boogie men. this brings in money if you know especially as we get close to the end of a month you are inundated with pleas for money, the coke brotters are going to take over this race and this is something that certainly people who may not know as much about these races, oh my goodness all this money and the coke brothers want to do this around democrats have painted them as the evil sort of funding machines and things too so they're trying to contrast this with these average everyday women who have worked really hard and their names happen to be koch. one thing that confused me they're not actually sisters. it's confuse bug this is more so designed to try to continue to get money to sort of grow their email list and again going back to turnout. democrats need these people that are sort of frustrated and

angry about this money and the millions that the coke brothers are spending through many different venues. >> if you're just tuning in or listening on c-span radio, our focus, the mid term elections less than 60 days before voters go to the polls and early voting in many parts of the country. ac from missouri. good morning. go ahead. caller: i've always considered myself a democrat. ok. i'm 56 years old. and a taxpayer. from a single man's point of view, missouri i've been clearly, cleared for medicaid. but missouri being having opted having medicaid come

through. since i'm legally by medicaid i am not eligible for obamacare. as a u.s. tax citizens, as single, a 56-year-old man, where should i swing my vote to get the most impact? i said this time i want to know should it go to a woman, should it go to -- i'm right now, i'm always considered myself democrat. ok, i'm at this point in my life where maybe i need to switch my way of thinking. host: thanks very u much for the call. nathan let me turn to you to talk about the impact of health care and the affordable care act. but first to his point. guest: well, living in missouri, this cycle, there

aren't a lot of hot races. so in terms of change being able to switch your senator, switch your member of congress, it's not one of the battleground states. but health care in general, the affordable care act there's been a lot of discussion. it's not a hot issue any more. but this is an issue, jessica was talking about things that rile the base. it still gets the republican base very excited and we're still seeing it trying to fuel some of the energy by the republicans get out the vote effort. and that's something one of the keys in this election is the result is one thing, but what lessons do both parties learn coming out of the election? and which party believes it's either a mandate to continue or a mandate to repeal obamacare? i know the president is in office so it's unlikely but the lessons coming out of november is very important. host: let me ask about another

race. montana, senator warble appointed expected to run a formidable campaign. he's now out of the race because of majorism charges. the republicans putting up another candidate. >> this is a huge break for republicans. i think this majorism scandal really shook up the race, certainly, there. and this is almost one of the three open seats that we really fully expect to flip to republican column along with south dakota and west virginia. open seats now retiring democrats in red states and they've put up a state senator there who if she doesn't have the time or the money certainly to make this a competitive race. democrats know this is off of their list. and i think what more so it does, even before walsh dropped out dane had the edge there but now they don't have to spend resource there is. so you're seeing them move the

money out. i think it certainly frees up money for other places. but this is a race where that certainly that was an absolute game changer and certainly hands this to republicans. guest: she's young, she is a woman. i don't think there's a lot of competition to jump into this, to be the one chosen to take over. and she already -- republicans were quick on the draw to find you tube videos, being of a younger generation she's been more active of social media so she has more opinions out there that might be attractive to one side that also gives more for her opponents to go after and to criticize. and i think this is one, this has even gone into the safer column where even south dakota where there's multiple candidates in the race and the math is a bill bit challenging. montana looks like a safe republican takeover host: here on c-span will be your place to watch the debates

in all of these races and you can follow us on social media. you can like us on twitter and you can get all the information 2014 pan.org/campaign also at facebook.com/c-span. bobby, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i was a republican for years and years. hen george w. bush and his son messed it up so bad we all went in depression. ow i had a heart attack. the man before i could file my social security had filed bankruptcy. month to ave 1100 a live on. it's hard for me to make it. and i think all this congress

spends, [inaudible] the way we have to. they could trouble find getting food or shelter or anything like this. i worked hard all my life. i was a painter. i killed myself just to make six -- while they're making six figures a year. and hollering they don't make enough money. and i don't think they all to -- any of them, i don't think they ought to be able to run for congress being in there 30 years. i think they ought to have a limit on how many years they can run and then get a new one in there. host: he brings up two issues. term limits, which has been talked about extensively over the last 20 or 30 years. and also, one of the issues we focused on friday in the "washington journal" really

class in america and the divide between rich and poor. guest: well, term limits goes up and down in terms of we go through cycles becoming more of an issue. some candidates will bring it up now on their own, self--term limiting themselves. i think that's about as far as we're going to get. i don't think we're going to have a law. you're not going to have people that are directly impacting members of congress voting to kick themselves out after a set number of terms. i just for some reason don't think that's going to happen. >> and his point about class and wealth? guest: i think it's a concern for a lot of people. it's part of the democratic message more than the republican message. but i think it's really it resonates with a lot of people. and i think that's one of the democratic things that they have. the republicans are just in it for the wealthy they have these wealthy donors, they have these wealthy outside groups spending money and that's part of the

message. host: henry, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. caller: i'm calling about they keep saying about the immigrants and the reason why you have to bring immigrants in to work, farmland, whatever business there is, is because local people don't want to do nothing but be on welfare. that's not a fact. the fact of it is not the idea you cannot get the local people to work. the reason with why they're having a problem with local people, let's say the man who is making the six figures goes to the gas station pay it is same thing for his gas as what the man pays for gas that's only making minimum wage. the man who is making in the six figures, he says he can't make it off minimum wage. well, how do you figure a poor man can make it off minimum wage? then they keep saying about the immigrants. you've got to back this train up. it started a long time ago.

and congress keeps doing the same thing over and over. leave those people where they are and try to do something with the people you have over here. try to help them. but to keep from paying the top wages, what they do is get immigrants. let's back the train up. a long time ago they went over in africa and got ault african americans from over there and brought them over here to do thimmings they didn't want to do. and we constantly keep doing the same thing over and over. you'll never get a change. right now we're talking about over here in isis. leave that alone. try to straighten your own people out you've got people here in the united states starving. they're on tv, they're starving. and we can take millions of dollars to go over to bomb people which doesn't make sense. and then you bring them here. once you bring them here then you holler about immigrants. ost: we'll get a response. congressman cassidy, senator

land rue among the top two candidates in what could end up being a runoff in early december but have you decided who you're going to vote for? caller: i don't see anybody capable to deserve my vote because they all lie. these lies that they're doing is deceit. so i wouldn't vote for either one of them. she lives in washington, d.c. and still wants to represent in louisiana and look what she's living in, look what i'm living in. and you take it for cassidy he gets up on tv and starts lying and saying what he is going to do for the people and knowing he's not going to do anything. it's time to change the whole system. guest: i think this gets back to the question of certainly class and things too and one of the things he mentioned is how much he's liing on versus politicians. i think that's why you are seeing democrats push minimum wage initiatives, this is something that harry reid has said he still wants to bring up

in the senate. and this certainly is a democratic base issue that they will do. but i think you see a lot of politicians trying to show how they are relating to these people and even going out, a lot of them have tried to live on minimum wage for a week showing how difficult it is. but i think as an earlier caller said, $178,000 to a lot of people is a lot of money. it can go very far in a lot of plastes. and for them seeing maybe we're not sending people up here that are doing a lot and still making that, and whereas their constituents are just barely getting by. so i think that's what you're going to hear democrats continue to push. but again, his concerns with immigration i think goes to what republicans are, the sort of fear that they're going to be taking away people coming into the country, taking away these low-paying jobs. and people do need them and are wanting them. so i think that it really does

sort of sound an independent in the true sense. and also he's very frustrated with both places. he doesn't like cassidy, doesn't like land rue, that sort of frustration with inaction and people is why we see congress' approval rating at an all-time low. host: and in the first and presumably only debate in the californiagoer nove's race, the republican candidate who had spent time with the homeless going after the slow recovery in california where jerry brown becoming one of the youngest governors ever and now the oldest elected governor in california history. at the end of the debate a call for another debate and jerry brown saying i think we've seen the differences here tonight. guest: and this is, we've gotten this far with cash cari and the republican nominee. there was concern that someone else would be the nominee in california and that would totally submarine any republican efforts to take over some of the critical, the most competitive house districts down the ballot. but now there's at least a

