>> microphone, please. >> i thought that it was on already. chairman tierney, congressman flake, distinguished members of the subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs, thank you for this opportunity -pto discuss the role of the united states army and the department of defense management of oversight of trucking contracts in afghanistan. .

>> all my duties were in baghdad, travel freely throughout iraq and afghanistan. let me state from the outside -- outset that this is absolutely vital to the system of our forces in afghanistan. overseeing services in an austere environment with a poor financial systems and during hostilities is a dangerous and difficult task that is being performed daily throughout afghanistan. for the 90% of our forces receive food, water, equipment and construction materials and other badly needed supplies. in the last year, since may of

2009, there have been more than 60,000 trucking missions. each mission is an effective means to meet the needs of our war fighters whose numbers will increase to 90,000. mr. chairman, in all army contract in operations worldwide, we strive to be responsive to our war fighters while ensuring proper fiscal stewardship of taxpayer dollars. our progress in these areas has been steady even though expedition and military operations have placed extraordinary demands on the contract consistent and are contracted professionals. this is paramount. even though we have faith in our work force, we remain vigilant at all times.

during my time, i was maintaining high standards in all contracting operations to read my team and i conducted over 11 internal procurement reviews of regional operations. we identified some of the hard lessons and deficiencies and have worked hard to institutionalize those processes by applying lessons learned. i refer to my contracting work force as contract and warriors because they served beside our war fighters in areas throughout iraq and afghanistan. last march, another comprehensive review was undertaken in afghanistan. the final report is nearly complete. the findings indicate that contract and officers continue to maintain the highest ethical standards. these positive findings are attributed to the talent of our contract and officers.

i call them contracting warriors. there are five elements that i implemented to worked on -- to work on ethics. before they enter the theater, they have to defense ethics training -- they have to attend ethics training. all personnel must complete the standards of conduct training. our judge advocate general's also provide ethics training twice a year to every contract officer. during weekly meetings, we focus on ethics. we are working constantly to improve our contract thing -- our contracting. our progress is significant. the trucking contract is a prime example. we're here to statutes and

ensure that our war fighters receive badly needed material and supplies. we take your statement very seriously and we will work hard to fix the areas that we need to. thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, we appreciate your testimony. >> as the quadrennial defense contractors are part of the total force, cultivate or resource for all scenarios. contractors provide a broad range of supplies, services, and critical logistics support in many capability areas, while reducing the military footprint and increasing the availability and readiness of resources.

typically, there is a higher reliance on contracted support during the post-conflict phases of an operation (phase iv- stabilization and phase v - enable civil authority). current operations in the u.s. central command (uscentcom) area security contractors (pscs) to fulfill a variety of important security functions department of state (dos), and other u.s. government (usg) entities supporting operation iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. relief, recovery, and reconstruction of a post- conflict region are traditionally civilian functions, and thus it is entirely appropriate for civilian resources to be used to protect these activities vandalism, terrorism, and other unlawful violence. dod contracts with pscs to --

these local national jobs are central to the operations. in afghanistan, 93% of dod contracts on local nationals. many have assumed risk and sacrifice to protect key movements and facilities and freeing up key combat capability. however, even as the strategy is enhanced, security and reliability concerns must be considered. especially in countries where there are no reliable data bases for traditional wedding -- protect personnel, facilities, and activities. as required by statute, this applies to all employees. with senior leadership, there

has been a concerted effort to improve compliance with these policies. a number of significant challenges impact this effort. however, we acknowledge that there are risks and we must address them. despite these challenges, policy requires all contract personnel to comply with our dod regulations as well as the applicable laws of the united states and the host country. there is no immunity clause to protect contractors from will law. u.s. government contractors are required to comply with host nation registration and be properly licensed to carry arms in accordance with law. employees are to obey the orders of the commander in the area they are operating. individual companies have their own standards of conduct and

have generally demonstrated a pattern of training individuals to arrive at the standards. on a whole, contractors operate in accordance with a host nation laws. the intent of the ministry of interior in afghanistan is to have the afghan national police as it matures. we taking any allegations of corruption seriously and we have several organizations charged with investigation and we will take action on those that can be legally documented with the appropriate level of forensic evidence. contractors employed to perform work are only a fraction of the total private-sector security.

many of the same contractors that the u.s. employes are from other countries, a host nation, non-government organizations and private organizations. this is one of the principal religion -- reasons to move beyond the document to apply to all pfcs. is will change the present paradigm of relying on the minister of interior lessons with a third party to assess compliance with standards. i believe that the committee's efforts have been instrumental in getting into the house version of the 2011 language that requires this third-party

certification and i welcome it and i think you for that. -- i think you for that. there will -- there will always be pnc's in that area. -- pfcs in that area. we have participation from the private security industry and non-government organizations active in human rights and law of armed conflict. the aim of this is to standardize the principles and to obtain accountability later this year. i think you and will be happy to answer any of your questions. >> general, if you would please? >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss how we can better link contracting and the flow of u.s. government contracting funds in afghanistan. the focus of our strategy is the afghan people.

this population operation rests on a couple of principles. we secure the population in key areas and then reconnect the government of afghanistan to its people to improve governance and economic development. optimizing the effects of our contract and dollars in support of this approach is crucial to our success. in order to do that and more effectively link u.s. contracting, the joint chiefs of staff have directed a task force. it is chartered by the task force in afghanistan. it will improve visibility of u.s. contract inflows in afghanistan in order to insure that u.s. dollars can complement the campaign more effectively. the improved visibility will provide awareness on how money flows from contractors to subcontractors into tribes,

factions and individuals. and this is no easy task. we have to understand and perceived -- and shape perceptions of the afghan people. we have to gain an awareness and level of control over the effects of u.s. contract spending on the environment. this is led by a rear admiral of the u.s. navy. she is in the country now. she is leading a task force of about 25 planners, intelligence officers, law enforcement personnel and strategic communications specialists. they will integrate with other efforts in the theater, including the anti-corruption task force. we have established working groups in the pentagon to provide support for her taskforce in the areas of financial intelligence.

i speak now as a customer of contracting, as a former commander in afghanistan. they provide much needed services to our soldiers. contracting reduces the risk for our service men and women. given that 60% of our casualties are caused by itt's, it is logical that the fewer service members on the road, the fewer service members exposed to i e these -- ieds this has a potential make a positive corn effect. this is necessary to sustain an economy that has been wracked by 30 years of war. the key, from our perspective, is optimizing the positive affects of our contract in investment while sustaining the positive effects for our service members.

we look forward to working with the committee to achieve these+ improved effects. thank you. >> think all of you for your testimony. i want to set a tone of respectful the spirit we do respect all of the. i listened to some of the testimony with a little bit of incredulity, not that i doubt anybody is intention, but i do have an issue without anybody would think that it is actually being carried out on the ground that way and we will talk a little bit about that. the idea is that we either have the wrong strategy and we have to look at that if that is the case. how're we want to do this other than the way we are doing that now. how do you get a better oversight?

