the interior -- it 1:00 news briefing has been scheduled. the administration has been under heavy pressure to lift that moratorium. >> the good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am senior writer at congressional quarterly. i am also vice chairman of the national press club board of governors. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. for more information, please visit our web site at

ww.press.org. to donate to our programs, please visit www.press.org/library. i would like to welcome our speaker and our attendees, which includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. i would now like to introduce our head table guests, starting from your right. please stand when i introduce your names print. john danner. please hold your applause to the end. josh broken, which writes a blog on foreign policy and national security. stephen trimble, a reporter with flight international.

jim michaels, a defense reporter for ""usa today." christopher castelli, chief editor, "inside the pentagon." andrew schneider, associate editor and chairman of pc's speaking committee. jim asker, executive editor of "aviation week." kristin is a new member of the national press club cb. vick sestead at morgan

stanley. >in june 2008, the air force was in trouble. relations with congress, the defense secretary, and other services were strained for a variety of reasons. the multibillion-dollar refueling program was grounded. calls were mounting to stop buying the costly f-22 fighter jet. personal recently lost track of nuclear weapons in transit. defense secretary robert gates had had enough. he ousted the air force secretary and chief of staff. the new choice was a general norton schwartz who is today's speaker. in choosing him, president obama wanted to signal that things were going to be done .ifferently from now on c he flew cargo planes, helicopters, and aerial

gunships. from day one, shorts made clear that stewardship of nuclear weapons was job #1, but he has had a lot more than that on his plate, because the air force is a service in transition. much of the aircraft need to be replaced roughly over the next decade. new weapons cost have to be kept under control. pay and benefits for the military and civilian personnel in the air force are devouring an even larger share of the budget. health-care costs in particular are eating the defense department alive. at the same time, the country needs to grapple with the mounting federal debt. military spending, including the air force, is more than $110 million and is expected to be on the table for cuts. the air force must show it is

operating efficiently. hasral norton schwartz extensive experience to draw on as he confronts these issues. he also served as deputy commander of special operations command. he has been in the middle of several wars starting in 1975 when he was a crew member of the 1975 airlift's the evacuation of saigon it. he is a member of the joint chiefs of staff and provide military advice to the defense secretary and the white house. a weaker very pleased to have the chief with us today to shine a light on these issues -- we are very pleased to have the chief of staff with us today to shine a light on these issues. please give a warm welcome to chief of staff general norton schwartz. [applause] >> thanks very much for the kind

introduction. it does go back over a bit of history, which is behind us, i think. but would also like to thank the national press club for hosting what i think it is a very important event. it is my honor to address this audience for the first time. i thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts and hopefully add to the public discussion in which many of you all played a very, very important part. ladies and gentlemen, i have a quotation that i think is interesting. old international patterns are crumbling. old slogans are on instructive. an old solutions are unavailing the world has become

interdependent and economics and communications and in human aspiration. these are the words of a common statement, dr. henry kissinger. what it might not be surprising that he would share this particular sentiment, what is perhaps more interesting is that he made this statement not recently, and not even in the last decade, but in 1975 as the united states secretary of state in a speech titled, "a new national partnership,"." he was stating than it as it is now that strategic complexity constantly evolves. it remakes itself, revealing new patterns of cooperation, competition and conflict, while dismantling old paradigms' that

have guided our priorities and decisions over time. therefore, though this interconnectedness is in itself nothing new, i would suggest today that the current manifestations that we face certainly are. they are presenting profoundly unfamiliar challenges. the rub is, of course, we can only estimate the nature of future threats, the capabilities of potential adversaries, or the topography of future operating environments it. we are not afforded and never will be complete certitude about such things. as we continue to be faced with trillion dollar deficit and compound in national debt, our purchasing power in the

department of defense is likely to diminish this means that we cannot just commit substantial financial investments to prepare for an infinite variety of contingencies. for our nation's military, this suggests that we must be more flexible across a wide but far- from-infinite range of a contingency and a more versatile and efficient in everything that we undertake. the need for versatility means, among other things, that we must balance today's needs with tomorrow's challenges. the likelihood of threats and the severity of their consequences informs the decisions on how we prioritize how to balance and for what to prepare we must carefully

anticipate future requirements and implement selective and incremental approach of modernizing legacy capabilities. essentially, requiring limited capability systems as stopgaps where necessary and procuring next generation technologies where fiscally possible and responsible. the greater versatility that we require is enhanced broadly by the inherent speed, range, and flexibility of air and space power. with it, we are able to respond to different and multi spectrum of requirements. and leveraging this advantage is the family business out of the united states air force, to which i will return and elaborate a little bit here in a minute.

in addition to personal means, we must also be more efficient in our processes, our procedures, and in our operations. an important strategy is to reduce overhead operating costs, create more savings, and ship them directly to structure and modernization, and to war- fighting needs. being more efficient also requires more interaction and interdependence between u.s. government organizations. including joint and interagency. within the executive and legislative branches. for example, admiral roth had and i are fully committed to a more robust, navy partnership. currently known as air sea

battle, where and we create efficiencies and collaboration to ensure our continued ability to. , project expeditionary power. it will focus on three levels of joint cooperation between the nation's two strategically oriented and globally postured military services. first, institutional with dedicated organizational constructs that normalized navy and air force collaboration. member to come up conceptualization -- no. 2, conceptualization. and at third, materials. with interoperable the amount current systems and integrated strategies for future joint capabilities. air sea battle is won promising

way that we may further increase our teamwork, enhanced our joint partnerships, and amplify our joint the effectiveness. making it that much more difficult for potential adversaries to keep pace with what is already the gold standard of the inter service cooperation and collaboration. indeed, the united states air force is a proud joint partner that will look to further enhance the ways in which it will make its enduring in central contributions. first and foremost, air men provide control of the air and space over our homeland and wherever family forces operate. they ensure freedom of action in all domains by minimizing

from above. in modern warfare, such control, even when localized, is a prerequisite for success and because freedom of action in any war fighting domain increasingly depends upon control in one or more of the others, our efforts increasingly include some measure of interrelated control of multiple domains -- air, land, sea, state, and so on. second, the air force leverages its air and space control, as well as issue assurance inside cyberspace, to bring desirous effects to bear on the most serious challenges to our vital interests. behrman provide global vigilance, reach, and power -- air men provide global vigilance, reach, and power.

through air and space power, range, versatility, and flexibility, which are inherent, unmatched, and undisputed. the air force is not uniquely but substantially translates these inherent characteristics into rapid, precise, tailored were fighting the fax as required by our combatant commanders around the world. and as we continue to do everything possible to prevail during today's fight, we are also vigilant for emerging threats in anticipating and associated requirement. the air force will continue to identify the ways in which air, space, and cyber forces and

power can further bolster the collective capability of the joint team. most recently, we have seen a rise in air force special operations, high end personnel rescues, joint tactical air control, remote piloted systems, and surveillance and reconnaissance from both air breathing and earth-orbiting systems. we are very proud of our air men and we have a couple here today, who are being trained specifically for these roles, as well as non traditional duties such as convoy operations, installation security, and reconstruction of war-torn regions. but we also continue to provide our core contributions and precision strikes.

tactical support, space-borne communications, early warnings, and precision navigation and timing, and of course, so much more. we remain vigilant and ready for the threats of today's security environment. we are cognizant of the possibility of higher-end, larger scale conflict. potential up-and-coming adversaries increase their capabilities, they may seek to challenge us in ways that will require a somewhat different mix of their force capabilities and respond, such as what we provided, for example, in operation allied forces over 10 years ago. we would hope that this could be averted, but in the meantime, our guiding principle will be to

ontinue to stand with our joint and coalition forces, and deliver air and space power effects. if we were able to look for it to budgetary growth, where lesser urgency for more discipline that spending, our task of accommodating this uncertain future would be much easier. as we could just invest more money to inch toward a wider range of capabilities and greater operational flexibility. but the reality is, defense budgets will likely continue to flatten, even as we contend with rising personnel costs, operations, sustainment and acquisition costs as well. even with declining purchasing power, we still have to do more

with the same or fewer resources, squeezing every last bit of capability from our current and future weapons systems to do this, we will continue to be innovative with our tactics, techniques, and procedures in employing our various capabilities in an ever widening array of settings. in short, we must be more efficient, personal, and flexible with both the ways and means at our disposal to create the desired, tailored, and decisive power effects that are the trademark of your air force. we are proud to make these vital contributions to the collective strength of the u.s. military, which allows our nation not

only to prepare for future contingencies but to aspire to prevent war as well. our efforts to prevail in conflicts have the accompanying the effect of enhancing our deterrence posture and the ability to this incentivize the escalation of crises on conflicts. as we look to the future, control of air and space, holding at risk practically any target on the earth, telegenic, surveillance, and reconnaissance, airlift, and command and control of air and space capabilities will remain the most fundamental and most enduring corps contribution of the air force. let me repeat that because i think it is worth repeating.

control of air and space, holding at risk practically any target on the earth's surface, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, airlift, and the command and control of air and space capabilities, again, will remain our most fundamental and enduring court contribution. our airmen and servicemen, from the unconditional support of our families, will help to ensure that the blessings, liberty, and opportunity that all of us have shared in this room shall remain a birthright for future generations of americans. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks today, and died to look

forward to your questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, general. we have an ample number of questions come up more actually that we have time to get to probably, so we might as well get started. first off, there is clearly an uptick in air strikes in afghanistan since general petraeus took command. does this reflect a loosening in the restrictions on air power put in place by general modesto? what is the air force doing to reduce civilian casualties in afghanistan? >> on the contrary, the truth of the matter is, we have 30,000 additional troops in afghanistan. additional operations suggest there will be additional air operations as well. remember, this is a joint undertaking.

the fact that there has been an increase in such activity should be no surprise. it is not. with respect to our efforts, we know each civilian casualty and each of our youngsters that are operating in afghanistan note that each civilian casualty is a major concern for the commander, clearly for all of us. we have the capacity to employ our assets with great precision and a great discrimination. let me just make the point, and this is human rights data. it is credible from a respected organization. 80% of the civilian casualties in afghanistan are not caused by a coalition forces. the remaining 20%, only 40% of

that is a result of air to ground munitions. it gives you some sense of the precision, the discrimination, the professionalism that our airmen, navy, air force, army and so on apply. i am not suggesting we are perfect. but you should not doubt the conviction on the part of our airmen to do with the commander indicated it is necessary. >> what role did the air force played last year when the administration was conducting its review of afghanistan- pakistan strategy? >> the role was basically to phil -- i have two hats, for those of you who might not know. one is my air force chief hat. in that capacity, i work for the

secretary of the air force. my role is to organize, train, and equipped the best possible air force on the planet. the other is that i have is a member of the joint chiefs. i team with the other serve this chiefs -- service chiefs to provide the best military advice to the secretary, the national security council, and of course the president. we did that through multiple meetings of the joint chiefs, in which i certainly contributed as well as did the other chiefs. ultimately, one that session which we had with the president and his national security team at the white house. >> staying in the white house, last week, president obama replaced national security adviser with the deputy, dona a,

tom donilon. what does this mean for the air force, and do you agree that date we focus on big power capabilities is needed? >> first of all, let me recognize jim and diane jones as being wonderful public servants over many, many decades. supreme allied commander in europe and then came out of retirement to do this job. he certainly did it well. the reality is, in my role, to train, equip, what the national security council deals with on a

daily basis has relatively little effect on us in terms of that larger role. it certainly has a significant effect on how we employ, where we go, and so on it. so, i think, fundamentally, the change will be transparent. both are talented individuals, i know both of them well. the united states air force will fulfill its requirements and operate in ways that our civilian leadership mandates. >> this question is about military health care costs. whether military families and retirees should pay a greater share than states are paying right now to address the growing bill the dod is paying.

