tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN October 12, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
convince my respective constituencies that there is value in continuing. we endorse what the leaders are doing in terms of contributing ideas that we hope will help to continue the process. it is not for us to say that this is a good idea of, you should take heed. it will be up to the prime minister and president abbas to continue this kind of dialogue to see if through these types of statements and other ongoing discussions that if both sides will make the commitment that we hope they will make to continue the process. . .
prime minister netanyahu has offered his thoughts on both what he is willing to contribute to the process, what he thinks he needs for his people out of the process. we were told that the palestinians would do the same thing. through this ongoing dialogue, we will gain the commitment on both sides to continue and to resume negotiations. we will continue our discussions with both parties. we hope that a formula can be a run--- arrived at, conditions can be established to allow the prime minister and the president on behalf of their people to make the political commitment to stay in these negotiations. this is the kind of process that we think is needed at this time, but ultimately, it would be up to the prime minister and the president to decide if they are
seeing enough, getting enough, and offering enough to sustain this process. >> would you like to see the palestinians make a counteroffer? >> it is the responsibility of both parties. you work from back to front. this has to be an agreement that they make. it is not something we are going to impose on either one of them. as we get down the road in this process, as we have said all along, we are willing to offer specific proposals that might get beyond the inevitable challenges that we know we will face. we have offered our ideas to both sides to try to navigate through this particular issue that we currently confront over the settlement moratorium, but these are judgments that these leaders have to make. we want to see both of them
offer their thinking about what needs to be advanced and agreed to that allows both sides to stay in these negotiations. that is what we want to see them do, but ultimately, it will be up to both to say, "this is what we need to be able to make the difficult political decision" we know both of them face, whether or not to stay engaged in the negotiation. >> [inaudible] will you try to convince the palestinians to recognize it? >> we will continue our discussions with the parties. i would expect, you know, following up on the arab league meeting as of late last week that george mitchell will go to the region at some point. i'm not announcing anything, but it would be logical for us to follow up directly with the
parties, see where they are. we will offer our ideas based on our conversations, what our assessment is of what each side needs to be able to make the political commitment to remain in direct negotiations. >> do you recognize israel as a jewish state? >> we recognize the aspiration of the people of israel. it is a democracy. in that democracy, there is a guarantee of freedom and liberty to all of its citizens, but as the secretary said, we understand the special character of the state of israel. >> do you want to answer this question? >> [inaudible] short question with a yes or no answer -- i was wondering whether that was a yes or a no?
>> we recognize that israel is, as it says itself, is a jewish state. >> my question is it has been less than two months since the process started, and already, you're seriously hung up on the settlement issue. i would just like to know what you guys doing, but more importantly, how you guys are going to prevent this from happening over and over again. >> that is a very good question. that is what we are involved in right now. we are working with the parties, trying to find a formula that allows the direct negotiations to continue, and then, through this negotiation, one of the issues that we recognize it is a core issue is the issue of borders, and we want to be able to see and use the time that is available to us.
if we can make progress on the issue will borders, then largely speaking, the issue of settlements is resolved, and both sides understand how to manage this process going forward. we are offering our thoughts to be able to move the process towards a final agreement within the next 11 months. it is not our intention to confront this issue every few weeks. that is why it is important for the party's to make the political commitment to say in the negotiations for the long haul, so we can get into greater detail on the course that is issues. >> do you think it is really helpful for prime minister netanyahu to have made this final status core issue demand
right up front, early on in the process in exchange for just two months? you said you were looking for both parties to make contributions that indicated they wanted to continue. a lot of people would not say mr. netanyahu's request fits that description. >> again, we want to see the direct negotiations continue with enough room for us to move from where we are towards a successful negotiation that results the core issues. as we have said since the outset in late august, we believe that this can be accomplished within a year's time, but we have to get the commitment from both sides to stay in the direct negotiations. that is what we are trying to do now, and in trying to resolve this immediate issue, we are trying to resolve it and create sufficient time and space so we
do not have to confront this two months from now, three months from now, six months from now. we want to see a clear path so that the parties can continue the process. in what we have done so far, there have been some discussions of the core issues. we believe, based on the discussions that have been done so far, that there actually is the opportunity to resolve this conflict once and for all. that is what we believe, and that is the essence of our commitment to this process. we do not just want to push the can down the road two months. we want to create a clear path that allows the parties to begin the arduous process of addressing the core issues one by one with the intent of reaching a successful negotiation within a year's time.
>> didn't you say that you recognize israel as a jewish state? >> i'm not making any news here. president, the secretary, and others have said this before. >> do you recognize the state of israel? thus the u.s. what the palestinians to recognize the state of israel as a jewish state? >> i will be happy to go back over and offer some -- i'm not making any news here. we have recognized the special nature of the israeli state. it is a state for the jewish people. it is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well, but this is the aspiration -- what prime minister netanyahu said yesterday is in essence a core demand of the israeli government, which we support as a recognition that israel is a
part of the region. acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of israel was the homeland of the jewish people, and that is what they want to see through this negotiation. we understand this aspiration, and the prime minister was talking yesterday about the fact that just as they aspire to a state for the jewish people in the middle east, they understand the aspirations of the palestinian people for a state of their own, so the prime minister has put forward his ideas of what he believes his people need to hear so they can make the commitment we are seeking to stay in this process and to reach a successful conclusion. this is not a one-way street. it is a two-way street. the prime minister is offering something and asking for something. it is perfectly within the
rights of the palestinian authority to say, "there is something i need, and there is something i am willing to give. -- something i am willing to give." this is the essence of the negotiation we want to see continue. >> i want to get something straight -- i understand what you say and what other americans have said about the leaders in the region have to decide and we cannot do it for them, but you also said something 10 or 15 minutes ago about how it is not for us to say, "this is a pretty good deal. you ought to take if pecan i wonder if there is a conflict there, and i wonder if you are suggesting that secretary clinton would not go to one of the two leaders at some point and say, "this is a pretty good deal. you ought to take it."
>> there is a difference between the advice we all might offer privately, and we have shared our ideas with both parties, but ultimately, they have to make the commitment. as i said, george mitchell, and i expect in the coming days will be conferring again with the leaders to determine where we are and in essence sort through whether we believe the conditions are right for direct negotiations to continue. that is what we are trying to do from this point forward, help the parties create conditions for these direct negotiations to advance. that is what we have been doing for the past few weeks, and we hope that both parties can and will make the political commitment to continue. >> what do you think about prime
minister netanyahu's [inaudible] >> we had what we thought was an affirmation by the arab league last week where everyone sees the value of the direct negotiations and at its essence, the arab league said they are willing to give more time for the united states to work with the parties and see if we cannot create a formula, create conditions for the negotiations to continue. in that context, the hon minister offered some thoughts -- the prime minister offered some thoughts as to what his view is of the balance needed on both sides for the negotiation to continue. on the one hand, there are some voices within the palestinian authority that said that is not
what they consider the right answer. that is fine. from a palestinian standpoint, what are their ideas for the negotiations to continue? in a sense, we see -- both sides seem to want the process to continue. now, it is up for both sides to share ideas with each other on what is needed, what are the right conditions for this negotiation to go forward. this is exactly what we think is necessary to get both sides to make that public and political commitment to stay engaged. >> apart from netanyahu's proposal to break the deadlock, is there a separate u.s. proposal on the table right now? >> we have shared our ideas with
the parties. beyond that, i will leave our advice to the parties. >> the you want to mention jason added nations vote where india got non-permanent membership? also, what is the opinion on the u.s. on in the of's seeking a membership? >> dns this is welcome south africa, india, colombia, portugal, and germany to the security council. we look forward to working constructively with all members of the security council. we trust that all the members will work to support the charter, and should be to the effectiveness and efficiency of the charter, and uphold its role in maintaining international peace and security. on your second point, we are committed to finding a way for work with our other member states on security council reform that preserves and
strengthens the council's efficiency and effectiveness so as to enhance the carryout's mandate and meet the challenges of the 21st century, but beyond that, i will not speculate on what actions the united nations might ultimately take. >> this was the first time that the bric countries will be members. do you see them emerging as a separate block? >> no, these are countries the have been playing significant roles and in some cases increasing roles in their respective regions for some time, and we welcome their purchase of haitian. as we have said, the global challenges we have faced cannot be solved by one country.
they will need significant engagement, involvement, and support from these emerging powers, and we have a very strong list of emerging powers who can rightfully play a more leading role on global issues. >> can we expect more strong support for india's efforts during president obama's visit? >> we are well aware of india's aspirations to play a more significant global role. we have welcomed that expanded effort by india both on regional issues and global issues, but again, we will work within the united nations and within the security council because we recognize that there are a number of countries in the world that have those same aspirations.