sense that it won't be a complete blowout and jerry brown won't completely cruise and there will be at least competitive enough of these republican opportunities in the 52nd district, maybe the 7th district, that those are at least possible because brown is not going to blow them out of the water. host: from texas. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that the reason r the jobs that the people are low-paying jobs, that the people do not have the training. some of these people aren't worth $2 an hour let alone $7.50 an hour. they need training. the infrastructure of america is dead. do you see our roads and our bridges? and everything out here? instead of putting money into all these politician's pockets, we should be getting these people on welfare and disability and stuff that do

not have jobs and cannot have jobs. and going on disability because of it. taking some of the pay out of the government and putting it into the infrastructure. get these people out there on these jobs so they can get experience in jobs and this president is turning the country into a pot hole. he's degrading our system. this is not america as we know it because of this president. the president is the problem. it's the democrats, too, because they allowed him to do it all these years. we need to clean house in every part of government it's 90% fraudulent. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think she's touching on something that i think is a vicious cycle that there is such a low view of government right now that when the government tries to do something, i think democrats and the president would point to the stimulus bill saying hey this was where we were trying

to inject spending into the economy. spend some money on infrastructure, spend money on roads. but because people have such a low view of government, there is an immediate, well, they're not spending it right or correctly. and it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy in this vicious cycle. until people view government, have a higher view of government, there's always going to be the skepticism that everything they do is wrong, fraudulent, corrupt, and that's i think a problem in general. host: kentucky, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: before you make your point i want to get your sense of what is happening on the ground that showed mitch mcconnell at about 50% and alison grimes at 46%. the plit report listing this as a lean republican race. you're calling on the republican line. what's your sense? caller: well, sir, to tell you u the truth i wouldn't vote for

either one of them. but i have to vote for mitch mcconnell because alison grimes will put the commonwealth of kentucky back so far if she gets elected that we'll never get back to any kind of status in this country. mitch mcconnell's been there too long but the reason i called was because of the term limits that the other gentleman talked about. you've got to educate your public to tell them what a term limit is. that's their vote. and you can't complain if you don't vote. like i said, mitch mcconnell, he's not the best but he's the best we've got. host: ok. caller: we'll lose out education, job, if he goes. that's just the way it is. that's the facts. and your other caller there mentioned the koch brothers and

stuff. why don't you all mention george soros and all his organizations that put out money, the big money? he wants open borders and open drug laws. so let's be fair about this. i appreciate your call. caller: have a nice day. host: who would like to take that? guest: i think that he as a republican especially these are the type of voters mcconnell does have to get and he is going to be a reluctant voter. senator mcconnell's biggest stumbling block is he is certainly seen as a creature of washington, has very staggering approval ratings but sounds like the caller exactly is -- their message certainly is resonating that grimes is going to come here, be a vote for president obama, and as he said, he's not the best but he's sort of the best we've got. and mcconnell isn't going to win overwhelmingly. he does need to continue to

sort of drive home that message. and i think that is certainly what is happening. d but again, he also sort of hit on the message grimes has had in a lot of her ads that mcconnell has been here too long. but as you are sort of seeing this race, the poll this week, he is sort of starting to pull away. the republican lean of the state is starting to win out. >> new polls in a couple key races we'll have that coming up. but first tony from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. ok. i used to be a democrat. but the reason why i switched over to independent is because for mocrats i thought -- one thing they [inaudible] they're scared on the social security. if they backed they would be in

a strong position on it. and talking about this race of mitch mcconnell. now, in history kentucky was one of the last states to join or get rid of the slavery. mitch mcconnell to black people represents one of the most racist views that anybody can put forward. o therefore when people come when mcconnell is running and the way he speaks and talks it is automatically a turnoff. but i want to emphasize that the democratic party, if they were to get behind president obama on a lot of the issues and the things that he put forward, they would be in a much better position and they wouldn't be so timent and scared that they're going to lose the senate. host: direct contrast to what we heard a moment ago.

guest: it sounds like he does want democrats to get behind president obama on a lot of these things but he said they're scared and timid. i think this shows again that everything that happens is going to be political especially when you are less days 0 days out -- 60 out. i think they're going to be in session for less than three weeks coming up here you're not going to see a lot of things get done but voters on both sides are going to be frustrated with the fact that congress has been out now for five weeks, they're coming back tomorrow but not a lot expected to get passed and things too. so that's why i think you're just going to continue to have this finger pointing with president obama saying congress isn't doing anything and congress saying well we've passed this president obama hasn't taken any of this up. guest: i think toni brings up the democrats that aren't supporting the president enough. if we go back to the affordable care act when the president took off democrats in the house and the senate that they wished

the president would have been more assertive on the affordable care act but he wanted to stay above the fray, tried to be nonpartisan and he punted it to the hill who kicked it around for over a year and it became a much more polarizing issue as it got further and further along down the trail. so i know that there's still those house and senate democrats wished if the president had dealt with this and not been as timid in the, the 2010 elections might have been different and we might not be in this position. >> there's lingering resentment between congress and the president. they don't think he has reached out to them even though he was in the senate he never really developed that sort of legislative skill making, certainly isn't johnson was sort of the master of the senate and could go up there and certainly leverage things. but the president and the white house has taken a very hands off approach to congress. this is what we're going to do. we want you to get behind it.

so they seemed kind of shocked sometimes when the senate and things don't do this and they haven't gone up there sort of lobbied them tried to ease tensions and things like that too. you mentioned earlier, i think that is why it's important to note that the president is going to meet with leaders on tuesday. certainly not enough to sort of ease the simmering tensions between them but i think it is a step that on these issues that he is going to have to have some backing from hill leaders. host: back to the house ratings and one of the results we'll be looking at tuesday in the massachusetts primary is congressman teerny who faced a tough reelection, narrowly winning two years ago, facing a primary challenge. you have this listed as a toss-up tilt democrat. what's happening? guest: so two years ago congressman teerny faced with some ethical questions particularly about his wife and brothers inu law faced a very

significant challenge from former state state senator. he's running again but now there's a democratic challenger who raised a considerable amount of money for a primary challenger. now he's been up on tv criticizing congressman teerny. teerny is now on tv calling him a republican trying to label him as a republican to democratic prismery voters. and on tuesday, there isn't a lot of date avementteerny started the race with a significant lead because no one had any idea who his challenger was. now that gap is starting to close. and republicans are -- republicans want to face teerny. they want to see him get beat up but they want to face him because of this baggage that they can continue to bring up. it will be interesting on tuesday and still a race in november. guest: i don't know, if he wins i think this becomes a harder seat for republicans. that they need that baggage to sort of beat up on teerny.

and we've seen him really go negative against moleten. i think this indicates that he is very much in trouble. there was at least one poll that showed this within the margin of error. but within that matchup, moleten had a much more comfortable lead over the others, the matchup was much closer. he isn't your typical challenger. he has some very well respected democratic strategists boo hind him. he's an iraq veteran and stanley ms crystal one of the made one of his first endorsements wading back into politics. and i talked to some democrats they said that was maybe a turning point certainly in the race. >> and the boston papers endorsing his opponent. >> they've mixed words in those. >> let's go back to the phone calls. david from florida. we'll have the results from those primaries on tuesday here

obc-span. and on line. caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. let's go back to the point where we were talking about the farm workers who were taking the jobs that the americans wouldn't take. the reason why americans won't take these jobs, gentlemen, ok, ladies, is because they are paying slave labor. none of the american people can actually make a living off of working any of these jobs. any of the jobs. none of these jobs will give anybody a liveable wage. we all know that. you keep saying this, you keep saying these are jobs americans won't do. but you keep leaving out the fact that these are jobs that will not pay enough money for anybody to live on or raise a family on. so what's happening basically is you're bringing in slave labor. we all know it's slave labor. you won't admit that it's slave

labor. but here's where we really stand as a public. now, americans will not do these jobs, ladies and gentlemen, and the people out here in the united states, because we all know one thing. you cannot make a living off these jobs. now, please address that part of it. the jobs that we will not do. we will not do because we're americans and we can't make a living doing that because these people will not pay enough. would you please give me a comment to that? i would love to hear what the answer is to that because that is the real truth here. the truth is they will not pay anybody enough money to have to be able to put your kids to schools or to eat. ok. so that's the real truth here. host: david thanks for the call. guest: i think the point he's getting to is some of these jobs that are minimum wage even maybe a different hourly rate does make it very difficult. we've seen studies and certainly things on that. that's why you have seen

