Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20100824

>> we'll take a short break. >> tonight on c-span, arkansas congressman mike ross holds a town hall meeting with constituents. then an update from pakistan on the state department. after that the senior u.s. commander talks about recruiting and training afghanistan soldiers and police officers. and later, a g.o.p. primary debate between alaska senator lisa mer could you ski and republican challenger, joe miller. that primary is tomorrow. >> we are all pawns on a chess board and we're playing our parts in a drama that is neither fiction nor unimportant. >> i come before this body to personally express again my sincere regrets about the encounter with the capitol hill police. >> i can't walk away and have you guys doing your campaign because i'm annoying. >> current and former members delivering apologies and explanations directly to their colleagues on the floor of the house. watch more online and read about them at c-span's video library, all searchable and free. it's washington your way. >> now arkansas democrat mike ross talks to voters. topics include immigration, taxes and unemployment. congressman ross is inis fifth term and represents the fourth district of his state which includes hot springs and pine bluff. the event was held in glenwood, arkansas, and is a little more than an hour. >> i'd like to welcome each of you here today for the town hall meeting with congressman mike ross. he has several of these each year. we have probably twice a year he comes by and visits with all of us in this area. not only here, but throughout his district. we're really glad this morning to see him. we're glad also to see some of our representatives we have here, an i'm going to ask our representative if he would, randy stewart, if he'd come up and introduce congressman ross. randy? >> it's my pleasure. i've got kind of a big district compared to all the other representatives in arkansas, because i've got all of park county and five other ones. and dwayne knows all about that as a former representative. but i can't imagine having the territory that congressman ross has. he has to be the hardest-working guy in washington, because he has half of our state, you might say. and he does this on a regular basis. a lot of you have you been here. we have -- he comes here twice a year, glenwood, all the other areas, and so we have access to him year-round. we get to talk to him. i call his office all the time. they have been very helpful in solving my problems. when one of my constituents has a problem dealing with the federal government, social security, veterans, whatever, i go to them to get help on solving those problems. and they've always been really good to do that. so it's my honor to introduce probably the hardest-working guy i know besides me -- [laughter] -- today and he's going to tell you what he's been doing and how he is getting around the state, taking his vacation, his recess from congress, to work. he's he not taking a vacation, he's working. when you do these constantly day after day after day, he's really dedicated to his constituents to get out there and answer your questions. he's not afraid to answer your questions. and even the hard questions. and i've got some for him today. it's my pleasure now to introduce our congressman, mike ross. [applause] >> thank you, thank y'all. y'all can sit down. randy, thank you for that kind introduction and for all you do for us at the state level. i really do appreciate it. mayor, thank you for opening up your facilities again for me to come back and to spend some time in glenwood here today. i also want to thank kwxi. it's my understanding that they're broadcasting this town hall meeting live over the airwaves for folks who are at work or shut in at home that, for whatever reason, can't come. and i want to thank them for doing that, so everybody can participate in this town hall meeting. and i want to thank c-span for coming today. there was an article a while back in washington about how most members of congress have either stopped doing town hall meetings, or they're doing a lot fewer of them. i didn't even realize it at the time until they did their research. apparently, unlike one of the top two members of congress unlike a number of town hall meetings that i hold -- i held 34 town hall meetings -- 34 or 35 town hall meetings back in the spring. i did a series this summer of 12 telephone town hall meetings, where we had anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 people on each call and i could usually answer about 15 questions in an hour. and now this month i'm doing 35 more town hall meetings. so no one can accuse me of hiding from the public, because the reason i do this is i think it's an important part of the job. if you're really going to represent folks, i think it's important to get out among them, to listen to them and take their issues and concerns back to our nation's capital. traditionally august is a month when congress is not in session. for some members of congress, maybe it means take a four or five-week vacation. for me it means get out and see the peel. i've been to myrrh fees bro this morning. i'll be in mount ida and hot springs later today hosting forum like this throughout the 29 counties that make up our congressional district. i think one of the problems with washington today is too many members of congress get elected. they move to washington, they stop coming home and stop listening to the people. and i promised to never let that happen to me and that's why i never moved to washington. after the last vote each week i'm always on the very next plane to get back to arkansas to get out among the people and to listen to you. i still live in prescott. i wake up in prescott, arkansas, just as many mornings a week as i do in washington, d.c. in fact, i was at home in prescott mowing my yard last evening. i thought instead of boring y'all with a long speech, i thought we would spend this hour just taking questions and comments. that's why i'm here is to listen, and i'll do my best to answer any questions you might have. one housekeeping note. if you'll fill out the postcard. if you have an email address and will share it with us, we'll send you a weekly update. a lot of you already get it. we'll send you a weekly update of what's going on. we have a poll question where we want to get your input each week. and we will shot share your email address with anyone else. then it's yours to keep. it has my contact information on it and let me know any time i can have of any help. they're not expensive pens. if they stop writing, shake them a few times and they'll normally start writing again. [laughter] with that, i'll just throw it open for any questions anyone might have. >> mike, the scra funding, can you explain that to the crowd and your position on that? >> s-r -- >> the revenue in lieu of taxes . >> oh, absolutely. all these acronyms sometimes get me. in the washington national forest and the ozark national forest we have a lot of forest land, which means the federal government is not paying property taxes. so that our schools are not penalized. the government provides those school districts that fall in those areas with a payment in lieu of taxes. i've always supported that and i always will, as every few years we have to reauthorize it and deal with it. i've always supported it and always will, because obviously, as you well know, just because we have a natural forest here your students shouldn't have to suffer in your local school. so payment in lieu of taxes helps your local school, it helps your county government for those acres where property taxes are not being paid because the land is owned by the federal government. you receive payment in liu of taxes. i always -- in lieu of taxes. i'll always continue to support it. i've got a number of counties, montgomery and logan and scott that are also very heavily affected. whether they fall in the washington national forest or ozark national forest. we have both of those areas in our area. >> arkansas is one of the fastest-growing states for immigration. what is your stance on immigration and what do you feel needs to be done to work this -- i hate to call it a problem, but to work out what is mass immigration. >> i'm opposed to illegal immigration and i'm also' posted to the federal government suing the state of arizona. arizona is doing what they're doing because the government, in my opinion, hasn't done their job. so i'm opposed to the federal lawsuit against arizona. i'm opposed to illegal immigration. and i believe that, number one, we need to secure our border. we passed legislation in the house of representatives last week to provide additional funds for that purpose, to secure our border. the other thing that i think we need to do is we need to provide employers the ability to know -- and i'm going to be able to do this, too. we need to provide employers the ability to know whether or not the people they're hiring are legal or not. and then go after those employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. you cut off the work, the majority of them will go home or stop coming here. look, we're a nation of immigrants. we all came here from somewhere, unless you're a native american. i think those who wait their turn, come here legally, respect our laws, respect our flag and learn english, we should welcome them with open arms. and those who come illegally not only are breaking our laws, but they're also breaking in line ahead of those that are trying to play by the rules. i'm opposed to amnesty. we tried that under president reagan. i think it was 1986. president reagan in 1986 said if you're here illegally raise your hand and we'll make you a u.s. citizen. some four million did. what has it gotten us? we have 10 million to 12 million more. and if we continue to do that, it will encourage folks to come here illegally, knowing if they wait long enough there will be another round of amnesty. for those reasons i'm opposed to amnesty. >> i spoke with an attorney in montgomery county and he said that the laws against contributing to the delinquentcy of minors and indecent exposure are still in the books. and with the problems that are going on and just crime in general, i'm asking why the sheriffs are not allowed to uphold that law. i talked to one of the sheriffs and i kind of winked at him. i knew what the responses were going to be. he says, well, we can't uphold the law because the public schools are funded by both the state and federal government. and so i said, well, i believe the teaching of evolution in the school and the teaching of pre-marital sex and also legalized abortion, i said all these things are contribute together the delinquency of minors. and i believe we should be able to stand up and hold up for traditional christian values in this nation, because this is what it was founded on. so anyway, i'm just leading up to a question, how do you stand on upholding the principles in 97-280? it's a little too long to go in to, but the need to uphold what the bible says. i don't know if you're familiar with it, but i can get a copy to anyone who would like to see one. >> if you can get me a copy of it, i'll be glad to review that. i can tell you that i stand for common sense arkansas values. i was raised in prescott, emmett and hope and it's those values i was brought up with in a christian home that i take with me to our nation's capital each week to represent you. in terms of your local schools, they do receive some federal funding. but the standards and the things that are taught in the schools is dictated by state law, not federal law. so that would be a good question for your state representative, randy stewart, over here. [laughter] and i think it needs to remain that way, because i really do believe that we don't need the federal government telling us what to teach in our schools. that's an issue that should be left to the states and to your local school board. i think i see at least one local school board member that's here in the room today. >> i spoke to the local school board a year ago june and they were all in favor of incorporating a bible course in the school system, but this was the superintendent and all the board representatives. but they didn't find time to implement it. in other words, there was no room because the schedules were too compressed. but that doesn't answer the question. evolution is still being taught as a fact and premarital sex and abortion. anyway, you know -- i spoke to david bogart over the phone. he's the one who struck down the statute a few years ago and i'd rather not repeat what he told me. not that he wasn't a gentleman, but the subject matter is a little too vulgar to bring up here. >> got it. i appreciate that. yes, ma'am. >> i am interested in, what are we going to do about [inaudible] and the supreme court ruling? where do we stand on that, about getting rid of corporations having power as individuals? >> in the election process -- are you talking about being able to fund elections? >> well, whatever it grants them. >> right. you're talking about the recent supreme court ruling? >> it's changed somewhere along the way, you know. >> i'm not exactly sure what your -- >> the corporations grew and grew and grew. suddenly they became -- >> there was a recent supreme court ruling that basically -- see, individuals can't contribute more than $2,400 to an election. and corporations can't donate anything to a candidate in an election. the supreme court recently ruled, however, that a big corporation or a corporation of any size can create what's called a 527 under the i.r.s. rules, make up a name -- i guess it can be called arkansas yans for good -- contribute to a fund and then spend that money promoting or ripping a candidate. i've helped pass legislation in the house to stop that. i believe that is bad government and should not be allowed. i'm not sure if that's what you're speaking to or not. >> well, any influence because they have the money. it isn't fair and it's corrupted. and i've heard that this was all folks that -- >> we addressed that in the legislation we passed in the house a few weeks ago. it's now pending, i believe, in the u.s. senate. >> i have a question about unemployment. i'm in a small business, the transportation business. and it seems that a trucking company went out of business last year and now having trouble finding employment. i had a girl quit out of my office because her husband was drawing unemployment and if she drew a salary, a very small salary, added with her husband's unemployment, she said -- she had to quit her job. i have several drivers that are drawing unemployment that quit because they didn't want to work. and even though our trucking company went out of business in fort smith about a month ago, out of 300 drivers, i have yet to hear from one of those drivers. i guess my question is -- i think mr. clinton said that the way to get people off welfare was to put them to work, so maybe they should come up with a work program for people. >> to answer your question, extending unemployment, does it help people? it helps people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own who can't find work. you're looking for specialized folks. not everybody has commercial driver's license and are able to do what you need them to do. look, i know people that are out of work for the first time in their lives. most of us in this room know good, decent, hard-working folks that are out of work for the first time in their lives. most of them would rather have a job than sit at home or collect unemployment, which pays $300 or $400 a week at best. in arkansas we've been fortunate in that the unemployment rate in arkansas is 7.5%. there are a lot of cities in this country where unemployment is 10%, 15%, even 25% today. and there are a lot of folks that lost their job through no fault of their own that cannot find work. now, are there abuses in the system? absolutely. and those abuses need to be cleaned up. if you're going to draw unemployment, you ought to be required to look for a job, and if you're offered a job you ought to take it. so certainly there's -- just as there's abuses with social security disability -- we all know somebody that probably shouldn't be on it that is and we all know somebody that should be on it that's not. and there's always going to be those abuses. but for the people out there who are not abusing the system, who have lost their job through no fault of their own, earnestly looking for work, that's why we have a safety net program. the fact is, we still have about 15 million people out of work in this country today. i'd getting better. you know, remember that in the last quarter of 2008 we were losing 3/4 of a million jobs a month. 