and, that one thing we are really committed to is following log cap 4 and the transition very, very seriously, and in great detail. put you on notice, too, mr mr. methot we'll be looking closely into log cap 4 and we want to know why there was a 70% cost increase. and find out whether it was legitimate or not. >> okay. absolutely, and we'd be happy to meet with the commission and i could make remarks now, or follow -- follow-on questions if that would be helpful. >> we'll do it with the commission larry, thank you. >> i was talking -- could provide some of that information on the record right now. >> yes, absolutely. >> yeah, that -- then let's do it. >> i think i tried to get to this earlier in one of the preview questions. >> this is an important question, you have whatever time you need and you can follow-up if you would like. >> absolutely. i would characterize it as in three buckets. in terms of the costs growth to

each of which is scope-driven. one that i mentioned earlier had to do with this transition where the transition timelines got compressed and changed from what we had proposed and as resulted of that it can you have us to adjust our labor and staffing profiles where we had to go with a higher percentage of ec pats than local nationals. and -- ex-pats than local nationals and has a direct cost implication and being directed to move to a more aggressive timeline was one bucket of costs that got adjusted . >> can you tell us from what to what, x month to y month. >> i can't give -- >> or maybe one of your experts could, so we have an idea. >> i can get you, can get that you information, i think the -- i think the relevant piece of data, though is that it forced us into a profile that looked very different from what we bid and we had bid a 10 to 15% range in terms of ex-pats to total population and we are now at about 50. and we will work that mix over

time, but the support, the transition and to meet this transition timelines, that was the workforce that we had to accommodate and have in place and that is one big bucket. >> let me ask you they're ex-pats charging you more than they charged on the kbr contract. >> no, they are not. >> okay. >> my understanding is that we transitioned employees at the same salaries from what they were paying with kbr. it is above what we had had in our proposal because of the mix issue. right? because of the mix issue. and then the other two buckets are really direct scope items, in the proposal, we had proposed o and m for i believe 165 facilities. in the -- and the actual number we are supporting today is closer to 15% higher than that. and that has a direct -- 5-0%. and, the third item has to do with shuttle service and i don't have the specifics -- >> ask you, those surge tasks then they surged on you and said we want you to go after or was

it scoped -- it was formally done by the government, correct. >> correct. >> and, you know, it has big ripple effect and not only ties to the cost of the program. and by the way, i do think we will see cost reductions over time, that come from the competition, and when we are able to adjust the skill mix, and get to what we proposed in our proposal we will see the cost reductions. and we are innocent advised and motivated to do it because we know if we don't do it, and we don't meet our obligations and are not cost competitive there is an opportunity for the government to replace us and the notion of competition, i will tell you, personally, it is very, very motivating for us. >> what percentage of the 70% is attributable to the increase and the direct scope. >> all of the increase, my understanding is all of the increase is tied to -- cost increase -- >> you have three bucket and the first bucket was the transition timeline with the ex-pats versus the --

>> and the skill mix. >> and the skill mix and the second you said is the o and m. >> and what percentage of that increase in facilities is attributable to the 70%? >> i'll have to get you the specific data, i think it is in the 30 to 40% range of the total cost increase and we'll have -- i would be happy to submit -- yeah, just a -- a very simple story and would be happy to get it down on paper and supply it to the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> mr. ballhaus did i hear you correctly when you said that you opened your internal audits to dcaa. >> yes. >> okay. mr. methot you said as i recall, that you kind of list your audits but don't open them, is that correct. >> that is correct. >> so you open them, and you list them. what do you do, mr. walter. >> we do the same thing. we will list... we provide a listing of our internal audits to the dcaa each year but we do not provide the results of the internal audits. >> okay, so mr. ballhaus shows

them and mr. methot, if dcaa sees something on the list, and we want to see x, do you show it to them. >> yes. >> mr. walter, they either proactively show or reactively show, and you don't show at all, is that correct. >> that is correct. >> all right, can you tell me why? i don't understand. >> well, the audit reports themselves are subjective in nature, and we do provide the auditors with all of the factual information that they internal auditors will look at but, since they are -- the information that is contained in there is very subjective in nature, we don't provide the details of the internal audit -- >> okay. so, i assume, therefore, that kbr's audits are more subjective than the other two companies, is that what you are implying. >> i have never seen their audit report, sir. >> can i roll into this. >> by all means. >> i don't want to leave a

misimpression about internal you a tors and i come out of the audit profession and let's be fair to them, they are not subjective and maybe you'll tell me, you were an internal auditor and i have work with many industry panels and groups, and they audit precise standards and i have had the opportunity to see internal audit work papers an realize everyone throws out, we have the newport news thing and trying to find a middle ground. but, there are companies, that will accommodate by setting down and saying, go ahead and read it and if something really tweaks you in there we'll make the auditors available to you and other companies give you a list, and say, that if something, by subject title, which is -- rarely happens, let's call it like it is, rarely happens, where someone says, that is the assignment someone is working on? so -- but you're not though only company, mr. ballhaus that does it but that is certainly -- not giving them the work papers and everything else, but there is a precision now, opinions are based on data that is gathered

in a structure matter. they have internal audits standard that internal auditors spend a lot of time down in orlando, florida, at the audit institute for internal auditors, getting trained, trained, trained, so, it u.s. just unfair, now i wasn't an internal auditor but i worked with a lot of government internal auditor and it is unfair to say it is subjective. >> well, i certainly align myself with what my co-commissioner just said. but, let me just point out, that i am exceedingly, as one commissioner and a taxpayer and as an individual, boy, am i uncomfortable with your answer. not just because of what mike just said, but because these two other companies are pretty big companies, and they don't seem to have a problem you have and i want to state for the record my extreme discomfort. mr. methot, on page 7 of your testimony, you talked about the fact that after katrina you

started a program to relook at subcontractor pricing. have you done something similar or are you planning to do something similar with iraq and afghanistan? >> well, we'll do whatever is necessary given the pace of the work, again, we are, as we are growing rather rapidly, as i described earlier, the pace of contract awards, we're catching up to in terms of getting our compliance systems in place, so, i'm making those analyses right now, to determine what kind of similar actions do i need to take in order to insure we are watching the taxpayers' dollars, because, clearly, when you award something in an urgent an compelling environment versus a sustained environment you will look at things in two -- differently. so, we will be watching closely. >> and what you did say you are doing for sure is on the same package, scanning all of the purchase orders and subcontract files. you are doing that now, what you say, correct. >> that's correct.

