he chose to do the tough things. he betrayed enormous political coverage compared to one of his predecessors. that was the necessary and decisive thing to do. there is no progress of cause that would have been possible without the progress he has been putting out. we can have some capacity support things that democrats care about. i'm not giving him a political question. >> i know we discussed historical perspectives. since you live in the far east,

i wanted to know if you have any models for adoption. if so, which ones? >> the cannot win elections on the claims that it could have been worse. it is very hard for most people to understand how perilous the moment was. even with the history of the great depression, that was incredible reality in that moment. even harder is why growth cannot be faster now. why does it look like we will be growing? that is because of course that this is a crisis born bill we are living beyond our means. people have taken on much more debt than they could then they

can live. it takes people time to bring down this and bring down the balance sheet and work off the investment. this confines year along with the limits. it is a tragic fate. this confines you to a slow rate of growth. the disappointment people have today is just a tragic consequence about what caused this basic crisis. it'll take years for us to work through this.

i still believe that the basic strategy we embrace will be judged as the most affected financial strategy in modern history. it compares favorable to any experience by developed or developing necountry. look at europe today relative to us and the consequences of developing and adopting a dramatically changing strategy. at the peak of this and ensure rescue, we had 2.8 trillion dollars of investment at risk in the system. we are likely to be well under $100 billion, a fraction of the gdp and a fraction of the cost.

we are bringing private capital in as quickly as we could. recapitalize it much more aggressively and quickly. we do much more brutal restructuring. it is stronger than you have seen in many other economies. there are previous recoveries that were quicker. these are recoveries with a different kind of crisis. we do not have the option of trying to engineer something dramatically stronger than that basic path. that is a tragic consequence. >> this is behind. >> my question is about

dodd/frank and if it will actually be implemented and how much crumbling is going on. >> we like to say that there are people even in this city who are working hard to slow it down and reduced the scope and power. the only tools they have are to start funding. if they choose to do that comment taking a slow things down a little bit. we are at the early stages of writing the rules in laying them out for comment. we have a long way to do. the core part of the reform will survive these efforts. i think people will not put up

with a system that is this vulnerable. >> there are bad public opinions about this. >> that cannot speak to those things specifically. we have a long way to go to earn back the basic confidence of the american's parent it requires a sustained response. i think we should have a lot of confidence in the basic confidence of our capacity. there are going to want to see the reforms take hold. it will provide better transparency for consumers. i think this is something that will come with time.

it'll take time for them to judge. >> we are seeing the instance where the dollar is rising. >> i am very careful not to comment on the markets beyond our careful standard phrase. that is a good practice. we want to remind people that this is an important thing we want to preserve and protect. at the worst moments of the crisis, and people started to get worried, we saw peacepeople

want money for this. we need to reserve it. it has the capacity to act. we want to act to bring back confidence over time. >> thank you very much for being with us today. [applause] we really appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> canada sallisaw call for congress to shorten the time oil in gas companies have to drill on land. his testimony is next. after that, general james jones testifies about u.s. strategies and pakistan.

>> tomorrow, a couple of senate appropriations committee hearings on federal spending to tell you about. he testifies about the army's budget request for last year. he will talk about his budget priorities for 2012. that is for the senate's compromise. this is also live on c-span. >> congress was to make changes to development laws. coming up, can salazar testifies before the senate energy and natural resources committee

about the legislation. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we welcome me back to the committee used to serve on. we are always glad to see you here. your witness -- we will summarize this for you and make the main point we want to understand. i'm sure there will be questions. what did you go ahead -- and why do not you go ahead and introduce your colleagues? we always like to have been introduced. >> thank you very much. it is always an honor working with you and working with the other senators.

thank you for giving us the opportunity. joining me here today are david hayes -- he is the working on the oil and gas issues. to my left is the director of the bureau of energy management and regulation. he is overseeing the reforms. he has been working very closely as the move forward with oil and gas production. from the president's point of view, we have been working hard for over two years to move forward to developing an energy future for america. we have enjoyed the work. we have made strides in the right direction.

when you hear the president or you hear me or any of my colleagues on the cabinet speak to that secure energy future, you are talking about one that is based in three buckets. the first is moving forward with a robust production of oil and gas resources. when you look back at the last 2.5 years. you'll see there is a lot of oil and gas. there is more oil being produced than in past times. >> we can develop the world of alternative fuels and renewable energy. thirdly, and efficiency.

we empower our economy using less resources. does the accretive the free world will -- we have made some major initiatives under way. but what to review them. bear interested in what we are doing in alaska. -- they are interested in what we are doing in alaska. we are trying to deal with some of the difficult issues. separately, they will be holding three sales in the gulf of mexico by mid--- by june 30

of next year. that is when the plan expires. we expect to have one of those sales completed by the end of this year. third, we want to create new incentives to move forward for oil and gas production. we work with this committee. there are ideas you committee. these are given out under a mandatory thing. we believe that with flexibility that we can incentivized a more rapid developments. for the lease extensions, we recognize that there were impacts to the oil and gas in the gulf of mexico as well as

alaska. there are regulations and oversight in the government. the president voiced support for a lease extension. we expect it impacted by the events of the deepwater horizon. but for the -- fifth, there is a need to do better coordination in terms of alaska and oil and gas resources. let me move quickly to remove a few things from our deepwater horizon. the oil spill was a national crisis there are plenty of us that were here in washington, d.c. for working on the issues. let us not forget the crisis of

the deepwater horizon. we are working on an emergency basis. it does not seem like it was that long ago. april 20 it was only 15 months ago. as we move forward, we have the events of the oil spill and 5 million barrels of oil or spilled out into the gulf of mexico. it ought to be a stark reminder that we need to move forward with state oil and gas production in america's oceans. that is exactly what we have been doing. the president is initiating the state oil and gas drilling. even as we have gone forward, it is important to recognize that

our policy for oil and gas development is a policy that has not changed. we move forward with development and authorization of oil and gas in the deepwaters of the gulf of mexico. the reforms that we have made had simply been led by north star. we want to make sure this lessons the dust to develop beat by regulatory regime. they have led the effort. they are expecting new rules. there is workplace safety and the creation of a new organization to oversee this.

what we do here will have an impact around the world. in the gulf of mexico, it is one pond that we share with the nation of mexico. we work hard to put together what will hopefully become one set of protocols and hopefully reach some agreements. we can passed down issues that are very important. with respect to the article, we have taken the initiative to make sure that all of the arctic nations and other countries that share the arctic are sharing the best practices and resources as opportunities arise. we are doing the best to deal

with the opportunities we can. in other places, i have been in brazil. we are working with the brazilians to learn from their experiences in terms of moving into this. we expect to have some of the most significant findings in the western hemisphere. we hope to be able to develop those of oil and gas resources in the future. that is part of an effort to make sure we are diversifying the efforts. we hosted an international forum. we have 11 countries. they participated about two months ago. we are beginning a dialogue with other countries around the world to make sure that they are moving forward.

the oil and gas industry is a global industry. we operate in places like russia. our effort has been to take the lessons and make sure that we are sharing those with the rest of the world. in our testimony today, we have outlined some legislative principles on behalf of the administration. want to quickly review it. we ask the help of congress with respect to incentivizing more prompt development for oil and gas. these are examples of our laid out. since the 1920 mineral weeks.

we believe its there. weaken further incentivizes more for the oil and gas resources. we need the tools to continue to push forward with respect to the reform efforts. [unintelligible] an agency that has this mission on behalf of the united states should not have existed by virtue of secretary order. they have the important missions of this particular agency. it is something that we are very much supportive of. tools we need include the creation of an institute for

ocean safety. we have created one led by dr. tom hunter. we have a good effort under way. it exists by virtue of a committee. we request that they help. finally, i know there has been a debate here about the time lines for the exploration plans and requirements now that they have approved this. it is not given the time to develop the analysis and assessment. when it the tools we need is to extend that time. we ask congress to work with us in continue to look at ways of making sure there is a fair

return. in there all by the american public. these are programs again only have for offshore drilling. it is in the context of oil and gas. they are making record profits. it is not an incentive that is actually needed. there other things we need. the last live, we return to the american taxpayer. we hope to be able to work with all of you to address liability limitations. in conclusion, let me state to all of you that we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

there is no doubt that the a weekend the congress and country to do things differently. i'm proud of the work we have done. i know there critics of how fast we have moved and those that want this to different things. we have issued 14 deepwater permits in the gulf of mexico. we'd have more than 50 now. the industry is working. we have dealt with the national crisis and continue to produce oil and gas. it is something that i am very proud of. did not have done that if we did not have the support and leadership of this committee. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me start with five minutes of questions.

let me ask for a little more collaboration. let me ask you about the current status of permitting in the outer continental shelf. i know this is a subject that many people have expressed criticism about. they have a desire to get permits issued more quickly. if you could elaborate and what the circumstance is as you see it and what the prospects are, that would be useful. >> thank you. let me make a quick comment. it was not until the last couple of months that both the helix corp. and the other corporation

had caps in place. there is a level of assurance that they could move forward in the deepwater and do it in a safer way. they actually went to houston to review the containment mechanisms that have been built by those corporations. what we have done is move forward with the issues. i will have been given a status report on that. >> thank you. we have approved the permits to 14 unique wells. there may be multiple permits. they get an additional permits. i think everyone is interested

in it new drilling that is done. the number of that is 14. we cannot really grant the permit until there was containing capabilities. that's not have until the latter part of february. did he do the math, we have a unique deepwater wells on an average of about once every four or five business days. this was not is a began one that has been the case. the notion cases taken a very long time to prevent -- permit this. it is really not true. there are currently 14 per,mit applications that are submitted.

then may not have certify that they met all the safety requirements. they may not have cemented any information relating to containment. these are among the main reasons why they may be returned. in terms a shallow water, 53 have been approved since last june when requirements were put into affect. there are only five that are currently pending. there are six that have been returned. since october the pace has been roughly six per month. the historical level has been 8 per month. that is not a huge difference. if you think about the additional requirements that are required in the additional reduce -- but views, it is not a major discrepancy.

