. where do we go from here? can we trust pakistan in the future, because many more terrorists are still there, as president obama said, but we will get them. some attacked mumbai. >> we covered this pretty nicely. you said no baby, bathwater. you said a strategic moment in which pakistan can make a

choice. anything to add to that? >> we know the strengths and weaknesses of the relationship with pakistan. i think we can continue and we try to do everything we can as to how we improve and strengthen the relationship. you do not cut off the relationship with pakistan. >> i am sorry, i keep nodding at people but i am falsely nodding. why do we try that far back corner there, the lady? >> i am going back one question to gary's question if i may. i would rule the questions and to one. killing the individual does not kill the idea and we have to kill the idea. that is why the arabs spring as important. that is why we have to look at countries like pakistan that has the same characteristics. something like 60% of the

population of -- 60 million are the youth and there connected to the world and they have high expectations because they know how everyone lives. we have to address them through the government and twist the arm of the government, convince them, get their attention. killing is not the solution. the solution is to provide opportunities to people so they can take over and run their own lives the way they want to. that is the lesson of the arab spring. >> that is why it is heartbreaking to see so many people who should know better suggest now the president has proven himself and he can afford not to step up on libya and syria. that is such a strategic mistake. i do not think that proving himself will last. in the corner, there. >> thank you for the wonderful

discussion. >> could you identify yourself? >> i am an academic -- i am not a policy analyst. i am from the subcontinent. i have been glued to watching the developments and the discourses about what we should do here and what pakistan should do and i have been trying to collaborate it with something else. what is happening in the vernacular in pakistan? i found that to be an interesting and educational experience in the last four days. it began with just a denial that night saying, where's the evidence, what are these things, what is the president saying? i am talking about people on the main talk shows which have the

huge influence here and in pakistan. not my home but in pakistan. the second day, there was the sinking in and the discourse changed to, where we not taking the credit for this operation? >> we get the thrust, yes? >> what is fascinating to see that this course changing every day and there is today a sense of free preparation of trying to get a sense of identity about where do we go. i am saying the conversation here is important to hear. there is the reflection. comments? no? gotcha. >> i am jim bernstein with what about solutions. our moderator said i would be -- and there was a good moderator

were was going to. >> thank you for seeing none, -- saying that on c-span. >> i am enjoying this the way i enjoy watching espn during the playoffs. one of the characteristics that we get in these meetings that people take an event, at the present event and they dissected and what does it all mean -- the sect -- dissect it and what does it mean? those who are in the present cannot -- and deafened by the present cannot hear the future. food, water, opium. 150 million people plus with nuclear weapons who are influenced by opium and we are talking about a guy who is dead. >> shuja? >> i could not agree with you

more. i testified on the hill two days ago and i said until and unless you change the economic and political landscape, in the case of pakistan, you are not going to be able to make any changes here in the future. you cannot create the possibility of change which means addressing the question of energy, food, water, and not just within the country but regionally. with afghanistan, with china. these are huge issues but these are the difficult and nuanced issues that dannie referred to and we're looking for the short- term solution. can we throw money at the problem? as i said there, i am quoting the beatles, money cannot buy you love. we are looking for the love which will not be there and until we can -- not be there

until we can change the underlying conditions. >> when we are talking about what needs to be done in order to develop good governance in pakistan, we're talking about what needs to done to help pakistan address those problems to raise. the question is, why is pakistan having those problems? a huge part of it, one is geographical and the other is a variety of other things. you have bad governments -- governments and you have people unable to voice their concerns about these things and you have a rise of corruption and other harm the bodyarmed the bal politic. we are trying to address the things, including this debate about islamism and serves as an excuse for not talking about how

the state should be governed. we need to look for the long term. i agree. i could quote another philosopher. you cannot make it to the long term if you do not get there from here, either. we need to see this -- i will sing it. >> to add, we have talked about some of those. we have talked about the demographics. the arab spring and the future of islamicism. this is why we put this event together is the death of bin laden. hopefully -- the death of bin laden hopefully becomes the catalyst to talk about these larger issues. a number of us have used the term opportunity.

this is an opportunity to raise the discussion and the debate, raise the discussion with pakistan about how we move forward and the kind of relationship we have. you added three other things that premature part of that discussion. food and water and these types of things are part of the dynamics that so often get lost, especially here in the u.s., where everybody -- it used to be driven by quarterly results. when i came out of the business world, how are we going to do this quarter? we're watching tv and say, what happened to the price of gold or silver in the last two hours? we're getting instantaneous feedback which is drawing away from the larger debate and the larger long-term which is what we should be talking about. >> the gentleman right there. >> i am observer right now. about 10 days, a week or 10 days before the events of last weekend, there was a "wall

street journal" article i read that shocked me. the senior official may have been zadari himself. appealing to join pakistan in pursuing strategic access with china. my question to the panel is, given the events of last weekend, do you think it more or less likely that such a statement could be made today? >> no one is stepping up here. >> i would be happy to respond to that. apparently, that was ascribed to the pakistani prime minister in his meeting with the president of afghanistan. i have since learned it was not he. -- not he who made that statement by the foreign office official that raise the --

raised the possibility. it was not put as starkly as reported. it does not make sense to have an either-or reproachapproach. afghanistan -- they have plans for the future of afghanistan and has a long relationship with pakistan. it has a stronger economic relationship with njindia which one should not get " -- one should not forget and one should applaud. china has is a huge player in the region and for anyone to ignore china would be a mistake. i do not think it is a question of the either-or. >> i wanted to say that the pakistan-china relationship, it is hard to exaggerate how important that is to pakistan. china is pakistan's fall weather friend. if you look at public opinion polls in pakistan, despite the

american aid, the american approval rate is 17% and for china it is 42%. china is seen as rock solid reliable partner. one thing about that article. it was not said publicly. it is not as if the president said that at a press conference. it is something that is reported to have been said in a private meeting. >> right here. >> thank you. my question is a two-part question. about the youth in pakistan. not only in pakistan, some believe 9/11 was a drama. many still believe this was a drama.

where do we go? secondly, this today, the corps commander meeting after the meeting, a statement was issued saying such an operation in pakistani borders is not going to be tolerated in the future. where are we going? do we see any cooperation in the future? >> we were just talking about this before the event. >> the first part which is about the conspiracy theories. >> [inaudible] >> i think they should have been released. i do not think that would have convinced the most die-hard conspiracy theorists. these are people who genuinely believe that 9/11 was an inside job done by the americans. there is no convincing them. there are shades of conspiracy

theory and it may have helped convince some of the people in the middle. i think the photographs are going to come out anyway. if they had been released by the u.s., the u.s. would have been shaping the this course. if they are released by julian assange, the impact would be thatmore negative, and was a mistake. as for the statement, i was surprised by the belligerents of the town -- belligerence of the tone. >> i was surprised by the statement. there was a similar statement issued on march 17 after the drawn attack -- drone attack that reportedly killed 41 people and that said more less the same thing. this is conveying a message to a

domestic audience much more than two the u.s. the fact -- much more than to the u.s. there was no shutting down of the pipeline or supplies or cancellation of the strategic dialogue which is scheduled later this spring, it is a good sign. it means they got it out of the system and perhaps now there will be some serious attempt at trying to find a way to begin the dialogue with the united states again. i do want to go back also, if i may, to the question about the role of the media. the vernacular media particularly in pakistan and to some extent in india is competing for space. pakistan has over 60 channels that are clamoring for a narrow

band of audience. each one tries to outdo the others. it is like if you have msnbc and fox and multiplied that by 10, that is what pakistan and to some extent, india, has. they are constantly trying to drum up the public in one way or another and you do not find that considered the analysis that will help people understand. this is part of the process of maturing and perhaps they will get over it. >> add one thing to it. my first reaction to the statements coming out -- statement coming out is what is new? they make a harsh statement and

nothing changes. how long can the pakistani government get away with saying no more? how many times have they said that? i get nervous about that. >> i can respond to that. this is not a government statement. the issue in pakistan is it is a dysfunctional poverty where there are two separate nodes of thought. all you are left with is a responsibility that has fallen to the military. there is not a single voice. >> a -- they said pakistan should not be looked out as a week or dependent state. >> what else is he going to say? that is less troubling than the other statement. this is going to be our last

one. >> dick kauffman. we have been here 90 minutes and talking about the future of the u.s. relationship with pakistan. one of the issues that has not been mentioned are the addresses -- madrassas. have beenow how many educated or exposed but that strikes me as an impediment to fundamental change in the u.s. relationship with pakistan. >> it is true. it is an interesting thing. you bring up a good point. there is a zeitgeist in many of these discussions. we spend time talking about madrassas and the islamist education and the pernicious this of the money that was coming in and it has gone by the wayside.

what our panel has to say. >> want pakistan came into independence, it had 100 -- when pakistan came in to independence, it had 100 madrassas and now has 1000. most of these are not problematic. 10% to 15% our problem. the most famous ones would be in karachi and beyond that, the problem is as several scholars have pointed out, it is the education that is non-religious. we tend to be more concerned with madrassas. it is the non-school curriculum. what does that teach about

pakistan or the indians? had that been allowed to percolate to the school books, what is the impact when these young people who have had their minds shaved by a different curriculum come of age is anybody's guess. >> madrassas have been talked about and they grew during a jihad against the soviets. there was a reason to create them in the border region in particular. most of them are not problematic. the problem is the educational system. it is not sexy enough and it is a long-term endeavor. pakistan did not have a policy for changing the curriculum in 2006. the good news is it is now starting to happen and it has been privatized and private

companies will be able to compete to produce the textbooks. on my trip to pakistan in march, i brought back with me english textbooks that i have been going through those from class one and class 10. it is interesting to see what they teach and what they do not and what they do not teaches the history of pakistan -- what they do not teach is the history of pakistan in that context. and the history of the west. that will need to change so pakistanis do not get a dyspeptic vision of their place in the region where they belong. >> the other part of the challenge here for the united states and our european allies, we're completely unwilling to make comments about this on a policy level because it is culturally insensitive. that is the big challenge as well. that is another larger issue.

i am going to give you a teaser. we said the next big challenge is al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. on may 17, we will have an event here at aei on yemen. we have written an enormous topic on this this week. i commend to you the work of sadanand and fred. shuja can be found at the website. council's i could keep going. there's a lot to read and a lot to see. i refer you to our website and our facebook page and of course, everybody's twitter.com. with that advertising, let me thank our outstanding panelists and are terrific audience. thank you for being here today.

