emphasize the point that democracy and transparency in the developing corporation to ensure the respect for human rights but also brings to the role and capacity of civil society organizations and those reorganized government systems with greater involvement of the european parliament. the e.u. must ensure that target populations received what specific measure is the european union planning to achieve? thank you. >> you have expressed my thoughts i couldn't agree more with her to do precisely this. >> our countries are delivered

on. i can assure you that is the commission that service is and the representative who will monitor those we believe it has spun into this kind of dialogue we can afford by the participation of civil society. i was recently in tunisia and met the president but also representatives of the society and organizations and so forth and it was clear to me from the believe our commitment is important not just the commitment to the government but also to the society and i think the parliament involved and commitment would be a problem because of your relations with of the nation's political

parties and the democracies. >> thank you. in the recent g8 summit to discuss the global economy, and you agree on assets to make public expenditure more sustainable and also to combat unemployment and that is done in terms of a society and its citizens. if you look at the a simple increase recently tens of thousands of citizens have been coming out onto the roads around the parliament they will be asking for prospects and i'd sure you would agree policies can be effective if they are not supported by the public. this policy basically is limited to existing austerity in the

bankruptcy. that's what it boils down to and it is a political issue. what message would you send to those people who have a great dignity and express their views and asking for a brighter future for their own families and children? thank you. >> i want to express myself under the on the greek people and greece is now experiencing. i also believe the responsibility of the political leaders of the national level in the government on the position is to show what is necessary for the countries to do. and in fact, without the siskel consideration and structural reform, greece will not come out of this crisis. so, the reality is that some painful measures are available in who greece and anyone who pretends to counter is lobbying to the greek people. my appeal to the greek leaders

is to explain to the population of greece the difficult choices the country has to do. real support. the reduction in terms of the rules given but at the same time greece has to make part of the effort because one country cannot forever with six high levels of debt and this is the message we can convey the government of greece, the position of greece and if you really want to help that country. >> last question three [applause] >> thank you, president. president barrasso, i am glad that you raised the g8 summit issues of the problem of the year autozone. i think it is a crisis and we know it is a crisis but like the speaker mentioned many states have issues and madrid when

people are protesting on the streets in lisbon of all people protesting and of course we see what's happened in greece as well. isn't it time that you actually go of telling lies and told the truth and say there is an option these countries should be allowed to leave who the heroes zone. that's the only way i could do but i think. thank you. >> thank you. >> i respect very much the states and it's not up to me to tell what they should do. of course we know at greek has no intention to the results. the context of the authorities know very well they do not want to leave the year ozone some of you distinguished members would like countries not in the year rose own and we respect that, but the country is committed to the project.

the country is difficult and have some support but once again , there are countries outside of the major ozone, iceland isn't a member of the euro zone and iceland went bankrupt to put it frankly. who has the most rich country in the world before the financial crisis. we have countries facing the same difficulties because of high levels of expenditure so the reality that it's not the problem, the problem is a high level of debt or deficits in the economy. >> thank you, mr. president, for being with us for some sometimes difficult questions and think you all of you. i close the debate.

these questions ranging from the tenth to june 2nd focus on the carbon tax to cut greenhouse gas emissions and a deal with malaysia concerning asylum seekers. this is just over 35 minutes. >> im david. coming up we are going to show highlights of the latest parliament. climate change continues to dominate the agenda here as the government finalizes its plan to introduce a carbon tax. the government is also under

pressure to do more about those arriving carrying asylum seekers. it is finalizing a deal with malaysia to send some 800 asylum seekers as a deterrence. meanwhile the government is also being forced to act on the live exports of cattle to indonesia after its shocking scene in the mistreatment in a number of lives. here are the highlights of the austrian parliament. >> my question, will the prime minister of state house on the report by the climate commission in title the critical decade? why is it critical for the climate and why is it critical to set a price on carbon? [inaudible conversations]

