of the number of schools that we have, the majority of schools that are charters know, very few of them are for-profit. most of them are not-for-profit organizations. typically, what we understand from folks in that field is years, they are not obligated to stay. what folks here are looking at seriously is how can we set up a system, produce more teachers

locally who will stay in the communicate. and seeing an improvement on the gains we are starting to see here. >> a lot of older folks just said i cannot do it come and stay home, and in the process did not survive the ordeal,

which is tremendously unfortunate. >> we now have a generation coming up who did not have the arts and did not have -- these are now the 20-year-old. i am concerned about that group of people, that when they are 45 or 50, that they will not get to come to the arts. "q&a". is on c-span's >> our guest on newsmaker has been one of the leading voices on policy issues. senator richard lugar, thanks for coming back to our program. let me introduce our to reporters who will be questioning the center.

>> i have to questions. is iraq ready to take security and other matters into its own hands, and even if the military steps down, the state department presence is going to expand under the obama administration's plan. i am curious if congress is ready to fund billions of dollars in civilian efforts in iraq. >> congress is probably not ready to fund the billions that will be asked for. i would say that the president's speech comes, it seems to me, as a response to those in the democratic party who some time ago question why we were staying in iraq as long. i can remember a meeting at the white house shortly after the president came into office, and he had bipartisan people around,

and announce that we would be leaving iraq in mid-2010. without naming names, some folks said we had to get a sharper pencil out, meeting we had just been in a campaign wanting this war out. the people he had around the table that day, the intelligence people -- i think he feels the need to speak to a commitment that he feels that he made. having said that, it comes at an unfortunate time. obviously, the critical situation in iraq has been unsettled now for three months or so without a prime minister and no prospect of negotiations reading -- reading leadership, with the problems of the kurds unsettled,at still runs a

and the problems were just regular iraqi citizens. 70 percent son sewage difficulty, about 70% of the power off in different cities. so the demands of that government or of us, whoever is responsible to pay for all this are enormous. on the bedside, iraqi oil is back up to 2.5 million barrels a day. that is not what it was before the war, and there are other companies in the bidding for it, but the questions like was come down to whether people from iran or even the kurds from turkey or others interested in the country will leave all that alone. so you have the costs that the congress is going to be asked to fund a very complex set of measures which are not all may

clear right now, aside from the fact that people have still troops in the country, they will be on the borders. i understand where the kurds might come across from turkey just to keep the integrity of that situation going. in the background, for training exercises, if iran were to have a sudden moves into the territory, so there is expand -- expense there already for maintenance of those troops. they are also opposed to be out under the agreement president reached in 2011. there will be questions even then, is it too soon? what are the ambitions the u.s. has for iraq, or iraqis for themselves? what is the understanding? host: d.c. the president trying to in the war on a schedule that does not match the reality? >> having made the statement or

commitments or what have you to many persons in the congress or the public or the parties, as the case may be, that he does not proclaim victory, exactly. i am not sure where the terminology will be in the speech, but he says this is my agreement and i am fulfilling my pledge. >> do you think that is a mistake? >> probably, because people will still say what about the government? where is the government? if we were to provide money to the iraqi government, to whom? the fact that the parliament has not been able to come to the prime minister's election, or there has been no legislation, no oil law, none of this. that will come along after ramadan or after whenever it may be, but the irony is, there have been three relatively good elections.

it was relatively trouble-free, but the results finally come to an impasse. that is a problem in democracy, as opposed to dictatorship, where there is no impasse. most of the iraqis and those in the united states are pleased that they have moved toward democracy. having come to that point, they got all the votes counted, still, somebody needs to be in charge. >> immediately after that speech, on wednesday, the president is going to be hosting the israeli prime minister and the president as well as king abdallah of jordan and president mubarak to try to get these direct talks started. that will happen on thursday at the state department. how you assess the prospects for these discussions, given that there have not been any direct

talks in almost two years, and the two sides seem almost as divided as ever creek marks initially, the prospects are not good, for the same reason they have not good for a long time. on the other hand, i don't fault the president or the secretary of state or others for taking the initiative. the fact that the invited guests going to come is significant. this has led to significant discussion in israel. prime minister netanyahu facing a good number of leaders who are saying there are certain things you are not authorized to give away in this process, some don't move too rapidly. likewise, prime minister a boabs and others coming in as friends of the family, to show that the

rest of the middle east has an interest in this. >> the palestinians are coming in these talks already threatening to walk out if the freeze on jewish settlements in the west bank is not extended. how critical do you think it is for the administration to convince netanyahu and his team that some sort of extension of that freeze is absolutely necessary for the talks not only to succeed but just to continue to get to a second round? >> i will not enter into the bargaining session. it would have to be intends to get movement on that. the fact is that my prediction of some pessimism is predicated on the fact that movement would be difficult for either party. if either party simply says there are certain predicates that have to be there before we