>> [inaudible] >> we are committed to continue to work constructively on united nations reform. >> on china, does the u.s. have any concerns about the report a woman has been confined to her home and western diplomats are not allowed to visit? >> we are concerned. this is something we are watching very closely, and we believe that her rights should be respected, and she should be allowed to move freely without harassment. >> there was a one-share anniversary [inaudible] i was just wondering what is going on now, and are you still involved in the process? is the u.s. still working with
their counterparts? >> we remain committed to resolving these issues. it was something the secretary clinton discussed last month at the united nations with a wide range of leaders, and we remain committed to it. >> [inaudible] to the south of lebanon is not a good idea. tomorrow, he will be going to love and on on a scheduled visit -- tomorrow, he will be going to lebanon on a scheduled visit. do you have a comment? >> we are concerned -- we remain concerned that iran continues to take steps that undermine lebanese sovereignty and security, and we hope that
lebanese officials will keep that in mind during the president's visit. >> amnesty international and free burma alliance are meeting in new york, and what they are saying is that they need help from the u.s. with the displacement of 3.5 million burmese. >> we remain engaged with a wide range of countries on burma. we have great concern with what is happening within burma. we have expressed our concerns about the upcoming electoral process, which we do not believe will be free or fair. we continue to insist both in conversations that we have had with burma and conversations we have had with other countries that have influence within
burma that burma house to open up its society, have greater dialogue with various ethnic groups and political groups that exist within its population, and we will watch events as they unfold and hope that a new government will take a different approach than it has in the past. >> the u.s. and chinese military stop talking for about 10 months this year. the chinese are upset about what in sales with taiwan. is there any consideration being made to halt that? >> our consideration of these issues are a provision in did -- of defense articles to tie one is consistent with our law, the taiwan relations act, and we will continue to follow that. bamut is there any consideration
to halting arms sales? >> no. >> [inaudible] is this an issue of concern to south africa? >> start again. >> in afghanistan on the border of iran, forces have seized a large amount of weapons which were smuggled out of iran. is this an issue of concern to you? do you see an iranian role in this? >> iran has an understandable interest in the future of afghanistan. that said, we have been concerned in recent months the last couple of years about iranian meddling in the internal affairs of afghanistan. it is something we continue to watch closely. >> on the topic about the eastern nation summit, i understand the secretary is
going there. any issues that the u.s. specifically want to touch on there? >> we are still a few weeks off from that. we will have more say as we get closer to it. thank you. >> tonight and all month on c- span, we will have campaign 2010 coverage. at 8:00 eastern, an overview of the midterm elections by editors and correspondence from the political news web site, the hot line. then the second debate between wisconsin gos democratic senator and his republican challenger, followed by the north carolina senate debate with the republican incumbent and democratic secretary of state. again, that is 8:00 eastern tonight. the "wall street journal" reports that republicans and democrats hoping to pick up
seats in congress through redistricting are pouring money and political muscle into statehouse races in about 16 states. a republican and democratic strategists are focusing on races in states they believe could eventually falling as many as 25 or 30 seats in the u.s. house of representatives. the top targets are wisconsin, indiana, pennsylvania, ohio, and texas. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. ♪ >> how are you doing? >> bless you, sir. >> i love this.
thank you. i need your help on november 30. thank you. i appreciate you. >> [inaudible] >> i will. i in going to come back and keep talking to you is what i will do. sometimes no is a good thing. no on increased spending. no on growing government. no on stimulus and so on, but the other party is -- the other thing is the party of know. know what you are voting on. there is a very stark contrast in geography. culturally similar contrast, socioeconomic status. this is one of the poorest districts in the united states. folks here are doing hard work. they work for a living. they balance their budget. they provide a good living for their families. just hard-working people, good
people. >> voters in the first congressional district typically vote very conservative at the national level, but they will elect democrats pretty solidly, minus a few pockets, at the local level. that has been pretty historical. there has not been a republican elected to the first congressional election since reconstruction. >> the two primary candidates in arkansas are republican rick crawford, who is a radio broadcaster with a bit of a media empire that crosses the agricultural span of the district, and chad causey is the democrat in the race. you have the quintessential done that understands washington, d.c., and how it works and definitely understands what is going on back in the district compared to first-time republican candidate in rick crawford, and definitely understands the bread-and-butter issues of the district, which
are primarily agriculture. >> i think if you ask for some of in down votes on the issues that have been dominating the american political agenda this last year -- health care, the stimulus, cash and trade, hard check, some of those issues, i think you will find them in total agreement on those issues. how much of that is how they julie feel about the issues is debatable, but i think that is definitely the message they are sending to voters. >> this race is about people. it is not about me. not about my opponent, not about the national parties. it is about the values that the people here in arkansas have and what they want to see any person that is going to fight for them regardless of party. it is about sending someone to washington that shares their common sense, conservative, arkansas values, and i do. >> where i do see differences is chad causey has a more
experienced and deeper working knowledge of some of the big projects that are going on in the district. the higher education issues they have been working on for years, the agricultural and water projects they have been working on for years, whereas i think rick crawford has a broader populist appeal of, "i'm going to go up there and oppose some of these big agenda items you are telling me are opposite of the wishes of the voters in the district. i think you would see him being the type of member of congress. >> i think what folks are looking for now is a citizen legislator that has been there that has made contributions here, and is not entrenched in washington, that is not a bureaucrat, that is not one of the political elite. i'm not doing this to try to get a job. i already have a job, and i want to keep that, and i want to make sure everyone in this district has the opportunities that i have. >> i think the first
congressional district is the one where everybody is going to feel like a coin toss might be your best way of guessing who is going to win that election. as voters decide who they like in that race, as their television and radio ads run, you will not here either of them identified themselves by party affiliation. it will be their names, and i would not be surprised to see a 50.1-49.9 final in this tally. it could literally be that close. contentn's local vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our web site, c-span.org /lcv. >> now, a discussion on plans for a trans-atlantic missile
defense system. the heads of the nato nations will meet at lisbon next month to discuss long-term plans for an alliance. this panel looks at the domestic politics behind missile defense. it is one hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome back to the session. this session is assessing the future of trans-atlantic missile defense. it is essentially our american panel to assess the strategy for establishing a trans-atlantic missile defense capability, the progress to date, and to parse a little bit more diplomatic, budgetary, and operational challenges that face nato, as they prepare to gather in lisbon and beyond. we began with general o'reilly with a terrific operational and technical update on where we are. we followed that with a policy conversation with frank rose. i want to use this discussion to begin to par's those issues a little bit. we have to be terrific panelists that bring three terrific perspective to the discussion which i think will be extremely insightful for us. i want to introduce peter, a
member of the atlantic council. the more relevant to this discussion, who is the most recent to the general for defense investment where he helped lead the alliance on issues of missile defense and air defense, and in that capacity serve as the conference of national armaments director, chairman of the defense management board, but he also served within the pentagon as assistant for defense for international security policy, a principal secretary for defense for national security as well and has a long track working on the hill in the senate select committee on intelligence as well as the house foreign affairs and senate defense appropriations subcommittee. next, i am delighted to welcome carried to the stage. she is a professional staff member with the house on
services committee. she is the most worked with -- one of the most active members on the house represented turner that supports all the strategic forces subcommittee. she specializes in missile defense, military space, nuclear weapons, and military intelligence. prior to joining the hill, she was a senior space policies, and much to the intimidation of all of us on the panel, she has a bachelor's in science and aeronautics and astronautics from mit, taking on us political science majors, but she also minored in political science to make us feel a little more comfortable. welcoming back to the atlantic council is the deputy secretary of defense for european and nato policy in the office of the secretary of defense. many of you know jim as having held my position here as vice president director of the international security program at the council. big shoes to fill. he has had a long career at the office of secretary of defense
in the pentagon, working for much of his career on european policy, nato policy, including our u.s. mission to nato as well. to get us started, we wanted to build of this morning's discussion where we have the policy conversation from the obama administration perspective. i want to get us kicked off in this discussion by turning to peter to take us back through his perspective coming out of nato about how this discussion resonates with what is happening in the alliance in brussels. please get us started. >> thank you very much. just thinking as a yardstick as several have last year's event, or going even further back january 2007 where i happened to arrive in brussels on the same weekend as the first leaked reports of the site appeared in the herald tribune, as frank said today, an awful lot has changed, and it has changed, and
i will go through these in a little more detail, but on some important macro levels, it has changed in the sense that things the were willed and hold a year ago have and are now. within the alliance, sometimes clanking machinery, we have actually ruffle fairly successfully with taking what appeared to be an interminable and perpetual analytical process and keying up some real decisions, which is important. part of what allowed us to do that, and this goes back to something general rally said with respect to the way u.s. forces to missile defense -- missile defense is no longer unique or exotic. it is a bit more exotic in europe than it was in the u.s., but compared to three years ago when the discussion devote star wars and ronald reagan flight masks, the discussion has devolved enormously, and it was critical to get us in the position we are in now. the important result of this is
that i believe that nato is about to take a very important strategic decision to defend its territory and population. this is an entirely logical step, given the washington treaty and the subsequent elaborations in the directions of collective defense. just as it was logical, just because it was common sense did not mean that it was inevitable or that it would be easy. we got here because of the process of civilizing the debate dealing with questions like the threat. i think if you look to the last four or five summit communiques, you see the increasing threat from ballistic missiles. what you also see -- fred raised this earlier, and this was less explicit, but i think you see a growing sense of iran is the country people are focused on
now, but more broadly, there is a threat of ballistic missiles out there. a lot of these ballistic missiles with in areas that are unstable form may be in areas that have the extremist political currents. all of these mean that ballistic missiles are going to be even more of a threat to the alliance. one of the hurdles that had to be gotten over was debate on the impact of missile defense on some of the traditional pillars of european security. arms control and non- proliferation, particularly for a couple of countries for deterrence, particularly nuclear deterrence. what you have seen there is there is agreement, including in the countries that were most sensitive on these, that missile defense will not replace arms control. it will not replace nuclear deterrence. however, it will complement them. i think you saw an interesting thing today.
