of contractors and vy wedding that work. -- in evaluating network. thank you for bearing with us this long into the afternoon. . >> it was well below par. why do you believe some contracting officials are still awarding contracts and monetary incentives even though the finished project is average or

even sub-standard? why does that go on? >> i think the issue is that folks get wrapped up in measuring process and interim success rather than keeping their eye on the ball as to the final outcome of the contract. are we getting what we contracted for? do we believe it is going to happen? folks get hung up on the instant award fee. . they do not tie that work to what is going to be completed in the ind. that is why we are pushing people towards those award fees being tied to award the outcomes. >> thank you for saying that. i welcome that comment. >> as i mentioned in my opening

statement, one aspect is a rigorous process. we utilize a performance evaluation board that follows nascent guidance and guidelines on how to conduct -- that follows nasa guidance and guidelines on how to evaluate performance. it ties back to the contract performance and evaluation criteria in the contract. it is key to have good guidance out there and then follow with the practice. the other thing i mentioned in my opening statement is that nasa we have a monthly baseline performance review. we look at the various projects and programs. we go back and look at the scores of award the contracts to make sure that the performance going on within a program or project is also measured and how

it compares to the award fee scores. if there is any disparity, a senior management gets involved in asking those questions about the reason for the difference. >> do you have any response to that question? >> the only thing i would add is that when you look at all of the factors being considered, one example brought up earlier referred to some egregious communication or performance on a dhs contract. yet they still received an award fee. in that situation if you look at all of the factors played out within the contract, there was very positive performance in numerous other areas such as increasing the operational availability of equipment. there were many strengths that were identified as well. yes, there was a negative finding by one evaluator that

cited a challenge area. in the end, they decided there was overall sufficient performance to grant a certain level of award fee. it should also be noted that in subsequent times, the contractor failed to take heed of the concerns identified. in the subsequenttw two periods there were no award fees awarded. >> i do agree with the comments made. the other element that gives us into that type of situation is that we do not use enough objective measures mixed with the traditional subjective measures. i think that is still an area in the award fee disciplines that agencies have not worked out hard enough on how to work objective measures in with the subject of ones. >> mr. mccain has been tied up

on the floor with other issues before the senate. i asked the staff if they have a question he would like to ask if he had been here. they had given me one. this is for you, mr. chvotkin. it says to please ask whether you remember companies use award fee type contracts. if so, with these companies think the problems we have highlighted today could be addressed by the member companies? what would they do about it? >> many of our companies are using award the contracts. these are established by the government as part of the business relationship. certainly, contractors have the

responsibility and accountability in the bidding process to make sure that the award fee plan and structure of the contract, the elements of the incentives, and the measurements and metrics are appropriate. when there is a lack of clarity, they have an obligation to come forward with that. too many times, the goal is get the contract and worry about it during performance. these become difficult performance issues. there is the issue between the base fee and the award fee. making it clear that it is not a bonus is important to spell out. there's also the importance of the determinations on how an agency will evaluate an award fee. we absolutely use them. the member companies are active in all of these four federal agencies. we watched the award fee issues carefully. there is an important discussion about what we can raise during

the solicitation process and then once awarded a contract, making sure the performance is primary and that the elements india work the plan are followed. >> thank you. i appreciate your sticking around until we got to this panel to hear from you and respond to our questions. there are probably colleagues that will want to submit questions for the record. if you could have you responses back within two weeks after you received our questions, we would appreciate that very much. i was reflecting on what we have heard from this panel and what we have heard from our first panel. i always think about what the take the weight should be for us. -- i always think about what

they take away should be for us. it is important to clearly outlined the objectives of an agency. they should know that and be able to clearly outlined their objectives and what they need from a contractor. i think mr. assad talked about measuring outcomes and not process. that is a theme that several of you touched upon. i think that one of you talked about cost-benefit analysis, using clear and measurable criteria as an important point. we need clear guidelines from omb. i think they are endeavoring to provide better guidelines as time goes by. we need training for those who manage contractors and make sure

that they have what they need to do their jobs well and protect the interests of the agencies and taxpayers. sharing best practices for the agencies that are doing a better job to make sure that the other agencies that have not come along as quickly benefit from what others are doing better is also important. i think one or two people talked about aligning payments to contractor performance and elevating approval. that is elevating the approval of awarding fees to a fairly senior leadership people in some cases. that is to say that when there are these rollovers that the decision goes to a fairly high level. those are just some of the ideas. i suspect that some who may have

joined us during the course of the hearing, for some this is pretty dry stuff. people do get upset when they think their taxpayer dollars are not being well spent. we would not have much appetite for that if we were running substantial budget surpluses. as it turns out, we're running substantial budget deficit. we have done that for much of the last eight years. every little bit helps. in this case, we're talking about billions of dollars that may have been misspent. i hope that we're getting our hands around that and our heads as well to be able to reduce that and have appropriate awarding of the fees. i hope that we will all do an even better job as time goes by.

the purpose of this hearing was to try to make sure that happens. we have a history in this subcommittee of not just focusing on an issue once and then going away. we continue to focus on it so that those involved will know that this is important. they will know that we are here to put a spotlight on behavior that we want to hold up as a good example just as well as we would put a spotlight on behavior that is inappropriate. thank you for the good work that you're doing. thank those in your department for supporting that good work. for those who are not, we need them to do better. the taxpayers need for them to do better. we expect that. we hope the department that was not able to come today will have a chance to share some of their

advice with us outside of the hearing. we may have a private meeting with one or two of them to see how they are doing. we have a lot of senior positions and some that are not as senior within the federal departments that required the administration to submit and nominate someone. we require that nominee to go through senate approval. in a lot of cases, that makes sense. in a lot of cases, it does not make sense. we have people on one side of the other that may hold a nominee for no valid reason except to make a point. that is unfortunate. as a result, we have had a long period of time go by when we do not have the right people doing the jobs. i do not know if you remember a fellow was here a year or so who ago who testified for the

department of defense. he worked with john young. i asked this fellow how long he had been in his job. i think he said like a year-and- a-half. i asked what kind of turnover he got from his predecessor. he said the position had been vacant for three years. i asked about how many direct reports he had. he said he had six. he said he had only two on board and that there were four vacancies when he assumed the new position. that is unacceptable. these are issues we need to address more broadly as well. thank you for helping us to flesh out the picture and get our heads around these challenges a little bit better. if you could respond to our follow-up questions within two

weeks, i will be grateful. having said that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> david cohen is an executive with comcast. he will give us his take on the fcc and the future of broadband in america. on tuesday, the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor for supreme court justice. coming this fall, tour the home to america's highest court, the supreme court. >> i have no clue. >> maybe government grants. >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products. >> public money. >> my taxes. >> america's cable companies created c-span as the public

service, a private business initiatives. there is no government mandate, no government money. >> the british prime minister answers a range of questions before the british house of commons liaison committee. the committee is made up of the 30 chairmen of the house of commons select committees. several questions focused on the british economy, the banking crisis, and foreign affairs, specifically afghanistan. this is about two hours. >> order, order. as usual, you have been told the themes. as usual, you have not been told the questions. the first theme is the reform of banking and banking regulation. that will be introduced and led by john mcford.

the second team will be led by edward lee. the third subject of constitutional issues has been sub-divided. the reform of parliament and constitutional structures will be included. we shall go straight into the first team. >> the key. good morning, prime minister. the pay package at rbs is very similar to the new contract at real madrid. is the case of business as usual? is he running rings around the government regulator? >> we just published the first report of the walker commission

into the report of government banks. he makes clear recommendations that i believe will be adopted. the first thing is that remuneration has got to be long term. in other words, it is only on the basis of long-term performance that we can guarantee the bonus system that is to be used in the future. he is recommending that the bonuses and remuneration should be over five-year period. the second thing is transparency. you may have seen the chancellor talking about this. there has to be far greater transparency so that the public is aware of what is happening. that leads to the third conclusion that the regulatory system has got to take into account banks who are prepared to pay high remuneration. that has got to be a factor in the regulation of the banks. the financial-services authority will be issuing a revised accord on the standards of murmuration

-- of enumeration. i think the combination of what the walker review is recommending in talking about severe excesses that have got to be dealt with. he talks about boardroom failures in the city. it is the combination of walker and what he is recommending and what the fsa is prepared to do, i think that fundamentally changes the environment in which bonus payments are made. if i am clear, there have been excesses'. it is seen by the public as irresponsible and unfair. we've got to take action. the action is being taken through regulatory means and the walker report. >> there was news of the massive bonuses at goldman sachs that created outrage. concern has been expressed by the chairman of the fsa and the

governor of the bank of england recently about the aggressive trading. the city has stolen a match on the regulators. it seems hard to pull that back. >> any excessive payments are unacceptable. remuneration has to be based on long-term performance. if it is based on short-term dealmaking, the likelihood is that the financial institution is put at risk. that is why it has to come under the regulatory system. we are clear that there has to be long-term bases for rumination and not short term deals. secondly, there has to be transparency. there has to be the regulatory system available to take action when necessary. i repeat that the action we are proposing to take is designed to deal with many of these problems. >> when the governor of the bank of england was before the treasury committee on the 24th of june, he stated he had not been consulted on the white paper on financial regulation.

he boldly stated that there was no meeting of the three principles in the authority. that was just one week before the paper came out. do you have a grip on this situation? >> i am not a member of that group. it will be formalized on to a legislative basis. it will become the board. the treasury is a member of the bank of england is a member, and the financial services authority is a member. that is the right thing. these three organizations have got to be able to meet together. they've got to be able to discuss the issues that come up. they've got to be able to discuss immediate problems like the health and stability of the bank. when i was at the treasury, that is the way we did things. i believe that is the way things are done now. to put on a more solid footing for the long term is the best thing to do. you cannot have only one institution. all three institutions have got

to work together to deal with the problems. >> the governor said a week before the paper was due out that he had not been consulted. the paper had been delayed. has the governor become a loose cannon? >> no,, the governor does a very good job. people recognize his talents. that is why he was appointed for a second term as governor. i think the important thing to recognize is that you will always have to have a system they're recognizing this in america as well. the regulatory authority, the central bank, the treasury, and the finance ministry about to work together. otherwise, you cannot deal with the complexity of problems that arise. some affect the stability of the system. some affect the individual institutions that are supervised. some obviously affect the public and public finances. therefore, you have to have the three together. the basis of the system is the one that i believe will be

followed around the world. it is not that we're moving from the previous system. we're trying to make it even stronger in the relationships that it got to develop better in the future. >> the treasury select committee does not seem like there is the same cohesion. i think that is the message that should be taken back. as far as this financial crisis is concerned, it hit us very hard indeed. with the strong financial sector in the economy. i think around the world people appreciate that britain took the lead in dealing with many problems in the financial system. we first recognized the need to recapitalize the banks and that simply providing liquidity was not going to be enough. it was us to recognize that we would have to take shares in the banks as well if we were going to be able to continue to keep the financial system moving forward. i think you will find a lot of countries have been following what britain did. i think we should not get into an insular debate. this is a global economy.

