kennedy. him&á%)+ @ @ @ h sn @ @ p@ @ @ vice president to former presidents, to senators, to members of the house, to close friends and so so many, many friends and so so many, many

afte -- you know, i think being sworn in to this body, madame president, is a 34-year-old, nervous senator and when he first came up to shake my hand after being sworn in was ted kenny, mike msfield and hoard baker. it was odd to think i was in the presence of such people. and in serving with ted for 35 year speaking with him almost every single day, i look over at

his desk, something i have seen over the 3years with colleagues, but i don't know of any time that it has hurt so much to see the back streets but across the desk, to see the face of white flowers. i went by there yestery and i just put my hand on the desk. i admit i was overcome with emotion and left the floor. i have so many memories as we all do of or friendship. senator durbin spoke about how ted kennedy had a way of no matter who you were if you have a tragedy in your family or illness or something that happened he would call, he would write, he would offer help.

it made no difference who you were. i was very, very close to my father. he had met ted a number of times. when my faer passed away, the first telephone call my mother received that morning was from ted kennedy. and i remember my mother taking comfort in that. senator kennedy's office is just one floor below maudine in the building. both stayed there all these years. many occasions especially going to vote you could hear his great laugh at the wing downhaul. it could change your whole mood, in your day. we spoke,e came back together from pope john paul ii a

funeral, stopped to refuel the plane in ireland. there were paintings of president kennedy and my friend from iowa, senator harkin, remembers tha what thrgh the with ted. d and senator chris dodd telling irish stories. these memories going out, when he's walking the dogs outside and just chatting and talking about how is your family? how is this one or that one? we talked about a few days before. after he diedne of the nepapers in vermont h a front-page picture that my wife and myself had taken back i 1968. it showed a young ted kenne in

vermont campaigningor his brother, robert and talking with an even younger states attorney. the two of us talking about robert iennedy, and i gave that photograph to attend a few years ago. i found it in my archives, and he chuckled and talked about how young we looked and asked for another copy so he could sign one to m ted,hat day we sat there and talked about his brother's, obviously the president and senator kennedy. also his brother, joe kennedy, who have died. i talked about being interviewed by his brother robert kennedy

attorney general. he invited me dow to the department of justice. the young law student talke about the posibility of a career in the department of justic and how that talk had meant so much to me when his brother told me how independent the department of justice must be even from the president of the united states. yo know, we never have enoh time in this body. a roll call started and conversation stopped. but i remember every bit of that so much. i remember after that time we can pay for robert kennedy, the next te iaw him this year as cemetery let -- senator he liked i walked into hisffice to tal about thinking of coming into

inne sanctum to talk about what committees i mht go on, and this great voice, good morning, senator, coming from him. i turned around to assume a senator was walking behind me and realized he was talking to me. his wonderful wife, vicki, started a small book club like myself -- the days they would meet today it would come up and put his arm around my shoulder and say patrick, wd are in trouble today. our wives are meeting. and tonight we are going to get our orders and you know what madame president, he was right. all the years i served on the judiciary committee until this

past year i sat beside him. i miss him on the judiciary committee. in this his help and advice. i'm going to miss him on the senate floor because of having him with usn the senate is going to make a huge difference and negotiations on legislation whether its on health care reform or any other iue. i remember one meeting with ronald reagan when he was president and he turne to several of last meeting with reblicans and democrats, and he said thank goodness you're here, ted, you are bringing us together. and that difference extended beyond. he personally made a difference being peace to ireland and the apartheid in south africa. i remember going with former president clinton to the peace agreement. and evebody. they would think the prime minister of ireland, the prime

minister of great britain, president kennedy i mean prident clton. they all wanted to come over and ank d kennedy. our historys firm and constant in america's promise, america's future is inspiring. his willingness to spend tim with junior senators of eher party made him a samet terse senator -- senator's senator. i think every senter republican or democrat would believe he was a senator's senator. it is easy and politics to appeal to the self-interest i all of us. ted kennedy appealed to the best of last. he appealed to the sense of justice, since of responsibility to our uniquely american sense

of hope and possibility. the senate he labored help to reach progress in health care and education,ivil rights, voting rights, immigration reform and so much more. madam president, the powerful have never lacked the champions. tandy kendy was a champion for ordinary aricans. for those who struggled, for those who did not have a champion. he believed everyone in this greatly and deserves an opportunity tpursue the american dream. i thought last night of the president's speech. talking with -- before the speech with mrs. kennedy, after the speech with senator kennedy's three children. it was impossible to put it in words how much i missim.

