them. everybody here to consider the nominations of those who are selected to serve in the very important post of afghanistan and pakistan. ambassador james cunningham and richard olson are experienced and talented diplomats. i am convinced that they bring the combination of intelligence and experience, diligence necessary for both of these critical assignments. today's hearing comes -- pick the newspapers and afghanistan and pakistan are swirling around. the assigning of the strategic partnership agreement marked the beginning of the end a new face of u.s. engagements in afghanistan.

the world is not going to simply walk away or abandon its investment in a stable afghanistan. our task is to leverage our commitments into a transition that prevents afghanistan from backsliding into widespread ethnic or sectarian violence. coordinated and economic transition will be challenging. there are several key steps that we need to focus on. we must prepare now for the afghan elections in 2014. it is the political transition that will determine whether our military gains are sustainable. our role should not interfere in domestic politics. it is critical that afghans must pick their leaders fairly and freely.

transparency in new election laws is a critical step for afghans in order that they have a choice and a voice in the election. our strategy has to go beyond reconciliation in order to support a consensus among key afghan stakeholders. too many afghans are preparing to fight to secure their interests. i think we need to send the message that the united states supports a comprehensive process that is transparent and

respectful of all groups, including women. to leave behind a force that can support key terrain. there are questions about the viability of that. we have two years to lay that foundation. as i talk to leaders in pakistan, there are a difference in stated interest about the size and scope of that force. there is a connection to those interests with respect to each country's forces that its making right now. we need to continue to focus on combating corruption, on

emphasizing support for human rights and on human law. as we begin to build -- or as the afghans gained confidence about their future, we need to move in the areas of economic development and stability. despite the progress that was made in tokyo to pledge $16 billion in donor aid, afghanistan could face a major economic crisis. we have made significant achievements over the past decade. the gains are fragile. sustain them it will require continued investments. our approach must take into account afghanistan's worsening

humanitarian crisis. there is no shortage of challenge here. our strategy to have to continue to reflect the interconnectedness of the region cost challenges, and central asia to iran. what happens in the region as a whole will do more to determine the outcome in afghanistan than any shift in strategy. pakistan remains central to that effort. it is this secret that last year it was challenging in a relationship. many pakistanis believe americans will simply abandon the region.

pakistan continues to hedge its bets and rely on certain strategic groups. there should be a more cooperative relationship and we see accusations regarding afghanistan-based insurgent initiatives in pakistan. the recent developments with pakistan have fled to the reopening of the critical nato supply lines. serious policy makers on both sides understand that we have more to gain by finding common ground and working together in areas of mutual concern. i think we need to point out that pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of al qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups.

then 6000 security forces have died from terrorist incidents since 2001. pakistan is facing an energy crisis and political infighting complicate efforts to address deteriorating situations, and none of us are unfamiliar with those kinds of dynamics here a home. we have been trying to work with pakistan to create a stable economy. often the reward for diplomats to succeed in difficult postings is tougher assignments with longer odds and our nominees today are no exceptions to that rule.

james cunningham has served a tour in afghanistan. i want to note that his wife and his daughters are here today and we welcome them. all of you, all three of you. it is good to see him here today. i was them in kabul and i'm delighted to welcome him back. richard olson was the coordinating direct your in kabul. i am confident his previous leadership will serve him well as he works to strengthen our relationship with pakistan.

we are pleased to welcome them. ambassador olson, i believe your daughter is here, isabella. she is interning in senator udall's office. got an inside track. we thank you for your service and we thank your families for their service. senator lugar. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming our distinguished nominees and their families this morning. the foreign relations committee is taking up these nominations at a critical time. we look forward to hearing the administration's assessment of the situation and the plans for moving forward.

american policy in afghanistan has been evolving on the margins. troop levels are anticipated to be reduced in the coming months. the united states continues to spend enormous sums that country that may contribute little to the united states vital interest. we need a clear measure of what must be satisfied to achieve the original intent of the mission. it is in central afghanistan is viewed the broader context. if we reapportioned our worldwide military assets without reference to where they are now, it is doubtful that a rational review it would commit so many resources to afghanistan. the country is important but does not hold that level of

strategic value for us, especially when our nation is confronting a debt crisis, our armed forces have been strained, and we're attempting to place more emphasis on east asia. al qaeda has a more significant presence in afghanistan. to the extent that our purpose is to confront the global terrorist threat, we should be refocusing resources on pakistan, yemen, somalia, and other locations. the question becomes how to

transition to an efficient strategy for protecting our vital interest in afghanistan over the long term that does not involve open ended expenditures and large military deployments. the pakistan side of the border has a different dynamic. al qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence in the country. there is no question the threat of these groups, the safety of pakistan eight nuclear arsenal and pakistan's intercession with other states make it 8 vital country worth the cost of engagement. the contradictions inherent in the government necessitate that we comply intents oversight to make sure our diplomacy advance our objectives. our ambassador will be the critical player in evaluating whether our programs are working and contributing to a

partnership between our countries. in 2011, almost 3,200 pakistanis died in terrorist-related incidents. our countries have strong incentive to cooperate. i appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees have already made on behalf of the united states national security. i applaud the commitment they are accept another afford to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. >> ambassador cunningham, if you would lead off. full statement will be placed in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee.