we've got to consult with other countries. the tripartite system in britain is relevant to other countries around the world. >> we did a lot of recapitalization of the banks. the deal with the bank of england was a big selling point. has it ended up a double edged sword for the government now? >> i think we need an historical perspective on this. inflation in this country was the major problem we faced for 50 years. every government whether labor or conservative has been bedeviled by the problem of inflation. it got up to double-digit figures in many decades as a result of the billiard to have a proper system to deal with inflation. when we made the bank of england independent, long-term interest rates came down immediately. the record of the bank of england and the monetary system in controlling inflation has been very good indeed.

inflation has been half of what was in the previous decade. you know that inflation has been far less of a problem in the last 10 years that has been in any previous decade. that is the success of making the bank of england independent in a monetary and fiscal framework based on the accountability and transparency and having clear objectives. the bank of england has always had a role in financial stability. i was involved in the first memorandum of understanding. the bank of england is always involved in these issues. the first crisis i dealt with was in korea. then we had to deal with the russian crisis. the bank of england is always involved in these issues of financial stability. the regulation of individual institutions is better done by a regulating authority like the financial-services authority. in america, they're trying to do what we did, to bring together the different regulatory authorities so that they operate under one umbrella in america.

in britain, we have gone further and made it one separate organization. it is also able to deal with individual institutions and stop the self-regulation we have in the past. that is something that you can build on. that is the right model for the future. >> prime minister, i was a member of the treasury select committee when he first appeared before us as chancellor having made the bank of england independent. that is something you refused to discuss in the previous election. you have just announced that this is a great success. we've just witnessed the biggest single banking collapse since the 1930's. looking forward, the government has refused to contemplate separating high risk banking away from high street banking. can you explain what measures you have now put in place having had this disaster to stop it from happening again? >> i was talking about

inflation. i do not think there is any doubt that our inflation record compared to other countries and previous decades is substantially better. remember the problems we had with the burst of inflation followed by wage inflation. we have the classic cycles as a result of that. there were inflationary problems that had to be dealt with. as far as the regulatory system, the whole world has got to change its approach to regulation. i have been saying for 10 years that we have a global financial system. we've got to have a global means of coordinating the supervision. most of the problems that hit british banking have been from the overseas assets, investments, and interests they have held. that is one of the problems in a global economy. if he of the banks of one country operating in another country, you have to have some convergence in the regulatory process. you talked about the issue of retail and investment banks. i believe your view is that you

should separate them. let's be absolutely clear. we have the crisis in retail banks and the crisis in investment banks. not one group of banks was immune from the crisis. you've got to deal with the high impact banks. this is what the government proposal is. where a bank has such resources and such potential risk for the financial stability of the country, the regulatory measures you have got to take to make sure it is doing the right things and got to be stronger in the future. you've got to have a better grasp of what it is doing in other countries. you can take the royal bank of scotland. the main problems came from the netherlands. you've got to have a grasp on what is happening in other countries. there's got to be a regulatory system applied to other institutions that have an impact on stability. that is what we're going to do in the future. they will probably have to hold more capital as a result of

there being the possibility that they are at greater risk to the financial system as a whole. these are the measures that alistair darling is bringing forward. >> that is part of the answer. i do not necessarily say you have to separate them. you do have to provide risk aversion and transparency. the government set aside the competition rules for a takeover. apart from speeding up the takeover to the detriment of lloyd's that might benefit from reflection, do you acknowledge that has led to severe reduction in choice and competition within the british banking system? that means many businesses are not getting access to finance to keep themselves going. how do you respond to the competition committee saying that the size of the royal bank of scotland and the competition

implications will have to be revisited and that britain cannot expect to be immune from competition rules? is it not the case that rbs will have to be broken up? >> hbs would have collapsed without the merger. let us be clear about what the implications would have been if we had not seen the bid for hbs. there are bound to be fewer banks operating in this country now. the biggest losses not been the competition or merger. it is the loss of foreign banks who are responsible for about half of the lending the was taking place for mortgages and business lending in the united kingdom in the last 10 years. you've had a withdrawal to home base of the large banks, the foreign banks operating around the world.

other banks operating in britain offered loans to mortgage holders and businesses. they have withdrawn, as you know. that has been the biggest loss to competition. as far as the european competition commission is concerned, it has to be remembered that there are financial stability issues as well as competition issues. of course, we want to see the maximum amount of competition in the banking sector. that must be our policy for the long run. >> are you in favor of more or less european? you seem to be contradictory. >> i am not contradictory at all. i think the competition commissioner has got to look at financial stability issues as well as competition issues. we cannot have big banks put at risk of collapse. it has always been understood the competition has got to work effectively. in the banking sector, we have also got to ensure stability.

as a result of european supervision and to the financial stability regime under the irish commissioner, we support the new world book that is going to be drawn up by the european banking system. we will be part of that system, and rightly so. individual institutions will be regulated by our own financial services authority. i think it is right throughout europe and the world to seek a common set of global rules and standards. financial institutions operate in many countries. they will have to follow those. i think we're right to be part of the european system. we want to see it as part of global system in future years. >> the banking crisis has generated economic, political, and social consequences. it seems to have been forgotten that the banking crisis

destroyed the faith and confidence in the system. barclays made that point when they appeared before the treasury committee a number of months ago. in an attempt to rebuild it, can you reassure the ordinary citizen the reform in the banking system will result in one where people do have trust and confidence in the system and also feel that they're getting a fair deal from it? lots of people do not feel that at the moment. >> i understand that. the behavior of banks in terms of their own braman rationed -- of their own remuneration and the way they work with other people's money was irresponsible and unfair to the people of the country. we had to make sure that we protected the savings of ordinary families. i believe we have managed to do that. we have to restructure the banking system for the future around sound principles.

while we're part of the global economy, the integrity and trust that is necessary for the banking system exists in every part of the global system. that is why we are involved in the international discussions. that is also why we made the changes in britain. to deal with the excess border and practices that shocked and appalled people and made me angry as well, we are bringing in these new rules about the long-term nature of the immigration -- of the enumeration and award and also reform of the regulation of the banking system when there are short-term deals with enumeration that does not seem justified. -- with our enumeration -- with remuneration that does not seem justified. >> people seem to a brand of the tripartite as the council of stability. the new body has been given no new tools.

why do you not follow the governor's advice and create the tools first and then to the institution they're after? >> i think we are following the governor's advice and the advice of lord turner who did get substantial report. the tripartite system is a way forward. i believe other countries will follow. self-regulation is out for financial institutions. that is why a body like the financial services authority is necessary. in matters of financial stability, you've got to involve the three institutions. the bank of england clearly has a major role to play. the reason the tripartite group was formalized is to recognize the importance of the three institutions being able to work formally and institutionally together in the future. that is the basis of the next age of the been the system. i believe that other countries will follow what we're doing. >> prime minister, thank you.

>> you referred to the walker report in the context of the action we intend to take. does this mean that you accepted in its entirety? do you have reservations? if you have reservations, what are those? >> walker has done an interim report with 39 recommendations. we will have to look at everyone in detail. the general recommendation that the role of the chairman and executive directors and non- executive directors has got to change is one that we support wholeheartedly. you cannot have non-executive directors that do not understand the risks that the company is taking. the tendency will be for full- time chairmen of institutions because of the stability of other institutions involved. the proposal for enumeration

beyond five years on a long-term basis is one that we would favor. women also favor the transparency that he is demanding. i would support that. -- we've also favor the transparency that he is demanding. i would support that. fallback is something that we have proposed. their various ways to do it. you can pay people and then pull back if things go wrong. you can hold back the money until later. drawback does have an important part to play. i think it is something that is important to the proper sanctions, disciplines, and rewards in the financial system of the future. i see that as being practical. there are some instances of that already happening. >> we move on to the second thing, recovering from the recession. >> we all hope that next spring, we will be recovering from the recession.

we will then be faced with difficult choices. we will have a budget deficit. for every four pounds that we spend, we will be borrowing 1 pound. difficult choices will have to be made. do you think we should have an open debate now of what we intend to do with the public services? and in particular about where the cuts should fall? >> first of all, we've got to get back to growth and employment and the economy. the major determinants of our deficit and debts is the level of growth and indirectly the level of employment in the economy. the first priority is to get growth and employment into the economy. that is why we are spending additional money now to make sure that we come out of the recession. the additional money is to create jobs. i think you have seen from the

unemployment figures yesterday at the rate of unemployment is slowing. there is great growth in the economy. the creation of jobs as part of that. >> for the sake of argument, except that everything you're doing on spending is right. we have had that debate. if there is no proper planning now so that cora decisions are being made -- so that horrid decisions are being made -- this headline says that doomsday plans are being prepared by civil servants. is this going on? >> you must not believe everything you read in the newspapers. >> it is not true? >> it is quite ridiculous. in a situation where there is uncertainty about what is going to happen in the next few

months or year to the economy, you cannot predict absolutely what your level of growth is going to be and what resources will be available for public spending two years from now. we're only 15 months into a spending review. the last one was in 2007. the previous one was in 2004. we started this one in april of last year. we're only 15 months into it. we have the great uncertainties of not being absolutely sure what will happen to the world economy and the british economy. ideologically, to predetermine what will be allocated to a particular service now for something that is going to happen in 2012 or 2013 is in my view a mistake. it cannot be done. there may be more certainty later, but not now. >> was the lord wrong when he said that there will be spending choices in the growing need for greater efficiency and less spending is cut and some

programs? he is the secretary of state, your right hand man. what was he talking about with less spending in some programs? >> when i said that you cannot predetermine allocations to individual budgets, that does not mean that you did not say that we've had to spend additional money to take the country out of recession. i think we're having some success in doing that. i hope he will it knowledge that. the profile of public spending will be different in the years to come. they're tough choices that have to be made. real choices about to be made about how you get more efficiency so that you can spend more on the front line services, how you can change the balance of priorities in the public services, how we enact a program of asset sales that we have got. there are tough choices to be made. it is right to say that we are spending money now to take us out of the recession and therefore the profile of capital spending is going to be different in years to come. you cannot say that in july of

2009 that you know exactly what the growth revenue of your economy will be in 2011 or what the level of unemployment will be. it will become clearer as we move forward that the action we've taken is having an effect. you cannot say absolutely now what the right level of allocation for a particular service in 2011 is going to be. >> i do not want to get involved in the grand strategy of afghanistan, but how much are we spending on that this year? >> i would say that we're spending about 3 billion pounds, in addition to the defense budget. >> when they work out what we can or cannot do, apparently, the bottom of the entire poppy crop in 2002. how much are we spending? are we looking at other things like buying up poppy crops to

add to the military program? i know you do not want to get into the details. i am giving you one example of where we might think of saving money. >> the debate is clear. we are seeking major efficiencies from the different departments. we have identified 9 billion of savings from the departments. that is where backroom services can save money so that we can spend money on frontline services. we've announced the program of asset sales. we will continue to look at what assets are no longer priorities for the government to hold. we are determined to get the money to the front line services. our tough choices are about how to get resources to the front line services. let's be honest. we've already made announcements about the deficit reduction. that includes tax rises that we've been prepared to announce

to deal with the issue of both the dancing public services and deficit reduction. >> that is totally vague. in your own budget, total government spending will fall. capital spending will be up. in your own red book, it indicates a drop for 2009-2010 to 496 billion. these are the facts and figures. should we have an open debate now about the aircraft carriers or afghanistan? you cannot say that everything can be met with efficiency settings. this is the most difficult part of government. >> our troops are in a difficult situation in afghanistan. this would be the worst time to say we should get out of afghanistan. >> i am not having that debate with you. >> i think it is important that we look at this very clearly about what we do for the future.