>> let me be clear. he stayed there are five applications. -- you say there are five applications. >> correct. >> then there others that have been returned to the companies, asking them to provide additional information. >> that is right. >> all right. >> let me ask a bell api's role in this. they developed sfety rules or standards. they do that. to what extent are -- is your department and agency relying on those? is it appropriate that we do it that way? maybe you could elaborate on

that. >> let me first say that we have a constructive relationship and a very good relationship with industry and ap as well. that does not mean that we should be dictated by the department of interior. that is why we obviously -- there is tremendous expertise. at the end of the day, it is our independent judgment that has to come to the regulation. historically we have relied to a significant degree to on resources developed by others.

we have looked at the consensus recommendations a.p.i. put together and referenced those. i think that's the best and maybe the only way to proceed at this time. ? senator mruczkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairmanful secretary, thank you for being here. i thank you for the efforts you have made, i think the president's announcements as it related to alaska and the efforts on the annual lease sales up in npra, the permitting, i think these are positive signal, obviously we want to make sure they translate into action and reality so we'll be working with you on that. mr. hayes, i want to single you out here an thank you for your efforts to try to reach a resolve on cd-5 in the npra, i think we recognize this this is critically important and it speaks to some of what senator

hutchinson and senator ba given were discussing earlier. we've got a lot to do but we've got to find a path forward. i want to ask you just for a little bit of clarification here because you have discussed the various incentives that you wish to put in place to advance increased oil and gas production. and when i think of incentives, i think of positive things that would encourage you and in your comments, you suggest amending the mineral leasing act to allow for basically a shorter period of time than the 10 years in order to prompt the producers to move more quickly. well, as we have discussed in alaska, we've got some pretty

specific issues there that don't allow for prompting, prompting is not going to get us any further, any faster, we've got about a 60-day exploration period per year. 60 days is it. so if what this does is it restricts the abilities of the producers in terms of gaining any certainty in terms of what their lease might be, that concerns me. i understand that what your proposal is, you want the discretion, the secretary wants the discretion to shorten that lease period, i guess the question would be, would you also seek to give the secretary discretion to lengthen that in a situation as we're talking in alaska where you have not only the environment that limits your opportunities to get in there and explore and produce but you also have regulatory issues as we have been dealing with, with shelf permits, for

instance. can you speak just very quickly to whether the incentives cowl go to threnten -- to lengthen that proposed lease as well as what you're proposing to do which is shorten it? >> thank you, senator. first of all, with respect to the o.c.s. we have those authorities and have been implementing those authorities in terms of shorter lease terms as well as graduated royalty rates. our proposal on the mineral leasing act will address the justify shore areas of oil an gas leasing. i think the statistics themselveses are very important for all of us to keep in mind. we have 41 million acres of your land, america's land, that have been leased for oil and gas production. yet only 12 million of those acres are currently producing. so 41 million acres leased, only 12 million acres producing and we continue to hold lease sales both 2009, 2010, 2011, we

have more planned for 2012. so in our view, if we're able to shorten the lease term from 10 years to a lesser am of time, some of this area that's just being held out there that is leased, there would be a greater incentive from the companies to know they have to move forward and do exploration and development. >> would you agree that the facts on the ground in alaska are somewhat different than we have in the lower 48 in terms of advancing those leases? >> indeed. i think alaska is -- as you and i have spoken, senator mruczkowski is a world unto itself and we need to recognize that realities in arctic, offshore, or on shore are realities that require.

>> very, very briefly, i think my colleagues will pick up on this as well but there's been great discussion abthe length of time and why it takes as long as it does for the permits. your proposele, or the proposal on s. 917 is to allow for additional time, increasing from 30 day it is 90 days with the ability of the secretary to expand to an additional 180 days. in view of the concern that's clearly been expressed, at least in this committee, about the length of time it takes to issue permits, by allows for even more additional time, does this not add to the uncertainty in continuing this? i'm over my time and in respect to my colleagues who want to

ask questions, i would like you to address that, try to be brief about it, but i know other colleagues have raised the same question. >> senator, the reality is that 30 days is not enough, right now under the statute you either up or down it in materials of an exploration that comes in in that 30-daytime period. part of the reality that should be one of the lessons learned is that the agency didn't have the capacity or resources to do the job it should be doing. so we're talking about having a 90-daytime frame, it seems to me that's the kind of time required to make sure the science and safety measures are being brought into place in terms of having inordinate

delays in having oil and gas production in the nation's oceans. >> senator. >> it's good to have my old seat mate in this committee here. i'm going to ask you a couple of questions about offshore practices but i want to start with the matter that involves -- involves energy production on shore because as you know, mr. secretary, there is enormous interest today in more natural gas production and certainly the events in japan, a whole host of issues generated tremendous interest there. clearly what we always face in these issues is how to strike a balance, a balance between natural gas production and there's enormous and growing concern about the environmental practice of fracking. and my question so you is, you would have a real opportunity, using the b.l.m. leasing and

development process, to work through these kinds of issues and help us come up with some very sensible models, models that can allow us to strike that balance between producing more natural gas and dealing with these legitimate environmental concerns and i've come to the conclusion they are legitimate. you all would have a chance to have us come up with a model and perhaps get out in front of what could otherwise be years and years of litigation. as you know, from serving thon committee, that's what we deal with all the time, we find these poe powe larized kinds of debate, here they're something very exciting, natural gas production, what are you doing at the department of superior, particularly with the b.l.m. leasing and development process to give us a chance to get out in front of this issue and strike the plans i'm talking about? >> senator, you're spot on on the issue of the president's

energy future very much envisions natural gas being a significant part of what we do. i've often said that unless we deal with the fracking issue in the right way, it can become the i kill -- achilles heel for the united states so we've held a fracking forum with industry and other stake holders at the department of entireor, the b.l.m. holding hearings and i would ask secretary david hayes to respond briefly on what it is we are doing with b.l.m. at this point. >> can we just do it briefly, i want to get into one other issue, you can do additional comments in writing, but yes, your thoughts on the leasing and development process. >> i'll be very brief, senator. within the last three weeks, we've had three public forums in arkansas, colorado and wyoming on the fracking issue and whether b.l.m., how b.l.m. should address it because we do do hydraulic fracking on public lands. we are scheduled to be meeting with secretary chu's subcommittee which the

president asked for recommendations on hydraulic fracturing, we'll be in dialogue with them and they'll be coming up with recommendations in the short-term. so we are fully engaged. >> i hope that you'll do more than work just with the president's task force. i think that's constructive. i think you all have an opportunity, because there are public lands, it's a perfect place to see if we can get some real models. the president's task force is good, i'm for it, i'd like us to go further by going to the real world where we're going to see production and we have a chance to address environmental issues and secretary, let's hold the record open for any other thoughts you have on it. one issue i want to talk to you about is the contractors. b.p. is largely -- has largely been the public face of the oil spill but as the joint interior

cost guard investigation and spill investigation made clear, there certainly were problems with respect to the b.p. contractors. we talk about transocean and halliburton. halliburton, for example, never reported that cement was faulty, even as it was being pumped into the well. transocean even went to federal court to claim indemocratnyity. under the u.s. admirality laws. went back to the 1800's, gave themselves a bonus, what are your recommendations? we're going to be dealing with this, i think starting tomorrow, and over this week, what are your recommendations, mr. speaker, for holding the drilling contractors, not just the leaseholders, responsible so that we don't get into another one of these finger pointing routines, what would be your recommendations for holing the drilling directors responsible?

>> the director and i had a series of conversations. >> traditionally we have held the operator responsible, not held contractor responsibility. for clarity and simplicity, it hasn't worked as well as it should have. that's why i discussed it with him. we have the legal authority to do it and in certain egregious cases we should exercise that regulatory authority. it's been a dormant power we've had, i'm not saying we're going to exercise it in every case. there's a virtue to the clarity of going against the operator but i think in certain cases we have it and we should use it. >> my time is up, mr. chairman. the alternative, mr. bromwich, and i'm not prepared to go there yet, but if we don't have

a way to hold contractors accountable, people are going to start talking about federal certification and bonding requirements and the like. the ball is in your court to do this thoroughly. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator holden. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, good to see you again. thank you for being here today my first question relates to, how do you explain the difference in terms of the perception that the companies that are drilling have as far as the regulatory process and their ability to get permitting and move forward and the perception that you perhaps within the agency have relative to expediting these permits and getting them done? maybe specifically address the shallow water versus deep water that senator hutchinson brought up that issue, i think you were here for her comment, and the others if you can reject a permit application in 30 days is there any de facto timeline

on this process for getting approval. >> senator holden, thank you very much for the question. we have tried to move forward with upholding the policy which the president has articulated, we are supportive of oil and gas development in the gulf of mexico and in other places in america's oceans. we also have said and we will not retrench this position that we will do it in a way that is safe and in a way that protects the environment. i think director brohm witch's sta -- brom,wich's statistics will indicate to you that we are not just about talk, we're walking the talk in ters of

krilling -- drilling and production. i will tell you in multiple meetings they understand what we are doing and they understand they don't have the capability available. they understand where we want to be with respect to oil and gas drilling. they account for the noise that goes around this issue is the kind of noise you end up seeing here in washington, d.c. with respect to the shallow water, with respect to the timelines from 30 to 90 days, i don't think that's a significant amount of time extension because we do need to have that kind of time to adequately review these

explorations to make hour the decisions being made are in fact sound. >> is there another piece to that equation that we need, though? if that approval process is 30 or 90 days but you can continue to reject the applications is there another piece we need in there to make sure this process is done in a timely and fair manner and if so, what would that be? what would work there? >> obviously that's some of the things we're trying to get at with legislation, what's your recommendation? >> senator, i think that there may be some -- we'll be happy to work with you on the language, we just don't want an endless process that doesn't get anywhere.

