$1.1 billion support for baseline fuel increases. on the investment side, in afghanistan they have secured 5 mc 12's supporting f-15 and q9 models. $15.4 million for fiscal year 2011 providing for 29,000 airmen, 39000 flying hours, base support, sustainment, pops, and chemical command control for for independents, 202-628-0205. and firepower to u.s. co -- control for isr investment. aid projects in afghanistan include aircraft shelters and cargo craft. we have replaced combat losses for 1 f-35, purchasing three hh

60 cost. . -- 60's. . the budget balances today's demands with tomorrow's challenges. we will entertain your questions.

>> you left 12 [unintelligible] do those count in the total for f-111 -- fy 11? the reapers, the lightning, why are they funded -- >> we are not buying an 1f-15 and the reapers are replacing predators' we lost. >> do you have funding for light

attack aircraft? >> we have funding in fy 12 for light attack. $179 million. that is why you do not see the quantities. >> can you talk about the plans for the weather side let -- satellite program? >> the plan announced bricks them apart and there will be an air force peac andiece a-- piece and noaa program. >> that is up today, that is accurate? >> we have funding for

[inaudible] >> you say you lost an f-15 and you are replacing with an f 35. how much of that 35 is going for versus replacing an f-15? >> and at 35 is $131 million. it is hard to say what the cost of an f-15 is. we would have to go back and look at historical costs. >> i[inaudible] we have [inaudible] >> we can get a total number and provided to you. >> that would be great. >> there was some funding for space protection program. what does that by you? >> do you know the name of the

specific program? >> [inaudible] something very generic. it was less than $100 million. a small amount of money. >> [inaudible] >> on the budget, [inaudible] $10.8 billion? could you see what that includes? [inaudible] and global satellite, a joint space operations center, i think you would also have [inaudible] >> i think what you are after is the old virtual mfp amount.

we will see of that cross checks with that. >> now that the air force is buying more aircraft and it did in the previous fiscal year, 139 versus 93 -- >> 149. >> do you expect cuts in personnel costs to offset the cost of more aircraft? >> no. there is no cuts in personnel in this budget. we see is continued re balancing that began last year where we are focused heavily in our investment account on the current contingency operation. those assets require us to buy more quantities but with smaller, less-expensive aircraft. the people that are required to man those, and do the work,

they're part of the balancing that is going on in our military personnel accounts. we are shifting people as we drawdown of our combat forces. we are now re during those toward some of the other missions. -- regearing those two words, the other missions. we are re balancing internal to our appropriations. the increased quantity is for aircraft of lower unit costs than aircraft we have bought in the past. >> i wanted to go back to the fiscal year 2010. can i get detail as the $1 billion set aside for task force requirements? as far as the isar analytical

capabilities, is that an [inaudible] or is there a complementary investment to support that analytical side? >> there is a combination of both. currently, it is predominantly personnel in terms of supporting the mission, processing exploitation and discrimination. there is effort underway to automate to the extent we can to assist in that effort. i not give you specifics of the top of my head but there is a lot of work and effort going on to automate as much as possible. >> the isar tassask force initiatives [inaudible] >> a lot of that is the

continued procurement of isar assets and that is in the chart. >> [inaudible] could you give us the profile between 2015 and -- 2012 and 2015? >> how many we're going to buy? >> the rought procurement r&d total. -- ruough procurement r&d tool. >> i do not have each member of the top of my head. we do know that the program of record for the kcx is 179 i cannot give you the break down

until we have the contract. if you need further information of how we have laid out the [inaudible] funding wise we can provide that. >> you mentioned 150 million for [inaudible] >> cyber command is -- includes day-to-day operations after it stood up in tan, the continuation in day-to-day operations of sever command. >> are there other cyber programs within the airforce? >> there is the 24th air force which is the numbered airforce for cyber command. that is the numbered air force that supports sever command. >> can give us any funding

numbers associated with the program? >> that information is in a classified program. >> could you please tell me how many numbers of ea are going to be re-engined? >> we buy two ship sets in fy 11. there would be eight engines. the ships have four engines. >> thank you. >> to go back to my procurement question. how much will the reapers cost? >> the reapers are 11.4 apiece.

the hh-60's are $40 million apiece. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> how much has been dedicated for the long-range [inaudible] program? >> $2 million. >> will the posted payload demonstration continue? >> the current demo is part of the [inaudible] program. it was terminated because the program is performing well. the two satellites are performing well. for portability purposes, we

decided it did not make sense from a business case standpoint to keep both programs going. >> which is being dedicated for the officers critical skills retention [inaudible] >> retention bonuses are $664 million. that does not include just officers. that is officer and enlisted. >> is there break out? >> there is. we will provide you the break out. >> what was the no. 4 bonuses for fiscal year 2010? >> we will have to [inaudible] >> the total number of flight hours is expected to drop. can you -- given you have more aircraft [inaudible] >> they decrease by 1 hooters $62,000. but we have done [inaudible]

we are submitting the budget in the supplemental and the baseline budget at the same time. it gives us the opportunity to refine what the flying our requirements for. -- flying hour requirements were. we have adjusted the program to reflect the actual execution in the baseline and what we're doing in contingency operations. >> were there considerations to buy additional mc-12's? >> we bought some in [inaudible] >>çó]/ñwe bought 12.

>> was there moenney to put aside to [inaudible] it is supposed to be a an amram. >> not that i am aware of. >> the $200 billion, could you detail for us what that money is supposed to be for? it was mentioned that would be for maintaining stealth but i do not understand what that man. i would like to -- an explosion -- explanation behind it. >> it is a long-range strike platform. >> it is in the areas of l.o.

sensors and net ready comm. >> this is organic to the air force. it is within the air force. >> it is a component of this which is a contractor based. there is an industrial base concern that as we complete the study directed by the qdr to determined the family of systems to read this capability, we need to keep some industrial based viability so that one -- once those decisions were made, we have the capacity to move out. >> what form does that take, exactly? do you keep contracting with lockheed to keep making designs for -- >> i will not get into the contracting of specifics. >> [inaudible] >> the capabilities themselves

and the technology maturation, there is a valid requirement and acquisition committee will follow the rules to pursue that. i can i get into the contracting specifics. >> --- cannot get into the contracting specifics. >> [inaudible] does this mean that political problems regarding their base are resolved? some publications said the air base may be removed. >> i do not know that we can discuss this in the context of the 2011 budget. >> it is more of a policy issue than of budget issue. yes ma'am? >> there was a planned phase out

of the u2 phase that? -- out? >> that is planned for the end of 2013. >> the question about the four years support operations squadrons. those are the prg groups. as far as the funding, can you write down how much that is going to work? there is one group in each column. can you read that down as far as manpower and funding levels? >> do we have that available? i do not know of the top of my head. >> [inaudible] >> question is on the [inaudible] >> the u2 phaseout.

is that during fy 13? >> it will not go away until the hawk is ioc. >> the two systems are interrelated in terms of global hawk's readiness. we would not phase out the u2 if there were gaps in capability. we will base that on the performance of global hawk. >> secretary gates mentioned programs wothat have performance issues -- flight testing has

been slow. >> of the defense of a program that is struggling as we all know having observed the [inaudible] process is whether it provides the capability to the fighter. the eoir center capability, we have the u2 or global hawk block 30. i think there was consensus across a department needed to press forward. >> we have time for two more questions. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> is there any money for the

presidential aircraft? >> there is money for program office to start the acquisition strategy look and development. 5 million, is that right? >> yes. >> how much money will go for the nuclear road map and those emission -- those initiatives? >> five. million -- $5.8 billion. >> [inaudible] do you have a number for that or is that [inaudible] >> you mentioned that the navy and air force are developing a cruise missile. is there money in your pot for that? >> not that i am aware of.