that is clearly not there. let me start with you, general phillips. we have a chart that shows where you german fit in. general phillips, you are the army acquisition executive and your the principal military deputy -- and you are the principal military deputy. you were the joint command for iraq and afghanistan, which now reports to you. >> not directly to me. i am not in the chain of command. the contract authority actually flows for mr. ed harrington who works for dr. emil, the army acquisition executive. i am not in that chain of command. >> let me talk to you in another capacity. under the homes of the host

nation contract, there are eight contractors and their required to provide security. the security provisions specify about six security vehicles and 24 guards for every 20 trucks. the host nation trucking companies run 8000 truck emissions per month. -- trucking emissions per month. do you believe that it is appropriate to have trucking contractors that have only two or three of their employees in theater? the believe it is logical to have them in a war zone? >> under the host nation contract that we have with those eight vendors, part of that is that they provide their own private security. they go out and subcontract for that. that is allowable under the

terms and conditions of the contract and we put into place. >> howell pro for it? -- how appropriate is it for them to be there if they have never been out on the road? is that correct oversight and management? >> when we visited each of those contractors up front before we signed the contract, it was important that we make sure that they have the right management in place. >> he thought that two or three was sufficient or you did not know how? >> we clearly consider the management structure of each one of those eight contractors and found insufficient in terms -- >> so, you thought that two or three was sufficient to oversee those thousands of afghan security guards. the do not know that was all they had?

>> said that time, i had no visibility as to how many people were actually involved in the day-to-day management. >> nobody seems to have visibility into that. they could never tell you who was doing it. >> i can assure you that the principle assistant responsible for contracting in afghanistan is the kernel that ran it, and they used a criteria. there were 35 initial vendors that submitted proposals for a contract. we narrow that down to 10 vendors and we looked at technical capability, managerial experience and past performance as well as past experience and how they planned to execute security and price was a key factor.

all of those factors went into the decision. >> it is still unclear whether the criteria of two or three people was ok with them or they did not know that. did they not know that they were paying war lords to do some of that or the the thing that was ok and it was the cost of doing business? >> i would have to go back and look of the actual decision that was made and determined -- look at the actual decision that was made and determine that. i cannot recall a discussion of whether there were two or three or more within the management structure. >> when you were the jaycee cia -- when you were the jccia, for you aware that contractors were complaining that they were making protection payments for safe passage?

did that ever come to your attention? what i was never aware of that. >> -- >> i was never aware of that. >> can you tell me how many times the department of defense has gone outside of the gates to ride with some of these convoys going from base to base? >> the representatives that work for the battalion very rarely go outside the fence line in terms of monitoring the operations. they do that through the entrance with visibility that is on board. about 84% of the vehicles operate in and out. >> if they are transporting certain things, we will have military that will accompany those convoys for high- visibility items. >> how often is that?

>> i do not know. i would have to give you an answer. it is whenever they are moving heavy equipment in and out of theater. they will normally put a military convoy with them. i do not know exactly how often. >> if you could give back with us, that would be wonderful. >> in the times that you have been off base, have you witnessed the activities that were detailed in the report? >> no sir, i do not have any personal knowledge that has been presented to me of those allegations occurring. >> i do know there is an ongoing investigation that general nicholson mentioned of front that continues to determine what the facts are associated with the allegations that were discussed. the investigation is ongoing. i have had discussions with them and i know that the continue to pursue it very aggressively. >> you mentioned that people at

all levels had to abide by the regulations of dot, which includes no of armored convoys or anything more than an ak-47. are you aware -- do you dispute the findings of this report? they indicate that virtually every convoy that goes up is guarded by subcontractors who carry things far in excess of what the department of defense allows. >> let me answer that part of the question first. generally speaking, pfcs are restricted to small arms. it is not a unilateral item.

when i read the report, there is a process to go to the army office that the commander has in the field to be authorized to carry weapons beyond a 76245564 9 millimeter. -- behind a 7624556 or 9 millimeter. -- 762 or a 556 or 9 millimeter. that contractor had the authority to carry additional weapons. >> how many people have been interviewed beyond the contract

in global? the prime contractors rarely know who provide security -- provides security. have you notify anyone beyond the prime contractors? >> i am not aware of anyone that did that. that brings up the second question that you brought up earlier. the challenge that we have had is that we have relied on the licensing process that the ministry of interior had. he was very aggressive in trying to make that the standard to the extent that we were restricted to the number of operators that we could have. i feel of that is insufficient. we need a third party. >> if you haven't ridden along with the convoys, very rarely if ever, he had not entered fired -- interviewed anyone besides the prime contractor, it seems

-- i would feel a lot better to hear that this is the price of business in afghanistan. this is all that we can do. we cannot be like the soviets that protected supply routes to it is not the most efficient way. we understand that. but to say that you do not see it, so it must not be occurring, that just seems a little too much to hear. >> mr. motsek? >> i just wanted to make one point. the fact of the matter is that records indicate that request was sought for authorization carry armor.

in the back, there is a fifth to tell -- there is a 50 caliber rifle. >> do contractors receive any level of tactical support, air support, this sort of thing? can you explain what a contractor truck convoy looks like compared to a military convoy? >> with the exception of medevac, generally speaking, there is no additional support provided. a private or commercial shipment does not have the

capability to call in air support. depending on where you are in the country, if there is an issue, you can request support, but it is not normally part of the package. part of our challenging part of our responsibilities as the u.s. forces are to make an assessment each and every time that you are going to authorize a convoy to go out. the commander has to weigh whether the risk assessment is such that he will permit movement or not permit the movement and that is generally the process that they use to maintain an overall security package around the convoy. a military convoy is clearly that. its forces are indigenous. they operate under rules of engagement.

the primary difference is that if a military convoy is attacked -- generally speaking, if a civilian convoy is attacked, their mission is to leave. they are to protect themselves but egress the area as rapidly as possible. a military convoy operated on rules of engagement and may elect to engage with the enemy. there is a profound difference in what can happen after the attack, but there are times when we have mixed convoys out there were the military and civilian convoys are mixed and in those instances, to my knowledge, they are under pure military control. the military exerts the authority over the whole convoy. the pfcs are not to offer in offensive mode. >> what i was fishing for more

explicitly, was support for the civilian contractors. it is not a good idea to go and attack the non u.s. military convoy. has that been tried? to you have any comments on whether or not that is a useful strategy? >> generally, we have not done that. the afghan police and afghan army might be the first responders in the case of a host nation truck or convoy encountering problems treated -- problems. if we received a call from a military unit that there were injured civilians, then we might respond based on the specific conditions of the incident.