>> a bit of background. health care for the department of defense at the moment is about a $40 billion level of effort. by 2015, it will probably be in the $60 billion level or $65 billion level. that is probably 12% or 13% of the entire defense budget. that is serious money. the copays for try care, which is a very good program, certainly on par with any other in the country, have not changed since 1985. i think it is inescapable that a change will have to be made, and clearly, these are matters both

for the executives to propose an for the legislative branch to disclose. but we collectively, as a family of actively serving and formally serving members and families, have to recognize that if we are not careful, these unbounded coasts can force out military content elsewhere in the department of defense portfolio. that is worrisome and something that we will have to address and do it compassionately cannot rationally, but it needs to be addressed -- do it passionately, rationally, but it needs to be addressed. >> you and the other chiefs said previously it this year that you recommended that congress cannot act on to repeal the 1993 law

until a survey of troops had been completed. the survey is supposed to be done december 1. if congress acts on it, will that be acceptable to you, changing allot that is? >> we have an obligation to offer both to the leadership and the department and in the administration and to the congress and our best military advice on how to proceed. as you suggested, the survey of our military members, some 400,000 or so, is now complete. that should occur later this month. the survey of family members cannot likewise, wrapped up on the first of october, and that the debt is not yet completely visible, but it will be.

we are on track to have that information and the associated research that will enable us, again, to offer our best military advice on if the law changes, how we would proceed with respect to implementing the change. this will certainly be available to inform the congress shortly after. >> just to clarify, if it is available, you would not oppose the senate taking up a defense authorization bill that has a repeal provision in it in december? >> i have not had the opportunity to review the data,

and i am not going to prejudge what recommendation would be at the time. >> a question about china -- please provide us your assessment of how much the united states should be concerned about the expanding military capability of china. >> i think it is clear that china is a rising power in the pacific. and clearly, it is in our national interest to see that they apply their resources and their genius, and certainly their national power, in a way that contributes to stability and prosperity, certainly in the asia-pacific and around the world. as you know, the secretary of defense met with his counterparts this weekend.

it is clear that it is much better for us to interact with our chinese counterparts than to allow misperceptions to persist. this is the path we are on. they are a sovereign nation of, as you are well aware, several billion people. they have significant capacity as a nation and as a people. this is the reality. what we need to strive to do is to assure that our interaction, as two great powers, that we do so in a way that benefits, again, stability and prosperity around the world. >> another china-related question -- on friday, president obama lifted some embargoes placed on china in wake of the

tien an men square massacre to allow certain sales to beijing. it is this part of the drive to reestablish ties? >> i am not personally familiar with that adjustment. accepting it as a fact, once again, i think that relationships occur at many levels. they occur at the personal level, professional to professional. they occur between air forces, in this case, that operate similar or the same equipment. it occurs in a larger sense at other levels. and so, if we have approval to export certain u.s. capability is to the chinese, and that is

what they choose to do, i see that as a potentially positive outcome because it has a way of assuring a long-term military-t o military relationship, which does that mean that either party concedes to the other necessarily on any particular issue, but maintains the professional interaction which i think is key to minimizing perceptions, potential misunderstandings, and again, allowing rational activities to flow as a result. >> a couple of questions about defense secretary gates to save $100 billion in the next five years. can you bring us up to speed on how much the air force is recommending that it will be able to cut the timetable of

this happening? also, if procurement of the fighter jets will be part of that. >> we have a target of about $20 billion. we made a budget proposals, submitted in july, to the department that certainly satisfied that target. we are in the mets now of a program review, -- we are in the midst now of the program review, that will last through the holidays. it will be at that point, when the president's budget is announced, that the efficiency initiatives that each of the services has undertaken will become clear to all. i think, with respect to multi-

year, without a specific weapons system application, clearly, multi-year makes sense if you have a long-term procurement prospect for long-term procurements, and you can ensure budget stability. so, yes, we as an air force favor multi-year when it meets those two criteria. >> a question about the refueling tanker program. when is the air force going to announce the award? given the possibility of a protest, is there sort of a deadline when you have to get this thing under contract to get the program rolling to replace the aging eisenhower-era tankers?

>> as you are well aware, we had one protest on this program already. the general accountability office found in the government's favor. in our view, is a reflection on the rigor and the precision of all those working in the current procurement process. in my view, it is more important to get it right then to get it fast. so, once again,we see the source election coming to a conclusion in the next few months. but i would emphasize, again, that it is very important for us to get it right. like in the case of the united

aerospace, we tend to do that. >> another follow-up question just to clarify -- he said in the next few months, can you say whether or not that will happen by the end of the year or be any more specific on that? >> it is more important for us to get it right than to get it fast. [laughter] >> i will take that as a note. on stepping back, talking about acquisition in general, what is the air force doing to improve processes, scheduling on its acquisition programs, and what are you doing to increase competition so you can have more than the usual suspects bidding. >> as you are aware, i have a

role in the requirements part of the acquisition process, but i do not have a statutory role on the acquisition side of things. that is largely in line from the secretary to the service acquisition secretary and so on. much to his credit, one of the early initiatives that we talked in addition to stabilizing the nuclear side was the acquisition improvement plan. inherent in that plan or a number of initiatives to, again, regain that excellence in acquisition for which the air force was widely known in the not too distant past. that included bringing back into the government fold, into the air force, certain things which

we allowed to migrate outside to prime contractors, system integrators if you will. that includes cost estimators, financial managers, and very importantly, system engineering expertise, which allows us to run a program, to know when things are wishful thinking and when they are not, to have this capacity within our own team, which had diminished some overtime. and so, we are rebuilding that capacity. again, this is a case of the major efforts underway. certainly, the tanker is one. the f-45 contract is an example

of the kind of record that we bring to the competitive process. in that regard, we certainly favor competition. it is likely to produce a better product, likely to produce one at less cost to the taxpayer. however , it is not necessarily the only solution. one has to run the numbers. you have to look at the business case. are certain instances, -- there are certain instances, with the resources available, it might make sense to have a hybrid approach, where it is competitive in part and not in others. what i am suggesting is, a doctrine that says we will compete with everything is as foolish as an approach that

suggests that will be cavalier about pursuing competition. >> speaking about competition, there is a big debate in washington whether there should be one type of engine for the f- 35 jets or two different types going forward. why is that the case? advocates say that resulted in savings in the past. of isn't that an example the air force keeping two manufacturers going? >> you said it exactly right. here is the deal. people look back at history at the 1980's. a key thing to understand, we are not operating with the dash 100 engines of the 1980's any more. these are much more reliable,

much better products than they were in the 1980's. that is point one. point two is that we currently operate aircraft with a single engine. admittedly, these are two-engine aircraft. the f18 is a single engine. the bottom line, this is not unprecedented. hird, i don't deny that competition might well result in some savings over the long run. the question is, whether we can afford it in the short term. i have to be candid. if roles are so confident that

their product will succeed and bring value to the taxpayer, it would be nice if they would put a little more against that $1.9 million bill they would like the taxpayer to undertake. >> on the nuclear weapons issue, a questioner wants to know what assurances can you give the american people that nuclear-weapons stewardship is secure? >> i can tell you that the united states air force is focused like a laser on this. losing track of -- i should say six nuclear-weapons for 36 hours was awful. and we have made corrections to

ensure that will never happen again. we make corrections in terms of establishing the kind of organization that would provide oversight for the nuclear enterprise, both on the operations and demand side. we have folks that are focused on this, not on an array of issues. finally , we have reminded our people -- finally, we have reminded our people who do this work and live under the pressure that is associated with the scrutiny that the nuclear mission brings with it, that their work is valued, that it is fundamentally important to america's military posture, and that it will be rewarded for being in this very challenging line of work.

again, this is a show-me thing. things can happen, but it won't be because of a lack of attention. >> several people were interested in the subject of cyber war. are there rules of engagement for cyber war? who writes them? are they completely secret? who decides to wage cyber work? >> it is a complex issue, and is a complicated question because this is an emerging area of competition. the rule sets, and in particularly, the backdrop for this has not yet matured. it is something that all international security community

are dealing with and struggling with. you know very well that the departments to adopt the united states cyber command with general keith alexander as the commander. he certainly is at the leading edge, both with cyber policy for those in uniform. he certainly is at the forefront of operations and interacting with the various agencies of government here who have stake in how we proceed. i need to emphasize that cyber com's role is within the department of defense. it is not ".com."

only in a limited sense is it ".gov." this is larger than cyber or with respect to -- cyber war with respect to how we employ our capabilities to produce the kind of a fax that will secure our interest on the battlefield. it is broader than that and includes the department of homeland security and the other law enforcement agencies of the government. so it is yet an amateur area that requires certainly our best efforts and clearly is a growth industry. >> regarding satellites, a big part of what the air force does, what steps is the air force taking to protect military satellites from the attack?

withy -- would the united states ever attacked another nation's satellites? >> we just launched a couple of weeks ago from the air force base in california the first block 10 space satellite platform with success. its purpose is to assure that we can watch our systems, be able to determine adverse activity with respect to our states' systems. i believe you cannot deter if you cannot contribute. we are pursuing a path with respect to protecting our assets, which allows us, again, to survey, observe, confirm, and

a tribute if and when our assets come under interference or attack or what have you. this is vitally important, clearly. have very important asset in orbit -- we have a very important assets in orbit. we have assets that do more mundane things that you all know very well, precision and timing, like gps, and very importantly, strategic warning. the bottom line is, we are positioning ourselves now not only to look down, but to look up to the heavens. >> what about the offensive piece of that?

>> the national policy at the moment forecloses that. we, obviously, comply with national policy. >> a question about replacing the air force's bombers -- when is the air force going to start to develop a new bomber as opposed to a steady concepts or spend money on basic technologies? >> as soon as we can persuade the secretary of defense that we are ready and that we have a formula that satisfies his view of what the country and what the department needs to feel going forward. the bomber is not an isolated platform. it is part of the family of systems that includes not just bombers and strikes, but

includes airborne electronic attack, surveillance and reconnaissance, communications connectivity. it includes standoff weapons and direct attack weapons, and so on. fundamentally, what our purpose is to explain to the secretary and his close advisers how we see this family coming together, its various capabilities, that will last for the next 30 or 40 years, and that it is a strategy that can be resource given the likely pressures on the defense budget. those discussions are occurring now and they will conclude during this budget cycle, so we will have some key decisions later this year, certainly soon

after the first of the year. >> a question about base closure process. as the united states need to have a new round of closures? if so, how soon? >> if we are looking at efficiency, there are three or four categories of things to look at. clearly, one is the force structure. airplanes for us, or satellites in orbit, or what have you. are are ways to procure and operate those -- there are ways to procure and operate those that drive a lesser cost of operation. percent now is a segment that -- personality is a segment that

clearly could get smaller -- personnel is a segment that clearly could get smaller. demands are such that manpower, at least numbers, is not likely to change. you can affect procurement, which is not an substantial portion of the defense budget. as you suggested in your remarks, this is not only true for the air force, there are recapitalization requirements after 10 years of conflict that we need to deal with. so, the last area, last major category is infrastructure. the question is, does the department of defense have access infrastructure? to do its is central missions?

this is one area that i think of scrutiny. i can't anticipate, because as you are all aware, these are emotional issues, highly charged, and whether there will be the will or the willingness to look at infrastructure as a place to gain efficiency. at the moment, is largely off- limits. my basic point is, i don't think it can remain that way in definitely. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question, we have important matters to take care of. october 15, condoleezza rice, former secretary of state. october 25, an author that

will discuss islam. november 10, jeff bridges for teh share our strengh no kid hungry campaign. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. since you are the chief, you can put whatever beverage you would like in their. thank you so much for coming today. you were quoted recently saying, "some days are better than others on this job." you were referring to the air force association's defeat of navy in a football game earlier this month. who is going to win the commander in chief's trophy? >> we are looking forward to going to the white house this year.

[laughter] i must tell you, just quickly, mike mullen and i were at the game. cut to tossed a coin with the chairman. service classic day of academy football. these were two teams that were committed, played hard, a close game. the crowds were supportive of both teams. just the majesty of the moment was terrific, and i am glad that we won. again, a key points, and i would really like to connect with it -- with the photographers daughter today, america needs could people to do this stuff. certainly, whether they are cadets, these are wonderful folks that will serve the

country well years down the road, as well as your daughter. i hope that you will consider public service in some capacity as well. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i would also like to thank national press club's staff for organizing today's event. for more information about joining the press club and how to acquire a copy of today's program, please go to a website at www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this is then it works -- we provide politics, non-fiction books, and history. it is all available on line by television, radio, and on social networking sites. we take it on the road with digital box and the content vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span networks now available in more than 100

million homes. >> all this weekend, live coverage from the texas book festival on "book tv." with the following authors -- plus authors on the obama presidency. panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and infamous fugitives. get the entire schedule online at booktv.org. >> politico is reporting in colorado that the republican center is backing away from one of his party's health-care tax. he is accusing the incumbent democratic senator of being untruthful in the ads. buck says that his party has not always been totally honest on

the medicare issue. a democrat from oregon has signaled he may vote for someone other than nancy pelosi for speaker. and avises any time you suffered big losses in business or politics you need to step back and ask if you need to make changes -- that is what an aide said. tonight, the second debate between the wisconsin senator and his republican challenger, followed by the north carolina senate debate with republican incumbent and a democratic secretary of state. it begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. a look by democrats to maintain control of the house in the midterms. this is from today's "washington

journal." chris van hollen, head of the de triple c -- dccc. let me read this headline in "the philadelphia inquirer" -- these for donations are being used buy ads against democrats. as well, this allegation that there is no proof that foreign donors have been part of influencing this campaign. moveon.og put out and against mark kirk. do you think this ia good idea, what the white house is

saying about the chamber? guest: there are a number of issues here. first of all, we should agree that these gros should disclose to their donors are. there was a piece of legislation called the disclose act. the chamber bitterly opposed it. it stood for the proposition of that said people who are trying to influence campaigns, the voters have a right to know who is donating to a campaign. you should have nothing to fear telling voters who is behind these ads. with respect to the chamber, a couple of issues. they receive in their general fund conibutions from foreign entities. if they can isolate and segregate those funds, then they can run these ads with those dollars, and that is legal. the point the white house is making is they are all going into one general fund. you can use that money to pay

your staff, which will then free up other monies to pay for this. host: so you are not concerned at the white house is goi too far with this? guest: no, it is important to remember the chamber bitterly opposed the idea that they would have to disclose any of their donors. let me just say, the disclose acwas supported by some of the very partisan groups, the league of women voters, common cause, which has been for fair campaign finance reform, democracy 21. these are nonpartisan groups who stand up for the public interest. we believe it is inhe public's interest to know who is spending all this money, because they are spending it for a purpose. this is not charity. these groups are trying to buy a congress that serves their interests. in addition to the disclose act, the chamber opposed our

legislation to remove the subsidy is that reward multinational corporations that outsource arican jobs. that may have been a good subsidy for multinational corporations, but not for american taxpayers, american workers, the vast majority of american businesses. host: let's stick with this allegation. ed gillespie writes this morning in "the washington post" op-ed pages -- is this just a matter of

republican beating you at the game when it comes to some money? guest: no, and everyone should know that he is the former chairman of the republican national committee. he has been raising money for some of these groups that are spending lots of money here. the fact is, the monies that were spent in 2008, a vast majority of that was disclosed. they were disclosed under the rules we chose to operate under. what we are talking about here is a massive amounts of secret money. i think all groups should disclose, left, right, or metal. that is the fundamental issue. -- o middle. it should apply across the board. we should remember, this chamber opposed the disclose pact because they did not want

voters to know who was funding these things. if you are a boater, looking at a tv ad -- let us say it is speaking against health care reform -- if it is funded by health insurance companies, you will have a certain impression. host: in this article, it says that you tried to jam through this bill, but you carefully adjusted the labor threshold's to benefit labor unions. guest: that is false. if you look at the bill, the same rules apply across the board. labor unions would have to comply, and they should, and will comply once the bill is signed. once again, he tries to portray this as a partisan thing.