>> just a minute. >> [inaudible] >> a new cruise missile. >> is this nuclear or conventional? >> th[inaudible] >> it sounds like a nuclear one. >> you probably need to clarify that. >> what is the cost for [inaudible] >> 3.2 million apiece. >> is there any detail [inaudible] >> it is a small aircraft, six passenger with group. we're planning to procure 15 of

them in 2011. it will be used in the building partner coalition role. >> as what? >> as passengers, cargo, mobility. >> is it similar to that t-12? >> probably larger. >> that sounds like [inaudible] >> the plan is -- it should be a relatively quick and easy acquisition. >> [inaudible] >> that is it right now. >> is it for afghanistan? >> not specifically. >> can you say who it is for? >> i do not have [inaudible] >> can we get a follow-up? >> yes. >> [inaudible]

>> last question? >> thank you. [no audio] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> come on up and step up to the front. >> overviews are on the table

for those who want them. -- overviews are on the table for those who want them. [inaudible conversations]

>> the panel will begin in a moment. >> the panel will begin in a moment. welcome, everyone. we have with us [inaudible] >> good afternoon. nice to be with you all again. i have four viewgraphs and i will talk to the viewgraphs and

then be available for questions. our budget request for 11 is $8.4 billion, up half a billion over fiscal year 10. the budget supports continuous emphasis on development, testing, fielding, sustainment, and we have shifted our emphasis from the ground based defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles to the regional threat, short and medium range missiles which comprise about 99% of the ballistic missile threat extent. we also, as announced by the

president on september 17, 2009, we are starting the four- phased approach to fielding the capability in europe against the emerging iranian threat. initially against again the short and medium-range threat that exists and hence to run our initial emphasis will be on southeastern europe. next, please. now, the objectives that we established at the start of the comm season were homeland

defense, regional defense, proven, meaning adequate testing, and hedging against the future. anhnd each of those enterprises has enjoyed an increase from 10 to 11 except for the hedge against the future which has dropped off about 1 billion plus. now, i want to say something about testing, not to ignore the other three objectives, but in 2009, in about december of 2008, we lead our testing program out on the table, and we

developed some criteria to a number called critical engagement conditions, or cec, and empirical the management -- empirical management event, eme, and we developed criteria that became cec's or eme's, which led to an almost complete reordering of our test program. why did we do that? we cannot afford fenimore to conduct the number of flight tests that we used to, for instance, when i was a lot younger. at $2 million a flight test for

a ground-based system, 80 or my -- at $80 million or $90 million a flight test, it is in thnot affordable to conduct 30 flight tests to determine a confidence level sufficient so that the director of operational test and evaluations would be comfortable. what we do now is capture the right data so that we can develop high fidelity models and simulations so that the war fighter in particular and the testers have comfort that we are fielding will in fact achieve the goals desired by the war fighter and the testers. all of our flight tests starting toward the end of last

year have the cec's and eme's and contributed dated to our models and simulations which on a continuing basis, are updated so that they can be accredited by the testers and we believe that to in 2014 are so, we will have these high fidelity models and simulations. next, please. here are actual numbers in the budget for 11. as you can see, thaad and aegis are benefiting and it is this increased emphasis on regional threat. i see you writing down numbers. i'm going to give you a copy of the overview.

all those -- every number you have ever seen, they are in the overview. as we discovered together some years ago, it turned out to be a quiz for me. testing targets, i talked about the test program. of targets, we have an rfp for a medium-range series of targets. we're about to issue one for intermediate range ballistic missiles and later this year, we will put out an rfp for an icbm target. our goal is by 2012 we will start to achieve an inventory of targets so that when we experience a target failure, heaven forbid, we will not have to wait a year or so to repeat that flight test.

we will be able once we have determined through a failure review board process, why we had the failure, we can then go forward after correcting what ever we find was the cause of the failure, and conduct a repeat of the failed flight test. the abl is, as you all know, on the threshold of a shoot down. it has been determined, however that we will then in duct the 747 abl platform into a directed energy research program under the aegis of bdr and e. we will control the aircraft, but the whole idea is to use that as a platform for testing other directed energy weapons.

and the way fortuitously, the aircraft makes it amenable to inserting other direct energy weapons in there to conduct tests. there are other programs within the department under directed energy. ours happens to be the one with the greatest power output. that does not foreclose other approaches overtime with advancement in technology, achieving the same power levels in a platform much less fast than the 747. airborne infrared sensors, a new effort, our attempt to exploit

uav's. we had been, since last summer, conducting all of our flight tests, almost out -- allall were reapers manned by airforce flight crews. we're very impressed with the results to date. we have an assessment of alternatives being conducted under the aegis of mit lincoln labs. the results of that should be available by early spring so that we will know what the path is to developing such a capability. i think we may find is initially, the experiments to want to conduct may be with the repair -- we want to conduct

maybe with every prayer -- with a reaper. the advantage of reaper is the platform is adaptable to what we are doing. all that is required is to move the platform 23 inches forward so we get a greater uplook angle and that is why we have been able so far to capture as much data as we have. the jury is still out. there is some advantages to this airborne business. you can get on station more quickly. two, you can handle larger raid sizes and you can with other platforms. as we have thought about going

to space, we can even handle a larger rate sizes. this is part of the phased approach that was approved by the president in september. in our budget, this year, there will be in authorization toward the $8.50 billion appropriated in 2010 to establish a land- based test side at the pacific missile range facility because obviously we cannot test this capability in the host nation, because we do most of our testing for aegis at pmrf, it was not a big deal to say, this would be the place to be able to test that land-based capability. next. now, in the ballistic missile defense review were the six

goals i have on this page. as the secretary frequently announces, we are all in the department about people. and so the technology is wonderful and the industrial base is wonderful but we cannot do it without trained military and civil servants. again, the emphasis on the homeland regional proven technology and as the president said in prague in july, i has to be proven and cost-effective -- it has to be proven and cost- effective. and flexibility, it cannot just be something that is outmoded if we need to be able to evolve as the threat matures, and more and more, cooperation with our allies and friends is very very

important. today, we are working with about 20 nations around the world. we have a very mature program with the japanese, three of their four destroyers are each is capable and they have been over here -- that are aegis capable and they have been over here. and as you know, we have -- we are preparing a case for three thadd baters fobatteries for thr united arab emirates. i am ready for your questions. >> the -- you talked about abo moving to ddr & e. will they be not at [inaudible]

>> will have enough funding now to maintain the aircraft -- we will have enough funding now to maintain the aircraft and some testing. the budget drops off in 2010, we have $100 million available. >> are there other tests? >> we have an upcoming test and d this will be coming after that. those will be done by dess. >> could you expand on whathe tt intercept failure yesterday and whether that, along with fire failures is causing you to rethink your approach to flight testing in terms of trying to do more tests and learn more rather than go the other direction? >> our intent first is at least

until 2020 is one ground-based testier. thtest per year. we will correct things we discovered on the previous flight test. one year is about the limit. it certainly is a challenge financially. what about last evening? all of us were very disappointed. we have lots of data. we have convened a failure review board. i would guess it is going to be weeks or months before we have absolutely pin down what went wrong. our intent, i believe, would be

to do it over again when we are ready. >> [inaudible] >> as soon as we're ready. first we have to figure out what went wrong, correct what went wrong, and conduct the test over. i had mentioned previously that frequently, targets are the driver. in this case, a target will not be the driver. >> what about the funds to do that? we'll have to come back to congress? >> we will have to change how we spend the money in ground-based if we want to do it this year. [inaudible] withy thh the consent of the hi. >> the reports say is that the radar? >> you noticed i did not say was

the radar. it was premature due tto the tr. the failure -- speculation is something i should not be doing here. let's find out what the data says, let the failure review board analyze it. and i should also add, we will have a second party looking at the same data, an independent team, so that we have high confidence that we will know exactly what went wrong. i believe we have sufficient data to determine what went wrong. >> as you continue flight testing, at some point, you have to replace the interceptors. is that part of -- >> that is part of the program. the goal is 30 in the ground and 26 support, four in [inaudible]

and 22 for testing and four spares. that would be 30, 22, 18 and 4. 18 test vehicles and four spares. >> [inaudible] >> we have been studying gently with the air force and i believe we have -- jointly with the air force and we believe we have the budget to continue this effort. the challenge will be new ideas, new technology, where does that fit? in a budget that is not a unlimited.'

