they believe that -- some employers will stop offering health coverage. their assumption is also a that is not going to be that many. they do not believe it will have that profound of an affect on coverage. the reason we have got moved away from employer-sponsored coverage is that while some employers complain about this endlessly, and rightly so -- every now and then the talk about getting out of the business altogether. it is a competitive tool as a way to offer benefits and to attract employers. while there are some employers who they expect will be dropping coverage because of the new requirements and they see the cost is increasing, the expectation is that it is not in the grand scheme of things.

host: we are out of time. quick question. caller: i heard the lady talked and asking the question earlier about doctors not accepting medicaid patients. i went onto medicaid and i had a hard time finding a doctor who would accept medicare. what good is insurance going to be if all you can see is a nurse's aide if you have a problem? guest: it gets to the issue of medicare part we will see more. there are three commissions that are already working and are about to come up with proposals about how to deal with medicare and the skyrocketing costs there. what you have experience, it is also possible that it could get worse before it gets better.

host: on that note, there is a headline -- "guess who is rescue?"to obamacare's lots more discussion in the new congress. our thanks to sarah wartell. thank you. you have a great weekend. we'll be back tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. we thank you for your participation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> you are taking a look at next year's freshman class in congress getting their picture taken this morning. 94 new house members and 16 new senators. the photo was supposed to take place earlier this week but there was bad weather in washington so it was delayed. let's watch for a moment.

ins year's freshman class congress getting their picture taken this morning on the steps of the u.s. capitol. the members system take seats that could members either retired or lost a reelection bid and use a lottery system where new members of congress dropped a numbered metal desk out of a box and have four hours to check out the office and see if they like it. if they do, they return at 1:00 and said they wanted or that pick another number and reprocess. the new members will be sworn in on january 5. there you see them lining up getting ready for their file on a beautiful morning here in washington.

this afternoon, we will be live with a discussion of the midterm elections and how it has changed politics pretty federalist society is holding its national lawyers convention. michael lee and indiana congressman michael pants discuss tea party and the constitution. mr. lee is one of 16 new senators for the house will have 94 new members including arkansas republican rick crawford will take the seat of mario barry who is recovering -- retiring. mr. crawford is a small-business owner and broadcaster and it is his first time holding public office. joining him in the house will be republican scott tipton of colorado. he is a pottery company owner who will represent all western and most of southern colorado.

>> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even they may give it up for principle reasons, they hanker for the moment they give it up. >> in the final aria -- volume of his award winning trilogy on teddy roosevelt, we examine his run for president sunday night at 8:00 on c-span "q &a". book-tv had said the 27th annual miami book fair international. follow the authors and panel discussions and join in with your calls, e-mails, and tweets, all weekend on book-tv. >> one of our topics on this morning's washington journal was the transition to republican leadership of the house of representatives. our guest was a former

representative from 1991-2007. -- from a discussion of ethics conflict to jim nussle. thanks for being here this morning. guest: great to be with you. host: let's start with the leadership team and the approach you take in assembling this congress. guest: the first thing i have noticed is that they know what we -- they know what they're doing. if we did not. in 1984 in the same context, we have not been in control of congress in 40 years. no one knew what a transition was like. no one knew what it was like to be speaker of the house or of a

committee. john vader was a committee chairman himself -- john boehner was a committee chairman himself. i think there is a difference in the new majority that is coming in for the next congress than there was when we were there. we were never truly in charge of the place in 40 years. host: which is your job? guest: my jaw, if i have a job, is to be a counselor, i guess. i came in and gave advice to people who probably did not need much advice from me about some of the things that i saw as pitfalls that theyay want to look for. challenges we face that maybe they may face in a much different way, and then some basic advice that they might want to think about, given the opportunity of a transition. there are things that you might want to do now that you probably cannot do next year or the year

roster -- the year after. i was encouraging them to make some of the tough choices on committee jurisdiction, earmarks, budget process reform. things like that, which, after you get everybody in their chairs and in their seat siong and everything else is a little more challenging to do. -- in their seats and everything else is a little more challenging to do. host: one of the earlier reforms had been a tenure process, you could only serve for a certain number of years and then handed the gavel over. what is your own thinking based on your experience about the need to stay with the tenure program that has been in place? guest: i like the program that is in place. it is really a meritocracy. it is not a seniority based system. when we took control in 1985, if

you lost it long enough and you were still alive when the last german navy got beat, which was rare, you became chairman -- when the last chairman got beat, which was rare, he became chairman. instead of the next chairman getting in, we would have a race for it. it would have to show their competency on the issues of the jurisdiction that the committee would have to preside over. it gave all of us not only the ability -- i jumped three people, as an example, to become chairman of the budget committee, which was almost unheard of. we have seen a number of recent experiences where you have had committee chair races and where it is a wide open situation.

even someone like john some kids, believe is no. 4 in seniority in this situation is not only a viable candidate, but i have heard will be a potential front-runner for energy and commerce. it is an exciting process that i think is still a merit-based system, not just one that if you last long enough you get to be chairman. host: about the jurisdiction and size of the committee? guest: this is the perfect time if you're going to make changes, to make those changes. if you are going to, for instance, has been dark hastings wants to do, to take energy away from energy and commerce and put it under natural resources, if you're going to do it, i think the commerce -- the congress is going to have to do it right now. otherwise, it during its next year will be more difficult to, -- accomplish.

host: how do think the majority is aware of the electorate? guest: i think they're very aware. even the potential minority of january, everyone seems wide awake about what happened in this election. it may take different lessons from it, but this is as sensitive that congress has ever been about what their constituents are angry about and upset about and sending a message to washington. host: will they say it in the form of a mandate? guest: i do not think so. i'm not sure the american people have decided what they've won yet. that would be the mandate side. i think there is -- by not sure

the american people have decided what they want to get. that would be the mandate side. i think they are sure of what they do not want. the overspending and obama care and things like that. i think that has been clear. but what they do want, that has not been as clear. there will be some great debates coming up, sure. host: congressman jim nussle, what are you doing now? guest: i am president and ceo of a group called growth energy. it makes alternative energy from ethanol. the other is i have a small consulting firm. host: our numbers are on the screen. you can call us or send us a message on twitter or e-mail. moving from structure to policy,

the big decisions will be on the budget. we will be doing a series of -- we have been doing a series of the past week of a retired members. the first was from the 94th class. this incoming speaker was here during the time. and what lessons are you hearing of that experience that he is committing to the incoming class? guest: first, i do not believe -- that was a failure and hopefully we will never go down the road again. we face it because of the failure this year of not having a tax bill, not having a spending bill passed, not having a budget for the first time since 1974 when the budget act was first passed.

it is a failure. it is not so much a tactic. there are some people who think that clinton, forced a shutdown as a tactic or been -- or gingrich force a shutdown as a tactic. it really was not a tactic. i believe it was a failure. jim handling has a bill that many are supporting -- jim hands early in has a bill that many are supporting. i believe it would be a valuable reform to the budget process. host: packaging of the bill is no sure thing. guest: of course not. and many do not like it because it takes away their leverage. we have many in the leadership that have a sort of damocles hanging over the process.

it is a sort of leverage. even the white house may feel that way to an extent. i know president bush. possibly, president obama has supported this as part of reforms. i do think it is an important reform. host: what you think from the headline from yesterday's "new york times"? guest: the electoral upheaval has not yet taken full effect. meaning, the congress does not take office until january 5. in order to see change we will actually have to see the new congress. host: would you think of writing off the congress? guest: they both have to come back to this continuing fight over the budget and taxes a feeling in golden by whatever

they heard from the electorate byfeeling emboldened wherever they heard from the electorate. there is shared power. you will see that changing dynamic actually occur. host: let's get a phone call from bill in cambridge, ohio. good morning. . . pommell

caller: he is a lobbyist now and he gets his pension and gets his healthcare and i want to know from it this individual how many years he spent in congress? and specifically how much he has paid into a pension plan and how much he gets right now every

year as a pension the rest of his life and healthcare he receiv receives. answer those two questions so the people out here in the midwest, who work for a living can understand how much you make off of our government. guest: happy to. first of all, i'm not a lobbyist. number two, i receive no pension. i'm 50 years old and not old enough thankfully to receive a pension although i have gotten a lot of ribbing about turning 50. that is not quite old enough to even possibly receive a pension. so i receive no pension, lifetime pension. there is no such thing as that. there was at one time, i think you are right, in years past. i served 16 years and it did not happen to me. i receive no healthcare benefits from the congress, nor did i after i left congress. so i realize there is this culture that believes that is what happens to former representatives. it is not true.

none of us receives that kind of pension or health benefits other than the cobra benefit that everyone is entitled to when they leave a job. that is the answer to those questions. host: do you accrue pension benefit that you will be able to tap later on? guest: yes, you pay into a system that is a defined contribution plan, so not even a defined benefit plan. you pay into it similar to many other jobs. that is matched by the tax pap s taxpayers, no question. but it is not something -- will is this pop belief that as soon as you leave congress you start getting it. if you are 65 i suppose you can. or beyond. but i don't, certainly, and haven't as a result of my retirement from congress. host: one benefit for former members that others don't have is you can go to the floor of the house of representatives, correct? guest: as long as you are not a lobbyist. i have only been there twice. i went there in the president's

cabinet for state of the union as an example. it is not a very friendly place these days so there is not much reason to go. host: we are talking with jim nussle, he is offering advice to the incoming members of the g . g.o.p. freshman class an leadership about the transition and moving to their majority. next is from mississippi, anita, a democrat. caller: no, i'm not a democrat. i'm just calling because it is the line i could get through. host: i'm sorry. you can't do that because you will make everybody who follows the rules so frustrated. i appreciate your being honest but you have to wait your turn. next is a phone call from waco, texas, pete, republican. caller: good morning, jim this s is old pete from texas and you know how we are from down here. 1969 i started my own business. i have a ph.d. in chemistry.