democrats push the minimum wage they want to get it up to 10.10 or some type of living wage. that's certainly not going to go anywhere on a federal level this year. but some places i would look where it could have an impact, states that are trying to implement a minimum wage increase, arkansas had an interesting move this week where they got this on the ballot for a state-based increase. mark pryor in a very tough senate race there. pryor opposes a federal minimum wage but did -- has backed the state minimum wage increase. that certaintly could help him but also his opponent did come out backing it too. that sort of mitigated any attacks. but these concerns for wages, for jobs, also we had the friday jobs report that came out was the lowest of the year, exactly not what democrats wanted to hear going into november. but i think for a lot of people with hids concerns, it's not just the number of jobs out there or the numbers of jobs that are being lost or fewer

jobs being created but it is a lot of these low-paying jobs still it doesn't make for a lot of people to be able to feed their family to just have a base of living wage. host: another race in georgia where michelle nun, the daughter of former senator sam nun, a democrat, being challenged by the republican candidate david perdue and we covered this from david perdue not only going after michelle nun for her connections to the president but also to harry reid. >> this race is very simple. the decision in this race. if you like what's going on in washington, then vote for my opponent. because you know she will be nothing more than a proxy for harry reid and barack obama and nothing will change. but if you're as outraged as i am by the size and scope of this government, by the airingen policies that are failing this administration, and by the sheer magnitude of the debt they're piling on the backs of our kids and

grandkids, then stand with me. ndlet take our country back. to a position of strength and prosperity. guest: he was on message there. he is trying to -- he is on what voters to be focused on. georgia is one of three i think question marks that we could be asking after november and that's if no candidate gets the 50% in georgia there is a libertarian who might get a few percentage points. if no candidates gets 50% it moves to a january runoff. >> and who is he going to caucus with? so there is some question marks

that could leave the control of the senate in doubt after vember host: good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is this and the followup on comments that have already been made. nd that is american spending versus what we're spending at home. military spending versus what we are spending at home. we have one of the strongest miltriss in the world and -- militaries in the world and we have been in one of the longest wars we've been in. my question is this. when are we going to hold the republicans accountable for the fact that they cannot give the working man a minimum wage and as much as the drabts have fought for this, as much as the

president has fought for this, there's -- they're sending the message that we need to take all over our country and the things, attack isis because they are a threat. et we cannot focus on spending money right here where we've en spending billions host: thanks for the call. guest: i think that's a sentiment a lot of people have. why are we focusing so much overseas instead of fixing what's going on at home. i think the white house is trying to make the balance between the threats that are overseas but focusing on the

economy. and i think that's one of the challenges of the mid term election for the president's party. if there's a sentiment that things aren't going in the right direction, people aren't satisfied with the economy, that they -- the base democrats will blame republicans but the voters in the middle they city see the government. there are different branches but they're in charge. if they don't like what's going in, it's a natural thing to be disinclined to vote for a candidate who would be with the president's party. host: steve. caller: i just don't understand the american people because they go out and vote for these republicans. they vote for the millionaires and billionaires who have all the money in the world. they don't have -- and you know they cut down the president and say he's not doing anything.

it's the house of representatives has the purse strings. and they're the ones that aren't doing anything because the republican party is the ones that hold the purse strings. guest: he mentioned these millionaire candidates and going back to that georgia clip. that's one of his biggest weaknesses that he is going to have to address. a 2012

ad who was running, someone who was laid off from his company speaking veryforthwritely about the chal edges and thinks they faced similar to what we heard callers here today being very frustrated about wages and things. so, if they can successfully paint david perdue as this out-of-touch businessman, that is his biggest weakness host: one viewer said do you think you could afford a home in d.c. and back home? guest: it would be very difficult. home prices are not what they are where i grew up in tennessee. and, you know, i think that it is certainly a concern that both -- numbers do have to face.

>> that's why i think we see a lot of members of congress they sleep in their offices or you have seen them, you know, have these group homes almost of members of congress on the hill. it is absolutely not cheap living here. it's not cheap whether you live on the hill or the suburbs and commuting. do they move their whole family here? put their children in school here? you know, and that's what i think a lot of these members do have to realize. they can be hit for moving their families to washington you, but, you know, you want to go home and see your family. >> that's why we see a lot of members, you know, maybe have family problems and different things, too. i think they have a lot of concerns they have to balance, especially depending upon where they live and how much commuting they may have to do back and forth but this is not a cheap town to live in and it is a concern certainly that they do have. >> host: raven from west virginia.

bob, what's going to happen in your state? caller: there is. he specially the senate race. >> leads me to my question to the panelist. i would like to hear their insight on how candidates do receive endorsements, whether for trade unions, business groups, newspapers, and then just how effective that really is. guest: i will separate that out but in terms of interest groups, interest groups endorse candidates they think will be froenltd their cause or incumbents who have already voted, taken votes that are friendly to their cause. i think to varying degrees on whether they matter or not. if it's a democratic group, organized labor endorses adan democratic candidate, i don't know if that changes things if a pro-business group endorses a republican. but if you start to get those

crossover endorsements, for example, the chamber of commerce endorsing congressman scott peters in the san diego area district. >> that's a very competitive race. he is a democrat. >> could have voters in the middle saying, i will take a second look at him because he may not be the type of democrat in the my mind. so, i think the crossover endorsements are more important than kind of the typical party endorsement. host: something you said earlier, one of the points that mary landrieu, if she is re-elected, she is key to the louisiana energy issues. here is an ad now in the air in that state: >> i am mary landrieu, and i approve this message. >> my name is travis and i have worked places like this. people in washington have no idea what service is about. come down here and see. after the spill, we had only 12

people on a rig going in to the gulf. she took it on to make it easier to drill. >> led to almost sixty rigs and thousands of jobs. now, the energy committee, i am rick paris. >> in the december run-off, the republicans have control room of the senate. what impact does this have? guest: that argument would seem to evaporate if she is not going to be the chair of that committee and her clout is taken away by being in the minority, i think that's significant. >> takes a significant chip off of the table for her. >> that's why i think louisiana is one of the most difficult races to handicap because it's more complicated if it all rests on louisiana in control or if democrats or -- or if republicans have fallen shorts, then that argument she is making, i think, would resonate very well. people say, absolutely. we need her in that position. so there is a lot of uncertainty in the louisiana race

host: steve is joining us from ocean shore in washington. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. host: certainly. caller: i just find it really ironic or obvious how the democrats and the republicans seem to disagree on about everything there is but yet they do end up compromising, and it ends up screwing the working class. everything except like syria, chemical weapons, the democrats and the republicans couldn't wait to go there. thank god, the american people stopped it. and now, the beheading of the journalists. oh, they are bar barribaric. is it any less barberic to the cut heads off than to drone attack a wedding party and kill

innocent people, children. host: thank you for the call. guest: it's easier for the two parties to come together when we are talking about a threat overseas or a foreign enemy because there can be agreement that well, we may not agree with each other on spending or the minimum wage, but we can agree that these people, something needs to be stopped. so, i think that's why you see the compromise over -- over international issues. i think that there, you know, most people would say there isn't enough compromise going on here in washington on domestic issues, and, you know, frankly, i see that even though voters say they want compromise, that they are not often rewarding compromise at the ballot box. if you are a republican or democratic member who compromises with the other side, you are probably going to be met with a primary challenger and you may not be coming back to congress. i think it goes both ways on who is to blame for the lack of compromise compromise. >> some news on this sunday morning, courtesy of nbc and chuck todd, the political director releasing three new