if you look at the press, you will see the nato secretary general and even more of thusly franc rose from the state department, looking at the speech that said missile defense will not replace nuclear deterrence, but it will complement and by reducing our vulnerabilities. the fact that that perception, which i think is sound, has become the shared perception within nato has been an important element in getting us over some of the rocks that might have made it harder to make the progress we have made. another important step was the decision to prioritize the approach to the threat. why was this important? for a number of reasons, some of which were what front alluded to, but it also held down the challenge. it founded the technology requirements, and it bounded the cost, and i cannot go into full details, because the full fret
analyses were classified, but by focusing on the most imminent threats, it made it clear that this was something that was doable. lastly, the attitude of russia, which has been mentioned a number of times, has always been important. we have been very clear with nato that we were anxious to work with russia on this topic. i happened to be presiding over the nato/russia tmd group at the time it went into the deep freeze. essentially, the third site issue triggered a political switch, and basically, nothing happened for several years. what has happened as a result of a broader trend in relations with russia, both with nato and with respect to the u.s. and russia, that issue is it is not resolved, but it is clearly front and center on the table. the u.s., i know, has made a number of offers. i have not seen the details, but
i understand they are generous, and i understand the russians are reacting to them. what are some of the remaining issues? those are things that are pretty much in the "resolve" box although they will continue to be discussed. the cost issue, which has been raised a number of times, is a critical one. i do not think that is nearly as hard as it is sometimes made out to be. nations do have some times since your concerns, could take a lie in an era of financial crisis and an era of defense budgets. also, a number of nations were particularly concerned that if they click on the missile defense hyperlink that they were not somehow going to be sucked into some unforeseen hidden costs, and i think that issue has been laid to rest. yes, it will cost money to take the existing approved data system to the affected level. it is a modest amount. it is an amount that the
secretary has explain what exactly it refers to, the delta between what nato has already committed to spend and what it would take to upgrade it to become a cornerstone of a territorial defense. obviously, there are other points that have been raised today, but i think people are aware of those, at least people who follow the issue carefully, and there is an understanding that building on existing programs and decisions that have already been made, this can be done. to put it into perspective, the amount of additional funds that nato would be asked to spend to upgrade altbmd is a fraction of what the e spends on cheese in any given year. we are not talking outrageous sums of money for serious organizations to decide to spend four things the are important. some of the other issues that continue to be worked, and i think some of the nato reports
that were hopeful to get them done on the ministerial, i think some of them have been funded in to the ministerial. the ministers will actually discussed this. the new secretary-general is good about saying, "you do not like what we are doing, tell me what you would do differently." there will be discussion on the four nations that have concerns. these all for various reasons and in various ways fall into the durable category, particularly c2, which was often put up as something that was incredibly complex and impossible. nato has done it before in a circumstance where arguably the impact of a wrong decision was much greater than firing often interceptor for launching nuclear weapons against enemy targets, so i think that is
eminently doable, but it will continue to be discussed. the overall nuclear issue, which has come of a couple of times today, will be part of the debate. i do not think it is necessarily seen as inextricably the to the missile defense debate, but it is one of the cards on the table right now, and frankly, some of these issues will be made simply as part of the inevitable bargaining and hostage-taking going into the missile defense of cream at some point, and it may well depend on an agreement of comprehensive approach, agency reform, or comprehensive review, but that is part of the inevitable negotiations going in. the result at the end of the day i'm quite confident is going to be a historic positive decision for needed to defend itself from ballistic missiles. two important things that need to be part of that decision -- one is it has to be a decision to do and not just keep thinking. over to you on this -- i know you guys get this, but we have a number of decisions that require
us to do more and more study, and there will be no doubt more study required. this is a complex topic. on the other hand, the shift has to be into action road here, and it will also be important for nations to continue to display high level leadership over the nato processes that are supposed to deliver the need to deliver voice in this. keeping a close eye on the agencies as they do their work and keeping an eye at the resourced decisions that are made because it would not be unheard of for a relatively low- ranking civil servant in one of the resourced committee's to make decisions that have the effect of fun doing or delaying things that the president or prime minister would consider important, so it would be important to have strategic leadership. >> that was terrific. i think you remind us of how far the debate has come, and that it was not the controversy that it
was, but when i was at nato, missile defense was tough, so i think you put a good reminder out there. i will leave it to our european analyst to assess whether the amount that the european union spends on cheese is a substantial amount of money or not. we will let them get into the cost a little bit. next, i want to turn to kerry, who can provide a little bit of context and a congressional perspective on the debate. representing the minority, hoping to be the majority, carry comes to this debate with support on missile defense, get a record of some critical points on some of the aspects related to phase adaptive approach. what is the mood on the hill? what is your perspective coming from capitol hill? >> first, i'm not placing any
bets on november. my congressman is the ranking member of the house on services committee, and congressman in ohio, and congressman turner had an opportunity last fall to address and for debate in this conference, and i know he enjoyed it quite a bit. first of all, i have to start with a caveat -- my remarks are solely my own. there are 535 members of congress, and i would not dare describe any sort of single congressional view. all i can do today is endeavor to provide one congressional staffer's perspective on missile defense. first, however, i think it is important, especially in this kind of international forum, to emphasize that missile defense does have quite a bit of support in congress, and we have come quite a ways from the reagan days and a lot of ideological debates in congress, and i think you will see the house on services committee in
particular has approached its oversight responsibilities in a largely bipartisan manner. based on previous legislation, you will see we have acquired greater testing, particularly under operationally realistic conditions. we continue to press the pentagon to increase the reliability and sustainability ups current systems, to grow their capabilities to address current and emerging threats. we have been actively promoting greater cooperation in missile defense, whether europe, the middle east, with the asia- pacific region, and we continue to seek ways to foster greater international cooperation just in this year's house bill, you would see a provision that would allow the department of defense to enter into contracts directly with foreign governments or foreign firms to conduct missile defense research development and testing. this would allow mba to collaborate more closely with our friends and allies to collaborate against shared missile threats. we have even worked together, surprisingly or not
surprisingly, to increase missile defense funding, as reflected in this year's $362 million increase above the president's request for budget defense. i think you'll see that members on both sides of the aisle, in order to implement the administration's mary and missile defense, that a top line increase to the budget was necessary, and hopefully, we will see that sustain in conference. the new phase adaptive approach has captured much of the intent of congress this year. we want to hold the administration accountable for implementing its own policies. i think you will see that many republican members i work with see the benefits of paa in the flexibility and mobility of the approach, particularly with its dependence on the ship, but you will also see that many of these
members are still trying to understand exactly how this new approach is more cost effective, how it provides more comprehensive coverage of europe and the united states sooner than the previous approach and how it is more proven technologically. remember at the end of the day, these members are accountable to their constituents and to american taxpayers. if they are not convinced this is the right approach and the right investment, how do they take their investments to the taxpayers and tell them this is what our investment and taxpayer dollars? i think there is an opportunity for them to be convinced, but it will take greater engagement by the administration then we have seen to date. as congressman michael turner said last spring, there is an opportunity to gain bipartisan support on this approach, but the committee must have confidence that the plans are credible, the policy decisions are supported by analysis, the risk is well understood, and the necessary for structure and resources are backed by adequate budget. without such information, the
committee is limited in its ability to conduct effective oversight. you'll see that much of the legislation in this year's house-past defense bill is intended to help congress in these oversight responsibilities. let me also with a package accompanying the fiscal years 2008 defense bill, and this is with respect to the previous administration's approach -- opened with the committee strongly supports the approach to work closely with our allies to defend against missile threats, but the committee has concerns that the administration's current approach, proceed with the decline on a bilateral basis without nato's full support. the language focused on the previous administrations approach. today, primarily from a congressional perspective, we have seen paa as a u.s.-only policy with u.s.-only systems. teratomas defense is in door.
budgetary challenges in the united states and european capitals are real and significant, and i think european missile defense is more palatable when the costs and contributions are shared. also, i do not think we have seen the objections to russell -- russian military defense. we are shifting to an approach where you have mobile assets of unknown quantities that move around, and i think there will be some significant onus on the administration to further explain the paa and also to figure out ways to build further transparency around this. while i believe both men -- members on both sides of the aisle want to see cooperation with russia, anything that looks like an agreement or secret deal that appeared to limit u.s. missile defenses or at least
delay in deployment of long- range missile defenses i think will be met with strong objection on capitol hill. it is clear that the paa for europe and other geographic regions has significant implications. each region is different and the threats are different. what works for europe may not work for asia. we need to understand our unique requirements and ensure that the budget provides sufficient resources to meet them. we need to make sure the budget -- we also need to understand how we manage these low density, high demand assets that are already stretched thin. i am already concerned that missile defense for europe may result in less for commanders in the pacific and the middle east or vice versa. let me just toss in two other items briefly -- homeland defense -- one of the areas of difference i have observed between republican and democrat policy is their view on the long-range missile threat and
homeland defense. house republicans have expressed concern about the timing of the latter phases of the paa, which were designed to protect the u.s. homeland and all of europe in 2018 and 2020, so the paa does not plan to cover all of europe until 2018 or the united states until 2020. we are starting to see the fat materialize today and the icbm threat from iran could materialize as early as 2013 according to the latest intelligence assessments. the timeline for addressing long-range missile cuts coupled with last year's $1.2 billion cut to missile defense risks a potential gap, and members i support believe that could lead us less capable over the long run here the ballistic missile defense review that came out last spring states that the u.s. will continue development and assessment of a two stage ground-based interceptor in case the threat comes earlier or in
case any technical challenges arise with the later model of the interceptor. i suspect you will continue to see republicans pressed for insuring these words are translated into concrete action, investments, and decision points. i think lastly, i will touch on stars. obviously, the advice and consent responsibilities filed with the senate, and i am not in any position to say whether or not senate republicans will ultimately ratified the treaty. i can say that i think house republicans share many of the concerns of the senators with respect to missile defense and nuclear modernization, and i think you will continue to see house republicans pressed for greater investment in nuclear modernization, vertically as our -- the size of our optional strength, and i think you will continue to see them press the administration to insure that there are no delays to deploying long-range missile defenses for any sort of potential constraints on our ability to
the foyer missile defense in europe. >> and you very much. i think that hopefully sets out the terrain of concerns, certainly along the -- from a republican perspective on the hill -- thank you very much. i know we have members of the senate public relations committee, so we can circle back if we need to. let me now turn to you. it is interesting -- kerry actually began with the same theme that the undersecretary began with last year, to remind the audience of how far we have, in generating bipartisan support for missile defense in the country and that this is now a missile defense project, which the democratic administration is pursuing, but it is interesting, maybe taking up on a few things that carey said. congress wants to avoid the administration accountable to its own policy, to ensure the commitments made are actually implemented, and in that sense, to address some cost
effectiveness, the timing of this capability, the coverage that it will provide both in europe and from a homeland defense perspective, and the question around proven technology. also, part of what you have been working on, and this was a bit of discussion in the last round, up until now, the emphasis has been u.s. policy and u.s. systems. what does it mean as a goat with the lisbon summit when we seek to get this decision from the alliance, how does this take us beyond the discussion that has really dominated u.s. policy and u.s. systems? please touch upon some of these issues. >> thank you. as always, you have handed me a hot potato, and i appreciate that. first, let me say it is great to be home. i see a lot of friends in the council. i want to thank everyone who worked so hard to put this together. i just want to say that this is a great crew, and great things
are being done here, and it is wonderful to be back. >> and they did all the work. that is right. >> and damon also for all the work that has been done here. it continues a tradition of the involvement of the atlantic council and the issues of today. speaking of today, i am going to get on a plan in a few hours and head to the ministerial meeting on thursday, which i will talk a little bit about, so as usual, the atlantic council is on the leading edge. i'm going to view my remarks and try to get on a plan and implement them. first, the remarks that carried may i think are very important remarks in terms of questions -- the remarks that carrie made i think are very important. we talked about how long this has been going on. the questions she races are excellent ones, and they are
once the administration will be working very hard to try to answer because a number of the questions that she laid out that you here on capitol hill and also here in the halls of nato as well. it is all part of us traveling with putting together and implementing a very complex system that i think peter laid out so well. i could not help thinking that you and i are also veterans of the third sight. when peter was secretary of defense, i was defensible director of the european nato office, and we all were looking at missile defense when it was the u.s. approach to the third sight, and that was complex in and of itself. when you and i were working together as well, in terms of looking at the history of nato, and you and i could not even talk about missile defense at nato. the chief job was to try to begin the discussions in the
european context about missile defense, so this is -- this has come a long way. a number of us in the audience have played this role, and as i think about third sight, when i came back to the pentagon, one of the first things that happened was general widely came and brief me on this thinking that was going on that they were thinking that given the intel, given the technological changes, it seemed that we needed to make a shift. having grown up with birdseye, i looked at that with great interest. the case looked pretty compelling. i will let peters before himself, but it was a pretty compelling case that we needed to do that, but the questions the carrie -- that carrie laid out are very compelling theory this will go on through at least 2020 as we go through the phases of this, starting off in the
first phase with the technology at hand, the cruiser's there, the radar at the site, and dealing with the threat at hand to a part of the alliance that comes within the range circles of where we keep the threat today, so we will be taking a long journey, and something carrie said that release of in my mind, and that is that american taxpayers have got to have the case presented to them by their legislators. .