by 2005 i had nearly 800 workers and employees. this administration is killing us. their policies are job killers. every where from healthcare to promise of increase in the taxes. i don't have to watch fox news to live this nightmare. what i'm going to ask about specifically, there are many problems. we had to deal with carol browner when she was the e.p.a. director. now he is an energy czar. e.p.a. is in the state of texas is trying to kill every business we have here because of our high petrochemical and gas and oil business. my specific question to you is, can the congress go in and isolate e.p.a. and say, look, we are going to cut your budget by 80% this first year and you mess around with another state or company and we are going to cut you another 50% next year?

guest: well, pete, first of all thank you for taking theisk of starting a business and hiring people and really not only living the american dream but providing it for so many others. second, yes, technically can congress do that? yes, they can. will they? it is hard to say. it is one issue we were talking earlier about this jurisdiction and exactly how the new energy committee chairman is going to handle their job. one will be oversight of e.p.a. as you said and some of those rules and regulations. the last observation i would make is there are many politicians and others who talk about how we are sending jobs overseas. i would observe that in most instances we are chasing jobs overseas and this may be one of those examples where, because of the rules, regulations, tax system, the mandates, everything else, we often find ourselves in a situation where jobs are not being sent but, rather, being

chased some place elsewhere they can do business in a more free open market kind of experience. host: this viewer asked by twitter how realistic is ensuring the bush era tax cuts while resolving the budget? guest: i think it is realistic for this reason. if you believe that raising taxes brings more revenue in to the government you will find historically that it is not as efficient as actually reforming the tax system, making it more efficient and simpler, more transparent and actually reducing overall rates. often increases economic growth and brings more revenue into the treasury. probably the best bipartisan example everyone could agree on is go back to 1997, 1998, when clinton and the democrats and republicans under gingrich cut capital gains and we balanced the budget when we were actually reducing taxes and spending was

pretty much held at about even. so, i'm not saying that is exactly what should happen now, but my view is this is not the time in our economy or history that we need to raise taxes. i think we need to rein in the size of government and spending to get this under control. host: how many new republican freshmen have you met? guest: just a couple of they are kind of cloistered for good reason. going through the orientation and learning some of the basics. this is a very interesting time to be a new member, a freshman member. you are going through so many transitions. you are going through a personal transition moving from iowa or wherever. you are trying to find your way around this amazing city. and i know we always bash washington but it is an amazing place. then you pick staff, trying to decide what your committee assignments are going to be. and as you reported earlier

today, they have a room draw where they begin the of deciding where they are going to work for the next couple of years, which is often about the size of a broom closet in some of the buildings. it is an interesting time to be a new member of congress and one i remember with a lot of fondness. host: we have a clip from john shadduck what it was like coming in and how he thought it worked. >> when republicans took the majority no one had any reason to doubt that they would do what they said. they had not been in power 40 years. i don't know that republicans won the majority based on the contract with america or anything else of that nature. in part that was their victory

but in part it was a reaction to bill clinton. this time republicans have won the majority i think largely in reaction to an overreach by you might say nancy pelosi more than president obama because it was pelosi who said no we are going to push through this healthcare bill consequences be damned. the president and raleigh imam were -- raleigh emanuel were talking about a compromise but the tea party people are expecting republicans to produce, and if they don't, if they break their word a second time i think the tea party could split off and i think that the republicans could be back out on their ear quickly and that would result in a different fate for the tea party going forward. host: what do you think? guest: first of all, john is right. he has great experience. i was here before 1994 so i saw kind of the before and after. i would suggest this time is

different than 1994 in that freshman members are coming in not only against some of the democratic things they saw back prior to 1994 but they are an antiestablishment republicans, meaning they want to prove that they are not going to be under john boehner's thumb either. there is almost a period of time where they are going to not only are to prove that they meant what they said when they voted against obama care but they have to take on the republican establishment as john said and prove that we are different, prove that republicans are not the big spenders, the earmarkers, and even some of the scandals, duke cunningham and some of those that came before. so, he is right. it is like your mom telling you when you are growing up you have your entire lifetime to establish your reputation and you can lose it like that. we lost it in 2006.

and it is going to take time for us, meaning republicans, to demonstrate to our constituents and american people that we have it back. host: this viewer wants to go back to the budget conversation and ask specifically what would you cut? guest: i love that question because i not only -- i wrote eight budgets phaoufs and together with my colleagues on the committee and on behalf of the president. i have had to put up or shut up eight different times where i actually wrote a budget. my last one we identified about $100 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, do you know indicative programs that -- duplicative programs that i outlined and not only did president bush put them forward as specific areas you could cut but president obama actually adopted many of those same ones that he september up

to this congress -- sent up to this congress and congress hasn't addressed many of them. my days of having to put up or write budgets are over, but i will take any of those and put them forward as examples of places that you could start. host: back to the conversation about the tea party newcomers wanting to demonstrate this viewer tweets so-called tea party knocked out the old republicans. who is their tea party leader? old republicans. guest: referring to john bane are? -- boehner? host: yes the challenges for him and finding consensus. guest: first of all, john boehner came in as a reformer and still is a reformer. he came in together with me. we were part of the gang of seven which, boy, that is a throw-back. we helped pose the check

bouncing scandal here in congress and it is sad to remember on a day like today with charlie rangel that the exact same thing happened to another former chair as a result of that scandal and that was dan rostenkowski. john boehner has been part of the reform movement here changing the way congress does its work, how committees operate. he was a reformer when he was chairm chairman. he lost his job in the republican leadership, i think, because of his reform agenda and attitude. so i think it would be a mistake to assume john boehner is this old republican like all the rest of them. he is about as reform minded as you will find in the old republican regime. i'm proud of the fact that he now has the opportunity to lead by example the way we felt needed to be the leadership model when we came in back in 1990 when checks were being

bounc bounced. host: fort atkinson, wisconsin, ross on the air. caller: you talk about you think the republicans got the mental, maybe even the democrats, from the people. but i will tell you until you take the money out of politics like boehner, he is on the golf course more than he is at work. and who is he with? with the lobbyist. and the money comes in. and all parties, the people are you -- i know you are not in any more but they know it is all about the money and there should be term limits so you are working for the people, not for your own best interests or re-elections. guest: first, i agree on term limits. i voted for them and i term limited myself and believed in it for chairman. i do agree a healthy amount of churning, getting new people into the process is healthy. number two, i think you were

being facetious, john boehner is not on the golf course as much as in congress. he does enjoy golf but he does have something that is a good release as opposed to some things you could get involved in. third, you are right, there is too much monday in politics. -- too much money in politics but that is saying there is too much gambling in las vegas. you have to have full disclosure and transparency. the problem many get into is when there isn't disclosure. i think charlie rangel is a good example where he failed to even repo report. these are the situations that cause most of the problems. t the fact that you know where john boehner receives contributions and is even receiving them from what particular interest. and the interest may align with your interests, who knows? but the fact that you know that is because of some of the

reforms put it. it could be even more transparent as far as i'm concerned, but you are right, there is no question there is too much money in politics. but i believe disclosure and sunshine is the best antiseptic to that, not just assuming you can get rid of money in politics. host: back to the term of service for george w. bush as director of the white house office of management and budget. here is someone who once talked policy with you. jim nussle was in the white house when this began. guest: no question about it. we had to be extremely creative working with secretary paulson to create then the tarp program, troubled asset relief program, which, while i know has become kind of a standard of people suggesting that was the mother of all government bailouts, i don't think there's anyone now who could suggest that it didn't work and that it didn't -- it

not only wasn't -- even though it was imperfect, a good policy that came in at a time when that kind of creative policy was needed. and the proof is in the pudding. it not only did work but it is being paid back and it may be paid back nearly in full, which is a testament to the creativity at the time. so, there is no question it was a very challenging time to be in the white house. i believe president bush, as he stated in his book and he stated on the stump recently as he has been out talking about his book, believes that they were the best decisions given the information that he had at the time and i would agree, even though they were not my philosophical bent either. i didn't have a better alternative that i knew would keep us from going over the cliff at the time. host: call from indiana next

kathy, democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? first off i need to say, i will tell you, you are one slick operator, i must say. i mean the way you are spinning everything and doing it with a smile on your face. the new republican congress is coming in scares the life out of me. it is proven as of the vote yesterday. the republicans in the house were willing to dump unemployment benefits and because they are worried about the addition to the deficit, yet they don't blink an eye about giving a tax cut to the wealthy, which as a matter of fact the majority of leaders in the house and senate are multimillionaires so no wonder they are fighting hard for the tax cut. it will add $700 billion to the deficit but they are not worried

about that. they still not a one of you have ever said what are you going to cut. so it was social security, my husband pays dollar for dollar more on his wages to pay for his social security than, say, john boehner or tkaerl issa -- darrell issa. why don't you raise the social security tax for multimillionaires for them. why does my husband that doesn't make a quarter of what they make, why is he paying more? we know where you republicans stand. it is all for the wealthy, nothing for us and you are willing to dump them, the unemployment. host: i think you made your point on that. guest: i'm sorry i'm smiling this morning. i tend to be a morning person so i apologize. part of it, i think, is where you believe the money starts.