>> do we even monitor the roads for unauthorized checkpoints or things like that? i could presume that could be done from the air. >> yes sir. ask them forces are doing partnered operations right now. part of that is the police and army enforcing the rules and laws of the state. as you are probably aware, the moi has been seeking to certify these private security companies. afghan police or military board question -- would question if this is an authorized force with these weapons. do they have that kind of authorization? that the president -- congress

has funded forces to increase to 300,002 adults and 11, it is a time to legitimize those private security companies. there has been an expression of will on the part of the afghan government to reduce the number of private security contractors on the battlefield commensurate with the growth that we are unable with their own security forces. -- enabling with their own security forces. >> mr. chairman, i will ask the best questions that i can. i do not know if the majority report came out before last night. it would have been easier to have all the questions available. there appears to be an absence of any written transcription of many of the interviews.

are there written transcriptions that can be made available to us or only the notes from oral testimony? >> as you know, but there were transcriptions and we were in agreement that we would proceed and take notes at the hearings. all of your meetings were attended by majority and minority staff. both majority and minority staff attended and we have not heard whether they were not inclusive or if there was an error. we proceeded with the assumption that everything was acceptable on that, so the report may not have come out until last night, although we give the minority the opportunity to work with us on the report, but it turns out not to be the case and they did not do their own briefing. >> i think the chairman.

reclaiming my ime, if there were transcriptions and they showed any level of criminal activity, with that aid in the department of defense making such changes including criminal prosecutions, and if not, are you able to work off of notes equally as well? >> we take the allegations very seriously. >> do you take them as seriously when there are notes as you would if they were verbatim transcriptions. >> yes sir. if there were facts or evidence that were made available to us that there was criminal activity or bribery or those kinds of things, i would assure you that the contract officers

will have taken quick action to address the situation. we took numerous actions to duke show cause notices and letters of concern to contractors when they would step out of line and violate the rules and regulations of our contracts. >> general, you of the lucky man today. you make sure that our two at -- the our two allies -- >> in world war ii, korea and vietnam, there was military support just as there is an afghanistan, correct? >> did we ever paid tribute to the enemy in order to move our

goods safely to our troops? >> if that occurred, i am not aware of it. >> would be reasonable to say that you're a communicated to both of our allies that there is zero tolerance for any money being skimmed off in order to provide safe transport? >> sir, our intent to not provide any aid or assistance to the enemy is very clear. >> i was more specific. the pakistan government, the afghan government and the military. >> sir, i would think so. i would have to check with the commanders on the ground that do that coordination if you wanted specifics of that. >> do you have a written policy delivered to those to band

governments that make it clear that it is a breach of our alliance? >> i would have to defer back to the contracting side as to the financial orangeman's. >> we would take action -- >> that was of the question. we are funding both pakistan and afghanistan to a huge amount. although they are slow, afghanistan is expected to ramp up a huge amount of troops that are capable of riding alongside with guns to protect convoys and do so at no additional cost beyond the support that we give them of weapons, food, ammunition, radios, the works. is there a documented written record our dealing both militarily and that a government level to the expectation that there will be no skimming, no

payment to go to the enemy or to people connected to the government. >> in afghanistan, our contracts and clauses prohibit that kind of activity and if it is brought to our attention, we would not tolerate it. >> i do not want to belabor the point. i would like the answer to has that been communicated by the government, not a fetus in the contract. the answer is not responsive to the question. i apologize, but i would like an answer. >> if you gentleman would like to change our answer or add to it, i will give you a moment to do that. fox we are stuck, because we are not policy folks. -- eli >> we are stuck because we are not policy folks.

>> mr. quigley, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been here 14 months, now and this is the kind of work the committee should be about. i applaud your efforts and your staffs efforts. and jim, put yourself in our place. i understand your lack of awareness of what was taking place, but what concerns us is that it took the committee and staff to ask these questions. you call them allegations. they are called findings, here. either way, at least they were asking the right questions. were we aware if any of these questions were asked by your command? >> sir, i will start and what my teammates to join in. under host nation trekking, i

was not aware of the kind of allegations that are being made. i have to say that we take them seriously, just as you and this committee have taken them seriously. when the allegations are present, we need to research them and determine what the facts and the evidence are and take heart action in some kind of way and eventually, we would go back to work with the government of afghanistan. i guess that my message to you is understanding or the committee is today. we take those allegations seriously and we will address them according with in the department of defense. >> sir, i cannot comment on the specific findings of the report because i was not aware. however, i took the contract into afghanistan in december and i participated in a briefing so

i was aware that there was a broad spectrum of investigations ongoing to root out corruption. i was aware wascid was taking allegations seriously, and i was also aware that many allegations could not be legally substantiated. i was told that they have transmitted their concern and that the anti-corruption court had started. >> if i could add one point broke quick. i was referring to evidence that we could use within our contracts to take action. i do not think anyone would argue that there is corruption inside afghanistan, and i think that is pretty clear. if you look at what some of the

senior leaders have said, the department of state and the department of defense, in contractual actions, we will always look at the hard evidence that we can stand behind to create behavioral to termite and -- to terminate behavior -- to terminate the contract. >> we're talking about afghanistan, arguably probably the most corrupt country on the face of the earth. if you had that mind-set going in, you would assume that they would be overlapping areas of oversight to ask these questions all the time. there are folks that are concerned about a criminal investigation or investigations that require a change, but at some point, you get a pretty good idea that there is a problem.

but you recognize where you are. back to why questions were not passed by dod earlier. >> having been in southern afghanistan last year, we introduced 20,000 u.s. troops. it was a significant increase in contracting. as we did that, the commanders on the ground were concerned about whether the product got delivered on time. as these intelligence report began to come in, these were referred to and they had anecdotal affirmation to warrant assistance for command to determine if there were more

violations -- to their world war violations. the investigation is still on going to make a determination. these reports have come in and they have been forwarded to the proper authorities to begin this kind of investigation. in afghanistan, there is a lot of corruption. in southern afghanistan, there are at least six major drug trafficking organizations. we have a nexus of criminality and insurgency that occurs down there. there is a significant amount of criminality down there and we are looking at the linkages between the criminality and insurgency in the government. these feed into our anti- corruption task force and our major crimes task force. of these task forces have successfully arrested and now prosecuting some afghan government officials. is not at the level of we would

like to see, but it has been done and we are assisting the afghans and getting after this correction. >> i can only begin to understand how complex that sure is, but i do hope that there are lessons learned. >> thank you, mr. quigley. mr. welch, you are recognized for five minutes. >> i am amazed at your capacity to get goods from here to there. i do not think the american people have any appreciation for how incredibly complex and difficult it is. thank you for your work. the big question is whether, in the accomplishment of that, the approach that has been chosen by others to pay $2 billion to a half a dozen private contractors who didn't provide security to

equip our soldiers is the right approach. would it be better to do what has been done in our history and a sign that responsibility to the afghan security force were there would be under direct control and supervision of our commander. i would be interested in your opinions about the pros and cons of each approach. i guess i will start with you because people are looking at you. i want to give deference to our men in uniform as well. >> sir, we do not believe that the afghan security forces are mature enough to take over this mission. in a perfect world, this would be their responsibility. this is the normal securing of your interstate. >> let me stop you there. that is an issue. i weeks -- i accept your

