them to in that country. the paula jones case was heavy political. the right wing groups made it against clinton. the organized and rounded. they conducted research in order to give it credibility. ..

>> in order to do a really good job of that, we needed something that we didn't have, and that is an army of investigators, and people that can go out and dig around for this. we did it ourselves. we had two people working on this, joe cameron and me. there wasn't any right winger that controlled anything that we did, and if they really wanted to get the president, then this was the mechanism to do it. you could do did, and you could disclose the depositions, disclose what the interrogatories showed. we did not have that kind of money. if we had, i really wished that we did at the time, but we did not and the ideas that this was some right wing coo is just species, just not the case at

all, and just not the case certainly with our case and would have been the perfect mechanism for any right wing group to have tried to bring down the president. >> just pointed out the deposition of the president of the united states in the paula jones case there may be three questions about paula jones, and the rest is all about monica. >> well, this is another group of lawyers, i have to tell you. this was not something that was a cause for us. we had a client, we did what we could for the client. when the client did not agree with us about the settlement, we got out of the case. that was what we did. now, what they did, i doubt that they got a lot of -- i know it was more of a cause for them, but i doubt they got much money out of bringing that to a conclusion, so, you know, why would not -- i don't think -- i don't think we came at all close. as a matter of fact, suspect the fact true --

isn't the fact truly that the preponderate lied? lied to his family, lied todd -- to the congress of the united states, lied to his cabinet. four people came out from his cabinet supporting him instead of his whole cabinet. it benefited him because as jerry said and has been remarked here, had the monica lou win ski thing, had they taken her statement and just gone guard with that, i think he would have been out of office. now, it turned out that he had plenty of time to get people's attention focused not so much on that, but i just don't think that there is any reason to think that the president, himself, is the one that dug his own pit when he decided to lie. >> you are praised as a fair-minded man, so help us

adjudicate the two views we've heard from mr. craig and mr. davis here. >> i have to say after august 5, 1994, i was just a spectator like you. i'm not in any better position to pass judgment on that than anybody else. >> i wouldn't anything but a spectator until september of 1998. [laughter] >> i will say this is where the, you know, the piece of it comes in that fate played a hand in all of this. i mean, you had all of the pieces coming together like a perfect storm. you had white water, madison guarantee where some people trying to use that to blunder the president even before he came into office? absolutely. there were people trying to do that. at the same time as mr. fisk pointed out you had jim pointing fingers at the cline tom saying

they were participating in criminal wrok doing. you can't ignore that. then you have the tragic suicide, and it was suicide of vines foster followed by the allegations of cline phon jones and people started connecting dots that didn't connect and you had this whole feeling of conspiracy here, and then you have the monica matter, and here, greg, i have to say that you could not have written this story without president clinton's participation in it because at the time, president clinton is having the time with monica in the white house, the united states supreme court is granting cert in the paula jones case, accepting the case of paula, and these gentlemen are on television saying they are going to the issue of other women. there's an element of recklessness there that if you did not have all these pieces coming together, you could not have produced this configuration

at the end of it. were there some folks who wanted to use this for a regime change, i have no doubt about that at all, but when we spiral with the starr report coming out, the events in the house of representatives and so on, i do think that it was all-out warfare by both sides and that turned out not to be at all healthy for the country. >> we have a microphone, i think i want to get a question, but i invite others to come up and take questions if there are any. with reference to vince foster strikes me as a aspect of the whole story with continuing relevance, and what i'm talking about is the kind of culture of suspicion, the culture of permanent warfare that purveys our politics over the past generation. you said investigating the facts that he committed suicide, that

there wasn't some kind of conspiracy, the facts were no more complicated than that, and yet, there's a full industry behind the notion that the facts are different than that. nobody -- and you were part of an official proceeding. nobody -- i shouldn't say nobody, but many people who don't want to believe that don't believe you, and so the story never ends, and every single fact it seems to me in our current political debate is now used as either a weapon or a shield in nonstop political warfare that we don't have a common body of truth, things that everybody believes. >> curious for your take on that. 16 year perspective. >> sure, i can say with respect to vince foster the whole investigation -- we were nearing the end of it. we felt it was important to move

quickly on this because there was an issue as to whether he had been committed suicide or as some people were alleging he was murdered because he knew too much about what was going on with white water, so it was related to the whole investigation. we were nearing the end of it, and i think i had made a public statement to the effect that we were nearing the end of the investigation, and we would issue a report, a public report, shortly. i would say in the next two weeks, our office must have received 500 postcards all identical, all saying exactly the same thing, if you conclude this is a suicide, this will be the biggest coverup in the nation's history. nobody -- we hadn't issued a report yet. there was nothing for anybody to judge whether we were right or wrong. this was just a preconceived view that if we accountanted it was a --

concluded it was a suicide, it would be a huge coverup. we concluded it was a suicide. i should just say that one of the principle allegations was this wasn't a suicide. he was murdered, and he was moved to fort marcy park where he was found later after he committed suicide, and we retained, ron who ran the investigation head of the homicide bureau in the manhattan office for 10 years ran this investigation and retained the chief medical examiner from new york city, from the direct of columbia, from seattle, and the chief medical examiner for the armed forces, and i remember meeting with him before we issued the report, and they reached the conclusion unanimously that this was a suicide in fort marcy park, and one of them said, look, we do this all the time. this is what we do all the time. is this a suicide or is this a

homicide? on a scale of 1 to 100 of difficulty, this is like a 99 in terms of how easy it is to conclude that it was a suicide, and i said, well, what about this idea that he could have been murdered and moved to the park? impossible they said. i sate, wait a minute, i dealt with a lot of experts as a lawyer, and i never heard anybody being that categorical. it's always on the one hand or on the other hand. he said, very simple. they fount him in a sitting position in the park. he was wearing a white shirt. his shirt was spotless. as soon as they picked him up to move him, all the blood which ran down to his legs because he was sitting on a hilly location, all that blood ran up to his chest and by the time they got

him to where they were taking him, his shirt was soaked with blood. there was no way he could have been murdered somewhere else and brought and propped up in the park and have that spotless white shirt. we felt this was a no-brainer. we couldn't understand -- i guess we could understand why there were people questioning it when we got the 500 postcards, but ken starr looked into this for another two years and came to exactly the same conclusion, and the fact he came to the same conclusion department make any difference either to the people who thought this was some kind of a right wing conspiracy, and i'm sure maybe they still think so. >> he got postcards to only to his house. >> why did it take two years and why did the special counsels office not announce when the president was cleared of various charges that he had been cleared until the impeachment begun, ken

starr when testified was forced to announce he was cleared of charges, but nobody announced that yet to the country. >> nobody announced vince foster? >> well, that was announced, but three or four other matters opened publicly, been resolved by the office, but not announced until ken ken chen starr testified. >> we announced the vince foster, the office was criticized for taking too long on the investigation. like i said earlier, we're a -- we were a public prosecutor's office. i'm sure we would all agree there were things we did that we might have done differently. i was not involved with the foster case, so i don't know the particulars of it, but i can tell you that there was no evil intent or anything like that. i know a number of people felt that we took too long on foster and took too long on -- what's

the white house files? the fbi files. okay, i just can't speak to it. it doesn't strike me -- it strikes me about something reasonable people can disagree. >> i'm curious whether you held back the announcement even though the decision was made. >> i'm not aware of that. >> we have questions, let's go to them. >> recent graduate, i was about 12 when this was going on. this is fascinating to me. >> [inaudible] >> you probably read the starr report over and over and over again at night. [laughter] >> did you interview newt gingrich about the affair occurring at the same time he was interviewing the president about his affair? secondly, to anyone, have you determined what the definition of "is" is? [laughter] on>> on the first question i can tell you i did seek to interview newt gingrich, and he declined

to be interviewed. most people did cooperate. there were a few who did not for various reasons, but there were certainly a number of people who later turned out were directly involved and greg can speak to this because he was one of the lawyers in the impeachment trial in pushing the impiewchment at vary -- impeachment at various stages with similar sorts of problems, and, of course, the most orve one of those was robert livingston resigning after larry flint ousted him. i interviewed larry for this book which was an interesting experience. [laughter] he did cooperate with me. >> thank you. >> i couldn't resist. i'd like to ask about the starr report because i have to say that of all the things ken did, i was most troubled by his writing basically an indictment of the president to be delivered to the congress.