i am truly honored that president obama and secretary clinton have placed their trust in me and i look forward to working closely with you. i welcome frequent opportunities to consult with you. i've been serving as deputy ambassador in leading a mission of some 1100 dedicated staff from 18 u.s. government agencies. i intend to follow and pursuing the approach for the important challenges before us. we have achieved a great deal over the past year including completion of our strategic

partnership agreement which will guide our partnership now and beyond the transition in 2014. the strategic partnership sends a clear message to the region that afghanistan will have the support of the international community. if confirmed, i will build on this successful diplomatic campaign, underscoring our commitment that will contribute to stability in the region and it never again be a source of a terrorist threat to the united states. on september 11, 2001, i was in new york. i said the 9/11 terror attack

was not just an attack on the united states but an attack on all. that struggle between terror and those values continues today and will continue for some time to come. we're turning a page in afghanistan. we have created an unprecedented for a mark of support for afghanistan consisting of a web of commitments. our strategy for a stable afghanistan has five elements. training afghan national security forces. building an enduring partnership with afghanistan. promoting regional stability and economic integration. at the lisbon summit in 2010, we established a timeline for

transition. the afghans are taking on responsibility for security and taking the lead now for some 75% of the population. security forces will reach their full strength soon. at the conference in december last year, afghan leaders presented the outlines of a strategy to ensure afghanistan stability beyond the troop drawdown. the international committee committed to supporting afghanistan from 2015 to 2024. in may of this year, the strategic partnership agreement

was signed. secretary clinton's announcement that the president and designated afghanistan a major non-nato ally -- the international committee committed to providing the afghan security forces, the support and funds they need for systemic. the government recognize that nato and its partners have a crucial role to play and invited nato to continue their support after the mission concludes at the end of 2014. the international community gathered in tokyo to further define the concept of mutual accountability and a share economic assistance. the japanese announced the

international committee had pledged $16 billion in aid. the adoption of a framework which a firm that international assistance to afghanistan is not unconditional. the government must act decisively to ensure the returns are sustained and irreversible. that must include fighting corruption, strengthening the rule of law. so today, the pieces of the structure for -- the security transition it does

not mean we are abandoning afghanistan. the taliban appeared to be taking notice. they are signaling an openness to negotiations. to create the convictions for inclusive national dialogue among all afghans about the future of their country. we have been consistent about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must break ties with al qaeda and abide by the afghan constitution including the rights afforded to women and minorities. the taliban face a clear choice -- they can enter an afghan peace process or face increased national security forces supported by the united states

and our allies. a constitutional transfer of power. president karzai has confirmed -- all afghans have much to gain from a successful political transition and should support it. the united states is committed to working with international partners as they choose their next leader. i will not play down the difficulties. we will continue to support the afghan people with a new president and the hard work needed to bring the security and stability which the afghan people desire and deserved after

decades of violence. i would be honored to leave the u.s. mission in afghanistan in the import work of enhancing the security of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman and i look forward to your questions. >> ambassador olson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank you for the chance to be here today. i appreciate this demonstration of confidence by president obama and secretary clinton. i look forward to working closely with you to events america's interest in pakistan. have served in the foreign service and have worked many of

these years in the islamic world, as recently as the ambassador to the united arab emirates. through my career i've been thankful for the support of my family, especially my wonderful daughters. i do not need to tell you how important pakistan is to the united states. the united states has a clear interest in supporting a democratic pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. continued engagement is important to pursue the continued defeat of al qaeda. to encourage regional stability and to support economic stability within pakistan. instability in pakistan would

undermine what we are trying to achieve in the region. pakistan is located in a tough region and continues to face economic stagnation and is home to 200 million people. extremists have killed over 30,000 soldiers and citizens. pakistan is a country with great potential and a talented people. the last seven years have been difficult for u.s.-pakistan relations. despite many jaundice, we have continued to engage the pakistanis at the highest levels. the reopening of the nato supply lines -- today in islamabad, there is an understanding with the

pakistanis ministry of defense in the opening of the grand alliance and communication. i hope to build on the opportunity to define our shared interest with pakistan in practical ways to work together to achieve them. we share an interest in combating the extremists that threaten our countries. they have lost more troops and civilians to act of terror than any nation. we have captured or removed from the battlefield more terrorists on pakistan the soil than from anywhere else. we share an interest in

supporting political stability in afghanistan. we want pakistan to be a full part in supporting afghan peace and stability. pakistan officials have told us that more than any of the nation they have a vested interest in seeking a secure afghanistan. promoting democratic and economic stability is also in our shared interest. a transition of power from one civilian power to another. we share an interest in combating the use of improvised explosive devices. ways to increase border controls to restrict the flows of ied precursors. supporting private sector growth across borders is

essential to creating jobs for pakistan's people. a tremendous impact on increasing cooperation in line with secretary clinton's vision. our continued assistance which is focused on five priority sectors also helps promote a secure pakistan and stimulate economic growth over time. i would consult with the congress and with this committee which has played a vital role in supporting our goals in pakistan. to help the pakistan it leadership and your counterparts understand how the

american people view pakistan. please allow me to rewrite how honored i am to have been nominated as u.s. ambassador to pakistan. i thank you for considering my nomination. >> thank you very much. we have a competing meeting in the finance committee on the tax extenders which i need to attend shortly and i think senator casey will chair. i apologize to our witnesses. let me ask you -- you are well aware of the cross currents on the hill with respect to the relationship with pakistan. i have met with the ambassador to talk this through and they are well aware and the most

recent step to reopen it is an effort to try to settle things down. some people in congress are advocating a more precipitous kind of reaction to the current state of affairs. some want to suspend aid. could you state the congress as you go over there how you see that? why that would be ill-advised, in your judgment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. our relationship with pakistan is critical to our national security interest, primary in the area of counter terrorism cooperation. over the past decade, we are in the position of virtually eliminating al qaeda as a threat to us. i think that we want to continue to formulate a relationship that allows us to strengthen counterterrorism cooperation. i was pleased that in your opening remarks do mentioned the perception of many pakistanis

that the united states had disengages in the 1990's. i think pakistanis in the government and outside are concerned about what will happen in afghanistan post 2014. we have put in place some very strong measures for assuring afghans and the region that we will be engaged after 2014. this is the great significance of the assistance on a predictable basis and provide a stable basis for an ongoing relationship. if we can continue to emphasize our engagement over time, it will be possible to build the kind of productive relationship

based on mutual interests that will serve us over the long term. >> what do think the pakistan the attitude is about the network? >> with regard to the network, i think this is one of the toughest challenges that we face and i would say at a personal level as well as professional level, i have been in kabul and i was at the haqqani network and have seen the attacks that took place. i have a certain amount of skin in the game for this issue. we do know that they are based --

we have taken some actions against the haqqani network. keep leaders have been designated sensing their travel and their finances. the question of the designation of the haqqani network is with secretary clinton right now. we will continue and this will be a primary focus of my activities and my diplomatic engagement to encourage further measures against the haqqani network and further squeezing of the haqqani. >> i look forward to connecting

with you when you get out there. thank you for that. ambassador cunningham, i assume you had the opportunity to read the piece i "the new yorker." could you comment on the number of articles that seem to be appearing, talking about how afghans are planning for the fight and laying the groundwork for a longer confrontation as we draw down rather than engaging in the fight for the democratic process and other things. give us your sense of that state of play. >> sure.