>> okay. mr. ballhaus are you doing something like that or contemplating doing something like that? >> sir, i'd actually have to check. on that, i don't know offhand. i would be surprised if we're not. >> okay, mr. walter do you do that, you have been around 7 years, 8 years. >> yes, sir. we do have a procurement team that reviews the procurement files, and they do internal self-evaluations and the result of those are shared with the government auditors. >> you are scanning they'll purchase orderes. >> in terms of scanning... >> that is what i asked, fluor is doing it and apparently dyncorp thinks they do, are you guys doing it, in the subcontract files. >> in scanning and ache making them digitally available. >> so everything is available. >> yes, sir, we are doing that. >> that will be all for me, right now, thank you. >> sir, to clarify, we do do it. >> thanks. >> commissioner irvin. >> thank you thank.

i'll be brief i just have a couple of things, first, i want to clarify what i understood to be the outcome of the exchange that commissioner gustitus had with you three about withholds and my collection of her question is whether you agreed with withholds are hammers or sledgehammers, whatever you want to call it are real incentives for performance and all of you agreed to that of course. i think i heard you, for a second time, mr. ballhaus go further to say you support as a matter of policy withholds. in order to incentivize contract performance is that right. i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> i do. and as evidence of that actually on the log cap task order we have signed up, and agreed to a withhold on a portion of the work that has not been define tied until we get it dodge with the customer. >> and do i understand you say, mr. walter, provided objective, whatever we agree, objective standard, sir, are set, that you, too, for kbr, support the

notion of withhold as a matter of policy. >> yes, sir. >> mr. methot. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the question. >> the question is not whether withholds are hammers but whether as a matter of policy, fluor supports the notion of withholds. >> oh, we do. >> hopefully that will have impact on dcma and contracting officers as to whether they think they can do it. the second and final issue i want to get into, we got into a little bit with commissioner tiefer but i was unclear where we left it. the whole issue of the transition, back to the transition, at this time, moving employees around, this is really a question for you, mr. walter, kbr, can you and do you represent to us that to the best of your knowledge, speaking on behalf of kbr, that there isn't a transfer of kbr employees from fob to fob, waiting for work,

irrespective of the direction -- from general odierno there be a significant draw down of contractor footprint to match the draw down of military personnel. >> there are certain individuals and certain skill sets that we are recruiting for here currently. if we do have an opening, for a specific skill set, that is an open position at a location, a fob, wherever then we will transfer that person over there so that that particular activity can be taken care of. >> but, unless and until there is a -- either a position or a solicitation, for want of a better word you are not simply allowing people to wait out the clock until such time as that happens. >> we have requisitions open for -- i don't know the exact number but in the thousands, of positions for services in the theater. so there are for us, if we have an individual who has a skill set that want to stay with kbr

and i need the skill at another location i in essence will not have to spend the cost to transition and train somebody and ship them into theaterment i can simply transfer them across to another location so the to the extent that it makes the existing statement work -- at work accomplishable we'll make those transfers. >> thank you. >> commissioner green. >> thank you. all of you either have been or will soon be huge in -- and vi important contributors to the war effort. and recognizing the fact that you get called in -- pulled in a dozen different directions in accomplishing your mission, i have a short statement, comment and then i would like to ask the question and i will read from a

joint publication 4-10, operational contract support, dated october 2008, i don't know if you have seen it. but, let me read one paragraph here and then i'll ask a question. of all of you. the continual introduction of high-tech equipment coupled with force structure and manning reduction and the high operating tempo mean military forces will often be significantly augmented with contractor support. to do this, contract support integration and contractor management must be integrated into the military planning and operations. this is a complex and very challenging process. i know mr. walter in your testimony you promoted contractor involvement in the

operation of a planning process. my question to each one of you is, have any of you been asked by centcom, joint staff, the army staff, osd, anybody, to participate in the planning process? whether that be planning in the pure sense, in training, in exercises, or in briefings? any of you? >> i'm not aware of any. >> i'm only aware of one example. where we have been asked to do that. >> can you elaborate. >> yeah, it's on the police training side s where we have been asked to provide our inputs and our thoughts around the police training program and, specifically, in afghanistan, and given our view how it could be improved. that is the only incident i can

specifically think of. >> mr. methot? >> i'm not aware of any requests to participate in that planning. >> i think this is a big hole in the whole operation. if you guys aren't involved, not just you, but all contractors, are not involved in the planning process, as we go to war, whether it's going out to leavenworth and teaching a class, or going out to fort irwin, when a unit is running up for deployment, i think our government is making a huge mistake. that's the end of my comment. >> when we met, with secretary of the army, secretary gerron, he made a very strong point about how he's trying to change

the culture of the military so that they value the contracting aspect that is inherent now with the department of defense where half of the personnel are contractors, and not men and women in uniform. and part of that is to rec it by the status of -- recognize it by the status of you can be tracked to being a general or aye an admiral instead of becoming a colonel and so on. and he also made a point to us that he thinks even in military exercises, contractors should participate. in the military exercises. i am wondering if any of the three of you have ever been invited to participate in the military exercises.