judgment on that. this is something that we cannot mess around with because our soldiers me what your delivering, but is there a collateral consequence, since we are giving this to half a dozen contractors who hire a thousand guys with guns, that there is a down the road counterforce that will be the force of afghan security forces? can you comment on that? >> you raise a key question. we built the template where the responsibility was a subcontractor responsibility. conversely, we told kbr that they were not responsible for the security, that the u.s. government would contract separately for the private security contractors to manage

that. we took a template and we are living with that template. i am here to tell you that we have to look both ways. it may be -- >> i appreciate you saying that. that is not your call i think that the chairman made it pretty clear that we need to get that to our soldiers. there is no compromising on that. there are consequences to how we do it. obviously, you would have great confidence in the ability of our soldiers to provide the security and transport the equipment. it would be of some risk to them, but perhaps i will ask you, general, if you can comment on that. >> i can only address it from a point of view. it there were fighters in afghanistan and we thought we would have a need for 100 trucks per day, and you described the need for ammunition, fuel,

water, etc.. that grew to 200 missions per day. when we first signed the contract, there were about 30,000 troops that were in afghanistan and it was growing to about 60,000 and now we are growing to about 90,000. the afghan national army -- president karzai made a declaration to the government awhile ago that said that we wanted to migrate all the contractors to the afghan national police or the afghan national army or another agency and the one that to occur within two years. i think we are about six months down the road towards that peace. it is going to take a while for us to build up the appropriate forces to take over the private security mission to include

convoy escort. >> thank you very much. here is the worry that i have. i would just ask you to comment on it. well we're trying to make that transition, there is great effort being put into it by general mcchrystal and others, there is a $2 billion contract that is going to read private individual who now has come under their command, millions of dollars. it is a separate army. are those two developments incompatible? on the one hand, they want to build up capacity while we are providing enormous financial incentive to a private army that is not one to lightly give us -- give up the benefits of these

contracts. >> we view this as a corporate necessity until we build the security forces to the level necessary so that they can take over the security. for example, the afghan national army -- we all share this concern about additional groups in afghanistan. the international committee and does not want to take a step back toward rearming people or creating a regional power brokers. we share this concern nd these are the coin effects that we're referring to. this is a focus within the

command which provides the ability for the afghan economy to move freely on the road. " so what to think the witnesses for your testimony and i yield back. >> -- >> i want to think the witnesses for your testimony and i yield back. >> we were in afghanistan last year and we listened to the agricultural ministers explain that for a simple agricultural shipments, a particular former was being stopped and 20 to 20 five * for various forms of illegal bribes. i cannot imagine the complexity when your dealing with military

shipments. my question to you is on the issue of the reports that were made from the different contract in entities. i appreciate the fact that a lot of this information is new to you when you have to figure what to do with it. we have a volume of reports that went from contracting agencies to the department of defense but the detailed -- defense the detail from one contractor that was approached. we have talked to other carriers that are paying the tell them for it safe passage to everyone was aware of the issue of the protection payments.

clearly, something was missed in terms of reports being made and whether or not that information got up the chain. what is the obligation of contracts managers on the ground when they receive reports of direct information of payoffs or potential payoffs to varying levels of the assert -- the insurgency? give me a sense of what we may have missed, here. >> during my tenure as the cg, when information was presented i would call in the task force and i would normally task cid. >> can you validate the anecdotal evidence that this might have occurred. can you validate that this might have occurred. can you use all the resources

that they have on hand could we would take the appropriate contractual remedies and we would offer to make sure that we held the prime contractor accountable for their performance. the was the responsibility of the contractor. >> how did it get to you? what level obligation is there to report what they're hearing from the port. >> it would come to the contractual chain of command. it would come to the contract in officer to the principle of system response will for contracting in afghanistan and they would -- if you was significant enough, there were reported to me and then we would figure out a way to pursue the evidence and the allegation, teaming with cid or

whoever might be a proper to do the research. if it is serious enough, like the allegations that you're talking about, it would be see id. -- cid. >> with respect to existing contracts standards, and you refer to a universal standard of conduct being developed, what is the level of proof that you need in order to take action? what kind of level of evidence the meeting -- evidence to you need that money has ended up in the hands of the insurgents? what level of knowledge is

enough to take action? was it will prove we need to take action? what you need a preponderance of of events and the level of confidence that something did occur. each case is different. it would be difficult to talk about one case versus another. i would rely on the investigating official, whoever that might be. it might be cid for the fbi. in my case, i had a legal staff that looked at everything that we executed in terms of action that we would take against a contractor and we will have the legal staff review it and we might reach back to the army staff to leverage some of their experience and take appropriate action. each case would be difffrent. >> one last question. do you need proof of direct

payment being made or is reference of a link to association and of to take action? >> you would need facts and fax me be a sworn statement or two or three different people that may collaborate. you have to have factual, fact based evidence that something had occurred that you could take action against and you would know, we uphold the federal acquisition regulations that are derived by statute and law and we also charged our contractors to uphold the government of the skin stands -- the government of afghanistan flaws -- the government of of dennis stands -- the government of afghanistan's loss.

tha>> this money is a lucrative source of revenue for the people of afghanistan. my question has to do with questioning whether a portion of our taxpayer dollars are going to tell them. let me ask general mills and about an incident where a commander's agents allegedly tipped off an insurgency about an approaching convoy and then allow them to paths. doesn't this suggest that he has a working relationship with the caliban?

>> -- with the tell them thought -- with the caliban -- taliban. . .

potical process there? >> i think the experience of some half the states cannot be more important than the 100-year-old judgment of congress that these expenditures would corrupt the federal system. >> congress has a self-interest. i mean, we are suspicious of

congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because -- at least i am -- i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> i think, justice scalia, it's wrong. in fact, corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incuents. this may be the single most self-denying thing that congress has ever done. if you look -- if you look at the last election cycle and look at corporate pac money and ask where it go, it goes ten times more to incumbents than to challengers. and in the prior election cycle, even more than that. and for an obvious reason. because when corporations play in the political process, they want winners. they want people who will produce outcomes for them. and they know that the way to get those outcomes, the way to

get those winners is to invest in incumbents. and so that's wt they do. as i sasasasasa

. . . .

.