thank you. i think what we're seeing and has seen for awhile -- there are a lot of people in this region and hedging their bets against the future. i think the talk of rearming i think the talk of rearming and reforming of militias for the future is overstated. but the temptation is there and the uncertainty about how various groups will advance their interest in the future is very much on the table. that is why i said in a statement and as you said in yours, the upcoming political transition is really vitally important. as i said in a statement, this is not an issue of one party or another. it really is an issue for all afghans and all afghan political actors to take a really hard look at the significance of the upcoming elections and the

political transition and what that means for afghanistan's future and the unity of the country and the body politic. we are already working on that in consultations with the international community and with afghans across the political and civil society spectrum. it is something that i regard as a key element and a key task for all of us who are interested in afghanistan's future, in getting the concept right, that the way forward in afghanistan has to be one of a political process, including, hopefully in due course, the taliban or elements thereof. and yetit cannot be future the resorts to internal conflict or based on conflict between various arm conflict. >> do we have sufficient leverage that we could increase our initiatives in that regard? or are we locked in because of

the drawdown? >> our leverage is quite potential. -- substantial. i think the logic is there. afghans see that there is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming years. we will have a crucial role in all the elements of our strategy, and not just we, international committee more broadly. one of the core message is that comes out of all these meetings and discussions we have been having -- most clearly in tokyo -- is that afghans international

partners are united behind the proposition that the political process needs to be credible and knees to produce a peaceful transition. >> thank you. thank you both of you and i look forward to seeing you out there. senator lugar? >> i am pleased that you are willing to undertake these responsibilities. i have confidence in both of you and the confirmation process should be an opportunity for us to discuss pakistan and afghanistan to obtain more information for our committee and the republic. i want to raise this question broadly. deadly brutal attacks within pakistan amounted to well over

3000 pakistanis killed. the threat of violent military groups is pervasive. no part of pakistan is spare. there were suicide and armed attacks in karachi as well as in the tribal areas. how does the government and the people classify this threat? how was the government worked on the internal threat these terror groups represent? can you distinguish between our efforts to support these efforts to combat terrorist threats and the regional threats from the safe havens that is our primary concern? >> i agree entirely with your assessment about the nature of the challenge that pakistan

faces internally. we have seen a great shift in the government of pakistan's approach over the past few years in dealing with the internal threat. there was a time when the pakistan army was primarily deployed along the frontier with india. it is deployed internally and especially in the area near the province to deal with the insurgent threat. we're familiar with the counter insurgency operation a few years ago. i think that we have recognized and supported this change and thanks to the generosity of the

congress, we have a variety of funding mechanisms funding security assistance to build the capability of the pakistanis forces, moving them away from a focus on heavy armor toward lighter counter insurgency operations. there have been challenges with the program but i will look forward to working with you and members of other committees to see what we can do to remove some of the obstacles on the important programs. >> to what extent is this violence undermined any potential for civil government in pakistan? what are the ramifications to the government itself?

>> i think the pakistan government does face many challenges. in the last year regard to the floods, i would say there are some strengths in pakistan it society. there is an active civil society which picks up a considerable amount of the flak. the pakistan military is a strong institution and has been involved in building capacity. our assistance program is focused on building up some of the capacity of the civilian government, particularly in energy and economic growth and

in stabilization, road building in the areas closest to the afghan border. i think all of these programs have been effective. i take on board the point that has been made that we need to exercise diligence oversight and report back to you on the effectiveness of those programs. >> let me ask while teetering on the brink of insolvency on some occasions, pakistan appears to forgo considerable revenue including those associated with transit trade. pakistan signed an agreement with afghanistan. has been little progress in actual trade across pakistan and jobs continue to be lost. what is the prospect of trade

finding alternative routes through iran? what is the total estimate of revenue lost to pakistan during the closure of the resupply routes? we are talking about our assistance to pakistan and the problems they have in terms of internal governance. what is the focus when it comes to trade and other building of income in the country? >> thank you, senator. i agree that the afghan- afghanistan transit and trade agreement has not fully lived up to its potential. it is an important step potentially.

it is one that i was somewhat involved in supporting in my previous position. i will certainly -- i have traveled to islamabad last fall to meet with pakistan officials to urge further implementation. there have been a variety of technical factors that have yet been worked out. i would pursue that if confirmed with great vigor. with regard to the regional trade, one of the promising things that we have seen is the liberalization of trade with india. the indian economy is a period of rapid expansion.

pakistan has granted most favored nation status to india and has move to liberalize its trade from a so-called positive list to a negative list that limits only strategic goods. we want to encourage further progress in the economic dialogue and commercial relationship between india and pakistan. >> thank you very much. >> i want to commend ambassador cunningham and ambassador olson. these are tough posts. also to your family. when you serve, they serve with you in one form or another. i am resisting the temptation to say how great it is that you were born in allentown, pennsylvania. new jersey is pretty good, too.

i wanted to start with pakistan. provide a little bit of a backdrop for a predicate to my question. it is the question about ied's precursor elements. you say on the second to last page of your testimony, "share a list of combating the use of ied's and looking for ways to increase border controls to restrict the ied's. i am happy to see that in your statement. most americans know what ied's are and the horrific impact they have on our troops. they now be as familiar with

the precursor in greed, the ammonium nitrate or callous and ammonium nitrate flowing from pakistan into afghanistan and become the central element in that explosive capacity. i have spent a lot of time on this issue as have many members of congress. the administration has worked very hard on this. i spoke to secretary clinton about this yesterday. i wanted to get your sense of it because when i was in pakistan last august, in every meeting that we had, whether it was the prime minister then or the president's with the general, the army chief, we brought this up and they knew we were coming, in a sense.