this debate in washington right now is very philosophical for this reason. there are some in this country who believe that the money starts in washington and then we pass it out to you and if you believe that you can understand why it is tax cuts for the rich or it is tax benefits for somebody or that the government is providing you. i think the difference in it election -- and it is a different philosophical belief. i believe the money starts with you and your husband. it is your hard work that created the resources and it is your check that you send to washington, d.c. in the form of tax dollars that we should respect. so, the money doesn't start here. it starts there in indiana. if that is how you believe, you have a much different perspective of the world, number one. number two, i understand that

you believe that none -- that all the republicans are rich. that is not true. and it does take, i think, a lot of experience to run for congress. but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be wealthy. we have seen a lot of examples starting with the president of the united states you don't have to be a wealthy person to run for office. i think that is a misconception that somehow this gives them breaks that nobody else gets. but i do want to start with that premise that if you believe that money starts in washington and we hand it out to you, you are going to have a much different perspective than if you believe money is earned by yourselves and checks in the form of tax dollars come to washington. host: latinos hear your -- let's hear your opinion on unemployment benefits extension. with the jobless rate stuck at 9.7% to 9.5% there doesn't seem

to be jobs out this. what is the message to people who are actively looking for jobs and haven't been able and there is not an extension on benefits? guest: i'm not in congress so i will let the debate rage with those that are policy makers. let me point out a couple of things. this is not the first extension. there have been multiple extensions. number two, at a time when we are running record deficits and the pay-go principles are supposed to apply to everything, we have seen this year under the budgetules that they have been waived over 200 times for 200 different items that it is fine to say we are going to pay for tax cuts if you will, under it principle that somehow the money starts in washington and you pay for money to go back into the pockets of people that earn it, which is to me a crazy notion. but you exempt all of the spending such as unemployment benefits. so defense spending is not exempt but unemployment bits is.

tax cuts are not exempt. you have all of this crazy budget rules instead of saying it ought to apply to everything. that is the second principle. the third one is after two years of having this debate over how do you create jobs in this country, i think that i would much rather trust pete in texas talking about how he created 800 jobs in his factory in texas than anybody in that capital dome over there right now for how to create jobs. yet we're chasing pete and those jobs potentially someplace else in the world as a result of our tax policy, environment policy, mandates, regulations. that is why we're in this crazy situation where our country is not growing and we are worrying more about unemployment benefits than about how we are going to yet jobs. host: social security benefits? guest: her example, i'm not exactly sure host: she wants to raise the

cap. guest: her husband doesn't pay any more than i do. there is a limit on benefits. do we need social security reform? no question. anybody that has the guts to do it? i think we proved that no matter what your belief is on what social security reform ought to come next there are very few yet willing to step up and reform the entitlement of social security or any other entitlement for that matter. host: for mr. nussle next is a call from berkeley springs, west virginia, karl, a republican. caller: i have a simple solution for all the corruption in politics. if everyone on capitol hill, all the congressmen, senators, had to sign a contract with america to agree to an audit by the i.r.s. every two years, not only for them but their immediate family, you would see mass

resignations up there. everybody would be scrambling to the airport to catch the first flight out. and you are going to have corruption in politics because it just -- there are too many people offering you money. to a person like me, it is disgusting. it really is. i'm a political junky. i watch it program every morning religiously. but it is getting to the point where it really is. but you know what? if charlie rangel had an r in front of his name he would have been handcuffed and led off capitol hill just like cunningham. that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: i don't think people would have mass resignations because they were necessarily on the take. i think an i.r.s. audit would scare even the most honest taxpayer you could find. it is because of the complexity

of our tax code and everything else. i understand what you are saying. that is why i smiled. i think you are probably right. you not only wouldn't have many people that would want to stay here. i would guess you probably wouldn't have anybody who would want to run for congress if you had an audit every two years. we have to file not only taxes as chairm, former chairman rangel discovered, but you have to file financial disclosures about your finances, which is a much higher bar than most taxpayers have to do. it is not a perfect system but there is more transparency and disclosure to be a member of congress than in most occupations. again, it is not perfect but i know there are bad apples that spoil it for the rest and i know that this is not going to -- you won't believe me but i guarantee you most of the people who are here in congress are doing a good job, they are trying to do

it the right way. they are not breaking the laws or on the take. there are bad examples that have spoiled it. unfortunately, they have made it so there is this popular belief that everyone is. it is unfair because it is not true. public service is still an honorable job that many of these guys do a very good job at. host: we have time for two more calls. ron an independent from florida. caller: congressman nussle, you republicans being so against soci socialism, i don't understand how you can be for farm subsidies since most of the farm subsidy money goes to giant corporations or corporations. host: thank you, ron. guest: there are many of us, even from farm country, that over the years have worked for reforming those farm subsidies

and have not only reduced them in many instances but changed them so that it doesn't artificially hurt the marketplace or warp the marketplace. there is more that can be done, no question about it. but i think if you look back at some of the reforms particularly of the hrlast 15 or 20 years yo will see a great change in farm subsidies compared to, let's say, 50 years ago. there is still more reform that needs to be done, but i don't think it is quite as black and white as you put it. there is a lot of gray area. host: last caller from the pocono mountains from pennsylvania. rich a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes. >> i would like to know how you can justify approximately $10 billion a month which is being spent on the war yet we are whining about tax breaks at this

time of year and you want to cut unemployment and that people pay in into, some have been out of work almost two years but have worked for 20 years and i paid into it. i think you can throw all the spin and you are a perfect spin doctor. you are like a washing machine. guest: it is interesting so many of these things have been blamed on the republicans. a majority of democrats did not even support -- i mean a majority is still in democratic control so if they wanted to pass the benefits they could have. it is not just the republicans that believe we have to start creating jobs and not creating more unemployment benefits or extending more unemployment benefits. i think it is both sides, not just republicans or democrats. i think it both sides that believe this. and, second, with regard to the war, i'm with you. i think the sooner we can end not only the conflict and bring

our folks home but reduce the amount of spending that goes to it. there is a lot of waste in the pentagon. bob gates has identified a lot that needs to be reduced or removed or changed. so there is a lot of work that needs to be done but it is not either-or, defending the country or providing unemployment benefits. host: we're out of time but i have a closing comment or question for you. just a moment we will be talking with rob green a pollster here in washington and he has done a couple of polling questions on transparency and openness in the new congress and what advice people would give to the incoming majority. what would yours be? guest: i think charlie rangel is a greating for freshmen right now. you have to recognize that hypocrisy in particular will be your number one thing to look out for. you cannot be the chairman of the tax writing committee and not pay your taxes. that is number one.

number two, and this is the same advice i gave the transition team. in washington and in this job unlike the famous book by this title, you have to sweat the small stuff. it is the small things that will get you in trouble. it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski. it was a few bad checks albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going t to keep that >> this weekend on newsmakers, james clobbered on how democrats of view their role and the 112

congress which begins in january. here is a look. >> it would have been very simple as everybody says, everybody step back one step. if you have been share, go back to being chair. the with can gback to being the whip and nancy pelosi will go back to being a leader. and that was not a tactic to me. i thought that things that i learned out there could be put to great use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. i do believe that we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican caucus. wait -- they had 42 african americans, we have 10 asian pacific islanders, people who

are pro-trade, we have blue dogs that are not that much pro- trade. we have all this diversity and i thought i had learned a lot about. i really could bring discussions to that table and to take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would limit me if i were share of a caucus. >> representative james cliburn was elected wednesday to the new position of assistant minority leader for the new congress. he maintained his number 3 spot in the leadership are you can see the full interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on "newsmakers." will be live this afternoon with a discussion of the midterm election and how what has changed politics for the federalist society is holding its national lawyers convention at 2:00 eastern, the utah senator collect and the indiana

congressman discussed the tea party and the constitution. mr. lee is one of 16 new senators. the house has 94 new members and one of them is joe walsh. mr. walsh is an investment banker and will be represented the northwestern chicago and metro area. another new member is the florida republican in david riviera who takes the seas of -- who takes the seat o the man who ran in another district. he is the miami dade republican county chairman. >> earmarks account for one-half of 1% of the budget. find out what they are on line at the cspan video library. search and watch programs explaining earmarks and the

arguments against them. this is washington your way. >> this saturday, to an end as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the civil war live from the national archives with prominent historians giving new perspective on the domestic and international impact of the war. our coverage starts saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv, telling the american story every week and all the on c-span 3. >> the house ethics committee has recommended that new york republican charles rangel be censured for 11 violations of house rules. the house will bottom that recommendation when members return from a thanksgiving recess. a look of a former ways and means committee chairman receiving the news yesterday. >> the committee on standards will reconvene simply to report

that after much deliberation, the committee voted 9-1 to recommend that mr. rangel be censured by the house and to be required to pay restitution for any unpaid taxes as referenced in exhibit 66 in our report and to transmit to the full house of these recommendations. that concludes the committee's deliberations and obligations in this matter. i would just like to say this -- we have worked hard together in this matter in a way that has been actually cry -- quite renting. -- quite wrenching. we are satisfied to be

concluded and we do thank all the staff and all the members and mr. frankl for being here as well. unless there are zero further comments to be made at this time and i would recognize mr. rangel. >> as a ranking member, i know how much discussion went into this decision but as i started out earlier, i hope that you can see your way clear for the record to make it abundantly clear as the record would indicate that any action taken by me was not with the intention to bring any disgrace on the house or to enrich myself personally or considered by counsel to be corrupt. that would be of a great help to my family and my community. >> thank you, mr. rangel, and i would note that our report will be on the committee website

early -- later this evening. with that, there are no further comments? the committee is adjourned. thanks to all who participated. [no audio]