the budget is to fit -- exempt beyond 11 but who knows beyond 11? >> >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> last year you ah had said that was not the most clear. >> we established points for that program. we said this is a very high-risk endeavor. i could tell you that the israelis have been proceeding at a reasonably good pace, considering the high risk technology evaluation that we made, and in the worst case, they are one quarter behind achieving their knowledge point. it is early in the program. i think it is not unreasonable

to say that we are somewhat impressed by the progress they have been making. >> what about your previous suggestion that they might want to stick with aegis? >> we have offered that as an alternative. particularly in view of this being judged by s as a high-risk effort. -- us as a high-risk effort. we have not offered impediments to their efforts to achieve that capability. >> how much money is going towards that? >> thatthat may be a no. i have. all i know is their budget that

we're sending over fouis $122 million. each year, we send over budget and it gets modified in an upward fashion. it is over 22 million that was appropriated this year. it lives up to the promises we have made to the israelis. >> could you explain the phased approach? you also mentioned east asia. >> i did not mention a station. >-- east asia. the world "global" will appear

when we start talking about paa. what about the gulf states? today, studies are being conducted to see how we might apply the phased adaptive approach to the other parts of the globe. >> [inaudible] >> the co-comms are- -- we do what the war fighters one. i think i told you previously and i will come back to the paa. we have received a draft priorities capability listing which is a product of the war fighters, the co-comms, and

stratcom. that document is in our hands. we had a flag officer review of it at the three-star level last week. it was agreed to go back to the drawing board and return the document. we then introduce it into our deliberations. we come up with the document called a capabilities listing that we send back in the document says, ok, there are 37 things in this pcl. here is the weekend to near term at midterm and far term -- and here is the stuff we can do near term and midterm and far term. these aren't the capabilities agreement report. -- are the capabilities

agreement report. the paa is in four phases. the phase in fiscal year 2011 which is not far in the future, kind of takes advantage of those things that are either fielded or approaching fielding. in 2015, are things that ar require some development and will be available in 2015 and 2018 is when the standard missile 2a comes on line and phase four is standard missile 2b. the other systems are the same. meetineaning thadd and radar. prior to that will be the

uav's capability that we hope to start demonstrating in 2012. do not ask me where host nations are. there undetermined. >> what happened to the money, the small sum of the senate had inserted for the concept study on [inaudible] >> space-based interceptor. the test bed -- we put it in and they disapproved it. the came and told us, take $3 billion and do a study which is under way under the aegis of the national academy of science. >> is there any money being s

ought in 2011? >> the national academy is doing a study which started two weeks ago on boost phase. we had this other study that we signed a contract with the space-based interceptor study -- it is a conglomeration. it should complete in 2011. >> the european plan that was announced. well most of the money, the $5 billion or so be spent on thadd and sm3's and sm2's? >> the thadd batteries were

being bought anyway. the budget that has been approved buys nine thadd batteries. the army's objective back in the mid-1990s was for 13. now we have a visibility of nine. aegis is a new endeavor. the first one of those installations in a country not yet determined is using rdt & e that was appropriated for the polish endeavour. money was real appropriated -- reappropriated and will be used

for the first side. the [inaudible] will be delivered in this fiscal year. the abir effort is starting in 2010. leading to experiment in 2012. it is one thing to launch a uav and get a picture of what is boosting, but we have to establish criteria, the requirement, and see how well we meet the requirement and the con ops become important. you find out whether it plays a big role in the viability of the uav capability. we have a lot to learn and we're working very closely with the air force in learning how to

achieve such a capability. >> last year, [inaudible] you gave them a lecture in closed conference. >> i am not going to name names today. i'm going to tell you we continue to be disappointed in the quality that we are receiving from our prime contractors and their suburs. very, very disappointed. quality design issues but more in quality of products delivered. which then results in rework and reserves because most of these contracts are cost contracts. it costs the taxpayer more. we are -- the gao is coming to

see is on thursday of this week and the subject is quality. >> is it going or raytheon that are doing worse than before? >> i am excuse and no one from this -- excusing no one from this conversation. >> you are seeing [inaudible] >> continued would be the proper term. i'm not going to name names. we have problems with all of our products. >> [inaudible] >> that is one you might say, no one is delivering poor quality and not paying for it. . .

>> a recent firing exercise, it was reported be abstracted --

to be extracted, and the pullout that targets, the pullout a couple of parachutes and start to drop toward the earth, the booster motors shot off, and it assumed the trajectory. we all sat there and watched the target fall into the water. the failure review board disclosed the big time quality problem. that's it -- that is the most recent example. early december. >> when you talk to the contractors -- [inaudible]

they are responsible for their lenders? >> that is all part of the contracting process. >> is the failure possibly the result of the quality-control process? >> is strictly a part of the quality control process -- it is strictly a part of the quality control process. we spent a lot of time and effort determining what went wrong and we absolutely determined what went wrong. >> you said it was the quality control problem. [inaudible] >> the gmd test, it made. it may be a couple of months.

i was talking about thae thad test. this was about a weekend ago. >> does the failure of the test yester day reflect a quality control problem? >> i have no clue -- no clue. so i am not going to say that it was a failure problem. >> how long as there been a quality control problem going on? >> it has been a continuing effort. >> she spent years worked in the u.s. navy program. is this anything like you experience there? >> no, as a matter of fact, that

is a senior executive in 1987, for my first job in the navy, it was as the deputy chief engineer for design and manufacturing quality for the navy sys systems command. this surpassed that. [inaudible] i know from 1987 to 1990 as the deputy chief engineer, we had quality problems, specifically in shipbuilding, and welding, and joining two pieces of metal together. i just read the papers. quality is a big problem. [unintelligible] >> this is done -- this has been

going on for quite well. what about the continuing nature of the quality problem? >> when i joined this organization almost eight years ago, we did not have a quality organization. we now have a quality organization, representation in all of our significant contractors' plants. we're working this problem assiduously to conduct two-week in-plant reviews. we're not here to fill out reports but helping them to continue to have quality progress. >> sm-3, is that going to be a

raytheon-derived product? >> if i had to tell you tonight -- and i do not have the contract, i think that it would be a derivative. >> are you allowed to do that through acquisition? >> we do not have to complete everything although our goal is because of the mccain-1levin,. >> to persist in tracking systems? -- the precision tracking systems? >> as i sit here, we're not done yet. it will be another six months before we are right that an

acquisition strategy. -- before we arrive at an acquisition strategy. [inaudible] >> i see 30 missiles in this request for testing purposes only. but for actual intercepts, operational missiles, i believe that it is only eight. >> 1a and 1b, we're doubling the inventory to 430 or so. that is when you see the additional money in our budget, that is for thad and other missiles mainly, plus the additional finders. one more question.

>> what other senses was used to size the sbx -- besides beinthe sbx? [inaudible] testing should be operationally and perfected. how was this operationally effective? bubblers their different situation >> there are different operations. this test plan was just used there. >> okay, see you next year.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the president released his budget proposal for 2011 this morning, totaling $3.80 trillion, including a three-year spending freeze on non discretionary spending. it is expected to save $250 billion over three years. you can see the president's remarks at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> the first time in its history, the sec has an in-house scholar in residence to offer a perspective on policy issues. stuart benjamin on the use of the digital spectrum on of of

the communicators," c-span2. >> watch "washington journal" live daily france 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. eastern. covering washington like no other. >> for more about the budget, the state department. briefing reporters is jacob lew. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. welcome to the department of state. this morning, the president has sent the 2011 budget to the hill, which provides significant

funding for our national security strategies and provide resources so that together the department of state and the department of defense and the department of homeless security and usia d and other agencies conserve and protect the interest of the united states around the world. we will have jack lew go through an answer any question that you might have. >> thank you, p.j. good afternoon. i'm glad to be with you today to present the budget for the department of state and usaid. this is critical for securing the critical security interesvs around the world. as the president's budget describes, this is the heart

along with the departme.t of common security. we appreciate the confidence and support that the president has shown in his budget and that we're prepared to represent it the obama administration is committed to advancing our national interest using all the tools of american power. our diplomatic and development tools enhance and strengthen our reliance -- alliances. we engage with our allies and in crisis and conflict areas with mild flu -- multinational organizations. this is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative.

this budget totals $52.8 billion, off $4.9 billion increase above 10,010. $3.6 billion is for programs in afghanistan, and the right. -- afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq. we are also submitting an fy 2010 supplemental that includes money for civilian efforts in afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq, and like to spend a few minutes' walking through the major elements of our budgets, and i would be happy to respond to any questions that you have.