they were prepared for the question and would address the question, express their solidarity with us on the issue. they have lost a lot of civilians in this horrific nightmare. then they went another step to say and providing us a briefing by the interior ministry, outlining their written plan and then the expressed determination to implement what they had written down on paper. we said when is this and they said it is within months. i was expecting some time in the fall we would see some measure of progress. maybe it would take a little longer. to date, there's been no substantial progress made. you see it in every state.

pennsylvania has lost about 79000 troops in afghanistan, more than half from ied's. what can you do in your new posting and what will you do in the weeks, the first couple of weeks that you get there to press the pakistan government on at least one fundamental point. this is in their interest as much as it is in our interest to stop this flow of ammonium nitrate to reduce the chance that more civilians or troops will be blown up by these perfect explosions. >> thank you very much, senator casey, both for the question and i do want to acknowledge the central importance of ied's and countering their precursors.

i appreciate the enormous cost that these devices have brought about. i want to thank you for spending three days in pakistan and making the effort to spend a significant amount of time. it is appreciated when senators do that. i do think we share a common interest with the pakistanis on ied's. they have suffered heavy losses from ied's. there is a slight distinction because most of the ied's are generated from military -grade explosive devices, which they have found, chapin leak out into the marketplace.

there are ways that we can pursue it. i will work closely with my team if confirmed, with the dot elements, and with the civilian aspects of the mission to develop an approach for approaching the government, as you know, in the early days of my tenure if confirmed to follow-up on this and to report back to you. >> what is your sense as to the reason why there has not been progress made? i realize the relationship does not help here. the relationship is an impediment to the making progress, but i cannot tell you

how many times the promise was made to us as representatives of our government, promising over and over again that they would make progress. i want to get your sense of what you believe to be the reason why they have not made progress on this. >> senator, i think this is probably an issue where you would ask for me to go out and attempt to get the ground troops on this and come back to you. my very preliminary sense on this is that, as you know, there have been relationship issues that have perhaps added some friction overall and prevented some movement forward. i think there is also a question of calcium ammonium nitrate production in pakistan. it is not illegal to produce it because it has agricultural use,

so i think that may present a domestic political issue, but that is a very preliminary sense. i would like to get out if confirmed on the ground and report back to you. >> i will report back to you about the work. we can both benefit from a previous experience. thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for your public service. mr. cunningham and i had a lot of time here stay in office. i appreciate that. i understand ambassador also, we will be doing the same in about an hour or so. if any of us wanted to be hard on you, hard to do. thank you all for being here. i know that you all are currently working together. is that correct? or you have spent some time together?

i know as we traveled through afghanistan, multiple trips, our military operators there are most concerned about fighting a war in afghanistan that is being, you know, controlled out of pakistan. i think that has been the greatest frustration to our military leaders. i know you have certainly experienced those comments and concerns. which of the two jobs, as you talk, do you consider to be the most difficult? pakistan or afghanistan? seriously. i do not want a long paragraph, but which of the two do you consider to be the most difficult. data center, jim cunningham was my boss in kabul -- >> by senator, jim cunningham was my boss. i will let him answer. >> it is impossible to say. they are both challenging positions and challenging times. certainly being ambassador to

pakistan, a country that is so large and has so many problems has got to be a really significant challenge, but my task in a country that is at war and where we are fighting along with our afghan and international partners is a challenge of -- i do not think you can rent them, but it is a challenge of a different order. >> several years ago, we embarked on something called the hobart doctrine. as we talk with people in both countries, but especially pakistan, i think pakistan feud that whole approach to be very offensive. looking at pakistan or looking at pakistan through the eyes of afghanistan was pretty offensive, i think, to the folks in pakistan. we really do not have a relationship in pakistan.

or a long-term relationship. it is more of a transaction relationship, almost a pay to play kind of relationship. it has been that way for a long, long time. to mr. olson, as we deal with a country that basically the military controls, and elected leaders are candidly, not particularly effective, how do we, as members of congress -- you talk about the generosity of congress. it is really the american taxpayer that is putting this bill and is quite frustrated with pakistan at present -- how do we leverage our relationship with them, since it is more of a transactional relationship, not one that is really built on good will? how do we leverage the resources we have to cause pakistan to act "in ways that we would like to see them act?" >> thank you, senator. that is an excellent question.

i think that we have to remember that our relationship with pakistan goes back quite a ways. the it goes back to the beginning of the pakistani state. for 65 years, we have had a relationship. it has had ups and downs, but there have been period crack of close and intense partnership, probably most notably in the 1980's and, of course, that was a relationship that centered around afghanistan. i think that i would agree with you that pakistanis have some concern about being labeled, but at the same time the long- term status of afghanistan is enormously important to pakistanis. it is one of the critical questions. our interest with pakistan over time is building a more stable

relationship, one that is focused on our mutual interest but takes account of the fact that the united states is not going to disengage from afghanistan. the great fear amongst many in the region, i certainly heard this from my afghan friends while i was serving their -- i think it is true and pakistan as well -- is that the international community will repeat the experience of 1989- 1992 when, having accomplished the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan, the international community turned away and disengage. the cost in pakistan, where a generation of military officers who had previously served with the united states and trade in u.s. institutions no longer have that opportunity -- we are

frankly paying a cost now. many of those officers are now general officers and the government, exposed to us in the way their predecessors were. i think that all of the work that ambassador cunningham described that he and ambassador crocker had been doing on the strategic partnership agreement, solidifying the future of the afghanistan will have a reassuring effect on the pakistani sensibility. that will be my priority, to have that strategic-level discussion about the united states not disengaging from the region. >> it seems to me that, and again i realized that the "elective leadership" of pakistan is more than weak. if they continue to do things that are only in their self- interest -- the issue that

senator casey is mentioning, but also multiple other issues -- it seems that they are concerned about afghanistan, about india not having influence their. they would rather be destabilized that have india have any influence? >> senator, on the question of the doctrine that pakistanis have talked about -- strategic depth. it represents a strategic depth against potential conflict with india. my sense is that the pakistani military and government have moved away from that.

the foreign minister has made public comments about moving away from the doctrine of strategic depth. the chief of the army staff has redeployed his forces internally to deal with the internal threat and heavily towards the border with afghanistan to deal with the threats emanating from that region. there is a basis at a strategic level for further discussion with the pakistanis. these are positive developments that we would want to encourage. as pakistan looks to its strategic position. >> i realize that we as a country need to continue to be involved with pakistan, and i know that the notion of "cutting off all aid" is not a

particularly good way of staying engaged. on the other hand, just to continue as we have been going is also not a good route. sometimes congress can be helpful to people like you by doing certain things that make certain things that cause you to talk with them about that, if things do not change, congress will continue doing something. what are things we might do prior to you being there that might help us leverage pakistan. --? i understand all those things, but at present our relationship is very transactional. how do -- and do we have the physician who aided us with osama bin laden in prison? how do we get them to act in a way different than they are now acting on things important to us.