as far as the choices we are prepared to make, we announced measures to reduce the deficit by half over the next five years. these are measures that include the tax measures we have announced and the restrictions on capital spending. the reason we're able to do that is that we have built or renovated 3000 schools. we have opened 110 hospitals. we've done a huge amount of capital investment already. it is possible to stage our capital spending in such a way that there is more this year to help us through the recession and less in the future. to ideologically predetermine an allocation to an individual department in economic uncertainty is the wrong thing to do. there will be tough choices. we will make them. >> thank you very much, prime minister. i want to ask about the impact of the recession on immigration. >> what are the implications of

the recession on the government policy of economic migration? >> we have a point system. we have announced changes in the first tier of the system. i suspect the numbers coming into our country to work will be less this year as a result of the changes we have made. we have looked at the first two years and the most effective way of having a policy that allows us to have the skills that we need but manages migration in the interest of the country as a whole. >> are you confident that the rules under the system will mean that the residents labor market will be offered jobs first before companies look abroad to find people to fill the vacancies? >> that is the agreement. we have taken the steps to get

resident workers the first shot of the jobs available. we have toughened up the existing resident labor market testing for employees. the rules will reinforce this change. that will allow people with skills here to get the jobs that are available. we will draw on skills from other countries. that is what the point system is all about. it is clear that the changes in the points system will have an effect on the number of people coming into the country. >> one of the source of difficulties has been intra- country transfers. there have been disputes around the country where there have been protests outside the oil refinery. people have been very concerned that this loophole allows companies to bring workers from abroad to take their jobs.

what is the government doing to look at that particular issue and deal with it? >> it is clear this is a sensitive issue. in the case of the construction industry, we did see the negotiation of a new agreement with employers promised they would put additional jobs available through the job center in the local areas. i think it is important to recognize that numbers of people coming from within the european union to britain is reduced equally under the point system. the numbers of people coming from non-e.u. countries is lower than it would be without the point system. let's get the balance right. we want to be a country that can draw upon the skills and talents of people around the world. we want those people to come to our country to have a contribution that they can make to our country. we want them to accept responsibilities in our country. that is why we have changed the nature of the test for margaret

workers and for citizenship. i think it is important to the rights and responsibilities in the right place. >> in the recent european elections, they see this rigid they say this on the website about foreign scabs coming for jobs and it being too late to fight back. these strikes and protests are spreading. they say they need to do so further and faster. is there enough clear water between the government position on this issue and the mp? >> the british national party makes discrimination and racism in the central part of its message. that is wholly unacceptable. i do not believe the party with these views has a place in democratic politics. as far as the issue of workers',

i can say what i want to do. in a global economy where companies can go anywhere, where people have skills have the opportunity to work anywhere, i want british people to have the skills necessary so that we can get these new jobs in the global economy. i want to empower young citizens with a chance for having the skills to get the best jobs available. that is at the heart of our employment policy and our education policy as well. i believe that is a very clear dividing line between what we want to do for every british citizen and the discrimination that is at the center of the policies of the bnp. >> the minister has passed suggested there should be a cap on the number of people coming here. but there is the ultimate population limit for the united kingdom. do you believe there should be a cap put it say, 17 million?

>> the point system creates the opportunity for us to be clear about the scores that we need and whether we want them. we can adjust the point system when it is necessary to do so. any one who has proposed a cap andends up with proposals that include so many numbers and groups of people that it is not affected at all. >> thank you. >> what would you say to the public sector union leaders who are expressing concerns about numbers employed or future recruitment in the public service? >> we will do what is necessary to employ the people we need in our public services. we've got to make sure that all of our public services are efficiently run.

we're prepared to take the tough choices necessary to achieve efficiency. we are employing 90,000 more nurses than we did 12 years ago. we have 20,000 more doctors. with 30,000 more teachers. with 90,000 more teaching assistants. where we need people on the front lines of public services, we will want to make sure that we get the best skills possible to do so. where we can make efficiencies by the new technology available and the changes in the way the services are run, we will do so. we want the most efficient and best value for the money public- service is that we can get. >> we now move to the constitutional issues. >> good morning. can we start off with the right commission -- wright commission?

do you support the establishment of the commission? we had to wait four weeks until the government put the resolution on the effect of orders of the day. the thing that delay can be minimized? -- do you think that the way can be minimized? >> i think people knew that this was part of the discussion. the chairman had already been effectively appointed. the three subjects of the committee work were known. i think the committee is in the position to get on with its business. i do not think they are prevented from doing a report by november by what has happened. it is now very clear what we're expecting of them. one problem is that i think some people on the committee may wish to go further. >> the committee has not yet been established. we need the government to devote time for debate before it can be started. can you give a commitment on the debate? >> i do not manage the business

of the house personally. i will look at what you say. >> does this underlined the need for a better way of managing the business? >> the committee is looking at scheduling non-government business in the house. that is an important aspect of this. >> the terms of reference have been changed. and now embrace all business, not just non-government business. are you able to give the sort of commitment about this committee that you have about the kelly commission? would you be of a mind to accept the proposals they come up with? >> there are a number of issues that the committee is looking at. by opening up the issue of the appointment of members and chairmen of the select committees with the view that they would like this to be a process with the election of the

members is acceptable to everybody. i hope the committee will come up with recommendations. except. i expect them to do so. i'm -- i'm not going to give a prior commitment of what they will come up with. there may be a variety of ways that people are considering doing that. let's wait and see what new ideas the committee brings to the proceedings. we will look favorably on the recommendations of the committee. i think would not be best practice to -- >> when you first became prime minister, the first statement over two years ago said that constitutional change would not be the work of just one bill or parliament. you said you could make an immediate start by proposing changes that will transfer power from the prime minister and executive. some of those changes were included in the draft constitution renewal bill. at the request of the government, the house of commons

and the house of lords brushed their consideration through in 10 weeks. we finished our work one year ago. since then, nothing has happened. what happened to your commitment for constitutional change? in the last 12 months, it has disappeared from the radar. >> the constitutional renewal bill is to be published in the next day or two. it is important to recognize that it is the result of widespread consultation. i think you understand that in the last few weeks what has prevented other bills from coming forward is the need to have the parliamentary standards that have been debated in the house of commons and the house of lords. the constitutional reform bill will be published at the beginning of next week. >> you have now decided to add on to the original build some additional measures to do with the house of lords. we've got one year less than we

had a year ago. are you confident they can get the original bill plus the amendments through may of next year? >> i think most parties are supporting the proposals we are putting forward. most of the work comes from widespread consultation over. of time. i think we have built up a consensus. you can have the debate and controversy for a long time afterwards. you can have the debate before hand. that is what we have done. of the most of the measures in the bill are things that people know about and have discussed in detail. >> do you think the house of lords will let most of the measures through that concern them? >> i hope the house of lords will accepted as a reasonable proposal designed to make progress on this issue. there's no justification in a modern democracy for that principle. >> at the society meeting on

june 15, the speaker made it clear he wants to clamp down on the weekly exchange. this is what he said. he said the show was boring and abrasive and a contributory factor to the contempt of the program. do you go along with that? >> i would like to see the house of commons distinguish itself by being able to deal with some of the big issues of our time in a non-party way. the prime minister's question time has not ever been the vehicle for that to happen. i think the sadness about the house of commons is that there are very big issues that our country faces. whether it is afghanistan or issues that go to assisted dying

and moral issues, we do not seem to be able to find the vehicles by which these issues to be debated in a way that commends itself to the country. >> would you be prepared to enter into discussion since his views seem to coincide with years about a fresh approach to the prime minister's questions? >> anytime someone has proposed a fresh approach to that, it has never worked. i feel that whether it is the prime minister's questions or other forms in the house of commons, we've got to show the country that we can seriously debate in a sensible and reasoned way all the big issues that affect the country. i think this committee is a better forum for talking about some of the issues in the chamber of the house of commons on many occasions. i think we can do even better in discussing some of the big issues of our time. how we deal with globalization, nuclear power, climate change,

the house deserves to do better itself in confronting these issues in a more effective way. >> when you said yesterday that the officer -- that the opposition parties did not have policies for recovery, was that the sort of a breeze to comment that the speaker was complaining about? . .

we have not shown that the house of commons is the most effective place for debating these issues. >> he talked about this;w> the bill left the commons with deletions.

they have set forth the draft a tidy at up. can you give assurance that the amendments made in the house of lords will be accepted by the government? >> you are in a position to know that we're not going to get -- merely accepting the house of lords, that would be quite wrong. house of lords is looking at a bills that the house of commons has had a chance to examine. and hello once to reform its own affairs. >> that bill was so rigid a timetable that it left on us the significant chance not to discuss it at all. are you adamant? >> we face the choice. the public are appalled and disgusted by the way some mp's had conducted themselves. we are all sad that our

colleagues have done some things that we thought would never happen. >> that is not the point. prime minister, please allow me to make this point to you. this is a complete consensus in house that because of what was revealed during the scandal that the financial aspects should be looked at by an independent body. you can take everyone with you. there is no dispute. but you introduced a bill which had a profound constitutional consequences, so profound that committees of house were dead against it, so profound that we had the unprecedented situation. we do not need to circumscribe parliamentary privilege, and we do not need to circumscribe free-speech. was that truly your intention? >> as you know, that causes --

but causes giving people concerned, i believe that the house of commons has to be clear with the public of this country that it is prepared to accept the same disciplines that we impose upon other assemblies and with a similar proposals which we impose on local government. this is not a breach of parliamentary legitimacy or sovereignty. >> have you read the memo? >> i think we took into account what that memo said. >> d you really think that members of parliament should be subject to an unelected quango in the way we conduct ourselves? >> what has happened over the past few years, the self regulation that was a feature of the house of commons -- we are

bound have some form of statutory regulation where we accept that the body appointed by us and a body subject to statutes is able to deal with some of the affairs that were previously done by us ourselves. that is the only way to fix the problems that we have created. >> i think he will find that there will be many people deeply concerned at the implications of what you have just said. can i turn briefly to the house of lords. you have found house of lords exceptionally convenient. you have created many ministers, including iran unofficial deputy, and you found it very convenient have this body. at the same time, and i fell one to get into the merits of the merits -- you found it convenient to proclaim your

desire to abolish the present house and replace it with the nine elected when -- with an elected one. will it do with the medals in the future if that happened? >> if the second house were elected, 100% or the majority, then ministers in the government of the future could come from that house of lords. it would have to go through the procedures that enable them to become members of the house of lords. >> you could not hand pick them, could you? >> i am not holding to that as a constitutional principle. [laughter] it is a fact of the matter that the present system has allowed ministers to be appointed for part of the house of lords and also in part of the government.