>> charlie rangel's reprimand, the request for centre by the full house yesterday by the house at this committee is all of the newspaper. er by the house ethics committee was all over the newspapers. you can take a look at some of the headlines. for those of you that have not seen it, we will show you remarks that mr. rangel made to the ethics committee before they've -- before they decided to what his fate could be. >> i apologize for what i caused you. i never sought any personal gain. i have been overpaid in terms

of the satisfaction for everything i've ever done. please accept for me that notwithstanding the imagination that some people have, there is no disess shame to my community and to the country. ho: the panel decided it would take the middle of three options, one would be expulsion, the biggest penalty. the lettuce would be a reprimand and a center would require -- the latest cut would record -- would be a reprimand and a censure is the recommendation.

it is rarely used. the panel has been in its current form r about 43 years and it has been since 1983 since a member of congress, gary studds of massachusetts, was censured by the house of representatives. the "day news" has been following this case for the last two years. the headline on that is "shame on charlie." was it fair to say that he was notified by the new ethics committee? guest: i think it is fair to say that. when he left to go back to his office and he had returned from the final plea where he finally did offer an apology to the committee, he came back to his office and is usually charlie's

-- excuse me, mr. rangel. i slipped into calling him charlie. he is very forthcoming with the people he has known for a long time. he mentioned we will see what happens with censure. i do not think he ever thought it would come to that. he appeared downcast and he threw open the doors to his office and disappeared behind the doors. his anxious staff was waiting for him. he shouted out as usual like the old charlie, you know, ok, again, let's go, like, what else is here and was on my plate. i still think he did not think it would come to center. then he went back to the committee and there was -- come to a censure.

then he went back to the committee and there was the verdict. then he disappeared. and roger p. is in his apartment here or cut -- i'm not sure if he is in his apartment here or back at home. host: he won 80% of the vote in his district. >> yakima 80%. the real election -- yeah, 80%. the real election was the primary. that was a little bit closer. was something like 60%. -- charlie's margin was something like 60%. back home, hes an art -- an

icon. if he chooses to stay in the house, the puzzle in new york right now is -- i do not think that whatevethe opinion of turley around the country, he still has strong backing back home -- of charlie around the country, he still has strong backing at home. what remains to be seen is whether he will submit to this. as i understand it in talking to some of the house s is that he has to be march by the sergeant of arms into the well of the house and speaker pelosi has to file formal since charges against him. and then she has to use at some point in whatever she says, she would have to use the word "in

flint," this punishment is being inflicted upon you -- use the inflict,"this punishment is being inflicted upon you. it is unclear whether he will stay. host: business as usual, more or less, after a process like this. guest: pretty much. all of his seniority and his clout is gone. he lost the chairmanship of the ways and means committee. dow was a blow. the feeling on the part of the people -- that was a blow. the feeling on the part of the people around him is that it

would short circuit whatever was happening with the committee, that he lost his chairmanship. that was really a big deal in this process. when it came to a censure, i think it came as a shock. host: last question for you. do you know anything about his finances? he walked out of a previous hearing having to spend $2 million on legal defenses so far. few know -- having to pay back taxes, do you know what his financial situation is? guest: the actual amount he will have to pay back i think is still up in the air. as we understand it, there are taxes concerning the villa, the beach front property had in the dominican republic. i think echoes back 10 years. and i believe he has paid five

years. -- that goes back 10 years. and i believe he has paid five years. as far as charlie's personal worth, it is not much compared to some members. he is not what would be considered in some circles a rich man. host: thank you for giving us a local sense of this story. he is one of the longest serving members. we appreciate you joining us, richard sisk, by phone. we can read your column in the "daily news." guest: thank you, susan. host: we want to give you some background on this. here is an article from the post.

let's begin with a call from pittsburgh. republican line, you're on the air. ♪ i hope this is the first in a long line in getting rid of -- caller: i hope this is the first in a long line of getting rid of unethical people in washington. host: ok. next caller from new york.

caller: like many members of congress, he is ollie go. now they are makg $160,000 or more per yeain salary. why isn't it enough? because they see other lobbyists coming through who are making millions. only in the united states can rich people to recruit for people and middle class for people to rally and support for tax cuts for the rich people. that is my comment. where is the tea party when it comes to tax cuts for the rich? the tea party is full of poor people and middle class people and they are arguing in a -- in favor of tax cuts for the rich. host: manhattan, democrats -- that was mike in manhattan. democrats in baltimore, you are on the air. caller: is it possible to always have two guests with two

fferent opinions, as opposed to having someone just like to us all the time? host: who lied to you? caller: it would be nice to have guessed with two different opinions most of the time. host: thank you for your comment on the program. your comme on charlie rangel? caller: nobody is discussing all of the foreclosures in harlem. i live in harlem and -- i live in new york and they are not discussing it. they do not get it. that is what is going on. person treats in,l this reminds me of the clinton

which cut -- which hunt. good morning, on the republican line. caller: i think charlie rangel got off easily because if you or i had done something like this, not paid taxes, and the -- undisclosed fund all kinds of things, we would probably go to jail. the we would at least be fired from our own company. we would have run our own company. in this case, he is robbing the taxpayers. -- we would have robbed our own company. in this case, he is robbing the taxpayers. i think he is really getting off -- he can still be a congressman and still have his job. host: nancy from colorado.

if the committee vote was not unanimous. it was 9-1. the ethics committee votes are not public, but one member of the committee, and thank butterfield of north carolina, of course, a democrat, called extreme and said such punishment should be reserved for cases involving corruption. let me tell you about other house members over the years to have had a reprimand of fair punishment from the ethics committee. this is since 1970. that was congressman newt gingrich in 1997, barney frank in 1990. austin murphy of 1987 and george hansen of idaho in 1984.

those who have had the centecene include -- memphis, tennessee is the next caller, good morning to you, larry. caller: good morning. over the prior eight years before obama got his office -- what did you say? host: i'm listening. caller: we have all this going on. we have two wars and we have all these people ripping us off. we havthe contractors in iraq

ripping us off. all the rich people with this country off. -- rep this country off. -- rip this country off. they ran this country into the ground, the rich people did. and of poor people have nothing. obama, i voted for him, but he has not done anything except give poor people to der $50. -- $250. host: this is mike, a republican, good morning. caller: number one, thank you for c-span. secondly, is ironic that we were tried -- we would try prisoners from gtmo and get

congressman are above the law. it is mind-boggling that they can get away with that. and they are not tried by a jury of their peers as people, but as congressman. and the third, and in the last few days people have been criticizing the tea party and the new members of congress. and because of what they're doing they may have difficulty getting reelected or sustaining a career. i think a lot of people just do not get it. a lot of the newly elected people are not there to build a career. they are thereo clean up the mess and at least have a job in the public sector. host: here is a tweet --

the next telephone call is from highland park, new york. joe, what is your reaction? caller: i do not know why he is charged on ethics charges. this is not cheng gum in school. these are not ethics violations. al capone went to jail for tax .vasion spiri he retried -- he should be tried. not slept on the wst. -- not slaed on the wrist. host: it will move to a floor vote after thanksgiving holiday. you are on the air, caller. caller: timothy geithner did not

pay taxes. the only reason we are in the shape we're in is that our news media, including c-span, is not worth two dead flies. host: all right. this is indiana, go ahead. caller: i guess i have some comments that relate to basically, what everyone else has been saying, but i would like to add one more comment to what is bng said and that is, what is happening to mr. rangel is a systemic of what permeates our of our government, and especially congress, that is, too much power is given to be elected officials. they can stay and stay and stay and it becomes an avenue for them to receive special favors in their own mind that i think

they feel entitled to. i wish there could be some kind of new legislation, perhaps, that could be more limiting to what congressman can do in office. host: for the caller that complained about the news media, the "new york times" remind us of the history of the investigation. and a little bit of color in this story at the end, the committee announced just before 6:00 p.m. a weary mr. renfroe walked out of the room, declining to speak to the swarm of reporters that

chased after him. then one woman in the crowd called out to him, god go with you, and he said thank you. host: next call from georgia. caller: people need to realize that mr. rangel is 80 years old. you have to understand that he is coming from a generation where people -- the majority of people did not pay taxes. fred sanford he did not pay taxes and they took everything and he died sure they after that. these congress people look at it like you have all of us coming

over that are tax-exempt and it is like they are doing as a service. like the one caller said, it is a systemic situation and it is not just him that has dirty hands. host: here is a tweet. the next call is from birmingham, alabama, kay, co- head. turn down the volume on your tv and go ahead. caller: i am delighted to be on the program with you. my thi is that we need to have compassion for people and forgiveness for people that serve our country. also, i'm not here to judge, because i think we need -- but i

think we need to find the heart to forgive him and give him a second chance because we all deserve a second chance in life. i appreciate your time. and thank you for allowing me to speak. my heart goes up to everybody that is trying to ride, even though we make mistakes. and i am a pastor -- my heart goes on to everybody that is trying to do right, eve though we me mistakes. and i am a pastor. host: here is from the "new york post" this morning. next is gainesville, florida. republican, you' on the air.