over my shoulder you see some graphics that you may have in front of you as well. i will follow the structure of that graphic in walking through the highlights of the budget. securing front-line states -- that is a blue on the chart behind me. this is supporting the civilian contribution to the u.s. effort in afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq. the 2011 budget includes $10.7 billion to support the regional stabilization strategy in those countries, and also supports the civilian efforts as we sheet -- ship from military programs. as i mentioned the supplemental for 2010 also includes this. also the transition cost, which

are very much timely expenditures. our afghanistan strategy is a fully coordinated civilian- military plan. civilians work side-by-side with the military and each of the district's targeted for access. our goal is to build the capacity of afghan institutions to diminish the threat posed by extremists, to draw insurgents off the battlefield. this will permit the program to be built up and maintained over the next 18 months. for fiscal 2011, funding for afghanistan is $5 billion. pakistan is another key country in the war against extremism. our budget focuses on basic infrastructure, which will enable them to provide better services for the people pakistan. this is key to improving stability and also provides the military tools to wage an effective counterterrorism

campaign. funding for pakistan is $3.2 billion. with a schedule drawdown of military forces and iraq, funding points to a smooth transition, police training, and operational support for our civilian presence. as dod begins the drawdown, there'll be $15 billion of state expenditures are ramping up. this trend will be more dramatic as the military drawdown continues in military spending continues to decline in iraq. investments and civilian capacity must be in place prior to the military withdrawal. the supplemental for iraq is necessary to ensure that this time-sensitive investment proceeds on schedule. the 2011 funding is $20 billion for the programs in iraq include police training, rule of law programs, and a translation from

the current military footprint to a more and diplomatic and development process -- a more diplomatic and development presence. at that point, the diplomatic post will not be connected to the military bases. they will be free standing diplomatic post. overall the state department budget funds over 67% of the civilian person now in these front-line states. the second category is meeting global challenges. the red part of the pie chart behind me. 28% of our budget supports our efforts to meet urban global tension such as natural and man- made disasters, poverty and disease, malnutrition, climate

change, and population growth. these efforts in all several agencies in the coordinated government effort. the improve people's lives and make people less vulnerable to the ravages of poverty and the instability that it breeds. it not only reflects our values but enhances our security. left to itself, it leads to a failed state. this builds on the great progress we have in treating hiv aids, malaria, and tuberculosis. we can help partner countries achieve significant improvements in health outcomes. eliminating our -- a tip -- a particular focus on the health of women, newborns, and children. the request is $5 billion, which includes funding for pat clarke and other disease--- papfar and

other disease-programs. we attack the root cause of hunger by raising productivity and rural communities. total funding of $1.8 billion includes $1.2 billion for state and usaid, and an additional amount to support multilateral trade programs. within our help initiative, there is $200 million with support for the nutrition programs, and essential -- an initial -- an essential part of our programs. funding to address global climate change to provide $1 billion between putin and 2012 for climate programs and to advance global efforts to fight climate change. within the budgets, we are requesting $646 million for

sustainable landscapes and other programs. we will expand renewable energy programs in the philippines and systems in south africa, and support partnerships with major economies like china, india, and indonesia. total funding for climate change is $1.4 billion in the budget. we are requesting $1.4 billion for humanitarian assistance programs. it is crucial to state and usaid maintain this level. it can help refugees and the victims of armed conflicts and natural disasters, such as the devastation in a prepared the budget also includes $100 million for programs coming out of the president's speech in cairo last bring three these funds will help create economic opportunities with the muslim world, foster partnerships in

size and technologies, and address challenges facing women and youth. the third area is strengthening and security areas. this is 20% of the budget and includes fund to strengthen our security partnerships and a critical challenges which in turn help secure our interests. these provide security assistance to our allies in the middle east, and support security assistance and other parts of the world. because we have broken afghanistan and pakistan off, in addition it is $6.6 billion. we maintain our commitment to mitigating potential demand of u.s. forces to strengthen regional stability. this is to $0.2 billion.

we continue to support the government of of columbia in its battle against drug trafficking. we find that critical maritime initiative in mexico to help the government fight against drug cartels which has a direct impact on the united states. the budget also includes funds to help our friends in central america. funding for this initiative is $410 million. finally, these funds provide economic developments assistants around the world and provide basic services for people and support civil society and other groups who deserve the opportunity to participate in the political process. this is a large category. most of you see it as development and economic assistance, $5 billion, which

includes $1.3 billion for economic and development assistance in the near east, such as yemen. the palestinian authority as well. in the sudan, it supports the comprehensive peace agreement. this budget also begins to rebalance the civilian and military roles. secretary gates is said one of the most important lessons from iraq and afghanistan is the role that reconstruction and government play in any success. this rebuild civilian capacity to fill this critical missions. for example, the budget includes $100 million for complex crisis fund that will enable the secretary of state to sponsor stability in countries

that are coming out of crisis. this represents a transition from the department of defense and places the all party directly within state and usaid. similarly, our budget includes sufficient funds for the counterinsurgency capability funds, and for police training in iraq. both programs were previously funded in the department of defense perry the final category, and feeding of personnel capability, 24% of the budget, and it supports and rebuild state and usaid personnel which is critical to our national security objectives and diplomacy. the department of state and usaid experts are the backbone of our civilian capacity. there that talented, well- trained, committed core of staff that are critical to engage with our partners around the world, but development and diplomatic

challenges, often at personal sacrifice and risk. it can help reverse the spread of violence and stabilize global economies the minister transnational criminal networks and work toward president obama long-term vision of the world without nuclear weapons. stop pandemics and address the threat of climate change. these are serious challenges and cost a fraction of what it cost to fund an active military engagement if military action is needed. military missions are inherently temporary, while this is a lasting impression. we see this clearly and iraq and haiti, where the work of the military will end but the work of the department of state will continue on a long-term basis. at present, the lack of adequate state and usaid civilian capacity limits our options in responding to

significant global challenges proposed budget will enhance the funds available. the department of state, the increase of 410 foreign service personnel will help meet these needs and its sustained at this rate, there will be a 25% increase by 2014. for usaid, 200 foreign officers "lead to the path of doubling it by 2012. we remain on track for these capabilities. just as a large portion of the dod budget, housing, and other support for the volunteer force, the state department budget is necessary to lay a strong foundation to implement effective programs and effective diplomacy with both national leaders in the public. the state department and u.s. that the advance americans values around the world every day -- and usaid advance

american values around the world every day. it provides critical leadership to strengthen our partnerships and forge new ones into a dance stability, prosperity, and opportunity for most of the world's people. and to protect our own security, promotes our security, and lays the future for prosperous future. with that, i am happy to take the question. >> the figures put out by the white house this morning have figures for state of $63.8 billion. that was a 2.3% decrease by 2010. your figure here is 2.8%. what else is included? >> that probably includes other agencies and it may have some adjustments from year to year funding because of the way supplemental funds are being accounted for. the numbers that i gave you,

although they had been requested for 2011. >> this total budget request for the whole administration is $3.7 billion -- $3.70 trillion, correct? the number that you have here, it does not add up -- the entire and ministration budget does not add up. >> those of the numbers that are in the administration's budget for state and usaid. >> the budget book has 56.77 node >> billion. -- i suspect it's because of a couple of things. other agencies and secondly, the way it accounts for dance

funding for a number of years. i am describing this funding request for 2011. i am happy to go back and what the numbers. i am quite confident that the numbers i just presented are there. >> sticking with the numbers that you have the chart, can you give us the comparisons for fiscal year 2010 in your proposed supplemental requests so that we can see how much funding is going up, how much funding for iraq is going up, and other than those three which you broke out, two other countries i would be interested and would be yemen and haiti. >> ok. i can either what do those numbers now are get them back to you afterwards. rather than read off the numbers

to you, it might be easier -- for afghanistan, the total funding and 2010 enacted was $2.6 billion, supplemental request 1.78 $7 billion, and the 2011 request is $3.9 billion. as you can see, with the buildup of our effort in afghanistan, we're ramping up the civilian efforts, we're getting to a fully funded program a couple. you can see that in our buildup of programming. it is an 18-month period to enact a new strategy. >> it is $5.0 billion in 2011,

and then you said the supplemental request will be $1.8 billion. >> the numbers that the deputy secretary just mentioned, staffing in the opera -- the other parts of the program, $3.3 billion for appropriations, $2.9 billion in the supplemental [inaudible] >> just to be clear, and at the 2010 was $3.3 billion? and in the $2.0 billion

supplemental? got it. so you basically say that the increase, you are proposing an increase from 3.3, plus there will be a 2.0 in the request? ok, thank you. >> did you not say 1.9 before? so we should be saying -- [inaudible] right. [inaudible] >> i think that on both the program and the operations side, we're building up to a

full program level. if you look at it as an 18-month period, it is not one to be totally smooth. there are certain things that our front line costs. >> but in fy 10, you have $5.3 billion, and in fy 11, you're asking for $4.9 billion. >> i would be reluctant to look at the changes in these numbers and call them dramatic shifts. we're talking about a program where the timing of the expenditures from month to month does not match to fiscal year perfectly. there are surges that come in the middle of the year, and we're looking of programmatic side, building up to an assistance program that is roughly $400 million a month. so i will not be $400 million

every month. sometimes transfers happen, one month and not the nets, because of the way the programs are funded. i think that one can get a little lost in looking at the month to month, or even that 12- month to 12-month period, which is cause the program to have an 18-month character. >> the numbers on the pakistan and iraq, please. >> i would give the program level and then i'm going to ask roger and barbara to fill and the pops level. on the program level 2010 was 1.4, so the total is $1.8 billion. the request for 11 is $3.0

billion. that was the carry-lugar program, the commitment to civilian assistance for pakistan. and it also reflects funding for the pakistan counterinsurgency capability fund. and that cements our relationship with pakistan. >> $84 million on the operational side in 2010. $171 million is the 2011 request. >> similar numbers in iraq. >> that would be the total for operations and assistance, 3.17 $1 billion? -- $3.171 billion?