ic the timeline set forth is correct, having clarity in terms of what's required which is part of what the director has been doing is important but i understand your pint. we ought not to have industry essentially coming in with applications that are held in abeyance and endless ex-tengs. >> i think it's an analysis we should try to do, between interior, between the congress, between the private sector, to say, how do we do this in a way where you have perhaps a certain period and you have the opportunity to reject an incomplete application but we need to find some way to make sure there's some reasonable timeline for these permits because i think what's happening is a lot of them are getting rejected and so then they done sit in the queue but this goes on for a lengthy period. i think that's what we're trying to get at. so it's a fair process, certainly protects the environment but that empowers private investment and empowers

more energy production. for this country. >> the time frame doesn't work to advance that particular stance. there's not enough time to work through them. i think if we had the 09-daytime frame it would streamline the process and have a better product coming out of industry. let me comment as well, one of the things that's happened over the last year, senator holden and members of the committee is that templates are being developed, yes there are 14 deepwater wells being drilled and yes there are other 50 shallow wells being drilled, but we have changed the regulatory regime. what's happening is that industry as well as our agency are understanding what the new template is moving forward and we'll be looking at ways to improve what it is we do. >> mr. chairman, i understand

my time is up but i think that's where the senator's legislation is trying to go and i think if we can be interactive with you in developing those concepts, that that might be -- i do thope last a -- hope there's a second round, i have some other issues, but i understand i'm out of time. >> senator frank. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we're considering a bill a similar provision this week, that would set a limit for processing offshore drilling permit approvals, after that the permit would be deemed automatically approved. to me, this seems like a bad policy on a number of grounds. first and foremost, it completely egg fores, i think, the number one lesson from the gulf oil spill, you can't assume that drilling operations

have adequate safety measures in place. can you also if you can't get it done in 60 days, i guess instead of being approved, you just say no. can you talk about the ability to ensure safety of offshore drilling operations? >> i think what it would do is basically pull out the rug from what it is we are trying to do here and that is to have safe development of oil and gas in america's oceans and you can't do that when you are essentially in a position where you are forced to approve in a 60-daytime frame. i think it would be good for the director to talk about the permit process so we understand the 60-day permit. >> i think it's a bad idea to

have arbitrary time limit to approve time limits or they'd be deemed approved. then people could submit a permit that they knew was deficient that didn't meet all the new enhanced safety requirements that we put in place and i think significantly raised the bar on safety and they could run out the clock and have their permit application deemed approved. so it would be a substandard application, it would not satisfy various other environments we put in place and we'd all be at greater risk if we had that kind of system. >> you have numbers, we've issued 56 deepwater permits since the moratorium was lifted in october of 2010. what in your mind are better options to streamline and expedite permit approval

process without compromising due diligence on safety? >> we can do several thinls and are doing several things, we are looking at the permitting process to see if there is clarity. a lot of operators feel they don't know where their permit fits, so we need to communicate with them where the permit sits, we're looking to develop templates and checklists so operators know exactly what's expected of them in advance so we eliminate the questions up front and we're working on templates and forums to expedite that process. one of our historical problems has been a lack of resources which includes not only lack of adequate resources -- work force to do inspections but lack of a work force to do

permits. we just last month got additional money which we're allocating to bring on board more personnel, some of those will be permitting personnel, i hope that will expedite the process as well. >> thank you. one of the most concerning findings in the national oil spill commission's report was that some oil well operators would, yet, shop around. for someone within the superior department who would eventually imaprove a permit for the project. i know most people here agree that the mineral management service was in dire need of reform and we're glad to see the reforms that the administration has taken in response to the oil spill. in evaluating lease

applications, how will they balance these two competing authorities versus keeping costs down. >> we focused on other reviews and studies as well which identified a failure to take environmental concerns adequately into account. so now we've focused on it and we are working on some specific structural steps to make sure that there is balance between the development of the resource and environmental considerations. one of the specific things we are doing is we're creating the position of chief environmental officer in the resource development agency to make sure that that the -- that the voices of environmental personnel are heard and factors into the balance of leasing decisions and planning decisions. >> thank you. my time is up, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, good to have you back were before the committee again. -- back before the committee again.

you were last here, i think it was march 2, a couple of months ago, we talked about the same issues and at that time i had a concern that these claims were out there, that rigs were leaving the gulf, had left the gulf, and -- to go to other countries and other offshore drilling. at the time you said you did not believe that had happened and you would provide information about it. we have yet to receive that data. i would like to reiterate my request that you provide us the data on the rigs, i think it's important to have it historically now. in your testimony today you state that america -- where are

these increases in oil production, were they on shore, offshore, what data do you have to tell us about where this has occurred since 2003? >> senator, thank you for your question. i will direct my department to get that to you on the number of rigs. on the question of where we are in terms of increased pruck in the last two years, just from the outer continental shelf, the increase has been from 446 hl barrels to 600 -- 446 million barrels to over 600 million barrels, that's an increase of about a third on the outer continental shelf. on the offshore, where we have 41 million acres under lease, the increase has been 5% in the same time period.

>> so it's mostly outer continental shelf, i think senator landrieux indicated that shallow drilling is off by about 50% since the moratorium and i think she even said there's not a deepwater permit currently producing. you indicated you have pr approved some permits now. i know biel hear more from her on that. but i guess what you're hearing today both from senator hutchinson and senator bagetch and others are -- ba given and others is that we do need to work on this process and we need to look back and see what the impacts were to avoid some steps backwards. i think the president head some good comments over the weekend. i was somewhat encouraged by what he said about extending leases in the gulf he also called for annual lease sales in the national petroleum reserve in alaska and i would

hope that we'll continue to see some of these expedited processes to get moving on the outer continental shelf. i will say to senator franken's question, there's frustration with bureaucracy being given an appropriate amount of time but at that point, that the companies who submitted legitimate applications need to know one way or the other. the burden should be on the government to say why aren't we hufing forward? i know this bill would help in transparency that you're talking about. senator bingaman has a bill that would help. let me switch if i could for a second to another comment you

made in the opening statement, you indicated there were three buckets the administration was looking at, oil, gas, renewables and alternative energy and efficiency as you may know, last week, legislation was introduced by senator shaheen and myself, energy savings and industrial competitives act, s. 1000 with regard to the federal government, and we would love to get your input on that legislation and we would hope to get your support on it. i wonder if you have any thoughts on that legislation today? >> i have not reviewed the legislation as 1000, but i would happy to do it along with my colleagues and secretary chu in the administration. energy efficiency is a big part of that bucket to get us to that energy future. part of the reason that we're using -- importing less than 50%

of our oil from foreign countries today is because we are becoming much more fuel efficient. the energy efficiency obviously goes beyond cars. he goes to buildings and appliances and a whole host of things. those are addressed in the president's energy blueprint and we would be happy to take a look at the legislation and get back to you on it. >> given your interest in this area, as you say, we would like to skip ahead. responsibilities and love to get your input. my time is up but i appreciate you getting back to us on the outer continental shelf issues and a gold issues from the last hearing and also on s. 1000. >> senator landry. >> let me begin by commending you and the president for getting back to where we were before the deepwater horizon spill in terms of at least having a vision for opening up

more domestic drilling. and i really appreciate that. it was the right step to take. now what is the details of how we actually accomplish what the president laid out. i can only say using words -- actions speak louder than words. that is where we are right now. it is not about saying we want to expand drilling but actually doing it. i want to clarify that the couple things that are very important for this hearing, mr. chairman, as we try to push a bill through or several bills to accomplish opening up drilling. i want to clear up for the record -- and this is from the eia. this is not a democratic chart or a republican charge. this clearly says that today production of oil is at the highest level it has been. as you can clearly see on this

trajectory that is going down. and if we do not start issuing permits more quickly for new drilling, if we do not start exploring in areas they really deserve to be explored, this is not going to be reversed. and even if we made those changes today, i am not sure we can reverse this chart. i want the record to be clear. we may be at high levels today, but we are not going up, we're going down. number two -- mr. bromwich, i need to clarify for the record, you so that you had 14 deepwater wells. are any of those four or all of those revised? >> i believe all of them had been previously permitted. >> that is correct. i want to say for the record that these 14 deepwater wells that have received permits are not new wells. they are revised.

they have been drilling prior to the deepwater horizon, and i understand that not all 14 of these are actually drilling. some of them -- >> that is not correct. >> they are all revised permits. there is not add new deepwater permits, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> if let's get this clear. there might be a lot of noise around washington but it is necessary for this to be clear. in order for us to move forward. why your staff is getting that, because it is my understanding based on the chart i got from your web site, not my website. it has 0, 0, 0, 0, 04 deepwater in 2011. it does not say one or two or 14. it says at 0 from your web site. this is new wells approved in

2009 and 2009 and 200011. the facts are that despite our efforts, the moratorium being lifted, there is not deepwater drilling. >> there is one. >> ok, we have one new deepwater drilling out of 14. but my information is that are 100 exploration plans that are pending is that in your understanding? and before you can get the drilling permits, you need to have your exploration plans approved. how many do you think are pending now, 100? >> far less than that. >> can staff tell us how much it is? >> i understand it is s approximately 36 deepwater plans. >> the others may be shallow water but i will like you to submit that for the committee. we need to understand how many plans, both deep and shallow, are pending. how many permits then for drilling are pending. but the bottom line is that we

need to step it up. or these numbers are going to get worse, not better. number two -- >> if i may, at the end of the day, i will call the shots with my employees and the secretary of the interior. what i will say is with respect to your chart, the fact is that we are doing a lot to try to move forward with deepwater, oil and gas production as well shallow water. and you live to the nightmare just like i lived through the nightmare of the deepwater horizon. i will remind the members of the committee that we have 38 million acres of acreage in the outer conable shelf and only 6.5 million are producing. we want to figure out a way of moving forward with the production of oil and gas in these areas. and when we talked about 14 deepwater wells, those are rigs

were you actually have the people out there on those rigs working. i was actually on one of them visiting as they started moving forward. we of 14 rigs now working under permits approved under the new regime -- and they were working before they got shutdown, mr. secretary, and i know my time is expired. if but it is important for us to recognize that we -- that unless we get new plans approved a new deepwater plans, and so you can understand their reaction when you are asking to expand the time to review, and as i understand, it could be actually 50 days mr. chairman. and the new proposal could be up to 270 days under this technical review of the proposal on the table. again, and i just want to conclude if you'll bear with me with one chart, and then i will close. because i have 100 other questions and comments, but five

minutes. mr. secretary, if this is what the gulf of mexico looks like. and i wish you all could see what i saw yesterday when i got back which has floodwater lapping up that these communities. this is what the gulf of mexico looks like. these are pipelines. this is supporting this interest free. -- supporting this industry. we do not today give one single, solitary penny from a lease, a bonus, or a severance from any of these wells except 3 miles off our shore. no matter what law we passed, this will not -- the senator will not vote for anything unless there is some recognition of the platforms that our state service this industry. nobody would be getting any money, any energy, any oil, and gas. and i will in their but i have 100 other comments and questions i will submit for the record.