>> several steps we've already begun to take. number one, as i indicated, the budget that we're presenting, three years, discretionary, domestic spending freezes, and i've september a clear signal to the leadership when we met, even if we do not get the entire budget package passed through congress, that top-line number needs to stay firm. and i'm serious about it. we've initiated a whole host of measures to cut programs that aren't working, including, by the way, in the defense area. bob gates has been, i think, as successful as any secretary of defense in recent memory in

actually killing programs, which i think anybody who follows washington knows is very tough, very difficult. we have instituted pay goal, and although there were baselines built in that took into account the fact that some of this stuff wasn't going to be solved overnight, it is starting to provide budget discipline to congress as they move forward. and we have set up this fiscal commission who will provide reports starting in november, and although there were resistance, ironically, on the part of some of the republicans who originally had been cosponsors of legislation to create the fiscal commission, and they, in fact, ended up voting against it, what's been encouraging based on what i'm hearing, both from democrats and republicans, is that

there's been a serious conversation there. people are looking at a whole spectrum of issues to get at what is basically a structural deficit that preceded this financial crisis. even if the financial crisis made it much worse, but even if we had not gone through this financial crisis, we'd still have to be dealing with these long-term deficit problems. they have to do with medicaid. they have to do with medicare. they have to do with social security. they have to do with a series of structural problems that are not unique to america. some of it has to do with an aging population. and, you know, we've got to look at a tax system that is messy and unfair in a whole range of ways. so they're looking at the gamut of steps that are going to be taken, and, you know, one of the interesting things that's happened over the last 18 months as president is, for some reason, people keep on

being surprised when i do what i said i was going to do. so i say i'm going to reform our healthcare system, and people think, well, gosh, that's not smart politics, maybe we should hold off, or i say we're going to move forward on don't ask, don't tell, somehow people say, well, why are you doing that,i'm not sure that's good politics. i'm doing it because i said i was going to do it, and i think it's the right thing to do. and people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when i start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, you know, i hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debts step up because i'm calling their bluff and will see how much of that -- how much of the political arguments

they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> canadian prime minister stephen harper announced the most industrialized nations agreed today to cut deficits in half by 2013 in an effort to stabilize the global economy. his remarks are 20 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. we came to toronto at a time when concerns on government debt were growing. this was the challenge that we had to face, and during this summit, we defined a clear and historical goal for the developed economies in terms of reducing debt and stabilizing and reducing the debt-g.d.p. ratio, by 50% up to 2013 and for the debt ratio, these are to be reduced or stabilized by 2016. having said that, fiscal is not

an end to itself. stimulus will have a long-term effect in order to guarantee durable and powerful economic growth, and this is part of what we promised in pittsburgh. we congratulate various countries that have managed to adopt measures to this end in terms of budget and deficit reduction such as what has happened in u.k., reduction of unemployment in china and new regulation framework in the u.s. and we also are going to work to have a balanced and durable economic growth and g-20 wants an assessment for each country at a tame when we shall be looking at it. so we have come to an agreement

for an important reform of the financial sector. so improve regulation for capitalization and prudent approach, and we manage to complete this important work earlier than forecast. each country will be able to determine and apply a bank tax if necessary. we have also discussed other measures such as anti-protectionism and also the debt. it has a lot more to do to ensure good recovery.

but we have strived towards goals that canada had worked for. >> that is the issue we have had to tackle head on, and we have arrived at firm targets for advanced economies on debt reduction and reducing debt-g.d.p. rather than yos. the targets are a 50% deficit reduction by 2013 and a debt to g.d.p. ratio that should be at + least stabilized or on a downward trend by 2016. now, that said, all leaders recognize the fiscal con doll situation is not an end itself. there will be a continued role for ongoing stimulus in the short term as we develop the framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. in terms of the framework, we want to applaud a number of recent actions that are important. down payments on that framework, if i can use that term, first of all, the budget of the united kingdom, which strongly tackled the british

deficit. chinese flexibility on exchange rates, and the new u.s. law on financial sector reform. the g-20 summit declaration that puts some of the meat on the bones of the framework of strong, sustainable, and balanced growth will lead us to country-level assessments as we approach the next meeting in seoul. it's also important to note agreement on ongoing and important financial sector reforms, specifically to increase the quality and quantity of capital standards to enhance oversight and a commitment to accelerate this work and complete it by the summit in south korea. there are property agreements on a couple of other matters. i'll just mention a couple. we've agreed to extend the

washington standstill for another three years, and debt relief for the country of haiti, which, as you know, is an important priority for canada. there's also some important work that's been completed. it's on reform of international institutions. that work will also continue as we move forward. the g-20 still has a lot to do to fully entrench recovery. the g-20 still has a lot to do to fully entrench the global recovery, but these are important steps forward, and as you know, there were steps that canada has been seeking. >> thank you very much. we'll now have time to take questions. by call your name, use the microphone. first question, bbc. >> thank you very much.

prime minister, there's already an indication, at least from president sarkozy of france that these targets may be a goal, but not necessarily a firm commitment. we wonder, too, about america's ability to meet deficit reduction targets. can you comment on how confident you are? >> well, in terms of european countries, they've already agreed to similar commitments within the european union itself. i'm confident that all countries that have made these commitments will fulfill them and will need to full if i am them, because there will be market pressure, not just peer pressure, but there will be market pressure to fulfill them. in the case of japan, as you know, the declaration gives greater latitude to the japanese case, japanese debt levels, much, much higher than the rest of us, are also entirely financed domestically. so there has been some recognition that japan's tarrets may be slightly different, but i am firmly convinced that as we move forward these will be targets

that are pursued, and, in most cases, pursued as minimal objections. in the case of canada, we will, in all likelihood, meet these targets next year in both cases, both the deficit and the debt target. others will take closer to the deadline. >> good afternoon, mr. harper. here i am. everyone has its own story to tell, but probably there is not enough margin, enough flexibility, and in the end, everybody may do what they wish, and this would damage this agreement. mr. sarkozy says the targets are a voluntary commitment. what i can say is everything is voluntary that we do here,

because we are sovereign countries, of course. but we have taken a certain commitment. the world is looking at us and waiting for ouu afterance. in terms of the fiscal targets, this is more than just an agreement between heads of state, but it is an agreement for the markets, and when we have seen what has happened to the markets over the last few months, i think it is clear that the markets wait for our deeds, and therefore, it is essential. i have a lot of trust, and i have already said earlier that the european countries have adopted similar measures within the european union and we have

offered greater flexibility to japan because they have a slightly different situation, but for the others, it is essential to respect the commitment in order to ensure a recovery. if i could add a further comment. some of the countries here have different positions, and all the heads understand that each country has differences that recognize by their measures. however, it is clear that the cohesion that we see during the meeting of the g-20 is striking, and i think that now

and again we pursue slightly different policies, but the objective is always the same, and that is to have a global plan to ensure a recovery and to have a strong economic growth that also will need to be balanced. and sustainable. so it is the framework that we developed for a strong and sustainable recovery, and we have to make our choices, but we have a common goal, and we all understand it, and this is the foundation of our action. >> good afternoon. we have seen the most important