that could change. i have no theological position of protecting that constitutional arrangement that protect -- that existed before us. in minutes to bring in people who were able to get a period of time of public service. we had just seen the professor who has been a health minister for two years, presiding over the health service, doing an excellent job. his first wish was to do that and then continue his work as an academic and a surgeon. he has returned to that. i think we have benefited from his experience. >> we understand that. final question, prime minister. i year-ago you compare yourself -- >> i never did. and i will not make comparisons

now. >> you kindly said the in-depth scrutiny than the knockabout member of the house. would you i increase the number of this meeting? >> while we talked about this. i think i have been very generous in my time. one of the things i just noted, in the last two years i have made several statements to the house of lords. i am determined as -- to make as many statements on important issues side-by-side with the other means of scrutiny, and once a month there is a statement given to the house, which shows we are determined to make what we do scrutinized by the house. >> we move on to constitutional structures.

we want to create the -- correct the impression of the memorandum. my committee asked him to delay that. he prepared powerful evidence and lead to a report that the committee made. government ministers have acknowledged and led to the decision to remove the clause and to accept the removal of a clause. back to the point which patrick made about lords, you have appointed 10 people to the awards. four have resigned are given a notice. -- were given their notice. the others are legislators for life, thanks to you. you also remember people that you did not like without us

having any certainty that they will be replaced by elected members of the second chamber. argonaut step-by-step just creating a more appointed house with very little incentive for future government to carry out new reform? >> first of all, the hereditary principle, if you and i agree that a hereditary principle has no real long-term place in the british constitution. i said, first of all. there is no general agreement -- it is amazing that he has taken so long for the first parliament to act and 1911, but we got to that position where people have now agreed that hereditary principle does not have the role it had to play in our constitution in the future. how you constitute a second

chamber, if at all? there is a good argument for a second chamber. people what substantial numbers of them to be elected in principle. that is where we are. i said that we would put forward proposals later about how we propose to move from the abolition of the hereditary principle to the next page -- stage. >> in practice, you are creating a more and more appointed second chamber, in which a higher proportion of membership is appointed by the prime minister. that situation could go on for a long time. >> until there is agreement about house of lords having all part of it or all of it elected. the only means by which you can have an appointment -- have people in the house of lords of it is the hereditary principle is by appointment. if the house of commons made a decision that it won a 80%

representation to be elected, all parties came around to supporting that view and that is something that we're going have to look at in the future. you are absolutely right. if you abolish the hereditary principle, then you have to go to election. >> there are a couple of things you could do in the meantime which might help with the anger that is developing in the commons, among the most senior and powerful ministers in the government, brought in front of the commons as a whole. one possibility is that we have arrangements for appearing in front of the house of commons so that any member of parliament can challenge, no matter who it is, in a way that they can senior ministers. >> this is an issue which is an interesting constitutional one,

is it not? house of lords ministers appealing but for house of commons select committees? -- before house of commons select committees? both chambers, that principle has not applied. i would say there is no reason why it should not happen. in practice, if you would find quite a dimension -- in practice, you would find quite a division. >> you're also a point beyond the ranks available to you and house of commons his ministers. that is not without precedent. they still have to be brought to parliament to answer for what they did. >> i would be very surprised if i the house of commons or lords

would accept a situation where the minister in charge of the department is not a member of one of the accountable groups. that would be an interesting constitutional proposition if you apply it to the treasury or transport or civil affairs. i don't think you find a huge amount of paper. -- favor. it seemed to me that you are suggesting that according chancellor's might be a possibility. i think you have to except that the vast majority of ministers are people who are thought house of commons. there are few members of the government who are members from the house of lords. in certain instances where there is a special skill that is available in health or business or trade or overseas development, we have brought in people that we thought had great talents to offer. but they are usually all people

that have served the crash -- a country well. at a period of public service is less for the department, that is because we have persuaded people to give up demanding obligations to serve the country in this particular way. >> they are now legislators for life. >> i think you will find that they are people that are respected for what they offer the house of lords. >> can i turn to the written constitution? you say you personally favor a written constitution and it would be a historical shift which would lead to the widest possible consultation. what would that consultation be? >> it would have to be wider than just mp's with house of lords. we have a written constitution for parts of the united kingdom and for parts of the constitution. the idea that our constitution

is not written, that parts of the united states -- a part of united kingdom does not have a written constitution, it is written down in many different places. this essentially gives the functions and responsibilities for government with exclusions and inclusions for different parts of the united kingdom. the european union membership is also of britain and legislation. -- is also written in legislation. the question is whether you are prepared or want to and are willing to face up to the difficult issues of what is included and is not included. the role of the judiciary, something that we dealt with in a unique british way when we have to humans right -- human- rights act, these are the questions. >> let me as the justice

committee. i think we're going to need something more extensive than that. >> we can talk to people on the barrick as well. the process for consultation would have to be wide and be very general and people would have to feel that there is a sense of involvement on their part. it does raise controversial issues for any country that has a written constitution. they have to face up a controversy all issues that are part of the debate about creating that constitution. what is a right and what is not included as a right as well as the arrangement and the relationship between different institutions. i think a mature debate about this is you would serve us well. i hope that we are able to lay down the terms of the debate. he cannot happen in just a month or two. will it have to take some time. >> the you have a view that a written constitution should be entrenched in some way? >> i think that would have to be

your understanding. you have to agree on a mechanism by which it could be changed in the future. i accept a question of whether one parliament can find another parliament and i accept also the role of the supreme court or the judges that have to be dealt with as well. i don't think that the intention of a written constitution in britain would be to give judges greater power over our democratic affairs. >> it recognize that having made a number of announcements about constitutional changes? you've lost a process -- you have launched a process -- it played a great part in shaping this in scotland. >> i am very happy to hear your

views on that. there are lessons to be learned from the constitutional convention in scotland about how it preceded and what happened. it is true to say of the last 12 years that devolution of power for scotland and wales and northern ireland with the human rights act itself, that the constitution of our country has been changed quite considerably, and i believe that the constitution of the bill of rights and responsibilities in a written constitution as well as reform of house of lords are very marcuch part of that debat. that is something that i believe we have got to listen to the public on and find a way of doing so. i will listen to whatever ideas you have. >> and now foreign affairs. >> prime minister, this morning

you misstatement on the road to 2010, addressing the nuclear question and a 21st century. i've not seen the document but i've seen your statements. in that, you commit the u.k. to reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and ensuring that countries have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. it is not have an aspiration of a world free from nuclear aspirations, but are so many conflicts -- but there are so many complex and there are so many difficult areas, so is very hard to see how to get to this. >> that is the aspiration of president obama. it is the aspiration of other

governments who hold nuclear weapons. there is a grouping and honest -- and the united states that proposing that this is the final destination of a defense and security policy. what the non-proliferation treaty did was two things. it said that we should get access to nuclear power to non- nuclear states, and we should do so by them relinquishing or surrender in the idea that they could ever have nuclear weapons, and we would in return help them get civil nuclear power. the nuclear states themselves would seek to repeat -- reduce their nuclear weapons. this is still in my view the nature of a bargain, if you

like, a covenant between states in the world, that as we review the non-proliferation treaty, we get an understanding that in return for relinquishing -- iran and other countries relinquishing the possibility of having nuclear weapons, we will say we will make it possible for you to get access to facilities that need to be there for you to have several nuclear power and under conditions where we are satisfied that it is safe and not leading to the creation of weapons. a uranium bank which may be created in a third country, not a questionable states nor the nuclear state, a uranium bond that is available. and a lot of countries want access to civil nuclear power. they do not need have nuclear weapons.

but we can give them the technology. in return, countries have got to be prepared to reduce their weapons. >> your aspiration is what we have already had the last 30 years, the non-proliferation treaty set up on that basis. you're alr statement also says s soon as it becomes useful, britain stands ready to participate in to bat. when we put our nuclear arsenal until a broader negotiation, what is our aim? is it to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons? >> this is only done on a multilateral basis. yet there are discussions about the reduction of nuclear

weapons, america, russia, france with -- and other nations with nuclear weapons are prepared to be a part of these discussions, we are as well. i think also you have to remember we are at a critical moment. 50 years ago, there were five nuclear weapons states. now there are 10. the danger in the next few years is said one of the countries that is threatened to develops -- threatens to develop nuclear weapons gets them, others will come on line. when russia and america are ready to reduce their nuclear weapons, but we have not made an explicit offer to help non- nuclear states with civil nuclear power. we cannot do it without feeling at risk that they aren't risk of

developing nuclear weapons. but the price is to prevent a further proliferation of nuclear weapons outside the previous non-proliferation treaty. that would be a disastrous consequences for the world. even if that were held by countries that were not prepared to use these nuclear weapons, it would also be a greater danger that nuclear weapons with all of the hands of terrorist groups. >> are you saying that in putting our weapons in to this broader negotiations, which presumably at some 0.7 years down the line, would be just to reduce or to eliminate? >> the long-term aim of all the countries is on a multilateral basis, nuclear weapons no longer necessary. that is a distant goal as it stands at the moment. we would be prepared to be part of a multilateral negotiation in which we were prepared to be

like america and russia and other countries, seeing some reductions. >> will come to iran later. we will have some questions about afghanistan. >> prime minister, thank you for the letter to the chair of the committee on afghanistan in which you pay a great tribute to our forces. you say, despite the tragic losses, morale remains high. i can report the assessment of the number of the ground that the current operations are succeeding in their objectives. tell us exactly, prime minister, what we are achieving in afghanistan? >> the first operation which i was referring to it is designed to make it possible for an area to be free of taliban influence as we approach the elections,

and for the people in that area to feel like they have a stake in the future of afghanistan rather than be part of the taliban. that operation is moving through this area o and the police with government help is ready to provide services in that area. the people can see that the afghan government and the afghan civil society is able to support the local people in that area. it will lead to thousands of people in the elections being able to vote freely and fairly without intimidation, because polling stations will be able to play -- be able to be placed in that area. this is part of our operation and part of a wider operation we have done with the americans in the region. it is part of our determination that these new elections in

afghanistan will go peacefully and freely, and that democratic result can be achieved. that is what we're trying to achieve in afghanistan. afghanistan and pakistan together, our strategy was set out in april. it was a recognition that the terrorist threat that this country faced was in this crucible around the borders of pakistan and afghanistan. we have to take action in relation to both. but the future lies in building up the afghan police and helping the afghan authorities and giving the locals a sense that they have a stake in the future of the country. i believe you have got to look at the cooperations that we're involved in as an afghan and pakistani strategy. it is not simply a military campaign but military action of