you cut your tv volume of. please turn it down. i'm going to have to move on. pennsylvania, john, independent line, you are on. caller: thankou for letting me chime in. what is interesting about this whole center issue is that you have a very powerful committee chairman dealing with taxes and he is simply getting a censure for evading taxes. then you have the trafficking guy from a few years ago, i think he was basically doing the same thing. he had won tax evasion and he got kicked out of congress. who have two similar situations, one, who is a party guy, charlie rangel and the other guy who gets kicked out of congress. rankle to just get a center. i think the people need to -- charlie rangel jt gets a

century. by the people need to realize how hypocritical that is. hos ... that was back in the year 2002. next is a call from puerto rico. good morning to you. caller: i worke in the congress in 1995. i'm a dot congressman rangel. -- i met congressman rangel. i admired his authority and the way he conducted himself with such intelligence. i always admired him because he was such a proper man.

he has been 27 years in the u.s. congress. he has done very gd things for manhattan, for new york. but also, i believe that does not allow him to erase what he has done and he should resign th dignity. with all due respect, he is an old man and he should think about his own people, his own family, and he should be insisting on being part of something -- he should not be insisting on being a part of something that he has ruined. nobody told him to not pay the taxes. he is a very intelligent man and i do not thi he should be

debated as corrupt. i do not think he is correct. -- i do not think he is corrupt. it was something he thought he could get away with and he got caught. he should apologize and resigned. a lot of people love this guy and he is an actual human being. but nevertheless, no mais above the law. host: you think he should resign from congress after this process. she talked about h personality, and that is written about by a ca-in -- a columnist in the post.

later he writes, and it is colossal hubris and it is not about the public, but about him. taney vixen also writes on twitter -- next is a call from florida, republican. caller: could morning. i appreciate c-span very much. as a quick aside, fox cable recently took it c-span2 off the air in my area. i did call and complain.

host: thank you for following up. did you-did they move it to the digital? caller: yes. host: a big digital transmission going on in the country. lots of folks are finding that c-sp2 is moving up to digital service. but the -- thank you for following up. host: yes, ma'am. as to charlie rangel, i am a conservative. i was delighted with the election results. but i followed mr. rangel for many years. i'm aware that he served in the korean conflict. he was awarded the bronze medal the purple heart. he is a character.

i seldom agree wh him, but i have always liked the guy, for some reason. it is clear that he made mistakes that need t be addressed and corrected and i think the house ethics committee was correct in censuring him. he is one of the liberal democrats who has the courage to appear on fox news. and although, a host -- theost disagrees with him most of the time, i can tell that they like the guy, and that is the way i feel about him. i hope he straightens this mess out and continues to serve as long as he wants. i think he has had an outstanding of currier andt is unfortunate -- an outstanding career and it is unfortunate it has ended with these ethics violations. but i hope the guy stays in there. there is just something about him i like.

host: charlie rangel has been on this network for many times. seeingre interested in any of it, it is available on c- span video library. but take a look at newspapers around the country. the "detroit free press" not surprising, "welcome back, gm." the "houston chronicle" hisd debates easing path to next grade. and in the times picayune, feinberg reveals a new set of payments. tuesday marks a critical ment in the gulf oil spill claims.

calls and theno we will see more headlines around the country. next is a call from mississippi, ron on the independent line. caller: good morning. and charlie rangel is just the tip of the iceberg. this is what happens when you let people stay in power too long and they keep collecting millions and millions of dollars for reeltion. a persian should not be allowed to collect more money for reelection -- a persiaperson shd not be allowed to collect more money for reelectiothan they make as a seller. down here in mississippi we have a governor that is just as goofy as he is. i wish people would wake up and just start cleing up the country. this goes all the way down to

state and local governments. host: and this is a comment from pat in new hampshire by e-mail. next call from detroit and this is clarice, a democrat. caller: i am sitting here and i'm in tears. i'm ashamed of these proceedings about -- without mr. rangel having had legal counsel. he should have had that and they should have postponed it to give him that. and shame on his attorneys who dumped him at the last minute. this should not have proceeded and gone to this extent without him having a representative there with him. it is not justice. host: james in arkansas, a different point of view. the ethics committee in the

congress yesterday voting to recommend censure for mr. rangel. you can find it on our web site if youave not heard the details. how next is holley, a republican, go ahead, please. caller: thank you. i appreciate c-span. i was up early. i was watching it and i was like, o, i can't believe it. and i think he should be expelled. why are they keeping these individuals who are holding high title in office? it is beyond me. i used to be in state government. i was sick every day when i came home. it is everywhere, all over the place. america, wake up. i'm just irritated, i'm sorry. host: that is okay.

and we are here to listen to opinions. we appreciate your call this morning. next is newington, conn., this is rick on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to plug something, if you do notind. a lot of the things that the callers are talking about this morning are covered in a 17,000 word and say that i wrote that can be found under the liberals barred section. and it also talks about c-span, a copy of which i e-mail to you. i would like to talk to the gentleman who talked of our two guests on the "washington journal" after i make my comment about mr. rangel.

host: a cake, you've got to make it quick. caller: proletariats like myself abide by the standard that ignorance is no excuse for the law. if the irs tells me how to do something and i'd do it and it is wrong and the committee that oversees all of this, i know that he did not pay taxes for something like 13 years. i'm surprised that he just got a center. as far as the issue of having watching c-, have been span and it is not the c-span of old. the c-span of gold would have two differing opinions to battle it out, both extremes of the issue so that viewers can get an equal representation. host: i'm sorry to tell you, but

your memory of this is just a little off. i have been doing call-in shows here for almost 28 years and we have almost always had a single guest. occasionally, two, but almost always a single guest with the idea that callers can talk directly with them. if we have two guests, we sacrifice the voices from the public, and that is what we are trying to do. next call from new portland -- newport, virginia, like linda, you're on. lasard, i pushed the wrong button. .his is margaret ti caller: i'm a democrat and i'm trying to tell you that i think people should pay taxes and he is old enough to know better. there is something that gets me. it is not a journey which --

charlie rangel. it is the idea that it is pervasive in the country. what people do not, think about -- what people do not to think about is that any time someone goes into public service, there is more money spent them more money gained. -- ban more money gained. -- there's more money spent then gained. he is going have to pay it back and he said he would, but it is not going to make that much. and yes, i do age that if there is some wrongdoing, they better get it straightened out. that is all i have to say about this. public service is just that. host: margaret from michigan.

back to the newspapers, the "los angeles times" lead story today talks with our turning redistricting over to a panel. the miami herald profiles on

that front -- on its front page new members of congress. we are talking about congressman rangel and the decision by the ethics committee to recommend that the full house censure him. next call is from virginia, newport news. caller: i was wdering if the internal revenue service was actually going to look at his filed returns, because i think that is their position, that is what they should do as a financial institution. secondly, there was a report filed yesterday about the financial status of our elected officials. it is astonishing how many y our houses occupie and senate. the gentleman on the phone a

while ago mentioned that mr. rangel is not generally thought about as a wealthy man. another thing i want to mention is that the american people have the power to change the rules and regulations. and we can do referendums. this is one of our powers guaranteed in the constitution. thanks for taking my call on c- span. you are doing a wonderful job and you do represent all the pointsf view beautifully. host: thanks for watching from virginia. here is a tweet. the next call is from cleveland independent. caller: he is the only tip of

the iceberg and he ought to be going to jail for a couple of years to think about it. they need to straight it up because probably 95% of congress is crooked. they do not want to have to step into his shoes one day, so that is why they are being so lenient. he is just getting a slap on the hand. i have nothing against the guy, even though he is a democrat, but he knew better. and they all do. host: from the a plant the journal constitution, their front page story --

next and probably last on this topic of charlie rangel is john on the democrats line. good morning, john, you are on the air. caller: thas for taking my call thimorning. i just want to say something. i am an immigrant from liberia and i have been in this country since 1985. i admire the united states. even right now, [unintelligible]

talking about liberia >> we will break away from this segment to let you know about president obama arriving in lisbon earlier this morning for summits with the european union. there is the president. he will be discussing his exit strategy in afghanistan and its preference for stimulus spending any time when many european nations have austerity measures. the president in portugal as part of this trip to europe, which comes days after a 10-day swing through asia. on saturday, mr. obama will meet with hamid karzai and he will participate in a brief summit with european union leaders before departing for washington late saturday.

this is a live shot from lisbon, portugal. we did see president obama arrived at this event for opening remarks at the middle some appeared weeks but the secretary-general of nato and the prime minister of portugal. dignitaries and other leaders have been arriving. here are some of the other members of this assembly.

shutterrs click] >> the prime minister of portugal is on your right. they're taking a photograph before they go into this opening session of this nato summit. we expect that event to get underway shortly. live coverage from portugal here on c-span.

[camera shutters click] [unintelligible] [unintelligible]

>> their pc the prime minister of spain making its way into this -- there you see the prime minister of spain. we expect he will be stepping up to the area where the photographers are. as the prime minister of portugal. on your left is the middle secretary general. -- the nato secretary general. [camera shutters click] [no audio]

the prime minister of bulgaria meeting with the portuguese prime minister on your right and the secretary general of nato on

your left. dignitary making their way into this nato summit. this opening session. president obama arriving about 10 minutes or so ago and already inside, as we see more folks, more of the leaders arriving. this is live coverage on c-span from lisbon, portugal.