3/4 of a million jobs a month. we've actually grown 600,000 new jobs in the private sector this year, in the first six months of this year. we all remember the stock market being down close to 600 points. it's now bumping between 10,000 and 11,000 points. every economist will tell you that we're coming out of this recession, but it's going to be very slow and it's going to be very painful for many. but the fact is this -- unemployment in arkansas is 7.5%, but less than 4% are drawing an unemployment check in arkansas. so while there's stories of abuse out there -- and i certainly understand that -- i don't think it's being abused too badly, because there's 7.5% out of work and less than 4% are drawing an unemployment check today. and by the way, that was totally -- well -- >> the veterans medical is the best treatment in the world. ain't got no complaint, but we need a dental plan. us older americans -- they don't pay for it. even if you retired from the military. we'd like to see a dental plan. >> one, thank you for your service to our country. >> well, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. our military has a pledge, leave no soldier behind on the battlefield. i think when they return home as veterans we as a nation should have a pledge, leave no veteran behind in this country. i'm proud to have helped pass the single largest investment in the history of the v.a. in veterans health care. hopefully you're going to start seeing some improvements as a result of that. we've recently hired more claims workers, so veterans don't have to wait a year or two to get a hearing on their v.a. claim. we've modernized the g.i. bill so this new generation of veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan will help them go to college. and if they have already been to college or want to go for the first time ever, they're able to pass it on to a spouse or to a child. and as a father who moved and enrolled two students up at the university of arkansas yesterday, i can tell you that's a huge benefit for our veterans there. we can't do enough for our veterans, and i think it's my job to make sure that our country keeps its promises to our veterans. >> you know, the dental plan -- they've got some good programs. i just went through a 12-week program, and i lost 90 pounds. i started in january. it's been two or three pounds a week, but it's been consistent. it's a great program. for medical, it's great. but we need a dental plan, and if we can get that, we'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. i agree with you. our veterans, they deserve dental care and i'll continue to support that. >> thank you, sir. >> hi, i'm kathy, and i am the clark county representative for the west arkansas workforce board that works through our workforce centers in a 10-county area. we do a lot of work with displaced workers, providing funds for education, to further their education or to get them education for new jobs, if they lose their jobs. we have summer benefit jobs for children of working ages that work with the local county when they're not in school. our workforce centers do a wonderful job in helping these people and providing jobs and helping them try to find jobs. but as you very well know, we are a very rural area and our main problem is some of our jobs are here in the county on lumber, chicken, agriculture, the timber industry and we are such an economically depressed area. how can we get in our area some of the new grain jobs possibly sent to our area that would help people in clark county and the surrounding areas? [applause] >> one, thanks for the work you do, the workforce development. it's very important, because, you know, it wasn't too long ago when my parents were growing up, basically you got whatever education level you were going to get and you got a job, and that was the job you worked until you either fell dead or retired. and my generation is expected to have at least three jobs. my daughter, who's a senior at the university of arkansas this year, is estimated her generation will have 10 jobs throughout their lifetime. and so it's always going to be important for us to be able to train and retrain. that's a very important component. to answer your question, i think several things. one, i think it starts with education. and that's why i think we've got to invest in education and ensure our young people get a world class education. we're competing with asia, africa and europe. and the truth is we used to lead the world in turning out college graduates. and today we're ranked 12th or 13th in the world. 12 or 13 other countries turn out more college graduates than we do. we're never going to compete with the rest of the world with our muscles, because the fact is half the world gets up every day and lives on less than $2 a day. and i don't think we want to join them. but we've always been the innovators of the world, and that's why i believe education is so important, because it's absolutely critical to our future that we remain the innovators of the world. having said that in terms of grain jobs you mentioned, i've got a bill to do that. this so-called cap and trade business, i voted against that. a study tells us that 1.5% of the jobs in arkansas will lose them. there's winners and losers in cap and trade. arkansas would lose 1.5% of its jobs in cap and trade. everybody would see their energy practice go up. but i do think we need to reduce our carbon emissions and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. i've got a bill to do that that i wrote. the american made energy act, which could help us realize an economic revival here in arkansas. and here's how it works. i believe we need to drill more here at home off the coast, not using b.p. standards, by the way, but using new 21st century technology, you know, and also in anwr. there's 19 million acres up there. we only have to touch 2,000 acres. the bottom line is this -- we're sending half a trillion dollars overseas to buy energy. and too much of that money is ending up in the hands of the terrorists who want to come here and destroy us. that's a half a trillion dollar annual payroll that should be kept right here in the good old united states of america. here's how i'd do it. drill more here at home. the revenue from the lease and royalty payments to our government would total $80 billion, with a b. i propose to use that to make the single largest investment in america in alternative nrk. we need oil and natural gas certainly short term, but we're also drk there's no silver bullet. we need hydrogen fuel cell cars. they're out there. but they're still being designed. they're not in the marketplace. forget ethanol. they're actually now taking the scraps from pine trees and turning it into gasoline. i mean -- and batteries and natural bass-powered cars and wind and hydro, and more nuclear, by the way. it's going to take it all to meet our energy needs of the future. so my idea is take the revenue from the lease and royalty payments by drilling more here at home, make the single largest investment in this country in alternative forms of energy and have more energy innovators. a lot of the jobs could be located here in arkansas. it's like going to the moon. some folks think that washington is spending too much money today -- and i happen to be one of them that feel that way. but the fact is in today's dollars we invested $90 billion to put a man on the moon. $90 billion with a b. we did a lot more than that. we grew a new generation of innovators that created a lot of the technology we have today. it's time to do that all over again in the area of energy. my plan does it. it's totally paid for. we don't borrow any money from china to fund it. so that's the direction we need to go. having said that, in terms of local jobs, i can tell you that whether an industry comes here, it's got more to do with your local leadership. when they come to arkansas, it's the arkansas department of economic development, which is under the purview of the governor. they usually go there first and they want to see three or four sites. so it's important that y'all are communicating with the arkansas department of economic development and doing all the things with them to ensure that you're on a list, so that when industry is looking at arkansas and they say you've got -- put me on a plane and show me four towns you want to be on that list. when they get here they want to see education, health care, they want to see that the folks in this community get along, what kind of infrastructure do you have. do you have an available workforce? that's the biggest challenge we have. people are leaving euroleague arkansas and people are not going to come here and invest in you don't have an available workforce. in a lot of instances we don't have an available workforce because they've moved to find work. so that's a challenge that we're always going to have in rural america, but those are some of the ideas i have on how i think we can hopefully begin somewhat of an economic revival in places like arkansas. and the key is education. i know you've got great community colleges within driving distance of here. embrace those. that's one of the things they look at is not just your public schools, but they also look at your public, too, and your colleges and where they're able to train employees for whatever type of jobs they're looking to bring here. there's no magic wand. there's no silver bullet. but those are some of the things that i think we've got to do to secure our economic future. hi, bill. >> 100 years old. >> look pretty good there, bill. >> my wife and i have timber land and i'm surprised the first question you got about the lumber company. the lumber company is glenwood. they have contributed more than any other company to glenwood, to south arkansas, to half of the state. they are stressed financially. you know that. it's a critical thing. that's a world-class mill. it's running. it's supporting people in college, it's supporting every politician in this state. why are we in a panic mode and trying to do something to save that mill? can you believe that we're not more involved in it? we're going to sit here and watch this beautiful mill go extinct possibly? i mean, to me it's unreal. i it won't affect me, i'm going to be dead. but now, if we lose that, we'll never get another mill like that here. it will be impossible. it will cots $52 million to replace that mill. >> we've been involved in a number of meetings -- a lot of meetings with the lumber company and trying to secure their economic future so they can keep people working here. this is a tough time for the lumber industry, not just here, but all over the country. if you look at a map of the united states and have a dot on it for every mill that's closed in the last 10 years, it would surprise you. i know this probably better than anybody in the room because i'm from prescott. we lost potlatch in my hometown. people i go to church with, people i deer hunt with are finding themselves out of work for the first time in their life and they're honestly looking for work and can't find it. so we felt the impact in my hometown and that's why i'm working so hard to try and help the timber industry. >> and the governor, i mean, maybe they are, but it's not obvious. >> i can tell you that your congressional delegation, your governor and the arkansas department of economic development and my district director back here, jeff weaver, have spent many hours in many meetings to try and ensure that they're here for the future. you may not see it. they may not be jumping up and down the front page about it of the local newspaper, but -- which tells me they're not show horses or workhorses, they're out there behind the scenes trying to make a difference. >> it is a major, major thing. >> i support bean longer in its future here and we have and will continue to do wall we can. the biggest challenge they're going to have -- all the signs are that we're coming out of this recession but it's going to be slow and it's going to be painful. my biggest concern is the housing market right now. that's what's killing the lumber mills is the housing market. we have a record number of forecloshes and there's a bunch more on the bubble and very close to foreclosure. if the housing industry is not handled correctly and if it falls the wrong way, then we could very well fall back into a recession, which would be absolutely devastating to our saw mills, our lumber mills. so hopefully that's not going to happen. right now we're headed in the right direction. the fact that they've weathered the storm -- for the lumber industry this storm started in 2006 and 2007 and we're coming out of it now. the fact they're still there and operating and have weathered this storm is a very positive sign. >> hopefully. but you just wonder if people are concerned, if they really realize how important that mill is. i mean, if somebody would offer to come in here just -- i mean hypothetically and say we're going to put in a mill that would employ 200 people and turn these billions of dollars every year, we would be over there -- i mean, jumping through hoops to get those people in here. the mill is here. why aren't we jumping through hoops to keep it here? you know, it's a real contrast there. you've got something. you don't put the effort that you would get. why not put the effort in to keep it? you can't believe it's even a possibility that they would lose that. >> that's something -- by the way, lee stewart is here. wave your hand, lee. lee has recently graduated from law school about a year ago. has been on my staff in washington about a year. is one of my legislative assistants. and i'm pleased to report to you that he grew up and was educated just down the road in kirby. and right here in this county. and so not only do i take the common-sense values that i was raised on with me to washington each week, i also take people that are raised in places like kirby with me. lee is involved in issues up there, and i coach the tree caucus and the congress are working on ways to try to stabilize and help the timber industry through these tough times. thank you. >> thank you. >> back on the forest service. already brought it up. we had the flood, and you were there. of course, you came in. what has the forest service done to help mitigate something like that happening in the future? >> i've been in a number of meetings with the usda, the secretary, as well as the chief of the u.s. forest service. one, they're in the process of cleanup. i think they've now tagged all the personal items they found after the flood, and family members can come back and claim them. the cleanup process is close to being completed. now they've got to rebuild some of the areas so they can be reopened. and they're also reviewing a warning system. kinds of like we have tornado sirens and warning systems. we're looking at the forest service, who are looking at some type of warning system where maybe there would be a float up the river somewhere and once it reaches a certain level, those sirens would go off to weak people up to tell them to move to higher ground. what happened there was just absolutely devastating. there's a lot of families hurting as a result of it. i see my job as making sure we get some type of warning system in place and because of the terrain, it will happen again. but i also feel very strongly that we need to get that campground back into the condition where it can be reopened, because people enjoy going there, people want to go there, and i think it would be a mistake to close it. i don't think that's going to happen. however, i do support the idea of some type of warning system and i think we're going to see that. they're making progress literally every day up there. >> as you know, i contacted y'all about the warning system for over two years. they told me the end of july, end of august, we'd be back up and running. i donald think we've even got close to -- don't think we've even got close to back up and running. do you know the time frame? early warning is the key to this. then on the weekends and the holidays, we could have had the exact sale thing down here. >> we contacted the national weather service back when this thing blew down and you're one of the ones that brought it to our attention. they informed us that it will be back up this month. now, having said that, it probably still won't work at albert pike because of the terrain, just like cell phones don't work at albert pike. it's my understanding before the tower blew over two years ago it didn't work at albert pike. and this new tower they're putting up this month -- or they've told us they're going to put up -- >> it actually worked in langley. >> it probably would in langley. if you get down in the campground area between those mountains -- >> it wouldn't work down here. but we're still concerned about the other areas, too. the early warning on the slope -- on the river and stuff -- >> the national weather service committed to me that it will be back this month. we'll follow up on that and get an update and make sure that it is back up this month. i'm just telling you that even if it is, it may work in langley, but because of the terrain around camp albert pike, it's my understanding it didn't work before and it probably won't work now. but we still need it up for everybody else in this region, and i appreciate you saying you support the idea of some type of warning that, based on river stage or river levels, and i hope that's something we'll get accomplished there. >> i own a small business here in town. i really strived this year when i was making my spring orders and making my product, i really strived to buy things that was made in the u.s.a. i had several options. i found out when i stocked the things that was made in the u.s.a. i got a better product and the price wasn't much different at all. sometimes it was actually cheaper. the product that's made in the countries does not -- they don't represent u.s. values to begin with. therefore, we import and contribute billions and billions of dollars to the u.s. just like i went to a home site that was getting built and there was boards that are stammedpped "product of canada." you know, what can we do? can we get some sort of small tax incentives that would help the small business to