missile threats. gooif we try to build something that takes care of our security, and i think that idea has gained credence. remember going to prague and giving a speech there and talking about the importance for the czech people to oppose that, and i had some skepticism. i think it is going away because they seem missile launches. you cannot just be a bystander
and say, it is another nation's problem. things become so complicated when you are dealing with extremist spirit -- extremists. it is not so something where a nation seems -- needs to be afraid, but it is being held hostage, whether something comes out of the european union or an allied nation that has upset extremists and the capabilities.
this is not star wars. it is not something that is a u.s. thing. i think we have gotten used to it. department plot of the questions have been answered, and i think the affordability, when you cover this idea with what nato is already doing, that there is affordability, particularly over time, and it is split among the nations, and i will say one more point. there is a desire to want to play in this as well.
there is a program that is going on between italy and germany and the u.s. for a long time. they want to play and take part. they will take part in terms of common fund's. we have to give it to a point where it will be able to take on this mission. peter outlined it, but there will come a time in terms of the system. it has changed. i think nations are very anxious to play.
we talk about the funding crisis today. you're not going to have a nation today, and say, i want to buy something, but we're talking about years out, and we're talking about a threat that will develop in years to come. i think they say, we realize that, and we want to sit at the table and developed this as a territorial approach or we can work on controls and be part of a lot of the decision making. the alliance is going to want to be able to shape how this is going to be implemented. >> thanks. and we have a terrific lineup of europeans that have come to talk about the demand from the european side. you are about to get on a plane
and had to brussels. they are targeting it as major progress. you talked about the change of dynamic and the desire to want to play. what these see the administration walking away from on friday? -- what do you see the administration walking away from on friday? what are your specific goals? >> exactly, what is the deliverable? there are a couple of things happening. there is a committee that is working on a report, which i
hope is going to be finished. we have been reorganizing the nato committee. it is putting out a report that adds to the substance in terms of how this is going to work. it is not going to be a report that has a recommendation, but it is going to inform the discussion of ministers and how will the support the technology, the questions and things like
that. this is going to start with defense meetings by themselves. they will sit together and talk about issues such as the strategic concept, and in the afternoon it would be back. obviously, missile defense is one of the baker -- one of the big challenges we want them to have. we have to be aggressive afterwards. we need to be aggressive afterwards to implement it, but we are expecting strong expressions of support by ministers that they feel this
work needs to go forward, that they will have the benefit of this report. what they plan to breach their people about what and what they need as they prepare delegations to go off to lisbon, so on friday i am hoping what we've seen it is not a communique. i think coming out of this, there are strong expressions then moving forward a lot of the answers to questions they have would be in the report and the teeing up for decisions and holy water being thrown on this. >> thanks. as you listen to this with a congressional year, how much
would a member of congress think, this is a positive thing that helps us make the case because the alliance is likely to endorse missile defense as the real operation? on the other hand, how much would a member of the concern by the fact that at the end of the day the changes among allies. you made the case of justifying this constituents. does the nato endorsement of missile defense provide what you need, and will that resonate well, or will members need to focus on what europeans will need to bring to the table? >> all of the above. i go back to the previous approach, and not that i want to create any comparisons, but there is an expectation.
i go back to the 2008 summit and the language that was very explicit in endorsement of the need for a missile defense and starting to look forward to the options, so i think members will look to not only this week -- we have seen positive statements from the secretary general including his op ed that came out this morning, but members will be looking to see some similar language. it is a different approach, but that endorses this new approach and shows commitment to take further steps to get out of just the study phase and to show a commitment, investment, to actually take action to make this real rather than just a study or concept.
>> it really may be is 200 euros investment more. is that the rhetoric on the hill? >> rhetoric has to be matched by action. i think you will see different opinions in the house. there are some that say this is an important capability for the alliance to protect our allies. we are committed to funding it even if protection of the u.s. does not come until the very end. there are others who say this is u.s. taxpayer dollars. we would like to contribute to this, particularly in the near to midterm, and the protection is directly to their benefit. you may see some in congress
question why should u.s. taxpayer dollars be spent on something we do not derive direct benefit from. i do not think there is one particular view. >> i am going to ask you a question, and then i am going to turn to the audience to bring you into the conversation. your remarks were fairly positive on the idea of nato- russia cooperation. you had to deal with the trials and tribulations on issues like that. the secretary-general has been very clear that he sees missile defense of the major source of cooperation. there is even talk of president medvedev coming to the summit and this being one of the headline accomplishments, did
you are no longer at nato. you are no longer constrained. is there much technical value added? what is the reality of how valuable this is and what it adds to the debate? second, we have seen a sense of russia and ambiguity, sometimes reluctance to respond to the proposals. is this still too toxic for the russians to jump on board as the major source of cooperation, or does it offer a game changing project to get nato and russia thinking of new threats rather than each other? >> feeling unconstrained.
i just want to share feelings with a large audience. i will not do that. i would not characterize myself as an unduly optimistic, but i think this is in the realm of the manageable. it is not entirely manageable by ourselves. the u.s. has been forward- leaning in trying to cooperate and things like that, and russia have not wanted to dance. when you talk to people in the russian side, you get a sense of what that is. i will surprise meeting with people with ph.d.. these were not kgb thugs at all, who said, how do we know
the americans are not using this to sneak in a surprise capability that would allow them to launch a sneak attack? when i say to them i have been responsible for the nuclear policy and it never occurred to me to do such a thing, i think they were offended. that is going to be a difficult attitude to overcome, because these were not old thinkers. these were globalize people, so i think there is going to be some explanation that has to be done there. on the other hand, i think that is capable of being done, because the arguments are good ones. there are good arguments as to why russia should want to do this with us, but there are
hurdles to get over. we have had a russian threat and refers come to the council. you would not have gotten the impression they were talking about the same thing in terms of the potential threat from iran or other countries. i do not know how that is going. i think there is certainly of potential for greater convergence and something that will allow them to do something of great importance. russia can do useful things. russia has a strong interest in doing them. i did not want to give the impression of it being easy, but i think it is doable. in terms of the debate, a promised six minutes, and i was
worried i was getting out of them. you're still working on your acronyms after six minutes. i think the flip side is a recognition deterrences maybe not the antidote we thought it was, and there are enemies that may not be deterred. i think the point about an insurance policy is a catchall phrase the accomplishes that. when you looked out from europe where people are prosperous, and you look around the world to places where people are less happy and places where people are quite unhappy, and you see in places like the cartoon crisis or targeting against not
-- khartoum crisis or people targeting against americans, so all these things come together. caugh>> i do not want to monopoe the conversation. i want to turn to the audience. please introduce your name for the record. >> this remains to turkey, because there has been considerable discussion about some deployment on turkish territory. on the other hand, the impression i get is that turkey is brotherhood ambivalent if not reluctant to possibly allow the deployment -- turkey is
reluctant to possibly allow the deployment. i wondered if you could explain what the concerns are. >> i would say there is probably not ambivalence. this is something that takes a lot of time as they wrestle with the issue. turkey is in a special place in terms of political context in which they have to make their decisions, in keeping with where they are and who their neighbors are and the history turkey has with its neighbors in terms of trade and the various relations of things until with their neighborhood, things there have been caught through various thoroughly, so i do not envy the
turkish decision makers who are getting their ministers ready for the meetings as well as the lisbon summit where they are going to have to consider two things. one is there a vote by taking on missile defense and number two, what kind of role for turkey wants to clerical region wants to play. -- what kind of our role turkey wants to play. they have in fact of a lot of turkish national agenda items, too, so they are thinking very hard about this. i think there's a realization of
the importance of missile defense. this is not something they think is beyond their grasp or something that is a bit of pie in the sky thinking. the realize there is a threat not to the alliance. they realize that is something the alliance has to grapple with the turks have been part of the debate. it was what started bohol studies process. i thought of points about -- what started the process. i remember during our staff meeting them saying this is something we ought to pay
attention to because this is a big sea change. what we are seeing is not reluctant as much as we are seeing turkey trying to balance what they know is important for transatlantic security, their security, and trying to see how this meshes with political calculations living where they live. >> i do not know if i would call it ambivalence. this is a difficult issue, and turkey is thinking through its equities, but at the end of today, i expect turkey would be part of of possible moves alliance. >> if there is ambivalence, they would be welcome -- would welcome it.