[applause] >> in a few moments, the chairman of the house armed services committee on defense spending. in an hour, a hearing on security concerns in europe and asia in the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden. house debate on a bill regarding leases for offshore oil drilling. president obama at day ceremony -- at a wreath laying ceremony in new york city. on "washington journal", we will look out the results of the presidential debate in south carolina. our guest will be craig crawford. tim bishop of new york will take

your questions about subsidies for oil companies, and we will be joined by andrew breitbart, indignationridges' -- righteous indignation". >> this weekend, university of nevada las vegas professor david schwartz on the biggest threat of the 1940's and 1950's. an evening of conversation with those who traveled and worked the underground railroad. the story of ronald reagan and if it could have happened anywhere else but in the golden state. how the schedule e-mail to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> house armed services committee representative buck mckeehan said the failure to cut

spending poses a danger. the congressmen said the reason a u.s. helicopter crashed during the mission to osama bin laden's compound was not a mechanical failure, but a combination of factors. >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the heritage foundation. thank you for your patience. congress is a deliberative body and it has those occasionally. the chairmen took some time to come over here a few minutes ago and have to go back for a vote and now he is back with us. we're happy to have him with us this morning. on behalf of the heritage foundation, i welcome all of you. three years ago, we decided to focus our activities every may on the importance of national defence and the armed forces. this is not only the moment of memorial day but when

authorization bills are front and center. but wanted americans to take the time to take more -- think more seriously about what our military forces need to secure our land, lives, and liberties and for far too long, they have had to do more with less. throughout protect america of the month, we will shine a bright light on this situation for congress and america. we have a jam packed month as the calendar we have prepared will show you. i do not know if we have these calendars available but on the back of it, we have the activities for the month of may for protect american month. in addition to today, we will host events with donald rumsfeld, general peter pace, and rep alan west and others. we're issuing weekly papers on our series beginning with one by senator jim talent you will find outside.

we posted a new protect america month page on our website so you can find the information including the activities i just discussed. you can join the conversation by friending us on facebook and twitter and visiting the blog and keeping up with everything at our web site. just a couple of housekeeping notes before i introduce our guest. if you'd like to ask questions, the job and down on -- like them down on the index cards we passed out and -- to write them down on the index cards we passed out and send them down. we will get to as many questions as we possibly can. also at the end, please stay seated as the congressman departs. it is my pleasure to welcome back the hon. buck mckeon. chairman of the armed --

house armed services committee. i do not think anyone has been more cogent about the troubling state of our military forces, nor is anyone more concerned about the problems done by underfunding them and cutting vital programs. "usa wrote in the 'us y", there appears to be no consideration on the effects of our troops or security. he is our strong voice at our critical point in history. he knows what american it needs and what our soldiers need and it is not sacrificing security to spend for other programs what is bad for the government. he has been speaking about this a long time.

the chairman has been fighting the good fight in congress since he arrived in 1992 after serving as mayor of santa clarita. he has served on the subcommittee for 21st century competitiveness. please join me in welcoming congressman baht mckeown. -- buck mckeen. >> thank you for patients. it is unfortunate but we do get to vote, and we do to that obligation fairly seriously. ood to see my from mormer

colleague. good move on both your parts. thank you for what you are doing for defense and holding this series. i do not think there is a better way to open your protect american month and i offer my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to the team that eliminated osama bin laden. to flied deep into pakistani territory and successfully attack an entrenched enemy on his home turf, that is not an easy thing to do. their professionalism and courage brings great credit on themselves and the united states of america. ronald reagan was a big fan of soviet jokes. in that spirit, i would like to honor president reagan and give our british allies a pat on the back. this is a true story. during the cold war, the soviets treated the black see as their private territorial waters --

the black sea as their private territorial waters. they spent -- the british spent a ship into the black sea. the russians said, tell us what you are doing there. the british commander replied, about 20 knots. i would like to give you the bottom line up front. the world is in a time of momentous of people. for the first time since the end of the cold war, american dominance is challenged by credible actors. whether or not we are in decline is to be determined, but i agree with at least divens and's wisdom -- adelai

stevenson's wisdom. if we fall, we chose to fall. we can keep leading, or we can start following but bleeding from behind is not the practical foreign policy. i commend the president for his leadership on the bin laden operation, but his leadership in other key areas has been scarce. it is my sense that the white house defense decisions are putting this republic on the fast track for decline. the logic has been simply baffling to me. expend our military commitments while cutting the funding for our armed forces. that, ladies and gentlemen, is a recipe for disaster and decline. mr. obama has been called the post-american president. during his tenure, american exceptional is and has been called into question. our role -- american

exceptionalism has been called into question. i use that term not int h the sloganeering way. the people of the middle east are standing up against tyranny. founding, america has been a beacon of light.

berg is the chair. >> i want to apologize. i think some of our democrat colleagues found out we were getting early today and i think they've all hit the airports. so i hope they show up. we may have a few more of my republican colleagues be here. the purpose of today's hearing is to provide subcommittee members with a broad overview of security issues in europe and eurasia. terrorism remains the biggest threat to the transatlantic community. as a result, the goal of this hearing is to assess the cooperation between the united states and within others in

jurisdiction with this subcommittee in regards to terrorism. last sunday night, america learned an elite american unit has killed osama bin laden. i'd like to personally congratulate the bush situations, as well as our intelligence kmooet, law enforcement, most importantly i'd like to thank all of our fighting men and women in uniform, especially those in the unit six that did such a great job under great stress. great risk and relentless resolve on their part produced this great victory. the events of last sunday inevitably remind us of the tragedy of september 11th 2001. those we lost that day remain in our hearts and our minds. however, we must also recognize that due to the vigilance of the american troops, law enforcement

officers and ordinary citizens, the mass murderer behind the attacks on 9/11 was unable to strike the united states before we got him. we may never know ul the details about the operation which led to the death of bin laden. we do know that civilian and military elements of the united states government worked with international partners for years to track him down. we're here to learn more about and to encourage such counterterrorism cooperation. specifically, we seeking to strengthen ongoing efforts with our european and you're asian allies, including the sharing of information, resources and successful practices. counterterrorism is working in afghanistan. our european allies have made and continue to make significant contributions to the international security and assistance force. our eurasian and our asian partners also assist.

i was pleased to reed this week that kazakhstan ratified an agreement that formalizes the arrangements under which thousands of flights have crossed kazakhstan air space since 2001. such contributions are essential and must continue. our mission in afghanistan is not yet complete. counterterrorism cooperation with our european and air asi e allies must be global in scope. i'm interested in listening to the allies working together to address the threat being made. excuse me. i think the president is calling me. i'm sorry. i'm in a committee hearing. i'm going to turn my phone off, and i'll call you later.

okay? i bet that's never happened to you before, has it? i apologize for not shutting that off earlier. now, when you're in with the president and you do that, he glares at you. the united states can learn from the approaches taken by our european allies. i am particularly interested in how our allies approach counterterrorism and share successful practices. for instance, the united kingdom and the netherlands have implement eed programs that wor with communities that counter radicalization. it would be helpful to understand how officials from the department of homeland security posted in our embassy throughout capitals in europe and eurasia can bring such innovative practices here to washingtonment i hope you'll address that when we hear your testimony. terrorism threatens not only our lives but our way of life. i hope that our witnesses will describe the administration's efforts and the efrlts of our european and eurasian partners

to balance security concerns with the need of robust transatlantic trade and tourism. trade with europe and eurasia is vital to american economy, supports hundreds of thousands of american jobs across all 50 states. this trade must continue. this i look forward to hering about initiatives such as the visa waiver program that seek to provide access and american markets and for common sense precautions. i'm in favor of expanding this program to include additional qualifying european partners as well as historical lies such as taiwan. i was just in taipei recently, and they made the case that we ought to recognize them for this program. to foster trade, the united states assigned our hopes to -- we have signed our hopes to sign several different elements with our european and air asian partners. for example, negotiations continue with the european union on a renewed passenger name record agreement.

it's my hope the agreement will deepen mutual trust and bolster confidence in the atlantic. our common security and prosperity depend on us working together. finally, we must look at terrorism in the context of the events taking place in the middle east, north africa, which some have called the arab spring. al qaeda's role in these uprisings has been nominal so far. instead, the american ideals of freedom, democracy and opportunity have inspired many. however, i am concerned that these uprisings could create an opening and i hope you'll address this, for radical groups such as hamas and the muslim brotherhood to increase influence or even acquire a base in the region, a country from which they could threaten united states and israel and our european allies. it's important to understand that these radical groups do not have to convert people to their twisted version of islam in order to gain support. instead, hamass and the muslim

brotherhood have a history of provide goods and services, food aid and medical care to those who would otherwise not have access to such necessities. the united states and our european allies must take action against such a tragedy. we have a tendency to think of this arab spring as one event. however, the event is are interesting. i'm interested in the wojts' assessment of what we're doing to support democratic forces in each country. i'm also interested in how these uprisings each individually impact the united states counterterrorism strategy and cooperation with european and eurasian allies. the death of osama bin laden marked a major victory, but let us be clear. the fight is far from over. the united states and her allies must stay committed to the counterterrorism mission in

afghanistan and around the world. this subexcrete can do what it request to help. we'll continue to focus on terrorism and examine it from you'll angles. we'll be traveling extensively throughout europe to find out what our allies feel about all of these issues. i want to thank our witnesses and members for participating in this hearing and i look forward to a productive discussion. my minority member is not here so i'll recognize mr. poe of texas for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like many americans, i'm worried that pakistan is not as good a friend as we think they are are. at least as much as they claim that they are a friend of the united states. capturing osama bin laden was a great moment in not only our history but world history, but it revealed also how unstable our relationship is with pakistan. i, too, want to commend those who were involved in this operation, the president for making the decision to go and