promote our product that's made here in the united states? i think that would be more effective than anything that i've even thought of. you know, i care about what's going on right now, and i do think there's common sense answers to these questions. i think there is a solution. and i think some of these common-sense answers, if they was applied, i think it would make a dramatic effect and it would be fast. if people like me would sell the product that's made in the u.s.a., instead of china or japan, i'm pretty sure that the small factories would add more workers. it's just common sense. i really think that it could be overturned and this thing could get back rolling really fast if small steps were took like that. what's your thoughts? >> thank you for being a small business owner, taking the risk, making the investment and putting people here in glenwood and surrounding areas to work. i salute you for that. sometimes i think we get caught up chasing these fortune 500 companies around. when the reality is 60% to 80% of all new jobs in this country come from people like you, from small businesses. i can tell you that i think we need to have your back. we've done some things this year that hopefully will help in terms of, if you hire unemployed workers you can get a tax credit for that. because the banks are still not making the loans that a lot of small businesses need. we've increased the amount of loans coming through the small business administration to try and help get some of these small businesses back on their feet and back up and running. but the other thing that we just recently did -- you know, there were 160,000 teachers that were going to be laid off this month. and we kept them in the classroom for all the reasons i mentioned earlier about how education is the key to our economic future. but we paid for it. we didn't borrow the money, we paid for it. one of the ways we paid for it is going after these multinational corporations that ship their jobs and money offshore to avoid paying taxes here like you have to pay. so my point is this -- we need to level the playing field. i support -- look, we can't build a wall around america. and i support trade. but we need fair trade, not free trade. i'll tell you what free trade has gotten us. it's gotten us to where every time we pass a trade agreement -- most of them i've voted against, by the the way. all we ends up doing is shipping our jobs overseas. we need trade agreements with companies that can afford to bay our products so we're shipping our products overseas instead of our jobs overseas. so that's the direction i think we need to go that would help and we need to continue to provide tax credits, tax breaks to small businesses to help find their financial footing as we come out of this economic recession. because y'all are the real job creators, not just in glenwood and pine county, but all over america. so that's the direction i think we need to go. >> thank you. >> the war in afghanistan. in my opinion, i support what the troops are doing, but i don't support what they're being asked to do. the people don't want us there and we're trying to build them homes and stuff, a democracy, that they wouldn't have, if we can make it work. and our troops are fighting for an enemy that they can't find and it's costing us millions and millions of dollars a day just to run this thing and we are accomplishing nothing. we have over 100,000 troops in afghanistan alone and they kill two or three terrorists and the ratio is not really very good. in my opinion if we can bring those personnel home and set up a security in the united states, then we could keep the terrorists out just as they're doing now with less cost. teas just my opinion. thank you. >> i'm go ahead and take a whack at iraq and afghanistan at the same time. in iraq we're in the process of responsible deployment out of iraq. we'll be out of iraq in about 2011. we will begin a responsible redeployment out of afghanistan in july of 2011. >> supposedly. >> in the past, i think we were so focused on iraq that our government took its eye off the ball in afghanistan. and let's not forget the real culprits behind 9/11 that came here and attacked us was afghanistan. and i think it would be a mistake to let al qaeda retake afghanistan as a safe haven and training ground for future terrorist attacks against america. in all fairness, our government was so focused on iraq they took their eye off afghanistan and a year and a half ago we were up to about a quarter million troops in iraq. we only had 25,000 in afghanistan. we've listened to the generals. we're now increasing the number of troops in afghanistan so that we can stabilize the country, we can train their police, security and military force, just like we did in iraq and then hopefully begin a responsible re-deployment out of there in july of 2011. if we do it too fast and too carelessly, we'll end up being there and it will cost up more lives, more money long term. i think a positive sign is the fact that general petraeus is now in charge in afghanistan and he thinks this is doable. and i hope he's right. we pretty much -- and we have captured or killed literally tens of thousands of terrorists not only in iraq, but also in afghanistan, and we've pretty much now successfully pushed al qaeda into pakistan, which creates a whole other problem for us. but i'm going to support our troops and i'm going to support general petraeus on this with the condition that he sticks to his commitment to begin a responsible redeployment out of afghanistan by july, 2011. we've already been in afghanistan longer than we've ever been in any other modern war. we can't afford to stay there forever. we're approaching $1 trillion. you want to talk about the debt and deficit. a trillion of it is from iraq and we're approaching half a trillion in afghanistan. at some point we've got to bring our men and women in uniform home, secure our borders, protect america here and start rebuilding this country of ours. >> i agree with that, yes. >> what you said a moment ago about moving of the jobs out of this country sparse manufacturing. what is the government doing to help us with manufacturing? this has been going on for 30 years or so we've really kind of built this after world war ii, we built everybody else's economy and their taxes up. we've done nothing for our own. now we're seeing jobs go overseas. what do we need to do as a government, as a country, to stop this flow from going out? because that's where your manufacturing -- that's where a lot of our jobs have gone. >> i wasn't in congress when nafta passed. had i been, i would have voted no. i was there for cafta and i voted for that. i think we need to rethink these trade agreements. we need them with countries that can afford to buy our products, so we're shipping our products and not our jobs, overseas. we also need to rework our tax policy in this country so we're not rewarding multi-national corporations that ship jobs overseas. we need to be rewarding small businesses, like this gentleman right here that's putting people to work in glenwood. so i think we need to look at it from a tax perspective and i think we need to look at it from a trade perspective. >> i'm going to try to relay a question that a young lady asked me this morning to ask you. she has got a young teenaged daughter, and what it is, she works for a company here in glenwood and they pay for her insurance. her husband works for another company and they pay for his insurance and they're trying to find insurance coverage for their daughter. but blue cross blue shield has, as of a couple of weeks ago, will not give an individual policy to anyone under 18 years of age. is this something we're going to be looking at in the future? >> well, this health care reform business -- and i voted against it, as many of you know. i came home, i held meetings like this, i listened to the people and said i'd vote no, and i did. having said that, there's good parts and there's bad parts to it. it's about 20 bills, and that bill is longer than the bible. and there's about 20 bills in it. and about half of them everybody in this room could probably agree to. for example, i think most of us would agree that when our children go off to college, they ought to be able to stay on our health insurance until they graduate, or at least within a reasonable tile. by age 24, 25 or even 26 with graduate school these days. that's good. eliminating the so-called doughnut hole for our seniors is part of medicare part d. that's good. health insurance reform. that's good. telling you that you've got to buy health insurance or the i.r.s. is going to knock on your door and fine you, not good. cutting medicare a half a trillion dollars, which is the only health insurance plan our seniors have to stay healthy and get well, not good. the health care reform bill is not even implemented till 2014. whatever problem they got is because of the problems we've had for the last 10 or 20 years in this country, not because of this bill. and i'm not defending it. i voted against it. i'm just telling you, there's a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of this, quite frankly. but, you know, blue cross is a private health insurance plan. you might check other plans. there's other competition out there. there's other private plans. depending on their income, the child may qualify for our kids first -- >> the income is more to qualify, so they're searching for -- >> so the husband has a job with insurance, but they don't cover the family. >> no. >> and the mother has a job -- >> he works for -- the company he works for pays for him and the company she works for pays for her. >> if they wanted to put that child on, they would have to pay out of their own pocket, probably, but they would be able to do that, either through the husband or the wife. >> yes, yes. >> they should be able to do that. >> at a pretty good expense. >> i understand. and health care costs, by the way, are growing. i've worked hard to try to get us the kinds of health care reform i could support. i was very involved in slowing this thing down and trying to make it better. but at the end of the day it was too big, too costly, and the people i represent told me to vote no, and that's what i did. but i really do believe we need health care reform, but we need common-sense health care reform. we need small businesses and the self-employed to be part of a bigger group with more choices and less prices. but we don't need the government, in my opinion, getting further into the health care business. but those would be her options if thee doesn't qualify would be to go on the mom's plan or the dad's plan. >> or take a family plan, but they won't give it to individuals. >> that's one private company. i would encourage them to check around with other companies. there's other companies that do health insurance, too. >> i just didn't know if this was something you're looking at in the future. >> well, in the future, the family will be covered through the workplace depending on the size of the business. if it's got more than 50 employees, they've got to provide it for the individual and the family once this kicks in. and if they're smaller than 50 employees, they won't have to provide it, but they as the owner, as well as their employees, will be able to go shob, what's called a state-based exchange, where you'll find all the private companies. there's like 20 companies and you pick one, like medicare part d. or you're so confused you throw a dart and then decide. it would be similar to that in terms of there will be private choices, not government choices, but private choices and you pick one. and then you pay and the government will subsidize the cost of it up to 400% of poverty, which, by the way for a family of four is $88,000. so if the governor of arkansas has two children living at home, he would qualify. most people in arkansas would qualify. right now in arkansas we're one the least generous statements and you have to be at 27% of poverty to quality. but if you're between 1 100% and 25% of poverty and on up you can go to this exchange, shop around being pick what you want and -- the most you'll pay out of pocket is 12% of your income and that's for people at or above 4% for poverty and that's 88,200 a year and there's a sliding scale. the most you'd pay out of pocket is 2% to 12% of your annual income, not just for insurance, but deductibles, co-payments and all that. but there's no income limit. it doesn't matter how well thee you are. if you don't have insurance at the workplace, you won't receive a subsidy for it if you live at more than 400% of poverty. that's kind of how it works. >> let's say a gentleman has got product and he's got a market to sell it. he has a decision to either build the plant in arkansas or in mexico. i'm just using glenwood as an example. he's got to worry about o'sharks he's got to worry about -- osha, he's got to worry about e.p.a. and two bus loads of different inspectors, plus the i.r.s., ok? he says, oh, my goodness. he goes down to mexico. he builds him a building and starts making product and we buy it. what are we going to do besides pass more legislation, such as the clean air act, which initially is going to be a killer to the industries and the small businesses like me and the farmers? what are we going to do to make that guy say, i want to build my factory in glenwood? it's common sense. what are we going to do to make that happen? because that's got to happen. it's got to happen. >> i agree with you. i'm from just down the road in prescott. it didn't come blowing in here from washington. i wake up in prescott as many mornings of the week as i do in d.c. and i can tell you, i totally agree with you. i used to own a small business. i understand what you're saying. we've got to level the playing field. now, do we want a clean environment? sure, we do. >> you bet. i'm all for it. >> we all do. we want to have workplace safety. we all want that. i don't think we want to turn this country into another china. i don't. and i don't think anyone does. but we can do these things with common sense, as you and i both refer to, and that's what we need to do. we've got to level the playing field and we've got to make it -- instead of providing disincentives to small and large businesses to locate in america, we need to be providing incentives for that and streamline some of these things. that's why i voted against cap and trade and that's why i'm co-sponsoring the bill to stop the e.p.a. from doing it on their own without a vote from congress. [inaudible] >> why aren't we charging for he can porting our goods? -- exporting our goods? if we make goods in the united states, why aren't we taxing the heck on the other countries on those same goods? >> that's what i'm saying when we need to rethink our trade policies. those are the kind of things we need to do. . . the small business owner does not need the government to tell them how to run his business. he knows how to run his business. that and and right there could be next. it is a mistake for us to do that. we clearly saved general motors, which is a good thing. i did not agree with all of their business practices, but it would be a mistake for the government to get into the private sector's business. what we did was alone. it it every dime back with interest, five years early. we saved hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly and directly as a result of that. i think we are -- >> let me make one more observation. sunday when you're in congress and you have some spare moments -- someday when you're in congress and you have some spare moments, maybe you can ask people why we are in so many wars. we have fought many wars and the last seven years. [inaudible] the rest of the world has got that perspective of us. we talk peace when we are fighting wars. how do we overcome that? >> let me -- i hear you. [laughter] let me close with a couple of things. concerned about is debt and deficit. we did not get into this mess overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight. it took george washington did jimmy carter to put this country in $1 trillion of debt. we have added the other $12 trillion since 1981. it is becoming a sustainable for our children and our grandchildren. i'm not just -- unsustainable for our children and our grandchildren. i've been sounding the alarm for a number of years. i have a blueprint. i'm a leader in the fiscally conservative, democratic, blue dog coalition. we wrote the blueprint for fiscal reform, including calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, which we came close to doing in the 1980's. our sixth -- arkansas has a constitutional amendment. i believe 49 states require honest budget in one form or another. i'm really proud of our governor mike beebe and our state registered -- state legislature. just because it allows -- it is on paper does not mean you have to do it did in arkansas, we make decisions. -- does not mean you have to do it. in arkansas, we make decisions. to learn more about my blueprint for fiscal reform, you can go to my website and learn more. these are tough times. i am doing the best i can. i have come home and listened. and tired of the partisan bickering that goes on -- i am tired of the partisan bickering that goes on up in washington. i do not care if it is a democratic or republican idea. is it a common-sense idea? every year, they do this covered. they analyze our voting record, not a silly procedural votes, but the votes that matter like cap and trade, health care, so forth and so on. every year, i have made that list. their 435 members of congress. -- there are 435 members of congress. that is the exact center of the 435 members and i am right there, about as close as you can get to the center. when i say that i do not care whose idea it is, it is not just rhetoric. my record demonstrates that i am at the center of the congress. you have folks on the extreme right and left. the majority of the people in my district, quite frankly, the majority of the people are where i am -- in the middle, looking for common sense solutions to the problems and johnses that confront this country today. thank you also -- and challenges that confront this country today. thank you all for coming. the american recovery and reinvestment act -- it is a two- year program and we are only beginning the second year now. it is working. we had 3/4 of 1 million jobs lost per month in the last quarter of 2008. we are digging 600,000 private- sector jobs -- we have already gained 600,000 private-sector jobs this year. we're putting people back to work. we're working on highway 70 improvements. he received thousands for a new fire truck, and new -- one city received thousands for the new fire truck and a new police car. glenwood is putting local contractors back to work to make reparations -- to make repairs. it allows you to spend less of your tax money on schools and utilities and more on what we ought to be doing, which is indicating our children. the list goes on and on -- which is educating our children. the list goes on and on. if we had not done the bank bailout -- i understand it was not popular. there were loans with 5% interest for five years and 9% after that. you take the tea party -- tarpan -- t.a.r.p. gm paid every dime back with interest, five years early. the american recovery and reinvestment act invested in your schools, your local police and fire. 1/3 of the cost was not spending, but tax cuts. everybody in this room that works for a living got the project -- who gets the pay check every week, they received a $1,000 tax cut last year and they will get the same got this year. 232,000 working families in our district have benefited from that. i supported that because i think -- you have a better idea of what you ought to be doing than we do in washington. letting you keep your money and spend it on the things that you need or want is helping to stimulate this economy. that is why i supported it. you get another $1,000 tax break this year. everybody who works for a living qualifies. 