>> i want to come back to burden sharing. these are points that will be taken up in the house discussions. >> he is working on many of these issues. >> whenever he gets a microphone in his hand, you have to watch out. >> i am just going to say that the question is very valued, and i support the distribution of burdens. not every military capability is shared equally among allies. the united states has always contributed to more than half the air capabilities the alliance has. if you look at other parts of the alliance, it is not like
that. you have to keep that in mind. secondly, coming to a missile defense, that is the common bill that the united states would pay about 20% of which all allies would pay. the individual contributions are separate from that. a lot of these radars, which have turned out to have good missile control -- missile defense capability have already been paid for. if you look at the controls system, that has been paid for in part by my company developing the thing.
there are contributions that have to be put in the balance. it is not a straightforward question of looking at the money the united states spent and comparing it to bringing out the back on -- the backbone. >> i am pressured by that. >> i think we all agree there is a significant amount of investment to go. the administration would like to see this applied. we are seeing tight budget constraints, and we're seeing that in european capitals.
they have significant budget challenges. it is widespread across europe. where do you put the dollar? d you put it to protect americans, or do you spend it to protect allies? i do not think it is a black and white question. many would say it needs to be a balanced approach, but i think there need to be some that recoil and say, why shouldn't we spend that on protecting the american homeland. they have invested quite a bit
too much surer sensors and internet capabilities and what not. we have seen the announcement of a policy. until we see how the architecture comes together and what are the assets, we look right now. it is the u.s. approach. >> i want to turn to ian. >> what do we look for as decision points or indicators
that is actually devolving into a missile approach? we should all think about territorial defense. isn't the development of conops? you gave a great presentation last year in which you really raised some issues about the commitment. you were saying, where is the money? when you were looking at the process and not seeing the right amount of dollars, based on budget requests, is the administration really standing of to its vision?
>> in terms of decision points, some of them are going to be the numbers and dates you have seen of their. also note by implementing them and getting through the nato process, making sure the discrete parts are handled by the committees in such a way that they are archly working and things are coming out the other end. are went to project optic wind mill, which is a significant
missile defense component, and use of them from a number of missions sitting there during a missile defense -- you saw them from a number of missions sitting there during a missile defense. they were during the day today tasks. they were doing the things necessary. watching soldiers figuring out how do you do this and devolving their tactics and ways of doing business. that has already happened.
i think a lot of the work is actually going on. >> it depends on who is doing the investing. there are a couple of things. a lot of this goes on in such a way that nuance is hard to tell. it is important for nato out of reach. there are a couple of things i would point to. we just agreed to a report that makes sufficient the nato command structure.
if they agree to take on nato defense, we have already thought of where you would put the control and the operational portion. that is something we all realize a decision had been made, but we had to take this into account. we have already got in our minds where this would go. what is important, when we talk about doing studies, it is not quite like it sounds like. these go toward answering a lot of questions. they informed decisions that have to be made.
it is a very robust compilation of data that will make implementation possible. it also provides a bit of road map on what we have to do. part of the package, and forgive me. i know there is a set of brackets. the list and capability commitment -- do you remember what -- the lisbon capability commitment -- do you remember what that is? >> no. >> all of us were having to wrestle with economic problems and deficits in a lot of
nations as they go into spending money. we said, let's plug from those projects that are in the pipeline, and let's pick 10 of them and go to lisbon and say, we need your commitment that we will use, and funds for the project. -- use the common fund'ds for te project. we have not decided yet, but they are getting ready these projects that they will commit to, despite the impact on common funds. i take the point though.
there will still be some studies needed, but there is going to have to be money transferred. remember a lot of the work being done has already been decided. there are things being done, but we want to see those elements from that part going forward, and we have things ready. >> very easy to put it in that context. >> it is better than last year. last year there was a $1.2 billion cut to missile defense.
many argue because of the cuts went against protecting the u.s. homeland and missile defense capabilities, and a lot of them targeted future capabilities. my members argued it forced a false trade between regional missile defense and homeland missile defense. both could have been funded without the cut. fast forward one year. roughly $600 million was restored from my committee, i think that is an indicator that current funding is not sufficient. if you look back to your whip the demonstration is doing for a missile defense, you have this approach. there is a commitment to do more
testing, to continue to sustain the defense system in alaska and california and to invest in ahead with the latter phase if they do not pan out. you see a greater international commitments. all that requires money. you will continue to see folks in congress recognize the resources need to match. if they are going to be executed, the resources need to match that. we need to get a hands-o on what the structure will be. you probably want a backup
capability. that has to protect you in the asia-pacific region and in europe. you start doing the math, and you start to run out of ships. i think we need to get some clear analysis of the of the administration about what the requirement is going to be in the future. we need to know what those structures are so we know if there is sufficient. >> we promise to help jim get out to catch a flight. we can continue this over sandwiches and pick it up this
afternoon. thank you so much for your insights. >> it is important to show the $200 million. that is important to develop a capability, but at the end of the day, this is not a new debate. it is simply in the united states strategic interests, whether it is protecting from soviet tanks or whatever. the questions are legitimate, but we are in the same strategic decision. >> it is more cost-effective to go about protecting then to find out we were sorry. perhaps we will let our administration official have the final word. >> we have sandwiches outside,
and we will reconvene at 1:30. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> all this month, we were bringing you political programming. our coverage continues with correspondence from the hot line. then a second debate with u.s. senate candidates from wisconsin fallen by the north carolina senate debate.
later, the maryland congressman talks about his party's efforts to maintain control of the house. after that, the debate for georgia's house seat. it begins here on c-span. conservatives are already celebrating the year of the republican women. democrats fear the opposite trend, fear of the wipe out. the 56 democrats of the house are considered vulnerable. >> on booktv, eugene roberts and on the splintering of black america, the six years of compact -- of captivity in the colombian jungle, and sam
harrah's on science and human values, and the obama presidency, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and infamous fugitives. if the entire schedule -- get the entire schedule booktv.org. >> 48 hours of people and events telling the story. hear speeches by leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shape our nation. visit college campuses as leading historians delve into america's path. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. >> now an update on u.s. flood relief efforts in pakistan. we hear from the head of the u.s. agency for international development. he recently returned from a trip
to areas impacted by the flooding. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon, and welcome. >> we thought we would start by updating you on the situation in pakistan. in light of the devastating floods earlier this summer, mark is here. he just came back from pakistan. i am going to give you one of the latest of gains on what we see on the ground, and the deputy to richard holbrooke is here. we have the next round of
strategic dialogues. we have an extensive agenda working with pakistan. we have added dealing with the challenging situation. >> thank you, good afternoon. let me tell you about my trip. i visited two parts of the country, because i wanted to see in the south and verio where floodwaters were still apparent, and i wanted to visit an area to the north where people were starting to go home so i could see the contrast and the assistance we were providing. i went to a place in the north were the water was still pretty apparent, and i get to see firsthand what the u.s. military
is doing. they were still delivering emergency food to communities cut off because of the flood waters. they have rescued more than 21,000 people. they have delivered 1.5 million pounds of food. i help deliver that. they were with us. they were the first responders. it is important to remember that they were there faster. now i have heard wonderful stories about their response in the first couple days. the waters are going down.
it is not raining, so the flood waters will go down. in one area, people are starting to go home. we continue to focus on the same three concerns we have talked about in every briefing we have given you. number one, getting clean water to people, and we do that by getting water filtration units so the water can been cleaned. we are also buying every bar of soap manufactured in pakistan and getting into these people, hundreds of thousands of cars of soap, because it is so important to keep public hygiene in check. we have managed to keep a colorado to a manageable level. we have also been focusing on temporary shelter from people.
we continue to send in lots of plastic sheeting and tense to people who have not gotten home yet. food has been important. they continue to get access to more parts of the country, and they estimate this month they will be able to deliver food to 7.5 million people in october. then i went to a couple places where the floods began and where the water is down. authorities estimate 98% of displaced people have gone home. it is dry, but it is monday. the good news is in order to get to the sites, i drove. i did not need a helicopter. we were able to get around by road.
that is a good sign for the recovery. what struck me the most is the resilience of the people. we went to one community that was hard to get to. when we got there, it was covered in mud. 0óm their shelter. they know they do not have a lot of time, so they were taking the initiative. the winter wheat season is upon us. they need to get some vegetables in the ground.
the pakistani officials had already been after the community to test the water. we ask the people, are you drinking this water? we were told not to drink the water. they were not. people were going to the mosque everyday to get water, and a new drill was being drilled adjacent to the mosque while the small ones are being rehabilitated. as we get to the recovery phase, it is marked by people going home. we have to continue to focus on clean drinking water.
they will probably go back to drinking from the well, but chances are, it has been contaminated. we can fix it, but we need to tell them to use these other sources for a while, until you can get the well repaired. secondly, we have transitional shelter materials. is there a lot of mud available? they will have it for windows and doris. -- doors. year looking at iron sheets or other materials. -- they are looking at a hearing sheets and other materials. we have the winter coming in the
north. pakistan had a good week harvest before the flood started, so it is the time to plant the winter wheat. it is the time to tide families over, soar for vulnerable farmers -- so for vulnerable farmers, they are providing fertilizer to those farmers, many of whom are actually women and also care for livestock to help them with this early recovery. finally, before i hand off to talk about the defense, to keep the world focused on reconstruction, it is going to
be important to remember that winter is coming, so getting building materials to people and getting the seeds in the ground. as my organization transitions to the permanent presence in pakistan and the american embassy that is fair and will be there, certainly public health and shelter are going to be big parts of our focus. >> thanks very much. i want to complement mark on two different fronts. the first is to give you a rough idea of the series of upcoming events, particularly as we hid it from recovery to the reconstruction phase.