>> yes, prime minister. he continues to interject across the chamber to the gallery >> the member will resume his seat. >> first thank you for the miss speak. usually i do the misspeaks. regrettably, there were so many other people interjecting from both sides of the member was actually still interjecting but he certainly went to think he

can take the call. he has been warned and he is now on a slippery slope. i remind members the precursor and i remind members especially those to the chamber the only person that can move for the withdrawal, only a member can be, a motion can be moved to withdraw so if it happens. [laughter] five seen the movement but doing numbers in the chamber under the present circumstance and i'm just making sure i remind people what happens if i have members to support the action myself. the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much

mr. speaker and i think the members for his question though it does now seem some time ago but he is questioned on a very important topic manly climate change, and these important reports that came out today from the climate commission entitled the critical decade, and the core studies and important title because in this report we of climate scientists confirming that climate change is real and climate science is confirming that action is needed on climate change. this is a report that is the extensively reviewed by climate scientists including the the csis and your show of meteorology. and of course we've worked on this report also been working with his team has they've undertaken their update on the climate side. this is between 2001 to 2010

global average temperature was nearly half a degree higher than the average temperature from 1961 to 1990. that makes it the warmest decade on record. and as it is forced to absorb more carbon dioxide is becoming more acidic with a 15% decrease in calcification rates over the past two decades affecting natural icons like the great barrier reef. on the west coast of australia the sea levels have risen by more than a centimeter per year since the 1990's. around two-thirds of that comes from increased sea temperatures. and with a rising sea levels come extreme weather events and a sea level rise of only half a meter by the turn of the century came to the different seat. in sydney for a sample a weather event could happen almost

monthly. mr. speaker, this is very important information and i am not tall surprised by some of the hearing that has broken out on the other side because the court's senior members of the coalition today like the senator mentioned have come out against this report and concern the climate change, and we know that the leader of the opposition stays in climate change denial which is why he is prepared to go around that the member has rightly said can't work and would be hugely costly. these are the actions of someone in a climate change. but mr. speaker, we would say to the leader of the opposition he should be pursuing the example of conservatives trying to lead to the future like the prime minister cameron in the united kingdom who of course have announced very deep cuts in carbon pollution and have said

this will position the u.k. as a leading player in the low carbon economy, creating significant industries and jobs. now this report concerns climate change is real and to tackle claim that change we must cut carbon pollution and to cut carbon pollution the most efficient way of doing it is to put a price on carbon, and i am determined and the government is determined we will do just that we will not succumb to the leader of the opposition and his team climate team denial or follow him down the path of the costly scheme that cannot work. it is a critical decade. it's a critical year for those who believe in climate change. >> my question is to the minister for immigration. given that malaysia is into the united states refuge convention, what guarantee has the minister

received from the government to, quote, provide protection for persons seeking asylum pending a determination of the refugee status as required by the migration act? >> the minister for immigration and citizenship. >> mr. speaker i think the member and the other opposition still has an interest in their rights and protection for asylum seekers mr. speaker. i would refer the member to the commitments made by the prime minister of malaysia in a joint statement with the prime minister of australia which indicated that the asylum seekers would be treated with dignity and respect, mr. speaker. i also refer the member to my statements that the negotiations on the operational details are continuing with malaysia and the government will be providing further information as those negotiations are completed. of course, mr. speaker would bring the attention to the

statements by the u.n. but in geneva and australia that this arrangement presents a significant step forward and the opportunity to improve asylum seekers throughout the region. i understand the frustration of the opposition and i understand mr. speaker that the opposition as devastated the the government raised an international agreement but at the same time i understand the sensitivity as we continue to implement this arrangement. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to the treasurer. to his comments just last friday on abc radio regarding the government plan to lift royalties on farms when he said,

and i quote, he did not communicate he was going to do this to us. what mr. burnett has done is just very strange. he didn't communicate with us. he didn't discuss it with us. does the treasurer stand by his own words? >> of the deputy prime minister of the treasure? >> i thank the treasurer for his questions yet we have had a humiliating back down today because he has been forced to admit that he knew that if he took this decision to increase royalties then it would be withdrawn by the independent commission. and he has finally admitted that today. and he's also put some correspondence in circulation which goes back almost 13 months where he did raise the question of the finance but a matter he