>> i think we would put this on a table rather than trying to do this verbally. it is not a hard thing for us to turn around. >> can you do the same for -- >> yes, for afghanistan and pakistan. i think it's important to the policy behind the right numbers. -- the iraq numbers. civilian in iraq, appropriated was $466 million. the supplement is for $517 million. that is a big increase. the reason for the supplemental request in 2010 is that in order for us to have to transition of police training from the

military to civilian side, we have to acquire equipment which includes aircraft, because it requires helicopters, and it means recruiting and training and preparing the staff, and facilities for them to work again. because the timing is very key to the military withdrawal happening, we have asked the supplementals to make sure that we can get all the groundwork laid well in advance. the other thing i need to do is to prepare for the ultimate military withdrawal, with civilian facilities will be free standing. we need to construct civilian facilities that are not part of u.s. military bases. that requires advance work. the cost for these programs is high because the security requirements are quite high, but

in terms of fiscal structures and transportation and security requirements. the supplemental gets at the resources, particularly for the police training program, to get off the ground quickly. $730 million in 2011, that carries that floor. our overall funding for iraq is higher than that. >> one more that will not require such intensive explanation. when under million >>, is that a straight defense of funds that previously fell under which it described -- $100 million, is that the st. vincent was a previously fell under the pentagon? >> i don't think it would be technically correct college transfer, because it is requested in the state

department budget, but you can think of it in those terms and have it right. the boundaries of the program will be very similar in terms of the secretary of state having discretion to intervene in complex crisis situations, using funding to support state and usaid programming. there is a great deal of consultation and collaboration before. there will be a great deal of that going forward. we still view our efforts in this area as, possibly led by the civilian leadership, which is an important change. >> does that fall under the ambassadors purview? >> it will stay with the secretary. we will have to make a decision where to allocate it. >> another one about afghanistan and pakistan and iraq.

how will these numbers translate into personal changes in the embassies, what numbers will they look for? >> with the practically 900 civilians in the embassies, and then throughout the country in afghanistan, more and more of the people being deployed our deployed outside of kabul. as we look ahead toward 2011 we're looking at an increase in 2011. when i briefed on this previously, i described it on the order of up to 300 more people. we have room in this budget for a little bit more than that. what is important and rather than take an arbitrary number, the civilian resources have to

be defined by the mission. as the district plans the military role out, as they need civilians to go in side-by-side with the military, we give the army six months in advance and we fill those requirements. i suspect there'll be several hundred more in 2010, and an increase in 2011. >> and in tbaghdad and islamabad as well? >> in baghdad and come up there is a large civilian presence already. there will be an increase. we have 22 provincial reconstruction teams. as we move from 22 to 5, people will be moved around. i don't know how many additional

positions, but it will remain a different number. for pratt, credit and think about the increase, while the military is decreasing, the civilian presence is unlikely to drop sharply because they have additional responsibilities. the biggest is in police training. the deployment of people will be toward the end of 2011. >> and in islamabad, can we expect an increase in there? >> there have been individual slated -- not on the same order as the increase in afghanistan. the civilian increase is partially to implement the civilian programs, but we also have significant requirements for military assistance in terms of having people to do the

proper oversight in country. >> about tended to those -- about 10 days ago, this day belies asian strategy was unveiled. -- the stabilization strategy was unveiled. will this help counter the extremist voices that were mentioned? >> a secretary clinton said in london last week and, we support this. the principal funding for reintegration will be a substantial part of the defense resources, that will be used as the campaign moves forward. we do not yet have any plans to have additional separate civilian funding right now for reintegration. we do have country-wide programs, and when people are

reintegrated, they will be eligible to participate in programs. but specifically, reintegration funds that we foresee right now are being programmed in the defense department. >> and the media -- >> we have a substantial program in communications built up in the 2010 budget, that will be carried forward in 2011. there are some one-time costs, particularly broadcast towers, so the number will be at quite the same level as 2010, but there have been significant program strategies for helping to afghans develop their own media, rather than u.s. communications, and that program is funded at the 2011 budget, i believe $150 million. >> i know you love more figures later, but on the haiti

requests, i imagine it is more straightforward. >> the media expenditures in haiti were not budgeted enough formal sense, because it was an emergency. we're drawing down emergency funds. the resources set aside for haiti can be used for the purposes of using the right away. in the last few weeks, we've been in disaster response mode. the question has been, what needs to be done and how can we pay for it. as we move forward and get into the recovery period, we will have different roof -- funding requirements. where we could not put a number to paper before these documents were prepared, we're working through those issues now. we're working with the office of management and budget and we will have more to say about it shortly.

but a similar expectation that there will be additional requirements, both the retail some of the funds that have been drawn down to pay for the meager emergency response and to carry forward -- the immediate emergency response and to carry forward -- the damage assessment has not been completed yet. we're just about to make that transition from the immediate relief to the longer term. >> will we be getting the supplemental five years as separate? >> you should said -- you should have them on the documents released right before this briefing. the supplementals for afghanistan and pakistan and iraq do not include haiti. that will come later. >> not less than $290 million shall be made available for

assistance to haiti. >> that is regular assistance. we have a little bit more than that, probably $375 million made available for haiti. one of the things we're doing right now is using funds previously appropriated to haiti to meet immediate needs, where we have flexibility to do so. it is the nature of disaster response that you quickly drawdown your emergency response funds, and the challenge is to figure out what other funding sources are available. i think we have a lot to be proud of in terms of the quality and speed of the u.s. government response, but it has caused quite a lot of money and it has required us to drawdown funds that had been intended for other purposes. as we get later in the year, if

there are other natural disasters later in the year, we have the capacity to respond still to hurricane season, for example. we are putting forward our analysis of this. it was not a first order analysis. that was what was required to respond in 72 hours to save lives. what can you do to get search and rescue teams up? immediately after that, had you make sure the food and water and medical care is provided. we are not the point is take the step back and take a longer view. >> can you address the issue -- the controversy over the military flights to florida for haitians, who is going to pay for that? the boilers that is not one of the principal issues that we have direct responsibility for. my understanding is that those issues had been worked through,

and there is a plan for dealing with that. i would just point out that there are separate issues regarding haitian americans who are u.s. citizens, and haitians who are not u.s. citizens. we've been expediting the return of haitian americans who choose to come back to the united states come whether they are injured or not. i think the real issue arises for haitians who were not american citizens who want to come to the united states for treatment. but those are not principal areas of our responsibility. [inaudible] i think the white house. >> on multilateral development banks, in the budget book that was released this morning, it is showing from 22 and-2011, and

increased from two. 044 -- in the white house fact sheet, it says $1.9 billion for multilateral. >> again, i would be happy afterwards to cross check the documents. but let me explain what i understand is going on with advanced financial institution funding. there are three things going on. there is additional funding for the food security initiative, the multilateral component of it. there is funding for climate change, the climate changes proposal which is said joint multilateral effort, and there is also some funding that deals with the need to recapitalize