>> i think we need to focus on the core areas of mutual interest. this is primarily in the counter-terrorism area. as i noted, we have made enormous progress against al qaeda over the last decade. we are within grasp of shutting them down. that has got to be our primary strategic objective. i think that we need to have some very candid and direct discussions with the pakistani government about the question of safe havens and the haqqani network. it is important that that discussion take place against a context of kirk -- predictability in the overall relationship.

that is what i would be hoping to, if confirmed, and to the relationship, some sense that we want to move away from a more transactional relationship into one that is based on a longer- term policy of engagement. the assistance that has been so generously provided by the american people has had a significant role in potentially -- and potentially has a significant role in the future on stabilizing that relationship and showing that our interests are long-term. >> our interests are in our interests. i would say -- i have taken too much time. i thank both of you for your service. we have an election that is going to be over here soon. regardless of what the outcome is, in many ways there is a clean slate, if you will. there will not be the issue of

dealing with who did what -- we will have a clean slate, no matter what the outcome is. i would just ask that both of you continue to be totally transparent with us. the fact is that we candidly have leaders in both countries that are extremely deal -- extremely difficult to deal with. in many cases, they are not working in ways beneficial to us. i hope that you will continue to be as transparent as you were in our office, mr. cunningham, and as you will be in the next hour. we look forward to your service. >> i wanted to turn to some questions for ambassador cunningham. two broad areas -- we do not have enough time, but we can further amplify them in

questions for the record. first, about women and girls in afghanistan. by one level, we could assert that over the last decade significant progress has been made when you look at one metric, which has a lot of meaning and value, the number of girls in school. it was almost zero or in the area of almost no girls in school one decade ago. now it is maybe as high as 1/3 or more of the millions in school. that is a great measure of progress. also, the participation of women in the government of afghanistan is also a significant measure of progress. the concern is that, even as that progress is marching

forward and president karzai speaks to this issue, those gains will be diminished or maybe even wiped out as a result of our reconciliation process that results in a conclusion after negotiations where women are set back to where they were or at least a place where the gains would be substantially eroded. embassador cunningham, you might remember -- we had a meeting with women parliamentarians. they were inspirational on a lot of levels. we think politics here is tough -- over there, it is a lot tougher when your life is at stake very often.

one of them, i remember, asking my foreign-policy expert to give me the name -- kofi -- she talked about her father and husband participating in politics, both killed in the process, yet here she was talking about her own involvement and her own focus on the future of being involved in politics in afghanistan. i wanted to get your sense of not just where we are, but how our strategy can prevent the dramatic erosion of those gains. >> that is an important issue. before i comment on that, i wanted to thank you for your focus on ied's. we discussed this when you are in afghanistan in august. they are now the killer of choice for both military and,

horrific lee, four civilians. they then are a real challenge. i appreciate your focus. women -- we have something called the woman of courage -- women of courage award in the department that the secretary gives every year. for the past six years, an afghan woman has been the recipient. there are 10 every year from around the world. we had a reception hosted by ambassador crocker to welcome this year's recipient, a politician and media person in kandahar, and absolutely and -- incredible man. previous recipients, a number of

women from the region, were at this event. in the event, ambassador crocker said quite perceptively that to be a woman in public like in afghanistan, and the woman is a woman of courage. -- any woman is a woman of courage. it is a marvel to hear these stories and their determination and commitment as you did. they have literally invested their lives and their personal safety and that of their families in taking up a public role, whether in business or even teaching or working in a health clinic or being a politician. there are a lot of female politicians now in afghanistan, including at the provincial and district level as well as the national level. several female ministers, deputy ministers -- the president's deputy chief of staff is a woman. they have worked hard to create this space and to create the space for those who are coming

after them. britain's particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities -- it is particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities and a coming out educated, looking for opportunities, sometimes with the support of their families, but many times not. this is a long way of saying that many at -- a lot has been invested in bringing afghanistan's women in -- those who can and want to -- bring them into society in a constructive way. we have, i am proud to say, played a significant role in this. we have programs across the board, from education to midwifing, teaching entrepreneurial skills, language, information technology -- educating women about the law. there is a law that prohibits

violence against women in afghanistan. we contribute to a network of shelters that, unfortunately, are necessary in afghan society, but they are extremely valuable and providing refuge for women who cannot stay for whatever reason with their families or husbands. a tremendous amount has been accomplished over the last years. it is one of the significant success stories and a real tribute to the american people that we have supported that. we have made the united states and our international partners to a series of declarations made very clear that these gains are not to be rolled back.

they are protected under afghan law in the constitution. it is the cardinal principle for us in discussions about reconciliation and the future of afghanistan, and i expect that will continue -- i am sure that will continue to be the case. it will certainly be my point of view if i'm confirmed as ambassador. >> thanks for a much. i know that secretary clinton has made that a central focus of her work. we are grateful for that. i'm out of time. i wanted to turn to senator mendez. >> thank you. thank you both for your lawn service to our country. ambassador cunningham, i look at -- might understanding of the president's goal is the shifting of the military mission to lend assistance mission in afghanistan. this is in hopes of creating a functioning government that house rebuilt lives in institutions -- helps rebuild lives and institutions.