[camera shutters click]

[inaudible]

[camera shutters click] [inaudible] as you can see, more of the heads of state are arriving for this nato summit. opening remarks set to get underway shortly. president obama already inside. this is live coverage from lisbon, portugal. let's bring you a portion of

this morning's "washington journal," talking about a policy and how to make congress more accessible. ing firm. thank you for time with us this morning. we worked with you to ask a question of the public, the people that you polled who were voters in the last election how to make congress more accessible. can you talk about what you learned? >> essentially there is very strong interest in making congress more accessible. there is a very clear message to the house leadership in these national poll findings. it is time to accept the digital age. i will give you an example of some of the findings. we tested a series of things that congress might permit in terms of now that there is new

leadership in the house. particularly encouraging congress to use everyday language. talking about legislation, publish bills on line so people might read them, might be able it see them, read them online. alert them when congress is addressing issues of particular interest concerning tax cuts or spending cuts. here is essentially what we learned. 84% of voters at the last election support congress using everyday language talking about legislation. two interesting things. these were 84% support, only 4% opposed change. very strong support across all parties as well as among independents. very interesting trend we saw is that it is true, basically the older the voter, the more they favor these changes. so, in a sense and particularly we you consider as i said a

moment ago, this is about accepting the digital age. what is fascinating is the older the voter the more likely they are to support the changes. so if you want to think about it this way, gray pwerdz are leading the -- gray beards are leading the way on the digital revolution. they would love to publish, see published the language of bills online so people may read them. 83% support this change, 4% oppose it. we see strong support across the parti parties, slightly stronger among independents. the biggest numbers are among the people over 50. think of this as crowd sourcing. in essence, the public could provide the checks and balances on earmarks. a million eyes when you publish bills online. the voting public strongly supports that. they are also interested in particular 80% support very

stro strongly for alerts such as we major tax bills or spending cuts might be coming for final vote to the floor of the house. we get alerts all the time on our phones digitally through computers. this is what the voting public would like to see. host: what other interesting finding is 76% support policy debates the way the congress debate is sequential aly. this suggests they would like to hear two sides going at it on an issue? >> yes. i think they would very much -- that is clearly something that they would -- i think this connects to the everyday language as well. that support for everyday language. they feel very strongly that that way they could get some sense of what the important

issues are. and i think there are some people that think they are fragi fragile. i think it would be better for congress and the institution of congress, you know? confidence in congress is at an all-time low since they invented survey research and arguably in the history of the republic. this is a good time to rethink the old ideas. the public is not fragile. they understand there are contrasting, differing viewpoints. let it play out in a way that is accessible. host: mr. green. thank you. you asked 1,200ld become

host: we welcome your participation. >> a short while ago, as we have been waiting for the opening remarks of the nato summit to get underway, we saw president obama arrive. we will show that two out. this is about 15 or 20 minutes ago. [camera shutters click]

>> how are you? we have been working very hard. [camera shutters click] >> back live now. expecting momentarily the opening remarks of this nato summit here we expect year for the secretary general anders fogh rasmussen and it should be getting underway surely. we saw a president obama arrive about 20 mid to upper with salt nicolas sarkozy and other world leaders make the way. our live coverage will continue here run c-span. -- here on c-

span. [no audio] some live pictures from lisbon, portugal. a visitor the international airport, we're given to understand. let's take a back to this morning's "washington journal." we spoke to a reporter about the

money laundering trial of house majority leader tom delay. we'll break away if this summit gets under way. scussion about charlie rangel. we have a reporter on the phone and have had a number of questions from callers asking about the status in texas of the tom delay trial. r.g. radcliffe is a political writer for the houston chronicle. yesterday, the defense rested in that case. mr. radcliffe, tell us about the charges and how it has been going so far. guest: the trial has rocked back and forth. most of the testimony has come from the prosecution, which is trying to make the case that when tom delay's political committee traded $190,000 in

corporate money with the republican national committee in 2002, it was essentially money laundering to get around a texas ban on using corporate money in canada elections -- candidate elections. his side of the case has basically been to show that he had nothing to do with the day- to-day operations of the political committee called "texans for a republican majority" and even if he did, this money laundering -- well, i say money laundering. the trade of money was legal because it was corporate money that could be raised legally, corporate money that could legally go to the rnc, and it was legal individual money that came back to the candidates in texas. the jury in this case has been

very attentive and very hard to read. it is really difficult to tell whether or not they have been buying either side of the case. but they are very interested in what, essentially, is a very complex, white-collar case. we will have closing arguments on monday and i assume it will go to the jury on monday the jury did not hear directly from tom delay. he never took the witness stand. however, after the trial was over yesterday, he was saying the prosecution allowed him to testify without taking the stand because they played an extensive telephone interview he did in 2005 from with chris wallace -- in 2005 with chris wallace. the prosecution played the tape because they wanted to shore up the tape they had of an

interview they have done with tom delay where he said essentially that he knew about this money is what in advance. host: and the judge in this case? guest: the judges a retired visiting judge named pat priest and he has been stirring in the courtroom and has more than once admonish lawyers from both sides. could it not want to hear any politics in the case. he wanted it to be as purely as possible about whether or not this amounted to money- laundering under texas law. host: if this goes to the jury on monday, we are right into thanksgiving week. they will likely take a break for the holiday? guest: well -- in-line ho-- two of the jurors told the

judge they could rearrange vacation plans and one said he needs to be gone at the end of the week. this is not something they will have to ponder a long time. the jury is either or to come back with a verdict one way or another relatively quickly or they are going to be hung up. i expect we will know monday night or tuesday what they have decided. host: r.g. >> backlog to lisbon, portugal, where remarks at the nato summit are expected to get underway shortly. there you see the prime minister of portugal. we have been left -- watching in the last half hour as heads of

state arriving. president obama there about a half hour ago, arriving as part of his two-day trip to europe, coming just after his 10-day trip to asia. tomorrow, we expect president obama to meet with hamid karzai and for dissipate in a brief summit with european leaders. there is angela merkel, the prime minister -- chancellor of germany. president obama is expected back late sunday -- saturday night. this event was supposed to get underway at 11:30 eastern time. it looks like it is raining there and perhaps some of the leaders are running late. we do see the prime minister and secretary general of nato there, so expect this to begin shortly. live coverage, here on the c- span -- on c-span.

>> good afternoon. the meeting is opened. >> excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, today and tomorrow, we will take decisions which will frame the future hundred.

these decisions will reaffirm a shared commitment by all our countries to the freedom and security of our citizens. this commitment is the bedrock of our alliance. and it is upheld every day by the more than 100,000 men and women who serve in nato operations from afghanistan to costello, and from -- kosovo, and from the horn of africa to the military and see. i think is a corporate we begin our summit with a tribute to them. the bravery of these soldiers, sailors, air force personnel, and civilians, gives strength

and the meaning to our alliance. every day, without question, they put themselves in harm's way so that others can live safely. we owe a debt of gratitude to them. we are privileged to be joined this afternoon by representatives of the armed services of the 28 allied nations.

>> i welcome you all to this council meeting. and i would beg to express to you, and through you to all the rest of the men and service women in nato-led operations, our profound gratitude. we honor, in particular, those who have given their lives on behalf of our alliance. and their sacrifice marks a profound loss to their families and their loved ones, and to their countries. we extend our deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones

of our fallen military and civilians, and we mourn the loss together with them. we also honor those who have been injured in the course of our common effort. may i now ask you to join me in a minute silence to pay homage to all those who have fallen or have been injured in the service of our alliance. ♪

♪ >> thank you. [applause]

>> excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the nato allies are present a unique -- represents a unique sense of communities, committed to shared values and liberty and human rights, bound together by solidarity, indicted in the determination to stand together and defend one another against threats to our security. [speaking in french]