decisions are made within the g-20 countries. many people are asking, do we still need the g-8? >> the g-8 is qualitatively different than the g-20. it is a smaller group of countries that is, as we all recognize, less able to take decisive actions on the global economy than it once was, but because obviously economic growth and economic development is so much more broadly spread around the world. that's why the g-20 has, as we all admit, displaced the g-8 as the world's principal forum for economic cooperation. that said, the g-8 has certain advantages. the g-8 does represent a group of countries that are long-time friends and allies, that are quite similar in their, for the most part, in their economic structure, and that tend to be like-minded across a broader

range of issues. that allows us to have important consultations within us on economic matters, but also does allow the g-8 to take decisions on things like economic, democracy, peace and security that are still well outside the discussions of the g-20. >> and the other leaders have been meeting inside, and the world's been watching the violence in the streets of chicago. i'd like to comment on the violence, and two, most of what canadians have heard is very international in focus. your maternal health initiative, the small business challenge, and they might be wondering, other than a big bill for the clean-up and police, what do they get out of this? how does this talk of fiscal consolidation and international financial regulation reform really affect their lives? >> first of all, in terms of

the violence, we obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs, but the reality is, unfortunately, these summits attract this element, and that has been a problem, as we know, around the world. that said, i think that goes a long way to explaining why we have the kind of security costs around these summit that is we do. that all said, the number one issue we have today in canada and have had for the past couple of years, without a shadow of a doubt, is the economy. but as i constantly remind canadians, there isn't really a canadian economy anymore, it is a global economy. and yes, the canadian economy, so to speak, is doing better than many other countries. but the general trajectory of the economy, rather than on the downhill as we were last year or whether we're on the rebound as we are this year, is

fundamentally determined by the state of the global economy. and that's what these meetings are about. that's why it's so critical we participate and play a major role, because canadian jobs and canadian futures are intimately linked to what goes on here, and quite frankly, everything that we do in our country to improve our country's position is ultimately to improve that position within the context of a global economy. and we cannot be effective at major economic matters any longer unless we work with our other economic partners around the world and work with them closely and intimately. that is essential. i know some people don't like it. it's a loss of national sovereignty, but it is a simple reality t. is a simple reality. we are in a global economy. the global economy is determining where we're head and had will determine our future, and we have to play our part in these forums to make

sure that our interests are protected and advanced. >> radio canada. >> this afternoon. there are clear commitments by industrialized countries. what are your expectations for the emerging countries? >> personally i think that emerging countries understand the reality of the situation. we have, in most industrialized countries, and canada is an exception here, but in the majority of these countries, there will be a very slow recovery, slow growth in the years to come, and this is due to the problems due to the fiscal situation and, of course, the banking system.

in canada, we have a totally different situation in terms of the banking system and our fiscal position. but the fact of the matter is that this will damage growth for a few years to come in a number of countries, and therefore, we need to stimulate economic demand in the emerging countries because this will contribute to the world's recovery. some emerging countries already do this, and in spite of their situation, which is different, these countries have developed stimulus programs, and this is the case of china.

countries that have more flexibility to their foreign exchange rate. because we want to develop this world's framework for a strong and balanced economic growth, and so the emerging countries have certain limitations, but they are absolutely ready to play their part, and everybody here understand that this is a global economy, and therefore, we need to have global policy that can be applied for everybody. >> prime minister, good afternoon. quick question on china. notwithstanding words of introduction, we know the g-20 wanted to formally welcome china's currency move. that line was dropped because beijing said that one policy

was not sovereign. how do you square china saying no, you can't do this, with the idea of the g-20, which is supposed the premier forum? >> well, generally speaking, it's quite frequent in declarations that countries don't want to be singled out. the declaration has an important commitment to greater exchange rate flexibility going forward. and as we know, the chinese specific have the made that commitment to the world coming into and out of this summit. and i'm confident that the chinese will fulfill that commitment, and as we all know, when you make commitments like this on the world stage, you will be held accountable for them. >> thank you very much, everyone. >> thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> is the internet and information service, telecommunications or something

else? monday, a look at the f.t.c.'s efforts to reclassify the internet with two members of the house communications subcommittee. "the communicators" on c-span2. >> senate majority leader harry reid was campaigning in his home state of nevada on saturday. he's running for re-election this year against nevada state representative sharon engle. his remarks from the state's democratic party convention are 25 minutes.

>> first of all, i think a few are watching the world cup. what do you think? we're very happy to be here, aren't we? but i did have to just say a word about the world cup. we have hercules gomez. i also wanted to tell everyone

that landon is doing really well. we're almost sect shern travel for the first time in august to come back, and she had her last surgery two weeks ago on her face. she's doing well. she has -- [applause] she has a cast on her face, a splipt, whatever it's called, but she expects to get that off in a week or so, so thank you very much. she's a real trouper. she's been kind of home alone for three months because she can't drive, so it's been a difficult time for her. our state is being tested as

it's never been tested before. how we react to this crisis is the difference between renewing our future and repeating the past. it's really a simple choice. and it's really, it i repeat, an easy choice. and we can't stand for anything less than turning the economy around with the good people of nevada that we all love. but the only way we're going to get out of this mess is by taking an honest look at what got us into this look in the first place. nevada, for more than two decades, was the place to come. you wanted a good job, you want a good salary, you want to invest in real estate, you want to start a business, it was the place to come. we were the mecca of economic

opportunities. and the greed in wall street took that away from us. they hurt our jobs base, they wrecked our housing base. we also came to the realization that the insurance industries were involved in a monopoly that was hard to comprehend. and what about the irresponsibility of countries? oil companies that poison our planet, resist new energy, economies that it's obvious that they should be looking at, and we can't talk about the hole we're in unless we talk

about what george bush did in addition to whatever we already talked about. some of the policies were pretty dramatic, dramatic in the wrong direction. tax cuts are great. we all don't want to pay taxes. but we believe, and we've always believed, that tax cuts should be paid for, but not george bush. all the tax cuts he gave to his wealthy people were not paid for. it was borrowed money. our money was borrowed. and the wars were unpaid for. iraq alone cost more than a trillion dollars. what we've done together, each of these misplaced priorities, these misguided policies, we turn them on their heads, and that's what we need to keep doing. i've never forgotten that my

number one responsibility is the people of the state of nevada. that's why, with your help, we're really creating thousands of jobs with an economic recovery plan that puts jobs back on main street that were wrecked by wall street. but we have so far together. that's why, with your help, we fought greedy wall street reform. in fact, we stopped fighting greedy wall street reform at 5:30 a.m. on friday morning when we finally were able to get the conference completed. some of you have some favorite

christmas eves, but my favorite will always be christmas eve 2010 -- well, it actually was and wasn't. it was 2009. my favorite christmas, but when we passed healthcare reform. >> that's why we're making b.p. , not the taxpayer, pay forr every cent of this disaster. because why should we bail out the richest company in the world? that's what b.p. is. and i'll tell you one thing,

i'm not going to apologize for anything that i do or say about b.p. we must wean ourselves of fossil fuels. let me talk about the so-called stimulus. we have got a lot of names, one of them the recovery act, but let's talk about that a little bit. we saw that this country's economy was on the brink of a collapse. i saw it very closely. december 2008, i met with five economists, two from prior republican administrations, two from prior democratic administrations, and i even brought in mark sandy, john mccain's chief economic advisor, and they all five told

us, me and my small leadership team, the only money left in the world is in washington, you better spend a lot of it or there's going to be a worldwide depression, and that's what the economic recovery package is all about. we had to do that. now, that is little solace to people who have lost their job, afraid they're going to lose their job, their house is upside-down, they lost their home. well, we did it, and we stopped a worldwide depression. the problem wasn't created in a day, and it won't be solved overnight, but let's talk about some of the goods that stimulus has done in just a short period of time. in nevada, in nevada, we've saved tens of thousands of jobs , 4,000 jobs in the last four months alone.