even talk to them, then we are not going to talk very long. at the same time, the president has set a goal or maybe a deadline of a year for this to go on, the initial situation might not be promising, but on the other hand, there are many people in israel and palestine and in the middle east to would like to see some greater permanence in the arrangement. maybe not a final settlement, but something that leads to the assurance that the ongoing battle that we now have will not continue. >> you mentioned the deadline of a year. this it administration seems to be fond of setting out deadlines, where the bush administration was more willing to let things be open-ended. how realistic or how smart you think it is for the president and his top advisers to lay out these kind of deadlines? >> the idea of a year but was

perhaps something that was demanded by some of the parties that are involved, either overtly or covertly, as the case may be. it could be as you say that a year has been set just simply so the thought is we just don't go on and on forever. in fairness, the administration started the process at the beginning of this administration, as opposed to the last six months. the obama administration still has a lot of time, relatively, to get something done in this area. it is very important that it get done. i think the majority of people on both the palestinian side and israelis know that, but getting to that point is very, very difficult. i amar the folks that are

coming. i hope that they both do well and have more than a day before we proceed again. >> i want to draw you into a debate that has been raging here domestically over the past couple of weeks, the debate over the new york mosque. with the september 11 anniversary ahead of us, it seems as though the pitch of this argument is going to continue. what will ultimately put to rest in this country? the have concerns about the reporting of the u.s. debate and how it might affect allies in muslim countries around the world, the people on the street, and what they are thinking about america? >> on the second question, i am afraid, sadly enough, that regardless of what the reporting was, it will not be either helpful or hurtful at this stage. the people who ask do you approve of the united states or do you like americans, or what have you, most of the muslim

countries are so negative, it is hard to think of how they might descend further. i think this is an unjustifiable finding. even in pakistan, where american aid is central to the resurrection of the country after the floods, and has been central throughout the last to three years. still may be less than 20% of pakistanis have a favorable view of the united states. this is just a fact of life that is very unfortunate. the debate over the muslim mosque does not help this, but i would say essentially, the debates ought to be centered for the moment in new york city with local officials who tried to work out on a zoning, local basis what is going to occur. i appreciate people throughout the country want to enlarge this to a much larger debate.

do you like moslems or don't you like moslems? should they be favre not favor? people in various other cities are saying we might have this problem. let's even have the argument in advance. what if a moslem population want to build a mosque in our community? very clearly, we have constitutional dick to hear that will inform the debate, but at the same time, local persons have to come to conclusions. the press may report that any way that it wishes. hopefully as accurately as possible, but given the sensitivity of 9/11, the people who died there, some of whom were muslims, as a matter of fact. the desire in the country right now to want to keep this issue alive during a political campaign, we still have several weeks to go.

>> you are just down in indiana. are people talking about this, or is it mostly washington and new york-centered? >> there is some discussion, but very small in comparison to the basic issue. that is, what we have 10.2% unemployment in indiana, and why has that not change? more fundamentally, why are our schools under stress? we decided as hoosiers to want to limit property taxes. the state government revenues are down. it does not matter where you turn, the fact is there is less money for civic purposes, some that are very fundamental and important. this is what we need to be

discussing. at the federal or state or local level, it does not make any difference, in terms of our economy. if creating new businesses, new jobs, new innovation, new any thing, new capital may come into the situation. there are some very good stories in indiana, so that is heartening. there are parts of the state where unemployment is coming down. given the surrounding state of illinois, michigan, and ohio, indiana is a bright spot. if you take a look comparatively, the rest of the midwest is hit by problems of declining fuel production, auto production, are reproduction, a good number of things of this sort. >> you mentioned pakistan. this has been a signature for you.argu

your name is attached to the bill that provides billions and billions of dollars to pakistan for medium and long-term development. i am just wondering, two days ago, last week when this heirs, some of that money from your bill, $50 million was moved from this development work to emergency flood assistance. is that something that you support, and how concerned are you about the situation with the floods in pakistan and the potential effect on the political stability of the country? >> i do support that money going there. i would say that the bill is some times debated in pakistan, with many pakistanis thinking it is great news, that it is a

five-year plan. having said that, the question is what sort of interference does monitoring how the money is to be spent mean? this comes along at a time when the money has not been spent very rapidly, trying to find institutional support for education, rule of law, the things we would like to see this used for, have been hard to come by. therefore, the money is there, and the emergency is very clear. now, the emergency as i read it in press accounts is so large that this is going to engulf more money than the five years of the bill, which would be $7.5 billion over five years. people are saying that 2,500 miles of roads are ruined completely. the cost of just building 500 of

that, you could use of several billion dollars just repairing the roads, apart from the human predicament of housing and medical care. >> are you concerned that the flooding may damage what was -- what you had hoped in promoting in sponsoring this bill? >> yes, it is such a devastation to the economy, it could very well come to that. it is huge, at a time in which the growth of many areas of pakistan was the minimus to begin with. the taliban in pakistan are saying that foreign aid workers, including our own, to stay out, or you are in danger of being killed. here we have a predicament, where we get back to public opinion in pakistan. the dislike of the united states or others outside is so great,

the taliban would say, let those people suffer, rather than anyone else coming in. we will have to fight in order to get the aid to the people in order to save them. >> we would be remiss if we did not ask about the new start treaty. you are sort of lonely in your own caucus in terms of supporting the treaty. almost every other republican senator has either come out against it or not said that they support it. i am curious, do you think you will be able to turn the tide? what does it say about where the republican party is on foreign policy these days, that most of the caucus opposes the treaty that abels, generals, secretaries of defense have said is in the national interest? >> the concern to the republicans, possibly a majority, they do favor the treaty nominally and will eventually vote for the treaty.