we miss our friend yearly. but we know that it is a privilege to call him our friend it was a privilege toerve alongside such a public servant. dedicated as he was to making better the lives of millions of his fellow americans. it is the sad passing of an era. ted kennedy will also tell us it is the time look to the future. madam president close with this. i always thought when i left the senate i wou say farl to is body and ted kennedy would be here to wish me god speed. i wish him godspeed. >> madame president, i want to thank all of our colleagues who have taken time to come to the floor to speak on behalof our great friend and colleague,

senator ted kennedy. i enjoyed the remarks by the distinguished senator from vermont who had served with him for 34 years. i only served 33 years with ted, and i just want to thank him for the remarks and for their reference sials everybody has had four hour departed colleagues. i rise today to offer my remarks on the passing of my friend and colleague, senator ted kennedy. over this past recess, america lost one of the greatest leaders in the chamber lost one of the most dynamic and important members. iourn the loss model the of a respected colleague but a dear personal friend, and i think i speak for all colleagues when i say senator ted kennedy will be missed and the senate is a sser place without him here. people have often remarked up a working relationship i had with senator kennedy. oftentimesalling us the, quot odd couple, end of quote.

we used to laugh abo that, but the truth be told he and i didn't really agree on a lot of things. over the years, senator kennedy and i were on opposite sis of some of the fiercest battles in the history. while we have been long good friends, we didn't throw punches on each other. if we were in a debate, senator kennedy would come to the floor and in his classic style lee a to me with his boys raised and he had a terrific voice and his arms flailing and of course i would let him have the right, but then after he finished, he would finally come over and put his arm around me and say how was that? well, i would alway laugh about it as we did. we laughed at each other all th time. that is what set senator kennedy apt from many in washington. for him pnlitics got personal. he was never afraid to waste his disagreement with the views of a fellow senator.

but in the end, i believe he always maintained a warm and cordial relationship almost everyone of his colleagues. that is difficult to do sometimes particularly when partisan tempers flare up but it ways seemed to come easy for senator kennedy. despite a tendency to disagree on almost everythin senator kennedy and i were able to reach common ground on many important occasions and on many important issues. as i mentioned that the recent memorial service one of my defining moments as a center came when i met with two families from utah. the parents of these families were humble and hard-working and able to provide food and clothing for their children and shelter for their children. but the one necessity they couldn't afford was health insurance. their children were children of the working poor. the struggles of this family touched me and inspired me to work with senator kennedy to create the schip program, which continues to provide health care coverage toany children of the working poor and others

throughout the country in which past was broad bartisan support. over the years, senator kennedy and i worked successfully to get both republicans and democrats on board for a number of causes. we drafted a number of pieces of legislation to provide assistance to aids victims, including th ryan white aids act. i named that the bill right here on the floor with mrs. white sitting in theudience. we worked together along with senator harkino craft and pass the americans with disabilities act. there was also the orphan drug acas well as fda modernization and a host of other bills that would take to back much time to speak about, all of which were bearing the hatch-kennedy, kennedy-hatch name. the final collaboration came on the edward m. kennedy serve america act which i was pleased to and after senator kennedy. right here on the floor, and he cannot afterwards and we hugged

each other and then we went back to the broom and he had pictures even though he wasn't feeling well, sony pictures with so many ople involved. all our bills pass because of the willingness of senator kennedy consensus to put bipartisanship, something we see far too infrequently in washington. it is a matter of politics but timing isrucial. no one understood or prticed that principle better than senator kennedy. he had a successful the key compromise. he knew when to let defense if and when it was time to close the deal. more importantly, knew when hehould stick to his guns d when he needed to reach across the aisle to get the help of his republican colleagues. he was always able to recognize and wo with those who shared his goals, even if they had different ideas, after i had

made the deciding vote on civil rights for institutionaliz persons, birgit l t fight on the floor and so did i.. later came the votingights act. and i fought very stngly n to put section 2 why didn't have any problem with it being section fight but i didn't want it and sectio ii with applied to all the other states. and i lost in the committee. i voted theill out because i consider the voting rights act the most important in history. the day they were going to go down and have them sign the white house he caught me inside of the building where we both had offices and he said you're coming with us aren't you? and i said i was of course against the change and he said but you voted for it. he said you were very helpful helping to get that bil passed and i know how deeply you feel about it.