some of the regional banks. as you know, those a department of treasury programs. we pay attention to them because we coordinate our programming together, and obviously it all comes under the account. but that is wider than increase. as to cross-walking the documents, i would have to look at the way the documents were prepared. >> is this still a big increase? is that some sort of map -- multi lateral agreement came at the g-20 where there -- where we are all as a group going to increase these findings? > what is driving those numbs is our commitments to the initiatives that i described. in the case of our food security initiative, we view the commitment as a whole. when i went through the numbers, i use the $400 million number

that was the multilateral peace as part of our overall commitment. we've actually envisioned a program where we would provide in a bilateral basis one set of services while a multilateral program will provide a different set of services. roughly speaking, the multilateral programs will be building and destruction and the bilateral programs will be going into the country partnerships of programmatic support. if we did not have the cooperation between the bilateral and multilateral programs, we could not have the initiative that we are describing. it is very important and it creates leverage for the u.s. contribution. we think we have the right balance between bilateral and multilateral, but the challenges in the area like but security is coming into countries with a coordinated approach so that we do not have 500 ideas about what to do. i think the budget reflects the whole government effort and coordinating across multilateral and bilateral agreements, and

working with host countries, because it is their program. they take ownership of it. that is part of the sustainability. >> you mentioned 400 tents foreign service officer positions and over 200 for the usaid. they wanted to increase by 1600 over two years. >> know, we stretch that out a little bit but it was never over two years. >> but the positions that were going to be added. >> as i indicated in my opening statement, we have had to extend the period, but we have not change the goal. a remarkable statement of how important, the building of the core capacity of the state

department and usaid is. we are maintaining the commitment to building up our capacity to properly train civilians available for these personal assignments. you look around the world and the fact that there are 3000 civilians in afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq makes the case as clearly as anything as i could argue as to why we need more people. without that, we would be pulling civilians out of their post. we need to grow in the budget gives us the ability to continue to grow. we need to grow and the budget gives us the ability to continue to grow. we will only slow down slightly. it will not be a dramatic change. >> what is the figure for diplomacy in 2011? >> we will look that up. >> what is the rest of your time

line on that? >> there's a big problem with diplomacy. that would be great, thanks. >> he said the timeline was a long dated. -- you said that the time line was elongated. >> it goes to 2014. >> are there areas where you are losing your funding? >> as you go through, there are certainly areas where there are reductions. we have held the line in a lot of areas and targeted the increases. there have been some areas of production. the reality is that

international spending has been underfunded for so long, we're holding the line and is in and of itself difficult to do. we can produce a list come but the real story -- we can produce a list, but the real story is that the targeted increases and virtually these areas, we targeted the areas toward the conflict states, targeted toward the initiatives which we things are key to restoring the united states role in the world and to play the kind of constructive leadership role that the president has articulated, and to rebuilding our core capacity. we have tried to look at countries where there has been progress, and start to tamp down some of the numbers, but to do it in a constructive ways. it is not an always positive

signal, but it is a positive thing when some numbers come down, because things are better. there are some examples of that. programs with maritime and colombia, were you graduate of the second stage of the program where you had equipment purchases behind you, and your program is in a different way. they're quite a number of areas where the numbers are down, and i do not have the list of cuts in front of me. [inaudible] >> probably. i would have to go back and breakdown -- the fact that we just completed the purchase of helicopters in mexico, all the helicopters are paid for and are being delivered, we're now moving to a different stage in the program. this is a program that is designed to get at what people

do as opposed to what they used to do the job. i think those are positive reasons to see the numbers go down. but we have been careful in this budget not just to hold number levels for symbolic reasons but to use as carefully as we can the scarce resources for diplomacy and development. >> the numbers have gone down for a number of sub-saharan countries, i believe. >> overall we have increased what was the largest one p forapfar -- what was the largest number for papfar every week he is part of the increase to fund the global health initiative, which is designed to mix all of our different health programs. what we have done historically

and very successfully is pursued disease treatment programs with hiv aids, malaria, and tuberculosis, and what has not happened is the kind of self- conscious building of a sustainable health care if the structure. we're focusing on connecting the programs so that if a woman comes into a country clinic that is there because the pepfar funding, we can also provide care for the newborn child. we have this additional focus on systems investment, particularly the health care for women and children, where we are able to prevent 3 million pregnancy-related deaths, and 300 -- 300,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 300 million infancy- related deaths.

. we see it as a way to extend the life saving and disease capacity but to leave behind a much more stable system. >> the idea of bringing back the numbers is to change your book is an integrated into local structures, that would not require a larger numbers, is that the reason those numbers are going down? >> overall, the pepfar number -- thgoes up.

>> it is $410 million for mexico or also central america? >> both. >> [inaudible] >> $310 for mexico and 100 for central america. >> did you for 65? y$456 million? >> did you have [inaudible]

the incrasease was 48? [inaudible] >> does the budget called for the additional funds are reflected a greater focus on via sa approvals in light of the christmas day bombing attempt? these should be taken away from the state department? >> we have funding for our consular affairs program that are up. >> we will be seeking the ability to retain [inaudible] to the treasure. >> that was a one-year extension

or forever? >> we will be seeking that forever. >> that is a long time. >> how much money is that? >> an additional $720 million. >> and provide stable funding for these programs. the 2011 budget includes funds to support improvements and expand biometric capabilities. those were included before december 24. he obviously address the concerns raised on december 24. we're planning to improve facial recognition technology as well as biometric collection techniques. it will be increasing funding by $50 million in 2011 to enhance the systems we have to collect and share data. >> [inaudible]

>> we have to get that for you. >> does that include sharing data with the airlines and our fellow agencies? >> what we share with dhs we would share with dhs and what we share with airlines will share with airlines. >> did you know that was $50 million? >> 504 enhancing data collection. >> that is the increase. [inaudible] >> it was 67 in fiscal year 10 and 106. >> what is [inaudible]

>> do you know what most of the increase is? >> it is 29 million of the increase. fmf is 23 of the increase. >> do you know what that would fund in terms of hardware? >> intelligence and increasing counter-terrorism training. some funding for the yemen coast guard and border guard.

we can go through the line item detail after the briefing. >> how are you planning to spend the money, what are the conditions of the mexican government? >> we have been working with the government in mexico very closely. that was down. we have a meeting with the cabinet in november. the idea is to work on the programs that will improve -- it will enhance human rights. there is a great deal of focus on taking the capabilities that

have been built up. we are dealing with the threat of and the need to shore of the institutional capacity. >> thank you. >> the president today released his budget proposal for 50 the fiscal year -- 2010. you can see the president's remarks on the budget in 50

minutes on c-span. here is the scene as copies of the budget arrived on capitol hill. >> good morning. >> good morning.

>> go ahead.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> for the first time in its history, the fcc has and in hopn in-house scholar in residence. on "the communicators." >> "in depth" welcomes paul

johnson. his latest on winston churchill. join our 3 our conversation live from london sunday, noon eastern on c-span2. watch "washington journal" live daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. eastern. covering washington like no other. >> more about the president's budget proposal and in 45 minutes, a look at the history of -- and now a look at the history of independent voters. alex isenstadt is congressional reporter for politico and john kornacki is professor of political management and george washington university, joining us this segment to talk about the role of independent voters. i wanted to start the conversation showing some of the

swing in independent voters and where they are. here are the numbers -- gallup numbers, latest gallup numbers on the percentage of independence. republicans, independents, democrats appeared 36% independence. in particular, which way they are leaning. 2010, just as of last week. a 43% leaning republican, 40% leaning democrat. take you back to the middle of the bush administration in 2004 or toward the end of the first turn, this isxxa7,@@

>> a larger group of republican leaning independents move toward the governor and that same phenomenon has taken place in massachusetts. host: did the independents command of the woodwork? guest: 51% of the voters count themselves as independent, not democrat or republican. i think in a lot of cases, particularly massachusetts, voters were economically hard- hit and economically hard-hit suburbs, some north of boston and some plymouth counting. those voters really decided, look, we had enough and we will take out our anchor and take out our anger at the ballot box. i think to a certain extent scott brown, the republican,

spoke to that. host: linda feldman writing and "christian science monitor" spoke about the role of independent going forward. she quotes darrell west of brookings -- would you agree with that? guest: completely. one of the things that animates independence most clearly is their economic prospects. and this is happening across the board. it used to be just older workers, middle age and beyond, that seemed to be looking at their prospects rather negatively. i think polls are showing young people actually feel the same way. by the way, looking at independence in general is tough because independents are a very big first group of people. there are some independence, gallup shows that lean democrats. you can say the eighth soft democrats. sometimes they go there and sometimes in between.