however, many have supported the thoughts of center jon kyl, who believe that we need to modernize our own nuclear situation at oak ridge and other points, but we need to make certain that we are prepared and that our allies can count on the fact that our nuclear warheads will work if called upon. some say this has nothing to do with the start treaty, and they are correct. but senator kyl and senate republicans have said this is the time to get a commitment to follow through on these things. the administration should be willing to make that commitment. the president and vice president have spoken to it. they have cut some money from the accounts they are asking the president to boost. so we have that going on in another room while we are

discussing the start treaty in the front room. on the 15th, 16th, and 70 the september we will have a markup. my prediction is it will lead to the committee sending to the floor the new start treaty. the question then will be, in a lame-duck session, and given the mood of whoever returns and however long that want to stay, will senator reid be able to devote the time on the floor that will be required to have a good debate and to pass the treaty? i hope so. >> are you predicting it will pass this year? >> i am not predicting anything beyond the fact that it will get to the floor and we will have a chance to vote on it or debate it in a lame-duck session. ultimately, i believe a large number of republicans will be in favor of the treaty, but not all. in the past, starting 19 years

ago, we had some republicans to argue that we just don't want to deal with the russians, period. it is not a question of the new start treaty, we just don't like the russians. we don't trust them and don't want to have anything to do with them. we would like to build a missile defense system that would be so large and comprehensive, it would shoot down any thing that was ever shot at us, whether it was russian, chinese, or anything else. this is an argument clear back from ronald reagan. that administration decided that was not a very good path to follow. it does not mean the argument is over, so each time arms control comes up, you have some of these strains. >> will be turned into a political football ahead of the midterms in november, particularly with the former presidential candidate, governor romney, saying passage of this would be the worst foreign-

policy that president obama could make? you obviously don't agree with that, but it has brought it into the realm of politics. how concerned are you that partisan politics could crater this? but i don't think it will. there is knowledge among senators that this is very serious. being able to have boots on the ground, to verify and visualize what the russians are doing, is critically important. for the moment, we have a little suspense here, the agreement between presidents has allowed this to continue. they are on the ground, still taking warheads of missiles, destroying submarines, just as we have been doing for 19 years.

this will continue only so long as the russians have some faith that we are going to take this treaty seriously and are likely to pass it. i think most senators understand that. for the moment, this is not a crucial situation, because we are still involved in reduction of arms in russia, with americans working with russians. i am one who wants to continue that. on that basis, i think a large majority of republicans agree with me, applaud the nunnn- lugar program. i am hopeful we will not get into a political situation in which republicans say this is a treaty that president obama and his folks have negotiated, so ipso facto, it must not be a very good tree. that would be very unfortunate. after the election, passions may

have cool. >> i want to talk about domestic politics. when at home in indiana, you gave a speech, suggesting that he raised concerns about the house gop leadership and their ability to leave if they regain control of the house. john boehner gave a big speech this week. it change your impression or alleviate your concerns? >> we need to have alternatives and we need to have a spokesperson to enunciations. one reporter asked, do you believe that mr. o'connell and mr. baker can do this? i said not for a moment, and mitch mcconnell said we are planning and put together plans. i said this is good news. maybe john boehner is, too. the speech did not indicate to many thoughts about the future.

it was much more centered upon of polarized political saturation. -- political situation. many are hopeful that if we have a republican majority, we will also have some ideas and programs and yet to articulate them. i will -- we will continue to work with senator mcconnell to do that. >> i am wondering if you heard from mitch daniels after publicly encouraging him to go in that direction. >> i had a good conversation with him in indiana just a week or so ago. he has made no commitment. this will not be the time in which we may get announcement that he will need to make at some point. i think he would be an outstanding candidate and a great president, but he will have to make that decision himself.

>> senator, thank you for your time. we have just finished a wide- ranging conversation with the lead republican on foreign affairs, senator dick lugar. you mentioned this is a big week for foreign policy issues. i wonder if what you heard from the senator recapped the middle east peace process in your eyes, so let's start with matt. >> i thought he had some very interesting points to make about the president's speech on iraq, saying that it was probably a mistake to effectively declare victory, or not declare victory in so many words, but to say the plan is achieved and we are out on schedule. i thought it was interesting that he disagreed with the that he disagreed with the president on