has not discussed with me, mr. speaker and he did put that in a letter, no doubt about that, but he didn't say that he was moving to put it in that budget then or in a subsequent budgets because he made that announcement before the budget, mr. speaker, before the budget before last so what he's conceived is that he knowingly went ahead with a royalty increase knowing that would result most probably in less revenue for the people of western australia, and with that demonstrates is that he's all about politics, not about the benefit or investing in infrastructure in the west australia, so he's increased the royalty with the money is going to be withdrawn as he indicated

in that letter, as he has indicated in that letter he knew it would be withdrawn, mr. speaker, and the approval of all of this is in an article that appeared in the press on the weekend. he talks about going to western australia about a year ago and he said he was talking to norman for serving in that government. and mr. more said to him there was little point in lifting of royalties as the commission process would immediately take the revenue away. so the whole time they knew if they lifted their loyalty it would be withdrawn by the commission. they knew that. and despite that, they went ahead and lifted royalties in this budget, not in the budget before this, not one year ago. so she knew by correspondence sent in his own name --

>> order. order. >> a point of order. >> i ask the treasurer whether he stands by his own words. whether you stand by your words. >> order. >> often i certainly do stand by what i've said about this matter. the fact is this the premier has kicked and increased his royalties knowing that they would be withdrawn, knowing that was the case and having mentioned that in correspondence having the minister is telling journalists still be the case and he didn't precede in the budget before last. but suddenly out of the blue he comes forward last week and

increases his royalties and then goes out and pretends that revenue would not be withdrawn despite the correspondence and having the minister's travelling around telling journalists it would be withdrawn. and despite all that this is the primm minister of western australia who this time last year where the talks too heavily. and what does he do this year? she increases the taxation of the companies. and he does it in such a way that it is difficult for further investment to take place in the infrastructure and western australia. and he is also carrying on about this because he knows the budget figures based on the exchange rate assumption which means his budget figures are wrong not just of this year but the rest.

estimate the member has the floor. >> my question is to the minister of immigration and i refer to the legislation by the parliament yesterday that now enables the asylum seekers to make claims under the united nations convention against torture. given that it isn't a significant intervention can the minister confirm that the asylum seekers can be sent to malaysia may be eligible to prevent the transfer and remained in australia will climb under the convention regarding the potential treatment is assessed under the new law? >> the minister for immigration and citizenship? >> mr. speaker i cannot confirm that because it is not true as the member well knows, mr. speaker and he's completely misrepresented the protection legislation once again as he has previously, mr. speaker, and the arrangements with malaysia. now let's go through this, mr. speaker miss all but complete to methodically.

the prime minister of australia, and the prime minister of malaysia released a statement that outlines the agreement reached buy then. and that statement says prime ministers have agreed that the limits to this bilateral agreement will include transfers treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights, mr. speaker. that is what the agreement between the two prime ministers says very clearly, mr. speaker. it has been confirmed by the high commissioner from malaysia to australia since then, mr. speaker that they will be treated humanely under terms of that agreement and the members of misrepresent the situation in relation to malaysia, mr. speaker. the member comes in here and cry crocodile tears about the situation for the asylum seekers and kreisky's crocodile tears at the same time criticizing us for taking too many asylum seekers out of malaysia but criticizing

us for taking for thousand seekers out. >> it is excelled by this point. >> the member proposed an arrangement similar to that proposed by the government relation transfer agreement and instead of malaysia, he proposed iran. i wonder how he would have gone negotiating the protection of this government as negotiated with the president mahmoud ahmadinejad. estimate of the leader of the opposition. >> this question as to the prime minister and i refer the prime minister to the latest version of the report. in particular, where this statement is made australian households will ultimately hear the full cost of a carbon price. let me repeat that mr. speaker, australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of

the carbon price. so why ask the prime minister how can she continue to maintain that her tax only makes the polluters pay? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker and i think the leader of the opposition for his reference to the review which he gave me earlier today and about which he thinks the national press club has the review in my hand it's the product of seven months and i think we should thank him as an australian parliament and as an australian nation anticipated to agree with every view put forward but that shouldn't stop us actually from thinking him for his work and respecting him and his professionalism in doing it.