>>. >> in a military exercise, we have had contracts where we would basically set up the facility where the exercise is going to be -- >> that is different. >> not in the planning, not in the planning, sir. >> and the planning and so on -- >> no. >> [inaudible]. >> right. >> yeah and that was the question you were basically driving at. but, i want to just be clear that this is something that you know, secretary who is leaving believes strongly should happen and the nodding of your heads indicate none of you have been invited to participate in that way. but, that would you like to? and do you think there is value in your doing that -- >> absolutely. there would be -- i'm sorry. >> absolutely, yet. >> yes. >> okay.

the -- i'm struck by the fact that the military have an oath of office. and i'm wondering if there should be serious consideration being given that contractors first off, do you have an oath that you would apply to any of your workers, shaking head, nodding heads, let me go down. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> do you think that there could be value, for instance, part of the oath could relate to this question. related to the question do you think your company has an affirmative duty to seek cost savings on behalf of the government, whether or not it is explicitly stated in your contract and i think all of you said yes. but, i would wonder if you actually have as part of your written document, provided to your workers, and whether that is part of your training.

and i suspect it isn't necessarily there. so, let me ask you, though, is it part of your touchdowns could you each show us the documents that say that part of your responsibility is to provide cost savings not to the company but to the government? i'd like to go down to each of you. >> i couldn't show you a document that showed that. >> but you would like it. and so it is not -- i'm just asking. >> i can show you a document, one-page strategic framework for our company and there is a bullet, one of our focus areas is lean enterprise and while it doesn't use those words. >> that is not using the words i'm -- >> but it represents the intent. >> i understand, but we'll get to that. mr. walter? >> i have not seen it in print. >> i am wondering, do you think it would be valuable, one, to have it as part of a written document, given to your employees, to say, we're looking for cost savings for the company and clearly, cost savings for

the government. and any time you see ways that our company could help save the government money, even if it meant reducing our workforce that we have an obligation to share that information with the government? do you see any value in that and would you all be willing to do that as part of your written documents and as part of your training to your employees? sn>> we e would be willing to d that. >> we would be willing to do it. i think that there is something more important than that oath, sir, and it is, leadership driving that concept from the top, without it, the oath is irrelevant. >> well, the only thing is, the oath would -- whether an oath or a written document, it would just state priority of the company that would be clear to your employees, so they one be looked as as traitors, to your company, if they said, you know what? we are going to reduce the income of the company by 1/3 because we don't need 1/3 of these employees, and rather,

than being considered unfaithful they would be considered faithful to the government and, therefore, would be part of the ethics of your company. mr. walter? >> i don't see we'd have any issues in building that type of a thing into our training. >> well, the only reason i think of it is if you are part, an inherent part of the military effort, it strikes me that that might be a positive way to go. i just -- i know that we focus more, mr. walter, with you, because your company has been inner and we don't like yellow. and, we suspect that the other companies are learning by some of your in takes, we hope that your company is going to reevaluate how they have done things in the past versus how they do things in the future, and, we know that all of you have responded, and -- in a sincere way and we know that you are valuable to your company and we know the work that your men

and women do for our country is extraordinary value and i'll repeat, the comment i made in my opening statement and that is the military appreciates what each of you do for them. and that goes a long way with you us, we'd like to make sure it's cost-effective in the process. mr. cochairman would you like to make a closing comment. >> i would like to be sure that each has an opportunity if they have a final comment they want to make, commissioner shays, my cochair says if i miss that i co-opt the blame, we'll start with you, mr. methot. >> let me say that as new kid on the block we are happy to be here and proud to serve, much like the military would say. we believe we're an integral part of the military operation support to the soldier in the field and very, sometimes austere conditions, it's not always easy to find people to go

over that want to work in that -- in that environment but fluor is 100% committed to ensuring the corporate begin systems are adequate and meet the requirements and expectations of our customers, and whether dcaa or dcma or the army contracting command. we have a lot of customers when we say the government is our customer. and, we're here to please every one of those. and, while we are the new kid on the block i want to say, we are very happy to be here and we take everything you said seriously, and we will do you proud. >> well, we're not a new kid on the block, we have been in this business since right after world war ii. including operating in war zones and contingency operations and we have been in ear iraq for several years and we have been in afghanistan for several years, and we have been in place like africa and columbia and we are absolutely not a new kid on the block. i do very much respect and

appreciate what the commission is taking on. these are significant issues, hard issues and are all fixable and addressable and i hope we got across or i got across today a point that reflects the characteristic of our culture at dyncorp and we realize what our job is, to perform and support the war fighter and to do it the right way. that there is not a separation between performance and compliance, it is one integrated thought. that is our job. to perform and satisfy the war fighter and do it the right wa and i want to thank the commission for your time, today. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. i reiterate, many of the same feelings, we have been around for a long time supporting the government, in the various contracts we have had over the past many decades, and we do take it seriously, and we do strive to work hard and we will continue to strive to try to get the recommendations of the dcaa so we can get those yellow and

red blocks to a green. i do appreciate your time and i look forward to our future meetings to discuss the other items that came out of this. >> thank you all for your closing comment. and with that, my cochair, we will adjourn. thank you, commissioners. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> georgian ambassador to the u.s., talks about the military conflict in august, 2008. between georgia and russia. from the national press club, in washington. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. my very best to you. thank you very much for coming. welcome to the national press club and another nbc afternoon newsmaker news conference. i'm a former information agency, foreign service officer and have

been been fortunate enough to be a speaker and editor of the media consultant and a member and former vice chairman of the clubs newsmaker committee. before inducing our newsmaker i would like to make the usual announcement. this newsmaker will be recorded and club nebs an access the audio through the club web site and are supposed to know how to do it and others can buy a copy of the cd from the broadcast operations center if you want to do that the number is 202-662-7510. or the web site e-mail, boc@press.org. and please turn off any cell phones and ipods and pea-pods and blackberries and whatever. and third, if you haven't already done so as you leave, please sign in and sign out. and as the material outside on our -- of our newsmaker which you may already have and the

newsmaker as you know, is the ambassador of the republic of georgia. i understand, and and i understand -- close -- the easy part and his excellency, bat batu kutelia and welcome to the press club:

>> ambassador kutelia will take your questions and please let them know your name and affiliation when you ask them. and when you have a question if you will give me a signal i will call on you as many as time as permits giving priority to club members and media. i know as many as time permits. finally, to repeat, if you haven't already done so, please

add your name to the sign in sheet outside. thank you very much. mr. ambassador. >> thank you very much. thank you for the introduction, and thanks all of you for coming and showing interest in the issues that are happening in georgia. the russian georgia war expires august 12 provides an excellent committee for all of us to highlight the threads, dangers and challenges the country of georgia is facing. and also, george and its partners challenge faced. we remember those who lost their lives. they are not forgotten. we remember many brave georgians who gave their lives for the freedom and independence of the country. we remember the innocent

residents in this conflict, and they lost the most precious thing, their lives. and of course we remember those journalists who died who sacrificed their lives in performing their duty. the dutch news agency, alexand alexander, they all were trying to do a job. we embrace giving their life and the rest of the world with all the information with what was happening on the ground. and i do hope that no more of these lies will be necessary to cover the side of tragic events that happened one year ago in my country. and i would like to use this opportunity to thank you all for showing constant interest in our challenge toward being a democratic state.

since the regaining independence, we are facing numerous challenges, and our responses towards these challenges was quite restrained full. and this was mostly from extra pressures, and we are still exercising this. we successfully managed to transform most of the challenges including new opportunities. and i can give you a number of examples in terms of opposing the foreign pressure. that was an energy embargo, and we managed to transform this challenge into the opportunity of operating of the energy partnership in the region. there was an economic embargo and wheat managed to transform it to the new opportunities in georgia into a diversified marketer can then there was a obligation in the great regions, almost daily, and we were countering it with the economic assistance and building of infrastructure. but as a follow-up of our

successful last year, we faced a threat. and that was a direct invasion by russian military force but as a result of the war, we have about 400 european citizens were killed and half of them civilians. tens of thousands of ethnic georgians were forcefully displaced from their homes, and 25% of georgian territory. there was a structure. due to the international involvement, we managed to reach a cease-fire. disagreement, but russia was zero for seats in comply with these terms of the august 12 cease-fire. russia was required to reduce to the prior war levels, but yet more than 10000 troops as i said our remaining.

russia was forbidden but we see for new military bases being constructed. decides this, russia worked quite heavily to undermine any type of international presence on the ground. and russia, we told them the expansion of the un of the mission in georgia, russia, we told the oecd present and russia continues to deny the nation to grant them access in the occupied territories. as a result, today there are more russian troops and fewer on the ground. simply the fact that they continue the stability for division. this is how russia is trying to legitimize the result of the war, how to legitimize occupation and ethnic cleansing.

while we are working together with the international community to make peaceful restoration of territory integrity of georgia, and our entity and restoration of justice, we still are facing continuation of proliferation, daily provocations on the ground, and even in the cyberspace which continues even today. because of this continued aggressions, we have more policemen killed and more killed up to the cease-fire than the war itself. this is regular army. we had more than 150 different type of incident, explosion explosions, and terrorist attacks with improvised explosive devices. but what is our response to this, what is the level we have? our response is simple but powerful. it is a more democratic process. georgia has chosen western

democratic emphasized through relationships with our partners and in particular who was our strategic partner in united states of america. the u.s.-georgia relationship is strong and growing stronger. the government of georgia is grateful for the strong expression of support of georgia. by president obama during his visit in moscow and a number of other occasions, and vice president biden during his recent trip to the region. georgia is grateful of the u.s. commitment of 1 billion, which hardly helped us to remove consequences of the war. and provide basic social conditions for those who have been ethnically cleansed and displace other houses. georgia recognizes that there is any more to do and it makes its way towards full democracy. and full commitment to the job.

a sweepingly a democratic reforms which were unprecedented unaccountability of these reforms include electoral systems, judiciary expanding opposition changing and more balancing power between the executive and legislative branch. so all these are commitments that these commitments are not just a commitment made but they have a very clear timelines, and most of them and most of these reforms will be in the one year period from now. the government of georgia recognizes that the best way to or forward for georgia to press with tangible steps to demonstrate our commitment to freedom. to fulfill our commitments meanwhile, we require more international engagement, more diplomatic and political pressure on russia to provide favorable environment for peaceful resolution of the problems.

and first and foremost condition for this being russia's compliance with the agreement signed one year ago tomorrow. thank you very much and i am ready to answer all of your questions. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. first question. >> i was wondering that because the newspaper i was working with covering extensively that eric. the first one was who fired the first shot? and it was explained that there was provocation and complicated.

and the european area, you know, get their supply, gas supply from russia. and this is not the only place where there is problems, but this is the one that erupted. so how do you know look at what exactly you could have done, you should have done, and what lessons you have learned to keep those politics, you know, not from eruption? because there are areas between countries, that all of these are being handled, and this eruption, how you're going to handle it in future in case there are more, there are provocations, you know. >> thank you for this question. and this is one of the most important questions, but i think that quite many studies and

scholars researchers answered this question first during the georgia russian war. my response to this is that depends on what we can call or what we will call the first in 2008, or i would 2007 when the russian plane dropped a bomb near the civilian village, or a short early '90s when russians introduced their force on the ground, and we had a continuous shooting and civilians dying on the ground. so it is a more broader scope, but going exactly to that period when the georgia-russian war started last you. it was an invasion on georgian territory, and i think it is obvious and it was clearly labeled like this, u.s.