polls and the headlines from mark murray from nbc news as the republican senates open up leads in a couple of key races. let's look at arkansas where according to this cpnt cotton compared for 40% for mark pryor taking another term. mitch mcconnell at 47%. allison grimes at 39% and in colorado, senator udall at 48% over cory gardner at 42%. your reaction? guest: in arkansas, that lines up with what can the public, non-partisan polling and republican polling tends to show. democrats released an internal poll that had senator pryor up 47-45. but i think the majority of this lines up with the rest of the polling. in kentucky, this is definitely the rosiest poll i have seen for mcconnell but it still plays into the trend of the senator

starting to build a little bit of a lead. it will be interesting to see what his favorable ratings are and what grimes' ratings are. colorado is the most pessimistic poll i have seen in colorado. this race is still developing. but democrats have been on the attack trying to define congressman cory gardner specifically on the personhood and choice issues and if they can do that, they can then, you know, i think this is the kind of result. colorado is a much more difficult state structurally for republicans than in arkansas or kentucky. >> joe is joining us from augusta, west virginia. your reaction in a moment. good morning, joe. >> yes, i wouldn't to make a comment about what wern person was talking about. i hear this all the time. and being from west virginia, knowing rockefeller has been in west virginia all of these years, at one point, david rockefeller was the wealthiest man in the world, and the fact that the democrats just viewed so much misinformation talking

about the we think, not to mention what they get out of hollywood and i feel like they always are throwing lies and they know that they are going to stick with the public because they have the majority of the media in their pocket. and so they just rely on mis information and watching c-span lately, i just believe there is a whole lot of democrats that call in on the independent line and the republican line. and so i just, the main thing is their mis information about so many things, and it's just sickening. guest: okay. joe, we will get a response. guest: i think the theme we have heard through these calls is such frustration. i think that's what republicans are bank okay at the ballot box is that, as nathan mentioned and i know stu always likes to say, one of the biggest hampering blocks for democrats is if you want to voice your dissatisfaction with a president

in a presidential election, you can do that, vote against the president. >> that's why we saw heidi castro be able to win in north dakota and the win in montana. this year, if you want to vote against the president, you only can vote against the democratic incumbent. >> that's why we are seeing mark pryor now at just 40%, why udall still faces a challenge and why you are seeing landrieu insomuch trouble, but people, i think, are certainly pessimistic. with government, pessimistic of the media and i think they are just generally in a pessimistic view in d.c. but around the country. >> we have a minute less. one senate race you think will be a bellweather. >> i think you should look at north carolina, you know. we have talked about louisiana before. i have to separate louisiana because louisiana, i don't think it's going to be decided until december. i think north carolina is a very critical fight. it's a very tough state to at

this in because of multiple media markets but you have a first-term speaker, a speaker of the house who has taken on some water from the legislature, a polarizing legislature, i think north carolina is going to be a very critical state. >> jessica, the last word. guest: i think alaska where republicans were intain about. i know nathan have them in the top democratic category but this is interesting because this isn't a state where maybe culturally conservative. >> that's one reason why you have a leg up. i was interested early on. he is campaigning on the back that he is pro-choice, has planned parenthood out there with him. this is not what you would see, been doing in traditionally red states but i think we are seeing it cut into that. i would be interested to see polling out of that. i think i was struck by, you know, that does seem to be tightening up and arkansas, we have seen conflicting poll numbers on this. you usually see a democrat poll

with them up, republican poll with them slightly up but if you are going in to november, 40% is not where you want to be where you are an incumbent. i think mark pryor has run a good campaign and he is not going to be the blanche lincoln. he hasn't written it off as we did in 2010. i think this is maybe one where you could see a republican start to go away in the next couple of weeks. >> our listeners and viewers, if they want to follow you on twitter, how can they do so guest: @jessska can ataylor, very simple, and the hill.com, we are going to cover this thoroughly. the primary we will have a story up on that tomorrow morning. if you want to read more about that. and thet check us out host: for you? >> at nathanlgonzalez and role

but coming up, british prime minister david cameron gives a look at the nato summit. and later, veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald on the coming department changes. the senate homeland security committee will hold a hearing tuesday on federal programs for state and local law enforcement given weapons and military gear. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald and acting veterans affairs inspector general richard griffin testified before the senate -- senate veterans affairs committee tuesday. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org.

>> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> i'm so glad and thankful for , andn and the book reviews especially books like last night "ere you had a book called ." t up your heart lease keep up the good work. i'm crazy about the boat -- the good book discussion. and i like that you have a phone line that we can call him a because not all of us senior citizens can work the computer. on c-span, ia show don't member if it was c-span1 i thought, but what was really nice about the way they conducted the meeting was when somebody got up to the microphone to ask a question, whoever the moderator or host

was of that event, they told the , you know, the audience member who was asking a question, don't leave, and then they would go and say what they were going to say about whatever that person's question or statement was in the person that asked the question got to have an actual conversation with them to clarify the actual intent of what the question and the issue was about. the way it is, most people call in and you guys hang up on them and then the panel speaker and they don't really get to the heart and details of what the caller was talking about. >> i'm calling to tell you about c-span3. i sure enjoy your programs on the weekend.

thank you for running the thing on nixon, and all of the different things that you do with the different histories and everything. i sure do appreciate it. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know about the programs you're watching. call us. send us a tweet. or e-mail us. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> british prime minister david cameron is back in london after hosting a two-day meet -- nato summit last week in wales. he reported back to the house of comments -- house of commons on the summit. this is an hour and a half. >> statement, the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission, i would like to make a statement on the nato conference. but before i do so, mr. speaker,

i'm sure the whole house will join me in paying tribute to jim who died suddenly this weekend. jim gave his life to public service. he worked hard for his constituents. he loved this house of commons and contributed hugely to all of its work. with his expertise in microbiology, he also did some outstanding work in this house championing that -- vaccines for children around the world. there was an important contribution of faith in politics. unlike jim, i'm not expecting to get a night to it from the pope, which jim received an deserved it was, too. missed and is in our thoughts -- and our thoughts are with his family at this time. the duke and duchess of cambridge are expecting their second baby. i'm sure the house will want to join me in congratulating them on this fantastic news and wishing them well in the months ahead. speaker, the nato summit in

wales saw a successful coming together of this vital alliance. everyone can see its unity, its resolve, and its determination -- meeting and overcoming all the threats to our security. i want to commend all of those who work so hard to deliver a safe, secure, and successful summit, the biggest gathering of world leaders that i think has ever taken place in our country. but most of all, i want to thank the welsh people for the incredibly warm welcome they gave everybody. the summit reached important conclusions on ukraine, and tempering extremism, the future of the afghanistan, and supporting our military. i want to take each one briefly. first on ukraine, we welcome the cease-fire that has been in place since friday.

i chaired a meeting with president poroshenko and the leaders of france, italy, germany, and america, to agree that what is needed is the limitation of a proper peace plan that respects ukraine's territorial integrity. we sent a clear message to russia that what president putin is doing is illegal and indefensible. we stand firmly behind ukraine's right to make their own decisions, not to have been dictated by russian soldiers traveling on ukraine folio -- ukraine's oil. we will continue to support ukraine, including financial system -- assistance. today sanctions will for the ramp-up the economic cost to russia. they will make it harder for its banks to borrow money. they will widen the ban on the which isoods, machinery that can be used for military as well as civilian purposes. andthe exploration of shale

deepwater oil. that nato problems has faced is that only a small number of countries have achieved the commitment to spend 2% of their gdp on defense. the share of spending by the largest company -- country, the and nowntinues, accounts for around 70% of the total. as is not sustainable. this summit addressed it by agreeing the responsibility for those countries that have not achieved 2%. wales plan, every nato members pending less than 2% has now agreed to halt any decline in defense spending and aimed to increase it as real gdp grows and move it toward 2% within a decade. there is also a second target and 1/5 of all defense budgets major be dedicated to equipment. what matters most is having military at ted -- military

assets you can actually deploy. we have the second against budget in nato and the european union. we have taken steps to put our defense budget on a sustainable footing. we are equipping all three of our services with the best and most modern military hardware that money can buy. this includes the announcement i made for friday of the 3.5 , theon pound contract largest such order in over three decades. includes 22 new transport submarines, type 24 destroyers, and type 26 forgets -- frigates. remember, they left with 38 billion pounds. it is all very well to order them.