we have done that elsewhere within much more committed partner. look at the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction's new report that speaks to a significant portion of $400 million of investments in infrastructure projects designed to win support from local governments, which may be wasted because of delays and weaknesses and planning such that the programs may not be completed until american troops leave or have already left. i look at the commitment by the united states of more than $90 billion to development in afghanistan, with the administration requesting $9 billion in 2013 -- a look at all of this and say, given continued -- given continued problems with instability and corruption, how do we justify and expect that we will effectively, if we were to

commit to those funds, effectively use those funds towards the development of a sustainable economy in afghanistan, something that i could go to taxpayers in new jersey and say, this is worthy of our support and will be well-spent based upon the experience we have had so far? >> that is an important issue. thank you for raising it. we have a very broad and have had a very broad assistance and development program in afghanistan. the specific issues of the afghan infrastructure fund that you referenced -- we have some differences of view with the inspector, as we often do, but we also agree with many

recommendations they have made. it was an innovative program that tried to do something new, which was to bring together several different u.s. entities that had not been cooperating well. and to try to use this fund to bridge the difference between what normally have been short term infrastructure projects designed to influence the counterinsurgency campaign and longer-term infrastructure that is really necessary for stability and longer-term growth, particularly with this has taken longer to get under way that we would have

hoped, but it has taken a government approach, and the program is constantly being reviewed, and each iteration has gotten better in terms of the coordination of oversight and evaluation while it will take longer than expected, we are working to -- afghans and the economy had the electrical power that they need. i understand very well that this is -- entails sacrifice on the

part of all of our taxpayers, americans and the others who are supporting these efforts, but it has produced results, and it will continue to produce results. it is really an investment on preserving the gains that we have made on the field at great cost, through our own efforts on security and the efforts that the afghans are increasingly taking on on security. afghanistan is a very poor country. under the best of circumstances, it would still be in very poor country with tremendous problems. our work in development assistance is part of our campaign to prepare and afghanistan which can stand on its own feet in a way that it has stability that is sustainable over time, and this goes to the point that the senator raised about what our enduring vital interest is in afghanistan.

>> i do not mean to interrupt. i wanted to hear you go on at length, but here is my problem. i understand the goals, but we have an administration and and afghanistan that is significantly corrupt. we have an administration in afghanistan that we see has wasted amounts of money. so if afghanistan is going to be a ward of the united states for over a decade, and we are going to spend $90 billion and maybe more, at least, at least there should be a expectation that there should be greater transparency, greater efficiency, less corruption, and unless there are benchmarks to do that, i do not see how in fact we can continue to make this long term, open-ended commitment without a concurring response, and i know, you know, that there are some

responsibilities because we went in there, but by the same token, there are responsibilities by the afghan government to be responsive, transparent, honest, and more efficient, and i just do not get the sense that we accomplish those goals and as much as giving money. if there is a strong commitment here, not here for us to give, but for us to get, at the end of the day. would it be my understanding that that is going to be part of your drive year? >> absolutely. i have been in afghanistan for the past year, and it is, as he knows, it is a daily part of not just our business with the afghan government but everybody's business with the afghan government, and one of

the key outcomes of the series of international meetings that i discussed earlier, especially the tokyo conference, is putting clearly on the record that there is precisely this expectation on the part of the people who are supporting afghanistan who want to support afghanistan, but we need to see that real progress is being made, particularly when dealing with corruption and governance issues, and what is called the mutual accountability framework, there are specific things laid out better expectations that the government will address, and as we speak, my eight colleagues still in kabul are looking at these going forward, and it is very much the things you say, greater transparency, greater accountability. we are doing that internally in our own processes to make sure

we know where american assistance is going and what it is being used for, and we will absolutely be insisting that the afghan government produce greater transparency and accountability. >> mr. chairman, i see the time, but i have one more question, if i may? for myself, i have been supportive, but it is not open ended support, speaking as one member. i have to see the movement towards those elements, and, you know, i cannot continue at a time when we face such enormous challenges here at home to vote for billions of dollars that at the end of the day do not lead towards a more open, transparent, on this process, at a minimum, at a minimum. >> i understand. >> in a similar light, senator corker and i have a while back looked for some benchmarks as it rates to our assistance

with the support funds to pakistan. you know, in my view, it is incongruent to provide enormous sums for the pakistan military for the coalition's support funds unless we are certain that the pakistan these are willing to locate and dismantle terrorist threat within its border. my understanding is that this new deal that we have cut with pakistan to cut the transport of the military supply convoys also promises to deliver more than $1 billion in delayed military aid -- what process are we getting in return beyond the convoy to a commitment that the pakistan military is committed to ceasing to support terrorist and extremist groups and promoting the taliban and al qaeda and other terror groups

working in the area of pakistan. all i hear is them seeking an end to the drone attacks, the one successful effort in turning it over to them. again, if we're going to be providing billions of dollars, then what is the commitment, the concurrent commitment here? >> thank you, senator. excellent question. with regard to the coalition's support funds, as you know, this is a reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of coalition activities, and my understanding of the process is that the pakistan is submit certain expenditures for our review, and we review them very carefully and do not in any way accept all of those expenditures.

in other words, we are very careful to make sure of our own standards and our own criteria. the support for counter- terrorism, the record of the last decade shows that we have had substantial cooperation from the pakistan is on the question of al qaeda in particular. we are in the grasp of defeating al qaeda as an organization. a lot of that, as president obama indicated, is due to support from the pakistan government. in addition, the pakistan government is concerned about the internal threat from

insurgents and extremist organizations. the pakistan army has been effectively redeployed. many of the units that have been on the border have been redeployed internally. they are dealing with the threat coming from extremists. on the question of drones, senator, as you well know, the president has said that we will go after extremists. there is a threat wherever we find them. it is beyond a level of classification for this hearing to discuss those in any great detail, but if it is confirmed,

to continue to follow the president's direction on the question of defending our national interests. >> i take it what you are telling me is you are satisfied? >> senator, i think that there is more that can be done, absolutely. i think that particularly with regard to the county network, and this is a very difficult issue. i am coming at this as having served. for the last year, i was on the embassy on the days that been attacks took place, from the county network out of waziristan. we are looking at all of the ways that we can as a whole of the u.s. government attack the question of the network and the support we of already designated a number of