a lot of them went for obama in 2008. there is a group that lean republican. these people are very animated. they make up the tea party movement. the makeup and but -- a lot of libertarians. this group in particular has been coming out and with droves i think that help determine the last set of elections. host: they make up the tea party is another groups but they have no reputation really on capitol hill. guest: if you look at the poll numbers, you saw the trickling off of people who identified themselves as republicans of the past 10 or so years. they drifted off into the independent movement. they are hardly to become democrats. there may sit on the hands occasionally. they're coming back, not as republicans but very strong economic conservatives. this is the heart and soul, i think, of the tea party movement in this group has been particularly important in the last several elections. host: the have possible making of a candidate, being a republican, the most prominent

group in the republican party, tea party movement, or a democrat to answer more directly or perhaps be more prone to answer to independent voices rather than their own party? guest: here is what i would say. democrats want to position themselves now so they can answer to some of those angry -- independent voters who are out there right now. i think the best indication we saw of that was the state of the union address last week. i mean, look at what president obama did. he talked about the economy, jobs, jobs, jobs. that is what he focused on. he did not get to health care until much later on in the speech and that is because democrats and president obama realize they wanted to appeal to some of the voters very concerned about the economy right now. host: why hasn't the president been able to harness more of the independent report that voted him -- support that voted into office? guest: you talk to democratic

pollsters and they say over the last year the party aired to a certain degree focusing so much on health care as opposed to jobs in the economy. and failed to connect healthcare and the debate over health care, they failed to connect that to the issue of job losses, which have been hitting state so hard right now. host: we have been talking about the proposed domestic spending freeze. will that resonate with independent voters? guest: the words, but actions have yet to be determined. if you listen to what the president says, the spending freeze is not take place until next year, which means there is all kinds of spending that takes place this year and the headline, as you pointed out in the earlier segment, $1.20 trillion is a lot of money and people are very much concerned about it. i want to go back to something you said before, and that is, what happened between the election and now. one of the things that happened is the president ran on a platform of a new politics, he

called it, a new way of getting people to work together to get things achieved. but in the past year it has been the old politics that of driven things. majority driven health-care bill largely written by one party and one party only. the president may have changed his mind on that -- he met with some republicans this weekend -- but at least the past record shows what he ran on is not what the government. host: we will look a president's comments in just a bit but let us listen to viewers. the numbers on your screen. here is bob, an independent from miami. go ahead. john kornacki and alex isenstadt. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i wanted to ask the question -- in the past political history, whenever an independent movement has emerged, hasn't the incumbent president to benefit from that movement by having the opposition votes shoved off

through the independencts? nixon, 1968, george wallace took away democratic votes from humphrey and richard nixon was reelected. i think that could be a repeat performance. guest: it ever good point. the answer is, independent voters affect the election. but overall conclusion is somewhat mixed. you are right about 1968, but remember 1972. ross perot was in that election and the incumbent president was george w. bush -- a lot believe that that tilt the back to george clinton -- bill clinton. host: the role of ross perot. guest: we have not seen a ross perot figure emerge into many different cycles -- to many races where independent voters

can't throw their boats off to an independent candidate. but you look at massachusetts governor race, state treasurer, cahill, he could divide the republican vote and give the election to democrat patrick. which is somewhat interesting given that democrats right now are those that perceived to have problems with independents. the problem democrats are facing right now is a lot of these independent voters, while the man of the happy with the republican party they are willing to take up that anger, and right now they may be willing to take their anger out on democrats. host: birmingham, alabama, gwenn on the independent line. guest: this young man sort of answered the question i was going to ask about, independent s were really leaning toward the republican, leaving the democrats because of their disillusioned with democrats at the present time. you sort of answer that for me.

but another point i wanted to make also jiging the independents, be careful how you are moving away from the democrats because the republicans, they were in office for eight years and a lot of things didn't get done and also what is going to happen if they do have the majority in the senate and house, will they work with the president? if they do have control of the congress and the senate, what would they do then? would they work with the president? and will all be disillusioned again with the republicans? thank you. host: who wants to have at it? guest: i think the caller brings up a key point. polls show independence are not happy with either party. the question, that maybe enough for the republicans in this case because just -- if voters are so angry and willing to take anger

out on the party in power, that probably benefits republicans. i think what we are starting to see is president obama and the democratic party moved very aggressively in the last week or so, even beyond that, to sort of portray republicans as an opposition party. you are either going to work with me or not constructively. we saw the president did that in baltimore last week. i think that is an early attempt to show voters as we head into the 2010 election year, you may not like what is going on in washington, i am trying, and if i am not getting much done it is that republicans and not willing to work with him. host: he did about getting things done and washington and working with both parties. here is the president from last wednesday. >> what frustrates the american people is in washington, every day is election day. we can to wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is

to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about if the other side. a belief that if you lose, i wind. -- i win. neither party should delay or obstruct of a single bill just because they can. [applause] i am speaking to both parties. the confirmation of well qualified public servants should not be held hostage to pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. i will not give up trying to change the tone of our politics. i know it is an election year. and eyes for last week it is clear campaign fever has come even earlier than usual, but we still need the government. host: john kornacki, he is speaking to congress but it sounds like he is speaking directly to the american people. guest: of the independent voter,

in particular. by the way, that same tone is what scott brown ran on. he wanted to be -- what did he call himself? a scott brown republican. and many of the people who voted for him, as i understand it, wanted to see things change in washington's of things do get done. it is not an automatic no vote, it is about changing the tone. the problem the president has is even though he talks about that, for the democrats to get things done in congress, the bills they want, the way they are presently written, requires a very partisan approach so there is a disconnect. .

to understand working, americans in this country. a wonder if they have heard

about this, since 1994 until just last year, $44 trillion was taken out of the economy. cash money gone. who is to repay that? the top people in the country to not much to pay higher wages. they have declined. somebody has to pay. where did that $43 trillion go? host: thank you. alex isenstadt? guest: the caller identified a problem in washington. one person i wrote to several weeks ago, a colleague of mine said, to a certain extent, this

is a problem we brought upon ourselves. all we talked about on capitol hill was spend, spend. when you look at voters, they say there is too much spending in washington. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @%

have to -- what they say about that. guest: if you listen to what the president said talking about freezing spending, next year, the only thing that this has anything to do with it is the discretionary spending, about 16%. the other part of the budget, which is much more difficult to get that, the defense spending but we are fighting two wars and we have need for homeland security. on the other side, debt keeps getting higher. trying to go after entitlements

with medicaid and medicare is hard to do politically. host: we're in the country -- where in the country are independents prominent? guest: as i understand it, there is a lot of momentum coming from the independent side, coming from the tea party, libertarian side of things. i think what you see in florida, use could see in other states. host: bill in boston. democrat line. caller: i am confused about what happened in massachusetts. i worked in the obama and

coakley campaign. she would have been a wonderful senator but she decided not to stand at fenway park in the cold, all these political, vot e-gathering things. i do not think this was a reaction to the policies of the obama administration, or her administration. i simply believe she did not campaign where she should have, did not show the enthusiasm. i campaigned for her. i tried my best. for example, our phone banks were not open when they were supposed to be. it was poorly organized. it was not a reaction to the

obama policy, and i am sure it was not a reaction to her policy, but rather the way that she ran the campaign. guest: clearly, there is disagreement over whether or not she ran an effective campaign. i remember she was holding a fundraiser here in washington on capitol hill. that became fodder for scott brown. she had a lot of verbal miscues, and there were a lot of problems. that said, when you look across the state, 51% of the electorate in massachusetts are independent. if you look at what they said in exit polls, they said we are worried about the economy.

i think that was reflected in the results. host: the economy is a key issue, but yesterday scott brown talked about his views on abortion. >> you are pro-choice. gay marriage is legal in massachusetts, but the republican party, apart from language, calls for the repeal of roe v. wade and do not agree with same-sex marriage. do you think the party has to change the platform? >> we have always been an inclusive party. we need more people to contribute to the conversation. the difference between me and others is i am against partial birth abortions, federal

funding of abortions. i think we should do more for adoptions. >> but you are still pro-choice? >> yes, this is an issue that is best decided between a woman and her doctor. i believe an individual has the right to decide their own destiny. host: and john kornacki, is he's dealinhe still appealing to the independents? guest: absolutely. if you have the choice between a pro-choice candidate and a semi-pro-choice person, your course is clear. they may not like either of

them, but he is the better option. if you are going to appeal to the independence-minded voters, and still get conservatives, that mind set works. host: next phone call. caller: one year ago, i called and spoke to john fund, talking about the republican party after the election. at that time, i was republican but i left the party to become independent because the republican party no longer had conservative values. basically, obama has too many marxists who useviews. host: who did you vote for before you became independent?