>> order. slide the leader of the opposition given his talk about the question of cost is the professor about cost there's one on page 77 of this report, and he uses the terminology direct action as the leader of the opposition would use to refer to his policy i would refer to it as a policy in which polluters are subsidized. using direct action measures to achieve similar amounts of emission reduction would raise -- >> order. -- would raise costs more than carbon but wouldn't raise the revenue [inaudible]

>> order, order >> the management of opposition business a point of order to respect the opposition question couldn't have been more specific. it pointed of a sentence from the review and asked the prime minister has she continued to maintain the biggest polluters would pay after quoting from the review the prime minister is not even attempting to answer that question >> the opposition business will resume his state. >> at the time and the member approached the dispatch box, the prime minister was reading a further reference into a report to carvin pricing. the prime minister has to call. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, and my point is basically this, that if you want to look at the review that you

should to look at all of it. and what he does say about the measure proposed by the leader of the opposition is that they would raise costs much more than a carbon price that wouldn't raise the revenue to offset or reduce the cost in any of these we. the cost might be covered by budgetary expenditure but this affects who pays the cost. other people's taxes have to rise in the expenditures and a direct action. so mr. speaker with the professor is putting their and what is a clear contrast between the policy of the government stand for and the opposition policy -- that these polluters would pay. >> we've always been clear about that big polluters to pay the price and by paying that price

would have the incentive they need to reduce the carbon pollution they had met. we have also been very clear with austrian families, and when i first outlined the carvin pricing mechanism to the australian community that there will be price impact that flow through to australian households, and that's why we will use the majority of the revenue raised from pricing carbon to assist the households with those impacts to generously assist families who need that assistance the most and we will use the remainder of the revenue to protect australian jobs and fund programs which help the move to a clean energy economy. as the professor sees the leader of the opposition plan is about putting costs directly onto the shoulders of the tax payers,

that is on to the shoulders of australian families without any compensation at all. >> [inaudible] that we are not going to impose the legislation values on our neighbors. is the minister aware when third goes hungry every night but these people are not allowed to fish in our waters and since the process in australia cost $7,500 purchase in light of this wouldn't that be entitled to say. could the minister advice this will no longer pay to provide water and food could the minister finally [inaudible]

>> order. the honorable member's time has expired. .. i've seen that matter -- met with some of the stairs.

a similar story that covers much of north australia through the northern territory and into west australia. there are a large number of jobs for family businesses and indigenous employment operations, which are under same by large industries. it is also true that the reason this debate has taken off in such a way over the last 24 hours is the footage that was on television last night was just awful. and i thought that watching it. i am sure every australian felt that and i'm sure every farmer felt that as well. i know comments have been made by the association already about the distress many of them have felt in seeing their stock treated in the way we saw in a number of establishments last

night. the footage was only made available to the minister for alger quarter before the program went to air. in that time, a number of actions have been taken in the time minister for agriculture provided a detailed media conference, where he went through the gravity of what had been decided and also of the specific actions which either be undertaken and further actions, which he has lived the way forward. suffice to say that the establishments that have been involved in has been said that in this establishments, destroying farmers to expect it their stock will be treated better than that. the strand people expected and was originating from australia will be treated better than that in the actions taken thus far by the minister has centered on the specific establishments.