you have to pay for them. a nutshell, really, that is the difference between a socialist and a conservative. they complained about having money and we have to actually raise it and spend it. the new carrier will also be brought into service. we will always have one carrier available 100% of the time. and ouronal security prosperity and place in the world will be secured. wider form of nato, after the end of the cold war, nato stood down its highest readiness force. at this summit, we decided to reverse that decision and scale of our readiness to respond to any threat. at the same time, we also agreed to do more to build the capacity of other nations outside nato to help them with defense capabilities. a new multinational spearhead force will be formed and

deployable anywhere within the world within two to five days. the u.k. will support this by providing a battle group and a brigade headquarters. but also contributes reap -- contribute 3500 personnel in eastern europe between now and the end of 2015 as part of a persistent nato presence on the eastern flank. we play a vital role in helping other countries defend themselves against all threats, including terrorist threats. in we consider the threats that nato faces coming from the middle east, africa, and elsewhere, capacity building is becoming ever more important and was a key priority for the u.k. at this summit. capacity undertake building missions beginning in georgia and jordan with the offer of a training mission in iraq as soon as the new all --

new government there is in place. use alld we must instruments at our disposal, humanitarian, diplomatic, and military, to squeeze this barbaric organization out of existence. we need to be clear about what needs to happen. we will continue to support the kurds, including providing arms for training there's troops. we will work for a new representative iraqi government, which we hope will see in place later this week. the fight must be led by iraqis themselves, but we will can team you to support this effort -- continue to support this effort. we need to draw together the partners we need to implement a comprehensive plan. i spoke to ban ki-moon to seek support of the united nations for broad-based international support to contain isis. i will continue working on building that support later this month at the u n general assembly.

we called on to presidential candidates to work together to deliver a peaceful election outcome and a new government as swiftly as possible. they made a statement during the conference that they would make these endeavors, and it is vital that it comes about. and training the afghan security forces to take control of their security. we reaffirmed our long-term commitment to supporting a peaceful, prosperous and stable afghanistan including through our development conference in london in november. finally, mr. speaker, as our troops return home from afghanistan, it is right we do all we can to support them and their families. mr. speaker, in britain, we have the military covenant, a pledge of commitment between the government and our military. and we made it ever more real by taking a series of measures including doubling the

operational allowance, introducing higher education scholarships. increasing the rates of tax relief and signing up every single local counselor in our country in support of the military. now at this summit, we took our military covenant internationally with every nato member signing up to a new armed forces declaration setting out their commitment to support their military and enabling all of us to learn from each other about how we can best do this. >> we will continue to do everything possible. this, i believe, was a successful nato conference. it proved that this organization is as important to our future security as it has been to the past. and i commend this statement to the house. >> mr. speaker, i join the prime minister first in paying tribute to jim dobbin. a member of parliament who put

the people first. he was as the prime minister said, a man of faith, which underpinned everything he did. and he was a lifelong public servant having worked in the nhs for many years before coming to this house. mr. speaker, he was also a proud scot and was, in fact, planning to be in scotland this week to help campaign to keep our united kingdom together. mr. speaker, he will be sadly missed, not just by his family, his friends, but colleagues from across the house. i also join the prime minister, mr. speaker in congratulating the duke and duchess of cambridge on their news. i also want to congratulate wales on the successful hosting of the summit. and mr. speaker, i believe we should congratulate the enterprising nature for the picture at stone henge with president obama. i thank the prime minister for his statement. this nato summit was the most important for a generation. today nato faces the gravest challenges in europe, the middle east and beyond.

since the fall of the berlin wall and the first gulf war. i commend nato leaders for seizing the opportunity to put down firm markers on the key issues. russia and ukraine, isil and defense corporation. mr. speaker, starting with ukraine, the cease-fire and peace plan announced on friday by the presidents of ukraine and russia. and it will be a grave mistake to ease international pressure on russia. we therefore welcome the rigorous action plan, which is a step towards more nimble and flexible capabilities, sending a signal that if they're in danger, allies will take quick action. can i ask in the discussions the prime minister had with him what assurances were given to ukraine by nato? given also, mr. speaker, the desired aim of agility in this plan, how the nato decision-making process requiring agreement of all 28 countries is being made sufficiently reliable and swift.

specifically, on the spearhead force, should i also ask the prime minister what countries will be host to this force? and what situations he expects it to be deployed. turning to the rise of isil in the middle east. the whole world is acutely aware of the barbaric threat. and it was right to address this. and it was right also to seek to build the widest possible consensus in pursuit of this aim. mr. speaker, there is no long-term solution to isil without a long-term plan. one that is based on widespread partnership in the region, the legitimacy, and one that includes a genuinely multilateral diplomatic alliance. mr. speaker, in that context, can the prime minister tell us what progress he believes is being made in the urgent task of assembling a genuinely inclusive government in iraq. and can i welcome the united position taken yesterday against

isil? and can the prime minister update the house on what other progress is being made in the vital work of building regional support. turning, mr. speaker, to nato's clarity of purpose. collective defense, on defense spending, we share the commitment to maintain strong defense and strong nato. and in the light of pressures all countries are facing, does he agree that part of the task that nato faces is better pooling of alliance resources so we have the kinds of capabilities that are required? finally turning to afghanistan, i commend the commitment of nato members to afghanistan. mr. speaker, our countries made huge sacrifices and serve a number of others. it is right that by the end of 2014, we'll see the draw down of british forces. i pay tribute to our forces for the sacrifices they have made. and i join the prime minister in giving my full support for military covenant, the armed forces declaration and the implementation. we know from the past, the crucial importance of securing the right political settlement.

so key to ensuring that the sacrifices that have been made into a better future is, of course, afghan leaders resolving their current post election differences and agreeing to a unified leadership. can the prime minister update the house on progress on this and, indeed, security agreement with the remaining nato forces? and given that the contribution will be critical, can you also tell the house the number of troops expected to stay past 2014 and the uk contribution to that mission? mr. speaker, this summit demonstrated the nato alliance is strong and is needed by its member states more than ever. as president obama has said, the defense is just as important as berlin, paris and london. the task for nato is to demonstrate this commitment. and an understanding that wherever our interests lie, we need a strategy which combines military regiments. we join the government in supporting a nato that meets that challenge.

>> prime minister. >> the opposition for his response. i think he's right to say this was the most important nato conference for a generation because of the multiple challenges that we're facing in europe with ukraine in terms of isil and also the threats around our very dangerous world. let me try and take the questions he had in turn. in terms of ukraine, the ukrai meeting, the mood of the meeting both the nato meeting, there should be no easing of the pressure on russia. in terms of what nato is doing for ukraine. there is some important defense capability building being done on things like command and control and making sure that the ukrainian army is properly managed. there's also support in terms of nonlethal equipment li a body armor and other facilities that countries are giving. but i think it's important, we

shouldn't measure the nato commitment to ukraine through military support of sort of war fighting capabilities. the real measure of support is the eu and u.s. operation on sanctions, which saw a further ratchet up. and it's important that we keep the pressure on in that regard above all. in terms of the new spearhead, different countries will be contributing. britain has got out ahead by making clear the nature of our commitment in terms of our commitment in terms of the brigade headquarters and the battalion. i'm sure others will be coming forward with the contribution. in terms of combatting isil. that is supposed to be being put in place this week. it is already taking time. it is absolutely vital. i would argue that without that it is very difficult to take the

further steps that need to be taken. it is absolutely vital this is put in place. he asked about the regional support. jordan is a partner nation of nato. he asked about whether nato countries are properly pooling the resources. i think this is why the 20% pledge on new equipment is so vital. it should be properly interoperable between nato nations. on afghanistan i think he is right to say that the way to secure our legacy in afghanistan is to make sure there is a proper political to bury differences and form a government together. we need to see that happen. he asked about the contribution that britain will make to nato forces.

our principle contribution post the end of 2014 will be the officer training academy that president karzai specifically asks for and we are providing. that should put our contribution of troops for that facility into the low hundreds. some other countries united states and germany and some others will be having more nato troops as it were on the ground. asked about the agreement -- what is required in this situation of afghanistan as in iraq is a combination of using all the assets we have at our disposal including on occasion military assets but the importance of politics cannot be under estimated. the future of iraq will be delivered if that is an inclusive iraqi government.