take out osama bin laden and his compound, all of the intelligence agencies and especially the navy s.e.a.l.s, osama bin laden has met his maker and i appreciate the navy s.e.a.l.s in arranging the meeting. but let's look at the facts. bin laden was hiding in a city just 35 miles from the capital city of pakistan. his house was a massesive million-dollar compound, eight times the size of surrounding houses, had 15-foot-high walls, had barbed wire. once in, with he can see the compound had been built especially for osama bin laden and his hideaway or hideout, and perhaps the worst thing of all, the compound was just a stone's throw away from the west point of pakistan. it would be like john dillon jer living across the street from the fbi building down the street and the fbi not knowing about it. it's very perplexing that pakistan claims they were

unaware. even administration officials share those suspicions. the cia director leon panetta asertded that pakistan had not done enough to bring osama bin laden to justice. now saying that, quote, there's total mistrust between the united states and pakistan. those are strong words from the person who is the cia director. john brennan, the deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism says it's inconceivable osama bin laden had no support system to help him inside pakistan. a year ago, hillary clinton following a trip to pakistan, said in an interview with fox news that elements within the pakistani state know the whereabouts of the al qaeda chee chief. so it seems to me that pakistan was totally incompetent in their security issues or they knew of the location of osama bin laden and hid him out. if pakistan was helping bin

laden hide from us, i sefrnl don't think we should be giving them $3 billion of american aid. it doesn't seem to make us any safer to give american money to a country that may be playing both sides of the field. i've introduced the pakistan foreign aid accountability account, which freezes ny foreign aid to pakistan until it's proven pakistan didn't know about osama bin laden's wheres abouts. they have opportunity to make their case before we give them any more money. america just wants some answers. where do we stand? where does pakistan stand with the united states? president bush stated in his joint session to congress after 9/11, to our allies, that you are either with us or you're with the terrorists. and i would like to know where pakistan is in that group. there is no middle found.

i'd like to also find out what's going on with the mekdgo designation. a federal district court ruled that the state did not give the mek due process when it decided to keep the mek on the fto list. the law states that reviews are to take place within 180 days should the group appeal its designation. it's been past 120 days. it's now 230 days. during this time, the mek has been attacked by the iraqi military. yunami has confirmed that the soldiers killed 34 residents at camp asha raul, 34 residents that have yesterday to be buried because the iraqis refuse to allow them to be buried. high ranking public officials in the iraqi regime repeatedly cite the u.s. terrorist designation as their justification for treating the residents of camp

asha rof so harshly. two battalions are still there. iraqi troops won't let residents bury the dead. they also won't let anyone come in for regular visits. u.s. representatives have not instigated an investigation. the u.n. has not instigated an investigation. and of course iraq has not. of course we wouldn't expect those responsible for the action to instigate investigations. and all of this, to me, seems to compounded and made more difficult because the state department just won't take a positionen the m he ek. it's like we say in texas, time to fish or cut bait. either keep them on the list or take them off, but naik a decision. i think the evidence points to the fact that they should be taken off the list, but this delay, delay, delay, not being able to make a decision for whatever reasons is i think a problem that the state

department can resolve and is within the state department's power to resolve that matter. so those are some questions and concerns that i have, and i would hope these can be answered. i have introduced hres-60 which urges the secretary of state to take the mek off the fto list. we have 65 bipartisan colleagues who believe and signed the bill. thank you, mr. chairman. by the way, i do like your cell phone tone. it's very patriotic. i'll yield back the rest of my time. >> well, that was beethoven. >> it's patriotic. >> it does sound patriotic, doesn't it? first of all, let me say to my witnesses before i yield to my colleague from oosarkansas. i know you're hear to talk about europe and eurasia and pakistan

and the issues just raised by my colleague are under the middle east subcommittee's purview. but i hope you will address those issues bau i shier hbecau agree with everything he said. so as much as humanly possible, i hope that you'll include those in your thoughts and remarks when we get to the questions. with that, i'll yield to mr. griffin, my old buddy, from arkansas. >> your old staffer. thank you. >> and he was a good one, too. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to say thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming. i think that this topic is as relevant or more relevant than ever in the wake of the killing of osama bin laden. what i am particularly interested it in and maybe i can get to follow up with some questions, but i just want to throw this out there so that the witnesses will maybe be able to address it in the context of the other questions. is the impact that a leaderless

al qaeda has on the disparate terrorism yets spread throughout the european continent and what, if any, changes we might see in terms of an increased or decreased threat. i could make the case in the absence of one leader that there could be an increased threat and increased independence of the disparate groups on the continent. i ask you to keep did in mind and if you could address it, i'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. griffin. now we'll hear from my colleague from ohio, ms. smith. she yields back her time. with that, let me introduce our witnesses today. i want to thank you both for being here and thank you for your patience.

daniel benjamin was sworn in as coordinator for counterterrorism at the department of state with the rank of ambassador at large may 28, 2009. from 1994 to 1999 mr. benjamin served on the national security council staff. and in 1994 to 1997 he served as foreign policy speech writer and special assistant to president clinton. before entering the government, mr. benjamin was a foreign correspondent for "time" magazine and the "wall street journal." that must have been an interesting switch when you went from "time" magazine to the "wall street journal." some day i'd like to talk to you about that. mark cumins is deputy assistant secretary for international affairs at the u.s. department of homeland security. mr. assumcumins is responsiblpr

as director for european and multilateral affairs in the department of homeland security 0 office of international affairs from june 2007 to august 2008. prior to joining dhs in june 2007, mr. koumans served in the u.s. foreign service. welcome to you both. we'll recognize you, ambassador benjamin, if your statement is going to be excessively long, we'll just accept that for the record. but we'll give you as much time as we think is reasonable. >> thank you very much, chairman burton and distinguished members of the committee. i have submitted testimony for the record that provides additional detail about u.s. counter-terrorism cooperation with europe and eurasia. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i must say it's a great deal to testify today as

the united states celebrates al-qaeda. you mentioned my service on the national security council for t -- for the last two years of that time, i was director of threats when president obama declar declared for peace everywhere. i should say this is by no means our end to al-qaeda. much of its activity evolves to its affiliates and much work remains to be done. but as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 99/11 attacks, we should recognize that one of the unsung periods since that dark day has been an operation of global lines against terror, one that agents effectively to protect our innocents around the world. in the critical areas of intelligence and law

enforcement, governors have been taught together time and again, including ones in plains across the atlantic and public transportation systems worldwide. our european allies have responded extremely positively to our development and a european union underlined against the u.s. and counter-terrorism efforts. but statements also noted that al-qaeda remains a serious threat. europe very much remains a focus of terrorist plots. over the past year, we saw several attempted attacks, a suicide bombing in scandinavia and separate bombings in the metro and several caucuses. our work expands the globe. we work with our nato partners in isap in stability with

afghanistan. we've been working with our european allies in the yemen process, and we are increasing our coordination with france and other european partners to con strain the environment in which al-qaeda operates, by strengthening governments and other regional partners. such work helps to deny safe haven to terrorists, which is absolutely vital. to deal with the terrorist threat and identify individuals who are preparing to commit violence, information sharing is absolutely essential. the united states and new york are committed to posturing and sharing information in the prosecution of terrorist-related offenses. we worked on these issues through the united states treasury's tracking program, homeland security presidential directive 6. there have been some concerns raised in europe about these programs, but we know that our approaches to protecting privacy have more similarities than

differences, and we share a strong commitment to protecting civil liberties. i am confident that with goodwill on both sides and the common sense of resolve, we can achieve the common goals we seek. another crucial aspect of our ct cooperation is our bilateral work with key partners to build other relations with nations around the world. from italy in the south to the netherlands and denmark in the north share our views on implementing strategic counter-terrorism actions that deal with the capacity of partners and to stem terrorist recruitment. while al-qaeda and its affiliates are our highest priority in our ct diplomatic engagement, hamas also remains a major focus. we have been and will continue to work through bilateral channels to impress our european allies to take more aggressive action, fundraising at both the

eu and state levels, and i've made this a personal priority. in conclusion, the magnitude and bre breadth makes sure we work with our partners around the world to identify areas where further work remains to be done and how we can further collaborate ever more effectively. only through such cooperation can we succeed. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. benjamin, and now we'll hear from mr. -- secretary komens. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the homeland security corporation with europe. like you, i would like to acknowledge the achievement of last week. like secretary napolitano said, the death of bin laden is important not only for the

united states, but for the entire world. i would like to commend baroso and kerkov. we all agree that bin laden's death is not the end of our security efforts. al-qaeda and other organizations will continue to plan attacks here and abroad, and so we must remain vigilant. security is more of a shared responsibility than ever before. preventing terrorism is dhs's core mission and one that forms part of its other key mission subsidizing borders, immigration laws and shielding disasters. in order to succeed, our partners must work with the international partners. the attempted terrorist attacks on christmas day in 2009 and the bomb in 2010 underscore our international security with national security. criminals look for vulnerabilities in international networks to carry out their attacks. i would like to highlight three points. first, if a dhs works with our

allies to prevent terrorist attacks. second, they cooperate in particular to prevent terrorist travel. third, the visa waiver program provides incentives to maintain high security standards in deep cooperation with the united states. my first point explains how dhs works. to that end, dhs is nearly 400 employees in europe working daily with government, the travel public, the aviation industry, cargo shippers and others. it is dhs's goal to expedite legitimate travel and trade, both of which are critical to the u.s. economy, while preventing the flow of illicit goods and people and lessening illegal activity. much of this activity takes place at the operations level, combatting human and drug trafficking, screening u.s. bound maritime cargo containers, assessing airports and air carriers, conducting passenger screening and forcing u.s.