president obama made the comment on this but it was and under an invasion on georgian country. georgia has a right to self-defense and this is the right gear teeth underneath the un chapter. and there was no other means for us to defend our territory and defend our civilian who were constantly bombed for weeks before august and then there was a real painful decision but we had to make this decision to defend our country, to defend civilian population of the invading force. and going to the lessons learned that is a very important and we're working very closely and very intensely with our partners, with our common lessons learned from this. and we clearly can identify that notwithstanding the threat and also anticipations that crisis

might erupt to something more danger than it was before because of economic, it was clear that international at that time on the ground were not enough. and today we see the same and there are not enough international on the ground but we appreciate the advice and very strong hold on the ground of the european mission and still we need more international involvement and more international to prevent such kind of thing in the future. this is the key lesson learned and that is why we are asking hold attention at all practical on the ground. >> another question. did georgia learn the lesson that if it goes in a physical, military fight with russia, you can have statement from the west, but west will not come on

the ground to fight on your behalf, like the nato bombing serbia. does georgia realize this, or expecting the west to have troops on the ground for russia -- for george. >> georgia is seeking to have capability to defend itself. for anyone who was to join and provide long lasting security for the country. what will this will be in the future, of course is part of our bilateral work with our partners here camino, of course, there is quite a limited resources for georgia to defend itself from the direct military aggression from russian side. but it is our responsibility to work in this direction and to have a more international involvement in the engagement on the ground and processed. we see it as the only deterrent

in the future if somebody if russia makes again decision to invade georgia militarily. [inaudible] >> it is the policy understand of georgia to join nato, but what will again from this? nato is not one for all and all for one. as we can see, it is broken down into committees as in afghanistan, for example. will this not just be a provocation for russia, and rather pointless alliance for georgia? >> george's choice to be a member of the north atlantic alliance, or any other organization is the sovereign right and this is the right of georgia. 77% of georgia population voted for this. this decision is universal both

and it is our foreign policy priority, and even all the major political forces years ago signed an agreement that notwithstanding whoever would be in power and this was signed into parliament, whoever would be in power, they would pursue the same also. so this is a universal trait. we think that it's quite misleading it we would follow the judgment or the provocation to rush or not. we are issuing everybody, not only russia, but georgia is benefiting in the benefit of everybody. should be in interest of all our neighbors. besides this, georgia is a country with quite an important geopolitical location. we would not be only consumer of the security that nato provide but also contributer. and even today, not being a member of the alliance, georgia is heavily contributing to the security. and as you know, just recently we announced that georgia

continues will join afghanistan operation. we are resuming our presence with up to 600 troops. >> political editor of human events newsweekly. my question is twofold. first, the president of russia uses the phrase, and i quote, zone of privileged interest. does this lead you or your government to believe that they are trying to use military bases you mention in the south to expand into the secaucus is further, and in essence revive the former russian empire? my second question is, during the recent interview with, and

i'm afraid of going to mispronounce the name, you know person ask speaker of the georgia parliament and head of the democratic movement of georgia, he made some serious charges against your president sang democracy had diminished under him, that the judiciary was not free and that police were used to intimidate opponents. and this all began with his re- election of 2008 and has continued. do you have a response to that? >> thank you very much. both questions are very important. first of all, we think that in the 21st century no such notion has a right to exist. of course, every country has its own interests. there are ways how to promote civil lysed ways to promote your interest in any area you want. but for sure that is not the military means and it is totally

unacceptable. that was a clear message that was sent to russia on the highest political level when president obama traveled to russian federation. and this is the notion that we accept, and that's why we think we can promote stability in the region, only respecting international law and respecting the sovereign entity, territory integrity of country. and this is the only way how we all can coexist on this glow. going to the next question about the democratic process in georgia. georgia is a young democracy, and we have a lot of challenges, as i said. we have challenges on foreign area and we have domestic challenges. georgia's political system is evolving. it is quite strong, and notwithstanding the problems, we are ready to work on this and we are working with our partners to overcome these problems.

but everybody acknowledges that in the last three years, georgia made a significant move from the failed state to the young developing democracy with a developing economy, with liberal environment, and therefore i think that the most important for us to keep the space. because we think and we are sure that one of the key elements for providing the security universally for our country is a democratic reformation. that's why we are being a democratic country we are gaining our partners and allies around the globe who share the same views as we do. and just to follow on the conflict over to other democratization and the process going on in georgia. there have been a number of initiatives, and there was a three month long public rock on the street with a different

political demand. and it was extremely restrained will -- now, this year. extremely restrained full reaction from the government which was praised by the international community. and the result of this reaction, now we have an equal process of democratic process of transforming country and doing more reforms. and now we have an opposition parties joining government together, interrupting new constitution, new electoral, and we see now the opposition leaders seeking security council together with the government in making decisions on the fate of the future of our country and security. so this democratic system in georgia, and now one step higher than maybe one year ago. and there are some to do that was announced by the president and we have timelines to implement these reforms. and when you're after, we can

sit together and i can really speak about the new achievement that we will make for that period of time. >> there are reports about hostility against georgia, or that there are pro-russian elements there that have there ever been attempt, and what is your position on this question, namely how do they react towards georgia? >> before answering your question, i can tell you that my roots are in a positive. me and other citizens, it is our basic right to make our choices. we are live and how we live in

what are the arrangement in our country. but you have an answer to your question, we have to provide an environment, and the people have a right to express freely their position. and for this, we need to provide the basic security environment in those almost half a million refugees and displaced persons need to be returned to their own homes. and once they will return they will have security. and then we have to let them make their own decision. and this is a democratic way of governing the country. and it is what we are for. but unfortunately right now, we see that new orders by russians. and these territories are being ethnically clings to. so there is no way right now to provide a real answer for real solution to the problem.