i uld ask fair minded people, is the league of women vots a partisan organization? common cause? i he supported disclosure in all forms in the past. i believe it is intriguein the t of voters to have that informatn. ironically, the position the republicans have taken to campaign finance reform is, they do n like any limits on what people can give, but they have already it -- always said, let's disclosed. let's disclose. maybe they can present a bill. that is the question here. there is this very toxic nexus betweethe interests that are running these ads, special

interests that have been fighting an agenda that, for example, would have stopped the outsourcing of american jobs, begin to rein in wall street. these companies have been hurt in the past due months, and now they are spending millions of dollars to try to elect republican candidates who will serve their interest, at the expense of everyone else. host: inside the newspaper this morning -- inside the "the new york times" -- can democrats win the races? guest: yes, they can, and it is a good question in the context

of the conversation we are having. what is happening in these races are, these groups wita nice sounding names, all these groups are parachuting in and unloading millions of dollars of secret money into these elections. they do not have the interest of the community at heart, i can assure you that. their focus is trying to get elected people who will support their agenda. the more we find out about these donors, the more it is clear, an agenda that supports big wall street banks, mortgage companies, oil companies. host: can we expect more money from theccc to be coming in in the next couple of weeks? guest: we will be helping anyone

that need support. host: there was a guest -- there was a story yesterday in "the new york times" about mary kilroy looking vulnerable. will you put more money into this race? guest: we have already invested a lot of money into that race. we have a full bore effort there. we have been supporting her fully. every day, she is getting more money through the state coordinated effort, which is ongoing. host: first phone call for mr. van hollen. larry on the independent line. caller: your guest keeps talking about people putting money into the elections, but i do not hear him complaining about the union's donating to the democratic party.

guest: as i was saying, i believe the principle of disclosure should apply across the board, regardless of what organization you are talking about. when the unions, indiduals, or anyone else into bits to candidates, campaigns, number one, there are limits on what they can contribute. and it is totally transparent and disclosed. what we are talking about here are these groups who are secretly funding all sorts of campaigns. they go into a particular district and spend millions of dollars without telling the voters who they are. i would agree with you entirely, whether it is a unit organization, one of these other groups, they should disclose. the fact is, you have millions

of specialnterest money going into support republican candidates. what we are saying is, you can spend the ney. and that is not the argument. but for goodness sakes, tell the voters who you are. why won't you tell them who is funding these republican candidates? host: don in minnesota -- sarasota, florida. caller: is a delight to get through. it is a delight to speak to this gentleman. i have seen him on some talk shows and he is heading of the campaign. i think what i have to say is the essence of the president's, democrat's problem. this president, and his team specifically, the dnc, in

general, have failed miserably, in my opinion, to communicate what ty have done, but their agenda has been, what it will be coming in clear and simple terms. nobody out here understands what is in the health care bill, and there are some very positive accomplishments in there for american citizens. while the stimulus was helpful, you have allowed the republicans -- as a john kerry allowed himself to be swift voted -- you have allowed the republicans to frame the argument and defined. this happened last yeawhen the public thought that there were death panels. guest: obviously, there are different views on how to best communicate a message. i think what the president is

doing now is right. drawing a clear choices that people face in the ection. as he said, the choice is simple. do you want to continue with the progress we are making on the economy, recognizing the day that the president was sworn in and we are losing 700,000 jobs a month? we have now seen nine consecutive months of positive job growth. are we where we want to be? of course not. no one is satisfied with pace, but why would we want to go back to a set of policies that serve special interest at the expense of everyone else, and drove the economy into a ditch? i agree, when it comes to things like health care reform, we need to focus on the specific, positive elements of the bill. a lot of it has been lost in the discussion.

for example, as a result of t bill, today, children with diabetes, other pre-existing conditions, can no longer be discriminated against by their insurance company because of that condition. today, people can no longer be kicked off of their insurance policies after they have been paying their premiums month after month when they need it the most. i agree, we need to do a better job getting that message out. wall street reform, as the president made clear -- president bush and secretary paulson put into place the t.a.r.p. program. we ended the program. we also made it clear that taxpayers would not be left holding the bag for reckless gambling on wall street. the american consumer should not

be held hostage to bad decisions made on wall street. we have closed many of the loopholes that awarded multinational corporations to ship jobs outside of the country. on a focused very hard make it in america agenda, where we invest at home in a clean energy, infrastructure, so that we can build things here. the president has also pointed out, what the republicans have proposed, is nothing more than a rehash of the policies that favor the special interest. they have a provision that would d $700 billion to our deficit, put it on our credit card, to be paid for by everyone else. it would put us further into debt with countries like china.

that is wrong. we know it did not help produce jobs. after the eight years of the bush administration, we actually lost millions of jobs. i think the president is framing the choice clearly. before you rush out to the poll, stop, take a close look at what the democratic and it stands for, and what the republican candidate stands for, and make that choice. host: "the wall street journal" this morning has a sidebar story -- the dccc had not given as much money to that race, not because of a lack of a doozy of for her, but this is a tight race.

if you were to give her more money, would that put her over the top? guest: first of all, stephanie has been a wonderful governor for the people of north dakota. she had done a wonderful job contrasting the issues between her and her opponent. she is in a strong position now. the dccc has supported the campaign and is continuing. host: but if you gave her more money -- guest: we think she is in good shape. she continues to receive resources from day dccc. host: next phone call. go ahe. caller: i work in asia about nine months a year. i hear these guys talking about wanting china to allow t renminbi toppreciate.

basically, we are saying, we do not want to pay $5 for a product, we want to pay you $10. the products that we buy from china today we cannot make in this country. those jobs are never coming back. nixon, kissinger, when they opened up china, they knew that we could not keep on polluting our country making those products. the great lakes were on fire. we could not keep destroying our country. those jobs will never come back. when i hear this, it upsets me because i know that i am paying more for those products. what we need to do is find out what china needs, and that is food. guest: of course, we should export more chinese goods to china. and as you know, they have a lot of barriers to fair trade.

one of the things we are focused on is creating an equal playing field for american manufacturers and businesses. i think it is clear, when the chinese manipulate their currency, it puts american products at a competitive disadvantage coming here in the u.s. and in export markets around the world. i think you now see the international community coming together in consensus, that what the chinese have done is diorting the international marketplace. all we are asking for is an even playing field, a fair shake, for american workers and jobs. when china manipulates its currency, it makes it more difficult for us to compete. the united states can compete with anybody, always has, always will, if you have a fair and even playing field.

but distorting currency, by definition, tilt's that field against american workers. that is why we pushed legislation through the house to try to correct that issue. we were disappointed republican leadership opposed our efforts to oppose - create that playing field. host: texas. julianne on the independent line. caller: i was calling in to talk about disclosing this foreign money for collections. how can this president say that, when he will not even disclose his own birth certificate, showing he is a u.s. citizen? he will not do that. as far as republicans, sending all them jobs overseas, this democratic party wants illegals to come over here to work cheaper. that is all there is to it.

guest: with all due respect, sir, that is nonsense. this president has reinforced border security. in fact, in the last few months, congress passed legislation to increase our resources for boer security. the president supported that bill, encouraged that bill, and signed that bill. you're questioning the president's birth in the united states is just an indication that there are some individuals that can not face reality. it is unfortunate thain this country we are having that kind of debate when we have so many issues at stake. host: shelbyville, indiana. mary. independent line. caller: my husband and i have a small business. i wantou to know that this

president's policies, y'all's policies have all of our customers completely frozen. they are not expanding, they are not buying our product. the president of the united states calls the u.s. bankers fat cats. this administration promotes the worst business policies that i have ever seen in my life. guest: the fact of the matter is, in the last 20 months, this administration, congress, has enacted a whole series of tax cuts for small businesses. small businesses have much lower tax liability today than they did 20 months ago as a result of this series of these actions. we also just past the small business lending and the jobs bill.

that legislation provided additional resources to community banks, with a caveat, the direction that they have to get that money out the door for small businesses that are creditworthy. that bill was held up for months and months in the senate. republicans blocked it until one republican, a retired member of the senate, said, let's stop playing politics with this legislation and get it passed. and as a result, a few weeks ago, the president signed legislation that would increase access to credit for small businesses, and which provides more incentives for small businesses to invest. under the bill, those who invest in the next 18 months will get a signifant write-off in terms of their capital gains.

the president has taken a number of important measures to try to get small businesses back on their feet, make sure they have the support they need to support the jobs we need in this economy. host: a democrat of oregon, a longtime member of the hill, said in an interview that he may vote for someone other than nancy pelosi for speaker if the party keeps a narrow majority in the house. he said, any time you suffer losses in politics, you need to step back and ask, do we need to make any changes? should democrats do what others are doinin politics, others in business, look at who their leader is? guest: the elections take place three weeks from today. we will be talking tthe american people about the issues they care about, discussing the

main issues between the democratic and republican candidates. the democratic caucus is a big tent. we have a diverse set of views. in fact, that is something that distinguishes ourselves from the republican party, who has a very narrow band of ideological purity. that is why you see what that is happening in delaware. we have a diversity of the views, but there is a lot more th unites us than separates us. one thing that unites as is focusing on making sure that everyone in the country has an opportunity to succeed. that is why we want an even playing field in terms of chinese currencies. with wall street, we do not believe workers across the country should be held hostage to bad decisions.

the president has not said the bankers are fat cats. what he said are there are some major banks on wall street, insurance companies, like a.i.g., that made terrible and reckless decisions, but because they were so large, everyone else was hit by the fallout of their collapse. we are not going to allow that to happen again. we are not going to allow those institutions to blow up a big bubble that profited them, and then the burst hurting everyone else. those are the kinds of issues that have united the democrats. that is why you see these special interests fighting back because they do not like the steps of the steps that we have taken back to phone calls, paul in -- host: back to phone calls,

paul in cleveland. caller: 1 caller has said that they do not explain what the democraticarty does for people like me. i'm 75 years old and a retiree. this is the first year that i did not have to pay federal income tax. i am on the board which is listed as poverty wages. 31,000 per year -- $31,000 per year, my wife and i live off of that. and this is the first democrat that we have had in ohio for a long time. he has lowered our senior citizens real-estate taxes 25%. if you pple should he people like us standing by you and explain to the public what you have done. bear with me -- host: i think we got your point.

so that we can get some more voices in your, we will move on. thanks. guest: i think your caller raises a good point to and there's a lot of misinformation out there. one of them deals with the fact of taxes. taxes have been reduced since this president has been in office, on small businesses and on individuals. in fact, about one-third of the recovery bill was providing tax relief to 95% of working americans. we have had a series of small business tax cuts. what republicans are proposing is to hold a tax relief for 98% of american people hostage until they canet tax breaks for the to 2%, even though that will add $700 billion to the deficit. it is interesting that one of the callers prada up spaull

businesses. we shoul not hurt small businesses. we need to support small businesses. only 2% of small businesses would be affected by the proposal. when you look at that definition, it turns out that the republican definition of small businesseincludes a bid to -- big washington firms, hedge funds. that, at the end of the day, is who they are trying to help, as opposed to our tax measures, which are trying to help middle- class americans. host: how you respond to the washington journal editorial this morning saying that defense spending rose by 4.7% to 600 xting $6 billion -- $687

billion. guest: what y have are two things going on. number one, you have the recovery bill, which still helping generate economic activity. and if you were to cancel the recovery bill right now, as some have proposed, you would immediately cancel about 60,000 contracts and awards. i want to be clear, this is money heading to small busisses, having to economic development recovery efforts around the country. if you want a sure-fire way to get people out of work, if you cancel those contracts.