customs and immigration regulations and investigating cybercrimes. on my second point, terrorist travel represents one of the greatest threats to european and u.s. security, and therefore, attention and disruption are key goals. every week there are 2500 flights between europe and the u.s. they share passenger data and share information with our european partners in order to identify both known and unknown potential terrorists. dhs has a number of programs to address this threat. under the immigration advisory program, dhs posts officers at foreign airports to work with the airlines and foreign officials to identify high-risk and properly documented travellers before they board aircraft for the u.s. another example is dhs's collection and analysis of passenger name records, or pnr data. in recent years, pnr data has been pivotal in cracking the cases of david hedley, new york

subway bomber and times square bomber. i just note in passing that we just passed the one-year anniversary may 1st coincidentally the same day as osama bin laden's demise. they were denied entrance to the united states and were initially identified through the analysis of pnr. presently we're renegotiating a new agreement with the dau to avoid a potential conflict with the european privacy law. i should emphasize the dhs is not negotiating for the collection of dnr, which is required by u.s. law, but to ensure a stable and legal environment under which it is transferred. our goal is to improve security while reassuring our allies to privacy. we have held six negotiating sessions and hope to continue these talks in the months to come. since 1986, a visa waiver

program has allowed people to travel without first obtaining a visa. 30 visa waiver countries are in europe. by statute, these countries developed a security partnership with the u.s. and dhs conducts regular, detailed reviews of each country. these reviews focus on u.s. law enforcement, national security and immigration interests and they continue to share information vital to our national security. chairman burton and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i look forward to working with you as we advance cooperation with european partners. i will submit longer testimony formally for the record. i look guaforward to answering r questions. >> thank you very much. before i get to my questions, i would like to once again stress i just got back from taipei, and they have been a great ally, taiwan, for a long time, and they should be a top candidate, i would hope, for the visa

waiver program, and i hope you in the department will look seriously at that. the first question i have is, after bin laden's death, there may be some changes in attitudes around the world. with our continued commitment to freedom in the middle east, afghanistan and elsewhere and stopping al-qaeda and the taliban, do you think that the attitudes of our allies that have been working with us in those areas and those endeavors will change? will they remain as committed as they have been, or do we expect any change or have we seen any change? >> thank you for that question, mr. chairman. i think that our expectation is our allies will maintain the same sense of urgency, the same sense of mission that has characterized the cooperation we've had for many years now. if you look at the statements from any number of different european leaders, they were

quite clear that this is a mi milestone achievement but is by no means the end of the threat. they all experienced the heightened threat environment in the fall. germany arrested three terrorists in the midst of the conspiracy just a few days ago. i think there is a widely shared understanding among the governments of europe that this threat is by no means over. >> so you anticipate the commitment to afghanistan will remain just as strong as ever? >> well, as you know, there have been a number of different statements about troop levels and things like that in afghanistan in particular, but overall, we note that our european allies have supplied a large number of troops, a large number of teams for training police and other parts of the afghan government, and we certainly hope that they will continue to do so. i don't think that this event is going to, in itself, trigger any kind of sea change.

>> thank you. one of the concerns i have involves the middle east. i was a senior republic in the middle east the previous two years. as my colleague from texas was alluding to a few minutes ago, we're concerned about what's going on in the middle east. what i'd like to ask both of you is, our allies in europe, europe and eurasia, what is their attitude and what are they going to be doing, from your perspective, to help us make sure that the entire northern tier of africa, as well as the persian gulf, doesn't go up in smoke? in particular, i'm very concerned, and i'd like to know the attitude of our european and american asian allies. i'm very concerned about who is going to take over in egypt? who is going to take over in libya? what's going to happen in syria?

all these areas that will affect the entire world are in the middle east and they are supplying energy in large part for many of the countries in europe and eurasia. so i know this is a pretty broad question, but i'd like to know what your assessment is, both of your assessment, is about what's going to happen in those countries and what you project in the future. i mean, if egypt goes to the radical elements like the muslim brotherhood, if syria goes from asad to a radical element governing that country. if muammar gadhafi leaves and there are radical elements tied to al-qaeda, and we know they're there, would we be able to take over that country. >> as you said, mr. chairman, it's a very broad question but let me take a stab at it.

>> they're just as concerned as we are about the fate of the region. we've also seen change come to the region. there is a broadly shared desire to see egypt, tunisia and other countries that hang in the balance involved in a democratic way that meets the aspirations of their people. as you know, we have very close cooperation with the europeans on what is going on in libya. we've coordinated closely in terms of our assistance and our messaging to tunisia and egypt, and we've also coordinated equally, for example, in our outrage on the intolerable crackdown that has occurred in syria. this is just a sampling of our coordination. it is by no means meant to be exhaustive. i would say we are working together to ensure that we do see the kind of middle east emerge that we would like to see. we are, of course, all concerned

that terrorists will try to exploit this moment. because although the arab spring, as you mentioned, has been, nits oin its own way, a strategic blow to al-qaeda, because they were not part of the movement, they were not part of the story there, and, in fact, the events themselves demonstrated the falseness of one of their core beliefs, which is that only violence would change these countries. we view these as very positive elements, but terrorists will go whenever they see an opportunity as there is distracted security areas in the region and border security is not what it should be, they may see this as an opportunity. we're working closely with diplomatic intelligence, law

enforcement and military channels to do what we can to ensure the region maintains its security and to ensure that terrorists do not have an opportunity to exploit this moment. it's still very early days, but i think we're still very optimistic about the trajectory in the region. >> i'm about to yield to my colleague because i've used a lot of time already, but i would just like to urge homeland security and the state department to do everything, along with our allies, as humanly possible to make sure we don't have radical elements take over in egypt, syria or some of those other countries. i understand, and i think we all acknowledge, that we've had some repressive administrations over there. it was very difficult in egypt and syria, there's been a lot of oppression there, throughout africa and even in the persian gulf we've had those problems. but one thing i don't think the world can tolerate or live with

is several more irans popping up in the northern tier of africa and the persian gulf, because we might not be able to get enough energy since we're not drilling here in america. we might not be able to get enough energy to turn the lights on. so this is a very important issue, and i would just like to urge you to make this a top priority. and with that i yield to my colleague from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i follow up on my opening comments. now that osama bin laden is dead, who is the most -- who would you rank as the number one terrorist group in the world as opposed to the united states? >> well, sir, undoubtedly al-qaeda remains the foremost terrorist threat we face. operating from the al-qaeda core base in the pakistan/afghanistan region or through its affiliates in yemen, in northeastern africa

and northwestern africa. so as the president has said, as many others have said, this is a historic achievement but this is by no means the end of the story, and if anything, i think it demonstrated our determination to continue to remove al-qaeda threats that we face. >> i agree that the death of osama bin laden shows other terrorists that the united states is resilient and will do whatever we can for as long as it takes to make sure we're safe. cia director pinetta makes the comment there is an unusual distrust between pakistan and the united states now that we have found him harbored in the country for so long. do you share that opinion, mr. ambassador? >> ambassador richard holbrook,

the president of the united states, they have always said there is a trust deficit between our countries that we are working hard to overcome. as john brennan said, we're also going over the question of what systems there were to support osama bin laden in abbottabad and to make it possible for him to live there unmolested for such along -- a long time. i do think it's important to emphasize, as our secretary said this morning, our relationship with pakistan, while it occasionally has its challenges, is a productive one. that more terrorists have been apprehended or killed in pakistan than anywhere else, and that this collaboration between our countries has been absolutely vital to degrading the al-qaeda threat over quite a number of years. so it is a complicated picture but it is a vital relationship

and we need to keep working at it. >> i understand it's complicated, and my question is, do you believe that the pakistani government knew that osama bin laden was in their country? that's just a simple yes or no. >> i believe that they thought there was a good chance that he was somewhere in pakistan. i can't imagine, given all of the focus on fighting extremism, particularly in the federal tribal areas that they were certain he was not in their country. whether or not they knew he was in abbottabad, i think that that is -- that probably came as much greater surprise to them. >> of course, the united states didn't notify pakistan that we were coming in to take him out, and they have now objected and said that strained our relationship. my opinion is they knew or

they're totally incompetent in their intelligence field. let me switch gears a minute and ask you a couple questions about the m.e. k. every time we're together i ask about the mek, and i hope we get an answer soon. is the state department going to take them off the list? and if so, when? when are you going to make a decision? >> i'm afraid the answer is the same as when we saw each other a couple weeks ago. we are working as expeditiously as possible to complete the review that the u.s. court of appeals ordered . as recently as april 6, we received new material from mek council, and we are reviewing it, and just as fast as we can, we are going to get a recommendation package to the secretary and have a decision made. >> six months, a year? do you have any idea? >> i can't give you a certain date, but i can tell you it will

be less than six months. >> as a follow-up, i have attended, as many members have, all of the classified briefings that i'm aware of on this issue. has any new information come to surface in the last two months that would help members of congress on this issue, classified or not? >> as i mentioned, sir, we have received new information as recently as last month from the mek themselves, so we're reviewing that information and seeing if it helps in our deliberations. >> all right. i'll yield back the remainder of my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i apologize, i missed part of your question. did you ask about what our state department is doing to urge those people who have not been buried would be dealt with? are you aware of what he asked

earlier on? i mean, if those people were killed some time ago, and for whatever reason they're not being taken care of properly, it seems since we're a strong supporter of iraq and the iraqi government, we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that's taken care of immediately. >> i fully agree, and as soon as i get back to the department, i'll check with my colleagues. >> would you let me and mr. poe and others on the subcommittee know about that? >> certainly. >> i yield to my colleague. >> i want to shift gears a little bit and talk about russia some. on the judiciary committee, we have looked into the issue of piracy, and a lot of that, it seems, stems from activities, illegal activities, in russia. some of it by organized crime, and when i look at some of the

official cooperation with european countries on terrorism and law enforcement and the many different areas that we cooperate with our european allies, i often see russia included in some of those agreements and relationships that sends a signal that russia is helpful and a partner on a lot of these issues. i have -- i would just like to get your take, both of you, on issues of russia, how they are on issues of piracy, and if they've cooperated with us. and i'd like you to also address the role of organized crime in russia, and we're not hearing as much about it as we did maybe five years ago. i think it's fair to say, just in terms of press coverage -- i

don't know if that's because it's become so routine or maybe it's decreased -- if you could comment on the role of organized crime in russian society today and how that impacts, if at all, the official russian government's cooperation with us on counter-terrorism and things like piracy. so i would welcome your comments on that. >> thank you very much, sir. i confess in the counter-terrorism environment, we have put aside the issue of piracy. i would welcome a debriefing on that. i will say we have not detected any impact in our cooperation on counter-terrorism from those

issues, and in the course of what is a very close relationship with the russians on counter-terrorism, i think that we would certainly be able to discern. i will say that the counter-terrorism cooperation was a bright spot in the u.s.-russian relationship before the administration came into office, and it has continued to be, and i think we've actually deepened our cooperation with the russians on counter-terrorism as deputy assistant secretary komens can contest as well. we've done a lot of work with them on asian security, and we're developing some agreements in that area and will come into fruition soon and we've cooperated closely on issues such as designating al-qaeda members and al-qaeda terrorists and we've also had an exchange