but once international, with international community will we create these conditions and people will be returned to their homes. of course then, they should have their rights to exercise their basic human rights. >> i was wondering how large the american presence to the georgia forces is. when i was introduced about for five years ago, i was taken out and showing american advisers training georgian forces. is that still going on and how extensive? >> we have a quite long lasting military and defense cooperation with united states. and there have been very successful projects conducted together. one of them was troops deployed in iraq, and we think any operation iraqi freedom. for that, there were a number of u.s. traders who provided this

assistant to georgian armed forces to have georgian troops and georgian troops is the third largest troop country with the iraqi operation at the time. to provide them capably to beat fully operational and to be successful. we have other missions now in our agenda, and of course our aim is to have this mission successfully conducted. but for successful conduction of mission, of course there is necessity to provide some critical training for some additional assistance. so according to political programs that we are running, in different stages, there are different numbers of advisors who are helping georgian armed forces to be mobile, according to the u.s. western standards. >> was helping refugees, is that still a live issue? >> this issue, there is no single case of the revolution

when there were successful, and there is no sick single case in a particular area in georgia. it is one of the nicest geographical places and very good destination. >> thank you, peter. mr. ambassador, you use repeatedly today a term that is very provocative, ethnic cleansing. and for both of us here, it brings up memories of most of which and the balkans, terrible events of a decade ago. are you saying that the government is overseeing a slightly the same thing towards georgia and in south ascension? and the other matter is do you see them using those bases possibly to overthrow the government? i know president putin said he feels your president should be hanged at the way americans

hanged saddam hussein. that is an exact quote to. >> i will start from the last question. i would not speculate what would be the intentions. i would just as you call it, just repeat what highest politicians in russian federation said, and they clearly said that the main aim was to get rid of the presidential regime in georgia. and that's what they said. so we have no reason to suspect that it was not true. and it was their intention. fortunately they could not succeed and i'm absolutely sure they will never succeed with this type of invasion. going to the question of the ethnic cleansing. yes, you're right, ethnic cleansing is a very dangerous and very pu. i'm not an international lawyer, under international law there are specifics of the ethnic

cleansing and it requires international documents confirming this. but i can state the facts, and the facts are also mentioned by a number of international organizations. and the facts are hundreds of a bird and torched down houses, and tens of thousands of ethnic georgians removed from the territory. in statements from the criminal regimes saying that they have done it because not to let georgians to return anymore. so the fact and even distantly described this fact are ethnic cleansing. it is also obligation for international community, us together to make a proper assessment. happened last year, and making the proper assessment for us to pursue legally those who committed these crimes.

>> next question. >> i was wondering how are the relations with the obama administration compare with the bush administration during the invasion or as soon as the end of the bush administration? . . >> to help with not only th

umbrella document but also provide a lot of content went and this deal -- this partnership, strategic partnership is developing and we already laid down quite a significant agenda for us ahead. >> what is your relationship between the church, the orthodox church and georgia and the orthodox george in russia? is there any strength of fraternity there? >> orthodox church plays significant role in georgia's social life and of course the religious life, because it is the predominant religion in georgia and as you know, the

russian orthodox church enjoys the statement status in the country and there are channels of communication between the two churches, and, we only can welcome this type of communications, we -- which will help us to remove all of the differences and at some point i am sure we will remove these differences, between our countries, but, important is that we have to really work in the direction and we have to make clear that nobody ever thinks in the future using military force, against our nation. >> he can go first and then you again. >> i'll just get back to this paper that you have handed out, in one of the cs -- the cs monitor, this is one line that actually is very, very true,

they say, in most of the people i have spoken to but it is a chronic political turmoil in georgia that helps encourage... in this country and there is something internally, like one of the prime ministers of one of -- your neighboring countries, not russia, told me a few months ago, not to be quoted, he said, but, if they really push for democracy, if there is -- we see democracy growing, our hands will get strengthened to help them. but, there is a lack of democratic institutions, democracy in practice so, what -- i know it is a very difficult question for you because -- >> no, it's not difficult question, it is very easy question because there is a lot of going on and as i'm, our georgia government, how the george gen government landled the protests and the full

capability to express their rights and prevent their opinions on the streets and nobody made problem for them -- for them. and, the fact that now we have the opposition political parties and they are represented -- their representative sitting together with the government, working on new electoral code or new constitution or seeking a national security city council i think is a practical demonstration georgian democracy works and georgian democracy is quite young and of course we have our problems and our challenges but the good side of the star is that we admit our problems, and can solve with our friends how to deal with these problem and we have exact knowledge how to deal with these problem and therefore, i think, this is the best and -- damon vacation the democracy is there and is developing. and, democracy is not a state. that you can achieve and then you can be relaxed at once you achieve it and everything is okay. it is a constant redeveloping,

reforming and striving to the perfection and that is or agenda, and, we think that this is the only possibility for georgian state to survive in this very, very problematic period for our country. >> would you state your demands on russia? in summation? do you expect the russians to withdraw much farther north, that is, they should give up of course control over south ossetia and what happens to north ossetia? a weird situation anyhow. they both have the name ossetia but, the north owe seegsz are a part of -- ossetians are part of russia now. >> this is a domestic issue for russian federation and will be seeing the russian federation solving the problems and we expect them to withdraw from

georgia's territories and respect the territories and sovereignty and while respecting georgia's territorial integrity an sovereignty, george wa will become more strong and stable country and will be even favorable for russia to solve their own domestic problems, and in the endeavor we wish them success. >> that's it. >> a wrap. >> what should americans look to find in georgia... (inaudible) what should we be looking for and if we get georgia out of tbilisi, where should we go as tourists? >> well, there are many places to see in georgia but the best destination is the province, i wish you next time you will be in a tourist to travel to... thank you. >> please sign up if you haven't