>> the member of sydney. >> tmax minister speaker. my question is to the treasure. the fact that the economy went backwards the first three months. treasurer, why is the government sending australian households and businesses with the mining tax, and a flat moving when we now go get a mining boom costs can lead to economic pneumonia? >> the deputy prime minister of the treasurer. >> order a mac order! order. the deputy prime minister of the treasurer. >> well, mr. speaker, i am simply stunned by that question. he refers to the contraction in the quarter as the mining boom

when in fact -- what effect it had have had a contraction in the last quarter of 1.7 percentage points because of the impact of the biggest natural disaster in history. >> mr. speaker. >> it on except that on that side of the house. i am completely stunned as to how that might have become. there was a contraction in the march quarter of 1.2%. the 1.7% came from the natural disaster. from the cyclone, to the floods in northern wales, from the floods in the northwest of australia. and they can into this house and describe that as a mining boom. the scissors just extraordinary. i think i can understand why they are so out of touch because we had a clue of this a few weeks ago. the leader of the opposition

came into this house and gave a speech for 30 minutes and didn't once mention the impact of the floods, cyclones or the weather offense at the northwest of western australia. not once in a 30 minute speech. and then of course we had a treasurer coach of the press club to supposedly delivers some alternative to the budget. not once in a 30 minute speech did he mention the impact of the cyclone yossi and other weather events. so this chat shows how out of touch, how they do not understand the challenges facing yesterday and economy. the fact is -- the fact is the fundamentals of our economy are strong. if you have a look at the figures today, you will see that consumption, investments and business investment, mr. speaker are all making positive

contributions. but the big negative in business today is the impact of cyclones and floods, which pretend they never happened. this is incredible. i don't think there's been an opposition is out of touch in the history of this country. and it is a very strong part of business we have come a very strong. i want to ignore the fact that we're going to cope with that in the years ahead. we've got to bring our budget back to service. they obeyed intent on serving. they never see the deficits as they come into this house in the whole state, having missed out. >> order!

order! goes on my last will come to order. order! the treasurer has to call. >> mr. speaker, they are opposing saving measures in this house. they are trained to back the government surplus, mr. speaker. it has gotten so bad and so negative that they are now opposing their own policy. i mean, can you believe that clicks opposing a policy that goes back to 2004 because they are so negative. >> treasure will be soon his speech. the leader of the opposition. >> tmax minister speaker. my question is to the prime minister. yes the prime minister, will she repudiate professor gallo's proposal for an elected, unaccountable body for permissions reductions target?

>> order. those on my right will come to order. the minister will speak. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. as my colleagues have asserted the ground where discussion of the economy and respect the only things he knows how to do, which is to restore the ideas and ensuing today in an incredibly irresponsible way. now all anybody who is listening to the leader of the opposition wish to take site to these very clearly the leader of the opposition has been represented. professor gillard come the leader of the opposition become an argument that deals with the fact. he knows he can't pass an

argument that deals with the fact he never wanted to hear the facts because as soon as the facts on the table, and it's painful to way. so when every opportunity, including every opportunity in these parliaments, he walked in with distortion. professor gallo did not say with the leader of the opposition put into question. that did not happen. but professor gallo talked about was the time the crime if the mission they have united kingdom, where her body may recommend us to government, which then performed its democratic role. of course, our democracy is still with bodies that make recommendations to government. the activity is just one such body that makes recommendations to government. now, if we look at the way of

our democracy has worked for years about anybody taking the political point of receiving a labor of the opposition take today. i never heard the leader of the opposition walk up to the effects or invade any other microphone inside his conservative counterpart, david cameron is inappropriate. >> member from norton. >> manager of opposition business point of order. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister has asked a specific question. she is quite out of order and ask you to try the opposition. >> order! the miniature of opposition is resuming. no matter how he characterizes the argument in the response,

the only requirement is the response be directly relevant in the prime minister is aware of the need to be directly relevant >> thank you for image, mr. speaker. i had to distortion of gallo's word to make correct in that distortion. no one should believe it's true or not true and i am pointing out the truth and the truth about professor connors said in a kind of arrangement he is thinking about around the world, including in the united kingdom where prime minister david cameron has recently received recommendations from the climate commission and determined to act on recommendations. i did not see the leader of the opposition say at

inspector general says the u.s. government is failing to meet key milestones for the transition. here's here's more from a hearing held by the commission on wartime contracting. this is just over 15 minutes. >> we fully support the inspector general. we believe inspector general's perform a critical function of calling attention to and highlighting issues that must be dealt with, either warnings in advance or catching max pesce and must be dealt with summarily. d. -- a request for the inspector general's office for fy 12 to $65.154 million.