>> mr. speaker, never has there been a time when decision makers are being faced with so many key decisions. i congratulate the prime minister and his colleagues for an excellent summit in wales. as they were meeting yet another front was opening up with reports of militia activity on the russia/astonia border. does the prime minister agree it is a red line? if there are incursions will the uk and nato treat this -- >> thank my friend for his remarks. i can absolutely give assurance. it is important that nato one of the first things is for nato to be clear about the article 5 commitments that all members of nato are subject to that collective defense, astonia included. i think it is important that message goes out. that is why not only is the action plan important in this

new spear head force but also starting to see more nato exercises so that russians can see when they look at astonia or lithuania they can see different nationalities involved in the defense. absolutely vital. yes, it is a red line. >> may i begin by thanking the prime minister for the generous tributes have paid to our northwest colleague and friend. when you ask the prime minister about the syrian divisions opening up inside the gulf council with allegations by some states in the gcc that other states including kuwait and to a lesser degree and qatar and kuwait are harboring people sometimes quite senior who in turn are helping to finance and

support to islamic extremists. the prime minister says what representations he and others are making to the governments of these states to ensure that to the extent the activities are taking place there is high suspicion that they stop. >> i think there is an important point which is that on occasions there are concerns that some gulf states supported players whether in syria or libya or elsewhere that harbor and take extremist views. we have repeatedly said how unwise we think that is. . britain is very clear as i have said many times with respect to our domestic arrangements. we need to oppose the extremist narrative, as well. >> a tribute paid to tim

donovan. he was proud to be a scott. these are not mutually inconsistent in spite of observations made elsewhere in the kingdom. may i make this comment to my friend. the attempt to obtain a 2% level of expenditure within ten years can only be regarded as a rather gentle target. is he satisfied that it is strong enough. the real issue will be in the minds of many memorable arms as this. where do they stand in relation to action with regard to isis? will my friend agree that it is right to recognize that the best that is able to be done in relation to an ideology like isis is to degrade it so far as we possibly can but it would be entirely unrealist to believe that political, economic or

military means would have the effect of destroying it? >> well, first i agree with everything he said about him. you can be all three of those things and replace that word label with conservative, liberal or democrat and say the same thing. what is different about this time is that the 2% pledge has never been included in the leaders declaration in the same way as this time. there has never been a time scale on it. what i particularly pick out is that it puts on its sight those that are below 2%. i think that is a powerful statement. with regards to isil you have to degrade an ideology. i think when it comes to terrorists that have taken control of the institutions of a

state, say they have land, they have oil, money, weapons, we should be more ambitious and say actually the right people to run the state of iraq is the iraqi government. the right people to run syria is an inclusive syrian government and there should be no place in those states for extreme terrorists. >> the taking of those countries who are below 2% not to let it fall lower presumably by implication those countries above 2% or at 2% have undertaken not to allow their contribution to fall below 2%, united kingdom in particular? >> i would refer the lady to the text. all allies in the nato guideline were aimed to continue to do so. i think it is important and makes the 20% point about the equipment which is as important, absolutely right. then it singles out allies whose

current portion will halt any decline in defense spending and aim to decrease and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade. i think it is important for the first time that all 28 countries signed up for that specificity. >> on isil my right honorable friend is clearly right to have been very cautious and to assort the widest possible support for international action including going through the united nations and working closely with the arab league. will my right honorable friend continue to make clear this will be a long and pain staking problem which will not be solved only by smart weapons delivered from 12,000 feet but will need long-term engagement on very many fronts? >> i think he is absolutely right. this is long and painstaking

work. you do need to have a comprehensive plan. it will need to include everything. above all it needs an inclusive iraqi government. president obama and i very much agreed that a military action can't only be one part of a plan. it is not in itself a plan. i think it is important for people to understand that. >> speaker, i would like to associate myself with the comments of the prime minister about the sad news about jim doban. there is very particular concern about the hostage. what more can the prime minister say about the support for david's family in scotland and croatia? >> it is obviously a tragic situation. one only has to think for a few moments of what it would be like to be in his position or his

family's position to understand what they are going through. what i tried to make sure in all of these situations is that the family gets support from a police liaison officer and from the foreign office and always offered that ministers speak directly to the hostage's family to tell them about the efforts being made on their behalf. we do have historically a policy not to pay ransoms when there are terrorist kidnaps involved. i made that point at the nato dinner and pleaded with other countries to do the same thing. no one should interrupt that as us not doing everything we can to help the family and the hostage themselves. >> mr. speaker, would my right honorable friend accept to me that the country would be delighted to see a nato restored and vigorous after the summit?

what the prime minister tell what assistance specifically he is looking for from the sunni gulf states which assume the coalition will find it hard going. >> what was instrument is it was one of resolution and unity and purpose. there were none of the sort of debates that you might have had on previous discussions about iraq. there was real unity about what needed to be done. part of that unity was not just the iraqi government but the support and active support going to be needed by the regional players, in particular sunni countries that not only can provide resources, diplomacy, aid and military support but also can provide real insights and input into the thinking of the sunni tribes in iraq who we need to rise up against this appalling regime.

>> the action plan which will enable nato to respond with greater force and greater speed in the dire emergency providing the 28 member states are able to give political authority for its use quickly. in the bad old days of the cold war the similar ace mobile force gave preauthority to use it in dire emergency. if there is question of preauthority given to use the action plan will the prime minister bring that proposal to the house for debate? >> the short answer is yes i will. the detail will contribute to how exactly it will work. the reggen s of it is decided. can i take a moment to thank him for his contribution. he spoke as head of the nato

parliamentary assembly with great clarity and support for what nato is doing. >> what my right honorable from mid sussex just asked may i draw the prime minister's attention to an article on the 5th of september where he said deploying the western military without a muslim political plan would be folly. what approach will we be taking to saudi arabia which has a habit of looking both ways on these questions and where the government appears to be friendly but sources inside saudi arabia supply funds to organizati organizations? >> certainly look at the article that my honorable friend mentions. it is sometimes hard to keep up with contributions that retired military figures are giving in terms of advice.

the point he makes is absolutely right. were there to be a military element to the strategy it would only work if it is in conjunction with all of the other parts of the strategy. you cannot intervene over the heads of local people and leave them to pick up the pieces. it has to be a part of a strategy and plan. >> as the prime minister knows, during his discussion with president hollande was the crisis -- in dealing with our juxtaposed borders? will he ask the home secretary to visit france at the earliest opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions to end this crisis including, of course, giving them the fence we used at the cardiff summit. >> the offer of the use of the fence is there and it was a very effective piece of equipment. these discussions are taking

place at every level. i don't think it is fair to say britain is unengaged in this. we need to work very closely together to make sure that the appalling keens are unrepeated. >> does the prime minister have time to discuss the implications of scottish secession upon the defense of the rest of the united kingdom and the potential threat. in these very, very seriously troubled times that surely england, wales, northern ireland and scotland would be infinitely better defended. >> a number of people raise concerns about the referendum and the overwhelming view of people who wish our country well

is to say of course it is a decision for people in scotland but they hope we stay together. i would absolutely echo that. there are two visions of scotland's future being put forward here. the vision i believe in and i believe the majority of scots believe in is of a proud and strong scotland with strong institutions with a powerful place in the world in part secured by its membership of the united kingdom. the alternative vision of separation and such uncertainty about these organizations not knowing whether you would have a place in the european union or nato or what currency you would use, these are real problems of uncertainty. and i believe that the patriotic choice for scotland is a strong proud scotland within the united kingdom. >> speaker, can i echo the prime minister's words about jim

dobbin. we both discussed the scottish situation. his death has come to all of us as a great shock. president obama will set out his strategy for dealing with isis on wednesday. if it seems likely that military action is part of that strategy, if the uk government makes a decision to join in that military action, even if that decision is restricted to action in the air and not forces on the ground, does the prime minister believe that that would require a vote from this house? >> the short answer to that question is yes, but we are not at that stage yet. as i said on friday i think we should be building this comprehensive strategy. we are already helping the kurds, delivering them arms. i think we should step up to training and increasing elements of the strategy.