if you want to send uncertainty as the message to the economy, that does -- that is what you do. the other thing is the unemployment compensation. the fact of the matter is, this is for people out of work. it makes no sense to someone who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and can no longer make their rent payment that we are going to just say, see you later. that is not just that individual -- bad for that individual and the economy, it is bad for their landlord if they cannot get their rent and it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. yes, we believe that people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are continuing to look for employment, which is a requirement of unemployment compensation, should continue -- to receive that. it has been suggested that people on unemployment, that they like it. that is insulting host: - that

is insulting. host: but that does not argue with the fact that total spending is up in the last couple of years. guest: the big things are small social security and medicare. -- our social security and medicare. we have begun to curb the curve when it comes to health care spending. which is why the congressional budget office has -- the congressional health care office has an act of a plan that would reduce spending in the next couple of years because we do need to get a handle on those costs. that is also why we have enacted the pay-as-you-go legislation. it says the government has to do what families have to do. you have to increase the -- increased income or cut spending elsewhere.

it is unfortunate that our republican colleagues opposed it. it was in place during the clinton years and helped to put the brakes on spending, which is y when clinton left office w had a huge projected surplus in this country. finally, the president has set up the deficit reduction -- the deficit and debt reduction commission, which i would point out is a piece o bipartisan legislation that had been supported by republicans and mocrats. of course, when it came to vote on it, a number of republin senators who have theirames on the bill voted against it, which means the psident had to create the commission as a matter of executive order, rather than a matter of law. host: next call, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. van hollen, did you pass bills that were never read and

did mantecaocy not to say that we have to pass this to see what is in it --nded nancy pelosi not sa that we have to pass this to see what is in it? host: that has been pointed out quite frequently. guest: we have to read the legislation to vote on the legislation. much has been made of this in the context of the health care reform bill. the health care reform bill has -- was considered for a long time -- as you know, we had a big debate in this country. members of congress read the bill, and they should read the bill. this notion that someh republicans want to read the bill and democrats don't is just on its face ridiculous. everybody needs to familiarize emselves with what is in the bill. do theiromework -- that is the responsibility of a member of congress before he or she votes on these measures.

the fact of the matter is, there has been a lot more transparency with regard to the process over the last 20 months than before. and we can talk about many of the reform measures that were taken, including on things like your marks where it looks like -- like earmarks where it looks like republicans were born to do a lot to change the earmark process, but now it is nowhere to be found in their so-called pledge. because it is pretty clear from the last time they are in charge, there's a lot of pressure from their members to go back to that. we made significant reforms to that process, reduced dramatically the spending through that process. it appears that they want to unleash it again. host: margaret inlorida,

independent line. llo. caller: i do agree about the disclosure of donations, but what i'm more concerned abouts the electronic voting machines. i'm referring to an editorial in a local newspaper a few months back. it brought to light the recent merger of ef &f, the dominant voting machine provider. it raises alarm when one country -- one company has so much control over the equipment for the demoatic process. senator schuler has called for a review of the merger. i do not like one company making the voting machines. it opens everything up to fraud. i'm wondering what has been done

about this. guest: thank you for your question. you are right, we need to protect the integrity of the voting process. everyby has a stake in this, regardless of their political persuasion. we need to do >> we are leaving "washington journal" to take you to the white house for the press briefing. [laughter] >> how much pressure were you getting from the region over the decision for the moratorium the? >> this was part of a natural security process.

secretary ken salazar has been down in the region posting public meetings, talking with stakeholders in the industry to ensure that we came up with the rights of the rules -- right set of rules and the right safety mechanisms to ensure that something that will obviously always carry risk has within it a containment strategy that works for the american people. this was part of the delivered to of process that frankly just got done more quickly the and the original timeline. >> did the white house reach out to mary landrieu? >> through the normal course their regard to do their congressional notifications. i saw something that said she was not dropping her hold on jack.

our feeling on this is, his nomination is not in any way connected to, and should not be coming to any facet of the moratorium. jack did not have anything to do with issuing the moratorium, and does not currently. we passed two senate committees with only one dissenting vote. the budget director at a time of economic concern, and concern about our long-term fiscal picture -- is someone you need at work. we have said from the beginning that the whole was unwarranted and outrageous. as we work through the normal course of a policy that ensures that oil drilling is done safely, certainly that senator

would judge jack on the merits of being a budget director, not of playing politics and on issues that are ancillary to what he does. >> can you give us any insight into how the decision was made for specific candidates that you announced earlier at? >> let me see if there is any information from legislative affairs. some places we're going in order to raise money, some places for different activities as the past weekend in philadelphia, to the young people in the madison, wisconsin. just where candidates and the team here feel like the president can be most useful. >> is there any place he has

decided not to go to? >> not that i am aware of. >> this morning you said the president issued a national moratorium and you said he wants to make the necessary steps -- could you say specifically what actions? >> give me one minute. i thought i had my list of the different agencies and what they were doing. >> environment groups are saying that this is pure politics. is there no political dimension to this? currying favor with voters in the gulf states? no? >> i'm not entirely sure anyone -- i don't see how anyone could make that equation. this was a very deliberative policy process, and it puts into

place, again, some important safety steps to ensure that when this is down again and is done safely. an operator must certify that their meeting the requirements of insuring that the worst case scenario -- that they have the ability to address the worst- case scenario. we are asking cbo to sign off on the process. i think it is a series of common sense things. we must ensure that they are in place. politics in the region, and outside of the region -- none of that has played, played a role in the president's instituting a moratorium. none of it has played a role in the policy process that it has gone on to devise, away out of the moratorium. the president wanted to put it

into place a moratorium that paused deepwater drilling while we figure out what had happened and what needed to be in place. but there are other reports that will come out of the deepwater horizon spill. there is still an engineer report. the oil commission is obviously looking at this. there certainly will be opportunities for, as that moves forward, for the parliament here to examine the evidence that comes back from the engineers at the oil commission and update the process as we go. this is a process that starts the permitting process again. somebody can drill only when they satisfy the government that they have a process in place to do with the worst case scenario. until that time, during cannot happen. fha has launched a review of services to examine full

compliance with the law. other agencies are working together in close communications on the best ways to protect consumers. the officer of the comptroller of the currency, which has supervisory authority of the biggest mortgage services like wells fargo and bank of america are reviewing, reviewing the process by which the nation's largest servicers undertake their foreclosure process. there are other things like fha, fhfa, which receive fannie and freddie -- all of that is to say -- which oversee them, all that is to say as we said this morning that there is a process that must be followed, a legal process. if that is not being followed by anyone along the way, then that can and should be rectified.

we also have pointed out though that the idea of a national moratorium would impact the recovery in the housing sector as anyone that wished to enter into a contract or execute a contract to purchase a home that had previously been foreclosed on, that process stopped. that means houses and neighborhoods remained and the even if there are buyers ready, willing, and able to do so. we want to protect consumers. we support what state attorneys generals are doing in looking into the mortgage process, to ensure that consumers are protected. >> i was wondering first of all if you had any reaction to the federal judge, that injection to don't ask, don't tell.

>> the department of justice will examine the briefing. >> this is the 10th anniversary of the bombing. the president after becoming president -- as you got your house in order concerning the detainees at guantanamo bay. since then the pentagon prosecutors have been eager to go forward and have been stopped by the inter-agency process. can you give us any update as to what is next and when a trial will go for? >> one of the most imported parts of the process as you well know, and i think you touched upon it, was working with a bipartisan coalition in the congress to review and reform the military commission system. to ensure that that process

would and could be used to bring terrorist suspects to justice. the attorney general referred five cases, including the one you mentioned to the department of defense. as you said, there is then entered-agency process that is being worked through, and certainly our hope is now that we have a reform commission system, that it is a process that can start soon. >> is there any light on what the holdup is? their families grieving today the 10th anniversary of the bombing. they desire information. the don't have an update on timing. obviously, dod and doj are working through this.

our point of view is someone who did harm to american servicemen 10 years ago will be and should be brought to justice. that was our goal in reforming the military commission system. i believe in this case that we will see justice done. >> lastly, many of us here have covered the president's campaign, and now this what has. many times you are subject to accusations that are baseless and grounded in no more than well, it could be true -- make them prove it is not true. that seems to be the argument that you are making towards the shame chamber of commerce --the you think there should be a higher bart then it could be true?

>> go back and look at what the president has said directly on this. >> right, but the suggestion that it could be true -- they should open their books. >> as we covered in this morning's briefly -- and i get asked questions and others around town did ask questions about people who donate to the campaigns you mentioned you who haveecause people give given in excess of $200 are required to report who they are and who they work for. simple disclosure. because the chamber has said they take money from overseas, we know that they're spending between $75 million and $80 million on ad campaigns with anonymous donors, they know the identities, but the american people do not. the best way to clear any of this up would be to simply

disclose the names of those donors. that goes for groups on any side of the political spectrum. in the case of this election, there are outside groups on the republican side that are largely supplanting the role of the national party. certainly to the extent to which they are participating as an active entity in this election. no one knows where that money is coming from. this is an important election. those groups owe it to the american people to tell us who they are. to describe, based on the identity, with their agenda is. why are they so heavily involved in these races? it seems like a simple thing to do. the president talked about this earlier at the state of the

union, and we tried to get a law passed that would require that they be disclosed. >> what additional sectors have been brought in to carry out some of these new reforms to make sure the oil companies are abiding by the guidelines? the answer was no, the numbers have not been increased since after the accident. how can the american people be assured that these inspections will be able to be carried out when you don't have the personnel? >> let me go back and see what doi was referring to in terms of additional inspections that meet the law. in this process, applications for reprinting of exploratory deep water wells will be examined and reviewed, and

permits issued based on their ability to meet the requirements of a worst-case scenario. >> would be following up to make sure they are abiding by the guidelines? >> i need to get more information. also, asked the department of interior, if you would. what is crucial in this process -- and this would be to the signature of the chief executive officer of the operating company that they certify that they do indeed have the resources readily available to respond to the worst-case scenario. that is what would now be in place in order to continue a deepwater drilling project that is under way in the gulf of mexico. >> the first lady is on the campaign trail. what do hope to accomplish? >> i think that she is an

invaluable asset to this white house. as she told during the 2008 election, she has a story to tell about herself and her family. i think she will tell that story and what the administration and some of these candidates have been able to do to help families that they represent. i think that she will be commission will go out and have a very affirmative case for coming out and participating in this very important election. she is an invaluable asset. my guess is we will get a good response out there on the campaign trail. >> [inaudible] any risk at all? >> you will see her making a very positive case for these

candidates, not getting involved in the back and forth. >> at the gaggle you suggested the reason the president did not bring up the chamber of commerce is he was giving an abbreviated version of his usual address at fund-raisers, but are you suggesting is not backing off this at all? when he holds fund-raisers on friday, and again on saturday in columbus, are you telling us a will be a major part of his address is? >> it definitely will become absolutely. there is no reason to back off asking for the disclosures. >> from organizations and newspaper editorials, many people say -- >> the list of donors that is being protected and whose identities are being protected? if there are organizations

raising tens of millions who will not tell us there donors, my guess is they have a reason -- because they have something to hide. yet they spend, they supplant an entire national political party, spend tens of millions of dollars in the end probably hundreds of millions of dollars without knowing who they are, what their agenda is, or who they represent. that is not good for our democracy. >> [inaudible] >> in this case it was very much to try to take a similar example far out of what the discussion point is in order to distract you all away from asking for the donor list. >> and in other cases is this something with a broader application? [laughter]

>> again, the question was -- how come this think tank will not disclose its donors? look, that might be an interesting debate to have, but it is not the debate that we are having about the fact that there are tens of millions of dollars on tv for and against certain candidates. . .