is this enough? of course it's not enough. we have a lot more to do. but we're creating jobs in solar and fuel and thermal and wind all over the state. there are construction jobs going on. we got this beautiful v.a. hospital that's out here. it may not seem what you drive by it, it may not seem like much, but mccarron field, that's a billion dollar project we have going there. and we have new air traffic control towers at mccarron, and we also have it at reno airport. that's what we're talking about. we have problems with education. it's really, really too bad. we haven't been able to do more , but we have done, from carson, washington city, $3million that directly went to

education. that bill also reduced taxes for 95% of the people in america. small businesses we help, home buyers, we've done some things for home buyers. i heard our attorney general talk about mortgage fraud. the reason that the u.s. attorney here two weeks ago indicted almost 200 people, it was because they were cheating people here in nevada regarding their home, and that's because of federal law we passed. but i wws called on behalf of kirk kerr korean on behalf of the problems at the city center. i thought i should do

something. i called a number of banks. i called the emir of kuwait who was a partner in that operation, and i think those phone calls helped. when i was contacted by representatives of harrah's and other nevada properties, and they were telling me about an issue, an issue that was unfair in the tax code that was going to prevent them from recharging their businesses called debt forgiveness. got that done t. stopped many of those companies from going into bankruptcy, and they're doing pretty well right now. for those of you from rural nevada, payment in lieu of taxes is a big deal, but from the time that passed, many years ago, payment in lieu of taxes, state nevada's 86% owned by the federal government, we're entitled to money that the federal government says in a law we passed, but we've never gotten our money, but we

got it because i got it in a bill. first-time payment in lieu of taxes was fully funded, and it will be fully funded for five years, a big shot in the arm for rural nevada. america is one of the few countries that doesn't promote itself for tourism. we will now because of a law that i pushed very hard that is now a law of this country called travel promotion, and it will have people -- it will have people come to america. ask one of our auto dealers, ask one of our auto dealers, did cash for clunkers help? of course it did. i'll belt there are people in this audience who bought a home for the first time and got a tax credit for it. we were able to sell thousands of home in nevada because of

that tax credit, which is going to expire at the end of this month because the republicans turned this down on thursday, but i'm going to work, and i'll bet -- i'll bet we get that extended for another three months. so anyone at that talks about the stimulus not working, remind them, was it perfect? was it extremely helpful? the answer is absolutely yes. so when my republican friends criticize me for doing programs like the stimulus bill and then after it passes, then they criticize me for not getting more, it's a little strange. >> but you know, i've learned that whether it's in athletics, in someone's personal life, or in government, no one roots for someone that wants failure, and

that's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are going. they want barack obama and us to fail, and we're not going to fail. why did we have to do something about wall street? we had to do something about wall streets, because if you draw a street line from the unchecked greed on wall street, to the layoff and foreclosures on main street,, i remember i had to go to mr. gallinger who taught geometry, you've got to give me a passing grade, i won't be able to play football. i dent learn much about geometry, but i did learn my geometry, but did he make me eligible. i learned that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and it's a straight line between wall

street greed and the failures we have on main streets all over america. i spent four years of my life as chairman of the nevada gaming commission. it was an interesting time in my life, difficult at times, but the one thing that we worked hard to do is to make sure the games of chance were fair, that if lost their money, they lost it fair and square, and they lost their money f. they won, they won by play nag good game. wall street had a fair deal. if they won, they kept. if they lost, they came to us for help. well, that game is over, everybody. we're cracking down on those who gamble with our money, we're making sure that the promises that we've made, that

we've reformed wall street, will be reformed. i am very confident that this week we are going to approve the conference report that passed friday morning very early. we're bringing accountability to wall street, because we're all accountability to the people of this country, and we need to see what these people on wall street are doing, and we'll be able to see from now on. just a brief word on healthcare. anyone that says how can a ford to do healthcare? we couldn't afford to walk away from it. it was interrupting our country. 1/6 of every dollar spent was healthcare. in just a few years it will be 45 minutes of every dollar. for people who complain about not being able to afford this, remember, during the first 20 years of our healthcare reform

bill, we will reduce the debt by $1.5 trillion. and that is -- that is probably much more than it was, because we dent get credit for a lot of the wellness programs and preventive care things that we did, so it's wonderful. we extend the life of medicare in that bill for 10 years. we've closed the doe nult hole. -- we've closed the doughnut hole. 25,000 small businesses in nevada will be able to have health insurance. we're going to ensure 600,000 nevadans. we have done things like saying , they can't deny my child insurance because of preexisting disability. that's the law of the land now. >> you see, health reform is important because it saves lives. it saves money.

and it saved medicare. but there's one other thing. there's one other thing. it's going to create lots and lots of jobs. ask any economist. well, as i said a couple of times today, we have a lot more to do, but i do -- and i don't mean this to boast, although i do pat myself on the back just a little bit, a number of pundits have said, the most significant of which is a man by the name of norm, a congressional scholar, a middle of the road guy, who said three weeks ago the most productive congress in the history of the country is the one we're in right now. but we have a lot more to do. we know we have a lot more to do. one of the things we have to do is energy.

today in america, today in america, we will use 21 million barrels of oil. we import 70% of them. we can't continue doing that. we have to wean ourselves of these fossil fuels, and so i have a responsibility in the next few weeks to come forward with an energy bill, and i'm going to do that. [applause] we're going to have a clean energy revolution, clean energy revolution, and much of that has already started here. think of what we've been able to do here. we are going to have a power line for the first time in the history of the state of nevada from north to south. it will allow our state -- it will allow our state to be energy independent within three years. transmission is the name of the game. we're going to work hard to push transmission, make it easier.