individuals. i will, if confirmed, take it as an urgent responsibility and the most urgent of my responsibilities to press the pakistan as for more information on the network in every way possible. >> thank you, senator menendez. we are at the end of the hearing. we want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony and for your continuing commitment to public service, particularly with these difficult postings, and we again think your families. it will be open until noon time tomorrow for the senators to submit their questions, and unless there is anything further, we are adjourned. >> tonight on c-span, a conversation on civility in politics with a look at what this ability is inherent in our society or a threat to our

democracy. now, author and professor henry brady talks about civility in congress and government. >> i think we have to think about structural changes in some of our government institutions. not necessarily real big ones. right now, i think it is a shame that you can force a filibuster and actually go home. you do not have to stay in the pit of the senate and complain about the law you are against and do what you see in the old movies where somebody is filibustering and reading and staying up all night. you can just go home and say that you're not going to be there to vote for anything and therefore we continue to filibuster. we should have a cost imposed on people who want to filibuster. do you want to stop discussion and compromise? and there is a cost imposed and all of us can watch on c-span -- at least some of us can watch on c-span -- and we can watch and see what folks are doing to try to make their case as to why the filibuster is a good idea. that might mean that we would

have less filibustering. filibustering has increased by a factor of 10 since the 1960's. we are less violent. there is someone who actually comes acts of legislative violence in our history. 31 hostile confrontations primarily on the floor of congress. 34 goals or challenges. we do not do that so much anymore. south carolinian is sometimes, right? >> right. there's no question there is less violence in the world. there is a lot of data on this. i think violence is a somewhat different kind of thing. we were talking about stability and the willingness to compromise. we have areas were polarizing issues come along. they are tough issues. i think it makes for a real distinction between the two parties that mean each side really has something to worry about. republicans do not want to lose the tax base which are helpful

to them. democrats do not want to lose the spending from government, which is helpful to them. therefore, you have tremendous polarization. then, of course, the social issues i mentioned before. those kind of things cause a failure to be civil with one another and a failure to have compromised. >> join us tonight at 8:00 eastern for the complete discussion of stability in politics, hosted by zocalo public square and cal humanities here on c-span. on "newsmakers" this week, texas senator john cornyn outlines the key republican campaign strategy to win a senate majority in this year's election. join us sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on wednesday, the house approved a bill to extend all the bush-era tax cuts for

another year. the vote was 256-171. 19 democrats voting for the extension and one republican against. the vote came after the gop defeated the democratic alternative passed by the senate last week, which would extend tax cuts to households that make under $250,000 annually. here is a portion of the floor debate on the republican proposal. it is about 20 minutes. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 8, the job prevention and recession prevention act. in doing so i and my fellow republican house colleagues have made an important choice, the choice to focus on job creation. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a different choice. the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs. the job prevention and recession prevention act stops

the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a one-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010. the 2010 bill was supported by 85 current house democrats, 40 current senate democrats and president obama. importantly, this legislation allows congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform. without causing undo harm to our fragile economy. economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation of one million american jobs in the first year alone. the choice republicans have made is to pass this bill, work toward comprehensive tax reform and create jobs. in contrast, my democrat

colleagues have proposed raising taxes. they claim the tax hike will only affect the rich. what they don't want to tell you is that in reality this tax hike will hit nearly one million small businesses and 53% of small business income. a study conducted by ernst & young concluded that the democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 700,000 jobs. that's the choice that democrats made, to raise taxes on families and small businesses and destroy jobs. america is at a crossroads. as this chart illustrates, and the question is, which path will our country take? the democrats' path will cause 700,000 lost jobs. or the republicans' plan that will lead to the creation of one million jobs in the first

year? what's even worse is that in their quest to raise taxes on the so-called wealthy, several of my democrat colleagues have made it clear that they're willing to hold low and middle income americans hostage by threatening to let all taxes rise at the schedule -- as scheduled at the end of the year if they don't get their way. now, these massive and imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff or jobs cliff as i offer refer to it that we face at the end of the year. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says going over the fiscal cliff could cost america two million to three million jobs. this will be a devastating blow to almost 13 million americans who are unemployed as well as to the middle class americans who have been struggling in the obama economy. now, mr. speaker, the choice to me is obvious. let's pass this bill, let's work toward comprehensive fax reform that creates a simpler, fairer tax code for all

americans, most importantly, that creates the jobs we so badly need. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their choice, to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. now is not the time to dig the hole we're in any deeper. instead, democrats should take the advice of people like former president clinton and larry sommers and join republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy and get our country back on track. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: there is a choice to be made here, and it isn't what

the chairman has put forth for one second. everyone in this body agrees that we should extend the middle class tax cut. the senate passed a bill that does just that. the president is ready to sign it this week. the middle class families of this country need certainty, not some vague promises about something to be done in the future. so the question is, if everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why don't we come together? the answer is this. the senate bill continues all the tax cuts for every american

household on their first $250,000 of income. 114 million families would see their tax cuts extended in full. 97% of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts, according to the joint tax committee. 97%. so why don't the republicans join us in acting? i think the answer is clear. this chart shows it. they're insistent, their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. they want to give households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average of $160,000. this chart shows that we have here for middle class families