dedicated soldiers. i am like you, we pay tribute to our british forces and for the families that have lost their loved ones. i military actions are determined to train more than afghan people to be in the armed forces and police and to provide the means by which economic activity in afghanistan to continue. >> de the people and afghanistan feel more secure. -- do you think the people in afghanistan feel more secure? >> i think we're making progress in the areas in which we are active. remember that a lot of afghanistan is very sparsely populated. the areas of higher population, i think we're making the progress with this operation as the americans are with their operation as well. i accept the long-term future of

afghanistan and our ability to reduce the threat depends not only on what we can contribute -- contribute militarily on what we can achieve -- but on what we can achieve. the plan is 130,000 police. the territory as big as afghanistan, we have to take the army to a higher number of that. the training of the police had to be to a sufficient standard to avoid corruption. that would be a group of about 70,000. you have to put in place and afghan civil society. >> you agree that too many people have the wrong idea of what our troops are there for? t think that more needs to be done to persuade people of why our troops are there? and precisely how they are going to succeed? >> i think it is true that we

have got to do more to show people the reasons why we are there. what has happened since 2001 until 2009, and what we envisage being able to do in the future, and i'm quite specific about the things i think that we can do. we can help build up the afghan army and police, we can help create the means by which economic and social development can take place, we can help particularly in pakistan as well said that they can deal with their terrorist threat. and we need to explain that to the british people. we did a statement on this in april and previously in december. we continue to say that we have to be clear about what we're trying to achieve and that military action has to be complemented by what i just talked about. >i have spent a great deal of

time on issues related to afghanistan. is not surprising -- it is not surprising because we have a great contribution of forces whose safety is our responsibility. i will continue to spend a great deal of time. i spent quite some time in conversation with president karzai because it is important that we talk about what they can do. i am very clear that the afghan army has to do more. i am very clear that we need to complement of more afghan troops and afghan police. we also have a role to play after the elections for some of our troops to mentor and trains the afghan security forces. >> in the most recent visits that i have taken from a

security -- that i've taken, security seems to be getting worse and not better. you think it might be because we have too few troops on the ground? >> i think the issue, first of all, is the change in approach of the taliban campaign in afghanistan. i think that there are defense experts that are far better than me to explain the nature of what has happened. but clearly in the afghan taliban and their associates, they are operating guerrilla tactics, using ied's bombs, electronic devices to cause maximum damage. they are not taking on archer's head on as they have in the past. they're hoping by this method to caused dismay and a loss of life. >> does this come as a surprise to you?

>> this is a tactic that taliban had been pursuing, obviously. that was in iraq. obviously the military had to change their tactics to deal with that. far more engineers dealing with a bomb threat, and our tactics had to deal with that. the number of taliban involved in these activities don't have to be that high for them have an effect for the use of these devices. i think is the change in tactics of the taliban that we're having to deal with and i do pay tribute to those people who had been diffusing devices, making the roads safer for our troops. >> did that change in tactics, as a surprise -- come as a surprise to you? >> i do not think it was a surprise. is the means by which terrorist

and insurgent activities have been pursued all of the world. >> but it was a change in tactics. a few days ago, there was a headline -- is army asked for 100,000 troops, the government sent several hundred. i ask you for comment on that. did the chief of defence staff come to see you? the second question would be, did he ask for 2000 troops? the third question, did you say no? and then i will ask you, if i may, to comment on that. did that chief of defence come to see you? >> i don't you understand that relationship between the chief of defence and me. we talk all the time. we have meetings and discussions. if our troops are in other

countries, then it is natural and right that that is the case. we have regular discussions. >> i would take that as a guest. >> we talked regularly. i hope you except that is the right thing to do. >> i do, and for the second point, did he ask for 2000 troops? >> we discussed a number of options and we decided upon the mission that we are now engaged in. i think you will see from the statements made by the military themselves that the troops that are necessary for the mission that we are engaged in now are there. for this operation and what we're doing in afghanistan, we have provided the resources that are necessary. we have agreed, as you may know from the statement, that following this period, we have a summer campaign in the elections and we will review just as president obama is doing our

troop commitments for the future. and we will take into account what i just said, the need for work to be done to mentor the afghan security forces. that will be what happens after the election campaign in afghanistan. >> but did the chief of defence staff recommend that an extra 2000 troops should go to afghanistan? >> we have 8150 troops now. no one is suggesting 10,000 troops. >> i am trying to get to a yes or no. >> you have got to allow me to explain that a variety of options that were considered, but a mission that we're doing for the moment, we have the troops on the ground. as anyone who is a commander would like have more troops and more equipment and more everything, but we are equipped

to do the job that we're doing at the moment. i am sorry. we have agreed that we will consider that after the elections -- probably august but possibly october. that could be our second round. that is where we are. we are determined to do everything we can to go about this properly and make sure that the decisions are made in the light of the needs of the numbers of the ground as well as the discussions with our allies. >> there are two ways to deal with select committees. you can answer the questions or you can appear not to answer the question. i am only trying to get to an answer of whether the chief of defence staff recommended an extra 2000 troops. i am not getting that answer. >> your not. we have led to the number of options. if the number now 9000? >> it was not his

recommendation? >> 9001 and 50, i repeat. there was no recommendation for a 11,000, we discussed a number of options. i think that i have given you more information than you might have expected to give about the situation because i am sure that we have done our best by the streets who are on the ground at the moment. i think that people are wrong to suggest that the operation that we're involved in at the moment, that we do not have the troops that we need. it would be an unfortunate conclusion of this committee it with a bad impression. >> you agree that it would be a bad thing to send troops to take ground if you do not have enough troops to hold their? >> that is exactly the point that i accept. we have been asking the afghan national army and through president karzai to make available more afghan troops on the ground.

it would be by far the best way of moving forward. once the ground is taken by our troops, the local afghan troops and police are there on the ground, and i knows that that general mentioned this and i have mentioned this in my statement, we want there to be more afghan troops there. more are their then since monday. he would be very good of the tab -- if we could have additional at entrance. -- it would be very good if we could have additional afghan troops. >> what did it mean that it would not be short of money in this matter? >> he meant that the additional money that we have spent and are spending on afghanistan and iraq announced a 14 billion pounds. 4 billion pounds is for urgent operational requirements that is equipment needed for iraq and

afghanistan. a billion pounds of that is for vehicles that would be used in these campaigns. therefore we are making available as urgent operational requirements, additional funds. >> when i ask that question on monday, he said that the chancellor of exchequer meant that he was increasing the requirement payments from the treasury by 100 million pounds over and above the previous promise. >> that is what the treasury agreed last week for one particular area. that is vehicles. >> does it concern you that that is 25% lower than it was last year? >> i think that urgent operational requirements means that when the military puts in a

request for equipment, that that request is met. that is what has been happening throughout the iraq and afghanistan campaign. i am sorry. that is not exactly the position at all. the treasury has provided 4 billion pounds and urgent operational requirements for equipment for afghanistan and iraq. that was the right thing to do. i just have to say that the chief of the defense staff has said that the british armed forces are better equipped than ever before. and obviously no one wants to waste, we will be vigilant about this, it is important to recognize the level of investment that has been made in our armed forces of the last two years. i will do what ever is necessary and right to protect and equip our armed forces. >> everything above 735 million

pounds that he spends on urgent operational requirements, urgent, needed, and required, and that will have to be borne by the ministry of defence. does that concern you? >> you have got to except -- accept that $4 billion has been spent on urgent operational requirements. i do except that. if i may say so, and i have to be correct about this, in the 1990's the defense budget was slashed. we have sustained an increase in defense spending every year and we have the most sustainable increase in military resources for 20 years. at the same time we provided the additional money necessary for the afghanistan and iraq campaigns. i regret that people are making this an issue about urgent operational requirements at the ministry of defence not being met. they are being met and i can assure you that every occasion

in which those operational requirements -- urgent operations need those resources, they had been made available. >> new systems have been brought in, and there's a cap on urgent operational commandment, and above that, everything is for by the ministry of defence. >> you are forgetting that 4 billion pounds is being spent to meet urgent cooperation requirements. 1 billion has been for vehicles. helicopters for the future. not only from the ordinary defense budget but from a distance to the defense budget we are making available resources to iraq and afghanistan. it is right that there is a debate about what is happening in our troops are facing difficulty in fighting campaigns, as they had been in iraq and afghanistan. but i do not think that this should give the impression that our troops are not properly equipped.

we have spent the right sums of money and are prepared to do more to make sure it that our troops are properly equipped. i believe that is the message that to go out from the committee. this is a government that is determined to make sure that our troops are properly equipped. >> i only got one question on helicopters that the judge mentioned. how many helicopters do we have in afghanistan? >> i have been advised on security grounds that we should not give out the numbers of the helicopters or equipment in a particular theater. i don't think it has been a practice of the government to do so. i can tell you that there has been 60% increase of a last few years in helicopters. because we have more capability and more trips in the field, the helicopters can be better used. i do not think it has been the practice of governments to say what is the number of particular pieces of equipment in a particular theater at any one time. it is not because i want to hide

the information from the committee but this is the it is that i have been given and i think it's the right thing. >> you be perfectly to say how many mastiffs have gone out to afghanistan. >> there is a large group of mastiffs available. we would be happy to set at. i have been advised on helicopters that it is not well advised to give a specific piece figure. >> how many jets? >> i have not given out figures for fighter jets. it is up to you whether you wish to pursue this. you're the chairman of the select committee. i take the advice from the military justice you do. >> how do we measure whether we have succeeded in afghanistan? dollars account to back to the hit list -- the original question -- >> it comes back to the original question. i think that there is consensus about the need to deal with the

terrorist threat. we would be failing in our duty if afghanistan was left to the taliban to return to the government afghanistan make it part of afghanistan again. huac complement the action we've taken it in afghanistan that we are taking in pakistan. all we know whether we have succeeded? by building up the confidence that the afghan soldiers had to deal with the situation locally. as well as the better training of the police on the ground. we can also measure whether we can handle for control of province, one by one, bringing the afghan government and to their security forces. i think we will be sure that the actions being taken in pakistan as well as afghanistan to deal with a cat that is having success. -- al qaeda is having success --

to deal with al qaeda is having success. >> that is fine by me. it is up to the chairman of the committee. >> it is a long-term issue in pakistan which needs long-term solutions. pakistan has nuclear armed. there is a direct link into the community in this country that is a lot of stability -- instability in the area. we're getting a lot aid to pakistan in terms of education. that's part of a long-term solution. you think it is a long-term solution -- do you think that the long term solution will be in place in time to protect us from the risks in that region? >> i am not sure what you mean by this question. are you saying are the long-term solutions so long term that there is no possible protection for us in the short term?

there i would disagree with you. what we have to do in pakistan is work with the security forces and the armed forces in pakistan so that they are continuing to do what they have started to, where i believe there is now a great national consensus about doing that than ever before, taking on the pakistan taliban and then moving on to take on al qaeda. we have seen in the swat bal valley that they are moving in. we do not want them to become -- to begin turning to militancy because of displacement. as they move into other areas and take on not just taliban but take on al qaeda, these are short-term campaigns to give long-term results. in addition to that, we have to back out our effort in pakistan by supporting the economic and social development of the country that will double in size

over the next 40 years, a large population of young people in need of education and alternatives to madrasahs. that is why we are shifting to education spending in the north of pakistan to help those people there. yes, in the short term you apply that military forces to be more active. i saw interviewed by a the american general mcchrystal this morning saying exactly the same. we need the pakistan solutions to work to deal with that terrorist and sturgeon threat in pakistan. we also need to combine that for the sake of a long-term with building up structures of the civil society in pakistan that will provide relief. that requires us to invest in education and economic development in that area. i see the afghanistan and pakistan strategy as complementary.

i think the work that we had done to bring president is that our aid cadari -- to bring president zadari and president karzai together has been helping. we have complementary action in pakistan and afghanistan. that gives us hope that the objectives that we set can be achieved. >> i would agree with all that. >> [unintelligible] recently richard dalton said it is not exceptional for the behavior and ambition to provoke strong reactions.

it seems to every acted against britain's position in recent announcements. on a ticket to a number of aspects. first of all, from the nuclear debate, referring back to the paper that he spoke about that was published today. it says the group that -- and nonproliferation treaty -- not proliferating weapons as a key part of that. proposals for but the total station -- of offer of -- of offshore enrichment facilities are nonstarters. are there any way that we can bring iran into negotiating on nuclear enrichment?