232,000 working families and our district benefited from that last year and this year. i will not rest until everybody who wants a job has one. we made the decisions that had to be made to jump-start the economy and get us moving in the right direction. we're a long way from where we need to be. i will continue to fight. i cannot thank you enough for participating in this debate. thank you for broadcasting this. thank you to c-span for letting your viewers get a taste of one of mine 35 town hall meetings that i am hosting this month across southern and western arkansas. anytime i can be of help to you, do not hesitate to call me. may god bless you, may god bless our troops, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, an update on the flooding in pakistan from the state department. after that, a senior u.s. commander talks about recruiting and training afghan soldiers and police officers. and then, a gop primary debate between alaska senator lisa murkowski and her republican challenger, joe miller. that primary is tomorrow. later, remarks from the director of the month -- of fema children and disasters. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," j.p. freire talks about the size of the government, the november elections, and the republican party. after that, kati haycock and minority students in the u.s. editions system. later, military reporter tom vanden brook is our guest and he discusses afghanistan and the mine-resistant vehicle program, also known as mrap. washington journal " -- "washington journal" is live everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. finder content in any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way -- the c-span network, now available in more than will get -- in more than 1 million homes. provided as a public service. >> united nations estimates that 17 million people have been affected by the flooding in pakistan. next, the special representative for pakistan talks to reporters about his recent trip to the country. this reading is about 25 minutes. -- briefing is about 25 minutes. thank you -- >> thank you your much. good to see you again. i want to give you a quick read out of the trip i took last week. i was part of senator kerry's group, showing the close working relationship between the legislative and executive branches. during our time in pakistan, we visited the air base, the staging area for the u.s. helicopters. we talked to troops there. it demonstrated to us that there is a very close coordination between the u.s. and pakistani military. we had some briefings by both u.s. and pakistani military leadership. this is the area that we have a number of both military and civilian helicopters now staging from, rescuing people, providing aid and supplies. bill will talk about the contribution. as you know from past briefings, we are working up to the full complement of 19 u.s. military helicopters. through last night, the total sum of helicopters has evacuated close to 8000 people and delivered more than 1.6 million pounds of relief supplies. along with senator kerry, we then flew to punjab, south of fattah, where we met president zardari on the ground. we then took several helicopters up and spent several hours surveying the flood damage from the air, including landing at a government-run camp. , it is akely nknow it very densely-populated area. the extent of the damage -- just visually -- it was every bit as a bit and devastating as you would imagine. miles and miles, as far as you could see, for several hours as we were flying around. agricultural fields under water. roads, bridges under water. rhodes continuously disrupted by water. impossible to move people or supplies. power plants literally under water. both rivers just -- stretching as far as you could see. it reinforced not only the degree of immediate relief that is necessary, as the un and other international donors have focused on, but the longer-term recovery and reconstruction efforts which will take many months, if not years. the shared impact still needs to be assessed. it will be staggering. to highlight some of the key issues that the u.s. is doing per the secretary's announcement at the usga -- unga meeting last week. the u.s. has been first among intruders, joined the generosity of the american people and the usg. we're providing up to $150 million to support relief efforts, including some of that earmarked toward the un fund response plan. the money is going toward local and international ngo's. we're providing millions of dollars of in-kind and technical assistance, including temporary bridges, expanding programs, a range of things. we're looking at ways to redirect existing funds through gary liberman -- kerry-lugar- berman. we want to help rebuild infrastructure. we had already planned to do that, but it can be redirected to get to flood victims as quickly as possible. this is also in addition to the high visibility impact funds which will continue to come out of that same funding did the secretary also announced the establishment of the pakistan relief fund. everyone can join in their relief, recovery, reconstruction effort. this was accompanied by another text campaign, in addition to the one which the secretary announced several weeks ago. $10 will go to the unhcr. she announced the text "flood" program which will donate $10 relief to this fund. we're looking at a series of meetings from the special session. it will happen over the next several months. we will continue to gauge and assess the needs and how to best meet them as we shift from relief efforts to reconstruction and recovery. the size of this endeavor is still remarkable. ambassador holbrooke has said it. this area is the size of italy or florida. italy reported that over 1 million homes have been destroyed. -- they reported that over 1 million homes have been destroyed. we'll have to continue to see what happens in terms of the forecast for rain. some water levels remain quite high. a few are starting to recede, but there have been some broken dikes, which have really abrogated -- aggravated some of the flooding. the world is focused on cholera and malaria. the international committee sees last week's event as a galvanizing moment in terms of contributions from other countries. by our count, we have seen over $700 million pledge, including our own $150 million commitment, from over 30 countries, an additional $300 million in an as-yet undefined commitments from other countries. countries are working through the u.n. fund and bilaterally. we tried to continue to gauge that and make sure it all gets channeled and coordinated in and is -- in a is affected a manner as possible. you're seeing additional assets. you're seeing helicopters from japan. three are en route now with potentially another three coming quite soon. there other helicopters from other countries. there is continued civilian resistance. we will continue to do the monitoring of this, working with the international community. about the role of the helicopters and where we are in the relief efforts altogether. >> thank you. on behalf of all boss, let me express our deepest sympathies for those affected -- on behalf of all costs -- all of us, let me express our deepest sympathies for those affected. we have a long and close cooperation with the government of pakistan on border security and counter narcotics. as part of that, united states has provided a number of helicopters. the government of pakistan has provided pilots and other technical support in order to conduct these programs. since the flooding, those helicopters and aircraft have been used for relief efforts. let me get right to what the specifics of that is geared seven helicopters operating out of peshawur have rescued and transported approximately 1400 individuals. they have delivered nearly 200,000 pounds of super -- of supply cargo. it includes doctors with medical supplies, which are an important priority. two of the cessna caravan airplanes with government of pakistan crews from the ministry of interior are being utilized for flood relief. they're shuttling maintenance crews between operating locations and flying reconnaissance to survey the flood-ridden areas of the country. those of you who follow pakistan and u.s.-pakistan relationships are very aware of our strategic dialogue led by secretary clinton and the foreign minister rashid -- reggie -- qureshi. they met in islamabad in july. it has been a very productive effort. i want to point to be ever between the government of pakistan and united states to reach agreement -- to the agreement between the government of pakistan and united states to reach agreement on the visas. it helps make this operation possible. there are some other efforts, aside from our aviation efforts. we have made available 12 still suspension raises -- steel- suspension bridges. one of the bridges has been installed. six bridges will be deployed to the kara pashtun districts. one has been sent to south waziristan. >> hello, again. let me give you some developments since the last time we spoke. the weather -- expecting some isolated thunderstorms in the north over the next couple of days. as he mentioned, we're concerned about flooding. the government has been evacuating people from the low- lying areas near hyderabad. there is some good news up north. we have the first signs of people going home. this allows us then to get in with some of the organization's we're working with to provide some cash-for-work opportunities to start clearing away some of the debris and the mud and to provide some credit for the people to start to put their lives back together. on food -- we are now delivering food -- of the international community together -- getting close to two million people. we are adding 140,000 beneficiaries per day in the food distribution. again, this is showing signs that the access is getting a little bit easier in the north. on health -- we have been able to get around and consult with and trade 1.5 million patients all over the country -- treat 1.5 million patients all over the country. we have been distributing milk -- medical kits to over 2 million people. we're very concerned about cholera and other water-borne diseases. we have worked with w. h. o to help sir -- to help set up -- we w.h.o. tod with set up treatment centers around the country to keep concerns about cholera in check. malaria is also getting to be a concern. it is that time of year and there is a lot of water. we are providing 700,000 mosquito nets to families, particularly as they start to go home. clean water is still a huge issue -- maybe the most important issue in this relief effort. we have seven more of these giant water treatment machines are arriving this week. that will get us up to 13. the ones we of party provided are turning out over -- we have already provided are churning out millions of gallons of safe drinking water. we have relief flights coming in this week delivering more of these giant water filtration units, water containers to go with them, tens of thousands of blankets. we have many people who are evacuated and cannot go home yet. we're bringing in 40 more inflatable boats because we still have issues with certain communities being cut off. we have to get the people out of there. we can use these boats in areas where we have more access to do better assessments than we had been able to do before about what the needs are. >> we have time for some questions. >> they talk about discrimination in a distribution -- in aid distribution. do you have any comments on that? is there any special [unintelligible] >> i have not seen any special reports of discriminatory behavior. there is so much that has to be done and so many different provinces and districts that we're trying to get it out there as effectively as possible. we have seen to the area's most impacted -- to the areas most impacted. those areas have changed as the water has emptied out. we have to wait and see where the second wave comes from. in our work and certainly the tried toe have all target those in the most critical and die you need -- dire need. there are a range of multilateral meetings already scheduled to come a pre-existing this --scheduled, pre-existing this. october 14 and 15. they will be held in brussels. it is something that's special envoy repair has been helping spearhead. the flood repair will be central to that. the next meeting of the special representatives is planned for october. i'm sure that pakistan will be a key part of that schedule. in following up from the special session last week, there has been talk about having another meeting on the margins of the -- in september. there is also another range of initiatives. there'll be many forums and multilateral organizations to continue the dialogue and make sure the community is as coordinated as possible. >> thank you. as far as efforts are concerned, it is very much appreciated by the government. many pakistanis are telling me there is money and food supplies coming to pakistan, but it is not getting to the people who need the help. where are these things all going? >> the scope of the problem is so immense that we're trying to meet it as best as possible. we're where you lose pakistani and u.n. organizations -- we're working with u.n. and pakistani organizations. we're working with other camps and organizations. some of the aid is getting to some people. the needs are so vast. much of our funding is going to international ngos and u.n. agencies. >> [unintelligible] they got $2 billion from the asian government and $10 million from the imf. billions of dollars were received from the government, but has not gotten to the people of afghanistan. the people need the help, not the government. >> we're not doing this for our image. we're working with the organization's other best- equipped to handle the crisis. -- the organizations that are best equipped to handle the crisis. we want to help people as quickly as possible. there are other ongoing issues which are immense, especially in terms of economic infrastructure. the imf conversations may be about how that money will be used. those details will be hammered out as the days passed. >> the finance minister will be in town for discussions with the imf. we talk with anybody else? is there any talk about debt relief as one possible avenue to helping them carry their financial burden? has there been more progress on kerry-lugar-berman? will more of the money be going to them faster? rohanna up their work reschedule meetings -- >> there were pre scheduled meetings. i believe there will be a number of meetings with six-party representatives and others. on the case of the berman process -- this is something the embassy and others are still assessing. what we have tried to do is identify funding that was already going to be used and that can just be redirected as quickly as possible. lively good programs, clinics, immunizations, rebuilding schools -- it was already on the books, much of it in these areas already. we're just trying to facilitate