signed in and thank you very much, michael. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> donations. >> federal funds or granted funds. >> maybe private contributions. >> honestly, i don't know. >> i would say from commercials. >> um ... advertisement? >> something from the government? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> next, conservative activist and political commentator phyllis schlafly receives the lifetime achievement award from the clare booth luce policy institute at the national press club luncheon and comments on a range of current topics and event. this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations]. >> good afternoon, everybody, you can keep eating but we'll go

ahead and get started. welcome to all of you joining us here at the national press club in washington. and to our c-span audience across america. and around the world. my name is alissa cordoba, a director with the clare booth luce policy institute, the premier organization for promoting conservative women. we are here today to honor one of the conservative movement's greatest women, phyllis schlafly with a lifetime achievement award for staunch defense of traditional values and leading the pro family movement. duluth policy institute promotes women like phyllis through our campus lecture program. for more information on hosting phyllis or any of our other cap pus lecturers, please call us at 888-891-4288, or visit our web site, at www.cblpi.org and now i'd like to welcome to the stage, luce policy institute president michelle easton to presented the award.

[applause]. >> thank you so much, all of you for joining us today. here at the national press club in washington, d.c. and welcome to the c-span audience as well. we are so happy today to have the special luncheon, in honor of phyllis schlafly. we send a special thanks to mr. roger milliken, in south carolina, who made this event possible with a gift. mr. milliken has been supporting the clare booth luce policy institute since our first year, 1993, and mr. milliken, let me thank you so much for changing and saving the lives of so many young women, all over america, with your support for our outreach to young women and promotion of america's great women conservative leaders, like film -- phyllis schlafly, each year the clare bootheluce follow

institute presents a woman with a woman of the year award and we choose an extraordinary lady who has shown grace, leadership and dedication to advancing conservative principles. but, this year, our recipient has such a long, amazing record that we felt woman of the year didn't cover it. so, today, we are honored to present phyllis schlafly with our first ever clare boothe luce lifetime achievement award. [applause]. >> mrs. schlafly first emerged on the national scene as a conservative leader back in 1964. with a publication of her best-selling book "a choice not an echo." the inside story of how american presidents are chosen.

a few years later, in 1972, she started a national pro-family organization, now called eagle forum, which she still heads today. in a ten-year battle, she led the pro family movement to defeat the equal rights amendment. and this constitutional amendment was a key legislative goal for the radical feminist movement and other leftists and would have greatly expanded the role of the federal government and the courts. mrs. schlafly has been an articulate opponent of the radical feminists for decades and we can thank her in great measure for how inconsequential these feminists are today. she has appeared on virtually every national television and talk show, and has lectured or debated on more than 500 campuses. more than any other conservative leader. she is a speaker in the luce policy institute's campus lecture program and will be

featured in our 2010 great american conservative women calendar along with i was telling her earlier, along with carrie prejean. [laughter]. >> and in addition to a monthly news letter called "the phyllis schlafly report" now in its 43rd year, mrs. schlafly has ordered 20 books and her books have covered subjects as varied as family and feminism, nuclear strategy, education, child care, and phonics. her most recent book is called "the supremacists, the teern tyranny of judge and how to stop it" and as a syndicated column and a good one coming out today or tomorrow and appears in publications such as the "wall street journal," george and human event and popular web sites such as worldnet daily and town hall.com and mrs. schlafly is an attorney, admitted to practice law in illinois, missouri, in the district of

columbia, and the u.s. supreme court. she was appointed by president reagan, to serve as a member of the commission on the bicentennial of the u.s. constitution, from 1985 to 1991. she has testified before more than 50 congressional and state legislative committees on issues, the whole range of issues, education, national defense, foreign policy, and many more. she worked her way through college at washington university in st. louis, and received a ba in 1944. she received her master's in government from harvard university, in 1945, and, she earned a jd, juris doctor from washington university law scene 1978 and 2008 he was awarded an honorary doctor of humane letters we washington university of st. louis. she and her late husband of 44 years, are the parents of six

children, and 14 grandchildren. and in 1992, mrs. slavly was named illinois mother of the year. she was named one of the ten most admired women in the world. in a good housekeeping poll. and the world almanac named her one of the 25 most influential women in america. mrs. schlafly will celebrate her 85th birthday this week and continues to be a tremendous force for the conservative movement. [applause]. >> let me finish with a quote about mrs. schlafly from george guild are in his book, men and marriage. quote: when the histories of this era are seriously written, phyllis schlafly will take her place among the tiny number of leaders

who made a decisive and permanent difference. she changed the political landscape of her country. and now, it is my pleasure to present phyllis schlafly with the clare boothe lose policy institute's lifetime achievement award. 7 [applause]. >> thank you michelle and alissa for all of your kind remarks and for this award. i'm very honored to be here today. the last time i saw clare boothe luce was when we attend a reception at the white house given by ronald reagan and she gave me a list back to my hotel

in her limousine and expressed herself as very supportive of my work. i'm proud of that. and, i also want to thank roger milliken for hosting this luncheon. he certainly is one of the great patriots in our country. and who has been on the right side of every issue, for many, many years. and maybe even longer than i have. i want to address my remarks today, particularly, to the young people. because we need you. we need you to restore the america that we have known. you need to find your place in the conservative movement and i think maybe if what you learn from my life is, first of all, that anybody can be a leader, you can be a leader, i wasn't born that way. i developed it, i work at it, and, also, that the grassroots

can organize and take on all of the powers that be, and defeat them. and that is the lesson. [applause]. >> you need to understand how destructive the feminist mutual is. the movement that teaches young women that we -- you are victims in an oppressive, unjust society. that is just simply ridiculous. american women are the most fortunate people whoever lived on the face of the earth. and you need to not be propagandized against that by any women studies courses, in fact, don't waste your education dollar on any of those courses. and american women have always been fortunate. the feminist movement didn't start life for women just in recent years. my mother got her college degree in 1920, followed by a graduate

degree then. and, i worked my way through college, in what you might say, a nontraditional job, i was a gunner testing ammunition, at the largest ammunition plant in the world. and -- in st. louis. i tested 30 -- caliber ammunition with all of the tests the government needed to run before accepting it for world war ii, accuracy, penetration, videosty, aircraft function. the tracer bullets in flight, did they really go off. examining the misfires when they didn't go off and, the velocity. and, i worked half the time, midnight to 8:00 a.m. and the other half, 4:00 to midnight, and went to college in the morning and got through in three years, and i don't know what college students do in college these days. [laughter] [applause].