it struck me as he still was no , ma'am no , in the executive branch and every previous independent counsel had, as i understand it based on what's in the archives, simply referred a list of things that the congress should read. it certainly didn't write -- what struck me is that advocacy document. it was not an even-handed treatment of the evidence. it was absolutely an advocacy. i talked to brent about this. i talked to him about, you know, my objection to the report, and my sense that, you know, it's fundamentally troubling as a separation of powers matter to have part of the executive branch basically making the case for the house. i don't think the house would have gotten nearly as far as they did had it not been written out for them and all the attachments and grand jury testimony included.

i wonder your take on this after this many years. that was a -- >> [inaudible] >> no, no. >> that's a great question. >> he didn't quit over that point. >> i want to put more heat on that ball, not just the fact it was written as an indictment, but page after page after page of nearly pornographic detail about the affair that you didn't put in public domain, but newt gingrich did as soon as you gave it to him. wasn't the intent was to shock the public so much that clinton would be humiliated and forced to resign from office? in other words, it was not a legal act, but a political act attempting to influence public perceptions? >> well, not on our part. i can't speak for the people in the house of representatives. >> [inaudible] >> there's three questions. the three different questions on the floor are comments. the first is didn't sam dash resign over that?

amazingly not. he was in pull agreement, and we checked, got sam dash's view on it, and as you know, we went to the special division and got their approval as we needed to have their approval because it was 60 material. sam dash resigned because he didn't believe that ken should have gone when he was asked or subpoenaed to come to the house judiciary committee and to give testimony. >> [inaudible] >> pardon? no, no, it was mystifying to me. i think the first issue would have made much more sense for him to resign over that. my recollection is when the report was sent over and with respect to your question when the report was sent over, it was made very clear in the covering documents that it was sensitive

and the congress should think about whether or not to release it. i can only tell you, you know, my view, and my view was i didn't -- i didn't expect it to be released in the form in which it was released, but the thing is you get involved in this and you expect and believe the worst about people who are on the other side and so i'm sure i believe things about what was happening on the clinton team, things that were conspiracy and didn't turn out to be. with respect to professor o'sullivan's question, i think that is a valid criticism. people have made the criticism -- i don't know about the history or counsel because there hasn't been so many that he just said here was the testimony kind of, and i think your comment was congress may

not have gotten that far, may not have connected the dots, and perhaps there's a feeling among some of us, maybe not the official feeling -- i was not involved in the decision about whether or not to send it over in this form, but certainly i probably felt like if you sent it over in the way it was sent over, congress wouldn't get it. i'm not as concerned about the separation of powers issues as you are because if you believe that the independent counsel statute was vol id, i don't see anything inherently wrong. i don't consider him -- i don't see anything inherently wrong with the document that may not be -- that may be having advocacy element to it. i think the more troubling thing from a independent counsel statute issue or constitutional issue is that it is the fact that we went to the special division to get the 6e

protection. this is something almost nobody wrote about instead of going to judge johnson running the grand jury and who may not have given or allowed us to release the 6e. >> it doesn't cover that, i mean, you read the language of the statutes. they should not have been able to relose all that. >> well, we had a court order for it. >> i know you did. >> right, but you're -- >> [inaudible] >> well, we got it. [laughter] >> i got a question for you, ken, since you talked recently. >> what's happened to monica in the year sense? is she rebuilding her life? >> well, understandably we are not in constant touch. [laughter] she did leave the country and went to london and studied at the london school of economics where she apparently lived a very quiet life, very much up

like what she was facing here. she is today back and forth between california where her father lives and new york where her mother lives, and as far as i know is thriving very well. i am not in touch with her as ken is. i think ken talked to her more recently than i have. >> i do try to respect monica's privacy. i get inquiries from media all over the world actually trying to be put in touch with her, and i, you know, she has clearly moved on. i do, with respect to this topic, can she discuss it with dispassion or perspective or still an all-consuming -- >> well, we talked up until the time the book was ready to come out, and, you know, she was very forthcoming. i do want to say and anyone whose read the book i was surprised myself how much sympathy i had for monica lewin

sky. anybody who doesn't realize this was the most horrible experience in her life and her family's life doesn't understand the story. i don't want to go into the details, but i found her to be extremely smart. she certainly commanded as plato noticed in the effort to get her to testify in the impeachment trial, boy, she had the house managers running in circles. she's very smart. you know, was very burned by many people, and, you know, i found her to be one of the few people who actually openly said to me how much she regretted the part she played in what ended up being a real tragedy for the country. >> we're almost at the end of our time. i'm noticing actually -- there's -- come on up. >> i'm keith, the deppty independent counsel at the end of the investigation, and a

couple comments about things said up here. one is if you look at the way the public received ken starr's decision in the foster investigation, it was more widely accepted than mr. fiske. that's not a judgment of him, just the way the public received it. the court in appointing a new independent counsel was trying to create more public confidence than what the com concluded about it. the other thing in terms of the sort of to littization and whether ken starr criticized it, sol mentioned the investigation of the prosecutors and frivolous claims raised and political attacks began on ken starr after being appointed by jim and others, and so there was, i think, a lot of that on both sides, and i think to attribute to the book it sees that on both sides. >> before we finish up, i noticed celebrities out in the

audience. that's my old colleague, sue schmidt who covered the story with more dedication than anybody. bill clinton said you had an open line to her office. i don't know if you can confirm or deny that now or the statute of limitations is over -- [laughter] >> the conspiracy continues. [laughter] >> right behind sue is senator mark warner who turns out was ken's law school roommate, i first knew senator warner from virginia, so if you're from virginia, no matter what position you arise to, you're always governor warner or maybe president some day, but you'd still in governor because there's no higher position in virginia. >> and a good governor, and i say that from the other side. [laughter] >> ken has final thoughts, but i want to ask everybody briefly

their take. i remember at the time of the impeachment, greg, i think one of the voices that your side put together as part of the president's defense was from the historian who said that impeachment was a travesty to change the balance of power and weaken future presidents and lower the threshhold by which we say presidents should be thrown out of office. it raises the larger question of whether this monumental batter between clinton and starr, has it had lasting consequences we think in terms of how politics works and the relative strength of the various branches, branches of government? have we changed things in fundamental ways, and starting with you, mr. fiske. give your take quickly down the table. >> i think one of the things that followed after that is just the increasing bitter to --

plightization of the debate and one of the problems in the country today is go back 20 years and things got done in congress because people accommodated views on the other side, people got together to make something happen whereas i think now there's so much more on each side, i'd rather stand on the principle than get something done. i don't know whether clinton vs. starr is responsible for that, but it's that bitter political fight reflected in what's going on ever since. >> greg, what do you make? >> i think one direct consequence was that congress, when the indent counsel statute expired did not renew it, and in my lifetime there's ever beginning to be another independent counsel statute which i think is probably healthy for the republic. i also agree with bob that the

intensity that began in the early days of the clinton administration in terms of political combat which was unusually intense i think in the 1993 to 1997 or 1998 era has continued, and the stakes have gotten higher even though, you know, i think probably the bush vs. gore litigation in the supreme court didn't help, made it worse, other things contributed to it, but certainly in my lifetime there's always been partisan debate and disputes with the ability to work out o common resolution at the end of the day. that was not possible during the clinton impeachments. you had to have votes to resolve issues. >> ken, skipping over you, you get the last word. mr. davis, and then on down. >> well, i have a little bit different take on the consequence of this for the country.