it as quickly as possible. that process is ongoing. we did not want to detract from the core mission. we wanted to look at these infrastructure, agriculture, water, health, education, issues -- all of these issues and make sure we have the right balance with these programs. that assessment will continue as we see what is there. >> is it more question of sequencing and of actually adding new projects to the name? >> we will have to see. we have to see what the needs are. it will be used for recovery and reconstruction as opposed to it immediate relief issues. as the scope and nature of the recovery and reconstruction needs are known, we can get a better sense of how redirect some of that money. >> our region has been affected by the floods. when we talk to people there, there are some organizations involved in distributing the relief items. it also comes at a time when the provincial information ministry held a meeting. they are regrouping in the area. we just wonder if you can respond or comment on that. >> i know he has addressed comments about the vetting process for how u.s.a.i.d. is distributed and what organizations are used. we're working with about 17 international organizations that we have worked with for many years that have the infrastructure in place to get these assistants out as quickly and efficiently as possible. we continue to do this. as we have discussed in past briefings, there have always been stories about extremist charities operating. in a situation like this, where there is a lot to be done, there may well be an opportunity for some of those organizations. the needs are so vast. there is so much money flowing in. the work is well known. it far outstrips the relatively small amount we have seen from the extremist organizations. any more questions? >> any update on the ability of the palestinian government to continue its fight on the war and terror given its -- >> the pakistani? >> i'm sorry. >> we're all concerned about the humanitarian needs. the military -- these were areas that were already subject to the kind of security needs -- they are being focused on the relief efforts. we will continue to assess. this has not yet peaked in many ways. we will have to see what happens with the pakistani military and how it continues to shape the continued campaigns. >> thank you >> thank you. >> daniel william caldwell is the commander of the nato training mission for afghan security forces. he talks from cobble bank -- kabul. this is about one hour. >> general called well, it is the colonel at the pentagon. how are you. -- general caldwell, we are here at the pentagon. how are you? >> i've got you. >> good morning to you here. good evening to you in afghanistan. i would like to welcome back to the pentagon briefing room lieutenant-general william caldwell, the commander of the nato training mission and the transition command. he assumed his duties in afghanistan in november of last year. he joins us from the headquarters in kabul to provide an update on training the afghan national security forces. he will make some opening comments. they are a bit lengthy, but they are very detailed. we will try to get your copy of those comments afterwards. there is a good bit of information. he has a couple of slides which you have paper copies of and which will be projected on the screen. with that, sir, we will let you get started. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. i would like to give you an idea of where we were, where we are, and where we are going to go. we are a multinational organization that employs trainers and advisers to develop the ministry's of the interior and defense. we also knew police, army, an air force, logistic systems, medical systems, and all the systems that train and educate them all. our mission is critical to the strategy of transitioning security to the afghan government. in many ways, training and the afghan national security force is transition. our efforts to build and strengthen afghan national security force are providing the professional force that is self- reliant and has the ability to generate and sustain their forced to serve and protect the people of afghanistan. i understand the measured progress we have made -- to understand the measure progress we have made, you have to look back from 2002 to 2009. there were hampered by lack of resources. it led to slow, halting, and uncoordinated progress. the focus was on getting as many soldiers and police into operations as fast as possible. there is little time dedicated to building in developing -- was little time dedicated to building and developing the force. key input that addressed professionalism and quality of the force, such as we did development, nutrition, literacy -- they were overlooked. if you would look at that first slide there on the historical annual growth of the ansf, you can see on the chart that, even in quantities -- it was inconsistent. from 2002 till november, 2009, the average growth, a field over to the far right, was about 27,000 -- about 15,000 personnel [inaudible] [no audio] the anp. today, this trend has been reversed. in the past nine months alone, the growth in the army and police has more than double the average of any previous year, with our numbers at 58,000 this year. this growth of the afghan national security force in the first half of 2010 is larger than at any year in its history. the growth has been so dramatic both thte -- the ana and the anp have exceeded their 2010 growth goals about 10 months ahead of schedule. this turnaround is due to a dramatically-changed approach to training that we have taken with the ansf and a new sense of urgency within the afghan ministry of defence and the ministry of interior. the afghan leadership has taken complete ownership to increase recruiting, reduce attrition, and improve retention of the the last nine months. this includes the creation of recruiting commands to oversee efforts across afghanistan, to better tailor recruitment to the needs of the afghan people. while the afghan security force has made major progress in this past year, we must also confront reality. significant challenges remain. with the same commitment by the international community and time to provide results, they are not insurmountable. every day, we witnessed the remarkable and resident character of the afghan people. we see some many who earnestly and selflessly labor to make a better future for their families and for their nation. need a training mission in afghanistan is committed to continuing -- the nato training mission in afghanistan is committed to continuing to tackle these tough issues. our greatest challenge of building a self-sustaining afghan national security force is building professionalism within its ranks. professionalism is the key ingredient to an enduring force and can both serve and protect -- that can both serve and protect its people. the three elements that are required to build this our leader development, literacy, and addressing losses through attrition. the first and most important element to professionalism -- the afghan national security force's leadership development. it is the enduring foundation that is essential. our effort to create professional officers and noncommissioned officers in the army and police are focused on quality training and developing experience, and providing an appropriate education. it is all dedicated to create an east coast of service and loyalty -- ethos of service and loyalty. it is only when leaders embraced an attitude of service to others that it will truly be a professional force. the second element is illiteracy of soldiers and policemen. it is the essential of enablers. if we want results, we must take that long. when you consider the average literacy rate for an entry-level soldier or policeman is may be about 14 to -- 14% to 18% across the entire force, literacy becomes a major challenge in performance of the basic skills required by a professional security force. this bill addresses for a more pressing issues -- skill addresses three more pressing issues. it provides accountability. if this older cannot read, how can he know what equipment he -- the soldier cannot read, how can they know what equipment he must have? if a policeman doesn't know numbers, how can mean read and understand the serial number on his own weapon -- he read and understand the serial number on his own weapon? the second challenge of literacy -- that literacy addresses is developing branch competency. it provides soldiers and policemen the ability to attend school and learn enabling skills such as logistics and maintenance, military intelligence, and communications. these skills are required in a professional force to sustain themselves in the field and throughout their career. these are skills that must also be engrained in junior and mid- grade officers and leaders that the backbone of this force. they will one day lead this army and police force. finally, literacy combat corruption -- combat corruption. it prevents brad -- bad actors from preying on the illiterate. when the force is literate, standards can be published, and everyone can be held accountable to adhere to them. both up and down the chain of command. literacy allows soldiers and policemen to provide steps of thei-- up their pay. it will prevent theft of their own pay. we have supported the professional is asian -- professionalization of the ansf. will take time and it is a sustained effort. if we are to educate an entire generation of afghans to the level necessary to create a professional force with leaders that allow for this specialization to occur, that is central to their future development. the final element in the intimate -- and the endemic enemy of professionalism are losses from attrition, including desertions, deaths, and low-retention. they pose the greatest threat to both quantity and quality of the afghan national security force. for example, based on current attrition rates, to grow the afghan national security force, the additional 56,000 that is currently needed to meet the weober 31, 2011 goal,. will need to recruit and train 141,000 soldiers and police. again, in order to just throw that 56,000, we are going to have to recruit and train and assign 141,000 police and soldiers. to put this in context, in order to meet that 2011 goal, this will need to be done over the next 15 months. approximately the size of the army that currently exists today. this is a challenge that must be met with concerted action by the afghan national security ministry, the national security force, and nato training mission, and isaf. these organizations each have a responsibility for attrition and retention both in the field or the institutional base. building an enduring and professional security force will take time. these are elements that provide the continuity and endurance to build, develop, and sustain leaders and soldiers. these are things that there are no shortcuts for. facilities must be built and expanded to increase the quality of training. leaders must have the education, training, and experience to perform their duties. institutions must be developed and staffed and trained to perform their functions. enablers like acquisitions, logistics, communications, maintenance -- these things must be created to support the ministries and the field forces. from the minister of interior and defense down to the police officer and soldier, they must fulfill their function each supporting each other. this requires a common approach to building, developing, in transitioning -- but most of all, it takes time. we must work to reinforce progress and reinvest in our efforts to ensure we are using time as wisely as we are using our other resources. we have made significant progress here. we have been laying the foundation to professionalize the afghan national security force. we are realistic about the challenges that lie ahead. but we're optimistic about what we can do together, with our afghan partners, to begin the process of transaction -- transition as they take the lead to protect and serve their people. with that, i will be glad to take whatever questions you all may have. >> general, i am with the associated press. what is your best estimate of when the afghan troops can take over any portion of the country? gates predicted the end of the year. is that going to happen? if not, why? >> well, you know, a transition is a process that starts and continues for a long time. it happens in small segments. a great example is the sergeant major academy that we have up and running right now. currently, today it is being led by coalition forces. with the afghan instructors, they are beginning to rain so they can take the lead and be responsible for it. by the time they graduate, when the next class starts in january, 2011, they will have the lead. we'll step back in remain in what we call an overwatched as they take the lead for that course. that is important to understand. it does not have been in some big area at one time, especially in the training institution. it will continually occur. we're want to see it in many different areas. -- we are going to see it in many different areas. we'll get the afghans in there to be the future instructors. we have put them through the train the trainer program. we will validate that. we will put them in the lead and observe them as they take the responsibility on. it will enable us to transition that aspect of it to the afghans. the whole thing will take time, but we're encouraged by some of the signs we're seeing in these afghan instructors. >> i understand it will take time and it is a process. certainly, there has to be some prediction as to when the afghan soldiers will be in the lead and at least -- in at least certain portions of the country. when with the afghans started the lead in certain parts of the country -- when will the afghans start to take the lead in certain parts of the country? >> again, i would tell you -- most people realize that we have not even finished building afghan national army or the police force or the air force. the key enablers, as we call them in the military -- things like logistics, maintenance, transportation, intelligence -- none of those organizations have yet been built or brought online and connected with the current fielded force. our focus -- this was a coin- centered four-speed we are very infantry-centered. we have elements out there that can operate within the lead. they cannot operate independently because they do not have the enablers that would support them. they still require that from the coalition forces. our intent is, over the next 15 months, to balance this by bringing on all those kind of capabilities. if somebody says when will the security force have this in a particular area, we will not have finished building the entire army until october, next year. it does not mean that in small isolated pockets they cannot have the lead with some coalition supporters enabling them. to say they could do much more before october of next year would be stretching it. we have not finished the development of their force. >> can you see the number of afghans deserting after training or during service? afghans coming from faraway places have trouble going home and then coming back to join duty. >> i am sorry. i had difficulty hearing the question with some of the interference here. could somebody please repeat the question for me? >> on the number of afghan soldiers -- are they deserting after training or during service? also, afghans coming from faraway places from kabul -- they have a problem going back home and then coming back to rejoin the duty. >> if i understand the question -- those older is that we've recruited from perhaps around kabul that have been sent elsewhere to serve -- how did they get back? how do they get back? is that the question. >> i will take a shot from the lectern. the first part about desertion numbers of afghan soldiers both the during their service and during their training, in the second part of the question had to do with that again -- having soldiers served at distances from home, how are they able to take leave and then return to their unit? >> ok. obviously, as we said, the endemic enemy of our ability to professionalize this force is when we see losses through attrition. the desertions are part of that. they -- those being killed to where they are wounded or no longer can perform, we watch all of this carefully. it is a concern to us. we have just instituted -- on a two-year contract, we have just put into place the ability for the national army and police to request an unscheduled flights for units -- and a schedule flights for units -- and schedule flights were units, they can charter a commercial air plan that will go down -- airplane at a godown and bring soldiers back to kabul. we have a designated transition location where we receive them and then let them go out on leave. when they come back, we've reassemble them. we get another charter airplane and return them back to their location. that had previously not been in effect. it is very new in the last couple of weeks. we hope this will enable us to get at some of these attrition issues that we've seen in the past where soldiers have wanted to go home on leave and have had a challenge getting there and back. >> i am from "the london times." how does your time line of october next year for reading the total you want matched up with president obama's wish to start withdrawing forces by july? you mention the word "validation." what steps have you taken to prove that