>> if ayman make a comment? >> go right ahead. >> i think for the last two and a half years, and you know me well from my time in the u.s. senate working on this committee and some many issues, i have a jurisdiction that takes me from sea to shining sea and out into the ocean and alaska. i have probably been in louisiana and the gulf of mexico more than any other state. and our efforts as you rightly point out need to focus on the restoration of the gulf coast. and there are some places you are working on to get that done. i know you are pleased with the $1 billion restoration on the gulf of mexico from bp that we are moving ahead with. it will be at least 200 and probably more. here is what i wanted to say. i think you raised a very legitimate question, and that

is, that we extract all of this oil and gas from the gulf of mexico, one-third of the nation's supply, and yet because of the hand of man over the last 100 years, if you have one of the most degraded ekos systems and degraded mississippi delta which you and i. and senator bingaman and senator merck house the have flown over many times. this is an important issue that i hope we can find some ways of going forward to restore the gulf of mexico. >> we have a two senators who have not as question jet. so senator manchin. >> i thank you for you and your staff for being here. you can tell the frustration, i am sure you are hearing that loud and clear. the timing -- we're going to be voting on a bill, and amendment of 60 days, and you're saying it should be 90 days, not 60 days?

>> can i clarify, we are talking about two different things. people are a little confused. there are the permanence and the plans. plans are broader of parties -- there are the peppermints and the plans. -- permits and the plans. plans are broader authorities. there is currently no time limit with respect to reviewing individual permit applications. >> the firm is the 60 day and that is what we're voting on. >> that is the senator that we did that question that senator frank an. if they fail to show the ability to contain a subsea blowout, statute would require it would pass that we would approve that permit. >> that is the way i understand

it. basically have the right word -- you have the right to approve it are disapproved of by you have to act on it. the frustration is that you're not acting on a very every permit that we do a national resources, people are frustrated because the time limit is so long, they have no certainty whatsoever and they cannot plan anything. to stay yea or a nay would help. that is the frustration your feeling from all this. i am trying to say what timetable do you believe that it would take to evaluate that and get an up or down? >> with a -- with respect to a permit? i do not know. >> if could be 12 months. >> our people have absolutely no incentive to slow down the processing of permits. most of our people approving permits are represent -- are residents of louisiana. it is their neighbors whose livelihoods are at stake.

giving us adequate resources so that we have the personnel to do it, being transparent about where permits are in the process and therefore how long it is taking, i think those are major steps forward. but i am worried about a legislative service, and the house version would mean a permit application approved after a certain period of time, and that is what i am responding to. i think that would be very bad public policy. >> i am coming from a caol state and we have gas and i am sure the secretary understands that. in the development where we are using coal plants for quite some time, and different opinions about that, but it is the most reliable of our base load feels. but the carbon the isi, we know the technology is there for carbon capture and storage. what is your opinion as to party as where you are on the pipeline, and national carbon

dioxide pipeline that could help the development of oil? it is probably one of the best uses we have right now other than storing it, to use it for oil to make us less dependent on foreign oil. >> we have always been supporters of carver -- carbon capturing sequesters and, particularly using the template is already developing used for many decades with oil recovery. in my old state of colorado, we drill wells to extract carbon dioxide that is then pumped into the oil builds for enhanced oil recovery. i think those efforts are a way in which we can move forward into a kind of clean energy technology now we want to have. we support having clean coal technologies, and i think those kinds of concepts are the ones we all need to support. >> but right now they're telling

me that we do not have the infrastructure to deliver the carbon dioxide to the drilling areas, that would really enhance the oil production. i did not think any private concern is going to be able to do that without a quasi- public/private -- are you looking at that seriously? >> i have not personally looked at it but i think it is a concept that is very worthwhile exploring. >> we have the ability director of fed and take a clear stream of carbinol, and if we can do that, there has to be a market for it, which there is, there has to be delivery. >> we will it get it as a concept worth exploring. >> again, the frustration that senator landrieu and i have, there's not a day that goes by

that i do not have phone calls, is over $4 an average. something has to be done. in order to that, we have to be more certain of what we can do in this country. and less dependent on foreign oil that i think are holding us hostage. we are just asking for your help as much as humanly possible. >> center manchin -- senator manchin, i understand the issue of the day as it concerns the pain at the pump. i think in the back at history if with the price spikes that started in the late 1940's and 1970's and 1980's and 1990's, and there is no quick fix to the high prices of gas because it is sold on the global market in the back into their countries like china that are using much more oil and gas than they ever have in the past. it is important for us to have

the long view in mind as we move forward to develop the energy policy of this country, and this committee obviously has tremendous expertise with the senators and its staff to make sure that we can find those places in which the energy future can be secured. >> i will finish with this. as you said, it has been going on for quite some time. in my lifetime in came to a head in the 1970's with the oil embargo. and we learn nothing. we have no energy policy. we're more dependent than ever. we grow more dependent or seem to. and we do not seem to learn from our mistakes. until we have an energy policy and use the energy that we can produce that has more certainty and more dependability with this nation nor this continent, we will continue to go down this road for the next 30 or 40 years. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you for calling the hearing today on what is obviously a very hot topic that

people feel strongly about. thank you, secretary salazar, for being here and for your patience and in responding to all the questions and concerns that we are raising. i actually have a little bit different question, i think, than the ones i have heard any way. legislationking at to address concerns about permitting and drilling one concern i have is that we now repeat the mistakes of the past. peat the mistakes of the past. the technology for cleaning up the spill had not changed much over the decades preceding period and that after the exxon valdez spill, there was supposedly a process and people

put in place to try to address oil spill research and development, it not been effective. and the funding had not been there. my concern is that as we go forward and look at how we improve the process says for permitting and the drilling in the future, that we are able to develop the technology to make sure that if there are deep water spills, that we have technology to clean those up. innow that the president's his 2012 budget includes an increase in funds for oil spill are indeed, -- research and development, but we have -- it is not clear to me that we have yet in place a process for how we raise those funds on a regular basis.

and how they are going to be spent, and who is going to supervise it. so i wonder if you could speak to that and whether you are comfortable that we have in place a process to address was built research and development or whether we have more work to do. >> thank you for that question. the fact of the matter is that when one must back at the exxon valdez, the report that came out of the presidential commission on the deepwater horizon, that national crisis and environmental catastrophe which cause so much damage was not one that really created much change in this country. things continued much the same way without those lessons being learned. the president and his administration are absolutely committed to make sure that those same mistakes are not repeated now in the wake of the deepwater horizon oil spill. and that is why there has been the robustness of the effort to move forward with the creation of the best bands and best organizations to oversee

drilling in america's oceans and to help develop all kinds of protocols are around the world. in terms of the funding questions, what we're doing with respect to oil spill response, we do need funding to be able to have an agency conduct responsibly the important missions that had been assigned to the bureau ocean energy management and regulation. the continuing resolution gave additional resources to director bromwich's agency to move forward. they are not sufficient. there are more resources that are needed for the director to be will hire the kind of personnel that will have the expertise in petroleum and to have the ability to do that kind of inspections and oversight necessary. he did speak more about this because in the last several weeks he has spent a great deal of his time looking at the control centers, the remote data centers that industry has and

all the big companies where they are able to monitor what is happening in the production and drilling activities of their goal oil and gas wells. we need to have our agency move forward to have those same capabilities. it will not happen unless the resources are there. and it comes back to the questions that people in the committee were asking the what- how you -- how can you make sure you are moving forward? you need to have the personnel on board to do the work. >> senator, i share your concern about there being insufficient answer is an oil spill research and development. i don't that we have progressed much in the last 20 years, and i do not see much going on right now but would improve things. i completely agree with the secretary that we need more governmental involvement in research and development, but we need more private sector

involvement in developing the new technologies. i think one of the consensus conclusions that people have come to as a result of deepwater horizon is that there was insufficient research and development by the private sector in every area implicated by deepwater horizon, from safety, containment, and certainly with respect to oil spill and oil spill technology. that was true then and unfortunately remains the case today. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary. . generous time, and we do have some additional questions they will be submitted for the record. but we appreciate your being here. did you have something you would like to say? go ahead. in very quickly, because tom hunter, we have been working on the ocean safety advisory committee which is really doing some great work with the questions that were asked here. we also have a proposal in front

of the u.s. senate and this committee for the creation of an ocean energy safety institute. i like to ask you if you would allow us to give us a quick two- minute summary of what we are seeking their. it is responsive to her question. >> why the night go ahead? >> i will be quick. this in some response to her question. the ocean energy safety committee and populated by folks from academia, other governmental agencies, and industry has the task of trying to do a survey of what research and development is going on in the areas of well control, containment and spill response. but there is no central place, a center of excellence, so that they in turn to it administratively to help the secretary and director bromwich been implemented what is needed and have the regulatory agency

keep up to speed on what is going on in terms of advances in all of these areas. that is the genesis of the proposal that we have an ocean energy safety institute they can respond to what secretary chu has also respect -- suggested, in order to have a good regulator, our folks at the interior department need to have the same expertise as the top folks. >> earlier, james jones testified about u.s. strategy in pakistan. his remarks before the senate foreign relations committee are next on c-span. then we will hear from treasury secretary jim geithner on the u.s. economy and federal deficit. and later, in case you missed it, a hearing on oil and gas drilling legislation. >> this week in on book tv on c- span2, that caters both book festival.

slammer vault.st india and the middle east. plus a panel discussion on the book industry. also the former ambassador to yemen on the u.s. counter- terrorism efforts in those countries. one after words, one of the most significant stendhal's of a coal block -- cold war era, the fall of the berlin wall. get our e-mails directly to you. >> president obama's former national security advisor, general james jones, said that the u.s. strategic relationship with pakistan is changing following the death of osama bin laden. general jones testified at the senate foreign relations committee chaired by john kerry who has just returned from a trip to pakistan and afghanistan. this hearing is two hours.