of information on subjects of interest. so i think it's a very good relationship and one where we are continually looking for ways to deepen it to the benefit of all of our citizens. >> have you seen any identifiable limits on their willingness -- russia's willingness to cooperate on counter-terrorism? is there any threat that is a threat to the united states where they have been unwilling to show the cooperation that they've shown, for example, in al-qaeda, or have they been a partner in the sense that we have gotten to know other european allies as partners? >> is there an asterisk by russia? >> no, i certainly wouldn't say there is an asterisk, and i have an excellent relationship with my counterpart in russia, who is

a first-class leader in this area and widely recognized as such. i wouldn't say there is an asterisk, but i would just, you know, reiterate that some of our relationships in western europe go back many, many decades, and obviously in a historical perspective, we're still building the relationship with the russian republic day by day. but i'm quite pleased with the progress, and i have every hope for a continued success in this. let me put it this way, i haven't come up against any hard walls. >> do we have any time for the secretary? >> sure. >> secretary, if you could address the russian relationship. >> thank you, congressman griffith. i will echo everything that admiral benjamin said with respect to not having encountered any brick walls and

the great depth of our partnerships in western europe, albeit the most recent partnership in asia. we have put some additional ideas in front of the russians. i can think of one additional setting. this one concerns transportation, and others concern transportation as well, having to do with securing aviation, securing airports, but also bridges, tunnels, that's a multi-mode am removal. we gave them weekend to post -- >> i'm getting ready to yield to mr. bill rachus and. >> there is russian troops, as

you know, on georgian voil. you might consider giving us an update on that and what the long-term prognosis is. because the people in georgia are very concerned about that in the future. with that i'll yield to mr. borakis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. secretary kumens, thank you, of course, for your service. you noted that every week there are 2500 flights between the united states and europe, and they said. they used that as our point of departure in the united states. i apologize if you covered this >> wear -- where we have the

pushback is in the releasing of international data. why does the eeu believe that sharing of data regarding only must beloads? seems like a long time to me. if you can answer that question, i'd appreciate it. zds as. >> i can share some of the she not mea-- sentiment. it's important to realize we are dealing with two different governmental structures, the parliamentary structure, our three parts of government.

they have privacy laws that differ from ours in some respects, despite the fact that the underlying foundation, as you said, is quite similar and there is much more that unites us than divides us. but there are distinctions that are important to them, so they would like us to go through and consider every aspect of the agreement carefully. did they get this retained? what sort of date at that time did you tell him? >>. >> one we look forward to concluding to getting close to an agreement, and as i said, in later months, we will determine it. >> i think that covers it, i

really do. note we have a new subset of players, in a sense. we're no longer dealing with the european parliament, but in some ways congress has to explore all these different issues and satisfy itself in a way, and the eeu did not. it's an education, if you will, and share some of the. i really do think a lot of it is learning how -- we do the same things in different ways, so i don't think there is a dash working their way through challenges. thank you. >> my next question is for secretary cumens.

i am wondering about the radi l radicalizati radicalization, particularly as it relates to the balkans, mainly ini albania. tehran is closest to the most corrupt capital in the world. what -- less of a haven that fair owe's on the united states? >> thank you, congressman. with respect to albania -- i should preface my remarks by saying everywhere where the department of homeland security declares internationally. we work with the department of state and choose omission authority. that being the case in about 99%

of our postings. countries such as albainia, we are particularly dependent on the state that would be different. of defense, it has been -- the engagement in albania has been through the international law enforcement academy, alea in bucharest. there has been a certain amount of training and capacity building that has taken place. i don't have that off the top of my head, but i can supply that to you. >> would you provide the information to me? thank you very much for being here today. we appreciate your testimony and the questions you answered so

forthrightly. we'll probably have another hearing on this subject down the road. i looked at the map the other day of e e e e e e e e. thank you again, gary. appreciate it. we turned the air-conditioning down to make it a little more warm in here. i hope you appreciate it. dr. schmitt is a former staff director of the senate select committee on intelligence. he was executive director of the president's foreign intelligence advisory board during president ronald reagan's second term. dr. schmitt's work focuses on longer term strategic issues that will affect security at home and its ability to lay abroad.

margaret thaher, center o freedom. ms. mcnamara joined in 2006 and focuses on particular i go i can issues and the war on terrorism. she also -- that would be forthcoming in 2004, a member of the european parliament in brussels. with that you can ask questions. >> if i can begin offering, eat the mussels in brussels.

very poetic. i don't eat the musserks ls. the question i really can't focus on is the threat of isringhausen laum i can terrorism. this is a broad topic, so i'm more than happy, after sally and i finish up the talk with more detailed topics, as you wish. ly last summer i tiled. there were two reasons i conducted the study. first i wanted to see if there were other lessons to be learned and how other dmok raesz, especially those who dealt with terrorism in the past, were

handling the new threat. my second goal was to make sure amera's response tartism good for the plate. on the first, much to my surprise, the value of comparing our respect active approachesiv the allies brought together few lessons learned. the differences are many. different legal system, different national histories, different constitutional structures and differences in the perceived threat. but that said, two pointstood out to me. the first is that in each european country i looked at, it was placed clear that a threat grew. so outstanding differences between the wall and intelligence informing.

second, it'. the approach to counter-terrorism, i found this remark to be of the with the explicit purpo of that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorism again. counter terrorist operations outside of france on at least three occasions over the past year and a half. evenhe germans are perhaps the most effective allies in afghanistan contribute special operation forces to help remove the taliban from power prior to 9/11. and in the past year, they've eliminated much of the caveats that were in place as part of its current afghan mission. so while there is certainly a difference in the scale of what we do militarily compared to our allies, is not the case that

they have no law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism. third, this will deeply encouraged. in short, they don't twist, when one looks at the laws, data sharing, preventive arrests, the monetary loss, even germany has utilized ethnic pro filing and data mining while spain, the u.k. and france all have detention of terrorist suspects, days of intergags being

suspected terrorists, who for one reason. let me kwk thatx. that system rests on francis 'investigative. >> this is an array of powers. the only american office that bears some resemblance is that of an independent council. but unlike an independent council whose mandate is tied to a particular face, they can build-up a discretionary power that this is not to suing, that

when we thing about our own response, we must recognize that the united states is not bringing on the car meal leadership i need. >> thank you. miss mcnamara? >> dwirnd members of the committee. with your agreement, may my testimony be entered in for the record and i just have some remarks for the day. >> mr. chairman, many of america's strongest allies in this fight are in europe, first among them, the united kingdom. but in addition to individual nation stalts, thetes, the eu in additional in the united states. they recognized terrorism as a

defense. it dens terrorists border hopping when another terrorism was not looked at. the eu also financial assets will be frozen and to whom they're denied. this is proving to be one of the most valuable conclusions. and my opportunity to raise funding in europe. the eu has also countered several missouri tamts. recruit them to terrorism and the training of terrorism. however, the eu is severyour si. these keep the united states

away from what they further should be doing. they have weakened rather than strengthened cab mary. they failed to unite it on the grounds that an 18-hour curfew may breach the european convention on human rights. the u.s. should be especially wary of the eu's political agenda in this regard because it's the way the eu spends moy inside the united states to savor its political causes. they vangsed among observes, the statute of the criminal although court. the closing of guantanamo bay and u.s. recommendation of

policies. after 9/11, they tried to walk in solidarity, but since then, it's been marked as much by confrontation has it has by cooperation. the eu has attempted to frustrate several counter-terrorism policies, the trucking program which is also known as the smith agreement and u.s. ren additions. in terms of the piano and a greet, and they haveuchb it on a fill rit ration. . they should stop this involvement and approve the deal from 07, the program is essentially for day watc spen.

a swift lead canceled by the -- however, any piece has forced ift upon the program, too, which has limited its usefulness. the eu does understand that fill traiting the money is a power against terrorism. if the eu and the united states are clearly against terrorism, you will have fill traited all these markets. therefore, it's hard to see it as a terrorist organization. the eu's willingness to turn a blind eye is uncon shonable. our funding, moral, political and material support would dry up. with regard to detention of renditions policy, i am sure the

honorable members here today remember the european parliaments 2006 investigation when poland and romania was found hosting those facilities. no statement has been declared and these reports could have been used to find information involved in the successful operation against osama bin laden this month. all the sisters say is bilateral reels ships, especially in terms of sbelgment vooelsz relations. the remainder steps down in particular with sbelt means as getting all this together. in fact, they have been compared

to -- i would recommend the following policies to the european union, which you may want to bear in mind on your trip. the european parliament should prove the 2007 euuspnr agreement without modification. the current euus legal negotiations to adopt an umbrella agreement on data sharing should simply accept u.s. data provisions as adequate. the eu should also add hezbollah to its list of formal terrorist organizations, and they should include individualists who are engaged in any terrorist activities. thank you very much. >> now, you're with the margaret thatcher -- >> have not f-- center for free.

>> boy, they picked the right one for that. i was mesmerized by what you said. first of all, you think if the eu was more cooperative in trying to cut off funds to hezbollah that we could have that organization dry up because they have said so themselves. >> i don't think we could end hezbollah, but we could make things incredibly difficult for them. they use europe as a base, they use it as a staging point and the united states has passed legislation requesting time and again the european union to lift hezbollah as a formal terrorist organization. that needs to happen and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. we have seen no fruits of any sort of engagement except for e fact that europe is nothing more than, as they say themselves, a political, moral and fund-raising base.