>> i hope so. i think that is the best way forward. i think iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and we should hold in to this responsibility. if necessary, we take sanctions against them if they are not prepared to discharge their responsibilities. i think the offer, a more general offer to any non-nuclear power, that we can help them under certain conditions get several nuclear power, is an important one. yet the real purpose of iran is to get several nuclear power as they say it is, they should be ready to accept this offer and discuss it with us. >> at the iranians given us terms in which they would be prepared for negotiations? it must be predicated on when the political turmoil dies down.

>> iran has the first meet its obligations to human-rights, the freedom of assembly and speech. i repeat that we still have one person the worst our embassy detained in iran, and he is not yet released. we have expressed concern about the way the demonstrations have been dealt with. it is the responsibility of iran to run its on elections and for people to make its decisions. the and the national community is right to say that is where freedom of speech and assembly and individual rights are restricted, this is something that concerns us. i think that over the next few months we need to make a run aware that -- iran aware that the entire international community cannot simply accept which outtake -- without taking the actions of sanctions, the development of nuclear weapons. >> that will not occur with enrichment program.

>> it iran is prepared to work on civil nuclear power and abandoned its attempt to nuclear weaponry, then the world is ready in my view to work with it. >> on the nuclear issue, that is predicated on the assumptions a proper inspection -- the acceptance a proper inspection. >> of course. my idea of is that the burden should be on the signatory to the treaty who agrees that they will not proliferate to prove that they are not proliferating. at the moment we have to try to show that iran, contrary to the nonproliferation treaty, is developing nuclear capability. we have to send inspectors and ask for information in this and that and it is reluctantly dealt with. in a longer run, and we're dealing with so many states

that we do not want to proliferate, it is important to say that the obligation should be on them to prove that they are now proliferating. >> i move on. you make me aware of the preliminary steps taken by the professor about the election results. is it just to say the least that the figures published are very unreliable. as a result of that, it looked to set it will be some time before things settle down within a run. -- within iran. aaron favre and on top -- are on

foreign employees in the embassy, one of which you say is still in captivity. what is the strategy to seek to protect employees, not just in iran but in other embassies in un safe positions? >> we have had decent security for them. the whole international community has to single out every embassy in every country, that they will come together to support anyone who is either arrested or unfairly or alternatively detained without explanation. i think it is important that we have the support of the european union and the g-eight8. i think it's a powerful message that the entire international community was prepared to say that. >> prime minister, the israeli prime minister has grudgingly accepted that there will be a palestinian state.

but israel is not freezing the settlements, and in addition there are real still problems about humanitarian access to gaza. what can the quartet do and what can the international community do to deal with this crisis at the moment? >> our view is to deal with other countries, they do need a complete freeze on settlement construction. it is in line with his girl's other commitments -- israel's other commitments. that is the basis on which discussions could begin. i have met with the prime minister and top with him a few years professor the election. i talked to him subsequently. it is in very -- it is important that the israelis recognize that international opinion is of the view that in addition to the commitment which is welcome of the palestinian

state, it is important that a peace process could work and that would come first of all from freezing the settlement construction. >> but are we waiting on the u.s. to put pressure, and for that pressure to be effected? or can we and the eu and the other members of the quartet do anything ourselves at this stage? >> a lot was putting pressure kamal recognizing that israel must have guarantees about its security, recognizing that the palestinian state cannot be viable unless it is economically viable. there is a general consensus among the international group involved in this that this is what is going to happen. i believe the talks that president obama has called in washington are important and i think that as a potential to be the next up for. george mitchell is doing a great amount of work in the reason and he has our support as does tony

blair and the efforts that he has been making. >> one of the problems is a tossup. -- gaza. there is very limited access. some people say it is almost like a prison that people cannot get in and out. tony blair, when he was speaking before my select committee a few weeks ago, said that businessmen have not been able to lead gaza for seven months. clearly there are real difficulties there. how can we get access across the border? .

there's a common view that we need access, that gaza has to be able to operate economically and we have to persuade people that is the right thing to do. >> as long as gaza is under the control of hamas, and there is the west bank under control of the palestinian authority, is there any possibility while hamas is in control of gaza that there will be real access for the people in gaza, or also a peace process that also leads to a policy -- possibility of palestinian state? >> the deadline has to be broken in some way. i feel that if the israelis were prepared to freeze settlement construction, there would be a response in the arab world. that is a way that you can see movement forward could happen, and that would unlock some of the problems you are talking about. at the moment, people are

waiting for that next stage. the talks that president obama is having with prime minister netanyahu will be important for that. >> there is no solution of gaza, because he did has failed in its efforts. there is no agreement between the palestinians. >> the situation is incredibly difficult, after the conflict in gaza, which was tragic in itself. the deadlock has to be broken. one of the ways we can think ourselves and worker cells into a new position is if there was an initiative taken by israel, then there could be a response from the arab world. that is what i would look for for the future. >> of want to explore the change of policy in relation with hezbollah. days after the march 14 alliance, -- that they should not question hezbollah as a

resistance party. it is clearly in breach of the un security council resolutions, and shows disregard towards the democratic process in lebanon in laying out and challenging the election. what are we on germanic -- undermining the democratic process by these contacts with hezbollah? >> i do not think we are seeking to undermine the democratic process in lebanon. our desire is to support democratic development in lebanon. i have talked to all those in lebanon in such a way. we need the democracy of

lebanon to be more stable. >> could i ask about the recent concerns over sending spare parts to israel? can you confirm there are no u.k. arms -- they are usually spare parts that other countries supply. five licenses were revoked at of 182 altogether. >> i cannot confirm in detail the issues you have raised, the five contracts. i will write you on that. >> i want to guard the question of the sri lankan. >> the times reported that 1400 refugees are dying every week in the largest of the camps. we know that the government is blocking free access to the camps. the red cross and other

agencies have been ordered to scale back humanitarian operations. the editorial concluded shrilling cannot run concentration camps and expect the world to look away. they have been impervious to all the representations made about humanitarian access. it does not justify what is happening to the civilians. what are we doing to raise this issue with them? is it not time to put pressure on them? >> i have talked to the president of the tree line up on a number of occasions. i have been concerned about -- the president --sri lanka. we think the number is 280,000 displaced people. moving from what you might call an emergency situation to some

form stabilization in these camps. conditions are very basic. people do not have the access necessary to facilities that are required. there are high levels of inadequate water and sanitation facilities. we have provided substantial money to help with humanitarian assistance. we are concerned about the lack of freedom and movement of the people in the camps, the restrictions put on activities. our aim is to encourage the government to cooperate with the humanitarian agencies, to help people on the ground, to lift the restrictions that are still being imposed on people in that area. you will find that the minister will make a statement on these matters. >> could you say what we are doing to try to make progress toward a political solution? if there is no political

process, these problems will re- emerge in other forms of terrorism elsewhere. is it time the government recognize the rights of the people? >> this is the position i put to the president, to have an end of military conflict. it does not mean that the problem has gone away. has to be dealt with by discussion and negotiation and some form of conciliation. that is why we are anxious that our envoy to this area has a chance to talk to all the different groups. we are putting as much pressure on the president as possible. it has to be seen as a step toward a means by which a political solution can be found. >> a final question. at the recent european union council, the leaders reached a

formal decision providing guarantees to ireland on the lisbon treaty. yesterday i received a letter from the foreign secretary that confirms that parliament will have to pass a bill before the u.k. can ratify that protocol. can you explain why, given that we spent all those months in 2008, hours and hours, debating the treaty, that we now have to vote again on a protocol which we understand is not in any way change the lisbon treaty? we have to vote on it in order to bring into effect the ratification of this decision that was taken by the european union in council? >> if arlen's referendum is a yes vote -- if ireland's referendum is a yes vote, they will move to ratify the treaty itself. the list entry will come into existence. -- the lisbon treaty. there has to be an accession

treaty, then attached to that will be a protocol that confirms explicitly what has been implicit in the relationship between the european union and ireland. they want assurances about aspects of the treaty not affecting them, just as we want assurances in our protocol about that. they have asked for them to be set out in the protocol. it is not a requirement that the protocol be passed by law in all parliaments before the lisbon treaty is enacted. >> to be clear, this means that this would only require legislation in this parliament at the time of croatia or icelands application? >> it depends when that

accession haven't, but the agreement is that it will be attached to the next accession treaty. that is a clarification of ireland's position. it does not fundamentally change the lisbon treaty at all. >> thank you very much, prime minister, for another session of extremely well ranging answers and questions. >> when you go on holiday, what is on your reading list? [laughter] >> i seem to have agreed to read a few select committee reports. i would prefer to read fiction. >> thank you very much, prime minister. >> david: is an executive with the nation's largest cable

provider, comcast. tonight, the future of broadband in america. "the communicators," on c-span to. >> the senate begins confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. coming this fall, tour the home to america's highest court, the supreme court >> state department spokesman bj crowley answered a number of questions today on the middle east peace process. this follows remarks from hillary clinton. this is a half-hour. [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] " i have no reformation to support that. >> did this individual say whether the hijackers had intended to go into iran or is it your interest -- understanding that they crossed the border and did not know it. >> i think that at this point,

we have all lot of good questions but very little information. at some point in time, when we know where they are, and we have access to, we can -- access to them, we can know what to do. >she had the video conference here in the building with diplomats from around the world who work on iranian issues. i would characterize that as a routine discussion of an assessment of iran. >> was the embargo of petroleum goods considered? can you see what others have discussed -- say what others have discussed? what i would say that this was something that was on the schedules so i would not tie it to any particular issue. as the secretary said a few

minutes ago, we are interested engagement with iran and at the same time, there are sanctions that are in place that we continue to work hard to enforce. that is based on our concerns about iran's behavior. >> back on the hikers, do you have any reason to believe that they did not voluntarily cross the border? >> again, we are doing everything we can to figure out what happened. i would not feel comfortable saying that we have the answers. >> this is the second time in a couple of months that americans, plural, have strayed into the territory of access of evil members. are you at all concerned that there is something going on here, that there is a trend? does their need to be a notation on people's passports to warn them to stay away from some -- sensitive border areas? >> at this point in time, we

have three americans that are missing. we are working hard to try to ascertain why happened and most importantly, to get them back as soon as possible. could you elaborate a little more? >> it is really the obvious. we do not yet have firm confirmation from the government of iran that they in fact have these americans in custody. >> to iranian television stations have reported their detention, the arabic language service in the english-language service. they are both state-owned. >> again, we have no reason to doubt these reports, but at the same token, we have no official confirmation from the iranian government.