-- as we change from recovery to the reconstruction phase. second, what the u.s. is doing with the state as well as what the private sectors have done since the last time we brief. we have three meetings in particular that are worth highlighting. the most imminent is the ministerial in brussels on friday, and it would be preceded by an official's meeting on thursday. the senior officials' meeting is significant, because we are making it substantive in that the world bank's and that asian development bank have agreed to give the first preview, which they undertook in terms of long- term reconstruction needs for pakistan. there were 16 sectors identified. we're hoping for a brief, at
least three hours spent with all the donors to present and the international community, getting as much information as possible on thursday. it will not be fully finalized, but it will give them something to take back. as well as potential projects they may want to do and then come back for the development forum at some time in november to commit to these projects they may wish to fund. that briefing will be very important on thursday. our delegation will be led by kohlberg -- holbrooke.
several others also, so it will be quite a significant delegation. it is not a pledging conference. we're hoping to get all the key actors together to think about what should be done and come back at a later date and come back with specific pledges. it will focus on the new reality of what has to be done, and it will also address the agenda items, which are important. in particular, the project which the government will endorse on friday as well as follow up on reconstruction fans -- plans for the next meeting as well as the next thing that will be undertaken, which will focus on
water issues. that is particularly important. we will also hear from not only the special envoy, but we will hear from the pakistani government in terms of finance ministry as well as foreign representatives on their plans, including culminating for a meeting in islamabad for november. this is the first major meeting. wednesday through friday will be the strategic dialogue. we can talk about that next week, but the delegation will be led by the foreign minister.
this will be the third strategic dialogue meeting this year. we had the first in washington, the next one in july, really unprecedented in terms of meeting between the two countries. there will be a number of ministers, and we will have many of our 13 groups meeting wednesday and thursday, cochaired by u.s. secretaries are undersecretaries and pakistani ministers and culminating on friday. we will have a separate meeting on floods. that will impact the other groups, whether they be on energy or infrastructure or security, and we also have such important policy work to be done, we did not want it turned just into a flood meeting. we will have a separate flood
in addition to the government and international contributions, we were wanting to showcase the private sector support with a half million dollars from the private sector companies. particularly with the large contributions from general electric, and there is a humanitarian flight and procter and gamble, and we have a particular focus on water purification. in particular, the relief fund that the secretary announced, we took the first $500,000 of this from the fund. we have this on the purification and in addition, a $2 million package on water purification. to are working with 13 nto's provide clean water.
the first of these went out in october and we are trying to refund money directly into the most needed asset. finally, in terms of the american diaspora, there was a very successful concert that was planted -- that was going to be hosted last week. this was with john legend. other organizations are holding major fund-raisers in cities across the country and they have organized 45 relief trips for support personnel. we are looking at a very robust u.s. effort, and we were the first in with the most contributions to date, and we are hoping to retain his position as we go into the reconstruction effort.
and i'll be happy to take any questions. >> the response of the international community, and the way that they have responded -- >> it is no secret with the nature of this flood, with something like the earthquake or the tsunami. the initial relief map was $450 million, and this increase the couple of weeks ago. they have already raised in excess -- in excess of this, this is very significant as the $2 billion was just increased. the international community for the special session, before the general assembly started, a number of nations had new commitments and this is quite aggressive. this has been tapering off over
the last couple of weeks as we wait to see what the world bank is going to come out with so that the countries can continue to rely on their assistance going forward. and the needs will be identified with the priorities of the government of pakistan. we will simply see what comes out of the end of this week, leading into the development meeting in november. >> your presentation of your trip, -- >> this was brilliant. >> this was brilliant and this is working on all cylinders. what will need more work, because we have a very nice picture of what you saw, and this is not working. >> we have -- all of us together can meet the total needs. there have never been 20 million
people affected by a disaster like this. the international community and the united nations, the government of pakistan, are providing more than we have ever provided before and we are still falling short. because of the numbers. as people are going home now, it is getting easier to get to them, as we get into the recovery phase, we are able to increase our ability to get to these communities. we are not relying on a few dozen helicopters. i think that the success today is remarkable because we have kept a public health outbreak from occurring. we have to stay realistic about the size of this disaster, and
the demand of the world community which will surpass anything that we have had to do before. there is a gap that we will try to close as people get help. >> there is one important issue i was wanting to touch on as well. we had the special session of the united nations and the subsequent remarks have been repeated by the senior ambassadors. the total amount that we needed, we did not have a total price, but this is going to be staggering. tens of billions of dollars. no single nation should be expected to meet this, nor any group of nations. for this to be met, the government in pakistan will have to engage in fundamental tax reforms. this is a discussion that we have been having and we will continue to have this with them later on this week and it will report of the strategic dialogue.
the message of secretary clinton, this was echoed many times about the need for fundamental policy reforms as well as tax reforms with the foreign ministers as well. >> you have said that the total u.s. assistance that was pledged so far was over $450 million. does this include the costs of the military aspects that are out there? >> this is $383 million. and we have an estimate of what the input will be, and this is $68 million. >> you have set there are 25-30 helicopters operating. is this down from how many have been there before, and if so, by how much. >> we had been going between 25
and 30 -- but depending on the rotating, where these ships are in pakistan, my most current information is that this is about 26. >> and you have said that the c-130's ceased flying. what was the primary mission? >> they would bring in the food to the landing strips. and the helicopters will take them and they will be distributing them. in the north, where they were able to land, we have to have the list and we were able to take this out there. >> tell me about the problems -- and why this is no longer necessary? we have nothing left to be distributed, or are there other ways of getting this there.
>> this is absolutely important, with the position for winter. we can rely on the trucks right now. to the extent that we still need a smaller lift and the helicopters are still there. to get to some of these communities, it is not possible to drive. the basic answer is that as the roads open, you do not need these assets. >> tax reform is an issue that the government has been struggling with for decades, without a lot of success. do you believe that there is willingness on the part of the current government to actually engage in these tax reforms that will be necessary to broaden the tax base? it has been very difficult for them for a very long time. >> this is the target of opportunity to engage in fundamental policy reform, and
there is the un special session from a few weeks ago. with the secretary general -- i have heard that we will take this back to pakistan. we will continue to see this at the highest levels and i hope that there is a real opening here and this is fundamentally necessary to meet the needs. >> on behalf of the pakistan -- the americans are asking the same questions. billions of dollars have gone to pakistan, and everyone is talking about dealing and dealing. there are billions of dollars already given to pakistan. we're talking about the corruption flow, because the people -- they are taking
billions of dollars including this disease, with food and shelter in order. >> i could begin by saying that this is wrong, in the initial flood relief. the reason that we do not have an epidemic of cholera is because of the assistance that we have provided. they have done a good job we have had to supplement them, opening 50 clinics. and we are adding mobile clinics as well. we know that some of the clinics were damaged by the flood. the international community has been there, and given a flood of this size, we have never seen anything this big before. you have had communities where we have not seen them yet. as people go home, we believe that it will be less the case. we have made a difference and we are able to feed almost 70
million people per month. we are getting temporary housing materials, a transitional housing materials to about 1 million people. and they will need this as they rebuild for the winter. you can find these isolated communities and we delivered them food last week. they were very happy to get this. we were sorry that we did not get this before. you have to go where you have heard about the needs being the greatest, and i think that we have done a very good job of focusing on the public health issue, and going whether our public health outbreaks and dealing with this. >> let me just say a couple of things. you mentioned this, before everything started -- plea will
be looking at some of these accountability issues. a large part of this has gone to the agencies -- the domestic ngo's. >> you need hot water. >> clean water. this is helping to get this out as effectively as possible. >> there is tremendous animus with the pakistan population and the united states. do you believe that this will change as a result of this relief and reconstruction effort? do you believe that this will be diminishing at all? >> i will -- i will be able to
tell you this. we have been there for a couple of months with teams in the field in many different organizations. they haven't -- they have not been pushing back with the ability to get the job done. there was the same issue during the earthquake, five years ago this month. when there is a humanitarian crisis, people are very happy to get the support, and at the end of the day we are hoping that they will know that the united states was their first, in such a major way. right now the focus is on helping them, not wondering about where this is coming from. >> we are there because of the
humanitarian presence. and we will see what they come up with whenever this is finished. i do believe that we have seen a very significant change in the media and i have been interviewed by those commenting on that as well as those who do a review of the. and if you look over the last few months, there has been a change in posture. we will see, i think that we are in place to capitalize on this. this against the frame work of this strategic dialogue, and the long-term sustained commitment. and so, i think that we can showcase that we were not only their during the crisis but we are therefore the long haul and this will change our perceptions. >> do you have any information about a civilian crossing near kabul?