it seems to me that clinton should not have been convicted of impeachment, and the processes that worked are in place as we're pretty lucky to be in a country where you can have this go on as bitter as the fight was and not have a coo. i don't think we came close to one, and as far as the end result of what happened with the president, i think that the processes worked. for example, the -- on the proportionality, this was an issue that had to be dealt with, and it was dealt with in the processes, but he had a $90,000, i believe it was, a $90,000 contempt citation by judge wright, and she also submitted

his behavior to the arkansas bar, and he had either a suspension or a ramification, i can't recall which, but that was a serious thing for a lawyer. further, he had to confess as i remember it at the end of his presidency to the then special counsel or independent counsel at the pain of maybe being prosecuted, and he did that, and there wasn't any prosecution that was taken of him for the lying. i think lying is an issue. it's not something that we can just brush under the rug especially when it's underoath and before in paula jones case, trying to subvert her rights to his testimony and in the grand jury -- the same thing. he skated around, but did

basically confess to bad behavior as i recall really what he said, so our country has survived it, and if it happens again, i think we'll survive it again, and hopefully it won't happen, but we ought to be proud of the fact that our processes over 200 years have worked. only two impeachments, neither one of them ended in a conviction, and it's a serious -- it's a serious remedy to throw a president out of office who was elected by all the people. i'll say one more thing about it. his behavior was risky for all of us. we should have a commander in chief and a president who is -- who has the respect and the confidence that he is -- that deals with not only people here, but around the world. we're in a tough spot in many ways in foreign affairs, so i

think -- i think we learned lessons on this. hopefully it's a lesson to be heeded by other presidents and other members of congress, our people in high office, but i think it worked. i think the processes worked. >> all right. >> i agree with gil. i think the process worked, and i think that the -- i agree with greg that the failure to continue the independent counsel statute was a good thing. >> sol, finally for you. >> dito. [laughter] >> well said. your book, a consensus here is a terrific job of reporting of scholarship that you undertook. you get the last word. >> i think this whole episode shows what happens that this country is not at its best when we're at each other's throats, and, you know, the scene in the book where the title comes from is where all of this pandemonium

broke out, and we're heading to an impeachment trial after each side fights to the death, and "time" magazine put the faces of both bill clinton and ken starr on the front cover. this is in 1998. it said, "for rewriting the book on crime and punishment for putting prices on values we didn't want to rank, for fighting past all reason, a battle whose casualties are counted for years to come. bill clinton and ken starr are "time's" men of the year." i think this was a water shed event in the history of the united states in a profoundly teg nigh way because this did mark the popularization of this angry divide in our country that we see today. certainly, you had other instances of the country

fighting over iran contra, the water gate, other hearings, but this was the first time where the public was really dragged into the fray, and literally you went to supermarkets and people pointed their fingers saying this side was evil and this side was evil, and it is the beginning of literally the beginning of red states blue states. that was created at the end of the clinton prosecute sigh and the dysfunction in washington today with the unhealthy discourse on health care, budget impasse, and other issues. he's the scarry part, john. one of the things that was so chilling in researching this book and interviewing lou, it turned out that at the time we were fighting over this, and at the time fbi agents and investigators were in arkansas trying to determine which women had had affairs with then

governor clinton 20 years earlier. there was an undisclosed attempt to assassinate president clinton in the philippines. never reported, lou gave me the backup for this. they had received intelligence of possible bomb and the word bridge so they diverted the motorcade and found a bomb under a bridge big enough to blow up the whole presidential entourage. they later determined this bomb was planted there by a then little known terrorist named bin laden. that was going on, folking. we were running around obsessed with impeachment, monica, paula jones, and people outside the country were plotting our attack. for me the only hero in the book was the american public who did as someone said get the picture very early, long before president clinton admitted to

his affair with monica lewinsky. they knew it was wrong, but they also knew the punishment didn't fit the crime, and they said to the senate we get it, enough, let's go back to the business of governing the country, and so i continue to believe that it's important to look at mirror and everyone take ownership of this and recognize that if we conot -- if you do not realize as i said earlier, john, that restraint is important here, if you don't realize that sometimes prosecutors, sometimes presidents can do things and shouldn't do things, that you must ultimately realize that restraint is an indispensable piece of what we call american virtue, and that is what we need to have come back on a wider scale so that people studying in law schools like this, the next generation of lawyers and public

servants understand that innately, and so that's why i spent nine years on this book. >> well, congratulations on the result of all that effort, ken. thank you very much. thank you for the panel. thanks to the audience. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> his son's college admission process, the sat's college rankings, guide books, financial aid forms, weekly standard senior editor was not prepared for crazy u. >> nothing like that happened to me when i was looking for or

thinking about college in the mid 1970s, and so it was starting to dawn on me that this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out if his dad catches up sunday night on c-span q and a. you can also download a podcast at c-span.org/podcast. >> elections for the canadian

parliament are may 2. next a canadian broadcasting corporation, the nightly news program, the national, looks at steven harper and the other party leaders. currently, harper leads a minority government and hopes to win a majority of seats in the house of commons. these are highlights from thursday night's program running about 25 minutes. >> the request for the so-called ethnic vote had two leaders treading in hot water today. michael was forced to defend his own actions while steven harper had to deal with a can date with possible ties to a banned terrorist group. our senior correspondent has to story tonight. terry? >> well, peter, michael said today in ontario and quebec and did ethnic interviews, but this

can end up in some embarrassing ways. he left a radio interview today with a well-known voice in the media with an editor and radio host part of the separatist movement. >> if you are prime minister, what will you do on the fronts? >> it was an odd choice because he denowfnsed the liberals three weeks ago. ofwho was nearly killed 25 years ago by an extremist, but he has praise the attack and also applauded the 1984 assassination of indian prime minister calling the killers martyrs. >> if i'm talking about the martyrs, the whole community talks with them. >> why was this man who endorsed violence giving a one on one? >> there's no place for the

endorsement of political violence of any form. i've been clear about that and always will. i have no truck or trade with that kind of politics. >> even so, he went ahead with the interview pointing out correctly that everyone does it. he met with steven harper, although the staff says it was just the picture and not an interview. others include jack layton and appeared also on cbc. troublesome ethnic associations are not just a liberal problem. a conservative candidate was linked today banned by the conservatives as a terrorist group. they hosted a tribute to the tigers just last november. >> we've made them a ban group under the act. >> harper deflected questions about that, but what about another conservative who wrote a letter asking for people in ethnic costumes to provide a backdrop fora harper rally.

>> that's not how we do business, that's bizarre, and not our approach. >> that led to a counter administration spoofing the idea. of course, many of the so-called writings are swing writers key to the election, so leaders are keen to note notables in the ethnic community and are not picky about who they are. peter? >> thank you. it appears the political campaign could be rocked. thousands of files about what the harper government u about the alleged torture of afghan prisoners. the opposition is demanding to see the documents for three years, so why now? our greg weston has the answer for us tonight. >> peter, the election campaign trail could be littered with thousands of government top-secret documents on canada's role in afghanistan and iraq.

the documents about afghan captures and turned over to local authorities. op six parties accused the government of hiding the truth. for the past 10 months, two former supreme court judges have been deciding which documents could be made public, but now that the judges have a mountain of documents ready to be released, there's a hitch, the agreement to release the documents to parliament which is shut down until after the election. that was signed by michael harper and others. the ndp wanted no part of it. he was quick to say he would gladly amend the agreement to get the documents released immediately. >> there's another report coming out with documents on the afghan dee they knees. it's available. let the people see it. let the people judge. that's how it works in canada, mr. harper. let the people judge. >> what is ever available, we're

ready to do that. it's an important issue. we realize that. >> the release of the political documents in recent history appear to rest in the hands of leaders. in an election campaign, any one of those documents is a potential political land mind. peter? >> all right, greg, thanks very much. prime minister offered his take on the campaign so far after delivering a speech in montreal today. he was asked about how his party is doing this time around. >> better than expected, but, you know, we do it with the election, and you know, we have good candidates and the membership is better. >> he took a good natured dig at steven harper when asked about the prospect of a conservative majority. >> most of the countries in the world don't have the governments. i mean, canada when i was there,

we had three. [laughter] >> he said now that the debates are out of the way, the real campaign can begin. as for last night's french language debate, a star emerged, not a politician, but a woman from rural quebec. katharine explains. >> she had a simple question for the leaders. she wanted to know what they were doing to help her find a job. her name echoed through the debate. on twitter, soon there was talk about voting for her herself, a facebook fan page popped up and even a tribute song. one moment last night, she was one of the most tweeted topics, not just in canada, but worldwide. she's compared to joe the plumber hailed for talking tough

to obama in the u.s. 2008 campaign. today at home she finds it all a bit crazy. >> i was just asking for an answer, asking to be heard, she says, but what is it about her and her question that sparked so much interest? well, she thinks she might have the answer. she says it's a down to earth question and that a lot of 50-somethings like her are out of work. the phone won't stop ringing. mostly interview requests, but now she has even got politicians calling her. what about the phone calls she really wanted? a job offer. she says she's had several, she's just been -- >> that's unforpet, an audio problem there. there's something else from the french language debate that's a hot topic of discussion.