i have always believed in this role. as leader of the government you should consult with house of commons as regularly as you can and house of commons should have the opportunity to vote. the point i always make and this is not to run away from his particular scenario in any way but it is important that a prime minister in a government reserve the right to act swiftly without resulting commons in advance for specific circumstances if you have to prevent an immediate humanitarian catastrophe or secure really important unique interest. other than that it is right to consult the house of commons. >> can i ask if the discussion that was just advanced between parliamentary consent and the need for sometimes swift action does it underline the need for proper legislative framework to actually govern this nation's

engagement in military action overseas? >> that has been an interesting issue of debate. we haven't come up i think with the final answer on that. i think there are problems with trying to write down every scenario into a law of the land. i think the convention that has grown up that is as so clear in this house that the house of commons should be consulted and a vote should be taken. i think the convention has grown up and understood on all sides of the house. my personal view is that might be better than trying to write everything down in some document that can create all sorts of legal problems of its own. >> given the debate in the nato summit and the wider context of uk foreign policy. can i ask if it can be shown elements of the defense capability recently removed that we now might require in the near

future would the prime minister consider reinstating that lost capability? >> i always have an open mind on these issues. i would say to the honorable gentleman that in the last four years i have often wanted to see even more of the capabilities that we have been ordering, intelligence, surveillance, special forces, transport, rather than more of the things which we have got rid of or discontinued. it is actually my instinct is that defense reviews are vital but only if you make bold decisions about future capabilities rather than hang on to old ones with dated uses. >> can i commend the prime minister for the confidence he showed in wales by bringing the nato summit to new port. it was the biggest international event of its kind ever held in this country and clearly a resounding success. does he agree with me that what is now important is that wales should capitalize on its

international attention by insuring that the international investment conference can take place in november as an equal success. >> i am grateful to my right honorable friend's comments. i think all the organizations did a brilliant job. there was something like 24,000 hotel room nights that were required, not just in wales but in the other side of bristol channel. summit. i think there is a legacy in making sure young people in our country understand the importance of nato and the importance of defense. >> perhaps the best way to honor the memory of jim dobbin is to ensure the continuation of the fine work he

importance to get business opportunities to newport, wales and the united kingdom. what will you do to ensure that is an equal success? >> this is it, i agree with what

he said about the importance to addiction to prescription drugs. i think it did put an important face forward. there are traffic problems and disruption. i hope people were incredibly reasonable about that and very, very welcoming including the local media to everyone who came. securing the legacy is about supporting the investment conference and making sure we maintain a pro business environment inside wales. >> growing parliament convention the house being consulted given the vote for all overseas deployments. the nato force that is described would be deployed in two days and presumably no possibility of a vote. and secondly, the only occasions in which this house voted on war one was iraq in 2003. would the prime minister not agree with me that there ought

not be serious thought given into what the role it has when it comes to deploying our groups overseas? >> i hear what my honorable friend says. i would say the convention if there is a premeditated action undertaken whether the war in iraq or the view that i had that it was right to consider action in response to the use of chemical weapons in syria. whether that is a premeditated decision by the government it is right to consult and have a vote in the house of commons. i don't think you need to write it down. it is on book of rules. there are times where very rapid decisions have to be taken. i think the house of commons understands that when that happens as was the case with libya you make a decision and come back to the house to explain yourself afterwards. >> can the prime minister clarify the position in regards

to arming the kurds and said in a statement we will continue to support the kurds. he said both supplying weaponry from other countries and potentially arming them directly. is he now saying we are arming the kurds which i would welcome? and what weaponry are we going to give them? >> the short answer to that is yes. up until now we have helped revive the kurds with weapons so we transported some weapons for instance from albania to the kurds using our transport planes fitted with the weaponry that had been used -- as the germans and others will. and also with allies we think it is right to step up our training and mentoring efforts.

we said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of fighters because they are doing such a vital job of holding back isis. that is we as in we the united kingdom rather than we as in nato. >> the nato summit absolutely right to stress the importance of strong defense. given recent critical reports from the nao and public accounts committee and very disappointing reserve recruitment figures creating the risk of capability gaps has the time not come for the prime minister to reconsider the government's army reforms? >> the short answer to that is i don't think it would be right to reconsider the reforms. over the last year 3,200 people joined the army reserve. i'm confident that we are going to see good recruitment figures. it is a major change that we are putting in place. the bigger point i make to my honorable friend is when we

consider the sorts of things that we are contemplating doing whether it is helping the nigerian government overcome their problems or what we did in libya or the sorts of things we are doing in iraq, what we need more of is intelligence, surveillance, special forces, mobility, assets and equipment that can be used with partners rather than necessarily and also armed forces who have no extra equipment needs because they got everything they want. it is that required rather than very large numbers of people involved in any of the services. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i associate myself and colleague with the tribute made. and jim, of course, for me will be remembered greatly for his strength of opinion in

particular and strongly with me as an islander. can i also associate myself with the comments of the prime minister that he is not expecting [ inaudible ] from the pope. he is not the only one. [ laughter ] turning to the military covenant of the armed forces, the prime minister will know that northern ireland is recruiting ground for her majesty's forces and matter. will he go the extra mile and ensure that they do more to make sure it is honored in every single regard? >> i think the honorable gentleman makes an important point. i have discussed this with the first minister.

it is important that we look over armed forces and i hope progress can be made on that. local counsels are able to take up the community covenant and make sure they are acting in a way that supports and many will be able to do that. as for his remarks about the -- i assume it might be something that cascaded down to generations but obviously not. >> the house will share the prime minister's concerns about the situation in ukraine and in particular his description of president putin's action as indefensible and illegal. at meeting with other leaders did they come to conclusions about the aims for russia and president putin and what action might be taken if he continues to pursue those aims? >> what i say to my right honorable friend is i think the

aid of russia is to deny the people of ukraine the legitimate choice to be closer to the european union and have an association agreement with it. and what we need to do is to say very reasonably to president putin he cannot overstate the will of people. he cannot use force to stop these people choosing their own future. and i think that is why we should measure, as i said, our response to russian action not in a military response through nato or through ukraine but in raising pressure on sanctions saying to russia if she continues with this path she will suffer economic ultimately russia needs america and the european union. >> thank you, mr. speaker. to the answer that the prime minister has just given it is

quite clear that ultimately we will need to move to a political process with the russians. i wonder if the prime minister could say what support nato and the united kingdom have given to president poreshenko is developing political dialogue with russians? >> good question. the support we are giving is to say to him that of course a cease-fire is the first stage. what is required is a proper peace plan. there was a 12-point plan sent out. we give him our support by saying we will do everything we can to engage with russia. of course, it has to include getting russian soldiers out of ukraine and ukraine being able to determine her own future. there is a number of concerns that russia has about the treatment of, say, russian minorities inside ukraine and their rights which is perfectly

legitimate to be discussed. >> speaker, may i add a tribute to jim dobbin who worked tirelessly for vulnerable people in the tropics in particularly for tropical disease and pneumococcal disease. as regards combatting isil and welcoming the statement of the prime minister about the unity of approach of development of governments and of security at the same time can i urge him as he has indicated to really put these arguments forward as an example of nato sharing the united way in the united nations in the upcoming meetings. that is one of the great lessons we learned from the rapid reaction dealt most successfully. >> i think there are good lessons because there was proper

concentration on the importance of the political process toall l as political action taken. he is right to stress the importance of the united nations as a way for building support and legitimacy for what needs to be done. >> would the prime minister agree and the reason most of us support nato is not because we are war wanters but we want to prevent war. the stronger and more strategic would be the better. that was very good news from newport as long as it is carried through when we check the members of nato deliver. did you think it is strange that every report that i read of president obama and anyone else stipulated there should be no boots on the ground? isn't that strange coming from nato? >> first of all, let me agree with right honorable friend.