i thought that i would ask about this. >> i am siad. >> thank you very much. -- i am sorry. >> thank you very much. >> tonight, our coverage continues with an overview of the u.s. elections, then a devbatbate between the senate candidates. then chris van hollen, of the democratic campaign committee, talks about taking control of the house. then a debate over the 8th district of georgia's house seat. >> get working on those videos for student cam, the annual
documentary competition. this year's theme, washington d.c. through my lens. for more information go to studentcam.org. >> live coverage from the texas book festival on book tv. with ingrid betancourt on her captivity in the jungle and sam harris. get the entire schedule at booktv.org. >> every weekend, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00. 48 hours of the american story. hear eyewitness accounts of the
events that shaped our nation. top history professors and historiasn delve into the past. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. >> now, a discussion about partisanship in congress. the guests are part of a group of 130 members of congress looking to restore civil debate to the congress. two former members of congress are joining us here, john porter and david skaggs. mr. porter served from 1990 until 2001 and mr. dexter from 1987 through 1999. and two men have called for
bipartisanship from congress. many people know the problem. they hear it. if they turn into c-span, they can hear the speeches on the floor of the house and senate. let's begin with, what is the solution in your mind? guest: there are a lot of solutions that are needed, but primarily, people have to stop so much political posturing and a themselves at solving the country's serious problems, and we have many serious problems. host: ok, what do we do about it specifically? what are you calling for? guest: we are calling for greater respect and civility and an understanding that the people on the other side of the aisle are not the enemy. they are good americans who care just as much about this country as you do. and to act with respect toward others and stability in their conduct, get to know people on
the of this side of the aisle as human beings and work to find common ground to solve these problems. host: some people would say this is about ideology and people should fight for their ideology, what they believe in. guest: and we are not saying that trip not happen. it is a question of how it happens and how you treat colleagues who may disagree with you. because you realize this country is basically still centrist in its politics. we have high volume arguments from the edges of the political spectrum, but the vast majority of the american people want to see solutions coming out of the middle ground, if you will. that is only going to happen through compromise. there is nothing inconsistent between the rigorous debate and strongly held views and ultimately realizing that the national interest depends upon
coming up with solutions in the middle. that means knowing your adversary well enough and having developed enough respect and trust that you can actually work things out. that is what is lacking. host: mr. skaggs, how do you explain that the tea party movement. they're not calling for bipartisanship. they are not calling for less of that. they're calling for less government involvement, less compromise. guest: if i could explain the tea party movement, i would be on more television shows. it is not my assignment on this. it is certainly something that has gone the nation's attention. and i think it reflects -- gotten the nation's attention. and i think it reflects, in part, the anchor of the well- informed -- anger of the well- informed about the nature of this country where things were
set up to go slow and it depended on the poise of the representatives to work things out. that is sort of the nature of the beast. host: let's take a look at the issue of cable news, because that was a plot -- a front-page story in the "washington post" and mr. porter, maybe you could talk about this. you have talked about cable news and its impact. if you saw the "washington post" , with theesterday' republican candidates likely to go on fox and the democratic candidates likely to go on msnbc, how does that affect the tenor? guest: it is not only the candidates to go on their favored venue, but the listeners and viewers to go to their favored venue to reinforce what they want to hear. it is a very pernicious development in america where we
do not listen to other views. we listen to the oil -- will only listen to the ones we want to in accordance with what we already believe. that is not our system. we do not have a parliamentary system. we have a system of contra- constitutional representative government where people are -- a of a system of constitutional representative government where people are required to listen to others. if you look at a parliamentary system, one section controls all the power. we have to work out these difficulties. if america was like it was years ago, we were on top of everything. we are not. but we have tremendous competition. we not only have terrorism, but we have an economy with huge deficits. we're losing our science and technology leads to foreign
competition. we have an overdependence on foreign oil. we have immigration problems. none of these things are being addressed by both sides. there simply telling their philosophies at each other and we need to stop and get to work. host: before i get to phone calls, i would like for you to talk about how it was different when you were in congress. mr. skaggs, if i could begin with you, if you take a look at the time that you both served, there were some contentious issues happening at that time. the lelinski affair in the clinton administration, the oliver north controversy. how is it different? guest: yes, you had some of those high-profile and very nasty problems facing congress and the country, but to a much greater extent, the men and
women who served ben from both parties could pull back -- the men and women who served from both parties could pull back and have lots of opportunities to compromise and respect each other's point of views and work together. those opportunities have been drained out of the capital by a number of different factors. members do not move their families to washington as much anymore. the work week has been shortened. and we have a redistricting system that is about to come up again next year. that has turned the geography of a comeback -- of the country into pockets of saved districts for one party of the other, and that has aggravated districts. that is not that we do not -- did not have strongly held views, but it was not the only thing that went on and it did
not dominate. guest: -- host: mr. porter, would you comment? guest: i do not think you mentioned that david is a democrat and i am a republican. when i was in the minority i was always treated as a full-fledged member and treated with respect. and when i became in the majority and became chairman of my subcommittee that funded all of the health and education programs of the government, i treated democrats the same way. i can remember serving under bob michael, the republican leader. he and to o'neill would argue forcefully and then they would go out and have a drink together. they were friends. they did not look at each other as enemies. they did not look at their philosophy as the only one that has all of the answers. nobody has all of the answers.
all of us working together have answers, but we have to find common ground. host: let's go to phone calls. dearborn, mich., richard is a at first. go ahead. caller: good morning. maybe it is more political agenda driving the government today than actually what the people actually want and need. somebody's idea of what we want -- and somebody's idea of what we want and need. i personally like someone that is liberal with our rights and conservative with my money. just a thought. host: mr. porter, why don't you take that one? guest: i do not know if there was any question in their, but he is saying we have got to come together and try to do things right. i think that is what all the
american people want. if you look at our primary system, for example, in our country, it excludes independence that do not want to be party identified. they do not get a chance to express their views in most states. and people who vote in primaries are usually the most conservative republicans or most liberal democrats. the people who are on the edges are not very representative of the vast majority of americans. us or so -- the 70% ofho oz or so do not have an extreme views -- of us do not have extreme views. host: here is a tweet. you agree with that?
guest: i do not know if i do. we have campaigns that have gone, for example, increasingly worse. and tens of money in elections. i think, frankly, our campaigns are an embarrassment to our country and to democracy. they have gotten so low and everything is character assassination. nothing is true discussion of the issues among the candidates. it is always conducted -- not always, but too often conducted in a way that is just disrespectful. host: john porter, a former member of congress from illinois. the republican, from 1980 to 2001. joining us also is an david skaggs, a former democrat from colorado from 1987 through 1999. let me ask you, mr. skype, where
we left off with mr. porter. in this campaign, in 2010, what you see democrats doing that is adding to this negative tone? guest: again, our effort is bipartisan. john and i are joined at the hip on this. what i can say about the democrats could just as easily be said about republicans. we need to turn the volume down on as john put it, and "character assassination and vilification of the other side," the selective dropping out of positions of the other side -- drawing out of positions of the other side. both sides are doing it. we need to be put to the task of solving problems and this kind of campaign does not set up for
that to happen. -- set things up for that to happen. we are asking them to set things up a friendly with a view of government working together. we hope, in a way, because john and i and our colleagues have actually been in the trenches, run campaigns, gotten elected and served. but we think there is public dismay about this. host: what perspective do you think you have as a former member and not someone out there that is raising money and giving to candidates? guest: it may be a bit quixotic,
but we are all moved by our country and the institution that we serve in to do what we can to make it better. we have gotten a decent response, i think, from around the country. we set up a little opportunity for citizens to join in this effort and sign on to a petition endorsing what we are doing. i would be glad to give you that information. host: please do. guest: people can write to info @fmocforcommonground.org and put the word "petition" in the subject line. we would welcome your help in this effort. host: and the website if people want to see that is fmocforcommonground.org. but we can put up on the screen for viewers as to go along, too.
next call, good morning. caller: i heard on the radio that as president obama was inaugurated that mcconnell house republicans to do whatever they could -- that mitch mcconnell asked republicans to do whatever they could to distract from president obama's agenda. host: sarah, do you have a question? i think we lost sarah. guest: what did she say about the agenda? host: i do not know. we will just go along. let's go to roy on the republican line. caller: i may be a little older and i wonder where this partisanship started. if you look back at when nixon
was president, that is when it started. you guys have got all these port apparel spending problems. -- pork barrel spending problems. i have never seen it like it is now. and you wonder why the tea party is coming along. i will tell you why. the tea party is going to show you we are going to take back america. i do not know why you have a phone lines for just two. why don't you just put up three phone lines and let us call? guest: we are working for our
country and getting the job done. we have a president who is a democrat. that is not going to change. let's say the republicans win control of the house of representatives, the congress is going to have to work with the president. they are going to have to try to find common ground. it takes two to tango. it takes leadership. it takes leadership in the house and the senate to work together. that can change everything. but if you come in with the attitude that i have all the answers, the president is wrong on anything -- everything, we never get anything done and the problems get worse and worse. host: our twitter viewers picked up with that caller had said.
guest: oh, that is what the word was. i hope that is not the case. that makes it entirely impossible -- that says to me that the leadership believes it is more important to serve the party began to serve the country. i think that is a terrible problem for all of us. host: let me get this phone call in in sarasota, fla., c.j. on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i was born before the last great depression and what worries me is that i see too much happening today that reminds me of what went on in the 1930's and in the early
1940's. if you remember, we were up-and- coming in the roaring '20s. the depression started with a republican taking a tremendous beating in the 1932 elections. europe coming out of the roaring '20s into the depression developed a political party, which build their whole party around propaganda. and i would not say if was lies, but they were not telling the truth. and lately, i have seen our political system has gone into the political debts by not telling the whole truth. they use clips like the president will not give his portrait of a kid or they are going to form death squads --
give his birth certificate or they're going to form death squads. these are the things that went on in the 1930's and i do not know what happened from that point on. guest: the caller reminds me any way of a proposition that has easily lost track of for us because we are used to our american system of government being pretty reliable, notwithstanding all problems we have been talking about. but there is a fragility building to democracy that we should never lose sight of. -- built into democracy that we should never lose sight of. it depends on our people taking the time to find out what is going on and government and politicians leveling with them about what is going on so they can size things upon in a sensible way -- the size things up in a sensible way. i think what john and i have been talking about is that we
have over-propagandized things to a degree about the business at the capitol. that is risky and i do not think we are of the presidents of something happening as what brought europe into a crisis in the 1930's, but we need to pay attention to this fundamental responsibility than our education system has and that we all have to each other in a democracy. host: bob on the republican line, good morning. caller: high, and my on the air? host: you are. caller: ok, thanks for c-span. i see both the leaders of the parties calling each other out and telling each other they are wrong and they do not know what they are doing. i do not see an impasse here. now with the current leadership.