we carry sigar in our counts. it is $65.2 billion their budget in fy 11 in the full-year cr was 50s 6 million. we have supported requested amounts to almost a 10%, 9% increase. we get the information for fiscal years. the fy 08, for example, actual was was 52 billion. so they are going because now they have a regional office in the middle east whose main focus is working on iraq and afghanistan issues in the department has supported their funding request and supported

the request by allocating very scarce sleeping accommodations to do their jobs. >> in the time the remains, what to talk about the state department response. i think one can argue that reasonable minds can differ about a number of recommendations, including the ones we just discussed arguably. it seems to be one can argue the least for the grounds upon which the state department argue is the notion that there should be written justifications on those occasions when a contracting officer recommend suspension and the management of the department issued refuses to carry out a recommendation. and the rationale for opposing this recommendation by the state department was requiring written justifications would be an

administrative or deny most agencies suspension and to permit programs come or charity have limited resources to carry out their existing missions. to me, the sum and substance of that as it is too time-consuming to what contract is accountable to the american taxpayer and insurer diplomats and military personnel, to violent officers could support they need. i was really shocked they didn't tell you about that response. >> the distinction, sir, and who makes the final decision on the disbarment. it is not the state department management. it is the procurement executives of the department who is separate from the head of contract team. so with the procurement executives decide that the individual contracting officer has not made his or her case in law and equity, then it is the procurement executives.

it's not me, not the assistant secretary for administration. it's not the deputy assistant secretary for logistics management. it is the quasi-independent procurement. >> is it an unduly burdensome burden on the chief executive officer to make the determination? >> it is not the determination of the chief acquisitions office. it is determination of the quasi-independent procurement executives. every agency has a semi-independent procurement executive who does not issue contracts, who provides policy guidance and oversight to the contracting. so if he got the state department makes that determination, it is a kind of independent interpretation and basically i feel that is exactly what it should be. we must ensure that the american

taxpayer spends a dollar and $50 at the value. >> ambassador, we know that. we know we've got to do that. i want to pursue this because i find this beyond silly. i find it outrageous that the department of state can say that when a contract to an officer recommends disbarment or suspension or even if dca or dcm mate, someone is recommending it, but there shouldn't be a justification for why, when it is ignored, is ignored. it seems to me so basic. so uni and the department and commission has a huge disagreement that we will continue to pursue. how many apartments recommendations have been made in the last year?

no, that unacceptable. now, your mac is not on. i'll just tell you why it's not acceptable. what is not acceptable is you don't know it and yet you are saying it's burdensome. how can it be burdensome if you don't know what? >> i will provide information given your statement, mr. chairman, i will be the issue. >> limit to you but you should. >> i will consult with u.s. government agencies who are impacted by this as well. >> we know dod hasn't maybe it's burdensome because they have so many. but if this is the cabal among the administration to kind of say, we don't want to do it in your part of it, that would be huge mistake. so i'll calm down because you're going to get back to us. and he just put on the record the following. you don't know how many recommendations are on the department and get your department is recommending -- i recommendation not be done

because it's burdensome. i was being either if we have so many that are important, that the huge indication of a problem. and if we have too few that have been recommended in the department is claiming it is burdensome, then we think it is a pretty outrageous response. so i appreciate you looking at that. >> i'd like to -- when you testified he for the oversight committee, you made the point that albeit to a decent state were inherently governmental. as you explain to me why you made, and the transition from dod to state that everything you are doing in iraq, and the transfer are not inherently governmental therefore you can use contract is?