>> wow. i want to you make notes of everything this young lady said, because when i go to brussels, i'm certainly going to utilize that. i have a couple other questions and that is, across the northern tier of africa and the gulf area, we see the rise of, quote, unquote -- sorry for this feedback -- the rise of, quote, unquote, the freedom movement. what is it. >> the arab spring movement. >> -- the arab spring movement. and i'd like to get your take on that and how that will -- what would the end result be if all of these uprisings are successful? i'm very concerned. i know that muammar dhafi has been a tyrant for a long time, but we took him off the terrorist list a few years ago

and now we're participating with france in running him out of office and there is a major civil war going on over there right now. in egypt we've seen a big change. bart is gone and we're looking forward to elections, i believe, in september and later on in the year. we see changes, possibly, in syria and elsewhere. and my big concern, as you heard from the first panel, is, what are we going to have in the future? can we do something about this? i'm very concernedthat more radical elements -- >> is that better? >> that's better. -- more radical elements may be on the horizon. and i don't know what we can do to predict that or what we can do to completely eliminate that possibility, but i'd like to have your ideas on how we should

deal with this unusual state of affairs that are taking place all throughout that region right now. and as i said before, it's not just because of security and stability in the middle east, it's because the energy needs in the united states, we are so dependent, at least in large part, from energy from the middle east, and if we see radical elements take over in syria and possibly in jordan and egypt and libya and across that area and we also have some problems in yemen, as you know, big problems in yemen, and the persian gulf. i'd like to know what you think from your think tank's perspective we can expect and what we should be doing to stop the possibility of radical action taking place. i know it's a big, big question but one that i think is extremely important. >> that is a big question, and

of course a lot of these questions are going to vary in different circumstances. we have different players and different ways of influencing in each country. but let me say -- >> we have been told by our intelligence people al-qaeda is in libya. people who fought in afghanistan with al-qaeda are w in legal positions in some of those tribes. in egyp the muslim brotherhood is an organization that in the past has been looked upon as a radical organization. the same thing is true over in syria. that's radical elements in those areas that may be different in some respects, but incompete ths americanought to have some idea of wher we're heading, especially if we're talking about giving support to the rebels in libya and the democratic movement in egypt and possibly supporting movements in these oth countries as well.

we get one view from the state department and from homeland security. this is the american government's positions. but you folks are experts in think tanks that work on this all the time, and i'd like to have your candid observations in this area. >> to start, i'm quite worried that arab spring is going to turn into an arab winter, and i mean that in the worst possible way besides the points you're making. i've had a number of conversations with european friends in government and the european union about what their plans are in the revolutions. we know that we basically had all these fail policies for the last ten years, so then you ask them, what a you going to do, and they have no answer. so there is a passivity.

they're still trying to figure out, what kind of policies are we going to implement? so that's not a good sign. on the american end, i would say that -- i think, to be frank, the administration has something of a hands-off approach to what's going on out of the fear that they'll look like they're being american colonialists, so to speak. i don't think that's the way to handle the situation. ifou want to prevent the worst from happening, you have to get involved. it doesn't always mean you'll succeed, but i know if you're not deeply involved and trying to move things forward in the right way, you won't succeed and you won't have the success that you want and you wind up with radical elements, actually, because they are more organized. they'll wind up being the dominant figures in these revolutions as we move on. so i think we're actually in a quite dangerous period where we've got revolutions and both the united states and our allies are acting way too passively when it comes to these changes.

>> i absolutely agree, my friend, dr. schmitt. i think leadership matters. there is this idea that if america takes a backseat, they'll look like colonialists. i think there is a difference between taking a backseat and looking weak. america can only succeed if america is involved, and i think american leadership is desperately needed in the region. with regard to libya, i think that's a key test case. if libya goes the right way, i think it will provide an example. i do agree sadly that i don't think we have our eye entirely on the ball. we have seen recently that president obama, president sarkozy and prime minister cannon put out a big paper saying get out, gadhafi, you absolutely have to go. i agree. how are we going to do it? i would like to see a stronger objective, i would like to see greater american involvement. one thing i'm not in a position

to comment on, and you may know yourself, surely we have intelligence on libya and the opposition in libya. we have been there for a number of years now, we've had a failed engagement, but the result of that is we probably had a lot of western involvement, a lot of western intelligence. we probably know something about the opposition, even if we don't know everything about them. we need to start looking now about who do we think is in our best interest? who are the libyan people going to support? i don't know if this is a civil war. it looks to me like gadhafi is just massacring his own people. i would like to see a test case and that's why i would like to se more american involvement. second, libya has constantly failed. a few years ago we had a mediterranean union. it was hailed as one of the eu's greatest strategies, they were going to engage north africa and it was going to be more democratic, there was going to be great energy products.

some of the stuff we were saying was ludicrous. as it's happened, we spent a lot of money at not seeing any results. david cameron has recently asked the european union to look at its entire aid program, look where aid program. look where the money is going, the provisional reports coming back is that their projects are horrific. they're spent badly and it's highly ineffective in terms of what we want to do. promote our values, relieve poverty. that sort of thing, so i think the eu needs to take a root and branch look at its policies and change them. >> i have another question or two after my comment. >> i'm not going to be long. >> thank you. appreciate it. i want to pose the same questions i posed to the previous panel. maybe i can ask mcna mara first,

on the eu dragging its feet, can you elaborate on tt, please? >> in my longer testimony, i outlined what happened and the different situations we have been been throughnd it looks almost like a fairy tale. the europeans want this, the americans agree even though they think it will limit the program and the europeans sa not good enough. originally, america asked for 38 pieces of data. you've said, okay, give us 19. this is mandated by u.s. law that this information has to be provided in advance. that's why in my view, it happened, so good one for doing that, but the europeans, they don't like this program. a polish mep came to heritage in

late february last year. under the lisbon treaty, new powers granted saw them immediaty strike down the third it ration at the pr agreement and he said when the european parliaments did this, there was whopping and cheering in the chamber. he said, i thought we'd won the rld cup or something. heard him say, we've got those americans. the us is the americans. the most absurd part about this, we act as if we're just trying protect americans. we're not. we're trying to protect people in the ue, too. the crew, the staff, the pilots. if al-qaeda was intent on crashing the plane as we saw in pennsylvania, if they can't m manage to get their target, they'll kill as many as possible. this is about protecting european people as well as americans. it's the european parliant.

i've never experienced anything like it in my entire life. i think this is about the european parliament being juvenile. i think the pnr agreement we have in place, i think it should not only be agreed, but extended for another seven years. i would like to see more pieces of information, but that probably won't happen. the agreement we've got, we've had testimony about war supplies. we even have the eu foreign minister on record before she was appointed, saying this is a vital program. she testified in the house of laws that the pn rrr agreement a vital program and now, we're seeing pushback on it. i think it's wrong. >> thank you. dr. schmidt? sorry. you're right about the neweu parliament exercising its muscles since the lisbon treaty. i think one thinks we sometimes

don't appreciate the degree to which there has been very fundamental changes and eu governing structures. it's called a treaty, a very much constitutional agreement. i would also say that along with the parliant, one of the difficulties we have is with the european court of human rights. another body which is relatively independent and not responsible for to directly to home governments. all as producing a lot of decisions which are very problematic when it comes to security. i know that if i was in vernment, it would be a very complex thing to handle. we have, i think it's fair to say, very good relations bilaterally with a lot of countries, even countries we are very much in disagreement with. when it came to intelligence sharing and security matters behind the 9/11 curtain, they

were very cooperative. eu element really does make this a more complex game. whether eu matures or not, that's an open question. right now, it's a very difficult obstacle in gets the security matters accomplished. thank you. >> yes. >> i'm sorry. there's a couple of things i forgot that i'd like to say. >> you recently, a few years ago, added new countries to the visa waiver program. i think it is a fantastic thing. not least of all, a great public diplomacy thing. familiarity breeds favorablety. when people come to the united states, they find they love americans, they're great. they want to come back. they want to spend money. everyone's a winner. however, the part of having all these frights coming in, you need information, you stop the bad guys coming. when you upgraded the visa waiver program, you upgraded the security reirements and it's been very, very successful. at the time, i remember i hd a public program and we hosted the

honorable richard barr. the eu was in the audience and said, we might take members states to court. it puts to the ue how much information they get. the eu is trying to supernationalize visa policy. at the nation state level, it works pretty well now one warning i willive here, i'm afraid the eu might have -- the heritage foundation for once. for a number of years, i had recommended there should be an umbrella agreement in terms of respecting data transfer, good standas that the europeans can accept that. the waymericans treat data is good enough. the eu and u.s. is now negotiating, however, i am very afraid that that umbrella agreement is going to turn into the eu trying to limit further

agreements instead ojust being a generic agreement, only if it's limited to being held for a certain amount of day, narrowly providing the scope that you can request information. i'm afraid it's going to be a shopping list of restrictions. and i would caution you to be very careful on that. >> thank you very much. dr. schmidt? >> i apologize, this is a big, larger point, which is that if a bomb, god forbid, goes off in london. it's not the eu held responsible. it's the members of pa lament of the united kingdom. i think that's a fundamental distinction, which is that you have members of a governing body in the parliament elected on all kinds of grounds, but protecting the citizens of a particular country. >> thank you.

one more question or do i have time? again, the question in regard o toto alban albania. what do you suppose to stamp out human trafficking and arms trafficking that characterize the economies of countries such as albania? >> i really don't have this expertise to be able to answer that with any, in any specificity. my suspicious is that this is something they've given over to the european union to sort soft take responsibility for, since basically, the europeans face the brunt, doesn't mean you don't have responsibility. given the resources i would say that's probably something they're looking across to address less than we are. >> would y like to comment? >> yeah, the european union does actively deal with albania. i spend the vast majority of my time talking about what the eu shouldn't be doing.

so let me change that and talk about what the eu should be doing. the eu should have a sensible neighborhood strategy. where it could be helpful is in its earn neighborhood and in the ba ball cans. i'd like to see more attention focused in this area -- lord help us, it's not going to happen. so, i would like to see them have a more proactive strategy in the balkans. what we have found is countries as a recent member of nato, they generally do well inside the alliance because they pick up best practice, they use with the colleagues. it's a very easy way of sharing information of saying, hey, we don't like this, you've got to do something about it, without making it an official diplomatic hoo ha.

i think you should use your channels within nato to do that. >> thank you very much. thanks for testimony. appreciate it. thank you. >> my colleague and i are going to go visit the greek, cyprus and turkey and will probably have some questions for you down the road. one of the troublg things, at least it troubles me, is indicated, was that the eu seems to want to u serp some of the intelligence capabilities, the dissemination of intelligence information between the united states and these countries. that's troles because as you said before, we've had pretty good working relationship with most of those europeancountries regarding intelligence gathering. is this a problem that's going to increase? is it going to be more difficult to get intellince data because of the eu? or i mean, i was not aware of

this kind of problem until today. >> it would be an overstatement for me to tell you, european countries aren't going to give you information because of the eu. as dr. schmidt said again, this is the governments of these countries who have to protect the citizens. i think intelligence services are working pretty well. in terms of the eu trying to limit that, it is definitely the case. they have said their goal is to have one judicial system in europe. now, that might sound great, but in reality, it's not going to happen. can you imagine if you, mexico and canada all of a sudden said, we're going to have one judicial system? most people would think quite enough. there's a reason. so, the eu has institutionalized things. we have europe. we have euro just. all of these things which most british people don't even kw about. these are trying to get in on the intelligence game. and i think that is hugely problematic. now, one thing i will say to

you, the eu occasionally operates with the height of hypocrisy and the european respond as one of those things. we have had a year long investigation by the european parliament over u.s. rendition practices. oh, thamericans are breaking the w, they're doing this, theye doing that. the european arrest warrant means that one member state, let's take greece, for example can request any person be extradited to greece without a single bit of evidence. does this happen? you bet. 1800 british citizens have been rendered. we were told this was an titerrorism measure. being rendered to other european countries because they left a gas station without paying the bill. i know gas prices are high, but in tradition, let's face it. >> 1800, you said?