the english translation. >> can you really imagine an arrangement between sovereignists and centralists? that's the real choice of this election. >> it's a shame, a great shame. this is why we're offering quebecers an alternative. it's time to choose a new approach. >> viewers tweeted about the interpreters representing the leaders commenting on their accents. in case you are wondering, interpreters are highed through public works canada, not by the parties or the broadcasters. if you need help interpreting this week in politics, we have just the thing. the ad issue group will be by a little later in the show. well, it's one the weeks where lots happened, but what real impact has it all had? time for a serious assessment. allen, andrew, and shawn are here. i asked charlie charlie sheen to

come, but he couldn't make it. he's looking for a place to smoke, and you can't do that in here. halfway through the campaign, where are we at? >> it's a little bit like a one period hockey game. the complicating fog tore, -- factor is there's three teams in the ice, and in quebec, there's four teams. not only is there a lot of pick up, but the prospect of shooting the puck in the wrong net can happen. if there's a momentum from french language debates if it seems health care is becoming an increasing issue, we'll have the prospect of a real race for second. if, in turn, then the ndp gets over 20, then you have very, very difficult time for the liberal party to fight on two pranks, both the conservative and new democrats.

if that happens, they run the risk of being marginalized if it transpires in the last days. there's lots of interesting stuff to happen. >> it's interesting. we look back at debates. it's not uncommon for the ndp to come out of debates with a bit of momentum. is it any different in terms of what they can do with that? >> i guess it depends on where the liberals discover that they are and a couple of places. you can see now that the parties are all wondering what they came out of, and where they really are, and once you see where they start, if he starts going to liberal writings, starts going to places where you wouldn't go to make gains, then you would think they are in mortal danger. what's interesting is this was always going to be a very dangerous campaign for the opposition parties, and the hairway mark is a very dangerous campaign for the liberals and

possibly for the ndp. joe won both debates as conservative leader of the last installment, yeah, and he barely hung on to party status 12 seats on voting. >> that's right. andrew? >> i'm still trying to sort out the metaphor. >> i'm trying to be relevant. >> that was a paid ad. >> we look to be tightened before the debates, particularly in on tear yore, the centerpiece of the whole thing. we don't know what impact the debates have, so we're flying blind here. i think there's a remorseless logic to the prime minister's campaign frames us against those three, and it puts the liberals in a box they want to break out of and doing a good job of as far as a win, but they face the problem of sandra wright saying if they get in, they get pulled left by the ndp.

at the same time, the ndp says why do i need to respond to the traditional fear campaign? i think you see both of those things operative here. >> now, if a string of polls show the detintive conservative majority, it's good news for the liberals because then they can focus minds. this is what it is. >> only if they had a good solid six point lead. >> yes, but the thing is until that happens and as long as you're on that mush why environment that we've been in since the beginning of the campaign for a number two place, not a number one place. that's clear who is ahead. the liberals are not able to change the reality that jack leiton has, and no longer do you look at the liberal leaders to be popular. that was so apparent in the quebec debate. in the old days you have the

solid system, the liberals, that was last night, but there's two new players saying you're no longer the alternative. >> the problem with harper i don't think has the ma jourty. it's difficult in the current lineup. you know, in 2008, he had a 12 point margin and still couldn't get the majority. go back to the 80s or before that, you could always get a majority with that margin. with the spread of the vote with five parties and get the support of the top party in the top-30s, they need a wider margin than in the past over the second place party. they got to get the liberals down near the ndp level. >> in fact, there's a scenario where they can win as many seats as they did in 2006 with even less votes than they had because of those. there's all -- >> [inaudible] >> if we see movement in the next two weeks. >> all right. i tried to stay away from polls for a number of different reasons. what i'm trying to do is gauge

from other things where the parties at least feel they may be. they all came out with new ads in 24 hours with varying degrees of negativity about each other. three excerpts, so let's have a look at them and try to judge what -- it probably tells us what they think about where they are. here they are. 2011, and michaelments to be prime minister. what has he done for you? he didn't bother to show up for two-thirds of the votes last year and had the worst attendance record in parliament. that's not great leadership. >> michael has a problem with the truth. he told us he never voted in a u.s. election, but he told the british he was an american, a democrat, and would vote in the upcomes u.s. election. he said one thing abroad and another back in canada. >> steven harper is demanding

absolute power. can you trust him with your health care? he said the law that protects health care should be scrapped and open to american style private for profit health care. where does that leave your family's health? >> all right, allen, you're the ad expert. what does that tell us about where they think where they are? >> when you see someone going negative it's because the positive campaign is not working, and the conservatives have not made head wind. they know the easiest way to mobilize the support is putting focus on others. the liberals -- >> they vice president changed that? >> there's sense that they are backing off, but not now. >> no, not at all. they are not making head way right now. the liberals moved off the notion of the values of conservatives are wrong.

they are trying to drag them into social policy, and dredge up the whole notion these are black hardened accountants not to be counted on with health care. the difficulty here is that i'm not sure that the ndp doesn't have better bon fies on this and may be hurting. they are clearly signaling that they think they do have a shot at second and that one of the ways of getting that is to, you know, move the liberals right down to the low 20s. >> the easiest way to hold on to the vote is actually go for number two spot. that is, you know, in this case that's the best offense is always the best defense. >> except it's an admission that they can't stop harper and no one can. >> actually the ndp has no interest of pushing this harper thing factually because what they need is to be liberals, and they have to stop their votes

from michael. that's the short term interest. the health care stuff actually the conservative record might be better than the liberal record on health care. they are the ones who cut transfers to the provinces. harper very skillfully lined his party behind the health care accord in 2004, never budged from it or touched it, and bullet proofed himself in the campaign and said, oh, sure, i'm going to increase it 6% a year, so it's very hard to find what mr. harper has done as leader in power anything that could be construed as an attack on the health care system. >> the focus of the ads is either a great asset for the liberal party to degrade or he's vulnerable. i think it's more the latter. he was an unknown coming in to a lot of people in the campaign, didn't have a strong english language debate, and that's blood in the water in some

respects. harper is a known quantity, so they start quickly he's demanding absolute power which is a bit over the top, but they tie that thought to what they hope will be a vulnerable on health care. the problem is having said on that feverish day where they announced increasing spending by 6% a year, it's bad policy, but it insulated them. i don't think anybody sensible says we have to scrap health care because they're taking $4 billion out of spending. you can get that without scratching the act or getting rid of health care. the big threat is the ages of the population, the demographic bulge. >> the advantage of health care for both opposition parties is it's not an issue of sheer confidence but of caring. on that front, they beat the conservatives every time regardless of the record. >> yes. >> i'm puzzled over what's happenedded to the liberals. if you are right, it kind of

flies in the face of a lot of the commentary of the first half of the campaign. >> they ran a good campaign. >> looks better than a lot of people thought he was going to do and did not badly in the debates, questions about the english language debate, but not last night. why is he in trouble if you're right? >> i think -- >> why does the ndp rising against him and levels rising and his are either -- >> i don't think -- i don't think they ran a bad campaign, but i think they are running a bad campaign on the cushion of thin air. ..

