Does the Government of Pakistan have any intention of confronting the Afghan Taliban in Baluchistan to deny them safe haven and prevent cross-border attacks against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan?

the immediate internal threat of Taliban extremism was greater than any external threat.

unless Pakistan's leaders, both civilian and military, commit in deeds and words to eliminating the threat from militant extremists...

That affects my view, I have got to tell you, on the kind of support that we ought to provide to Pakistan.

I think we are headed in the right direction. It is going to take some time to overcome some of the history and relationships that have developed since the time of the Soviet invasion.

These are damn good witnesses.

We place an extremely high priority on working with Pakistan against groups that pose a direct threat to our troops.

If Pakistan makes the fight against extremists their own fight, then we ought to be willing to help Pakistan achieve a more stable and secure future.

But it is unacceptable to me to be pilloried by the Pakistani leaders, criticized in their public for carrying out these attacks.

I know you have indicated that the question of drone attacks, UAV attacks--much of which can only be dealt with in a classified setting.

Well, I have got to tell you, if they do not want us to do this, they should flat out tell us privately.

There was an IG report in July 2009, a Social Security Administration IG report, that found that the number of SSI redeterminations conducted over a 6-year period from 2003 to 2008 had dropped by more than 60 percent.

We have a Treasury Department definition. We have one line. You must ask for the beneficial ownership as defined in 31 CFR.

You make no reference to beneficial owner in your proposal at all, do you?

Law enforcement now wants to find out who the beneficial owners are.

Having access to beneficial ownership information is critically important.

Finally, because I'm over my time, Mr. Blum, do you have a comment on the tipoff issue?

How can we possibly justify our failure to do what we have committed to do: Obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed within the United States?

the NCCUSL proposal fails to cure the problem and would create a host of new ones.

To allow companies to provide anything less than the beneficial owner information merely provides criminals with an opportunity to evade responsibility.

We want to avoid a mandate as well, so we provide a possible source of funds, but we do not require that the source be used.

Senator Levin's bill offers one solution to this problem, which is to set a national minimum standard for State incorporation practices that require States to collect, maintain and update so-called beneficial ownership information.

I wonder if the Justice Department could just quickly say, don't we ask banks for beneficial owners?

Senator Levin's bill--and it is, as I said at the outset, Senator Levin, Senator Grassley, and Senator McCaskill particularly--is designed with these law enforcement investigations in mind.

They still do not get the information that is the most important to law enforcement, who is the beneficial owner.