i guess my question is, are going to be able to do anything with what we currently have, or do we have to hope that we get some people with cooler heads to make it through these problems? i am 50 years old and i'm looking at social security not really being there in a meaningful way in 15 years or 17 years or 20 years or whatever the maximum -- minimum retirement age is. my question is, how are we going to get out of control spending under control, or more specifically, legislation and policies that are going to allow this country to be able to sustain itself? host: mr. porter? guest: i think there are two questions in here. the first is about the political leadership. that is up to the parties themselves and the people who are elected. if they come with an idea that they want people who are
ideologues strip before the party and they want them to work for the -- strictly for the party and they want them to work for the other side, that is one thing. we come at this from the angle that we do not want this anymore. we want people to come together and work to solve the problems. the other question deals with the broader issues of the serious long-term structural problems that we have with respect to social security, medicare, huge deficits and the like. the presidential commission that has been nominated has a chance to address this. if people will send their views to them and say, look, you have to have a little bit of each. it is not going to be all one way or all another way. it is going to have to be some of beach, some restraint on spending, summer -- some increase in revenues.
otherwise, of which will not solve these problems. we will only solve these problems if we put our heads together. host: here is a comment from janet from mom prospect, illinois. -- mount prospect, illinois. caller: i'm a democrat who has -- your democrat who has a different views and i always respected you for that. i always thought that campaign finance reform would be the number-one issue that could help solve a lot of our problems. that is what i say. ic money taking over everything. -- i see money taking over everything. and the character assassination part goes not only to each other, but also to people like myself who might have thought the invasion of iraq was a bad
idea, not so much because of anything about saddam hussein, but because i did not feel we accomplished it will be needed to in afghanistan before we did that. -- accomplished what we needed to in afghanistan before we did that. host: we will go on to florida, vetoed joining us on the republican line. -- vito joining us on the republican line. caller: if we let the government begin 100% of the profits of oil and not the corporations, then we could fix our social security and health care. host: all right, marty, and then a question.
porter,ined by john former representative from illinois and david skaggs, former workers and to from colorado. their organization has over 130 former members of congress who have called for this. your asking citizens to go on your website enjoy in this as well. your web site, by the way is fmocforcommonground.org. a comment from illinois. go ahead. caller: it is hard to bring people together. you have one side that is a totally socialist agenda, which we all know is the democrats. and they keep talking about how they're going to win back the house. what i'm seeing here and everywhere else, there is no possible way. they're going to lose the house and that is all there is to it. host: let's leave it there. if you could address this issue
of ideology. he calls that a socialist ideology, but how can the two sides come together? guest: 1 would be to drop the convenient and hugely simple -- simplistically blinlabeling. if president obama work socialistic he would not be getting all the pressure from his left from not doing enough. that is in his characterization this business and politics is very market-driven and the market is public opinion and the views of the people of this country that are expressed. they are ultimately in control and that is why we have elections. if americans across the country want to send a message that they have had it with this kind of ideologicallty driven politics,
they can send that message loud and clear. it will be driven by the people they elect as leaders. if people are tired of all of the negative campaigning, they can let the politicians know that it is not going to work. the reason you see all of the negative ads out there is because, notwithstanding what most people say about them, that they do not like them, the fact is they are shown to be effective. pogo cartoon. the pago cartoo host: if i could go back to the problems that you mentioned earlier, congressman skaggs. could you speak to the difference of when you were in congress verses the workweek now? guest: it was a short week even
then, but most of the time we came in monday night's and went home sometimes thursday afternoon, often on friday. we have three days together. the typical work week as i understand it now is awful. the first vote is tuesday evening and the last vote is thursday afternoon so that people can get home for the weekend. that really leaves wednesday as the full day to get things done. it is not as if the country's problems have gotten simpler. so that we can be one day and half on duty. if anything, they have gotten more complicated. we need more time working together to not just explore policy solutions, but to get to know one another well enough to work out the deal. host: but mr. porter, some would say the lawmakers need to spend even less time in washington and that is the relieve the problem
behind this partisanship, that there is too much access to a lot -- to lobbyists and people who want them to fight on behalf of a specific partisan agenda. that really, these congressman should be spending less time in washington and that might help. guest: i disagree with you. but when i came to congress, had a decision to make as to whether to move my family, my children who were in high school and my wife and i decided to bring them here. i think that is part of the difference. most members do not do that anymore. they are not here long enough. there is no social interaction. the wives do not get to know each other. they do not get wives committees together. there is less traveled together. they do not know each other as human beings and is a serious problem because it is easy then to say that is the enemy, not just my adversary on this issue or that issue. we need people to know each
other and work together. host: congressman skaggs, d you want to chime in? guest: thank you, yes. it is a little counterintuitive, but i actually tell audiences that i speak to that they should tell candidates, if you are successful, we want to see less of u.s. home. we want you to spend more time in washington -- we want to see less of you at home. we want you to spend more time in washington because that is your primary responsibility. we need to break this sense that being in washington is an evil in itself. it really is part of the problem if they do not spend enough time together to, as john puts it, get to know each other as human beings and have a sense of being able to deal with problems together. spending less time in your districts, more time in
washington, it will help the country. host: back to phone calls. in michigan, pat is joining us on the republican line. caller: i believe that the more the government grows, the more powerful they become. their salaries go up. their benefits go up. power and money, this is a big incentive iran. -- to run. you add in the character of the individuals who will actually run for office and we have a stew -- obtain and retain those positions at all costs. i think the only way this can be stopped, the tea party years and their objectives in a sort of roundabout way could stop this. they are for getting rid of incumbents. they are for cutting government. they are for cutting spending. host: congressman porter?
guest: i think you can argue about the size of government or not, and there are certainly different views on that. but the problems are large and they cannot be addressed solely in the private sector. government does have a role. people can solve them, as i said before, but they cannot do it without working together. iers orthe tea party yea anyone else comes to washington with the attitude that they have all the answers and do not need to work with other people, believe me, those people will themselves be thrown out because people need to have a government that works for them and not just for their party. and "them" means the entire
country. we are not seen that. we are seeing far too much political posturing. we are seeing my way or the highway. we are seeing i have all the answers and nobody else does. it is just not true. host: you talk about reaching out to candidates who are running in this election with his call for bipartisanship. what kind of response are you getting? guest: we have not heard back from a lot of candidates. and i would knowledge, most of them who have written back to was favorably are running as independents or to some degree as mavericks. that's true not surprise us, i suppose. last i have looked at our return e-mail, we have not heard from the apparent -- from very many of the major party candidates, one way or another. that is the way it is. guest: david, let me add that we did not ask them to respond to
us. we asked them to respond to their constituents and the people of this country. we are not asking them to be accountable to us. they are accountable to the people that they represent. we will see if it has an effect on getting the job done or not when they are elected and they come to office and when the leadership is elected. host: newark, new jersey, kathy, democratic line. caller: i'm really enjoying the conversation this morning. these gentlemen are a breath of fresh air. we do not have statesmen anymore in our country. we have ideologues and nothing gets done. it seems like our representatives are constantly campaigning and they are not solving our problems. it seems like they are not --
their only interest is in retaining their position and keeping the power. like i said, i have -- nothing gets done. i have been out of work since 2008. i worked at a hospital that got shot down. -- shut down. people are arguing and nothing is getting done. host: congressmen, what about the constant campaigning? did you feel the pressure when you work in office? guest: the constant campaigning as part of service. it is going to your constituents and having a town hall meetings and meeting with anyone who wants to see you and, in effect, campaigning -- if that is campaign, that is good campaign. the campaigning that is constantly in the media where we have ideologues that simply express their point of view over and over again, that is what we
do not want. we need people the respond to the people that they represent. i can tell you right now that when i was first elected to congress, a democrat came to me and said, please do not have your office covered with republican elephants. understand you do not just represent the people that voted for you. you represent all the people of this district and you have to listen to all of them. and of course, that is what i try to do the entire time i was privileged to serve. host: the other thing about campaigning is the fund-raising aspect. when you were done with legislative business or in between votes, were you going to business? guest: i came from a district where was always alert about my
political future. i spent about 218% of my time on campaign-related things, fund-raising primarily. i did not in japan -- i spent about 15% of my time on a campaign-related things, fund- raising primarily. i did not enjoy that, but having it be the overwhelming job of these legislators is too much. we do not hear about the average member of congress being candid about his or her feeling in holding these jobs. if you went to the lobby of the house and talked to rank and file members on either side of the aisle, none of them likes the way things are right now. it is not an enjoyable
environment in which to work. they came to these jobs because they actually want to get things done and not just hold the job. it is very instructive, i think, to realize there is a reservoir of discontent among members of the house and senate about the way the institutions work these days. we need some kind of catalyst to make the discontent show itself in a change way of doing business. guest: greta, can i add to that? one thing we have not discussed is where a member who wants to vote, they believe, correctly on an issue is told by a party, you cannot do that. you will lose your chairmanship or get kicked off your committee or we will have someone run against you in the next primary because basically, we do not want people using their
independent judgment. we want them using the parties judgment. it does not work for this country on either party. host: that will have to be the final word. we have run out of time. if you want more information nth,very weeknight this moth see debates from across the country. we continue our coverage of the elections. we will look at key house and senate races. russ feingold is in a close rase with ron -- race with ron johnson. then richard burr and marshall.