vetting? >> first of all, the growth development plan that we currently have put in place is based on a couple factors that we developed based on what is the throughput capacity. from november of last year did today, we have doubled or tripled almost all of the throughput to bassam -- throughput capacity to train those police and security forces inside afghanistan. that was a major step forward edit -- forward and it has enabled us to move the process a little bit faster. we had a very severe shortage of trainers last november. it has been increased about 34 or 4 vote -- threefold or fourfold since that time. as we project out now, based on the current plans of our training facilities, and those we have on-hand, and those that have been pledged, are projecting -- our projection is that we can make those growth objectives by october, 2011. the president has talked about this ability to look at and make a decision around july, 2011. general petraeus has been very clear that this is the beginning of a process. the transition is occurring in small parts and segments within the institutional base already. we'll keep moving it forward. as they demonstrate the ability to take the lead and the institutional side, we will actually task that off to them and take those resources that were connected and reinvestment -- reinvest them into other training resources. we are aware of the day. general petraeus has said that. we continue to say that, by october, 2011, we can make the current growth objectives with our afghan counterparts. >> second question -- the security of afghans. >> how do we screen them before they are coming in? is that what you are asking? >> whether your security vetting and methods have improved or changed in any way following a number of incidents where afghan soldiers have turned their guns on coalition forces. . that currently exists with several hundred thousand in it, people already in that data base. then we watch them carefully in the initial phases of training. all of our trainers are attuned to and understand that somebody might try to infiltrate into their force. so the instructors are better than the coalition ones, an we all stay very attuned to it and look for that type of thing. once they get into the field forces, general rodriguez would tell you that's something they pay attention to also. we're in a war zone, and so everybody is vigilant all the time. it's prudent to keep looking around and be aware of your surroundings and situations. just as recently as about three weeks ago, we picked up a recruit at one of our police training sites out west. and he turned out to be a taliban infiltrator. when it was finally all finished with the investigation, that's now been turned over to afghan authorities, and people are staying vigilant. we are aware of the intent by people to try to do that type of infiltration. >> general caldwell, i'm from bloomberg news. can you talk about where -- if you have such a high attrition rate, where are these soldiers disappearing to? are you finding that any of them are joining the adversaries, the taliban or other militant groups? and does that also indicate that the compensation still isn't where it needs to be to be able to retain the soldiers that you need? and can you be specific about how much of a shortage you still have of trainers and mentors, please. the first thing i'd say if we knew where those that left the force went to, we'd obviously go back and assist the afghan authorities in bringing them back under their military control and their police control. i mean, we really don't know where they go to, to be completely honest. it's not something -- it's very difficult to track over here. supposition-wise, you'll hear very often and as recently as this past week that the president of afghanistan has stated that he thinks a lot of them are being hired off by private security companies and other elements like that. there's no question you take a young soldier who's gone through 17 weeks of intense military training to become a soldier in the afghan army, he's developed some skill sets. he's received literacy training. he's a far better person after 17 weeks than the day he entered. so the president of afghanistan may in fact be accurate. and i would suspect he probably has much better information than we do in terms of where they may go to. and that was something that we had all been working for several months as to how to biometric everybody inside of the private security companies just because then we could establish and work matches and see if there was something like that going on. as far as the trainers go, what i would tell you is that currently today we have the requisite number of trainers to accomplish the mission through the many measures that have been taken. the secretary of defense of the united states, just last month in july, gave us an additional battalion of soldiers that was about another 650 soldiers to assist us in this training mission. however, our requirements graduate and increase over time. as we bring on more branch schools -- these are the schools or intelligence, logistics, medical, transportation and those type of things, which are just starting to come online and will through march of next year, that is going to require more specialized trainers. we've identified those numbers. there's a conference, you know, at the end of next month in september at nato to specifically discuss those in greater detail and look for nations to pledge against those to provide people starting from about the january time frame next year well into 2011, which is going to be really critical for us. >> i'd like to ask you about the local defense forces modeled on what was done. the training for those forces as they expand, will that remain solely done by special operations forces, or will your command be involved in training them? also, what is the growth estimate for how many of those village defense forces you would like to see? and finally, how will those forces interact with the existing afghan national security force command structure with the existing police and with the existing army? >> just to be clear, you're talking about the local afghan police, the decree that president karzai just signed here in the past week or so. is that the force you want me to discuss? >> i keep hearing them described in different ways. but these defense forces that are trained in wardac. >> the definitive name now is the afghan local police. that will be the name. the decree president karzai just signed will allow up to 10,000 to be recruited. doesn't mean there couldn't be more later, but he has set up for 10,000 to be recruited. what we do know is it's really not going to change the face of security in the country on a national level, but it could have a real tremendous effect locally. another key thing is it has the potential to thicken the security forces that are already currently operating out there in different areas, too, around the country. right now the ministry of interior is in fact working the procedural guidelines that will stipulate how this force will operate. but here's some things that we do know -- it's going to be under the afghan government control. it's going to be paid for by the afghan government. there will be a deputy district police chief established in each of the districts where these things will be designated to be formed that will provide the oversight, management and direction to that force. they will receive some communications gear and transportation gear. they will be purely defensive in nature and have no offensive capability. they will operate in the localized area from which they are formed, and not outside of that area. so those are some of the key critical steps that president karzai has directed must be implemented so that he has assurance that his government and specifically the ministry of interior has absolutely controlled over the formation of these forces. there's 30 different districts there looking at right now in the planning process where these would initially go into and operate. and in fact, they would, like i said, thicken any security forces that are co-located or in that approximate area, because since they're under the control of the afghan government, specifically a deputy police chief in each district, they'll work together as one team. >> will your command be involved in the training of these forces, or will that be a special operations mission? >> right now we are not going to be involved in the training that those forces will receive. now, again, the ministry of interior is still working through his final procedures. but the current plan calls for that being handled by the special operation forces who will in fact conduct that training for that little localized group and not the nato training mission. >> sue fleming from reuters. you say that you track attrition rates very closely. what is the exact attrition rate? and secondly, are you getting a handle on drug abuse within both the police and the military, which has been quite a big problem? >> well, it's interesting. i can talk both attrition rates numbers and the drug use. i'll start with the drug use. same kind of reporting that there is diminished drug use. between january of this year and the past month we conducted what we call a p.a.i., a personal assets inventory of all of the police in this country and we sent teams out that did the biometric data collection on every single police person that exists in this force. we got about 97% of the force done at this point. and in doing that when we go out and collect the biometric data, we also did 100% drug testing, too. and what actually came back and really was a surprise to us, too, was that the actual drug use on average across the force, the police force, was about 9%. in certain areas it was much higher, and in other areas it was much lower. but the average across the force at the time we were doing this, which was about 100,000, came out to be right about 9% for drug use. obviously it's a concern of the ministry of interior. when minister at mar was still the minister he set up drug treatment facilities, which in fact have people in them today, but a he also understood that there was a need to specifically address that issue. again, if we're going to build a professional force, as we keep instilling in all of the recruits from the day they come in, drug use is something that cannot be tolerated while they're serving on duty. so we instill it in the training base, and the more that units are partnered with both the police and the army out there, they also then are able to help with behavior modification is what i can best call it of those afghan security force -- either a soldier or a policeman, who may in fact have thought that drug use was something that was permissible from wherever they came from before. but in fact, any professional force, it's not acceptable. as far as the attrition rates go, i can get some numbers for you specifically. but generally in the army today it was about 23% across the afghan national army for this last what we call solar year, which is a march to march time frame. within the afghan national police it was about 16%. now, again, to caveat that, within the police you've got three major subcomponents. you've got the afghan national police, the afghan uniform police and your border police. in the afghan national police, the attrition rate is unacceptable. right now this past month it is about 47%. when we first started working at and addressing that specific attrition issue, it was about 70%. so for us to be able to assist our afghan counter parts in continuing to grow and professionalize their force, they're going to have to reduce the attrition within the afghan national police. so there's an ongoing effort to in fact do that, from working their pay, which generally between about the december to january time period we, as you all may know, we established what we called a living wage and brought pay period, both the army and the police, of $165 a month is the base pay that would give them the ability to live at a basic level and take care of their family without having to turn to other means to develop income. and then we also had a pro pay in, which had not been there before for areas that were considered hazardous duty areas to serve in. and we also added longevity pay, so if you serve for so many years, each additional number of years your pay would also go up. all pay modification that is have been done here since last december. most recently we also added a pro pay. so if you're just in the afghan national civil or police, you get an additional $50 a month, an then for each deployment when you go out and come back, there's a bonus there that you also get from the afghan government. so we are working the pay piece pretty diligently. the next one was the partnering, as we call it, the three p's. as much as possible, the more we can partner and work with our afghan counterparts we finds the attrition levels do gown do. in fact, our special ops guys are currently partnered with the national police down in kandahar, and they would tell you is they brought attrition down to almost nothing in those units serving there, where they have a coalition partner working day in and day out with them. it does have a real effect. and then the last part is the predictability, and that's establishing some kind of cyclical system for them, again, for the national police, so they have a time period where they train, prepare for deployment, then get employed around the country, and they go out for 12 to 15 weeks at a time. and then when they come back they have a period that they're guaranteed to take some leave and have some down time before they go back into a training phase and start that again. again, all of this ties back into, if we're going to help them develop a professional force that is enduring and self-sustaining, it's going to be critical to start building into them leadership. and to do that we can't have that kind of attrition, because the developing leaders is in fact that base you get from having served in the police or the army. so what we find is we're challenged with leader development every time the attrition rates continue to rise like that. >> so what is the current level of national police, and does that mean that half of the people you're training are dropping out? how are you going to reach that 2011 figure when you have these incredible attrition rates? >> and you hit on one of the biggest challenges that we've been dealing with since about the december time frame. what we did from about december to march is we tripled the through-put capacity of how many we could train. so the recruiting is still coming along well. we're able to recruit the young men that come into the police. we have at any given time about 1,200 that are graduating on a monthly average now. again, we did not have that before. we do now. so the input into the civil order police has been increased dramatically. we've got about 5,700 today in the force, 5,700 in the force. by october 31, 2011, the force is scheduled to grow to about 18,500. to make that, that is our most significant challenge of all the growth that the afghan security force has to see occur over the next 15 months. and so there is an intense effort now to fully partner with each of the candacs, there's 20 of them out there, and also to ensure that we do establish some kind of predictability for them that has not been in existence before but is coming on line at this point. we do believe having watched our commando units, who have a very low attrition rate and they have a predictable schedule and they're deployable around the country also. they've got about the same comparable pay. we pay encomp a little more now. they do have the partnering with the special ops forces and they have a good predictable schedule. so as we bring that online for encomp, we would expect to see that level of attrition start to drop off far more than it is today. again, we're watching it very closely, because we realize we've got to get to 18,000. the key thing on ancop, they are the premiere hold force in this whole counterinsurgency campaign. they also are the ones that -- you know, when i was down in kandahar last week and had a chance to talk to the police down there, again, once again, you know, the comments about what the an ncop are doing -- they want more of them because they find them to be the less corruptible, they're there more to protect and serve the people. they're more attentive. and, of course, they're the best well-trained force that we have. they literally go through about four months of training, whereas a regular policeman goes through about a month and a half of training. so they've had about three months more training. so during that four months that we have an ancop in training we instill in them the ethos that they're there to protect and serve the people of afghanistan and not to profit and be served, which is a key element in terms of professionalizing that force. so the recruits we get out are well motivated and ready to go. >> again, we've just got to fix the final p of the three p's to bring that online that we think will take care of that attrition. >> kevin? >> general caldwell, i wonder if you can go back to literacy rates. last summer you instituted new literacy classes as a big recruiting tool. since then, how are we doing? what's the change in the rates from afghan command does, officers up high, where do things stand and how has it improved, if it has? >> well, what we have come to realize