>> do these foreign affiliates account to .2% of the 40-plus million dollars, $50 million, $l million spent on political endeavors this year? >> have you seen their list of donors? >> i have not. is the bigger problem the legal use of money from domestic donors that may have an agenda?

i mean, do you seriously think that there's a possibility of illegal use of foreign funds? >> no. i think the identity -- i think that -- i think that a small number of people might write tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in checks to fund in bank roll, of campaign or series of campaign ads in order to defeat certain candidates. whether it's not a political ideology, it's what business -- what regulation are they trying to impact by getting involved in certain senate races? what's their legislative agenda in easier to answer if we knew who we were talking about. >> but that's not illegal. if they're foreign it's illegal

but if it's domestic it's not illegal. >> the important thing is disclosure. the biggest point is knowing what's out there. the biggest point is who's involved. that's what the president mention again at the state of the union many, many months ago. and there was a bill to do justice because the president warned that -- warned pretty clearly what might happen if those identities were shielded from the american people. >> to follow up on the bill that you just brought up. democrats on capitol hill mishandle that bill, did they cut too many bills, the exception for the n.r.a.? >> the biggest problem was 99% of republicans voted against that bill. >> well, they voted against the bill because too many deals

were cut. >> it should have been a simple deal. >> could this bill have been simplified? >> it should be, who are your donors enough, straightforward. >> when people filibuster the bill because people don't want you to know who their donors are i think it's pretty simple. there's a campaign put together to gather tens of and hundreds of dollars to affect an election with the promise that your identity would never be known. that's pretty simple. that's what's gotten all that money rolling in to tv stations. >> when was the last time the president talked to the chilean president? >> the chilean president? >> about the miners? >> i don't know. i will check.

not in my recent memory have i seen anything. >> second, is the -- on the drilling moratorium, by lifting this moratorium, do you feel like you get a better sense of what caused the deepwater horizon explosion, that this was a uniquely b.p. situation? is that sort of how people should interpret it? >> i think a couple different ways which is why i mentioned, i think to dan's question, there's still an outstanding commission and engineering report that may very well, depending on its findings, impact the process which is important. but we know that -- again, we know there's inherent risks in doing this at all. that we understand. but the belief of the secretary and i think rightly so is that each operator has to certify

what the worst case scenario is and they have the ability to meet that scenario. it's a very commonsense way of looking at how we go about this process. and one that -- one that we think, based on the quality of permit applications, can be met by operators. >> it would be industry as a whole does have a handle on how to keep it safe? >> i think that they understand now far better what has to be in place and what they risk if something like this gets out of hand which clearly it did in the gulf with the deepwater horizon. >> there were five tests, three done all over the country -- two big issues, basic stimulus and health care all came up in

all of them. and the result was familiar. the democratic candidate never cheerleaded the bill. but in each case the democratic candidates as well, it was ok or the health care bill was -- well, it was a good start, it was a decent compromise. do you feel like you guys need to help these democratic candidates? because none of them were saying that the recovery was a success. none of them have said this is a great piece of legislation. >> let's look at the recovery act. what we did was -- what that bill did was make sure we didn't have a systemic economic meltdown that led to a great depression. now, again, that's known.

that's not me saying that. that's not -- that's economists that it created and saved jobs, it turned our economy around. are there people that will still deny it? i'm sure. i think -- >> democrats are having trouble telling that story. >> don't think that they have trouble telling the story. we live in an environment where we're not losing 800,000 jobs a month or not losing three million jobs in six month as we were at the end of 2008, but we're climbing out of very slowly a hole that lost eight million jobs. there's going to be economic frustration. not just from the past two years but built up over american years as wages failed to go up, as hours increased, as jobs were moved overseas, as

businesses made a series of bad decisions that required the government to step in and ensure that they didn't do irreparable harm to our economy. nobody likes doing that. nobody sat in meetings here and said, boy, let's do this because this would be great and politically popular. but we know what would have happened if the financial sector would have melted down. how would the debates go in the midwest if g.m. and chrysler and the million or so people that were connected both working directly for those auto companies and the auto parts suppliers, many of which if you drive by some of those auto plants are built next to those factories, what -- where would we be if a million more people were out of work? well, you know -- look i think it's up to republicans to -- and i've seen it. i've watched them in michigan say we shouldn't have done that to help chrysler and g.m. i hope voters will take them at

their word, that many of their friends and many of their neighbors would have been out of work. without the prospect of a lot of new jobs coming to town, manufacturing has taken a beating. but, look, i understand that some things like rescuing the economy, we get that the judgment on a political timeline may not match up with i think how ultimately this will be viewed, as creating a new foundation that stimulated new industries which created the jobs of tomorrow, which prevented, as i said, a meltdown into a great depression, and, you know, we are all aware of the economic study that shows -- had some of these steps not been taken, stabilize the financial system and in the recovery act that hole that's eight million jobs deep would likely have been twice that. and that would be the great

depression that we are thankful was warded off because we didn't do necessarily what was popular but we did what was right and had to be done at the moment. [laughter] watching the braves and see the outcome. >> on the moratorium, the deep-water moratorium, there was a lot of caveats. redesigned well operators, more equipment on hand and things like that, how quickly does the president want to see these rigs back out and doing the exploration, exploratory drilling, and do you believe that these new regulations are going to chase away all the small companies and leave only the megaoil companies out there? >> on the latter point, i don't

believe it's going to chase away -- i don't believe it's going to chase away those companies. jonathan, i think we want to ensure that whoever is doing that exploratory drilling and participating in those activities has the ability to handle something if it goes catastrophically wrong. i don't think we'd ever want to permit something that we can't -- that we couldn't unwind, that we can't -- that we can't meet. in terms of how quickly -- i think director president obama and others have said -- i think director brohm and others have said it will deal with the equipment. it will not happen overnight. it will probably take several weeks to ensure that everybody feels comfortable, that we have the appropriate plans in place to ensure that we meet those worse-case scenarios. i think it's an important first step. it starts that process. it opens that process back up,

and i think it is an -- it's an important day. >> any contact, any outreach with mayor landrieu? >> i would be shocked, quite honestly, if legislative affairs didn't give senator landrieu and all those along the gulf coast a heads up on this. let me check specifically on that reaction. mark? >> robert, law doesn't require political groups to disclose their donors. how can you say that these groups owe it to the american people? they're abiding by the law. >> i think the spirit of political disclosure is -- and remember, too, that the law is just recently been struck down by the court. the notion of disclosure was struck down by the court. the notion of political donor

anonymity was established and i think many in congress believed that -- although not enough -- believed that understanding who those people are is important to the process. there are -- it is hard to understate, mark, how much they're impacting some of these elections. in some of these states there are four, five, six of these groups up at a time. >> they're just commercials. >> well, probably radio ads, tv ads. that i think most people would admit that's the way a bunch of people -- most people get the information that they're going to -- how they determine who's

going to vote. who they're going to vote for, excuse me. i think it's important when you don't know -- when you don't know who those people are, when you don't know what their agenda is, i think as the president has said, that is a threat to very fundamentally to our democracy. there are people impacting those elections with which you have no identity. >> do you think that the spirit of political openness -- the president when he does closed door fundraisers? >> well, just last night the president brought a -- >> [inaudible] >> well, here's what we know, mark, every person that gives to an entity that the president is raising money, the c.c.c., the d.n.c., obama for america in 2007 and 2008, if you give in excess of $200, and i think in our case we actually

disclosed a lower amount, but if you give in excess of $200 we know who you are -- not only we, you, the s.e.c. it's posted on the internet. who you are, who you work for, where you live. that's basic disclosure. that's how -- >> but in the spirit of openness, if he's addressing big-money donors, shouldn't that be open to coverage? >> i'll say this, mark, i think we had one or two that weren't. i'm sure you had the exact number. but it was less than five. >> it's closer to 10. >> after -- how many have we done? >> 50-something. >> ok. i'd put our openness, mark, against -- up against anybody's. it was a policy that we had during the campaign. wasn't something that we waited to institute when we got here. and we've taken as many steps as we can to ensure that when the president speaks to these groups that you know.

>> why are there different rules? why do you say, well, prior to think -- why keep the tv cameras out? >> it's not the point of keeping tv cameras out, chuck. i guess your friends are relaying what the president says quite accurately. chuck, no offense, but to take you, your producer, to take one other guy, to take a bunch of people -- >> that's why we have a pool. we have a small group of people. >> you are not a very small group of people. >> some people -- >> you can't bring in that many people into. but, chuck, let's not get -- let's not get diverted from the fact that you know exactly what the president said last night. you'll know exactly who gave. you'll know the amount they gave. you'll know their name and where they work. you'll not know any on that on these groups that sound like mom and apple pie that are running hundreds of millions of

ads that are affecting big parts of senate races, big parts of house races, big parts of gubernatorial races. there are separate laws regarding gubernatorial races. i'd be happy, mark, that the groups that have advertised on these races met the transparency standards that we have met and that federal candidates are required to meet because you'd know the identities of who gave that money. >> will you have more closed fundraisers? >> every one i think we have is -- will be open. as far as i know. and i think all the ones that we announced today, the c.c.c., the d.n.c. events, i know are open. >> delaware? >> i believe delaware is open. i will check on that when we get out of here. >> back to the oil moratorium. the interior department ruled saying that the new rules are going to have about $183 million in annual costs.

that's about $500,000. jonathan asked you -- >> tell me the figures again. >> $43 million a cost. that's about $500,000 a day. >> $5 thunder,000 a day for the 30-some exploratory -- >> jonathan talked about chasing away independents. you don't believe it will chase them away. do you know or is there any evidence? how do you know? >> i'll go back and ask and you should ask what cost benefit analysis they have. but rather the point is we're not going to permit large or small somebody that does not have the ability to certify accurately and adequately a containment strategy if the well they are drilling can't be

contained in a worst-case scenario. that wouldn't make any sense regardless of the size of the operator. that wouldn't make any sense for those communities ploong the gulf, whether they're employing people that work on -- along the gulf, whether they're employing people that work on those rigs or you have a business like the sea good industry that might be affected by an -- seafood industry that might be affected by an accident. these rules are place to ensure that the standards that are in the law are adequately met, that that can be certified and signed on -- off on by the chief executive officer. and the steps to put in place those safety requirements are taken seriously. >> do you think there's any concern that when the interior department holds the next auction for leases it will be only the exxons and the shells and the b.p.'s that will be able to afford it? and that the government will

get fewer bids at lower prices? >> i don't because i think that is obviously -- oil is a fairly known commodity with a known price. >> one other -- separate subject. senator mitchell met where biden this morning on the middle east. >> i don't have an update on that but i'll try to find one. >> any result on the impact? >> don't have an imdate on that. >> guantanamo detainees are under way. what will the administration's view be on the outcome of that trial? >> look, obviously this is an individual who is on trial for and accused of his role in deadly embassy bombings that

killed americans. and we are serious about bringing to justice those that have harmed or killed our citizens, be it the al nashiris of the world or people killing our people in embassies and bring those to justice who seek to do our citizens harm or have done them harm. >> is this a referendum on civilian courts to handle guantanamo detainees? >> i think -- look, i think this is an important trial in terms of bringing about justice. there have been -- there have been cases where suspects --

last week there was -- obviously the times square bomber was sentenced to in an article 3 court was sentenced to life in prison. so we know that -- we know that these work. we also know that we have a reformed military commission that can also bring those at guantanamo that were housed at guantanamo to justice and we'll do so. >> robert, two questions. "the los angeles times" reported that obama white house aides of the i.r.s., 831,000 dallas in back taxes, what will the president do about that? >> i was going to check on that. >> why will they take a 12-day trip to the far east beginning on november 4 instead of remaining home and the possibility of a need for a major democrat rebuilding? >> well, it's a 10-day trip

that starts the fifth. >> it's a 12-day in the print. >> i'm pretty sure -- i was in a meeting about it this morning. >> i won't disagree. >> it gets [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, sorry. ours is i guess more direct flight. the -- look, our relationship with the world, lester, is tremendously important. we can't grow our economy unless we can export our products overseas. asia is the fastest growing market in the world. >> but why not do that later so that he can if he needs rebuild the party of which he is the head? >> one, i don't think we're going to need to do that, lester. and, two, this is an important election but there's also important work to be done.

with -- in countries like korea, in japan and india, in ensuring that we have the type of relationships around the world and the type of business relationships in the world that can buy and sell the products that we make here and create jobs. jackie. >> robert, could you just spell out why you think it's a good argument to be pushing this issues of the -- whether it's disclosed or not and it's this close to the election and whether people care about the arguments? >> people care about who these people are and understand that we don't know what their agenda is. we don't know whether they're trying to elect a group of senators to roll back wall street reform. we don't know -- there's a whole lot of things we don't know. i think -- look, if you look at the time bloomberg poll today,

it was one of the most -- it was one of the most likely -- if you look at the percentages of are you more likely to support -- or less likely to support somebody who has advertising in that race on their behalf, it was a -- it was a pretty persuasive concern for voters. >> [inaudible] >> i have not seen anything in the d.n.c. polling on it that i can remember. i think people are very concerned about, again, not knowing the identities of these special interests, not knowing where they're from, not knowing what they want from government, not knowing what they want from the senators that they seek or the house members that they seek to elect. >> i want to follow on chuck's question about the stimulus. even as republicans are out campaigning and calling the past stimulus or the existing

stimulus a failure, you have a lot of nonpartisan economists and analysts who have said that it did its job. it may have been larger and in fact part of our problem right now is that the stimulus is waning. there should be some more. was that what was behind secretary lahood yesterday saying he'll push sooner rather than later in the $50 million in the transportation fund? >> first off, we met the goal of ensuring that 70% of the money from the recovery act was was spent by the end of the most recent fiscal year. we met that goal but understand that it's -- that's a lot of funding to get into an economy in a very short period of time. so there's still -- there's still some funding that continues, obviously, that has not -- that's been obligated

but -- and projects are under way though the money -- the check hasn't finally been written. the economic activity is happening. again, i think those statistics bear that we not just what we can politically bear but we got into the economy what could be gotten in the economy in as quick a period of time. and to do so without waste, fraud and abuse. in terms of infrastructure or expensing or some of the proposals that the administration continues to have, some of them are built off of existing ideas that we're in the recovery act that we'd like to see extended. infrastructure, obviously there was major investments made as part of the recovery, but we also know that a great deal of the unemployed that we're dealing with used to be in the

construction industry as the housing market has waned that have the skills that could be pus to use in infrastructure. we know -- put to use in infrastructure. we know that's a long-term economic growth and we know it puts people back to work. so all of those go into what the economic team has proposed and what the put has proposed to continue to see our economy strengthen. >> those arguments he made yesterday suggests acting sooner rather than later, but are you going to try in the lame duck congress to try to get some emergency spending or are you going to rule that out? >> i think that most of what the president's proposed is likely to be dealt with when congress comes back in january. >> and one last thing on undisclosed money. jenny thomas, the wife of supreme court justice, clarence thomas, has this group which

she accepted, as we known, contributions from unknown sources about up to $500,000. does the white house think that's an appropriate activity for the spouse of a supreme court justice? >> let me take a look at that and get back on that before i go off. carrie. >> yeah, thanks, robert. out of california, there was an un-- >> i got this question right as i came down. i saw it literally as we were walking down. so let me point you initially to d.o.j. those good guys at d.o.j., call her back. >> do you know if there's any discussion inside the white house of what kind of steps might be taken to bring the pentagon into compliance with such an injunction? >> let me check on that. i obviously -- like i said, i learned of and haven't been able to talk to as we were walking down here anybody in

the counsel's office who was able to read this more closely. obviously there have been a number of court cases that have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in this case, and the president will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair. >> you don't have any idea whether or not you're going to work with the state? >> i don't. that's one of the questions that i had as i was walking in and i got to get somebody from counsel. >> a small question left over from sunday. we've been asked of whether the president saw the streaker who was trying to win $1 million at the rally? >> whether the president saw the streaker? >> the website. look, i need the million bucks. >> don't know.