even you would mitt the there are reports that are not entirely accurate. that is why we requested to talk with them and they had no details about detention, either. >> can i change the subject? on the israel only dictions, i noticed that the secretary said they were deeply regrettable. did you consider this a little violation of israel's obligations under the road map? did senator mitchell know about this when he traveled to jerusalem and he raised that with the israelis? >> -- and do you raise that with the israelis? -- and did he raise that with the israelis? >> in that sense, everyone was well aware of this particular case. that said, we are looking for

all of the party is to take meaningful steps -- all of the parties to take meaningful steps. >> if this not a legal violation, certainly it is a violation of what you're trying to do with israel. >> you described earlier that it was excellent. yet, for the second time in three days, you have had an arab foreign minister come out and say they were not going to do any thing that mitchell or you has asked them to do. how can you say that there is progress being made?

>> obviously, i think that we are working hard to put ourselves in a position to negotiate. we are saying that there is still work to do, even as we have experienced some progress. to finish the point, both on friday and today, you had strong statements by both the foreign minister of jordan and the foreign minister of saudi arabia supporting the real engagement of the united states in this process. supporting the efforts to begin negotiations certainly, they are very supportive. clearly, we still have work to do to create the conditions and

that is what george mitchell will continue to do. >> is the secretary disappointed that these four ministers are coming here and are sitting next to her? >> no. what she said on friday and inferred today, part of her purpose is to touch base regularly with her counterparts in the region. we are comparing notes on countries that we have talked to. what they're saying and what they are hearing, we have reason for optimism and we continue to make progress towards a restart of of associations. i think that you have to strong reformations of the importance

of this effort and the critical role played by the united states. >> i'm sorry, you did not have a reaffirmation of that, you have the exact opposite. >> i think you had to strong affirmations. >> were listening to the same conversation? >> the efforts and the discussions of george mitchell and the secretary, this is precisely the right course. we are not there yet. we still have to put together the conditions that allow us to call for negotiations to resume. on the one hand, we still have work to do, but on the other hand, we think that progress is being made. >> why didn't the state

department issue some kind of statement criticizing the united nations and the british? >> you've heard from the secretary. >> that was because she was asked. secretary feldman was on the phone. we are, in fact, in close communication with the israelis and we have conveyed our deep concern. do you believe there is any connection to the meeting? they are certainly going to raise this in a way that will make israel question that the did not have a partner -- that they do not have a partner? >> i had a question. i just was wondering what the policy is towards the interim government and honduras?

does the state department have a policy with the country of honduras? what we continue to encourage both the president and the regime to accept the brussels laid out in the san jose proposal. >> there are some americans that say the united states could do more to pressure the government of honduras through urine security council sanctions or cutting off all funding to honduras. >> i think we should take this a step at a time. the honduran president and united states continue to work every day to encourage the two sides to accept the proposal that has been laid out. there were meetings last week concerning this issue. we believe this mediation

process is the basis on which we can resolve the situation. i think that we continue to await the two sides. what we need to do now is come together and reach an agreement and then begin a process that would lead to elections this fall and a new government. as long as the mediation process continues, we should let them play its course. >> if i could follow with that, do not support it? >> for about a month, we have strongly condemned the action of the defacto regime. >> so, you acknowledged it was a military coup? >> there are legal issues that we have chosen not to exercise. in every way possible, we have

said that what happened in honduras is a violation of the charter, which is why we took action. we continue to work intensely to resolve the situation. but senator mitchell was supposed to announce a peace plan in a matter of weeks. do you have any more on the timeline for that? >> i do not know that there is a specific time line. i think it will be in a matter of weeks. >> getting back to latin america, do you have any comments on [unintelligible] he is open to negotiating with the united states. have you anything on this? >> obviously, we have had some limited dialogue in recent weeks.

we started the migration talks and we have been willing to discuss other issues. i think we are taking this step by step. clearly, cuba has to take certain actions before we can be viable. >> do you think they are reacting in any way? at an intersection, there was this sign. >> we talked about that. >> [unintelligible] has offered a truce with the u.s.. if not, what with the administration's position the to such an offer? >> obviously, we believe that

this is a struggle that we are -- we have turned the tide and we are seeing success in afghanistan as difficult as it is. the pakistan government has taken meaningful steps. we believe very strongly that this is not a struggle that al qaeda is destined to win. as to a truce, i have no further comment. >> and north korea and burma issue. burma has a nuclear complex underground, built with the help from north korea. is this what secretary clinton

tried to allude to want to talk about concerns about military cooperation? >> we do have concerns about the nature of cooperation between both burma and north korea and north korea and any other country. as the secretary did, she offered that all countries have responsibilities regarding sanctions. over time, we would like to clarify with burma more precisely the situation. we will be looking to see if they implement those sections. >> is the u.s. aware of this underground nuclear complex, possibly with help from north

korea? >> it is an issue of concern and it is an issue that we continue to focus on intensely. >> the nature of cooperation between north korea and burma. >> are you saying that you are aware of this facility? >> i am not commenting on that facility. >> they are expected to continue to go up. how is this affecting diplomatic relations with the other countries in that region and with military efforts? >> actually, since he has arrived in the region, he is working very hard and has made some adjustments and those adjustments will continue so that over time, we will see the civilian impact godown.

currently, the impact of military options has gone up. there has been civilian deaths due to military operations by the united states and by isaf and i think we're making adjustments on the ground to try to minimize the impact. yes. >> to anas which topics? >> sure. >> i have a question regarding a conversation over the weekend between bill burns and russian deputy foreign minister. and did burns and she did that phone call? >> i don't know. if we were in contact with both the russians and the georgians over the weekend i think there were multiple attempts to reach officials on both sides. i can't say whether it was bill burns or fill gordon.

-- were still gordon -- or fill gordon -- or phil gordon. i think it was probably a combination i think first of all, we're not sure that there was any evidence to support the original claim that there was an exchange of fire across the border, but we were in touch with both sides and to kind of check on mechanisms that have been put in place so that if you have incidents of these kind, it can be resolved until local laws quickly as possible. >> just to clarify, so there were conversations with george and and russian officials? >> yes. >> but you. >> u.s. officials talk intensively over the weekend with both russian and georgian officials. but as far as we know on the basic facts, as we got into this further, we have not seen any evidence to support the original public land up there have been

this exchange of fire. >> to readdress the iranian sanctions a share, a majority of members of both the house and the senate have co-sponsored the iran sanctions petroleum -- i don't know the exact title. but at what point does it become a purported to address that particular law? is this something that the secretary just doesn't feel is appropriate at this time, or that's not a tool that she would prefer to have and the sanctions arsenal? >> i think right now there are sanctions in place. we are working hard to fully implement the sanctions that do exist. i think as the president and secretary have said, while we have an offer of engagement both bilaterally and multilaterally, that offer is not unlimited, and that perhaps next month will have the opportunity to assess where we are. but at this point in time, this is not a either/or proposition.

we have the offer of engagement because it is in our interest to do so and to clarify iran's intentions on a range of issues. at the same time, we have sanctions options, both multilateral lar, bilaterally, d will continue to employ those to demonstrate the determination of the international community that it's iran -- that iran has to change course and and iran that has the fundamental change to make. >> so she would reject the type of sanction out right unilaterally? das show -- so she would not reject that type of sanction out right up unilaterally -- out right unilaterally? >> we have a lot of options going forward, but we hope that

iran will make the right choice, come to the table and help us clarify where it stands on nuclear programs, on terrorism, on its future place in the world. >> can i follow upon that? >> sure. >> but how much do you think the kind of political chaos that's going on in iran right now a fixture ability not only to get an answer on your offer of talks with the p-5 +1, but also trying to find out what happened with these hikers, just like the fact that no one really knows who's running iran right now and where the political center is? >> well, let's separate those out. first of all we have the issue of the three hikers and we're doing everything in our power to find out what happened. and once we ascertain where they are, who has them, what their status is, we can get them back as quickly as possible.

>> well, do you think that the political crisis is stopping this was from getting an answer? >> that's in one basket. in a separate basket, you ask a fair question. as the current turmoil in iran affected its ability to respond to both the offer the united states and the offer of the p-5 +1, for example? clearly iran has its hands full right now -- full right now. even today, two days before the inauguration of a president, it still has not yet convinced its people of this is a legitimate government. . criticism of the legal process and bring you into legal process. this kind of suppression of the right of expression and the right of participation in the political process is not want to make this issue galway for iran.

clearly, the turmoil in iran has affected its ability to respond to the international community, but were still waiting for an answer. >> just to follow up, why are we separating -- i understand that there two separate issues, the nuclear deal and hikers, but what are you saying that there's turmoil in one and is preventing you from getting an answer on that. you clearly are making an effort not to say to be affecting what they're talking about the hikers. secretary clinton said that not only could the iranians holding them, but an estimate of the iranian government. i assume she was referring to the irgc. >> it's a fair question but it requires a leap of faith on our part. we simply do not know what happened along the iranian and iraqi border. and it would be speculation on my part to try to figure that out. >> also on iran, do you have any specific comment on the trial? >> tonight to say on the tiger''

record? >> sure. >> how were you that these guys to become a kind of bargaining chip between the u.s. and iran and how much does this complicate your efforts to get them to make the concessions on the nuclear program? >> this has been an issue. it's a current issue with respect to and follow americans that are still detained in iran. obviously was an issue when it came to the saberi case that was recently resolved. we would expect iran to act accordingly to both its laws and universal principles. obviously, we have three americans that are missing. we want to know what happened to them. we want to know who has them. we want to know the basis upon which they might be in custody. and clearly, we want them back

as quickly as possible so -- as possible. so that is something that is our immediate focus. as to the show trial, trying to frighten our people into silence only amplifies the problem. it's the kind of action that has gotten iran into the box that it finds itself in. throughout this process, it has taken heavy handed action, and the iranian people are responding to that pressure. iran has to satisfy both the questions that its people have, and going forward, it has to satisfy its people but is acting at the behest of and in the interest of all of its people. >> that wasn't really what i asked. i asked whether you thought that