right now the average time to build a power line in america is 19 years. we're going to shorten that by a long, long ways, so that the large reserves of energy that we have in places all over nevada, we have unlimited resources there. we can sell it to hungry california, that's what it's all about. our immigration policy is broken, and we need to fix it. and we're going to do it in a way that respects our nation's values. but you know, one thing that troubles me is the people that complain the most. take, for example, the two united states senators from arizona. they -- they complain the most,

but when we try to do something on the senate floor, they say no. but in spite of all that, we're going to move forward because we need to. finally, let me say this. i've already said how much i appreciate your help, and i really do. the election is formed. it's an issue. you know who my opponent s. i know who my opponent is. this is going to be a campaign that focuses on issues. if this -- if we can't focus on issues in this campaign, we're all in trouble, aren't we? i want to remind everyone, as i remind myself often, america is a great country. and i want to do everything to make sure that it continues a

great country. remember, i say to all of you, i remember where i came from, i know where i came from, i know that in america anything's possible. if me, harry reid, can make it, anyone can. i mean, my parents were uneducated. my dad didn't graduate from the eighth grade. my mom didn't graduate from the high school. we lived in a house that had no inside toilet, no hot water. even by standards in search light, we weren't of great social standing. what teacher taught us, we had no religion, but it didn't matter. because in america, you can make it on your own. there are lots of opportunities, because we're a land of opportunity, so every

day i'm going to continue to remember where i came from and remember my obligations to each of you. state of nevada is a wonderful place. i'm so fortunate to represent this great state. i'm not going to give up -- you're not going to give up. we're not going to stop until this economy turns around, until every man and woman wants to go to work and have a job. [applause] we want to work together. we will work together to make nevada whole again. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> elena kagan debates with associate justice antone inscalia on campaign finance. >> these expenditures would corrupt the federal system, and i think that -- >> congress has a self-interest. i mean, we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because we -- at least i am. i doubt that one can expect a

body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> i think justice scalia is wrong. in fact, corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the single most self-denying thing that congress has ever done. if you look, if you look at the last election cycle and look at corporate tax money and ask where it goes, it goes 10 times more to incouple bents than to challengers. and in the prior cycle, even more than that. when they play in the political process, they want winners. they want people who will produce outcomes for them, and they know the way to get those outcomes, the way to get those winners, is to invest in incouple bents, so that's what they do. as i said, in double digits times more than they invest in challengers. so i think that that rationale, which is indoubtedly true in

the case. >> beginning today, watch the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan live on c-span3, c-span radio, and at c-span.org, and see re-airs every night at 9:00 eastern on c-span2. to learn more about the nation's highest court, read the latest book, "the supreme court: candid conversations with all the justices, active and retired," available in hard cover and as an e-book. >> now a look at the local economic impact the gulf of mexico oil spill is having on the community. c-span spoke to the owner of a sandwich shop in venice, louisiana. >> owner and operator of ma's sandwich snack shop. i was born here and been here my entire life. katrina couldn't keep me away, was back two months later, so i'm bound and determined to stay. i was 6 years old, this has

been my dream to open this business, and i was nine weeks into it prior to katrina, lost and destroyed everything, and it took us till february of 2009 to resexbled get back open. >> is that right here? >> that was right next door. i'll show you what was right here. it was open anyone weeks. >> i notice that you have a bunch of scenes up on the side of your restaurant. can you explain those? >> a morning of frustration amongst many mornings of frustration. when you wake up in the

morning, you're seeing the same exact thing on the news. no progress whatsoever. they try to say things that make unfortunately better, but it's not working. we're seeing, we're living what's going on out there, and we just want to see some progress. i mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to stop that well. we have lots of ideas, and we know they'll work, just do day-to-day activities, things that can work, things that are common sense. as one of my signs shows, we have obama and the america flag surrounded by black representing the oil, and we have b.p. sitting nice and pretty in the dollar signs. you know, that's how we feel. that's how we feel in our community. we're just drowning in oil. everyone in a matter of just hours of this oil spill was totally devastated. because this was not a hurricane rolling in that we could prepare for. this is something that we don't know how to prepare for. we don't know what to do, the

outcome of this. we don't know how to recover from this. and as far as how close it is to us, we woke up, and two mornings later and could spell the oil on our front door when we walked outside. we could smell it like if we were walking into an oil pit. i mean, it's right here, right in our front yard. i mean, basically where we live, there's a levee following the mississippi river, and there's a levee following the back, you can almost see the gulf from just 100 yards from behind my house. you can almost see the gulf. and it won't be long -- it will be up in those waters. and all we need is a hurricane to come through here right now and blow the oil already in, and there might want be a recovery for louisiana. we may not be literally in it, but it's taking away our homes, it's taking away our livelihood says, it's taking away our passion for this area.

and anybody that comes to south louisiana or anyone in the states along the coast is always, always taking in like you're one of our lifelong friends. you know, you can't go in where in the country and feel like you do when you come to south louisiana. i mean, that's just our nature. that's the way we're born and raised. i mean, we welcome everyone with open arms, just like we welcome the oil. we need to lift this ban on the oil right now. we need to be drilling. we need to be drilling, because louisiana is going to need that not too far down the road to survive. >> what do you think the federal government should do to help? >> after katrina, we what happened there. we got so much red tape that

people are still trying to figure out how to get home loans, how they can receive my money. i never received a penny from road home. i never received very much from fema. and i don't know. the government ears are just like i could silt and chew heads all day long when they'll just look at me like i'm crazy, because they don't live it. they're not living it, and i invite any one of them to come spend a week in our shoes. i have workers that are quitting because they can't keep up right now because of the stress. we have people that are being hired on by whoever is working for b.p. or what have you, we're not getting paid. my husband has been working for over four weeks now, he has not gotten a paycheck yet. you know, our bills are piling up on our kitchen table. you know, they want to see what it's like, let them come see.

let them work with me in this kitchen. let them see what real life's about. >> hamburger and a cheeseburger. bring it on. >> watch the latest briefings, congressional hearings and other videos like the one you just saw online at c-span.org. >> let me say to the american people, this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head u.s. forces in afghanistan. general david petraeus has been on c-span more than 40 times. watch his appearances at hearings, briefings and other events online any time at the

c-span video library. it's washington your way. a thaw week on "q&a," our guest is the director and producer of a new documentary on charter schools. it's called "the lottery." >> madeleine sackler, what was your immediate reaction when you read in the "new york times" the first sentence of a review when jeanette solos said was a little tweaking, "the lottery," would fit nicely into the marketing materials for the harlem success academy. >> i mean, i think it's an unfortunate description. i've talked to all the families in the film about it at length, because this is a film really about them and about their experience, and they think all

of them were a little bit hurt by that because this is a true story. i mean, these are real kids that are experiencing something very difficult and the families are experiencing something very difficult. and so i think to reduce that to, you know, proff grand aor calling it advocacy or something like that is a little bit unfair. >> set it up. what is it? >> the film? >> yeah. >> the film is called "the lottery," and it's about four families from harlem and one from the bronx who are entering their children into a lottery for a school in harlem. unfortunately, thousands and thousands of families are going through this process every year, and so their chances are about one in seven. initially we were very excited to make a film solely about that, about four families, a portrait of them and their experience, but what we found is there's an enormous is there's an enormous political controversy