now you're going to ask me to walk in the oval office and see if he saw the streaker. i don't know the answer to the streaker question. >> what about the -- is it your view, robert, that china is softening its stance on territorial claims in south china in response to the release of the chinese fisherman? >> let me get back to you. >> you guys claimed for a while about the unsubstantiated republican rules about birth certificate. does it feel kind of good about them [inaudible] your statements with regard to the [inaudible] >> let's take the example that you -- the example that -- the example that you had of death panels. ok. that might seem -- might have seemed like a more plausible

charge if you didn't have a piece of legislation in front of you. remember, are you going to read the bill, are you going to read this section, are you going to go through this? you had the piece of legislation. so let's just van analogous political argument and that is, let's put out the names, put in the list, put it in a form. i'm sure it would stark up quite high. put out the names of the donors and let people make a judgment based on the evidence. that's the one thing you can do with health care, right? you had -- you had a piece of legislation that you could -- and -- >> we are going to leave today's white house briefing to go live now to the pentagon for a briefing on military recruiting numbers. [captioning performed by natonal captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> he's here to talk to you about this past year's recruiting and retention efforts. he is joined today by representatives of the four military services who will talk

specifically about their efforts. they are major general donald m. campbell jr. who is the commanding general of the u.s. army recruiting command. brigadier general who is commander of the air force service. commander of navy recruiting command. mr. michael f. applegate, the director of manpower plans and policies divisions, united states marine corps. dr. stanley will provide an overview and then some of the service reps will be making brief statements and then all five will be available to take your questions. and with that, dr. stanley. >> all right. thanks so much, colonel. good afternoon, everyone. i'm really happy to be here today because we have what obviously is a good news story for our -- this past year with recruiting, but i want to emphasize that although we're talking about this past year as the undersecretary of defense

for personnel and readiness, i'm looking at next year and years out. so that as we look at the data, successful, as we look at the fact that we have an all-volunteer force that has done exceptionally well, that we have really, really good sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, this is about our nation and our nation being ready. and the recruiting force is dedicated to helping them to be ready, and we have to keep our eye on the mission. i can speak now as a person who understands the recruiting mission. when i look over here at these fine outstanding citizens, as we would say, their mission is a constant because as soon as they meet the mission for the month they're now to the next mission. and so there are a lot of recruiters out there in the field, in the trenches actually making a difference. now, we've achieved some all-time highs. the past couple of years we are now marking -- looking at a time when we're actually

achieving 99% of our recruits of people coming in of high school graduates. that's significant in itself. and although we know that even where we go for high school graduates and also the fact that we have the highest rates we've had now in years in armed forces qualification tests as well as high school, those significant results in themselves speak again to the future and to our flakes. recruiting is always -- to our nation. recruiting is always going to be a challenge. it is a challenge. we have to go places sometimes where we don't necessarily have, i would say always the return on investment because recruiters are everywhere within our society. they have to go there, go to small towns, sometimes big cities, sometimes in states that may not have necessarily historical results but the bottom line is keeping that presence of the uniform, keeping the presence of what we do in the military is being very significant and very important to what we're doing. our economy has something to do with this but not everything. a lot of people would think that as we look at where we are

right now in terms of the challenges facing us, it's more to it than the economy. to a person, serving their nation, doing with honor, being patriots seems to be the recurring theme that comes up every time we look at and talk to those wearing the uniform today and we're still proud to have that and active in our reserve component and our guard. waivers, i know there have been questions in the past but i will tell you that waivers have always been and will probably continue to be a part of the overall i would say whole person concept because in a society we don't have a perfect society but there are all kinds of reasons for waivers and not to focus too much on that but just to tell you that nothing sacrifices our quality because everyone that's serving is qualified. they're qualified. our people, our men and women in uniform are the best ever. when you listen to the things they do today every day in the continental united states,

overseas, in combat, in war, in harm's way, they're serving our nation with pride and with dignity as professionals. so, again, we talk about the quality but i know you have questions. we'll get to your questions as we look at the details and specifics. i'll ask our service reps to join us at this time and we'll be open to your questions. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, the economy is a factor. you said. is there some kind of precise or very general correlation between unemployment rate at of 9.6% or whatever it is right now, if that dips down to 7% or if it dips down to 5%, do you know how your recruit poll will diminish as a result? >> well, i think primarily because what i said already, it's not precise. there are so many things in terms of the propencity to serve, that's the first thing. we have communities that have

very strong propencity to serve. there are other variables, too, not in terms of the job or employment market but you'll find other reasons to go into whether or not we are in a war. what we're doing and how we're serving and things like that. i am going to allow my experts to weigh in on that because i think they know about that on a daily basis than i do. >> yes, sir. i'm major general don campbell. i will tell you that as i look to the future, i think the one thing will remain constant. if you look at 17 to 24-year-olds, for all of our services, only about 3:10 of those young men and women will be qualified to serve. when you talk in terms of education and conduct and medical. as we look to the future that has to be factored in. as the economy turns, our business will get a little bit tougher. if we set the conditions now if the army like we're trying to do and focus on quality of life, taking care of our soldiers and our families and focusing on those tools that allow them to recruit in

difficult environments then we'll be ok. the priss be is that 3:10 will be the number we have to look at in 17 to 24-year-olds. >> just to follow-up and say that unemployment drops by 3%. do you know that your recruiting budget has to go up by 30% or is there any formula like that? >> i don't have a specific formula but my instincts tell me the business will obviously get a little bit more challenging is how you posture yourself for the future. when you look in terms of the funding that will be allocated for recruiting and retention. the number of men and women that i can put in america's streets to recruit those great young citizens is what i look for. >> yes, sir. >> you look into the future, the senate appropriations committee cut about $500 million out of recruiting and re-enlisted soldiers and the

house defense subcommittee hasn't completed their work but they took $1 billion out of personnel accounts. would that be -- do you have concerns if they cut that in your bonuses? >> well, speaking from the department of defense perspective, i'm not concerned about that right now but i will say that from a recruiting standpoint we have actually reduced some aspects of our forecast now in terms of recruiting and our recruiting budget what we forecast. but i will say that we're still required to recruit almost 300,000 men and women each year. we know that and we have to forecast and figure out where we go from there even the efficiencies that we're going through right now and the review and the secretary of defense, we are looking at how we save money in o.s.d., for example, than some of the departments that we have and then having that money past back to the services so they can accomplish their mission. so obviously we don't have a budget yet for next year. but the bottom line is that we are focused on that and still

we have to recruit because we cannot maintain an all-volunteer force if we aren't able to have the numbers of people that we have to come in. >> do you think that if you cut deeply in bonuses that would handicap you? >> well, you're talking now about bonuses. >> enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses. >> i understand. >> you've had excellent retention and good recruiting. if the economy goes up, bonuses might become more important. >> i'm going to allow the services to respond specifically but i'll address it in general that we will always have bonuses to a certain degree because there will be occupational fields, specialties that will require special incentives. we know that. because no matter where the economy is there's some folks that have opportunities no matter where they are. the quality is still there. i am going to pause there for a second because i think there's some probably expert advice coming in about two seconds. >> i don't know about the expert, dr. stanley.

i'm mike applegate, director of manpower plans. in my job it's a little bit more encompassing. we make the asession, the re-enlistment, the promotion plans. we track attrition quite a bit. this gets at your question because i worry quite a bit about recession and re-enlistment bonuses. the marine corps went from 180,000 to 02,000 and got there a couple years early. for that we received large increases to both our enlistment bonus and selective re-enlistment bonuses. we made the goals a couple years early and by the end of 2010 we've decreased our s.r.b. by 60% to 70%. s.r.b. is 70%. e.b. is roughly 50%. we've given that back. the levels we are at now are still a little bit higher pre -202 k.

recruiting and retention is a 365-day job. it's somewhat impacted by the economy but not totally. there isn't a scientific metric that if x goes down 3% budget has to go up y. but we have something tracked from history and the ups and downs in the economy since the all-volunteer force came some 30-some years ago is to what we need to put the right recruiting force on the street and recruit americans from all over the country to try to best match the face of the nation as much as possible. with the right quality and right skills and all that. so we feel we have already reduced our bonus' budgets sufficiently, taking nor account all those things. and it's the shaping we are doing right now. our recruiting command made its asession mission this year. roughly 33,000 total force. and 28,000 on the active side. but i don't look at it at the 28,000 number.

i look at the 41 individual skilled missions, the small one parachute rigors. the biggest one. up to the biggest infantry. that's where we need the bonuses. the enlistment bonus and re-en listment bonus to make sure all is right across the board. >> yes, sir. >> the secretary just gave a speech at duke that garnered a lot of attention partly because he talked about the focus on recruiting being in certain parts of the country so that in some ways the military force now is kind of distinct from the general population. are there tangible ways in which you're looking at assessing some of the concerns that the secretary made in his speech? >> absolutely. in fact, the secretary's speech at duke sort of underscores not only our success this year but as i opened up i talk about looking to the future.

we continue to focus in all areas of our nation, but we know that we have pockets. we have things that we can do bert. i think you should always try to do better. so we are now finding there are certain schools. we find in our corps. it's not as diverse as it could be or should be. not as representatives as colleges or universities. so we're focusing on that. recruiting is a constant. i'd say that geographically we continue that focus to bring in the expertise that we need. so, yes, i'd say we are doing that. that mission that goes out to the services, i'll let them talk to the specifics how they do it. fran o.s.d. standpoint we are focusing that we have a force that represents our nation. we're doing that very well in our nation. but we know we need to improve. i'd like someone to add to that. >> i'm craig, representing navy and navy recruiting command and

proud to represent our navy and men and women. we take seriously complete coverage of this country. and our recruiting stations are spread and we have requirements of our recruiters to get in all the schools and to keep contact and access. we work really closely with the other services in that endeavor because you never know where that one next great talented future leader is going to come from. certainly there are areas that are more propence than others. for us generally near the coast, the coastal cities where there's navy and navy influence, and i think other services would make similar connections. but in my own case, i grew up in western pennsylvania. the ocean was a long ways from home. not a lot of navy from there. i don't think that i see in the job and the travels i make any areas where we're moving away from and we take it all and attack it all very seriously. it's another important to make about this quality. quality is up but the quality we seek is not walk in the

door. we go and find it. i think all other services would make that same statement. thank you. >> to follow-up. with the army and the marines. the secretary specifically talked about how historically they would attack specific regions of states, even, that were easiest for them to recruit and that's where they'd invest all their money in because that's where they know they can get recruits. >> specifically army and marines? >> i was told army and marines. >> i talked a little bit about it last year. as we look at the army, my job is to make sure that the army looks like america. that we are a diverse organization that supports america. i can tell you that, like my counterpart in thed a navy, admiral fowler, we take a look at the numbers we recruit in all major ethnic categories and

make sure we look like america. and this year our numbers are within a certain percentage uncomfortable with when we talk about the terms of the quality military available. and that's 17 to 24-year-old youth that are in the united states. and we position ourselves to make sure we do that. just like the admiral, we're in high schools and colleges. and my job is to make the army more diverse. i'm very proud of our team in doing that. >> actually, could i follow on that? the secretary, i think, was talking geographically, also. he spoke specifically about the army being able to recruit very well in the southeast and the mountain west. and not ploo from new england and the far west. is there a way that you can possibly flood the area with recruiters to perhaps attract more recruits from those areas? >> we have five what we call nonprior service brigades that

recruit across the country and they are primarily in those geographic areas. let me tell you, the point is as i look at those five brigades is i mission them based on the mission i get from the department of the army. they are all doing very well against the mission and the total numbers that i look at. in terms of the mission i give each specific brigade and as we look at it from a diversity standpoint they're doing very well. >> just one closing comment -- not closing but a comment from perspective. when i say we can do things better, the secretary was setting the stage for doing things better because those areas are things that we are not doing as well. but overall, the recruiting forces are going out there recruiting but using the data, figuring out how you assess in certain areas, how you concentrate, shifting. i won't tell the services how to do that right now, but the bottom line is there are things

we can do better. yes, sir. >> talk about looking like america. how has the military changed its fitness requirements? there has been talk they have gone lax. there was the sit-up controversy. can you tell us about that and the problems -- >> i can't talk specifically to the sit-up conversey. -- controversy. that would be the deputy for military training. i tell you that every man or woman that goes not army, and this year we recruited 74,577 active duty and regular army and over 26,000 army reservists were qualified to come in the army physical and educational -- physically and educationally. when it comes to the standard think meet through the processing site, and they get to initial military training, they met the standard that i'm required to get them to.