>> nato will become more effective, more engaged in the world and more efficient than ever before. >> we will develop modern capabilities to defend against modern who directs -- threats. we will make a fresh start in our relations with russia, which aim of building a strategic partnership, and we will streamline the alliance to make it more efficient by cutting fat and investing in muscle so that our taxpayers get the maximum return for their investment. for all these reasons, this will

be one of the most important gments in nato's history. prime minister socrates says, thank you for allowing me to host in this bond. -- lisbon. >> mr. secretary general, heads of states and government, portugal is proud to be one of the founding members of nato. we participate actively in the alliance activities and operations since its foundation 61 years ago. we have for four decades a nato command in lisbon, and it is along this line of permanent commitment with nato we are organizing this summit, the

first summit at the heads of state level, and government held in our country. i have always considered nato as an essential institution for democratic peace. this is its heritage. 50 years of freedom, peace, and stability. a heritage built on strategic coherence, sound commitment, military capacity, but above all, built on the common values that we share, bellies of peace, freedom, and security. the lisbon summit will be a this was a landmark in nato's evolution. we will reiterate its founding principal and i am quite sure of the fact that the alliance of nations led by transatlantic

ties are denied it through values of democracy and freedom. we will update collective defense, taking into account new threats and risks we face. we will strengthen our capacity to intervene in prevention and crisis management, which may jeopardize our own security, and we will underline nato's role in a collaborative safety by acting in partnership with other organizations and nations to promote stability and global security. the strategic concept that we will have proved in lisbon shows these in clear principles. it is our vision for the next decade, a vision it enhancing multilateralism and partnerships. a vision for protecting our

citizens against threats and their securities, such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks, against organized crime related to drug trafficking and human trafficking. the strategic concept will also direct the reform of nato's structure. every forum which makes it stronger takes advantage of available resources and best adapted to our challenges. heads of state and government, allow me to say some words about the meetings held on afghanistan and with the russian federation. i am quite certain that tomorrow we will give a clear sign of support to the transition in afghanistan, based on a

strategic partnership guaranteeing the security and stability in the country in the long run. portugal will continue engaged in this objective and will strengthen its contribution for the training mission of the afghan forces, allowing the country to fully assume its sovereignty. finally, it is with particular satisfaction that we will come in lisbon the summit for the russia and nato council. we are uncertain tomorrows meeting will mark a new phase in the strategic relationship between nato and russia. as you know, portugal has given its contribution to strengthen the nato-russia partnership, because we consider that it is vital for the security and stability of the euro-trans- atlantic zone, and is decisive

to the approach and solving most of the challenges of regional and global security. our agenda is therefore very demanding, which is the only way to achieve historic results, i am quite certain, this will be a summit which will be a landmark in nato's history. i want to reiterate on behalf of my country, the pleasure to welcome all of you. thank you so much. thank you, secretary-general. >> thank you very much, indeed, prime minister. let me express our gratitude again to the portuguese authorities for receiving us so warmly, here in lisbon. they i now ask the media to leave the room so that we can begin our meeting.

>> live coverage from lisbon, portugal, here on c-span. this afternoon and another discussion on the midterm elections, how it changed politics. the federalist society is holding its national lawyers convention at 2:00 eastern. we will hear from indiana congressman mike pence talking about tea parties and the constitution. the house has 94 new members, one of them republican jeff landry of louisiana. he takes the place of democratic three-term incumbent charlie belissant. he is an attorney who owns an oil and gas contamination cleanup company. also new to the house, mr. harris. his district includes part of

northern baltimore. here is some of those 94 new members on the steps of the u.s. capitol building posing for their freshman picture. we have a bit of video. >> this freshman class, the 112th congress, 94 members

starting in january, coming together for a picture. after that, they went to the office lottery where members take a metal disk from a box, and they are allowed to see if they like that office and, if they like it, they can occupy it. again, this morning, you can see that new class of congressmen, posing for pictures. it was supposed to happen earlier this week, but bad weather in washington delayed it to this week.

>> like all men of great gifts, they give up power, even for principal reasons, they begin to hanker for it the moment they give it up. >> edwin morris examined the final years of theodore roosevelt's life, including his bold move for president. >> live this weekend, joined various authors as "book tv" goes to the miami book fair international. live all weekend on c-span2. >> the chairman of the homeland said that contract subcommittee has asked president obama to remove the current inspector

general for afghanistan reconstruction arnold fields. he went before the committee yesterday and explained the audits his office conducted. at the end, claremont haskell says that mr. fields should be fired. this is about one hour. deputy director of the africa center for strategic studies, department of defense, and is a member of the u.s. department of state assigned to the u.s. embassy in iraq where he performed duties as the chief of staff of the iraq reconstruction and managed an office. he retired as a major general from the nine states were in court in january 2004 after 34 years of active military service. let me state for the record how

much your record speaks of you as an american, as a patriot, and how much our country owes you a debt of gratitude for your many years of service on behalf of the united states of america. it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear in all witnesses that appeared before us, so if you do not mind, i would like you to stand. do you swear the testimony will give to this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? we welcome your testimony, general fields. >> you may begin. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate this opportunity to be here today. i would say that it is a pleasure, but i would be telling

a lie if i were to say so. but it is a privilege as well as an opportunity, and i wish to take full advantage of that opportunity. i have worked in support of sigar for the past year and a half. funding we received in june 2009 fully funded this organization. from nothing but legislation to 123 well informed and talented staff, of which, 32 today are on full assignments for 13 months to a very dangerous place known as afghanistan. this work is challenging. i have to find people willing to put their lives in harm's way in

afghanistan, conducting this work in the midst of a very competitive market of investigators and auditors. i am proud of the staff that we have. we have conducted work in 22 of 34 provinces of afghanistan. 48 separate locations. we have reduced 34 -- produced 34 audits, over 100 recommendations. 90 percent of which have been accepted by the institutions of this federal government that we have scrutinized. they are using our work. i can cite many cases, but i will not at this point, but our work is making a difference. i did -- and i appreciate the chairman acknowledged that i requested the assessment.

we would not have normally undergone such a thing. the earliest would have been 2012. i wanted to make this organization and what senator mccaskill hoped it would be, and i made unilateral request to do just that. my leadership has been referred to as an inept. that is the first time, senator, that in all my life, a man of 64 years of age, who has supported this federal government for 41 years, of which 34 have been as a military officer. i do not even allow my own auditors to refer to the people in afghanistan as in that. it is too general a statement for any human being. -- as inept.

i have met many people in afghanistan, from the president to the little children. when i asked those little children what is it on which this reconstruction effort, $56 billion that the u.s. has invested in afghanistan should be based, and these children, who are no higher than my knee, said the same thing to me as officials said. they want water, energy, electricity, education. what really broke my heart, these kids told me that what they really want is a floor in their school. that is what we're up against in afghanistan. we have created an opportunity for the children of afghanistan, who i feel represent the future

of afghanistan, as well as the rest of the people. and i would be the last to condone in any form or fashion any activity that leads to less than the full measure of the $56 billion being used for the purposes for which it was made available. i want this subcommittee to also know that i take this work very seriously. why? i was raised in south carolina. the level of education for both my mother and father was less than fifth grade, but the best training i received was from my mother. i wished someone had brought $56

billion to bear upon my life, but here i am in a very important position try to influence what is going on in afghanistan to the best of my ability, using a very knowledgeable and competent staff by which to do so. i was raised in poverty myself. i work for less than $1.50 a day, about what the average afghanistan person makes in a day. on the day president kennedy was buried, which was a no school day for me, my brother and i shoveled stuff out of a local farmers septic tank, $75 for the two of us. i know what it is to live in poverty and i know what it means to have opportunity. my country has given me that, and i am pleased and grateful. i will do my best, senator

mechanical -- mccaskill, brown to measure up to your expectations. the legislation i am carrying out has three dimensions. contracts have not been an exclusive one, but i agree, that is where the focus has been. i am also tasked to look at the programs and operations that support this tremendous reconstruction effort, and i promise you senators, but i will do so. thank you. >> thank you, general fields. in general, i certainly expect -- respect your life story and what you have accomplished. i think i can speak for every other u.s. senator, no one questioned your commitment to the u.s. that is not the question here.

the question is whether or not the important work of the inspector general in afghanistan has been fulfilled and completed, especially within the time frames that we are working with because of the contingency operation. you submitted 12 pages of written testimony for this hearing. less than one page of those 12 address the serious deficiencies found in your peer review by other inspector general's trying to measure the work of your audit agency against the standards that are required in the federal government. you did say in your testimony that findings did help the stricken organization and that you have now made changes. let me talk about the law that you are an operating under. a lot of your operating under, i am sure you are aware requires a

comprehensive audit plan. are you aware of that, general field? >> yes, i am. >> when did you begin work on a comprehensive audit plan? >> we began work on the comprehensive audit plan when i published the very first report in which it contained our working in the advance their of of how we planned to proceed with this new organization. in that report delivered to this congress -- in that report delivered to this congress at the end of october 2008, i laid up, in general, what we would do. i am pleased to say that at the top of the list is contracting. that was followed up with the

hiring of mr. jon drummond as my principal auditor -- >> when did that occur? >> that hiring occurred the first week of january 2009. that is when mr. drummond supported -- reported aboard. >> and you had been at the agency how long when he joined the agency? since july 2008, correct? >> that is when i was sworn in. >> i hope the first thing you did was look at public law 110, 181, public statute to 35, and look at the statute requirements of your job. that plan requires that it must be consistent with the requirements of subsection h,

which are the audit requirements that the congress placed on sigar. are you familiar with the audit requirements in subsection h? >> in general, yes i am. >> could you tell us what those requirements are? >> that we would conduct thorough audits of the spending associated with our contribution to construction in afghanistan -- reconstruction in afghanistan -- >> i am not try to play gotcha here, general, but there are seven requirements in subsection age. after i read each one, i would like you to tell me if they had been completed, and if so, when. the first one -- these are the things at a minimum you are required to examine as special spector general. the first is the manner in which contract requirements were developed and contracts were

task and delivery orders it rewarded. has that been done by sigar? have you examined contract requirements in afghanistan, contracts, tasks in afghanistan, how they were delivered ordered? has your agency done that to date? >> we have conducted several contract audits. each of those audits has addressed matters associated with how contracts came about. >> how many contracts audits have you completed? >> we have completed about four contract orders. >> you have done four contract audits. is it not true that all of them have occurred essentially in the last 12 months? >> that is correct. >> number two, the manner in which the federal agency exercises control over the performance of contractors. have you done that audit work?