nato is a defensive alliance and that is the heart of its success. it has to think now more about the threats that come from outside europe in terms of terrorism, cyber attacks and the rest which may require more activism. on his remarks on boots on the ground, of course, in order to, as i put it, squeeze isil out of existence there will have to be boots on the ground but it should be iraqi boots. it is their country. what can we do to help those boots on the ground rather than put our own there. >> absence from commitment to and formation of an international strategy to destroy islamic state of any of russia, turkey, saudi arabia and iran will probably fatally destruct a strategy. >> my honorable friend makes a good point.

of course, the turkish president who had quite extensive talks was there and like everyone else is extremely worried about the creation of this state on his door step not at least because of the appalling kidnaps that have taken place because of such a large number of turkish personnel. i think where he is right is obviously discussions have to be held with regional partners and players to make sure the strongest possible squeeze can be put on this organization. >> west into afghanistan and iraq 11 years ago and now a massive nato summit agrees to spend yet more money on defense all around the world. what consideration is given as to why there has been such an increase in terrorism since those two wars? why isil has grown at such a big force. should the nato summit and all

leaders looking at the causes of war and the perception of the role of the west in seeking commercial advantage all around the world rather than bequeathing yet more military expenditure? >> let me try to find common ground with the honorable gentleman. i believe that international aid and development is a very important tool not just to helping people out of poverty but demonstrating the compassion and generosity of the west and helping people who are less fortunate than we are. where i think he is wrong is that i think that you have to understand that a cause, a fundamental cause of the extremism and terrorism we saw with al qaeda in afghanistan and we see with isil in syria and iraq, a fundamental cause of that is this poisonous ideology of islamic extremism. we see people joining it who

bought into this perverted world view and irrespective of what we might think of them they are clear that they want to kill us. speaker, is the prime minister satisfied that all of our nato allies are themselves taking sanctions against russia and particularly, is he concerned about the role of turkey which doesn't seem to be taking sanctions and indeed is undermining or alleged to be undermining some of the sanctions which we are taking? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point which is that the eu has decided and implemented sanctions and so has the u.s&%

newport and local police responded magnificently.

>>. >> right honorable friend agreed response to isil has to be global with ambition of securing peace in the long term. the response has also to include religious leaders because it is not to exaggerate the facts that say the traditional are more threatened with extinction now than any time. >> i think my right honorable friend is right to speak of communities in the area. i would like to draw attention to the role of religious leaders and religious communities. it has been heartening to see how many muslim leaders condemned isil and said these people are not acting in our name and gone viral with burning the isil flag. thoroughly worth while to people

across religious communities to condemn this organization. >> the prime minister in response to the members from mid sussex confirm the response to isil has to involve regional governments more effectively. in view of the fact that british military trained many people in those governments and certainly in the military of the countries, what is our army doing to make sure their counter parts are on board with this? >> i think that the honorable lady makes the point which is we have good relations with, for instance the saudi military. many of them have trained here along side our armed forces. we should maximize that defense engagement and that should be a part of the comprehensive plan put in place to work with them to squeeze this organization. one of the things we decided at

nato was we needed to do more to build the capability of these militaries because increasingly in our dangerous world we are confronting problems whether in syria or mali or somalia where it would be good if the regional players had the military capabilities to better deal with the problems with our assistance and help but not always with our direct interaction. >> jim dobbin campaigned with gentle tenacity about the plight of minority christian groups in the middle east. when pope francis has indicated he supports limited intervention to stop the massacre of the innocent can i press on the two previous questions he has been asked about saudi arabia? saudi arabia is allegedly our ally. we train them and supply them with military wares. can my right honorable friend tell me specifically what interventions he and his foreign secretary have made with the saudi government to ask if they

are part of the solution in what is their backyard? >> certainly engagement taking place. i myself spoke to the king of saudi arabia about how we should best work together to confront this threat. they see it very much as a threat to themselves. apparently the secretary of state is currently in the region and talking to a number of important regional players and it is a process that needs to continue. >> what support is being provided to iraq to ensure the country has an inclusive and strong government to tackle its national threats? also, the resources to support the safety of citizens in war zones particularly women and children with the report of appalling sexual violence being perpetrated by isil? >> take the second part of the

honorable lady's question first. working with others to build refugee camps and help those people to safety. that is the role of people being persecuted. in terms of working with the iraqi government we have a full blown embassy engaged in that work. we are doing more. but the crucial decision needs to be made by the iraqi leaders themselves that the time to end politics and looking after and forming proper government that includes sunni and kurd. >> in light of russia's destabilization actors can i ask the prime minister to improving cyber and the implications to article 5. >> this was an issue that was

discussed because clearly there have been very vicious cyber attacks that have been carried out on nato members and no good if you can't address the threats which is the ability to people -- it is an important part of the work that we do. britain has particular expertise in this area. >> also convey my shock at the loss of our friend. his daughter lives in cardiff and he never missed an opportunity to tell me how proud he was of his grand sons and their achievements. would he comment on the question i think my friend was trying to get out which is, is he guaranteed the uk to fall below

the 2% target next year? >> first of all, can i thank the gentleman for accurately reminding me that i should include cardiff city ciouncil. they did a good job. i am very grateful for everything that they did. on the 2% we meet the 2%. we have under this government the new targets, very clearly set out in the document. they put a particular emphasis on those people not currently at 2% but all parties in this house will have to set out spending plans including for defense. >> commitment to invest more money to equip armed forces. should they decide -- build

future nato ships rather than to continue to build them in what is a foreign country? >> i, of course, my honorable friend loses no opportunity to discuss -- let me say as prime minister to our armed forces every part of the united kingdom when you think of the magnificent service of the scottish regiments. you think of the expertise of those who built incredible warships in scotland and the aircraft carriers. it is the contributions of all parts of the united kingdom to have a defense budget one of the top five in the world and armed forces that are the envy of the world. my argument would be not just scotland benefits from being a part of this but scotland -- a unique around the world. >> may i add my tribute, as

well, to colleague and friend, jim dobbin. he has been very supportive since i come into the house in 2010. he will be greatly missed. on flight mh-17 saw two murdered along with 296 innocent passengers. what specific discussions did the prime minister have with nato colleagues about insuring that this is brought to justice?

>> of her majesty's armed forces? >> i don't want to see further reductions in for instance the size of our army. we had to take difficult decisions going to a regular force of 82,000 and a larger reserve force. i don't want to see further changes to that. as i said in answer to a question earlier what matters most of all is having armed forces that you're confident to use because you know you have the most modern equipment and you will never send soldiers into a difficult situation with substandard equipment. we have been able to make sure they got the very best equipment with the vehicle to come because it is that that is absolutely crucial. >> can i thank the prime minister for his kind contribute to our friend, jim dobbin who was a greatly respected member of both labor and cooperative movements in greater manchester

and will be missed. i was interested in what the prime minister had to say in his statement about the new exercises in eastern europe. given that nato's permanent bases are historically probably located in what is now the part of europe. without tensions on nato's eastern flank, what decisions were had at the nato summit about where nato's permanent bases ought to be located in the future to face the challenges of the future? >> the honorable gentleman is absolutely right to make this point. part of the action plan is that there should be the pre-positioning of equipment and better use of bases in central and eastern europe. he will see from the detail of the declaration that is anticipated by this nato conference. >> we have always been told the more we spend on overseas aid

the more it would enhance our security. the more we have been spending on overseas aid we have had our security threat level raised. that has been shown to be -- can i ask the prime minister to divert the money from the overseas aid budget and give much needed additional resources to armed forces and security forces to help keep us safe in these dangerous times? >> i don't think it is quite right to make that correlation. i would argue that had we not put money into, for instance, stabilizing somalia, stabilizing afghanistan, helping to stabilize countries like pakistan we would see more pressures of asylum seeking and migration and greater problems with drugs and terrorism. the question we have to get right is the correct balance between the box. i would argue it helps to keep

us safe. >> mr. speaker, the nato summit showed how vital nato still is. i thought it was good to see playing a small role in the logistics and i welcome the prime minister's statement. as part of the security discussions did members discuss the role of foreign in our mosques. they preach in the context of understanding britain and our values. this isn't always the case with foreign imams it is believed it is time to tighten the -- >> what matters most of all is that imams are able to communicate to constituents in english and up to date with how to help young people and divert them away from these extremist preacher