$2,200. for the verywelly, $160,000. that's over 70 times more a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. and what makes it worse, if possible, is it would add $49 billion to deficit this republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families, 25 million. those who benefited from the eitc, from the child tax credit, and a higher education tax cut which they would credit -- credit that they would eliminate altogether. and it's still worse. the bill we're going to discuss tomorrow, so-called tax reform, essentially would provide someone earning more than $1

million a $331,000 tax cut. this debate is not about tax reform. it's about whether or not we protect the very wealthy at all costs. at all costs. for middle income families. for everybody except the very wealthy. there's talk about 700,000 jobs being lost. that study financed by special interest friends, it's been discredited by every fact checker. and you know, they're talking about 70 times more for the millionaire than for middle income families on average when in 201193% -- in 2011, 93% of

income growth went to the top 1% of wealthy households. 93%. and they come here and say, as their first priority, is protecting the very wealthy. now this isn't about tax reform. we need to work on this. this is about whether the first priority of the republicans is protecting the very wealthy, holding hostage middle income families. let middle income family hostages be released. be released. join together for what everybody says they are for. let's pass today our substitute and give a middle income tax cut to everybody. including 97% of small businesses.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, this house must act to stop the midnight tax hike that threatens to hit all american taxpayers on december 31. this midnight menace includes a 50% cut in the value of the child tax credit. higher taxes on dividends for seniors living on fixed income. the return of the infamous marriage penalty for working families. and the alternative minimum tax ensnaring middle income taxpayers. an average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see

a tax increase of almost $2,200 a career. the president says he wants to stop the midnight tax hike for some taxpayers, but not all. he claims that he merely wants the wealthy to pay more but the truth is, that his tax increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. as someone who comes from a small business background myself, i understand that many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. their income includes money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire more workers. a big tax increase could harm the very businesses we are relying on to create more jobs. in fact, a new study bierness & young suggests that the

president -- by ernst & young suggests that the president's tax proposal would cost more than 700,000 american jobs. mr. speaker, what lane will you choose? i urge the house to pass h.r. 8 and prevent a tax hike for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. when you look at mr. herger's district, he's standing up to protect 180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle income tax cut for 285,000. i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished chairman, former chairman, and a gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. rangel: thank you, mr. chairman. i've never been so fortunate in this house to have the republicans state the argument as clearly as they have this afternoon. and i think wally herger said it. it is possible not that we're talking about a tax cut. people are working every day to try to make ends meet. they don't know the wonderful tax cut that they are enjoying. but you bet your life if we don't come together, we don't reach agreement, they'll understand what a tax hike is. and that's exactly what's going to happen to 98% of the tax paying people of this great country. taxpayers who work every day who raise their families porks buy from the local merchants that keep small business alive are going to find out, probably

too late, that the republican party says you don't deserve the lower tax rate. then they may ask, what's holding this up? if everyone agrees that they should have it? we're going to have to explain to the middle class what the republicans are explaining to us. that somehow we are to believe that less than 2% of the population is creating the jobs and really supporting the economy. i don't know where they've been or how they're going to come become but they haven't been creating jobs and they haven't been spending and investing money. but even if there was a controversy, why the heck are we holding hostage 98% of the people? if republicans agree and democrats agree and liberal and conservatives and even tea party people agree that these people work hard every day, should continue to have this

tax cut, then why the heck don't we agree to give it to them? and if it ever becomes that we're in a political debate and it's only about less than 2% of 100%, then let's fight like the devil over that and see who prevails. but it's not going to be hard for us to explain this if you do this to the hardworking american people, shame on you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to pause and just listen and think through a couple of arguments we've been hearing over the past couple of weeks from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from the president of the united states and one is that people should pay their fair share. that's an interesting argument, mr. speaker. let's look at that a little bit

closer. so if the president's will were to prevail on this, in other words if this tax hike goes into place, then the top tax rate for some small businesses would be over 44%. now contrast that to the top tax rate that president obama is proposing would be 28%. now, all afternoon, you're going to hear a lot of things go back and forth but you won't hear anyone contradict those numbers -- those numbers and that disparity, mr. speaker, because they are true. there is no sense in telling corporations you get a 28% rate and the top rate for small business is 44%, there's nothing fair about that. let's look at another argument. another argument is that this smu closes a budget gap and this is deficit reduction and we're all about deficit reduction and let's have at it. the little secret on the deficit reduction is at best,

the most generous estimate, is this would take care of, what, maybe seven, eight, nine, 10 days of spending, maybe. but who would pay the cost for that? i'll tell you who pays the cost for that. the job creators and the people who are looking for jobs right now, mr. speaker. according to ernst & young and other who was looked at this, some estimates are that it would cost 700,000 jobs. i know nobody that is willing to say you know what we have got too many jobs. let's thin the herd. there's too many people working. let's thin the herd, there's too many people working and let's do it buzz of democratic dogma. we have leading depps on the other side of the rotunda saying let's embrace the fiscal cliff and grab on to the dogma and go right off the cliff regardless of the outcome. you know what? that's ridiculous. and we have an opportunity here to make some certainty, to move

to the next year, not to the move to the next year just for the sake of another year but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system. to create a more competitive tax code that is broad and fair and wise and well thought out and that does what? that creates the most competitive tax code in the world right here in the united states. mr. speaker, it could be great. we could have a great tax code but what we've got to do is create a year of certainty to move forward. i urge the passage of this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. it's ironic that the gentleman from illinois min midses adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years of continued -- if continued, which is your policy, would be $1 trillion. that's something you just shrug

your shoulders at? i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, another distinguished member of our committee, earl blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. it is an interesting question, which lane are we going to choose. the study that's been offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle is bogus and i invite people to actually look at it and look at the critiques that have been offered up. but we've had a real-life experiment. because these tax rates that are being talked about are exactly what we had in the clinton years. at which time some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle predicted calamity. job loss. the economy would crash. what in fact happened is we had 22 million jobs that were created. what has happened is that when

they had a chance to experiment with their vision in the bush years, when they put in place these tax reductions if they would have worked, what would have happened? did employment even match what happened in the clinton years? no. in fact, it was barely 5% of what happened in the eight years of bill clinton. in fact, the obama administration, when it took, after the first few months when it was in office and could be credited with responsibility for the economy, has produced more private sector jobs than the entire bush admferings in eight years. -- administration in eight years. the job loss that's gone negative has been slashing in the public sector, primarily teachers and firefighters and

police officers at the state and local level. mr. speaker, the strategy here is to continue punting. our republican friends are punting on the farm bill. our republican friends are punting on s.g.r. they're now proposing a budget solution that gets us past the election because they can't face up to their own tea party extremists and they're split. may i have 30 seconds? mr. levin: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. blumenauer spak that's -- mr. blumenauer: that's what is at sfake here. i suggest we take what we can agree on, the 98% of this tax reduction, agree on that, not punt, give some real certainty and then have an honest debate about their proposal to increase taxes on the middle class at the expense of -- to class at the expense of -- to be