>> we have examined in each of our audits the extent to which controls have been in place to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse of the american taxpayer dollar. in so doing, yes, ma'am, we have looked at those matters as they relate to contracts specifically in those areas where we have conducted focus contract audits of specific initiatives for which funding is made available. >> the first requirement done with contract requirement, task and delivery orders. the second requirement, the matter of control over contractors of the federal government. 3, the extent to which operates the field commanders were able to coordinate or direct the performance of contractors in the area of combat operations. has that worked been done? >> the very first audit that we conducted was for a contract

being supervised by the organization responsible for the training and oversight of afghan security forces. that contract is worth $404 million to the american taxpayer. >> and how many audits have you done that address the oversight of contractors by field commanders? >> 40% of our audits have been direct or focus contract audits, or contract-related audits. >> i thought you said that you had done four audits on contracts. >> i was referencing four focused contract audits, which were multimillion-dollar infrastructure initiatives, specifically initiated with the stand up of the afghan can --

afghanistan's security forces. i can also say that we have looked contracts, not so much focused on contracts, not addressing a specific infrastructure initiative, but those audits address contracts in general that relate to the stand up of the afghan security forces, and other initiatives in afghanistan. >> #4, the degree to which contractors and employees were properly screened, trained, and equipped for the function to be performed. is there a report you can put me to where i can get assurance that we are doing adequate training, equipping, and screening of personnel and afghanistan? >> once again, the first audit that we published, we found that the supervision of that

particular contract was inadequate. the actual entity, expert in contract, was actually in maryland and was not on a permanent basis in afghanistan. >> how many contracts are operational in afghanistan right now? >> i do not know. >> can you give me a ballpark? >> based on our most recent audit between 2007 and 2009 for all contracts for which we could find information at that point in time, 6900 contracts, among which i am confident with the number or type that you mentioned. >> i have asked several questions and each one you referred to the same audit of one contract. so of the 6000 -- we have almost 7000 active operational

contracts and there have been four audits completed of those contracts? >> the 6900 is a role of contracts in general regarding afghanistan between the years 2007 and 2009. how many of those might be defined as operational contracts, i do not know. >> but you have no reason to believe that it has gone down? in fact, it has probably gone up. >> absolutely. >> the next one. the nature of any incident or conducfound unlawful by an employee. how many audits have done that would reassure the american people that you have, in fact, look for, found, or are confident there is no unlawful activity by contractor employees? >> in each of the 34 audits that we have conducted, those matters have been of concern, but each

of those 34 may not necessarily have been directly related to its contract. >> how many findings have you issued dealing with misconduct, unlawful activity from contract employees? >> i do not think that we have identified misconduct, per say. we have identified issues that we have given to investigations for further follow-up. i can specifically tell you of an audit that we conducted which started as a general audit of the kabul power plant, an item or $3 million to the american taxpayers. in the course of that audit, we found anomalies that we felt

were investigatory in nature. we tailored and shortened the scope of our audit and the rest of those matters were turned over to our investigators and they are still being pursued. >> the remaining two requirements in terms of audits that must be performed, the nature and extent of any activity by contract employee that was inconsistent with the objections of operational field commanders. finally, 7, the extent to which any incident or misconduct or unlawful activity were reported, documented, investigated, and prosecuted. to what extent have you been able to produce a report as to how much unlawful activity has off -- actually been investigated and prosecuted? >> i do not have an answer to that question at this time. i can assure you, as we conduct our audit work, as we conduct our investigations, all of those matters are taken into

consideration. >> thank you, general. senator brown? >> general, thank you once again. i mirror sigasenator mccaskill's kind words, particularly about your service. i noted in your testimony you have concern for the afghan children, the people of canada stand. i understand that, but i also have great concern of our soldiers and men and women fighting. -- the people of afghanistan. i am also concerned about the taxpayers who are paying for that $56 billion. it does not grow on trees. i know you have been in the position since july 2008, and the last panel that you heard noted serious management deficiencies in their review. now that you have held office for two years, what major course

corrections are you taking to rectify these serious deficiencies ? ? >> [inaudible] that was a month during which i was privileged to be sworn into this position but funding for sigar did not come until much later. that is why i pointed out we did not receive full funding for this organization until june of 2009. >> so noted. >> in reference to course corrections, one of the reasons i asked for them to come in earlier than anticipated was for me to help set the course correctly for this organization.

i am using the results of both the audit, both investigations, and the so-called capstone review of sigar to help chart the course. so i have put in place, as of the 30th of september of this year, recommendations and suggestions made by the review team. >> how have you done that? the biggest thing senator mccaskill and i are concerned about is the money. i know you have done good investigations of other things that you commented on, which is the policy issues relating to the ability for the afghan people to, you know, live and grow, but the thing that many taxpayers are concerned about right now is the dollars. they want to know where their money is going.

what actions, based on recommendations, do you have in place? >> i am a taxpayer as well, so i have as much interest, if not more, in my particular case than the average taxpayer. we are doing a better job of risk assessments. we found it to be a witt -- weakness to which earlier attention in a much more pointed way should have been turned. so we are improving the means by which we determine where it is we should focus our efforts. >> where is that leading you now? >> well, it has been leading us to a greater focus on contracts. that is where the money is. on the initial questioning by the madam chairman, we also have to address the front end of this reconstruction effort. to what extent are the policies

being put in place by those who are implementing this $56 billion. >> i respect that approach, but now that you have been put on notice by everybody, we understand the policies and all that stuff, but what are you doing specifically now, based on the recommendations you have been given -- what are you specifically doing? all the viewers we have, where are you focusing? i want to be able to advocate and say, he is learning and growing. he has gotten the funding one year after being sworn in. he has been given an independent request of the -- audit. i do not want to beat a dead horse, but i want to know where you are focusing. are you focusing on how taliban

is getting money from us taxpayers? are you focusing on that? are you focusing on bribes, payoffs? are you focusing on the fact that the afghan army, after the $6 billion we spent, is still not up and running? where are you focusing exactly? >> we are focusing on several broad areas. at the top of that list, happens to be contracting. >> what specifically in contacting, are you looking at bridges and roads, power? contract is so big. we have 7000 contracts. have you initiated investigations already? >> we have 89 investigations as we speak. >> where are they being focused? >> they are being focused on fraud and theft. >> based on that, what kinds of

examples could you give to me and the american taxpayers of what you are seeing. what made you go to that particular area, versus another area? >> that is where we feel the vulnerability is for the american taxpayer dollars. >> based on what? a tipoff, prior contracts, why did you specifically want to go for that area? >> based on all the above, sir. >> can you share your thoughts on how we can strategically deal with this price challenge, in that in your testimony you stated your concern about the role of private security contractors, specifically as it relates to fuelling and strengthening criminal networks. what tangible actions are required to try to defer this corruption? what do you think -- what can

you tell me about that? >> i believe the fight against corruption must replace on several levels and many dimensions. the first of which, we need to give consideration to what it is we are doing in support of the reconstruction effort for the government of afghanistan. we are conducting a reconstruction effort in three broad areas, security, governance, and development. each of those, we feel needs to be addressed. we are devoting and have devoted $29 billion to security in afghanistan itself, the stand up of a afghanistan forces. we have devoted $16 billion to governments and development. therein lies the vulnerability of the american taxpayer dollar. we are pursuing audits and investigations that will help

mitigate the potential for the american taxpayer dollars to be wasted, fraud, or abused. >> i know you are getting $46 million to complete your mission. that is a lot of money. senator coburn reference to -- you identified in terms of fraud, waste, and abuse, about $8 million. can you tell me, boss, -- , us, why there has not been more of a collection in that respect, fraud, waste, and abuse? >> i am inclined to the to be part of that to a lack of funding -- >> i'm going to give the one to you because you're under oath.

in the last nine months. any success is that you have had under us? >> $6 million that we reported in our most recent report. we have an ongoing forensic audit of $37 billion looking at over 73,000 transactions from which we intend to be vectored toward potential crime. we are using forensics as a means to fairly quickly identify the vulnerabilities, and then we are structuring audits and investigations accordingly. >> one final note. in your latest sigar quarterly report, it mentions afghan security contracts -- i met with

general petraeus on many occasions concerning our afghan policy. i agree with him, we must be better buyers and by from the people. what oversight actions are you taking from your investigations to prioritize general petraeus' objectives, so that those funds will be given to better people and not our enemies? >> first, i applaud general petraeus and the initiatives that he has taken to address this issue of corruption. the stand up task force 21 is one of those very significant initiatives. we are working closely with task force 2010. we are also working closely with the international contract corruption task force in order to harness the investigatory initiatives of the federal agencies so that we can bring

our wherewithal to bear quickly upon the finding folks who are building the american -- bailing the taxpayer out of money. >> general fields, in your testimony a few minutes ago, you referred to the sticky audits. the first audit you did. is that correct? do you recall how long that audit was? how many pages? >> i do not recall how many pages. i am pretty sure it was not very long. >> does 12 pages sound right? >> that sounds about right. >> how many pages in that audit actually contained the audit work? >> i would have to review the audit. >> would four pages sound

correct? >> may be. >> the other audit you referred to is the kabul power plant. have not a similar audit been done by usaid? >> that is correct. >> let's talk about the funding of your agency. usaid did an audit similar to the one that you did on the power plant. do you know what the funding for usaid has been in terms of their inspector general work in afghanistan over the last five, six years? do you know what their total funding has been? >> usaid in terms of its operations in afghanistan? >> $10 million. do you see what they have occurred for a $10 million taxpayer investment? $149 million. $149 million.