>> 1800, i believe, is the latest number. >> that's because of the eu's policy? >> absolutely. 100%. european arrest warrant. it was a five-ship project by the eurean union meant to be about terrorm and it's not been about terrorism. scotland yard has said come p plying with these warrants, it is taking our resources up. that was wt i was testifying about, diverting the key resources for member states to do ridiculous things like this. i would rather the u.s. be using its -- the uk be using its antirrorism resources to look who's preaching hate to render terris terrorists, not to get people who haven't paid their bill at a petrol station. >> what, in your opinion, should we do as far as intelligence

gathing capability, talking about the cia or fbi, to be making sure there is complete cooperation between the european countries at risk like we are and not have to worry about there being an impediment. i'm really concerned after having heard what you said today that information that we might need in order to stop somebody like bin laden or one of his n minions from perpetrating another attack on england, france, united states, that we might be at risk for not being able to stop it because there is an impediment to this shares of information, so if you could give me a reassuring answer.

>> my number one recommendation would be to maintain your bilateral alliances. >> with individual countries? >> with individual countries. >> and not go through the eu. >> with all due respect to president obama when he came into office, i think fnd a lot of enthusiasm for the eu. thought this is a great national multialliance. i think he's realized, sometimes, it's best to go through. in my view, the vast majority of the time, for things like intelligence, you must maintain those strong alliances and the way of doing that is other ways. poland was a perfect example. such a strong allyally. i met a polish guy who told me, y is okay for 2,000 polish soldiers to be fighting alongside the americans in afghanistan where they don't need a visa, but we need a visa

to get into the united states when the guys next to us can get in on visa waiver. i think good public diplomacy, maintaining your strong bilateral alliances and also, members of congress, you have a fantastic position here. i would not be afraid to push back with the european parliament. what they have done over the record agreement has endangered a key, counterterrorism policy and you have every right to be angry about that. and you have pa lamentriens on your side. it's new, intrapa lamentry grouping and they are some of the most pro-american groups. >> can you give me some information on that? >> absolutely. >>y impression from again, when i was doing research and i had extensive discussions with intelligence and security

officials in london and berlin and madrid, and paris, my impression was that the cooperation, bilateral level was still very high and that there's -- this doesn't make it easier, but there's a considerable amount of rhetoric that points in one direction, when operationally, things are going quite well in the other direction. there's a little hypocrisy and the public officials would say that what they're actually doing on the ground. >> let me end up by just saying this. if you at your various organizations come up with any information that would lead you to believe there is an impediment to the united states getting intelligence data we need, we should let this subcommittee know because we would immediately contact home land security and the state department to make sure that they knew that we were concerned about this.

>> if i could just add one more thing, one of the problems we found after/11 was is that the european union was a sense that precisely because the waters were so -- member states, there was a need in fact to work with the eu to sort of strengthen the capacity to change information and sort of holding the system. where people had hasafe havens. there are real problems the unions have in these things. on the other hand, there's a need to work with them, european uni union's not going to go away. >> okay. i want to thank both of you for your testimony. i'd like to say for the record that will representative meeks and engel, minority members of the committee, would have been here, but they're with the president at ground zero, so

theyextend their apologies and thanks for being here. we stand adjourned.

>> in a few moments, house debate on leases for offshore oil drilling. in less than an hour, president obama at 8 wreath laying

ceremony at the 9/11 memorial in new york city. several life events to tell you about this morning including a joint economic committee hearing. that is on c-span2 at 9:30 eastern. here on c-span, erskine bowles and alan simpson will discuss the budget cut deficits, entitlements, and tax policy live at kennecott 30 a.m. eastern. also at kennecott 30 on c-span3 -- also at 10:30 on c-span3, the future a military reserves. the house took up the first of two measures of dealing with offshore oil drilling leases. yesterday's bill directs the obama administration to make lease sales for drilling off the

shores of virginia and the gulf of mexico. a companion bill is expected to be debated next week. this part of yesterday's debate is a little less than one hour. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill is the first step for republicans to bring a new energy policy to this country, the american energy initiative. mr. lamborn: look at this chart. it says it all. under barack obama an had -- and his regulators, the average price of gasoline in this country has gone up from $1.84 a gallon when he took office, to just under $4. under his watch, gasoline has more than doubled. we need more supply and everyone agrees it should be our own energy not foreign. under the law of supply and demand, which my friends across the aisle have not found a way to repeal, more supply means lower prices. in addition, the thousands of more jobs for americans and billions of revenue dollars for

the treasury. h.r. 1230 requires that four promising lease sale areas, three in the gulf and one off virginia, must be opened up for production. no more stonewalling by this administration and extreme environmentalists. after the spill came out of my subcommittee and the full natural resources committee, this administration belatedly said it would start acting on one of these four lease areas. if the only way we can get action is to shame them into it, republicans will do so. if the administration still refuses, we will do our best to force action by changing the law. this bill is the first step to get gasoline prices down. the american people deserve no less. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: we are headed

toward 425, $4.50 a gallon by memorial day. the usual memorial company run-up when the driving season starts of the the rushing dreams of american family, small business, and our economic recovery. hey, the profits are up. it's good. republicans say it's just supply and demand. it's simple. so if we add a small increment to future domestic supply, five or 10 years from now, that will bring down the price. no, it won't. remember, it's a world price commodity. in fact, supply is up. u.s. has 12.6 million more barrels in storage than the five-year average. demand, it's down. americans can't afford the price and the economy is depressed. libyan lost production been made up by the saudis. every gallon of that has been made up. what's really going on? it's market manipulation, price gouging, profiteering, and

speculation, but the republicans won't take on their benefactors from big oil and wall street. even goldman sachs says that $20 of a barrel is excessive speculation, $20 a barrel. that's 60 cents a gallon. we can stop that tomorrow. put a tax on speculators, or in college the commodities future trading -- encourage the commodities future trading commission to try to block what you are doing. on the nigh next -- nymex exchange, 45% of the trades in one day were driven by computers, they traded twice the world's daily oil consumption by computer in one day, driving up the price, and the republicans said, it's supply and demand. it's not supply and demand. it's market manipulation, it's price gouging, it's speculation. do something about it. those tools are before us. if you want to have a debate

about future supply and future domestic supply from natural gas or offshoring drilling or biodiesel or whatever, let as have that debate. you want to get people relief this year, save our economic recovery, save american families, take on wall street, take on big oil, take on the speculators. or, i guess you are afraid they won't contribute to the next campaign. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. . mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: the majority of the american people an the majority of this house recognize it is long past time to put american energy and independence and prosperity first. by opening up these resources we assure energy abundance for the next generation, we begin to ares the rues now increase in prices at the pump, we assure productive, high-paying

jobs, not only for the thousands of american workers directly employed in the industry, but for many times more. the employed in support and spinoff jobs. we ensure billions of dollars of oil royalties paid directly into this nation's treasury at a time when the treasury is empty. we assure that our growing reliance on foreign sources is reversed. to those who were clamoring for more tax revenues, this is the healthy way to get them, by removing the impediments that have prevented a prosperous and expanding economy. it is prosperity and prosperity alone that creates tax revenues. with this measure we begin to change the policies that have produced the pathetic and self-inflicted spectacles. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. mcclintock p: of the most oil-rich nation in the world importing its energy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: we know our constituents are paying too much at the pump. but we also know where that money is going. almost $30 billion just in the last three months went to the top three oil companies, exxon, shell, and b.p. remember b.p.? over $7 billion just this quarter. and in fact that's after the american taxpayer, which we say we're so concerned about, shelled out $5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas company. that's revenue of about $100 billion on an annual basis, more than that. that's where the money is going. and within that profit, not revenue, profit we're talking about, what do they do with it? 90% of it is for stock buy pbacks and dividends to enrich the executives and the

shareholders. and to spend on tv advertising to convince the american public they're spending on just the opposite. 10%. 10% is going for drilling. now what this legislation would do is to bring us back to a period of even weaker regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill. imagine it just happened, 200 million if gallons of oil spilled into the gulf coast waters and now we want to repeal that, and we want to open up off the shore of virginia with thousands and thousands of jobs are dependent upon the naval operations offshore, which would not be able to be conducted. if we go ahead and drill on these properties. plus the remaining 22% is devoted to shipping lanes for two of our busiest commercial

ports, hampton roads and baltimore. do we want to lose those jobs and the jobs in tourism, virginia beach. we should be about creating jobs, not jeopardizing jobs, defeat this bill. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i would note the two democrat senators from virginia and the governor of the state are in favor of this legislation. with that, mr. chairman, i'm more than happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i rise today in strong support of the restoring american offshore leasing now act. last night, i had a telephone town hall with hundreds of anymy constituents. the overwhelming concern was the high price of gas. seniors, students, working families and small businesses want to know what we're doing to help lower fuel costs. they want us to stop being dependent on foreign energy and

start really developing america's resources today -- resources. today we're doing that. unfortunately, our colleagues across the isle -- the aisle believe raising taxes on oil companies will lower the price of gas. this defies both logic and common sense. not only would raising tacks ensure job losses in america but it would result in the increase of america's dependence on foreign sources of oil. raising taxes on american energy companies would give a competitive advantage to the russians, the chinese and opec countries that are operating without anti-growth and anti- self-sufficient energy policies. mr. speaker, my constituents in southeastern and eastern ohio understand the negative impacts these proposed tax increases -- mr. hastings: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman. mr. johnson: that these