these three missing americans to be bargaining chips in the u.s.- iranian relationship. >> i think we tend to believe that on the treatment of our citizens, just as the criticisms of other countries, but we expect countries, particularly those that want to earn respect of the international community, it's always in the swiss ambassador in yesterday and we raise these questions and we still seek questions -- answers to those questions. >> is that also why you ignore foreign countries when they complain that the u.s. is executing their citizens? >> which is one of the reasons why we want to see the end to guantanamo, a return to transparently the processes. as a secretary said many times, we cannot afford to both be acting based on some double standards in the cannot afford to have the perception that we play by different set of rules. oclick ok, what's your comment,

the trying to frighten people into silence, is that the reaction to the trial? >> yes. >> and you don't have anything specific about the iranian american scholar who is among that group of people who are being -- >> we are concerned about reports that the scholar was charged on saturday by an iranian court without the benefit of a lawyer. our thoughts are with he and his family and we would expect our citizens, just as the citizens of other countries, to be accorded basic legal rights. >> just one more on the east jerusalem issue. can you confirm reports that state department officials had a conversation with the israeli ambassador here in washington? what was the nature of that? >> yesterday, assistant secretary jeffrey feldman had a

conversation with the israeli ambassador. he expressed our concerns and a promise to report those concerns back to the israeli government. >> on burman, you haven't until this point had any effort by the burmese to implement the second to talk about. secretary clinton mentioned while she was there that she was happy with her commitment. there's been no action on that front, is that right? >> no, in fact there was this north korean ship. there were reports that it was headed to burma. eventually, the ship turned around and we noted that the burmese at the time had pledged that it would fully implement the u.n. sanctions. it's hard to say whether that burmese decision had something to do with the ship turning around but it turned around. >> there has been no other steps that they take to implement the sanctions? >> was crucial here is that they have pledged that they will abide by and implement the sanctions. we will be watching to see if

they do so. >> i got a really quick one. do you -- are you aware that you have gotten a request for the extradition from india of the former head of union carbide? you know is such a request has been received? >> outtake the question. >> thank you. >> starting tuesday, the full senate considers judge sand is so mayor for confirmation. coming this fall, tour the home of the supreme court. >> the full senate starts the day on the supreme court nomination of judge sonia sotomayor. next, centers make remarks about the upcoming debate. this is 15 minutes. >> mr. president, i would like unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

objection. mrs. hagan: thank you. i'm pleased to rise in support of judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to be associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. judge sotomayor's background demonstrates that she is an extremely well qualified mainstream judge who has the utmost respect for precedent and believes in fidelity to the law. i've always said that i do not believe in a litmus test for judicial nominees and that i will look to the nominee's record as a whole. judge sotomayor's record in its entirety is nothing short of impressive. with 17 years on the federal bench, she has more federal judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in 100 years. judge sotomayor has a compelling pull yourself up by your boot straps personal story. she was raised by a single mom

who emphasized education as she struggled to support her family while working as a nurse. with her mother's strong work ethic and focus on education deeply ingrained in her, judge sotomayor went to o to graduate summa cum laude from prince ton and she received her law degree -- princeton and she received her law degree from yale law cool. she then become a prosecutor in the manhattan district attorney's office where she was tough on criminals and gained valuable perspective for her later perspective as a judge. she also became active in many areas of her community, showing her desire to serve others and to promote justice in society. having served as a volunteer for many efforts in my hometown of greensboro, north carolina, i know how serving others can enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the world. after her time as a prosecutor, judge sotomayor went into practice as a commercial

litigator where she dealt with business and finance law, an area importance to my state of north carolina. in 1991, upon the recommendation of then-senator daniel patrick moynihan of new york, she was nominated by president george h.w. bush to serve as a federal judge for the southern district court of new york. and in 1992, she was unanimously confirmed for that position by the united states senate. while civic as a district court judge, she was known for her toughness, fairness, and dedication to the law, characteristics of a strong judge. because of her outstanding record on the district court level, judge sotomayor was nominated in 1997 by president william jefferson clinton to serve as a judge on the united states courts of appeal for the second district -- for the second circuit. and in 1998, the senate

confirmed her by wide margin. among the senators voting for her confirmation was former north carolina senator jesse helms. i would like t to think that senator helms saw in judge sotomayor the same qualities that president obama saw: fairness of mind, supreme intellect, and an unsurpassed devotion to the and to our system of government. some opponents have repeatedly brought up a few select comments made by judge sotomayor to suggest that she will not be impartial. however, judge sotomayor has made it clear that she does not let her background influence her interpretation of the law. her statements to the judiciary committee and her 17-year record on the bench confirm this. as judge sotomayor has said -- let me quote this -- quote -- "my record shows that at no point or time have i ever

permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case. in every case where i have identified a sympathy, i have articulated it and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result." judge sotomayor has also said that as much as her experiences influence her perspective, they have also taught her to be aware of other people's perspective. in 2001, she said -- quote again -- "i am reminded each day that i render decisions that affect people concretely and that i owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me require."

as judge sotomayor said i at her confirmation hearing, her underlying judicial philosophy is fidelity to the lawment -- law. in an independent study, supreme court expert tom goldstein looked at 97 race-related cases in which judge sotomayor participated while on the second circuit. he found that she and the rest of her panel rejected discrimination claims roughly 80 times and agreed with them 10 times. the circuit rejected discrimination claims by a margin of 8-1. goldstein wrote, "of the ten cases favoring claims of discrimination, nine were unanimous. and of those nine, in seven of them, the unanimous panel included at least one republican-appointed judge." given that record, goldstein concluded, "it seems absurd to say that judge sotomayor allows

race to affect her decision making." judge sotomayor has also demonstrated that she does not legislate from the bench and that she gives deference to congress in clarifying the intent of laws. in her dissent to the majority's opinion in heyden vs. pitaki, judge sotomayor wrote -- "the duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. i do not believe that congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statu statutes it has created." she also said that, "i trust that congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself rather than to have the courts do so for it." additionally, a comprehensive study of judge sotomayor's criminal appellate decisions by

the majority staff of the senate judiciary committee fou as an appellate judge that sotomayor sat with republican-appointed judges on more than 400 criminal cases. in those cases, she agreed with all republican-appointed judges 97% of the time. and she agreed with at least one republican-appointed judge 99% of the time. judge sotomayor's sensible attitude toward following the law and her ability to objectively evaluate all angles of her cases has resulted in high ratings and endorsement by numerous organizations. the american war associatio amen unanimously found sotomayor to be well qualified, which is the highest rating the a.b.a. gives to judicial nominees. the congressional research service conducted an analysis of her opinions and concluded, "as

a group, the opinions belie easy gatt gorization along easy ideological -- gatt gorizeation along ease ideological system. her approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis -- in other words, the upholding of past judicial precedence." judge sotomayor has an impressive list of law enforcement endorsements and supporte, including the international association of chiefs of police, the national association of police organizations, the national district attorneys' association, the fraternal order of police, the national latino police officers association, the federal law enforcement officers association, the federal hispanic law enforcement officers association, the national organization of black law enforcement executives, and the national sheriffs association.

judge sotomayor has also been endorsed by the u.s. chairma chf commerce, which stated -- "the chamber evaluated judge sotomayor's record from the standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament and an understanding of business and economic issues. based on the chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, judge sotomayor is well qualified to serve as an associate justice of the u.s. supremsupreme court." the nonpartisan brennan center for justice reviewed all of judge sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said, "based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is unmistakable in constitutional law cases that judge sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the second circuit." judge sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her nomination in which they

said, "as former law clerks to judge sotomayor, each of us can attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic and commitment to the rule of law. working for judge sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. we each have the privilege of working closely with her as she confronted and resolved incredibly complex and intellectually demanding legal challenges. judge sotomayor approaches each case with an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules of law. the law clerk said that they agree with mr. of judge many ofe sotomayor's other colleagues who he say they respect her collegiality and balanced and fair jurisprudence. mr. president, i would like to thank and congratulate the members of the judiciary committee for holding an extraordinarily civil and open supreme court nomination proce

process. i commend president obama for selecting a woman, an hispanic and, above all, an extremely well qualified nominee. and i am thrilled to have the opportunity to be a part of this historic moment, and if she is confirmed, i believe she will serve our country well. based on my conversations with the nominee, her statements in her confirmation hearings and my review of her record, i intend to support her confirmation when it is voted upon later this week, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: mr. president, i join my colleagues in congratulating senator leahy and senator sessions for their work on the sotomayor nomination. the process was fair to both sides and, most importantly, fair to the nominee. i am pleased today to rise in support of judge sotomayor, an individual whose life story is

an inspiration to millions of americans. a child of immigrants with modest means, judge sotomayor has risen by didn't of exemplary academic accomplishment and hard work to the cusp of confirmation to our nation's highest court. but judge sotomayor is much more than just a story of accomplishment. she has shown herself to be a judge truly worthy of elevation to the supreme court. both on the bench and before this committee, judge sotomayor has proved that she has the necessary character, competence, and integrity to serve on the supreme court. her distinguished 17-year record on the bench demonstrates a commitment to fair and impartial application of the law and respect for the values which make up our constitution. at her hearing, judge sotomayor assured us that she will listen with an open mind to all sides of an argument and that she will be mindful of the very real impact her dislitionz have on each -- decisions will have on each and every american. she pledged fidelity to the

constitution and to the court's precedent as well as responsibility to cautiously review precedent when justice requires. as we conclude the senate's action on judge sotomayor's nomination this week, i believe we need to reflect upon the role that confirmation hearings play in the senate's duty to advise and consent. while i have no reservations about my support for judge sotomayor, i share the concerns expressed by many americans, legal commentators and others on the judiciary committee about our committee's ability to have candid and substantive conversation with nominees about the -- about the issues americans care about. we all know that the confirmation process is crucial. it is the public's only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for life on the highest court in our landmen -- land. but for many years now, we've seen a familiar pattern from nominees, democratic and

republican alike, who have learned that the path of least resistance is to limit their responses and cautiously cloak them in generalities. wanteddably, nominees -- understandably, nominees don't want to risk their confirmation by saying anything that might provoke potential opponents. and we cannot ask nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come before them, but it is reasonable for to us ask them to speak more openly about past supreme court decisions and how they would decide cases that are close calls, what reasoning they would use and what factors they would consider. the concerns i raise do not reflect any personal criticism about judge sotomayor. i think she respond to our committee's questions with great intelligent electricity and sincerity and that -- intellect and sincerity and that she has rightly earned bipartisan ways. however, i hope going forward we can explore ways to achieve the great candor to the confirmation procesess both demands and deserves. for example, we could convene a bipartisan group of judiciary committee members, members of

the bar, constitutional scholars and perhaps even members of the media who have experience following the court and our hearings to help us determine what specific questions we can and should expect substantive answers about. if we can do this the committee's unique opportunity to engage nominees in the great legal questions facing our nation will more effectively serve our committee. i commend president obama for nominating judge sotomayor who has demonstrated a commitment to public services and to the law and i look forward >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. coming up in a moment, secretary of state hillary clinton meets with jordan's foreign mier