>> has that changed, general? >> no, sir. no, sir. not for me. >> when you look at these charts and you look at the propencity service studies and these sort of metrics, you can see that the recruiting community is coming out of a very difficult few years back in 2006, 2007, maybe a little bit in 2008. can you point to anything as you come out of that for a variety of reasons? is there any lessons learned, anything that you all look back on in those couple years that might help you prepare for inevitably when others come in? >> well, i'm the commander of the air force recruiting service. these are the things that the services are thinking about whether we're positioned right and it's not an exact science,

as many of my colleagues mentioned to you. first, the importance of presence of our commuting networks and communities, i think we've alluded to it. community is are very important human endeavor. it's important across the services . and young men and women and their influence in local communities. of course, the understanding about the services is critical. the way that the services really advertise in a national sense, who they are, what they're about and what they believe helps our recruiters kind of establish a presence in those communities. the things we're learning about are the different tools available to us and how those tools intersect with -- factors in the economy. it kind of determines our success. but i think it starts with a really exceptional recruiting force and the air force's case, it's all volunteers. and the physical presence in the community. and the second part is a really prominent and eisley understandable national marketing strategy that helps americans who don't have the

proximity to a military base, helps them understands the kinds of wonderful opportunities they have for serving our country. no secret we're all looking for the same. whether you're a company or whether you're a department of defense, we're competing for the same small pool of fierce americans. there is no bones about that as the economy improvements so we have to sharpen ourselves for that. thank you. >> sir, i'd like to ask. if you look at the chart you see the last two years have been very good and that matches with the economy, one reason. another big issue was the g.i. bill. i wonder if i could get some feedback from yourself and the other recruiting chiefs about what the new post-9/11 g.i. bill has meant to your recruiting success? >> it's meant a lot. when you think about the all-volunteer force today, we

are not talking about those in uniform. we are also talking about their family members. and to be able to give to your family some of that opportunity to go to college, to have postsecondary education, that's very significant. so i know from a general effect that that has improved. we've also been trying to create something, as you know from world war ii, where we had a generation folk of people that have benefited. now we can benefit a whole nation of youth serving. i'd let the services speak more specific. >> the pothe 9/11 g.i. bill has made a big difference in -- i say the army recruiting as i look to our noncommanding officers that is providing the strength of the army every day. in fact, i'm using it to send my daughter to school. and i use my army story when i talk to young men and women

about the opportunities to serve and the educational benefits from loan repayment to bonuses. but specifically the g.i. bill and provide advising an opportunity. i think it's had a big -- in the army from my perspective, it's helped tremendously and it's provided young men and women with another option, another great reason to serve their country. >> i'd like to add on that the post-9/11 g.i. bill is one of the most positive things that i've seen in my time in service. we're educating our force. it's a -- i talked to future sailors and make it really simple. we are giving you the honor of serving your country a full scholarship to college that you can use or you can transfer to your spouse or children. it benefits our military because i think it has helped us attract higher quality individuals. also benefits this country because the second and third order effects that we are going to see across the country in terms of more people flown into

education as a result of this generous benefit that congress has given us is going to have tremendous strategic effects for years to come. >> i certainly agree with my colleagues. i also might add that, you know, the effect to our airmen, sailors, soldiers, and marines can't be underestimated. it represents the sacrifice that their families have endured and their ability as they move across different states to serve to be able to choose an education and to be able to now then afford that education for their children is really just remarkable. i think the effect on retention is remarkable. on the air force side it's-an impact on the recruiting requirement. it's one of the broader packages that we talk to young recruits and parents and get them interested about. it's certainly compelling. most of the young americans we talked in the air force are thinking big thots. the influencers and coaches and

other important people in their lives are very interested. young americans are interested in what they're doing in the service. certainly education is continuing as we poll our airmen that we're recruiting, education is a continuing kind of powerful force on their decision. thanks. >> i can ask one follow-up on the transferability aspect of it. general campbell, you said that your daughter -- you're going to send your daughter to school. the propencity to enlist is pretty high among the sons and daughters of military folk. are we in effect that transferability shoot ourselves in the foot for future generations of the pool of recruits that they don't need that education benefit, that it can be passed down from their parents that they might have followed into service? >> i think your statement -- your statement as i've studied it is true regardless, propencity to service -- to serve. i come from a military family. my wife comes from a military

family. i haven't seen it. it's probably too little to do an in depth study. i believe it is -- all my colleagues have said, it offers a wonderful opportunity for young men and women to give them another choice and another option as they look down the road. whether they stay for three or in my case 3 years -- 32 years. it's something they are looking for. in the army we almost had 15,000 young men and women enlist out of those 90,000-some that had a semester of college or more. and now they have an opportunity to continue with education or if they already have a degree provide that -- those benefits to their spouse or to their children like i'm doing. >> the propencity to enlist is going up, the rate is going up, and do you anticipate that surviving perhaps an economic -- >> well, we obviously -- as my colleagues said, will talk up from an advertising and marketing standpoint, the post-9/11 g.i. bill. i think it's been a wonderful

tool and incentive as we talk to young and women about education. most of the young men and women want to come in the army. whether they stay in on not, they want to work on an education. they want to get an associates. they may want to get a bachelors, a masters or pursue a ph.d. it just affords them an opportunity or their family members and it's a great tool. .

we spend a great deal of time talking to those that influence young people. this has had a great benefit. we have had rewards in virtually every one of our battalions. i believe that every board as we connect with america allows us to gain access to schools and communities and show that we are part of the fabric of that community. it makes for the ability for these young men and women to be able to understand what we are doing and they can go to the meetings and understand the educational benefits.

there are lots of opportunities and there has been a benefit to the coordinating with those who have influence. >> if you get access to the high schools and the records that you need, is the real benefit to that? >> overall, it is pretty good. we do run into pockets here and there, individual i schools. -- high schools. this is something that we constantly work on try to improve >> how many waivers have

been scaled back? do you plan on scaling them back? >> what do you mean in terms of scale back? >> well, do away with. part of the reason why the age was raised to 35 to be able to bring in a bigger pool and an effort to get more applicants. do you think that you don't need that anymore and because you are getting this focus? >> first of all, i would not say

that we have always suffered. there has always been a little bit more of a challenge. as i look at the future and the economy and the way our forces postured and the gains that we have made in terms of quality of life and with army recruiting. from a policy perspective, this would not be appropriate for me to comment. the army will decide based on information that i give them if we need to change the age limit for waivers -- or waivers. the quality of the force, 99% high school degree. less than half of a percent of army reserve. we were working on a mission of

67 and looking towards the future, i don't think that we will change the standards. we just have to be postured for the time when it gets a little bit more tough to make sure we have the right numbers and resources. i am well resources to an army recruiting to do my job. similarly, i have enough manpower and i will have enough for the foreseeable future. >> we want to thank you very much. we also want to thank our recruiters to have done a phenomenal job of serving our nation. they represent not just individual services but our entire nation. thank you for your time today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the associated press is reporting that a federal judge

in california has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the don't ask, don't tell policy. the u.s. district judge's ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what president obama and washington politics could not. the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told israeli lawmakers that he would consider extending the freeze on west bank settlement construction if the palestinian leadership recognized israel at a jewish state. the opposition leader criticized the prime minister for his lack of leadership and blamed him for weakening israel's reputation in the world. this is about 45 minutes.

>> mr. president, members of the supreme court, servants and ministers of the government, members of the knesset, it is and not by coincidence -- it is not by coincidence that on the wall of the knesset, there is a portrait of bill --

and he said that the jewish state would have their own land. i mentioned this in the meetings and these are part of our history. i would like to mention these here in the knesset. in 1947, 50 years after -- and the eve of the establishment of the state, it was written in a diary that "the state that would be established it would be jewish in its designation and designation and a state for the jewish people. in 1992, in the basic law of human beings, this basic law

intends to protect human rights in order to protect the values of the state of israel as a jewish and a democratic state. knesset members, the state of israel is the national state of the jewish people and also the country of all of its citizens, both jews and non juice alike -- non jews alike enjoy full freedoms. there is not another country that keeps and protect the minority as the israeli democracy does. the zionist movement established an exemplary democracy and an exemplary national state that balances the need of our people

and to the individual rights of each of its citizens. there is no other democracy in the middle east and no other jewish state in the world. this expresses the basis of our existence and the essence of this state of israel. i will return to this point later. knesset members, in the winter session of the knesset, we will continue to deal with the problems of the state of israel. we intend to pass a by annual budget to return to the economy to stability. this budget --

we are continuing to pave roads to the north and to the south. you all drives in the roads and you can all see all of the work that is done to connect the north and south and 80 ease the traffic jams in the center of the country. -- and to ease the traffic jams in the center of the country. we are starting to implement the reform in the land in which thousands of families can move from leasing to owning their apartments. we will continue to reform

construction legislation to ease the bureaucracy that delays the supply of the land and which gives incentive to corruption. they are planning great work in transportation and this will increase our gdp. the significance is that we will have the resources for our national needs that interest the members of the knesset, especially the need for security and education. we are starting a program to improve higher education in israel that cries for resources. within six years, we will add to higher education, 7.5 million shekels.

already this year, we will start to establish four centers of excellence. this year, we will start to four centers of excellence out of the 30 centers that we will establish in the coming year. in the centers, and we will have the best from israel and throughout the world. we are trying to cultivate brainpower in the areas of the future. especially in four areas that we decided to focus upon -- to find

alternatives to gasoline, the world of computers, the research of the brain, we are trying to reform the elementary education for the 21st century. in the coming two years, we will introduce computer systems to the elementary schools in the north and in the south and the investment of 420 million shekels. we are educating for excellence and environmentalism. we are trying to work on historical sites in jerusalem and in tel aviv.

also in the place where many great poets are buried and in the hall where the declaration of independence was declared. i will be in those places in the coming weeks and all the children of israel should visited these sites. knowing our past is the key for our future. we also have to handle the problems of the present. in the winter session, we will start to prevent infiltration of illegal workers, something that threatens the character of the state of israel. this is an essential step in order to prevent the infiltration of the country.

in the coming months, we will start a program to advance law and order throughout the country, especially in the town of -- last week i visited there. i heard jewish and arab citizens begging for protection from the crime families and violence. they want to send their children without fear to school. they want to go out in the evenings without fear and they are right.

any citizen of israel whether they are jewish or not deserve to enjoy security. we have already decided to return this town into a town without violence. we have done the same thing before. the vandalism was reduced by 50% in this case. we will start to invest in infrastructure and the non- jewish sector and we will add another 250 million shekels as an investment to create higher education for the non-jewish sector. we are making changes in the economy in terms of the structure and internal security. we are continuing all of the time and we will continue in our efforts to return are kidnapped

soldier to his family. from here, i will move to the political and reno. from the first day of my government, i asked the palestinian leaders to come to direct talks without prior conditions. -- from here, i will move to the political arena. i said that we wanted to a palestinian state and we will live side by side in peace. recognizing the palestinian state will bring peace but if it will be done irresponsibly -- i am asking you not to disturb. this is his time and then you can talk. >> you will not determine what

the prime minister will say. knesset member, i asked you not to disturb. buwe have no place for argument. ladies and gentlemen, i am asking -- knesset member, now the prime minister is talking. i'm calling you for order. knesset member, i am calling you for order a second time. i cannot conducted this like that.