proposed increases would have on gas prices and they oppose these efforts. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from santa barbara, california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: h r. 1230 is a collection of bad ideas. it's -- it mandates the administration offer new lease sales even though they're -- they say they're not prepared to oversee them. they act as if the worst oil spill in history never happened and it pushes billions of dollars into already overstuffed industry coffers. the only thing it adds up to is a false promise. the republican majority is

hoping to delude the public that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick fix to oil prices but the harsh reality is we will never control oil supply or gas prices through drilling. we don't have the supply. we have the ability to control prices by lowering our consumption. that's what we're starting to do. for example, the e.i.a.'s latest report says we're lowering oil usage thanks in part to the president's fuel saving standards. we will be in yol of our energy future by making car cars that go further on a gallon of gas. if in 10 or 20 years oil and gas are still the focus of our energy debate, then we have miserably failed. we will have followed the path that george w. bush and dick cheney charted an we've seen where that leads. high gas prices and billions in

oil company profits. it's about time we break free from our addiction to oil. so i urge a no vote on this misleading bill that accelerates new dirty an dangerous drilling. i yield back the plan of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. can i inquire how much time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 15 3/4 minutes, and the gentleman from massachusetts has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. pearce: i'm pleased to rise in support of h.r. 1230 to restart american jobs. the current five-year lease plan would have aloud for the sale of four leases off the coast of virginia and three in the gulf of mexico. the president and his agencies are continuing to block these sales. it's time to stop that blocking. we're talking about jobs, the nation is faced with 8% to 9%

continuing unemployment. the jobs offshore are good, high-paying jobs, $400 a day, $50,000 a year. recently the president had strong rhetoric to georgetown university, saying he's going to increase oil and gas production in america, yet the administration's actions are moving us the opposite direction. tax increases kill jobs, that's an economic truth. our friends across the aisle want to kill american jobs by raising taxes at a time when unemployment is too high, when we're dependent on too much foreign oil. in a speech last month at georgetown, president obama said the fact of the matter is that for quite some time, america is going to be still dependent on oil an making its economy work. we're exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas developments from alaska to the south and mid atlantic states. in this bill we are giving the

president the bill he is saying he's going to implement. now let him sign it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman vermont, mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: i thank the gentleman. imagine what we could do for the american consumer at the pump if we stop lobbing rhetorical grenades back and forth and decided to focus on the concrete things it is within our power to do today that would lower the price at the pump. there's three things. one, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies? you do have to wonder, $1 trillion in profits, nothing wrong with that, but do they need to reach into the pockets of the american consumer and get $40 billion on top of that? that's number one. number two, have the futures

market be about protecting the consumer, not enriching the hedge fund wall street speculator. it is astonishing what's going on and it's so bad that even goldman sachs acknowledges that at least $27 on the price of $110 barrel of oil is about speculation. why in the world do we allow that? because every time you and i go to the pump, our constituents go to the pump, they're paying for wall street and they're paying for tax breaks to oil companies. the third thing we can do is we can do it short-term and that's going to the strategic petroleum reserve. two republicans presidents and one democratic president have done that with great effect, lowering the price 33%, 19%, and 9%. it gives immediate relief to the consumer at the pump. we can do this together. if we the agenda is about doing something fb your constituents an mine and not just having this political food fight.

end speculation, end the tax breaks and foe into that asset belonging to all of us, the strategic petroleum reserve and bring prices down immediately. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this issue. our friends across the aisle want us to use this debate to demagogue this issue and demonize oil producers. this administration's policy of drill there not here, has led us to what we face today. they have fueled overseas oil producers by shutting of domestic exploration. now today we hear the other party tell us that raising taxes on american energy production will somehow make prices go down.

this is insane. mr. chairman, as any economist can tell you. we need to end the de facto moratorium on the gulf of mexico permit we need to reopen the west to exploration, we need to open up anwr for exploration, we need to allow american entrepreneurs to do the work of the free market and get this economy moving again this bill will begin the possess of releasing the potential of american nrnl this means tens of thousands of american jobs producing american energy for american households an businesses. i urge us to pass this bill and put americans back to work producing american energy. god bless america and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: this is the wrong debate to be having here today. the republicans are debating more drilling without more safety. even though the b.p. spill

commission that examined what wept wrong last year concluded there is a systemic failure in our country to deal with the safety issues that confront the offshore drilling industry. in fact, they concluded that there are four times greater fay talities -- fatalities in drilling off-the-shores of europe than the united states. four times more fatalities. we should be number one in drilling, but we should be number one in safety as well. what the republicans are doing here today is they are saying that they believe in all of the above, but the truth is, that with this bill they are saying once again it is really an agenda of oil above all. they have nothing out here on renewable energy resources, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, plug-in hybrids,, all electric vehicles. none is part of that debate. they go back to the same old agenda of oil above all. do we need, do we need to give

more to the oil industry? $10 billion in profits for exxonmobil in january, february, and march? $10 billion they made. shell, $8 billion. b.p. $7 billion. chevron, $6 billion. conoco phillips, $3 billion. shouldn't we talk a little bit about safety as we are talking about new drilling off our shore line? no, that's not the republican agenda. should we be talking about taking away the tax breaks from the oil industry? the $40 billion which the american taxpayer gives to the oil industry. do we really need to have the oil industry in the consumer's pocket at the gas pump and then in their other pocket as taxpayers to give even more money to exxonmobil? that's what the republicans should bring out here for a debate. they do not do that. on the new york mercantile exchange, that's where they trade for oil prices. that's now 45% of the trading.

on the commodities futures trading floor of the new york mercantile exchange. what do the republicans do to deal with the fact that it has turned into a crude oil casino? where gambling is going on, as the speculators of our country anti-world look at saudi arabia, look at libya as the price of oil sprokets, goldman sachs concludes that $20 a barrel of the increase in the price of oil just comes from the speculation from the gambling that's going on and the nymex. you might as well put las vegas over the new york mercantile exchange. it is a crude oil casino, ladies and gentlemen. what do the republicans do? they have slashed the budget for the commodities futures trading commission who are the cops on the beat. they are saying we need fewer cops to police these speculators. they slash the wind and solar budget by 70% in their budget

that just passed last month. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank you. this is their agenda. nothing on safety. nothing on wind and solar. nothing on corraling the speculators. and what do they say? what they say is, they are going to in fact go into the medicare budget of grandma and grandpa and cut their program and then put an oil rig on top of it to suck out the money. like a pipeline out of the pockets of grandma or grandpa and put it into the profits of the oil industry by more tax breaks for them, even as they report the greatest profits in the history of any company in the history of the world. ladies and gentlemen, vote no on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized tore two minutes. mr. hastings: sometimes i am absolutely baffled by the rhetoric that i hear here. let me remind my colleagues that

2 1/2 years ago in 2008 when gasoline prices went to $4 a gallon, we republicans came in to the house even though we weren't in session and talked about the potential resources that we have in this country to make america self-sufficient. and american people got it. they got it and they said, you know, we ought to utilize those resources. they said we should drill. we should drill in the outer continental shelf, and we should drill on shore. the american people get it. and yet the rhetoric we hear here is entirely different from the economic issues that are facing us. here's the whole point. when america ended the moratoria on offshore drilling, the prices went down. it's never been explained by the other side, but it's pretty darn obvious. when you send a signal to the markets you are serious about

becoming less dependent on foreign energy, the markets responded. and they responded 2 1/2 years ago and they will respond the same way. but all we hear from this side is you have to have a bogeyman, everybody's against us. baloney. the market is what drives this -- the price of oil and it's in our best interest in this country to become less dependent on foreign energy, and that's what these three bills do. i reserve my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let there be no doubt, americans that are worried about the price of gasoline, it's recent spike has once again put us on notice. this bill that relieves regulation provides the wrong tools. america knows we can do better.

we cannot afford to mindlessly give billions of dollars to big oil companies while they make record profits. in the short-term, we must ensure that speculators and wall street quit playing games with the price of oil. and finally, we must provide motorists with fueling options at the pump. it is unconscionable we would give $4 billion of taxpayer money to big oil companies this year alone while they are on track to make nearly $100 billion in profits in 2011. with prices this high, does big oil really need even more money? taxpayers know they don't. and taxpayers are hit twice with taxes on gasoline, once at the pump and once on tax day. this must end. we can help consumers at the pump by going after wall street speculators that drive up the cost of oil. we can increase mileage standards and it's reasonable that they could reach 60 miles per hour gallon by the year -- miles per gallon by 2025. and consumers can choose the lowest alternate. high gas prices are painful.

they are painful to seniors living on a fixed income, and painful to small businesses. and the big oil subsidies accompanying them are paying for our nation's economy as it recovers from the bush recession. let's end these big oil give aways to some of the most profitable companies in the world and provide drivers with alternatives. creating clean energy jobs of the future. i'd like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for yielding. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, a valuable member of the house natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. benishek: mr. chairman, this morning a gallon of gasoline in my hometown of iron river, michigan, was $4.29. and unfortunately most people are plagued with the fact they

know that the prices are going to go up further in the next few weeks. i believe that we in congress know there is no silver bullet that's going to lower prices at the pump. however we have a responsibility here to craft policy and pass legislation that will increase the supply of crude oil which we will be -- which will be produced here at home. as members of congress, it's our duty to take these actions to help lessen the pain of these prices on our families. in michigan and throughout the country. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, we need to find a long-term solution to high fuel prices, and i believe that our full day markup we have on committee last month was the first step. i believe that passing this bill today will be the next step. we have many further steps to take. i yield my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i'd like

for us to hear now from mr. sarbanes of maryland, one of the most thoughtful members of the natural resources committee. the chair: for how long? mr. holt: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i oppose the legislation that would really open in a wholesale fashion a very sense fifth areas to offshore drilling. we have to take a lot of care when it comes to doing this offshore drilling. i don't think that this bill exercises that care. during the committee's consideration of the bill, i put forward an amendment that would strike that section of the bill that authorizes drilling off the coast of virginia. i did this because of my concern about the potential impact of a spill on the chesapeake bay, which, of course, is a treasure for marylanders and all those who live in the chesapeake bay watershed. that chesapeake bay is really the soul of my state of maryland. it's a national treasure.