>> i apologize for being late. we got caught in traffic on the way. today we continue the series of hearings that we are involved in with respect to afghanistan

and pakistan. having just returned from the region, i would simply conveyed to my colleagues and everybody that every stop and at every conversation, everybody has a sense of how critical this moment is for our strategies in the region and in each country in afghanistan and pakistan. as much as some people have reached a level of impatience or serious evaluation about where we are and where we are going, it is very clear to me that we need to be really careful and thoughtful. so as to get the policy right, so as to not lose the progress that has been made, and progress has been made in many different

places in many different ways, even as we face very real complicated sectarian and other struggles on natures between countries and their perceptions of their interests. but we do have a vital national security interests in that region, and with close to 100,000 of our own troops and 1000 -- in the thousands of civilians sacrificing in many different ways every day to help build a better future and protect american interests, we owe it to them to develop a road map that allows us to responsibly transition to afghan control and to advance regional stability. members on both sides of the aisle have appropriately been asking tough questions and

examining every assumption that guides our strategy in the region. and i want to thank my colleagues for their thoughtful analysis and deliberation which is a service to the american people. and i believe this committee does a continuing service to the american people as we put the facts out on the table, listen to experts like general jones and others to come before us, and devise a strategy that does justice to the quality of the sacrifice and contribution of the folks who are over there 24/7/0365, some of them on third or fourth two hours, and occasionally a bit toward in terms of iraq and afghanistan. we're fortunate to have general jones with us here today. he will help us think about this. i think he is one of america's

most distinguished and experienced and capable public servants. i'm very pleased to call him a friend. and i am glad he was able to come up here today to share his insights with us. before we hear from general jones, let me just -- a really tiny encapsulation of what i perceived in the last days, and particularly the results of the conversations in pakistan. in afghanistan, i visited khost, right on the border of pakistan. it is a hot spot in terms of the haqqani network activities coming out of the sanctuaries. and i spoke with our intelligence community personnel and others there about the

impact of those sanctuaries and their analysis of the war. i then flew north to where the unfortunate incident of the blue mosque and the un to place a long ago, in order to understand how the groups there in the north, but -- mostly tajis in that place, to see how they view the prospects of reconciliation. and in kabul, in addition to meetings with our embassy officials and with the u.n., i met with the afghan cabinet ministers, provincial governors, civil society leaders, and president karzai to discuss the upcoming transition and the steps that we all need to take to ensure its success. and finally, i had the distinct pleasure and honor of meeting with our men and women in uniform, including 500 national

guard troops from massachusetts who are serving at camp a phoenix just on the outskirts of kabul. let me share with my colleagues, i know that all of us feel that every time we go over there, but you just cannot help but be impressed by the quality of the special young men and women who are serving in the armed forces of the united states. they are smart, they are disciplined, they are remarkably committed they know their jobs, they are away from their families, they endure hardships, they take life-and-death risks on a daily basis -- and for that, none of us can really say thank you enough. my discussions with them actually helped drive only critical. bank, whether someone were a scar on their uniform or chevron on their sleeves or whether it

was general petreaus, or a young woman who i had the great pleasure of promoting to staff sergeant, every person that i spoke with across afghanistan understood that there is no purely military solution. they all get it. so this is an important moment, and i believe that osama bin laden's death has opened up an opportunity, certainly i learned in afghanistan that for afghans our accomplishments in achieving that raid has given them a sense, a renewed sense, of political space and of opportunity and of confidence about the american commitments. afghans do not want the taliban to return, overwhelmingly. but many have concerns about

what reconciliation means in terms of their interests. of all, they do not want their struggles and sacrifices over the last 10 years to be in vain. there are many courageous afghans, and i had the privilege of meeting some of them like one governor, who are daily struggling to bring about a better future for their country through peaceful means. and we need to empower those voices so that they can leave their country in the right direction. i do have reasons for optimism after the discussions with president karzai and with general petreaus. we can find a way forward, that's significantly changes the american footprint and secures our interests.

and on saturday night, i sat with president karzai and listen to him talk about the necessity of bringing all the parties to the negotiating table. he understands that time and american patients are running out, but he is also confident that there is a way forward than me -- that meets everybody's needs. he also realizes that afghanistan has been suffering an enormous economic shock when international forces leave and we have to work together on a plan that is financially and militarily sustainable for afghans and americans alike. finally, let me just say that as much as bin laden's deaf opens the door in afghanistan, it is also complicated our relationship across the border in pakistan. of the pakistani leadership and people initially reacted by raising our actions in abb

ottabad, it subsequently became quite sharp and critical because of the question of sovereignty and the questions around the raid itself. relations between us as everybody knows quickly took a dive. it jeopardize both of our country's national interest. i arrived here sunday night and began the process to see if we could find a way to rebuild the relationship, and during my trip to islamabad, i met with president sadat rate, prime minister gilani twice, and members of the cabinet. and i emphasized in clear and absolute terms to them the serious questions the members of congress and the american people are asking with respect to pakistan and its role in filing a violent extremism syria i underscored the importance of seizing this moment to fully -- and its role in fighting violent

extremism. i underscored the importance of seizing this moment to find common ground and advance mutual goals. i also listened to carefully to the frustration that many in pakistan are feeling about how we have been doing business together, about how the raid was conducted, and perceived in terms of their politics and their ability to manage in pakistan. after many hours of talks, we agreed that it was imperative to move forward jointly and to take specific steps to strengthen the relationship. i also emphasized every step of the way that this relationship will not be measured by words or by communiques after meetings like the ones that i engaged in. it will only be measured by

actions. and that should begin today with the return of our helicopter tail to american forces, and in the days ahead with very clear, defined measures of cooperation which will be further defined by high-level meetings by administration officials commencing tomorrow or the next day, and then depending on the outcome of those discussions hopefully, subsequent visits by secretary clinton. i also want to point out and i am not at liberty to go into all the details of some of the things we will do in specific terms, but i encouraged by them. and i think there is great ability to actually shift the

dynamics of the entire relationship between afghanistan, pakistan, and the united states, and india and ultimately change the longer- term strategic interests of the region. but that will depend on quiet and effective diplomacy over the course of these next weeks. the final thing i want to say is, we do have to remember in this country that pakistan has sacrificed enormous been in the fighting back -- enormously in the fight against violent extremism. over 35,000 of its citizens have died as a result of extremist violent acts, and they are themselves suffering from insurgencies in their country. all were 5000 of their soldiers have died in efforts to go into the west and take on the insurgents. they do not have a lot of money.

in fact, you could call them broke. difficult times economically. and they're relying on assistance in order to be able to wage this fight against extremism. their leaders understand that this moment in this relationship between us is now an important one where they need to take decisive action as part of a regional solution in order to promote peace in both afghanistan and pakistan. and i'm hopeful that the joint statement that we reached yesterday which addressed counterterrorism operations and pursues a political solution in afghanistan will help provide a road map that helps get us there. george jones, we look forward to your testimony. again, thanks for being with us. senator lugar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and you were modest in mentioning but i will that you arrived on the ground about 6:30

a.m. this morning after this remarkable trip, and reported of the findings is already important to us, but we're delighted you're here personally and safely for our hearing this morning. and i join you in welcoming general jim jones and i just take up. a personal privilege to point out that in number years, general jones was major jones and now was in my first term in the senate and we were watering -- wandering through a fence and italy in other situations back in those days, learning much more about the world. later on i was asked by the state department's by the president of algeria to undertake a mission to go to the desert to 3250 moroccan prisoners. as it turned out, the president about jerry decided he did not really want to go on and i latched onto general jim jones who was willing to go.

he provided three aircraft that hauled the moroccans out of algeria. there were -- there was a waiting groups across the border. so i thank you for those, mr. jones, but i'm even more for your remarkable service in the white house and to our country over some many years and it is great to have you here this morning. our recent hearings have underscored the importance of pakistan to our goals. it is one of the largest muslim countries in the world with a sizable nuclear arsenal. it is a -- isn't a permanent state of hostility toward india. -- it is in a furnace that hostility toward india which united states at close ties with. the united states signed its first mutual defense agreement with pakistan in 1954. we've had great difficulty during the ensuing decades in

forming a consistent partnership. one of the many problems is that this government is not a monolith but rather a collection of different power centers that interact in a complex way. there is the elected civilian government which over the years has not always been strong or stable. the uniformed military, which has seized power at various junctions. the intelligence service which has its own independence within the military. and we're told a shadowy group of former intelligence agency can act on its own. these different actors ultimately compete and cooperate in their influence is periodically waxing and waning. equally vexing, each of the players can support u.s. policy one moment obstruct them the next. their ball public elements that can be whipped into an anti-

american fervor. they can be both a firefighter an arsonist simultaneously. although pakistan has cooperated with and that is states in many significant ways, including the fight against terrorism, americans are increasingly exasperated by the difficulties of the relationship. especially in light of the raid to eliminate osama bin laden who is hiding out for years in pakistan near islamabad, and military facilities, and many critics have accused pakistan of duplicity, of playing a double game. the event has created or perhaps exposed what pakistan's prime minister calls a trust deficit. it is incumbent dna -- incumbents going forward that we take steps to close this deficit. that means first day hearing to agreements and conditions of the -- adhering to the agreements in

conditions that formed the most tangible part of the relationship. pakistan must recognize the united states does not give out blank checks. the enhanced partnership act passed in 2009 set up a five- year program of civilian assistance to put our ties with the pakistani people on a long- term basis. it only a small portion of the available funds have been allocated, $179 million, in part because pakistan has failed to propose many programs that conform to the bills criteria. similarly, are substantial military aid comes with the requirement that the president certify that pakistan is making significant s for -- efforts toward combating terrorist groups including al qaeda and its affiliates. after the raid against bin laden, it is an open question whether the president can make that determination.

jeanette, pakistan could do much more than it has to root out terrorist in pakistan. this includes the haqqani network in northwest pakistan which launches attacks against americans in afghanistan, and the taliban which we can be virtually unmolested in those parts of afghanistan -- pakistan along afghanistan southern border. the obama administration should make clear to the pakistan met military take going after some terrorist while calling others will not be tolerated. -- hobbling others will not be tolerated. -- coddling others will not be tolerated. the revelation of bin laden's whereabouts and pakistan was a setback to u.s.-pakistani ties. but it lays the foundation for a more genuine alliance if it

forces both sides to confront honest with the contradictions that have plagued the relationship for many years. an independent, credible investigation into who in pakistan help support bin laden would be a good place to start. i look forward very much to viewsng general jones' on how we can strengthen is vital partnership and i look forward to our discussion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lugar. sec general jones, we will put your full testimony into the record if you want to summarize. we look forward to engaging with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator lugar, members of the committee, it is a special privilege to be here this morning, to talk about the very important country in a very important region for the united states and our allies.