>> under the right conditions, the establishment it could be done irresponsibly. this could increase the conflict and terror. for it to bring peace and not war, it must be based on two components -- recognition. as far as recognition, this is not an insistence. this is the source of the conflict and this is for 100 years, the palestinians are educating many generations that there is no jewish nation and this is their only land. their refusal to recognize the

rights of the jewish people and it is historical connection -- and its historical connection. without this, there will be no end to the conflict. as far as security, any security arrangements must be based on steadfast settlements in the area. we left gaza without such arrangements and there was thousands of -- in galilee and in the south. i am not satisfied with the sun paper alone. 1701 security council

resolution, leaving the philadelphia access and putting international forces in the sow and in -- in the south and in the north did not present the firing of missiles into israel or bringing weapons from iran into those areas. i will not allow the iranian missiles to be put a few kilometers from the international airport. we are a very small country. they impose on us security problems. we should not be tempted by an illusion that a peace agreement will solve it. one, we had a normal piece

relations with exchanges of delegations and contact between leaders in in portended trades, especially in gasoline. -- in important trades, especially in gasoline. this state is called iran. we also had good relations with another country, we had visits by heads of state. this country is called turkey. i am still hoping that we will be able to improve the relationship that has deteriorated not because of us, things changed in iran and regretfully in other places and

no one could assure us that despite our willingness that something similar will not happen after we have a peace agreement with the palestinians. therefore, we have to continue to insist on steadfast security arrangements to ensure that the peace will be secured and to protect our security in case that the peace will be violated. peace and security are integrated with one another. i insist on fulfilling both of them. the understanding of the needs of our security is starting to be understood it in the

international dialogue. i believe, knesset members, that if we stand together on this front, unified with these principles, i am convinced that this will help us to achieve peace. if we unite in these issues, this could advance our ability to bring peace to the settlement. the palestinians did not respond to to our offer of discussions. we removed hundreds of blockades. we brought about the economic growth of the palestinian economy even as there was

recession all over the world. we did close of some settlements and i'm telling you that we did so with a heavy heart. i am telling you, my friends, we did it with a heavy heart. we knew that this step makes it difficult for many israeli citizens. as secretary of state hillary clinton said, this was an unprecedented step that no other israeli government did in the past but we did it.

>> [inaudible] >> we did this without compromise for 10 months. regretfully, these 10 months the palestinians wasted. now, they want to continue the freeze on settlements as a condition for continuing the talks. i hope that day -- i hope that they're not doing so and order to evade their responsibility to make a decision for making peace because day will have to make difficult decisions and i do not ignore this. i know what the decisions will be from us but i know what decisions they will have to

make. the only way to reach a settlement is to try through direct talks to bridge gaps and to make decisions. the prime minister of israel -- as the prime minister of israel, i am committed and i want to advance the settlements that will bring an end to the conflict and will bring peace to us and our palestinian neighbors. we always argue what is a pro. but there is no argument that we cannot reach peace if we cannot try. the last few weeks i am trying any way to continue the talks. i asked myself --

>> please let the prime minister continue to talk. please allow the prime minister to continue to talk. i am asking you to help me to have a continued session. >> i asked myselff what could have convinced the government or furthermore the citizens of israel that the palestinians really want to live with us in peace. something that will broadcast that there is a real change in the palestinian side that will demonstrate to us that they are not only asking for concessions

from israel and that they're also willing to take a significant step towards that. there is something like this and i sent this message quietly in the last month. i am saying this now publicly. if the palestinian leadership will say unequivocally to their people that they recognizes israel as the home of the jewish people, i will be ready to convene my government and request a further suspension in the building. >> knesset member, i am calling you to order.

i am calling you to order. >> as the palestinians expect that we recognize a palestinian state as their national state, we are allowed it to expect a jewish state as our nation. i do not put this as a precondition for the talks. we will come to the continuation of the negotiations at any rate without preconditions but such a step which will open a new horizon among a wide array of the israeli public. but in light of the last 10 years, they lost their trust in the desire of the palestinians. the palestinians have not

answered this, and united states is trying to other ways to continue the talks. the united states is proposing other ways and we are considering them seriously in accordance of the needs of israel with security and to secure our future. there are plenty of challenges but i'm sure that we will overcome them. we should only think about what obstacles we have overcome sense hrezl had his vision -- herzl had his vision. the country was ruined and we build it up with blood and

sweat and we established a glorified state. the words of the declaration of independence still touches our heart. we are declaring the establishment of the state of israel. this is the basis of our existence and always their recognition in it is the basis for peace. >> knesset members, i am inviting the head of the opposition to give her speech.

>> president of israel, the speaker of the knesset, justices of the supreme court, the comptroller of the state, the former speakers of the knesset, families. the hon. prime minister, in a year of 8 months, you have

transformed the state of israel to a weak state that is conflicted with the south and losing his friends are out of the world. this is a state that is covered with slogans instead of content. i do not know if you lead this situation on purpose to strengthen the fear and a lack of the advancement. if that is so, then you could be portrayed as a strong prime minister. maybe you lead to this situation out of weakness or the impossibility to decide and to tell the truth and to pay a political price for the belief in your past.

this country does not have any vision for the future. this is a government that will to anything. maybe you think that the last month so that you demonstrated against the united states will be -- i know and you know to what extent that israel is dependent on united states. you cannot talk about the danger of about iran, hamas, hezbollah, and the need to fight it and at the same time to harm our source of support. there is another israel and it will raise its head in this government. there is another leadership and we will prove it in this session. we are aware that the majority

of this coalition. we know how much you will pay at the expense of the values of israel. this will not be simple. we know that you continue to drive more votes but we will continue to do the right thing not for just a country, party, but for the state of israel. we extended our hand and we supported when it seemed that even for an agreement that you are saying the right thing. i was the only one with the prime minister that congratulated you when you left on your road to peace. since then, all of your decisions have been mistaken. while your ministers are announcing that your travel will end in failure.

i paid a political price for keeping quiet but i'm sorry for the place that you brought the state of israel. we know that israel needs to be different and a state that is essentially a state for the jewish people based on its values and symbols. a state that will have -- that will be fair to both its minority and majority. a state that will have a constitution. the law that you approved yesterday that was born because

of fear. this is the essence of your government, to keep the coalition that you established, this might be legitimate politically but this is disqualified quiescence. -- disqualified by essence. this is disqualified because it hurts all of the things that are given to all of us. this gives us slogans instead of content and this hurts the security of the state. we indeed live in a difficult neighborhood. there are threats from iran, hezbollah, hamas, who do not accept our existence.

contrary to you, i do not believe the leadership based on fear and that we have -- i do not believe the leadership based on fear. i believe that we must conduct ourselves with wisdom. you talk about the non legitimacy of israel of around the world. the legitimacy is important so that we can act against terror. i cannot understand how you can explain your context. what is your set of priorities? why do you want to have a conflict with the u.s. instead of a conflict with your partners in the coalition? the freezing of building is not

the ideology of of one of your members. when we were leading the government, the lead build settlements with the understanding that this is in the frame work of settlements. -- we build settlements with the understanding that this is in the frame work. it is true that you tried to build trust but you ruin did buy your inability to make a decision. ---- but you ruined it by your inability to make a decision. you have to decide what is right because part of the vision that you adopted is the vision of two

states. it doesn't matter what you do, what is the deal york talking about in order to start negotiations? i hope that the president of the u.s. will adopt the document that president bush gave us and it is clear to everybody that even if you have new words, the construction will not continue in the same way. i am not hearing anything from you as far as the ideology that you believe. the ideology that you believed in is that i have a political problems. i am repeating what i said to you privately -- there is a

majority for a settlement only if it you wanted it. in the last year and 8 months, as long as the prime minister promised more security, israel becomes weaker. you talk strong but israel becomes weak. i am trying to tell you to stop at, at to connect to the security -- to connect the security. on the left, we want strength, on the right, we want to distribute gifts to other people. these images are incorrect. this is nonsense. i can say from the center of the political arena that to the only

way to keep the jewish -- interest and the basic interest of israel and the jewish state -- you talked so much about the jewish state and what have you done for the jewish state? you took two words, the consensus in the world, and you turned this into dispute in israel and outside of israel. in order to guard the jewish state, you have to make decisions, something that you avoid making. you have to keep the basic of two states while keeping the

you know that the palestinians agreed for a demilitarized state. we have to make this decision. we must make this decision as a leader, not to fit into the desire of someone else. if we do not reach an agreement , the jewish state will lose its character. this is the whole story. the two principles that you indicated here, if you do this right, the government was in the middle of a process. you talked about gaza, you talked about lebanon. there is an alternative as an

israeli leader. if it was up to you, would you have kept the idf a few more years in lebanon? do you want to reoccupy gaza? you know that there is a huge gap between the slogans that you say and the reality that you have to contend with. these are the decisions that you have to make and you can make these decisions when things are done properly and when you believe in it. the whole purpose is to preserve the coalition without pain a price. -- without paying a price. everyone should ask themselves, if after a year and 8 months, is israel stronger? is israel better?

are we more legitimate? the response is clear, the kadima party left you in a good position. one year and 8 months, you forgot all of this in your

inability to make a decision. the kadima this telling you to do what israel needs. israel is becoming weaker this and we will support you in order to keep israel out as a jewish state where it is clear to everyone, the jews and non jews, that israel is a democratic and a jewish state according to its values that has quality for all of its citizens. this is a state that cannot access to people in the diaspora. for this, we need leadership that needs to make decisions and not run away from them. i heard you make a quote from hertzl but i did not hear you

mention anything from -- who said, in every conflict for individual rights, i am on the side of individual rights. i did not hear anything or see anything in your conduct that reflects these values. keeping the rights of the minority, keeping the rights of the individual, out of their value and not out of fear. this is a country that contributes to the world. the kadima party left you a government that was like that. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> all month long, we have an

overview of different political events. at 8:00, we discussed the midterm elections. then a debate in the wisconsin senate race. then the north carolina senate debate. the state department said they would not press palestinian leaders to accept a proposal by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. the prime minister said that he would halt construction in the west bank if the palestinians agreed to recognize israel as a jewish state. the peace process was the main topic at today's briefing. this is 35 minutes.

>> secretary clinton is in the balkans underscoring our continued commitment to the balkan states as they moved to take their rightful place as full members of the european community. today in sarajevo, she met with the bosnian presidency. she held a town hall meeting with students and members of civil society. while she was in sarajevo, she dedicated a street where the new embassy compound is scheduled to open soon in honor of ambassador robert frazier who died outside of sarajevo in 1995.

his widow and children attended the ceremony. in belgrade, she met with the president and the prime minister as well as the foreign ministers and defense minister. she will also meet with a civil society. over the weekend, there was a successful parliamentary election in kyrgyzstan. we congratulate the people of this country. they demonstrated that they are committed to selecting their government through peaceful and democratic means. the u.s. in close coordination

with international partners to part number of efforts to discourage fraud, inform voters about issues and political parties. it will be crucial for leaders to come together to form a new government and then to began the hard work of forming an inclusive society. following nine days a productive talks, the sudanese signatories to the comprehensive peace agreement decided to recess and will resume negotiations at the end of october to reach an agreement on a full range of issues. the parties made progress on a couple of issues but they were unable to reach agreement on voter eligibility criteria for a

particular criteria. this will be negotiated when the parties reconvene. we are committed to doing all we can to make sure that these issues are resolved. the u.s. is encouraged by recent progress on preparations for the north-south referendum such as the agreement on voter registration. more needs to be done. to help facilitate this process in terms of the ongoing preparation for the north-south referendum, the ambassador will travel to engage both parties on an ongoing referendum issue. now i will take your questions. >> members of the peace council have said that this can become started if the u.s. would take

the steps such as releasing more prisoners from guantanamo bay and the removal of taliban figures from u.n. sanctions. >> on an ongoing basis, we are evaluating modifications to the individuals on the sanctions list. we have made some adjustments during the course of this year and as we work in collaboration with the u.n. and other members of the security council, that is certainly possible. we have a process on going in terms of the situation at guantanamo. we have returned a significant number of individuals at

guantanamo to their countries based on the assessment of the danger that they pose. i would not connect our ongoing activities to close the facility at guantanamo with the efforts at reconciliation and reintegration. >> why is the u.s. not part of the peace talks? >> this process is being led by afghanistan. you are talking about the composition of the political structure in civil society within afghanistan and this is rightly decisions for the afghan government and people.

>> what this situation with richard holbrooke? >> nothing went wrong. the date has been reopened. the trucks are flowing through that gate. they are on their way to resupply the national forces in afghanistan. we successfully worked through the issue with the pakistani government. in the meantime, we did have any -- other avenues to continue to resupply the u.s. forces? >> out of hundreds of trucks,

only a handful were burned. that means that someone was giving information to the taliban or whoever. >> i don't know that i would agree with that statement. >> what a deal made of prime minister netanyahu's -- what do you make of prime minister netanyahu's offer of stopping settlements in exchange for recognition of israel? >> it is important to create conditions to be built for these negotiations to continue.

it will be up to them as to whether they see value in a continuous process. we certainly continue to encourage israel and the palestinian authority to continue in direct negotiations as we continue to emphasize. there is no way to resolve core issues except through these new coke -- direct negotiations in which we have to be in the agreement. it is not for us to endorse this idea or that idea. we have offered to both sides our thinking on things of importance to the israelis and the palestinians. we would hope through this type of dynamic where now all you have leaders saying that this is what i will contribute to the process. this is what i needed to get out of the process