>> they are too far back. all that could happen would be a liberal minority with the other parties. as long as that seems inevitable, center right voters say maybe we better shift back. they needed to knock it out early and i don't think they succeeded. >> as they say. it ain't over until it's over. three weeks is a long time in campaigns and politics. thank you, all. quick reminder that the national interviews last week, two options, one travel, them on the road, or two, here in studio. jack leyton picked option number one. that report will be seen monday.

michael e.g. gnat tiff picked one. -- ignatieff picked one. >> we need a debate. coming up on the national. >> a choice between hockey or politics. i would have thought it, i apologize for using a technical term, a no brainer. the english language debate, the four lads that none of them whom are radioactive with charm, there can't be four million shut ins in canada, we have to conclude most of them watched voluntarily. there are hockey games, most of

them involving the maple leafs. i'd like to point out that wisdom to the country, the canadians are not the turned-off-from-politics-bunch often portrayed. four million tv viewers, up there with the other more civilized survivor shows. give canadians access to the politics and they will watch. they do care. that said there's one major flaw in the process. most canadians despite the sweed ideal not being bilingual, one debate is essentially all most of us have, and one debate is not enough. oddly enough, the french debate proves the point. it was so much more substantive and particular than the english debate, because essentially, it was all about one region. none of the leaders could float above the issues, resting on a crowd of cliches, launching

tight little one liners and put downs past the camera lens. each had to engage substantively with the voters of quebec. why should not every region of the country had exactly the same benefit during a national campaign. there is no way one debate can attend to the complexities and particularities of british columbia, our great north, the maritimes with newfoundland, alberta, ontario, and canaries. they shortchange voters who want to engage by limiting the number of encounters between the leaders. the leaders should replicate in every region what already they concede to quebec. a debate on its territory and issues. good grief even the americans are more open on this point than we are. the very side of our country imposes different patterns and dynamics on all of its region. our federal elections with five

or six mini regional campaigns. the leader should acknowledge this fact by debating at least once in every region. not as things now are, however, here in canada, they pop up their avid little helmeted heads, once in english, once in french, tried to stay on message for a bear two hours, and they are off free to wonderer the land and air waves unchallenged and uncontested for the entire rest of the campaign. finally, it's also a matter of political equity. each region should have at least as much claim on the national leadership as quebec. we should not treat those regions or promises outside of quebec which have no separate party with less consideration in a federal election than quebec which does have one. for the national, i'm rex murphy. >> to be a parent means that you

are training the people that you can't live without to live without you. >> the son's college process, guide books, financial aid forms, weekly standard, andrew ferguson was not prepared for "crazy u." nothing like that happened when i was thinking about college in the mid 1970s. it was starting to dawn on me, this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out if the dad catches up sunday night. you can also download a pod cast of q and a. it's one the many significant programs available online at c-span.org/podcast. >> tonight at 8 p.m., the assistant to the president for human rights samantha power talks about e early morning democracies from brazil to turkey, india to indonesia, and south africa to south korea. she describes how the countries

have become involved in global human rights, and it was hosted by the brookings institution and national endowment for democracy. that's tonight at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. up next, the commission on war time contracting. on monday, it's continued it's investigation on how u.s. tax dollars are spend on contracting projects in afghanistan and iraq. they looked at efforts by nonprofit, comparing them to the same work by private contractor and u.s. civilian and military personnel. we'll show you a portion of that hearing next. >> i'm smiling because i've never gotten such attention by just tapping three times. [laughter] >> it says something about ngos in a company. welcome everyone. and thank you for attending this hearing. i'm christopher shays, so-chair

on the commissioner of war time contracting in iraq and afghanistan. the other are clark irvin and robert henke. the idea for today's hearing took shape in afghanistan. the commissioner zakheim and i were on a commission in january. we spoke with several national government organization, ngos, that do develop and work among the african people. they had interesting perfectives on development and shared the white paper titled being smart about development in afghanistan. the white paper reflects lessons learned from projects involving more than 6,000 afghan communities for the benefit of more than 10 million afghans. the paper argues that smart development should be one afghan driven, tapping ngo knowledge with local acceptance and

community participation to target projects that are appropriate, feasible, and sustainable with close oversight to mitigate the ever present risk of corruption. two, accountability. ensuring that spending is being done transparently on projects that are needed and valued. three, impartial. being developed by need and impact, rather than national governments political/military stabilization objectives, and four, sustainable. focusing on projects and support mechanisms that will enable afghan communities and institutions to continue delivering services after ngo assistant has ended. criteria, transparency, oversight, accountability, and sustainability has been key concerns for this commission, and have featured prominently in our reports to congress. in particular, we believe

insufficient attention to sustainability will prove to be one the main sources of ways in iraq and afghanistan. if after the us withdraws from a country, the local government can supply trained operators for a project, can't afford to maintain it, or can't afford to run it, then that project was simply a waist, no matter how well designed and built. the impressive but likely unsustainable kabul plant built under usaid is a conspicuous case in point. one the four ngos in particular deserves a special note. our hearing titles begins with prts and ngos. they are preventable reconstruction teams. usually led by u.s. personnel

from usaid and other agencies, they are not impartial, but take political stabilization into account as they carry out their work. both prts and many ngos receive funding from u.s. taxpayers. one interesting question is whether the impartial, nongovernment connected approach may yield better outcoming for contracting in the long run than the prt that can be received as an arm of the occupied force. other interesting questions include oversight and budget discipline. how do ngos oversee performance and impose accountability on contractors and other implementing partners? also, some ngo representatives told us if a project goes over budget, they do not ask the owners or the u.s. government to cover, but observe it from their own research. i'd like that verified under

oath. would federal option foster a closer attention caused by our agencies? these and related questions will figure into findings and recommendations of the final report to congress that we will submit in july. we will explore them today with our panel of expert witnesses. four witnesses represent ngos, the fifth will speak from the perspective of the congressional charter u.s. institute for peace. our panelist are matthew, richard, international invest, mr. bowers, michael, vice president of save the children, and beth cole, director of intergovernmental affairs u.s. institution for peace. i will note that all four ngos

participated with the while paper and smart development. the cooperative assistance and relief everywhere, better known as care. we asked our witnesses to offer five minute summaries, and the full tex will be entered into the hearing record and posted on the commission's web site. we also asked the witnesses to provide within 15 business days responses for any questions for the record and any additional information they may offer to provide. on behalf of the commission, we thank all of today's witnesses for participating in what i would say very important and i think an interesting hearing. so now if our witnesses will rise and raise their right hands, i will swear them in. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you will give before this commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? for the record all of our witnesses responded in the affirmative. and i would just note that we

are now joined by dr. zakheim who will probably tell us it was traffic that delayed his being here. we're going to start with you, mr. bowers. this is the only panel. five minutes would be appreciated. if you run a minute or two over, that will be okay. after seven i will be brutal. mr. bowers. >> thank you. i want to express my appreciation to co-chairman shays and to the other commissioners on the commission for opportunity to testify today. i am here today in the capacity as a regional program director with south, central, and east asia and a nonprofit currently working in 04 countries such as iraq and afghanistan. i myself was a country director in afghanistan from 2004 to 2006

in the early days of the prt formation. mercy core has worked in iraq since 2003, projects benefiting six million, we have worked there since 1986, as well as post, and currently work in 12 providences in the north, central, and eastern part of the country. both of those countries receive u.s. taxpayer support through usaid, department of state, and others. today i will provide information to illustrate why mercy core has observed the development and contingency operations currently practiced by the u.s. government is largely designed for failure. this is primarily due to the lack of conceptual clarity about the important differences between stabilization and activities in the development. my testimony aims to construe towards a clarity on the flaw that will be required for the u.s. government to transform