guest: mr. fund, when we were talking, i said the democrats and republicans do not represent the wishes of the people. they actually govern against the will of the people. if you see what happened in massachusetts, the independents were the plurally, not majority. i believe this is what is happening in many states. however, we do not really have a candidate, per say, but they are going to try to control the election as much as they can. host: alex isenstadt, is the

independent party benefiting from the flight from the republican party? and generallyguest: as the call, we do not have the emergence of a strong independent candidate. malkiaside from the special elen in new york, the independent candidate almost ended up winning. in that case, you had a lot of conservatives and independents voting for the conservative party candidate. host: your colleague writes about how the t party -- tea

party people are lashing out. guest: i think this highlights the lives that quality of the tea party movement. this is not a tight, centralized structure of a movement. it is sort of a loosely-found the movement as -- movement where people are trying to do things as they go. hostguest: i remember back in 1,

republicans were able to resonate with a lot of voters, a conservative, free-marketers. many of them had not been to the polls before and they needed something to talk about. the tea party is like that. they do not like large government solutions as answers to the problem of the country. that is not good news for parents because they like to use the government to alleviate problems this group of people does not see that as an answer. they are not automatically in lockstep with republicans either. however, they are economic conservatives. whoever can tap into that will have a lot of leverage in the upcoming elections. host: newcastle, pennsylvania.

democratic collacaller. caller: if you look at the facts, a lot of that is rhetoric. democrats have not always been the ones to spend. people may believe the rhetoric, but it has not really been the case. i would like you to check yourself. guest: the tea party movements are not automatically republicans for the reasons you said. the past administration spend almost as freely as the past democratic ones. in a sense, i agree with you. host: the president spoke about jobs in baltimore, going to new england this week.

is he trying to tap into some of these folks, these scott brown supporters? guest: no question. the state of the union was all about jobs. democrats will tell you that that is the top of their agenda. in baltimore, he talked about the economy and jobs. democrats are pivoting from health care to focus on jobs. host: from what you know of the independents, what do you hear about health care, what needs to be done? guest: i do not think it is off the table. certainly, the giant, humongous bill before congress is another example why it seems that democrats are hoping to see a big solution to the problem.

if they believe creating jobs and cutting health care through an insurance plan can work, we will see. the problem is, i do not know how you can get a jobs bill passed, health care, and all before the midterm elections. host: moderate congress people, how best to they reflect the views of the american people? guest: senator lieberman is sort of a right of center individual. i do not think you see any representation of this tea party movement in washington. jim demint, mike pence, tom

proce -ice -- those are some pee that conservative-minded republicans like. host: next phone call. caller:@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they label them as progressive. you can see what is going on. one question i would have is what happens if we got the bill do from the federal government of $100,000 per person? that has people scared. we're going broke. we're going to be the third world if we're not careful. we cannot keep spending. that is why a lot of people have gone from independent to the right.

they do show more conservatism when they come to the budget. i will listen offline. guest: i think that feeling of hopelessness almost, people are looking at the amount of debt piled up. eing piled up, everything that is coming from washington, and it seems to be more spending. that needs to stop. right now, spending is being led by democrats and the president. host: but you also mention it -- mention that the people also want some spending to create jobs. guest: the question is how you create jobs. people on the right will say that you do not do that by creating more government spending. you do that by giving more money

to the people, tax cuts. even with that, how do you create jobs in the short term? host: what did you think of the president's small business tax? guest: their rhetoric, idea, and, -- cooperation is fine, but his time scale is two, three years from now, when he is up for reelection. the problem is, the house is up for re-election within the year. the ability for that route to do much is problematic. host: looking at 2012, will the president abandone their efforts to get people reelected? guest: i do not think so.

i am sure he does not want to see large scale democratic losses. the economy looks to be improving, and that is what everyone wants. we will see what happens. host: 10 more minutes with our guests. laguna west, california. mike on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am a libertarian. it surprises me that the only time politicians have any credibility is when they are critiquing the other side. republicans are no longer republican. democrats are no maugrlonger democratic.

we have our military in 130 different countries. democrats have corrupted the election process to such an extent with gerrymandering that 97% of incumbents have won re- election. it seems to me this is a sham democracy. so they have earned the at the -- epithet of the democratic party. guest: you represent a lot of the feelings that people hunt. use a something interesting, and that is why is it so political, so partisan? one reason is because of the way we do redistricting in the country. it is done by the state's in a

pretty unfair manner. aside from states like iowa, the redistricting is done on a pretty partisan basis. you can get in very homogeneous seats so that members can all go together. that is frustrating. i do not know what you can do other than to staay stop. host: that was one of the first people say, i am a member of the libertarian party. how important is it to have that sort of identification? guest: in the past, third

parties have had an effect on the elections. in this case, let us refer to them as a libertarian group, and i am going to put the t party people together with them. they can be a significant force in the next election. they may affect who gets to choose in in 2012. they are a growing movement. if they stay close to republicans, they can help them, but they do not necessarily have to. i would say it is a growing movement, something to keep an eye on, and it may have an effect on the elections this year and in 2012. host: next phone call. caller: it is like the

independents stopped thinking. the problem is, the democratic party never made the case that the government can do good things for you. the reason they do not is because they have been collected with big government. when you work with corporations and you say the government can do good things, no, you are the enemy. this is like interracial marriage. this type of mentality is taking over. guest: the caller highlighted some tensomething -- democrats,

especially now, are not seen in the best light right now. many thought that we would see widespread change. i think, to a certain extent, these are the frustrations that we see reflected across the country. host: they made the point that democrats have not convinced folks that the government can do good things. will that be part of their strategy, what can help them get reelected? guest: this is what the president promised in the state of the union. many of his supporters wanted to see something more. the frustrating thing -- talking about health care -- there was a

bailout of wall street, stimulus package, a confusing health care bill. so the delivery was not there. i am not saying that of republican or independents would have loved it, but the people that were for obama wanted to see some results. the question now is if they can get some results to inject some energy. host: we have an e-mail -- on the hill, the deck is stacked against independents. guest: this country, since the beginning, has been dominated by a two-party process.

through of our history, we have been able to subsume all of the other interests under one or the other umbrella. that has been a strength of the country. that has allowed continuity. think about all the multi-party state we have in the world. we do not have that lack of cohesion, but there is a lot of this interest within the party. democrats are frustrated. they do not see the leadership representing their values. maybe this is the coming of a third party. maybe the expansion of government is enough to do that. i do not know.

certainly, history shows you that opportunity presents these types of cancers. host: next phone call. caller: imf small-business man. i think what is going on -- they are missing the point. -- i am a small businessman. they talked about nuclear energy, drilling on shores, and all of that is good, but is there anything in the budget that addresses nuclear, natural gas, offshore drilling? i have been in business for 36 years. i am hurting because i do not need more debt. i need more consumers coming into my retail outlets spending more money. i am in the service-patient

business. it costs people significant money to keep their cars on the road, gasoline prices change. probably one of the most volatile businesses in the country. i have the employees from all over the world. everyone is hurting right now. we cannot need more money stirring up credit. that may be good for bigger businesses, but the small businessman, which generates 75% of the jobs out there, i need to hire more people. until people start spending more -- $8 in tax reductions?

they said to me, this is crazy. host: some final thoughts from ellis isenstadt -- alex isenstadt. guest: for democrats, the question is how you can show that you are taking steps to improve the economy. that is the key for democrats. as you point out, there are all these complex issues that you have to address. you have this small business person, other people hurting economically. how do you show them that you are addressing their concerns? that is the challenge for democrats. host: when did you hear in the phone call, john kornacki? guest: frustration. people want to know if things

are going to get better or worse. right now people do not see things getting better. i do not think they embrace either party particularly, but what is clear is what is being offered to people is not sufficient. rhetoric alone is insufficient. they need results. i see in very strong anti- incumbent move coming across the board. >> tomorrow morning, rick maze picture questions on the budget and the don't ask don't tell policy. then