is, hey, had you asked me last november when we started nato training mission, hey, is literacy important. my philosophy was we're here to train soldiers and policemen. if they want some literacy, they can do it on their own. but in fact, what we found, if we're going to professionalize this force, we have to take on literacy. whereas last november there was literally nobody committed to our literacy program. today we have about 27,000 recruits, army and police, at any given time in literacy programs. it's grown to 50,000 by this december, and by may, june of 2011, we will continuously have about 100,000 army and police rein full foim literacy training -- in full-time literacy training programs. our intent is to give them enough so they have the ability to do certain key things for the professionalism of the force. bring them up to a first grade, third-grade level. but literacy is an essential enabler of this whole organization. if in fact you bring literacy online and you start to give them the ability to be able to just read numbers and to write their name and do basic reading, we start establishing accountability. an that's critical. how do you expect a soldier to account for their weapon if they can't even read the serial number? i know it's challenging for some people to fully appreciate just how illiterate most of this population is. it doesn't mean they don't have street smarts and aren't smart in many ways, but they don't have the education to look at a series of numbers and how to read it. so if we want to establish accountability into this police force to ensure that the money that's being spent on them in equipping them is well spent, is worth the investment, we have to fix that literacy rate up to about, again, a first to third grade level. one of the things we've done is established that accountability is to ensure that everybody coming in does come up to some general level so they can at least read their serial numbers. if they're issued equipment and told that they're supposed to have four shirts, three pairs of pants and two pair of boots on a piece of paper, they can actually read that, and then look at the equipment instead of being reliant on somebody else to do that for them. because what we don't want to do is have them be -- establish dependency on somebody else. the next thing we realize is we bring on these branch schools that establish the branch competency from military intelligence to logistics to transportation to maintenance. that requires a literate person. in fact, we're bringing online a three-month literacy program so that those who have some degree of literacy, we can even bring it up to a higher level. so if we're going to professionalize this force, when we put the maintainers out there, they can in fact do their job and do it in an independent manner so they can become enduring and self-reliant and not have to look back to the coalition forces. and then the third thing is it eliminates corruption. again, when i arrived last year, one of the big pushes that was going on was electronic funds transfer. there was systematic corruption occurring in the -- systemic corruption occurring when bags of money were being passed to all the different levels. so we set up electronic funds transfer to eliminate that systemic corruption. today there's about -- 87% of every soldier and policemen have e.f.t., electronic funds transfer, in place today and functioning. and many of us, including myself around the january-february time frame, were feeling pretty good about what we had been able to keep pushing and making happen that had already started previously. but then what we found out was that's great, but all we did was set up another level of corruption that can occur, because 80% of these young men can't even read. so when they would go to get their money from a teller or go to an a.t.m. machine that we had been putting into the different military installations, they had no ability to understand the numbers. they don't understand what they're getting paid. our pay team, just last week, that was up in some of these cities reported that they had had 100 soldiers they were interviewing, going through and checking, and 90 of them -- 90% reported they were not being paid. and, of course, that was a real concern to us. so as they dug into it while they were up there, this pay team that -- we've got different ones running around the country now. what they found out was that soldiers had in fact been paid. the money was in fact in their account, but they just had no ability to in fact look at a bank statement or read the a.t.m. machine to understand they had been paid. so, again, had they had some basic literacy training at some point, then they would have known that, and, again, been much more reassured that this government, the afghan government and the ministry of defense was in fact taking care of them. so, again, it all goes back to, if we're going to set up a professional force that has the ability to endure and be self-reliant, to set the conditions for transition so that the coalition forces can start really reducing their presence. we're going to have to take on and do some very, very basic levels of literacy within this country. >> general, we are bee 50 minutes in. i don't want to impinge on your time too much, but we still have a good deal of interest here. how much time do you have to give us? >> i could take it about another five minutes, i think. >> ok. >> i'm from "the new york times." general, i just wanted to go back and clarify these attrition numbers. i was unclear. you said at one point from march to march for the army, it was 22% and it was 15% for the police. but then you used numbers of 40% and 70%. could you just clarify the time frames of those attrition numbers? >> ok. yeah, i apologize if i confused you. the attrition numbers i first threw out were for a 12-month period. but i was trying to point out that some of the elements of the police force have even lower attrition than that. but then there's another element, like the ancop. again, because there are only 5,000 700 people, you know, when you look at a police force of about 115,000, it doesn't really -- you know, reflect well if you look at the overall average of the police force. the number i talked about ancop was for a speck month, this past month. and then when i used the figure 70% attrition, again, what i was doing, i was taking their monthly attrition and annualizing it as if it remained there for years in what would have been the annual attrition rate. so when i said the 70%, that particular month their attrition rate then was, you know, obviously fairly high. and then this past month when it was down to about 47%, it had dropped some more. and i just -- i didn't want that to be hidden by the overall afghan national police attrition figures. if that helps some. >> right now, if you could do it, the attrition rate for the afghan security forces, the ansf? >> the current attrition rate for the afghan police today? if we do the afghan national police in aggregate, in other words, we take all them, we would say the monthly attrition this past month was about 1.2% attrition. which then when you multiply it times 12, you know, you get the annualized figure, which would be about 14% or so. again, i go back to -- we watch it very closely because we know that -- we call it our endemic enemy of being able to professionalize this force, because we lose a lot of good leaders if in fact they're not staying in because we don't get that experience base. >> for the army, -- was that the 23% you were talking about? >> the attrition rate for the army? let's see, again, on an annualized basis, it was about 23% this last month is what the attrition factors were for the army. again, that fluctuates a little every month. but for a monthly attrition number, you know, then obviously that's about -- just under 2%. >> all right, nancy second to last. >> i had a question for you about -- how much does it cost on average to train an a.n.a. soldier or a policeman? and how has that cost changed since you've added programs like literacy to the training program? >> i've actually never been asked that question before, how much does it cost to train a soldier or a policeman. i've not ever attempted to really stop and figure out, because there would be all sorts of costs associated with it. so i don't really have an answer for you on that one. you know, we've kind of -- i mean, i guess we could try to figure out wait might be, but i'm just not really sure. because you've got equipment, you've got bases. i know what we generally spend every month as an organization doing everything from building facilities to procuring equipment, to doing the military training aspects, to equipping the force with their equipment. but i don't know specifically on an individual one, so i apologize. i don't have that for you. i guess what i could tell you -- i could tell you what the cost of not training them, though. the cost of not training them is we'll never be able to set the conditions for trance ugs. again, that's so critical. as we move forward, we recognized last november when we got here, there wasn't real emphasis on quantity. and quantity is important. i mean, it's not something you can do without. however, what we realized was the quality had to be brought into the force. it's absolutely imperative that it was. and so that's why we've done the things like bring on the literacy training. the literacy training in perspective is actually very, very inexpensive, relatively speaking. we're hiring all afghan instructors to do the literacy training. we've got about 250 that we've hired at this point that are working there, and that number is going to increase to well over 1,000 as we continue to move this program forward. so, again, we've tried to not get carried away with those, but make it decent pay for those who are going to be involved in the education every the security force. >> if i heard you correctly, it sounds like it's being paid for exclusively by the united states. so my question would be, is there a concern on your part that the united states is building up an army and a training mission that the afghan government eventually won't be able to pay for itself? >> well, clearly right now the entire gross national domestic product is about $10 billion here in afghanistan. out of that, when you look at what their expendable capability is to put it into programs and different things from the people of afghanistan, it's obviously much less. so the current security force that is being built will require assistance from the international community for many years after the transition has been complete. now, there are those who will tell you these mineral deposits have all this great potential and could in fact change the entire environment here overnight. what i do know from the american side, speaking as an american officer, is that the u.s. has made an enduring commitment to be supportive of and establish a relationship with the government of afghanistan and the people of afghanistan. we call it a strategic partnership. so we are committed to some degree to continue to help them to sustain and maintain this force out in the future. again, i don't know for how long. but there is a requirement that they currently will not be able to pay themselves out of their current g.d.p. that will require international assistance. >> general, we've busted the five minutes you gave us, so i'll sends it back to you for any closing remarks, as we close in on an hour here. >> ok. well, here's what i would tell everybody. we do have a website. we spent a lot of time trying to put everything up on our website that we're doing. one of the decisions we made last november when we activated nato training mission was we established three imperatives for ourselves, and one of them is that we're going to always operate as a team with our afghan counterparts and the second was transparency. it's very, very rare that we do anything in a classified manner in this organization. i'd say literally 95% of what we do we do in an unclassified manner and it's available to whomever wants to see it. not that i'm trying to make a pitch for our website, but we post tremendous amounts of information on there very specifically so that we have that transparency taking place. we have about 19 different nations currently today that have soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, that are part of our organization. we encourage them to go back to their host countries and tell them if they go to the www poin ntm -- a.com, their host nations can look in there, too. it's not password protected or anything else. so that's one of the key things we've tried to establish so that the information of what we are doing and how we're doing it, why we're doing it, is readily available to people. but i do want to tell you thanks for taking the opportunity to share this time with me today. afghan -- the afghan national security force really has seen progress over the last nine months since i've been here. i've seen a commitment by the afghan leaders that are going to ensure that recruiting numbers are there and that they're engaged and being involved in this whole effort and they want to see this thing succeed and they want to see a professional force develop in their country. but they know, too, that it takes time to bring this completely online. so as we continue forward here in the future, you know, we're looking towards october 31, 2011, to finish the build of the force and then we'll continue with the professionalization of it, recognizing there are certain aspects that we'll continue to work with them on for several years beyond that, especially in certain aspects of their air force and some other things like that. but if you have any questions, we'd be glad to take them. i don't know, dave, whether they would go through you. i've got a new director of communications that just came onboard a couple of weeks ago, lieutenant colonel john strout. and he's in charge of all our communications here as we move forward. so we'll be glad to share, respond to, answer, whatever information you would want in the future. so thank you very much, dave, for everybody's time. >> thank you again. an between you and colonel stout we'll get all those questions to you, so you can get answers. >> ok, dave. however y'all set that you. i'm not quite sure how you do it, but we'll be glad to respond to anything anybody would like to know further about. >> all right, thank you, sir. >> ok, thank you very much, everybody. >> tomorrow morning, a panel discussion on the war in afghanistan. participants include a former u.s. ambassador. we'll also hear from the author of the pulitzer prize-winning book "ghost wars." coverage begins at 5:00 eastern. that's from the brookings institution. later in the day a look at u.s. military uesides. it's part of a year-long pentagon review that's been submitted to the defense secretary and includes suggestions for reducing military suicides. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern. primary voters go to the polls tomorrow in alaska. up neck on c-span, a g.o.p. primary key bait between alaska senator lisa murkowski and republican senator joe miller. after that remarks from fema on general disasters. and later, arkansas congressman mike ross holds a town hall meeting with constituents. >> i come before this body to express again my sincere regret about the encounter with the capitol hill police. >> i can't walk away and have you guys doing your campaign because i'm annoying. >> delivering apologies and explanations directly to their colleagues on the floor of the house. watch more online and read about them at c-span's video library. all searchable and free. it's washington your way. >> alaska incumbent lisa murkowski is being challenged by senator joe miller. candidates participated in their only televised debate last week in anchorage. mr. miller has been endorsed by former alaska governor sarah palin and backed by the tea party. alaska public radio network news director lisa townsend moderated the debate. >> ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in crisis. we're at a point where our government is spending trillions we don't have and we're nearing a bankrupt situation. even our foreign creditors are preparing to foreclose on this nation. we must change in nation around. we're at this point because of a crisis in leadership. we have to seize this moment, turn the nation back to limited constitutional government. we have to turn back over regulation. i'm joe miller and i'm running for the u.s. senate in order to seize the moment, to ensure that we do turn this nation back and i'm prepared to meet those challenges. as far as armed conflict, we face much of that across the globe. i was trained at west points and i'm a combat veteran from desert storm. as far as judicial activism, i was trained in constitutional law and i defended the constitution as a state magistrate. as far as economic insolvency, i received a masters degree in economics from the university of alaska and i'm ready to confront the economic realities. we must not allow our children's future to be stolen from them. their american dream is far too important. thank you. >> thank you, mr. miller. and now, senator lisa murkowski, one minute. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. and i thank you. i understand that this debate here was scheduled for last evening, but out of respect to the stevens family it was moved to this evening and it has caused some scheduling issues, but we appreciate that and the respect that was shown to the family. alaska truly is at a crossroads. we are faced with an onslaught, a literal onslaught, of government regulation, intrusion into our lives, where the answer is always more of government as opposed to allowing the individuals, the states, to proceed as we all believe that they should. what we need in washington, d.c. is to continually fight with the intrusions that are before us, to fight for what we in alaska believe is best for our people, for the jobs, for the livelihoods, the cultures, and that's what i'm there in washington, d.c. to do. >> thank you senator murkowski. now it's time for the candidate question round. and first we'll start with senator lisa murkowski. >> thank you. >> i'll pose a question to mr. joe mill earl. you'll have one minute to answer, a minute rebought berlusconi and a quick rebuttal. >> -- rebuttal and a quick rebuttal. >> i appreciate that. as a member of the senate my voting record is absolutely clear. it details every vote, every every aye or every nay. i would ask you, mr. miller, why, with regards to the democratic health care bill that was passed by the democratic-led congress you continue to assert that i have somehow or other supported this bill. i voted against this legislation in committee when it came before us last july. i voted against it on the floor in december on christmas eve. i have voted to repeal it on march 24, right after the president signed it. i have voted against the proposed amounts to repeal either all or part of it, and i've co-sponsored several bills to repeal certain aspects of it, including a wholesale repeal of the bill. so my question to you is as recently as august 4, you have stated that -- and i want to make sure that i get your words right, because i don't want to misconstrue them -- which she refused to repeal the vote obama care. how can you continue to make those statements when the public record is extraordinarily clear? >> senator murkowski, thank you for joining me in this debate and thank you for that question. this issue has been raised by your campaign several times. we absolutely support the fact that you voted against obama care, but the concern that we have is the statement that you made on march 30, which was unequivocal on kteu where you said that you were opposed to repealing obama care. even the announcer at that particular forum said that you saw it as a work in progress. our main gripe is not that you voted against the main bill. and i would also note that the vote that you suggest was actually a motion to table. it was not a principal vote, it was a procedural vote. and the concern we have is that several times in the past, including your vote for d.c. voting rights, for david hamilton, the acorn member, you voted for cloture but voted differently on the substantive motion. so a procedural vote really doesn't count. not only that, that procedural vote that you mentioned was not a vote to repeal, it was a vote to table. but again, we respect the thactfa you voted against obama on that. but what i want alaskans to know is that we have a difference in perspective about the need for government health care. you indicated that you want a government health care plan that works. my view is the central government has no role in providing for a government health care plan, let alone one that has a stamp of obama care on it. i think a complete repeal is necessary. you waited until july 29 to sign the bill. there are many other co-sponsors that signed on immediately. but it took you until my campaign put pressure on you to actually vote for a full repeal or co-sponsor a full repeal. thank you. >> thank you. i will state again, and it's absolutely clear on its face that i voted to fully repeal -- fully repeal the obama health care plan the day after it was signed by the president into law. now, you have suggested somehow or other this vote didn't count. i would direct you to the congressional record, and i'm sure that you do read the congressional record. the sponsor of that amendment -- and i'm quoting again. "mr. president, this amendment is very straightforward. it would repeal the obama care bill." even the opponents of the measure acknowledge that it would repeal it. the statement from this back u.s., the democratic -- the baucus, the democratic leader on the floor said it is very straightforward, totally honest, it is not dressed up, it is not camouflaged, it is straight repeal of health care reform. there was no doubt in anyone's mind as to what we were voting on. as far as the ktuu comment, i'm certain that you have seen that entire clip from that review or that interview that i gave with ktuu. i went on to say that in fact, repeal is not the whole answer. if we have not reformed health care, that there is more that must be done. in fact, you have stated in your questionnaire to the conservative patriots, that that is exactly what you would do. >> >> thank you, senator. just a few seconds. >> in 2010 you said -- you did not say whole. you said repealing this is not the answer in my opinion. that ktuu clip is available for all alaskans to view. we took you at your word. you finally signed on to the repeal bill july 29 with senator deminute and we appreciate that. >> thank you, mr. miller. and now the next question round will be mr. joe miller will ask a question. please keep them brief. ask your question of senator lisa murkowski. 30 seconds, please. >> senator, have you ever co-sponsored, sponsored or voted for a bill or resolution that's unconstitutional? >> that is unconstitutional on its face? >> that's unconstitutional. >> if it's unconstitutional on its face, no. >> one minute rebuttal. >> senator, i'd like you to tell the alaskans, then, where in the constitution is roe versus wade authorized? you voted on march 12, 2003, that roe v-wade is a constitutional decision that should not be reversed. if also in your rebuttal you can tell alaskans where have you found in senate bill 5 voted in 2007 where the constitution that permits federal funding for embryonic destruction in research. i've got two more for you. where in the constitution is the troubled asset relief plan, or tarp, that the bank bailout bill, october 1, 2008, where, in that particular bill the constitution authorized. and finally your cap and trade bill that you co-sponsored. >> thank you. senator murkowski, please respond. >> to suggest that the political world is black and white, that we should take that constitution and take literal interpretation, and if it is not absolutely cleanly, clearly stated that funding should be provided or authorization should be made for, where would we be as a nation of laws? and i'll give you a very specific point. in our constitution it specifically provides for funding for a navy and an army. but it does not specify air force. are we to suggest -- >> you have to wrap up. >> -- that perhaps we should not be funding our air force because it's not included in the constitution? >> thank you, senator. now it's time for me to ask a question, and i will start with a question for you, senator lisa murkowski. you have been criticized for your vote on the tarp and bank bailout. if you could go back in time, would you do things differently? would you vote for it again? >> it's a good question, because at the time it may not have been the best option, but it was the only option that we had in front of us. look what had happened to our housing market. look what had happened to individuals' retirement and to pensions. look what had happened to our nation's economy. and what we were told was that it was bad and it was getting worse. and the information that we had at that time led a majority of us, 72 of us -- 72 -- so this was not just a few republicans -- to believe that this was the best option at the time. >> ok. >> i want to take that back, because it wasn't the best option, it was the only option. and it was all across the board in terms of members who looked at that and said we must act, we must do something. nor tom coburn, one of the most ardent fiscal conservatives in the senate, supported that tarp vote along with myself. in retrospect, would we all have wished that we could have done something different? yes. >> thank you, senator murkowski. and mr. miller, you have described yourself as a constitutional conservative. describe what that means. >> i believe that this nation has gone far from its moorings, and it's occurred through judicial activism. the senator mentioned the fact that air force is not in the constitution. obviously there's room for judicial interpretation, but where judges take the constitution and they expands it beyond what the founders intended it to be, we're on a dangerous road. what our founders intended, what the constitution was to limit our central government, so the government would not infringe upon our individual rights and liberties. our founders understood that power is a zero sum gain. you can't give more power to the government without infringing on our power. the problems that we face as a nation all stem from a central government that is completely out of control. so we've got to get back to those moorings. we can determine what our founders intended. it was a federalist system which gives power to the states, particularly the state of alaska. we've heard about earmarks and the need for money. what we have to do is get control of our resources. that means federal government out, federalism. we are at a point in our nation today where that choice can be made. seize the moment with me. >> thank you, mr. miller. now it's time for closing statements. senator lisa murkowski. you have one minute. >> this is our opportunity as alaskans to come together to fight for our economy, to fight for good jobs for our families, so that we can remain in the communities that we have grown up in, whether it's fighting for the struggling timber industry in southeast alaska, where i'm honored to have received the endorsement of the alaska forestry association, or whether it's fighting for our fishing families all up and down the coast. and again, i'm honored to receive the endorsement from usaa and other fishing organizations. whether it's the work that i do on the energy committee as the ranking member on that committee to ensure that as a resource production state we are strong and firm and we have the jobs that our families need and desire. this is what i'm fighting for. i'm asking all alaskans for your support on august 24. >> thank you senator lisa murkowski. now, one minutes for you, mr. joe miller. >> ladies and gentlemen, the choice is simple. i believe in american exceptionalism. i believe that our individual rights come from god and that in fact the way to protect those is to limit the federal go. >>. i believe in securing our southern border. i believe that amnesty is the wrong way to go. >> i believe in the rights of the unborn. i believe that we must as a nation not throw out failing businesses, not tell the taxpayer that they have to take it up or create the safety net for failing businesses. but we are a nation in crisis. the fiscal situation has got to be turned around and the only way to do that is to limit the federal government according to the founders' intent. we have the opportunity in that state and in the nation. alaska can join with the other states and this nation that are sending constitutionalists to congress to bring back rights to the states. it is alaska's destiny to lead america into the future. >> thank you, mr. joe miller. that concludes this portion of the program. thank you for joining us for this. we'll be taking a short break and then please stay with us and join us for more candidate interviews when we return. >> that was the primary debate between alaska senator lisa murkowski and republican challenger joe miller. voters will go to the polls tomorrow in alaska. we'll have updates on this race on the c-span networks. besides alaska, voters in florida, vermont and arizona will vote in their state primaries. florida will choose senate candidates from the democratic and republican party. florida governor charlie crist is running as an independent candidate. we'll have live coverage at 8:30 p.m. eastern. and later we'll get an update on arizona's primaries. republican incumbent senator john mccain faces challenger former congressman j.d. hayworth. live coverage at 10:30 eastern. >> today voters in alaska, florida, vermont and arizona will vote in their state primaries. in florida residents will choot senate candidates for the democratic and republican parties. florida governor charlie crist is running as an independent senate candidate. we'll have live election coverage at 8:30 eastern. and later, we'll get an update on arizona's primaries. republican incumbent senator john mccain faces challenger former congressman j.d. hayworth. live coverage at 10:30 p.m. eastern. now a meeting of the national commission on children on disasters. speakers include fema administrator craig fugate, plus two senior officials from the health and human services department. this is 2 1/2 hours. >> if you have any objection, you pay disconnect. and now we'll turn the all over to your host. thank you, ma'am. you may begin. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. if you will please take your seats, the meeting will begin. this meeting is now called to order. good morning, welcome to the quarterly public meeting of the national commission for children in disasters. i'm the newly appointed designated federal official for the commission. i'm a first officer in the u.s. public health commission corps. my ph.d. is in human services and i've been working in emergency management for about the last six years. i'm the director of the office of human services emergency preparedness and response in the administration for children and families. since july sixth. this is my first commission meeting, so let's go ahead and get started. first, i would like to appoint mr. tim clark as the recording secretary for this meeting. and i would like to turn over the meeting to mr. mark shriver, the chairperson for the commission. >> good morning, thank you very much. welcome aboard. good to have you. >> thank you. >> i want to say good morning to my fellow commissioners. i'm just coming back from a couple of days off and it's great to see your smiling faces here this morning. i want to welcome the public to our meeting. today is a very important milestone for the national commission on children and disasters. we are finalizing our 2010 report to the president and to congress. over the last 18 months, as the commissioners all know, we've taken an exhaustive look at persistent gaps in meeting the needs of children before, during and after disasters. we've reviewed hundreds of reports and articles, held numerous hearings, subcommittee meetings, field visits and public meetings. we've testified on capitol hill and made presentations at several national gatherings of government officials and disaster response volunteers. i know i speak on behalf of my fellow commissioners in thanking everyone who has worked so hard on this report that we're going to discuss today and hopefully vote on. and have worked on the subcommittees and at these various hearings as well. the benign neglect of children that permeates disaster management policies, planning, decision-making, developed over several years and will take several years to eliminate. so our work, though exciting and with much progress, is far, far from complete. in many wace it's just beginning. children make up 25% of our nation's population, but in many ways, as outlined in this report, they continue to be neglected when it comes to disaster management. if we're not protecting our children before, during and after disasters, then we're jeopardizing the future of our country. there are pockets of improvement and exciting new opportunities, but today we are calling on the president to submit to congress a cohesive national strategy that addresses the unique needs of children and incorporates them in the disaster, policies, funding disasters and plans. as i'm sure many of you saw this morning on the front page of u.s.a. today under the headlines, children still can't get past katrina. a study by our colleague talking about the fact that kids affected in the gulf coast are nearly five times more likely than other kids to have severe emotional disturbances and fewer than half receive help. this was in today's newspaper. the children issued a report last week or a couple weeks ago talking about only 1 states in the country had basic -- 12

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Arkansas ,South Waziristan ,Federally Administered Tribal Areas ,Pakistan ,Canada ,Japan ,Afghanistan ,Vermont ,Alaska ,Islamabad ,China ,Florida ,Glenwood ,Washington ,Anchorage ,Clark County ,Brussels ,Bruxelles Capitale ,Belgium ,District Of Columbia ,Kabul ,Kabol ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Montgomery County ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Iraq ,Hyderabad ,Andhra Pradesh ,India ,Fort Smith ,Israel ,Town Hall ,Langley ,British Columbia ,Capitol Hill ,Italy ,Americans ,America ,Alaskans ,Pakistani ,Afghans ,Afghan ,Pakistanis ,Palestinian ,American ,Craig Fugate ,Rashid Reggie Qureshi ,Lisa Townsend ,Gary Liberman ,Mike Ross ,Albert Pike ,David Bogart ,Daniel William Caldwell ,William Caldwell ,Charlie Crist ,Joe Miller ,Mike Beebe ,Tom Coburn ,Lee Stewart ,Jimmy Carter ,Al Qaeda ,Sarah Palin ,Randy Stewart ,Kara Pashtun ,Lisa Murkowski ,John Mccain ,