stable activities into sustainable development investments as we look towards reducing the military commitments during transition. our experience is careful attention to three key areas that would help the u.s. government to increase the impact in the programs, incontingency operation, while reducing waste and improving transparency and accountability of those efforts. these three are ensuring that the right actors are engaged in the right goals, aligning u.s. government funding mechanism with intended goals, and employs approaching to promote sustainable development. the first is the right actors are engaged in the right goals. in popular of interest with contingency operations where we see many groups or actors present and engage in a variety of developmental activities. for the hearing, commissioners have asked on the thoughts of differences between ngos and

prts. i will focus on comparative advantaging for ngos as compared to prt. ngos are staffed by local citizens who are known and live in those areas. as we are staff mainly by local people and been doing the work in the communities such as kandahar and helmand, it is seen as impartial. second ngos are different because we are structured our program to aer time frame for implementation and process orientation to improve and involve local peoples and programs. we have found when they feel ownership, local citizens are more likely to involve themselves in project monitoring and therefor accountable to sustainability. when the three elements of slower implementation measures spending and local ownership are present and working in tandem,

it allows for the a full scope of the procedures that we have in place to minimize accountability. finally, most traditional ngos are not associated with the military, and not part of the drag currently being employed. ngos operate on the principals that are 100% civilian, and most practice methodologies from promoting in transitional environments. in this context, the comparative advantage is that we are able to operate in ways that is less intimidating. the second key area that i wish to highlight is aligning u.s. government funding mechanisms with intended goals. just as there is a myriad of actors working on the ground and contingency operations, there are multiple funding sources operating simultaneously. while mercy corps traditionally does not accept contract which is acquisition in u.s. government par lens, we operate through cooperative agreements and grants, for assistance.

since they have discussed the difference, the testimony provides our perspective on some of the advances of grants or assistance. first, because contractors represent the usaid in primary, they maintain no independent identity, therefor, are not seen as independent or partial. there are situations in which this could be seen as an advantage for u.s. government policy planner. it also carries the limitation that need to be acknowledged and designed especially in contingency operation where they are party to ongoing conflict. >> finally in point proven-based approaches to promote sustainable development is the third key area. in this, i would like to mark that methodology does matter, which is awesome lacking in prt. good government can happen when the methods are deployed, evaluated and scalable in different context.

in 2007, they undertook the field study to engage the two usaid programs in central asia. one to five years, we had research to understand the lasting impacts of the program. we had found that as a result of the community methodology used by mercy corps and many other ngos is when communities maintain the projects, still maintaining they will be actively used. and even while the significant and lasting benefits, [inaudible comments] >> this provides concrete evidence that community led development can foster change in transitional environments. to do this, program time frames have to be suspended. they should be built around three to five year time frames, not 12-18 months. the additional time is required to maximize u.s. investments by

planning for a careful handover. unfortunately, at present, the very obsession of the stabilization ends up creating missed opportunities. i thank you again for your leadership and attending the central question on how to best support effective development efforts. while the history of difficulties with long -- with doing development with contingency may seem failure and success, as mercy corps, we believe the does not exist. by employs the right actors for the right tasks, aligning funding, and supporting proven approaches, the u.s. government could make concrete contributions through outcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and other commissioners. we very much welcome today hearing as a continuation of a conversation that some commissioners began with our country directors in kabul not too long ago. save the children country director would have like to be

present, but i'm based in washington and here instead to talk about how u.s. assistance through a smart development approach can best serve the needs of vulnerable children who after all represent the future of their country. i've submitted a comprehensive statement for the record and highlight the circumstances that they face, briefly mention the work of save the children, and talk about the importance of accountability, and agency employ in afghanistan. children are always the most vulnerable in fragile states. afghanistan is no acception. children in afghanistan have one the worst chances of survival in the world. one out of every five dies before the age of five, mostly due to preventible causes. that's not to say that progress isn't being made. infant mortality, and many more children in school than ten years ago. there are still millions of school-aged kids not getting an education. afghanistan is a really tough place to be a child despite

donor engagement, and despite the provision of significant humanitarian, and development assistance. adopting the smart development approach that we've outlined in our paper can change the circumstances. a brief word about save the children. we've worked with afghans for over 30 years, and through a staff that's about 98% afghan, we provide protection, health, and nutrition, and education programming directly through our own staff and another dozen or so through partners. that's an example of one stream, we work with families, communities, health care workers, in homes and health posts, clinics and hospitals to provide basic health care and well being for children under five and woman of childbearing age. we are in the business of supporting doctors and nurses as well as community mid wives directly with training and materials and train and support community health workers who work out of their own home to reach the poorest and remote areas of afghanistan. i think our extensive experience

working in afghanistan has taught us basic lessons about what conditions are most likely to succeed with successful outcomes. together with the other colleagues at the table, we believe our work should be guided by certain principals. let me highlight one the four: accountability. smart development which is what we've talked about in our paper is accountable both to donors and communities. accountability and development programs is really a matter of building relationships between donors, communities, private sector and ngos in which all actors have incentive to fulfill responsibility. i think accountability to donors is understand. ngos are accountable to donors. we suffer financial commitments -- consequences if we don't meet the commitments. we have clear financial incentive to propose feasible and sustainable programs.

buttabilityable to communities is how we work. we are accountable to communities provide assistance that immediate -- meets the priorities in a panther is impartial and does not jeopardize their security. what does this actually mean in practice? i think local perceptions of save the children are critical to our ability to gain access to communities. it's really access through acceptance. that means that we have to know the people that we are working with, understand the dynamics, identify the needs, and aspirations through dialogue. access is key. that means we can continue to make field visits and director monitor the project implementation and outcomes, but also delivering results is key. because unless we meet the communities needs and meet their aspirations, acceptance is going to diminish and that potentially makes much more difficult for us to gain access. ngos are accountable to communities. the leaders are also

accountable. let me tell you how it tends to work. when we first come, to do the work, we sit down with the elders and talk about what we can do to help the communities. we hear what their priorities are, through that, there's a discussion that results in an agreement on a project. it's all done in a public fashion that we shirt with the elders, they know what's happening and who's benefits. i think that communication is done by our national staff. it's very transparent, very open, very public, and through that transparency, we're able to assure greater accountability. i think that our smart development paper recommends strengthening with an increased emphasis on and resources for monitoring evaluation within the u.s. government, u.s. government implementing partners, and within local partners and local ngos. we welcome usaids new policy announced in january on monitoring.

i think the road ahead in afghanistan is a difficult one. but the dramatic needs of afghan children really are continued engagement. we have proposed an approach which we think works, which is an approach on long-term commitment, genuine currency, we've seen the approach that's afghan-driven, and execution producing results. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. klosson. gary? >> thank you, chairman, and members of the commission for holding the hearing. crs appropriates the opportunity to appear and share field-based operation on principal and sustainability. based on the principal and crs's experience, we recommend that the u.s. government treatment development in afghanistan a process. consider the comparative advances of all of the development when designing, awarding, and assisting in

afghanistan. catholic relief is the official development agency in the catholic and united states. we work in over 100 countries around the world, providing humanitarian and development. crss country representative in afghanistan from 2008 to 2011, i had the privilege to lead the team of 450 afghans and international working in gore, kabul, and punisher. they are working with local communities and government and civil society to implement programming in the sectors offing a -- sectors ag, community response. the idea that development shrub sustainable to be meaningful is not new or disputed. what we observe on the ground in afghanistan suggesting the theoretical importance, and putting that theory into practice. over and other, we see the principal of sustainable

development sacrifice in order to meet political timelines, expedite burn rates, and deliver easily quantifiable outputs without measuring more relevant impacts. thus the small success all too often produces extremely negative consequences tomorrow. if the school is built in the location that's easily access for construction, but not for children in surrounding villages, or no qualified teachers aseen, it will not ensure, only dampen for educating the girls and boys. if a construction of a water system in one village buys goodwill at the expense of imflaming conflicts with neighboring villages, then it is not the only unsustainable, but harmful. we continue to emphasis that smart development is sustainability development. unsustainable development are almost always worse.