i appreciate this opportunity. it is something that i have been able to work on going all the way back to 2003 and 2004 when i became the nato commander in europe as we discuss ways in which nato could move into afghanistan. and what i like to do is very quickly just sum up essentially some of the highlights of how we got to where we are, and some of the milestones that we covered along the way. as you know, in 2003, nato and made the initial determination that it would be interested in participating in afghanistan. that became a reality in 2004. we had all of the of a bifurcated mission in the sense that nato was expanding to the north and afghanistan and up into the west and over to the south over a two-three year

period, and the u.s. was running its own separate operations under central command. primarily to the east and southeast in the country. in 2004, when nato arrived in afghanistan, there was already an important organization called the tripartite commission which consisted of regular meetings between afghan military leadership, pakistani leadership, and u.s. leadership. nato did not have a role with regard to pakistan, so it was not included in anchorage. in 2006, when it completed its counterclockwise involvement in afghanistan in the south in particular, the u.s. and nato missions were combined, and it resulted in a much more cohesive

effort, and that structure has been in place now ever since. there are other important things -- 2006 was a very key year for a couple of reasons. one is that it was the year in which pakistan underwent some major earthquakes earlier in the year, and they responded by providing a great deal -- and nato responded by providing a great deal of humanitarian assistance very quickly along with the u.s., but what really transpired in 2006 is that the pakistan authorities made a decision with the federally administered a tribal areas to in exchange for the tribes patrolling the border is, that the army would not do that, would not come into the tribal areas. those of us who studied the

situation were incredulous that this was going to work, and it ends proved, and i think even the pakistan military recognizes that that was a big mistake, because it not only cemented the existence of the safe havens but it also allowed a dramatic increase in the flow of insurgents to and from afghanistan from relatively safe havens in pakistan. as anyone knows who has ever been involved in trying to why -- when a war against insurgency, insurgents have a safe haven that makes it very difficult. it's just complicates things immeasurably. this 2006 decision will it was a turning point -- really was a turning point in the numbers of

fighters that were able to infiltrate into afghanistan, and it resulted obviously in our 2009 decisions to augment our own forces in only did -- in order to turn around and deteriorating security situation in afghanistan. pakistan had developed its own problems internally. the insurgency was turning against pakistan and the swat ballet in south waziristan posed a great threat to the stability of the government, and the army moved against their insurgents in the swat valley in ways they were very encouraging, and they did a very good job. as a result of the prime intentions to's

reduce tensions along the border by pulling back some of the indian forces, and allow the military authorities and pakistan to transfer a fairly significant amount of troops from their border with india to the pressing situation along their capital. as i said, their operations in the swat valley and south waziristan were effective. i personally visited the swat valley and was able to talk to the military leaders and the civilian leaders, and while they had the ability to clear and hold a certain significant chunk of that territory, they lack in the capacity to be able to transfer to local authorities and such a way that the local authorities can keep the peace in the areas that the army is

clear -- has cleared. the pakistani army has always been beset by mobility problems, lack of helicopters and the like, but really what is lacking is the ability to transfer and move their troops out of the areas and have confidence that the local police and the local military would be strong enough to maintain stability in those regions. in 2009, when the president assumed the presidency and turns his attention to the region, we opted to consider more strategic approach, take a more strategic approach instead of dealing with the three countries, india, pakistan, in

afghanistan, separately, it became clear that increasingly we could not talk about afghanistan without talking about pakistan and vice versa. simply because of the border and a safe havens. we adopted, and i thought did a pretty good job in consulting, with both the civilian and military leadership in all three countries, to include india. we put together the elements of a long-term strategic partnership plan with all three countries. we emphasized in this partnership that there would be three main pillars to it, the security alert, and economic pillar, and governance and rule a lot pillar, particularly for afghanistan and pakistan. any case, -- in each case, it

emphasized the long-term nature of the relationship, the fact that we believe that the region was strategically very important not only to us but to peace and stability in the world. and we developed a specific set of criteria in order to make this plan work that they also would have to be able to meet and to show progress in arriving in those long-term goals. for pakistan, from our viewpoint, that there was a straightforward request of renouncing terrorism and as an instrument of foreign policy, and to be able to show a willingness to move in a few times with the means and capabilities against other safe havens and terrorist networks in their country.

we spent a lot of time trying to help the indian-pakistani relationship following the attack in mumbai. obviously, very concerned that another attack might happen. and if such an attack took place particularly on indian soil, it would be very difficult to .ontrol the reaction of india as of the propensity for violence along the border was always something that we tried to mediate between both india and pakistan. and i think with some modest success, as i said. pakistan was reasonably comfortable and moving some of their troops off the border to go to their west coast. other gestures by india they

were most helpful -- in addition to the prime minister cost- efficient to diffuse a little of the tension on the border india's detonation of $25 million to help the victims of the terrible flood which was a $10 billion catastrophe involving 7 million displaced people at time when their economy really could not stand such additional pressure. in 2010, multiple efforts to build trust between the united states and pakistan, both public and private trips to and from the area to build and develop the trust and confidence that is required, long-term strategic plans still being developed and on the table. we did receive some assistance from the pakistanis in terms of intelligence exchange that led to captors of leaders of al

qaeda. we had a pretty impressive run of success in terms of being able to kill or capture a significant portion of al qaeda leadership, resulting in the most recent one involving osama bin laden. the pakistani woes are known. they are short of funds for what needs to be done within their country. they still have a big, almost

phobic relationship with india. we are working hard to overcome the mistrust that exists between both countries. the impact of the osama bin laden incident presents us with an opportunity to get past these feelings of mistrust now heightened on both sides. if we could use this as a pivot point to bring about reconciliation in terms of what is tremendously important for the security of the region. the consequences of a failed state in pakistan or not being

able to build the trust between both countries. it is going to take both sides to work very hard on this. as you pointed out correctly, it is going to take some actionable, demonstrative indications of good will. it is so very important if we want to be successful in afghanistan, the roads to that success has -- have a lot to do with pakistan. it is not about who has got the advantage and who it tends to gain the most from this relationship. we all lose if it does not work. hopefully, after all is laid out and all the facts are in, we can, in fact, continue on the path of the strategic relationship that is very important for the future of our

operations in afghanistan. the stability of pakistan and also our global effort to make sure that terrorism is defeated once and for all. i think the disappearance of osama bin laden was a terrific message. it shows just how far we have come in working with many countries around the world. sharing intelligence at a rapid pace. we have diffuse many attacks, some publicly known, some not, as a result of this cooperation. pakistan deserves its share of credit. the fight still goes on against terrorists. i think we can honestly say that the world is a little bit safer without osama bin laden in terms of the 9/11 type attacks that

they used to be able to generate. let's hope that they do not have that capacity anymore. we could benefit from a surge of international cooperation that has us at these tracking terrorist organizations. i am very honored to be here, mr. chairman. i look forward to our discussion. >> thank you for being here today. thanks for that testimony. you have commanded troops in the field and achieved the highest level of military leadership. and you have served as national security adviser to president of the united states. you have struggled with the field commander view and the

larger strategic review. i wonder bank putting that together will help us work through a couple of things. first of all, you agree, i assume, as most of the reports have stated, that the military progress on the ground in afghanistan is in fact real, measurable, and it has had an impact on some perceptions and security. is that a fair statement? >> i agree with that, mr. chairman. >> would you agree that the biggest single challenge to the security on the ground in afghanistan is the challenge that comes because of the attacks and personnel were launched from the western part of pakistan? >> i have absolutely come to the

conclusion over the last several years, as i said in my opening remarks, that trying to defeat the taliban or any other organizations while they have safe havens across the border is extremely difficult. it will cost more lives and more of our national treasure. it precludes us from being a successful as we might be. >> with respect to what is going on on the ground in afghanistan, the challenge of reconciliation and trying to find enough taliban who are real to mike come over and negotiate, would you share with the committee what your judgment is as to the greatest hurdles were impediments to our being able to do that and how or what we might be able to change or add to the equation, if anything, to try to

facilitate that process. >> with regard to pakistan? >> anything that weighs in on the reconciliation or peace process. we can take advantage of the political space that has been created because of the military success. >> mr. chairman, i am of the view that because of all of these types of engagements in the 21st century, there are three major components that have to be working simultaneously. the first one is the security component. as time has shown us, this is not enough. security obviously has to be restored to a certain level before you can do anything else. in addition to security, as people transition to a different kind of government, they want more transparency in their lives and a bit -- democratic

system, there has to be something else. there has to be reforms. to meet the people's expectations. government policies, rule of law where corruption exists, it has to be attacked. the judicial system is functional. you also need also needpillar that shows the people that there is an alternative to the way that they were given before. the subsistence package started. with those three things working simultaneously in harmony, that turns the tide. we learned that in world war ii. we learned it in europe. we learned it in japan. we had a comprehensive package that starts with the security element.

as a follow-through, it shows people what their lives are going to look like. that is how we defeat extremist ideology is that will continue to blame us and people like us for being the root of all evil and all problems. >> is that the common factor? has that become a nation- building exercise? >> unfortunately, you either have to go in and take care of the security challenges and then as rapidly as possible transition that over to a government that can take charge of it. that is where we are today. in december of last year at the nato summit in liz bond, the alliance agreed on 2014. that was karzai's request.

by then he would like to be in full control of his government and economy and military. we will see the first steps taken this year. it will not just because. it will be us and our allies that figure out a way to reduce our forces and gradually turn it over to the afghans. >> can we do that without resolving the pakistan peace? is that what makes it possible to get the equilibrium? >> it is my view that the degree to which pakistan pivots and does more effective work on their border and towards the safe havens that are concerning to us, we have an enhanced chance of a greater degree of success by 2014 if they do that. the importance of pakistan figuring out the way that they have to do their share with the

assistance that they need, that would be a defining moment and a turning moment in the outcome in afghanistan. >> do you think they would view that as in their interest? what kind of afghanistan do they view as being in their interest? >> that is a very hard question. there is not just one pakistani view. if you talk to their military, you get certain answers. if you talk to the civilian leadership, they get certain answers. their concern with india has something to do with pakistan. if you are looking at it through their eyes, you are a little bit worried that you have india to the east, afghanistan to the west and an indian presence in afghanistan incites their fears

for the long-term future. they have really been very careful to not over commit to doing anything in afghanistan, which is unfortunate. pakistanis , the really adopted the long term strategic relationship that was put on the table in 2009 and reiterated that it to 2010, they would have a better economic future. they're people would be better off. they would get the help internationally that they critically need. from our standpoint, it seems illogical that they would not s eize on that moment. logic does not always play a dominant role in this situation.