>> but i worked a 48 hour week. but, i have been a volunteer in politics all my life and took political science and it fit into my schedule and that is where the ac is, and where it -- what kind of a country we have and you have to take your opportunities when they come along. now, i guess some leaders are born but i was not born a leader. i grew up very shy. and it has been a learning experience. and if i figure if i can do it, any of you can do it and we certainly are desperate for leaders today. at the present time, you find that the conservative movement in the country is kind of depressed about the way things are going and i want to remind you, young people, that we have been through other times of significant depression by the conservative movement. this is the way it was in the

years preceding the goldwater nomination of 1964. that is why i wrote my book "a choice, not an echo" to describe how the northeastern establishment, country club-type republicans had been dictating our nominees. now, out in the midwest where i lived, in st. louis, republican party was very -- well, today you might think of it as almost right wing. we didn't use the word conservative but it was genuine conservative, and we were tired of these new yorkers telling us who our nominees should be. so, i wrote this book, to describe what went on at previous republican national conventions. and most of the people who vote -- go to the republican national convention have never been to one before and a first-time experience for them, and at that point, i was a housewife, and --

in a little town in illinois, with some young children, and of course nobody will publish a book by somebody like that, who had never published before, and so i published it myself. and it sold 3 million copies. [applause]. >> and every week i hear -- i meet some public official who says i came into the conservative movement as a high schooler reading "a choice, not an echo" because what it did was to show how these established republicans were forcing their views on us. when we wanted barry goldwater. and so at any rate, we got him nominated but we had a devastating defeat after that. and conservatives went into another period of great depression. we didn't think that we could ever elect a real conservative

like barry goldwater. that is what made us go for richard nixon. and, we wound up -- that was a bad idea. so that didn't work out, either. but, we also -- those of us who worked in the anti-communist movement, through the 1960s, when i was writing about the strategic missile defense, and so forth, never could have imagined that the soviet union would collapse. we thought it would always be there and not only did we think that but the whole intelligence apparatus of this country was convinced that the soviet union would be the great superpower. and, henry kissinger said as he was the chief advisor for nixon, and others, that he thought his job was to negotiate the best -- second best place he could for the united states of america.

because, these people believed that the totalitarian government was more efficient and could get things done better and could produce better. well, now we know that is not so. it is the free market that produces better. better things, more inventions. better quality of everything. and of course, in the years after ronald reagan failed to get the nomination in 1976, he and others were traveling the country, talking to little groups, redefining their conservative image. and he had a different view. he thought when it comes to dealing with the soviet union, he had another message. we win, they lose. and he made it work. and so -- [applause].

>> -- despite our belief that we couldn't win, we did win. it was a shock to a lot of us in 1980 when ronald reagan actually won and the same thing happened after clinton won in 1992. we couldn't believe it. and two years later we came back and had the biggest republican victory in i think it was 40 year. in 1994 and that can happen again but we need this young people to become leaders. and to take on an active role in the whole political process. it is really fun, now you've got to be kind of tough, too. because sometimes it gets a bit raucous as we saw just last week in one of these town hall meetings, at the town hall meeting of a missouri congressman. where the union goons came in and beat up a black conservative passing out flags.

that was his offense and they didn't like the idea that an african-american could actually be conservative. but we know there are a lot of conservatives. and -- who are of all kinds, and we need to educate them, and train them, and stand up for them. and, attend these town meetings, and let the grassroots be heard. because, i believe that the grassroots can defeat all the powers that be, that is what we did with the equal rights amendment, it was a ten-year battle, we had everybody against us, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, all of the magazines, 99% of the media, all of the governors who marched in protest -- and protested against, all the money, they'll hollywood stars, we beat 'em all. and -- [applause].

>> they'll never forgriff me for that but you can keep in -- forgive me for that but you can keep in touch through the phyllis slavly report and i wrote a hundred of them about er. i understand wrote about other subjects, too and i hope you will enjoy being in the process that keeps or country great. and remember... the lord will rise up with wings like eagles and they will run and not be weary and don't you ever be weary because the battle goes on year after year and we need all young people -- you young people, to join us in the battle. thank you very much. [applause]

[applause]. >> you are a nice audience: [laughter] >> but you were so good on the campus is when you go from a year zero is an inspiration in phyllis and phyllis has agreed to is to some questions here. two have a little bit of time. there's a microphone back there and if you wouldn't mind ladies line up and give your names in your affiliation if you would. we will do some questions. >> you can even ask austal questions. [laughter]

>> hi there, my name is maria and i am with the clare booth luce policy institute and have been inspired by your work since before i was with institute but even more so as this is that we work with. still always going back to mrs. schlafly so they really love your work. i just wanted to ask you as a woman who has been involved so long in the trenches of hasty base but also raised a wonderful family and clearly have a strong faith, how did you back in the days when there wasn't as common and has accepted to be raising a family and in the trenches have did you balance that and you have any words of wisdom for the young women here now who are encouraged to put aside her family for career? >> you have to structure your life, to accommodate what