and stabilization or development maybe destabilizing. in contrast, we offer the recommendation that development be treated as a process. by approaching as a process that requires careful planning ab si easesment, policemennation, monitoring, follow up, and frequent course direction, we are able to demonstrate consistent results while working towards sustainable, long lasting impact. process driven development is inherently afghan driven, impartial, accountable, and sustainable. crs ease work in afghanistan provides examples of what the process looks like. our ag enterprise are besigned in the community that is will benefit and the planning team at the prudential development of agriculture. before any activities are undertaken, crs staffs and local farmers develop a business plan and profitability analysis, including the value of any inputs contributed by crs. farmers who participate in the project receive input and

participate in workshops, but they also receive regular follow up and on-the-job training visits. crs staff and economist jointly visit to assess progress, suggest corrections, and disseminate lessons learned. farmers not only reap individual benefits and also work together in growers or collective marketing arrangements. through the associations, they gain enhanced leverage through the economy of scale and long-term support. the growers association and collaboration of the department of agriculture build individual's farmers skills and the technical capacity for future success. as the example illustrates, process-driven ensures not only financial sustainability, but also structural sustainability. programs are linked to government agencies and build combat to carry on programs after crs leaves. hoover, they plant the seeds for further growth and development. crs's example after nearly a

decade in afghanistan illustrates the principal of sustainability is not only feasible, but essential for the effective delivery of u.s. development assistance. commissioners, we appreciate your unique approach to development in afghanistan. we respectfully suggest the full exploration of various development by the gao would help to measure development impacts and sustainability over the long term. benchmarks and standardized majors of progress to assess impact will help ensure the standard of comparison among the agencies. secondly we ask that congress closely monitor currently being undertaken by usaid to ensure it is need-based community led programming is prioritized. thank you again, commissioners for the opportunity to testify. we appreciate the interest in the principals and look forward to work with you as you prepare your final report. >> thank you. ms. richard. >> thank you very much, commissioners, for the invitation to provide testimony.

my name is ann richard, i'm the vice president for government relations at the international rescue committer. the irc has been around since 1933. we began work, afghan rev few gee opportunities in 1980, and launched program in 1988. today we are in five southeastern providences and in the west. we have a staff of 400 in afghanistan, which 80% is afghan. the mix of department of state, european commission, and as will be described in my mark, from the world bank through the afghan ministry of world rehabilitation and development. one the three key elements is genuine partnership is necessary. to quote from the paper, the success of any intervention is dependent upon the investment and genuine cooperation of those that is designed to serve.

initiative that is are designed and maintained have the greatest potential to deliver sustainable results. an example of genuine relationship that works is the national solidarity program, nsp. we have been involved with nsp since 2003. it is managing kabul by the afghan ministry of rural rehabilitation and development. there are 28 facile stating partners. the program operates throughout all 34 providences of the country. over 20,000 villages have benefited from the partnership. it's a program where communities identify, plan, and manage their own development projects in a very inclusive way. here's how the program works, irc or another partner approaches elders or religious leaders and ask them to endorse the program. once they have done that, it

opens a lot of doors inside a village. community members prepare community development and identify projects. elections are organized to create community development council, also known as cdcs with a responsibility to implement projects. men and women vote and serve on the cdcs. block grants from the ministry are calculated at about $200 per family with a maximum of $60,000 for community and making sure the funds are not diverted. they are informed how the money is being spent, and monitoring committees are promote accountability. it should be mentioned to local people while monitoring the progress. it has helped to establish development in districts in four providences. it was headed over 3,406

projects reaching more than two million people. the project has ranged, and irrigation from classrooms to learn to read to acquire a skill. the intangible benefits are meanful. for many participate, it represents the first time in how they are able to play a role. the opportunity to elect consensus is an exercise in good gov innocence on the community level. funding is protected by corruption and communities see results. communities are invested in ncp as it dependents on their ability to deliver. the level of buy in is not only critical to the project, but long-term sustainability. i also want to mention a second program, also a partnership with afghan organization, this approach was critical in our ability to oversee humanitarian assistance, following severe flooding in 2010.

the irc now receive funding from usaid office of foreign disaster assistance. this emergency response, the irc provides training to four afghan partner organizations in how to help after humanitarian emergency or natural disaster. in visits to the region and my time working in afghan and washington, i have been impressed again and again by the quiet courage of the afghan people. many have experienced terrible things, yet they strive to build a better society. on a trip to afghanistan a few years ago, i visited and saw how different villages were investing. one community built the bridge that provided a shortcut to bring foreign products to market. in another, i saw schools for children and classes and tailerring. it was a great frustration that most americans never see evidence. these negative portrayals are a far cry from the impressive

dedicated people i have met and among the colleagues. we must learn from models in order to ensure our actions in afghanistan are rooted in the needs and desires of afghans and facilitate afghan leadership. we appreciate your broadening your research to look at how aid agency operate and the strength of the smart development. i hope you can devote some attention to the afghan who's hard work undergets everything that i've talked about and a better future for all of afghanistan. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. richard. mrs. cole, you'll finish up. then questions. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. i'm director of affairs and federal institutions focus on conflict prevention and resolution. the views that i express here today are my own.

i was a guide for stabilization and reconstruction, the first doctrine for the whole of government and whole of community action published by the usip in 2009. what i say reflect the writing of the manual. i'll also discuss the unique role that congress gave to usip to act between the military and diplomatic and u.s. humanitarian operations working in zones of conflict. in fact, i have the honor of co-chairing the only regular contract group between the actors in the u.s., the working group and civil military relations in nonpermissive environments. the spark for the group arose from issues in afghanistan. in 2005, interaction, the largest u.s. umbrella organization for ngos approached state with concerns about encroachment by the u.s. military in the humanitarian

assistance fear in afghanistan. state asked usip if we would convene the relevant parties. the assistant activities were alleged to be blurring the distinction between armed forces and armed humanitarian and development workers, jeopardizing the safety of the latter, and forcing retreat to more security areas. this shrinkage of humanitarian space led to less, not more help for people. our first meeting of the working group in march of that year was tense and tumultuous. over time we are learned that regular dialogue leads to better understanding, less duplication of effort, insided safety on the ground, clearer roles and responsibility, and faster response and emergencies. this dialogue reduced an historic document released in july of 2007 by the u.s. department of defense,

interaction, and usip for guideline or hostile and potentially hostile environments. i have provided a copy for the guidelines to each of you. what we have learned all of the parties is simple facts. first years before the u.s. military on the ground in places like afghanistan, ngos are likely to be there. providing assistance in the worst conditions. years after the forces have departed, u.s. ngos are still be there. humanitarian assistance and development is their business. the dramatic increase in profit-making contractors working in the business is muddying the waters, leading to legitimate questions about the accountability, role, and construct of the for-profit entities. second, the widespread perception that major ngos operate on the fly without standards and rules is simply not true. the standing committee brings ngos together routinely to

create and update guidelines for assistance operations. sphere, the ground-breaking project has created a humanitarian charter and minimum standards for humanitarian assistance. third, reading of these fundal building blocks for ngos show that is the line between humanitarian and development assistance is not a sharp one. when emergency health care is delivered, the involvement of the community, on the job training, infrastructure that is often built, leads to the rebirth of creation of a health care system that might endure beyond any emergency phase. that is development. you can trace the path for the other sectors, sanitation, food, water, shelter, and in afghanistan, the dialogue has been halting and difficult. it has been jump started by civilians in the u.s. embassy and then disbanded. it's been lend by the u.n. and halted. it has been revived in some formed by a new general assigned

to isaf, and partied out. but the imperative delivering of assistance does not stop. in our working group, we've been focusing almost solely now on the afghanistan problem. time is growing sort for the u.s. and it's partner to show significant progress before transition targets are missed. dill lineating roles and responsibility is critically important at this phase. the organization most likely to remain in place assisting the host nation for the long hall are the ngos, both international and local. it is imperative that we build the trust, the trust so fleeting to enable development and humanitarian to be successful. usip remains committed to fostering the dialogue that's necessary. members of the working group and usip believe that our civil military working group model in washington has proven it's

effectiveness and should be replicated at some level in afghanistan to remedy the collapse in effective communication among the key actors there. we stand ready to assist in the process if they preserve usip. thank you. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mrs. cole, i'd like to thank all five of our witnesses. the way we are going to proceed is the commissioners will look to the first round of eight minutes and probably a second round. we'll see how it works. welcome, he's the first one. the four of us who are here are concerned about his well being. it's nice to have you. because we thought he might not be here, we've invited dixon to participate, he's still invited to participate even though he's participating in another hearing. i'll go second to last, he will go last, we're going to start with doug zakheim.

>> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i also want to thank you all for coming here and thank you for meeting with us in kabul as well. it was useful. it's the reason that you are here. i was chatting and he told him how helpful he has been and what a pleasure it is to have you. this group is not unusual. there are ngos, and ngos, that's one the things we need to highlight and think about how you guys do it right and what we do about the others.

i have a couple of questions. one the message that have come out, the military doesn't understand it. doesn't get it right. it's in for short-term results. there's a second message, sometimes it's been subliminal, or explicit that you don't want to have too much to do with them. you'd rather stay neutral. i have a couple of questions. you've all been in afghanistan, apart from the institute of peace for a long time. you've had access that you claim and you've met the needs of the communities. until 2007, you weren't getting very far. obviously, you weren't under the taliban. it was when the united states in particular came in and the taliban was over thrown that you've had much more access. so didn't the removal of the taliban open doors for you that

were closed before? or at least result in outcomes that you couldn't achieve before, or were you doing just as well under the taliban? down the list. >> no, certainly we would not advocate a regime change where we would be working under the taliban. our access during those times were limited, in fact, probably more by the definition of responding to the crisis in the geographic area. during that time, we were primarily a southern afghanistan entity dealing with refugee in sources of that nature. in terms of actually progress made during the taliban time, certainly there are limitation. we cannot advance an development agenda, we could not advance if that did not exist. >> let me ask you in that case,

why is it so important to stay at not even arms length, but body's length, since they have created opportunities that you didn't have. >> opportunities that they create, we agree, in fact, in terms of when they are acting as a stabilizing force in law and order. that's a very important mission as, in fact, the u.s. military where they can advance that. the primary issue for us, it clouds the relationship between civilian assistance and military assistance. we are impartial to the needs though responding to all parties in our consult theytive process, you will see structure, but not necessarily community led.

finally having a close relationship with an armed combatant, a military force is too dangerous for our staff. they are high-value targets and our goal to remain deterrent through community acceptance, not through forced military. >> are you on the same page? >> let me add two points. add though we keep our distance from the military on the ground, we don't keep our distance from the afghan government. look last year, there was flooding and humanitarian. the ngo community coordinated very closely. so it's really the military and not governmental authority at large. i think the second point that -- and i wasn't in afghanistan prior to 2001 and certainly agree with mr. bowers on many of his points is that also i think the availability of resources for us to do, you know, development work has expanded during that period. that's something that's enabled

us to do more work in the communities. but again to gain access to communities and our security is very much based on acceptance, not prevention, it requires us as not to be sustain as the vanguard as the military force. >> yes, at crs, we established the military presence. it's not a question of just the military even. it's armed actors. some organization have afghan national police guarding their guest houses and officers. we don't. we have unarmed guards that are full-time employees, communities, local commanders offered to protect food distribution with their local gunman. we always decline and say no, that's not the way that we work. for us, the primary driver is the safety and security of our staff. fee with are viewed as a direct participate or party that

endangers us. we appreciately have them with the military and they are understanding of our need to keep them safe and the need for the space. >> you know, a few years ago, i talked to jalalabad, and they came from lots of different walk of life. they, you know, clearly were, you know, taken up this role at a great personal risk. but it struck me, and they were very enterprising. they would talk to each other and e-mail back and forth to try to figure out development. they struck me they hadn't been trained. that wasn't their original mission. that was something of a service for them to be trust into doing reconstruction development work

without the proper background. it's not surprising to me then that they would produce projects that aren't sustainable because they weren't trained to do that. also, i think we should say a lot of efforts to be impartial and provide a based-on need and not to be affiliated with any particular political or a.r.m. group is based on humanitarian princals that go back and stood the test of time. this was not something that dreamed up for the afghanistan issue. there are tensions that we come on capitol hill. more and more staff are veterans of iraq or afghanistan. they don't want to hear they are too good. that is not the case. instead, it's a very deliberate design to work independently and to work from the perspective of the communities and on their behalf. it's a very different mission

than what the military has taken up. >> my time is out, sir. >> your time is out. i would like ms. cole to respond to it as well. >> just a point of information, usip has been on the ground in afghanistan since 2002, supporting rule of law and community and national reconciliation activities. but i think of the existence of this contact group that we have in washington -- >> excuse me. one second. we are running -- his time has expired. we asked a specific question. could you direct it to ms. cole? >> yeah. >> just so there's consistency in the response. >> the question was very simple. it was really two parts. one was and mr. bowers answered in detailed the, the other panelist didn't really disagree with him that, you know, they weren't very successful prior to 2001. the military came in and opened doors in ways that were just not possible for the ngos prior to 2001. therefor, the question is why

this emphasis on neutrality, given the military has done what it's done and enabled the ngos to do exactly the kinds of things they want to do? >> well, again, i was just going to say that i think the existence of the number of dod entity that is are involved in our working group has thrown there's a veracious appetite for them to understand exactly what the role of the nongovernmental organizations in afghanistan. they clearly have learned over the last five years, i wouldn't say they started there, that in order for them to, you know, i agree with you. that in the beginning, they were in there, they were dislodging the taliban, they felt like they should conduct mu mantarian development assistance themselves. they have learned over the last five years, really their lane is not in that sphere. these actors can do it much more efficiently and with the local population.

as we transition out of afghanistan, they are increasingly looking to understand and, in fact, give the space to these nongovernmental organizations to perform their activities. they know they are going to be there after they depart. >> thank you, thank you. so now we will go to mr. irvin, commissioner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, like size to all of you for being here. i commend each of you for the work that you do and your os do. i had a high regard for ngos in general, and, of course, for the hearing, i should tell you that the work has increased. it was a predicate for the first question, which is a oober question. both you ms. richard and cole said it very well. given the common sense principals, i'm not just talking about the principals that relate

in the document, just the whole range of principals with local support and local guying in which necessarily leads to sustainability. you are not working with the military, or not being seen as a arm of the military, the fact that you are generally there for years before conflict begins and that you are there after conflict ends, the small amounts of money that are involved such that they -- that money can be sustained and can be absorbed by the local government, your tendency to rely on local workers, et cetera, all of this leads me to ask, the overarching question of whether, you were going, seems to me, ms. cole in the direction in the future as we transition out of afghanistan, iraq, and as we look to future contingencies, there surely will be some, whether the whole of this development work ought to be done by ngos and not the military. not by civilian united states government personnel, and not by private for-profit contractors.

i would like each of you to give me your view on the question. >> well, i certainly think there's a lot of lessons to be examined from iraq and afghanistan. and i think if we could take a break from our off tempo in these operations, we would be well served by doing that. >> as quickly as possible. >> yeah, i do think that we've all learned a lot about what the capabilities of nongovernmental organizations are. i take your point that there are ngos and ngos. the ngos that we're talk abouting that are here before you today do exercise rules of accountability for both of their donors and the u.s. government and have well-honed methodologies. >> so, therefore -- >> they should be employed with other missions. we should start with that. >> okay. i've also worked in kosovo

before afghanistan. this is often a sited situation, why can't we do it like kosovo when we are in iraq and afghanistan. the conditions there aren't the same. not to dodge the oober question of what's the future model of the blended approach, it is contextulized, there are times when the u.s. military and recovery and humanitarian assistance role has a place. there are operation that is they can bring in pakistan, and there was certainly a role for the u.s. military to help the pakistan government and people. then there was a clear role on when the ngos can do. >> on the role that you mention in pakistan with the military, you were the one in your testimony who distinguished among relief and development and stabilization. wasn't the military role there largely a belief there close to the development one. >> correct. >>