>> thank you. you discussed a moment ago about the relationship with india. what is your judgment as to why there has not been more effort on the part of pakistan or india to forge ties that would lead to peace between the two countries. that is almost a given that the kashmir dispute would be there. they are tolerated by the pakistanis because they have some value as anti-india. afghanistan is a ground on which both india and pakistan might play against each other and are not to be cheated readily. you mentioned because of this business with india, a lot of

the pakistani armed forces feel that this has to be a major influence. the expenditures fall on their economy. is this an area in which the united states plays a major role in terms of encouragement and peace. we are going back and forth with the israelis and palestinians. india and pakistan, as a part of what we're talking about today, is a part of the problem. >> senator, you put your finger on exactly one of the things that is most vexing of issues. we have tried to play a role. not a direct role, but an indirect role, in diffusing tensions and carrying messages back and forth, and encouraging foreign ministers to meet.

as i said earlier, i think the prime minister deserved a lot of credit for taking a political risk in his own country to show a more reasonable side in terms of this issue by working to defuse tensions along the border. he showed great restraint after the mumbai attack. i think that this is one problem the pakistanis will have to think very hard about as to what role they will play in this regional situation that they find themselves in the center of on both sides. it presents some unique challenges and some unique opportunities. it will take political cut -- political courage and military support of the political courage to recognize that there is a

better way here with regard to india. so far, they have been extremely reluctant, and in some cases, resistance, to go for that opportunity. as i mentioned also, it stepped up during the floods. they donated some money, at $25 million. they would have done more if they had been properly thanks and there have been a reciprocal gesture of goodwill. these are things that pakistan at this very important time are going to have to come to grips with almost simultaneously. they need troops on the western side of their country to do what we would like them to do. their argument would be that most of the indian -- indian

army is deployed on the indo- pakistan border. if they withdrew some of their forces, that would allow them to draw more of their forces. they need to draft a strategy that makes sense. it has not always yielded everything that we wanted. we cannot deal with each country individually. it is a regional problem that it does not have regional solutions. i do think that other countries could help materially. china has a border that they should be concerned about. russia has a border that they should be concerned about. it may be worthwhile to see from the standpoint of financial aid to pakistan that there might be a possibility to obtain some of that for their own internal reconstruction.

>> in the same way we have undertaken diplomatic tacts in the past, it seems that this will help reset the lake -- reset the relationship and be very important. our consideration for putting india in pakistan could be very important. let me follow by that by saying that you touched upon the berman bill at one point. here is a case where we began talking about this in terms of five years. the pakistani press applauded this in terms of leadership. the united states has gotten this. it is not five months or five weeks. very rapidly, as soon as people began to think about it as far as who would control the funds and the project >> -- this fell

apart in a big way. the leadership found all sorts of problems with sovereignty. as a result, almost nothing has gotten done. it is still out there. the possibilities for the united states working with students, with health people, with the rule of law, offers a lot of opportunity over a number of years. we want to be friends. we want the quality of the friendship to come into service with americans and pakistanis working together. how are we going to get over the bridge of that situation and get our boots on the ground in terms of the work with civilians. with ordinary pakistani civilians that might have a different regard for the united

states. >> from my standpoint, it seems like an obvious the good solution of what should be done. when questions of sovereignty kick in, and they feel like the terms are being dictated, what they're being asked to do is an affront to their national pride and so on and so forth, then you get a logical answers. -- illogical answers. logic does not play a big role. this is between the israelis and palestinians as well. everybody knows what needs to be done. both sides agreed that it needs to be done, but neither will take the first step. if we can indeed pivot on this

important moment around osama bin laden and have a hearing of what happened and did not happen and get back to the real strategic potential here and get the pakistanis to understand what we're trying to do, which is to help them, perhaps working harder to understand how they view the world as well. i think there is a good possibility that we could do it. i freely admit that it is a very difficult point to make. in a way that resonates in that very fragile country that has a fragility of leadership that is so apparent. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator lugar. i need to step down briefly to

the finance committee. senator lugar will chair in my absence. >> let me thank you as you leave about your incredible help this weekend and your visit to his law -- islamabad in pakistan. we appreciate your leadership. >> general, thank you for your service, i appreciate that very much. in the bin laden mission, our initial response was, how could pakistan be so inept or so complicitous? we heard the response come out from pakistan, which was somewhat encouraging within the first 24 hours. then there was an about face. a very anti-american rhetoric. our initial concern was whether pakistan shared our commitment

to fight extremists. that was our main concern. we are now going through an evaluation whether pakistan is our ally or friend. if they are, why are they saying so much anti-american rhetoric and causing so much concerned about the extremists in that region. if they are not our ally and friend, should we be looking for alternative ways to deal with extremists in that region. it is a political and financial investment that america is currently making in pakistan. that is what many of us are facing as to whether they are an ally or not an ally. i would appreciate your candid view as to whether the united states -- we obviously want to be strategic friends with as many countries around the world as we can be.

if not, we should look at alternatives. >> my personal view is that we should continue our efforts to find the magic here that will cause pakistan to pivot in a direction that we think is in their own self-interest. in the greater context of the stability of the region, the very important decision that they need to make. i do not know what the answer will be here in terms of their reaction. inside of afghanistan, i have always been puzzled as to why it is the popular opinion with regard to the united states has been sold low, not only in

pakistan, but in other countries around the world given the magnitude of our efforts. we need to figure out how it is that we can get the leadership, both civilian and military, and the popular opinion. what is emerging in pakistan is apress that his string -- extremely critical and important in fomenting public opinion in afghanistan. the strategic importance of the country, that will not change, that is a given. how we pivot from this very low point in terms of both countries's relationships and how we rebuild confidence and how pakistan seized where it wants to be 10-15 years from now is the question. most of their responses to our long-term plans have been pretty

tactical responses. they are interested in what we're going to do tomorrow and the next day. it draws off of the relationship. there is collateral damage. we are always living day to day. it is always difficult to get them engaged. what a country might look like 10 or 20 years from now is important. this is a very pivotal moment. we should do everything we can to try to persuade them to turn in the right direction. >> we spent an lot of taxpayer support in pakistan. all of us understand the strategic importance of that country. my question to you, we have the ability to either refocus that aid or make it conditional on certain commitments from pakistan.

we clearly need to do something different in the respect of winning over more popular support within pakistan, which is an important element in our strategies. do you have any advice about perhaps refocusing the aid, using it in a different way, or the conventionalities likely to be imposed on that aid as to what we will be looking at to pivot to a better position. >> if we decide that we want to be helpful to the pakistani military and in return, the pakiani t to a more effective and longer

reaching effort against the safe havens and the security of the border, then there are some things that would be interesting to look at. the critical part of the pakistani military is mobility. it is not incredibly sophisticated. it is transportation. they need help in rebuilding their local enforcement capabilities. two divisions are permanently tied down there because there is no way to transition to anything. there is no infrastructure. i think we could be helpful and other countries could be helpful

in providing the necessary mobility that they need in order to go after things that we think that they should do. i think that it would take a commitment on their part that they would be willing to do this. that commitment has just not been made. they have opted for playing both ends against the metal and that is where we are. there are other levels of basic assistance that the country needs. in terms of economic packages that people have put on the table. they would be transformative in terms of the economy. they have to show that they are willing to implement reforms against corruption. and to show that the rule of law is something that they are willing to live by. the occasional stories about extraditional killings which jeopardize our relations. we need to keep the relationship that the current

level, let alone progressed to the level we would like to see it progressed to. it is a difficult moment. it is a moment of opportunity if cool heads prevail. particularly in pakistan that the leadership take the longer term vision. >> thank you very much for your response. >> sure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the hearing. i know you look more rested. you wake up and watch what we are doing and you smile. to answer the question about where the aid should go. we did not talk about conditions on which aid should flow.

this has created embarrassment within pakistan. if they are willing to help us root out the extremists in other areas, is that one of the conditions? most of us are willing to call timeout on aid until we can ascertain what is in our best interest and what is the transactional relationship. what are the things that you would ensure it is the case before we provided more aid to pakistan? >> the two main qualities that we hope to have achieved with pakistan were on the table.

the first one was that pakistan, like other countries, should make a clear and definitive statement that as part of their national policy they reject the use of the terrorist instrument as a part of foreign policy. that should not be hard to do. the second is more difficult. that is that they should commit to making sure that in order to live up to that first statement, they are willing to do those things that are required in their own country to ensure that the terrorist organizations are gradually rooted out. unless and until they commit to doing these things, it is going to be difficult to get our taxpayers to understand the logic that continue to support a country that does not seem to get its act together on those

particular very logical points. >> you being one of those taxpayers, do you agree that that is the type of thing that we should get out of pakistan? >> it is fair, given the enormous potential of the benefits that could have accrued from pakistan and the people. the country, not just from us, but the international community as well. that is the best road to the future. >> what is the best way to make that happen? when we have evidence that they evidenceroute out the terrorist organizations? >> it is going to take a major

internal re-evaluation of how they do business to get to that point. >> you would want to have the understanding before you saw any more aid flow to pakistan? >> pakistan should really consider, to make a proactive statement as part of their national policy and start demonstrating their willingness to actually live up to that policy. as a consequence of that, the kind of assistance that they need to get to where they cannot possibly go would then flow that way. to me, it is no more complicated than that. they will make it very complicated. >> i think it is very impact fall that a former national security adviser would make that statement. i have been here four years. about every six months, our reason for being in afghanistan changes.