>> i misspoke in the beginning. that is the claim. and in your statement, you make it in your very first part of your statement, you jump right in and say the activities are not inherently governmental. why? are you making claim? >> because -- because, mr. chairman, certain activities are inherently governmental. law enforcement activities of consular officers, political and economic reporting, executive management, those are inherently governmental. there are other activities that i believe are not inherently governmental. if you look -- let's use security because that is one of your there commissioners to comment on that as well. if you look at security, security of -- is not considered inherently governmental in the united states. the united states government

contracts for security personnel. >> their security and then there's security, says a pretty broad term. for me just ask you this. if you have an ied and you need to get it a mandate to deal with the entries that are outside the embassy and/or you're under fire and you have to shoot your way out to get back to safety, in either case you have to get someone there to attend to the wounded and you have to aggressively use force or you have to aggressively use force to get out, why do you think that is not an inherently governmental function? >> because i believe even in the circumstances, security is not inherent. i regard that as there is law

enforcement, which is inherently governmental and then there's security. >> limit just ask you this, ambassador. he security that covers such a rage. i really narrowed it down. we have to fight our way and we have to fight her way out to get away from it. we have to use an aggressive effort with guns, with weapons to do that. why is that not inherently governmental? >> because it does not the definitions of inherently governmental. >> the definition is something only a government entity -- i realized that a circular -- a secular definition. >> two and a half minutes of time. let me take his example. why then do you say okay i could use a contractor.

you know, i propose using a contractor of necessity because otherwise, you know, there's a whole lot of combat medics both paying attention to this, army combat, navy corpsman, and maybe some rolling around in their graves and what is going on here? the army and the military have always made the decision to combat medics are done by a military person. by default that's governmental. when they fly chopper and a view have an ied, colliver schumann. they care enough that. no one leaves the injured. they have lifesaving. the united states army doesn't use civilians. >> the united states primary mission is to project force in defense of the united states and its values. >> okay, we're talking about a

rescue mission that you're picking up there's nothing to do with projected force. it's lifesaving. >> i'm saying that is good distinction. it is inherently governmental, lifesaving. >> are you comfortable with that definition? >> let me tell you in response to the second part. i am comfortable with this definition, gas, inherently uncomfortable. secondly, there are 1800 some odd state department diplomatic security professionals in the entire world. i need, i believe something like when all is said and done, i am going to need something close to 7500 static, just static for both afghanistan. >> ambassador, i know we are going and i'm going to agree with you. the bottom line is necessity

requires you to use contractors because you have such a huge need. back to me -- let me say, you are a very candid greatness, so i appreciate the dialogue. but a more helpful response to this commission and to congress but he guess what, we have no choice we have these contract nurse. what i fear that if you feel you have to use contractors and admit you are using them for inherently governmental, you are then breaking them off. it's not a criminal outcome of which are breaking up. i think one of the recommendations -- let me ask it this, i recommendation says there needs to be a recommendation on the part of government that sometimes we have to use contractors, nongovernment people can inherently governmental situations because as your report talks about in the? ddr, and that sometimes contractors are the default

mechanism. and maybe you need that default mechanism because i think that is where you're going with your answer. >> it is essentially -- i know that i have a mission that's been getting to me. lawyers as opposed to the enforcement, military force is not inherently governmental. if the commission says the process of that analysis should be changed, i'm not going to object to that. i note the basic number is in a note there is a sine curve. but tomorrow, hopefully in the indefinite tomorrow i am not going to need 7500 u.s. government employees to provide static security. in managing and recruiting that process. >> we hear two things and i'm going to agree with you. one is it may not be possible for you to have government

people for so these functions. and the second thing we hear for the record is you would have to build up to a point and then what should be able to use these folks later on in the contingency draws down. those are two valid points. what are commission feels as it may be unfair to people like you to be put in a situation where you may have no choice but to use contractors and then have to kind of claim what they are doing is inherently governmental. i'll just put that on the record. >> tonight on c-span 2, medicare and social security trustees talk about the fiscal health of those programs.