it keeps re-evolving. the late mr. holbrooke said that we were there because of our strategic relationship with pakistan. we have witnesses that believe that pakistan does not want a stable afghanistan. they want a degraded afghanistan that does not have the ability on the rear side of india to cause much trouble. i wonder if you have any thoughts in that regard. >> pakistan has pursued a policy that has been for several years, very difficult to understand from our viewpoint. the failure to move against terrorist organizations and patrol the border, even though they have rendered some

assistance and we have to recognize that. it is something that strikes us as being illogical. from their viewpoint, with their concerns with their neighbor to the east in india, seeing the presence of india in afghanistan contributes to a philosophy of encirclement, which they are uncomfortable with. we are at a point where this relationship, we have to have a very serious meeting of the mines to say, how are we going to proceed from this point on? we cannot continue the way it is right now. and the successful raid on the osama bin laden can be pivoted to a positive in the future if

we go the right way, or it could be a negative. i am hopeful that at long last, cooler heads will prevail and logic will come into the equation. our colleagues in pakistan will see the future with a little bit more of a strategic vision than what they have been shelling. i understand the stakes. the adverse potential of any kind of future attack from pakistani soil in india, the united states, or elsewhere will dramatically change the outcome for pakistan. they have to understand that that is a very, very serious

risky business that they are playing. by not making the declaration and not showing the world that they're willing to move against these terrorist organizations. >> as i listen, we talked about the strategic relationship. we look at afghanistan. we look at the bipolar or non- rational activity that takes place in pakistan. it is hard for me to ascertain exactly what our strategic relationship is because we do not want this in extremas hands. other than that, it is hard for me to understand in today's terms, what are real strategic relationship is. i would love for you to talk with us. i know that he is tired from the long trek. i would like to have a conversation with you about what exactly that strategic relationship is. at present, it seems like we have a country that acts in rogue ways sometimes. as far as those things that are pressing, strategically, they

are not much of a partner. >> if i could just say, we should have a classified moment at some point in time in the near term. i will arrange that with everybody. suffice it to say that i think that you're question is a legitimate one. it was at the center of discussions that we had. i will tell you, everything was on the table with as much precision and as much depth as i have ever had it. we did agree with some very specific efforts, that i do not want to go into now. it is important for every senator to know what those will be. those will be the subject of

executive branch specificity in the next few days and the subject of secretary clinton's visit of the outcome of discussions. at some point in the future, they will be determined by them. we are honing in on committee members. i found a distinct importance to this. there will be some responsibility for us to do things to empower that. we will all have to be recognizing this. >> welcome back. i monitor the opening statements and questions from my office. i will not be labour my appreciation for how long duquette served our country. it is a great pleasure to have served and work with you for many years. your advice and counsel is very valuable to us on this.

if we are looking at the strategic implications of pakistan in the region, i do not know how we can discuss the reality of this issue without addressing china's influence, not only in pakistan, but it national interest in the entire region. we cannot examine clearly what our options are. we cannot look at what the region is going to potentially look like without talking about china. those of us who work in this area for a long time, pakistan's long-term relationship with china and the reasons for that, at the inception of the situation with india and shared concern about india many years ago.

there are smart people that assert that china enabled pakistan to become a nuclear power. just as i was walking in here, bbc put a newsbreak on indicating that the pakistani prime minister and landed in china and help china as pakistan's best friend. looking at this from an american strategic perspective, one of the concerns i have had about chinese foreign policy for many years is that we really need china to become more overt in helping solve problems around the world whether it is iran, burma, or north korea. here, they are going to be a big beneficiary of any stability we bring about in the region. they are going to be a

commercial beneficiary as well as regional stability. the real question is, how do we get china to be more involved in the solution of these kinds of problems rather than simply taking advantage of things one by one as they go wrong? >> that is a great observation. it mirrors exactly what my philosophy about where the world is going in the 21st century. hopefully, we are emerging once and for all from a bipolar world of the 20th-century. hopefully, we recognize with the rights of other economic powers like china, india, brazil, the european union as a whole, russia, it seems to me that there is a strong case to be made that for us to make the world a better and safer place and to solve problems like we

have in pakistan and afghanistan, whose borders are continuous to china's and russia's as well, they do have an interest in making sure that this region is as stable as possible as we begin to transition in afghanistan in particular. i think it is well worth the effort as our bilateral relations with china continued to hopefully improve. relations with russia improve as well. that the application of a solution set that includes not just security and troops on the ground, but the economic pillar and assistance in developing the instruments of government and will allow law in these countries so that they can move

into the 20th century themselves. there are other ways to help with energy solutions and the like. this is the pattern of the 21st century. if we are not able to create an environment where a country like china and brazil and india understand that with this great economic power that they are about to have, there comes some great responsibilities in terms of making the world a better place. that we do not have to do that alone, that is very good. >> we do not have many concerns about chinese expansionist activities in the south china seas areas. perhaps this is a situation where we can test the good will of a growing china in terms of

using its influence to help pakistan direct its energies in a more positive way. >> any part of pakistan's thinking that better relations with china in the mad. that is a good thing. that is flawed thinking. we can make sure that the relations cannot get worse as a result of this kind of trip and rhetoric. >> it is an important point. that is what the senator has left. i will say that aid alone is not the only ballgame here. while it is an important part,

they have strategic interests. we will have to work with that with india and pakistan. >> in order to follow up on this conversation about china, can you give us some publication about what china's expenditures in pakistan, can you give us an idea of comparability of the two countries? >> i do not have that figure, senator. i will do my best to find out. i am not sure that we have that. >> can you give a general sense of that? >> our package is about $4 billion, give or take. i do not know what china's report is like. >> do you know for a fact

whether they are or are not doing an aid package like we are. >> i think there is some aid, but i do not think there is a real competition between us on this. i do not think it rises to our totals. >> thank you very much. senator kerry just mentioned it is not all about aid. i have a hard time explaining to people in idaho what we're doing spending billions of dollars in afghanistan. they do not like us. they have this terrible tragedy with the floods. we sent the military in and we say people's lives. after the fact, we spent

hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding the bridges that were washed out. people are asking, why are we spending car kids and grandkids money in a country where they do not like us. no matter what we do, we do not seem to move the needle at all. we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend. it is a hard sell to the american people that we should borrow 40 cents, a lot of it is from china, and spend it in pakistan. and then pakistan goes to china and stand up and say you are our best friend. it just does not make sense. i would be interesting to see what senator kerry has to say about the items that are non- aid items. i am getting tired and the american people are king tired of shoveling money to people that just do not like us.

>> it is hard to explain. what happens in the next few weeks in terms of this relationship is going to be extremely strategic in terms of consequences. i think that more of the onus is on pakistan. and how they decide and if they decide to take what we think is the logical path and the right path for not only their future relations, but their bilateral issues with us and how they present themselves to the world. is it going to be a state where they tolerate the existence of terrorist organizations on their soil and as an instrument of their foreign policy? if bay reject that and categorically say so and show that they are doing some things

to correct that image, then i think the good will of the international community might be easier to explain to your constituency in idaho. there has to be a change in behavior here. we cannot continue the way we are right now. >> thank you. >> the one thing i would say to you, senator, we have about 100,000 reasons for worrying about our relationship with pakistan. they are our young men and women in uniform in afghanistan. that is important to our objectives of not having an al qaeda, the cetera. i cannot wait until we have a classified session. i cannot wait for us to have this conversation.

>> thank you for your hard work and leadership on this issue and for convening this hearing today. i agree with what you have already spoken to. this is a critical moment in our relationship of pakistan. like several other senators, i am hearing frustrations and concerns. based on my own frustrations, it is clear that the united states and pakistan share a common enemy. they have suffered significantly from extremism in pakistan. more than 80 on the front here were killed. others were injured. many americans are deeply disturbed by a state that plays a double game ad excepts multi- billion dollar aid from us. they are an uneven partner at best. one of the best metaphors is the suggestion that there but

firemen and arsonists in this confrontation. i would like to thank you for your service. your council has been very helpful. how can they be a true partner to america with a department that just passed a resolution condemning the bin laden raid including cutting off supply routes to afghanistan. you said that success runs through the road to pakistan. i think he meant that quite literally, tactically. >> it is quite literal to explain. the passions and the rhetoric that get fired up in pakistan are directed at us very specifically. we do have a very strong dependence on our supply routes

coming through pakistan. they have been reduced somewhat. it is about 50% of our logistics' that go through pakistan. we have to get beyond this point. pakistan has to declare itself forcefully as to where are you? where are you on this? let's not play both ends against the middle. you have a common enemy. you have a future. you have needs that the international community led by the united states could help satisfy. there is a better and brighter way to help conductor form policy. we cannot make you do it. if you do not, we will have to reconsider what our strategy is. my former colleagues at the national security council are working very hard on this right

now. they are hopeful that we can find common ground to go forward in a much more transactional way. in a much more clear-cut way towards our common goals. i do not think we are there yet. senator kerry knows more than anybody else as a result of this trip, as to what the potential is. in his way and other ways, we are delivering that message that says that we cannot go on like this. there is the question that the afghan struggle has been more difficult, long-term, and more costly in terms of our men and women in uniform and the depletion of our national treasure to support that effort. the fact that are safe havens and generally, the pakistani policy in regard to terror has been problematic.

but there could be conditions to continuing with our strategic relationship would be a good idea to me. >> declarations of good will. >> what do you think are the prospects that we might get concrete, on the ground material park assistance in taking actions in north waziristan in particular. what could we be urging the indians to do with dealing with the near phobic position on india. i heard from a previous panel that testified that pakistanis are dead set against a setting up a successful afghan the military police force. they currently relied on sustaining a significant afghan

national force. if the pakistanis are bent on preventing, they can significantly inhibit our efforts to do that. this runs right through pakistan. my constituents are enraged at a continuing sustained relationship. in "the new york times" this set that a more stable pakistan is a more critical than a stable afghanistan. what can we do with india? >> i agree to you that the indian presence in of

afghanistan is modest. from the way i have come to understand pakistan's view with regard to india, one indian will be too much in regard to afghanistan. there is no way to satisfy that except to continue to be a good go-between between india and pakistan. they have done and not to alleviate the fear that there might be an indian attack. i think that the prime minister has been a visionary and taking political risks in india to do this. we have had some benefits in the sense that pakistan has taken some of its forces off of the indian border and brought it over to the west. i think that if the pakistanis can seize this moment and we can pivot in a new direction with more direction and accountability, and something

good might come of this. it might be difficult. they have not shown, despite many treaties, trips that many of you have made to pakistan, trips i have made. this is to deliver both public and private messages to try to get beyond this current relationship that often times works against our own best interest. we are simply at that moment where it is so important that we find a path. >> thank you so much for your service to our country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recently thanked the general for your service as well. i just wanted your observation on this. somebody that i considered to be semi-well-informed, he said semi-well-informed, he said that