so why did, i went down with him and i. but and have long had it not beefor senator kennedy recognizing i did feel deeply about the voting rights act and even though i lost what i thought was a pivotal constitutional point of fact the matter is i voted for the bill. at the risk of -- i would like point out senator kenne shared an optimistic view of the americanxperiment with president ronald reagan. they both deeply believed that but for the current trials were challenge we face of america's best days are ahead of her. that's something many people do not appreciate about senator kennedy. because with his optimism and hope for the nation's future, senator kennedy was throughout his career in theenate agreed practitioner of the lin modern car podium, seize the day. worked harder the in and day out wend every senator had to work a little bit harder either to follow his lead if you were

on the same side finish you were standing his way if he were his opposition. i had been on both positions. i'm t saying it was inherently difficult to work with senator kennedy but anyone who's negotiated a tough piece of legislation can tell you it can be sheer drudgery even whenou agree on most issues but senator kennedy brought aen of joy to even the most contentious negotiating seions and when you were worng with senator nnedy you knew he would keep his word. aft these long sessions and agreement was reached he would stick by it no matter how much heat he had to take. all of this was no doubt the result for this great institution and commitment to the american people differences notwithstandinthere could never be any dou about senat kennedy's patriotism. he had a presence in the senate as large asenator kennedy's. re often than with a batch of

amendments in one hand and a stack of talking points he was almost always effective but seldom very quiet. also wanted share -- i want to share a f thoughts about his staff. while at the end of the day the full responsibility of the senate falls squarely upon the shoulders of each senator and often long into the light and many weekends much of the work of the senate is conducted by a oup of the most committed team of staff members oany institution anywhere. during his career,t was known with the kennedy staff comprised of one of the most formidable and dedicated collections. manyf them have gone on to have distinguished carriers including now justice stephen breyer. dr. larry horowitz, who manages health care right up until the

end of long can't tennessee -- tedennedy. he was an advisor right up until the time senator kennedyassed away. and course michael myers just to name four with no intention leaving lt other senator kennedy will be the rst to recognize how their efforts contributed to his success. i want to salute them for the hard work over the years. i cannot exactly say that i have always been totally plsed with alof the kennedy staff of the time, but as is true of their boss or was true of their boss, while we might haveeen fruent adversaries, we were never enemies. madamresident, i am sadded by the loss of my deafriend, senator kennedy. i will miss him personally. i will miss the flights in public. i ll miss his sense of humor in private. and publi and perhaps more significantly, i believe this chamber ll miss

his talents as a legislator most of all, his leadership. i can't say i hope more of our llgues will adopt his views on policy, i hope more of us can adopt his approach to the legislative process. i was there in cifornia during a speech at a fund-raiser when they came and said senator kennedy on the line and he sounds very agitated. so i went and said ted, what is the matter? and he said i have great news for you, he said -- i said what's that? he said i'm going toet married again. i said to lino per? he said no, but you would love her. she's a wderful person and she has two wonderful children. i am going to adopt tm and treat them as my own. and he said i am so happy. i said well ted why would you

calle in california? he said well, her daughter was bragging to her elementary school teacher at that time that her mother was going to marry ted kennedy and the elementary school teacher was marri to a "washington post" reporter and he said i wanted ou to be one of the first to know. i was very happy. he said i am going to marry vicky. i have come to know vicky very, very much. she has made such a difference in his life and his family's life she is a tremendous human being. as are his children. they are terrific. i was happy to be in the catholic church where teddy went to pray for his daughter every day he couldhen she was sufferin from cancer. i know how deeply he feels about

patrick and teddy, jr.. i thought they d a terrific job at the mass at his funeral. he's got to be very, very proud of them. i am very proud of them. i think that if a key kenne desees an awful lot of credit for all of the leader happy years of my friend ted kennedy. and i want her to know that i lo her dearly for what s did and as an individual herself, and i loved ted kennedy's entire family. they've come to me when i needed help because he couldn't as a member of the family. and iave to say i was close to a great number of the members of s family and i really appreciate them as well. and the influence that they had on him and he had on them. he had a graat influence on me as wl.

i just want to psonally thank him and say to my dear friend and cleague as i look at his desk over there with flowers and e drape, rest in peace, friend. we understand wcan d better than we have in the past. madam president, i yield the floor. >> madameresident? madame president? >> senat from maryland. >> madame president, good morning. >> good morning. >> i wish to speak about senator ted kennedy. ordinarily, i would have been proud to be on my feet to get such a testimonial. but as many of my colleagues know, i had a fall a few weeks ago coming out of church, and ready to be at my duty station but can't quite stand getting

these remks. but i want to speak and speak from my heart, speak from my memory and speak with my affection. i've known ted kennedy a very long time. he's been my friend, my pal, my comrade of arms. i have enjoyed everything from working with him on big policy issues to sailing off the coast. i have been with him in his hideaway while we strategize on how to move an agenda of an powerpntand life instead his famousirthday parties. we have had a good time together, and i remember one of the first parties was the theme from the 60's d i came with a big way -- wig hoping to look like jackie kennedy.

ted saidecause vicky, because they wereoming as scarlett o'hara as we jitterbug i said to you think i look like jackie? he said well nice try. at the last party we went to it was a movie theme -- i looked like something out of here sprague you know i won't tell you his comment, but again h sa your hair gets bigger at every one. i can't wait until my 80th unfortunately the 80 it will be with us but it will carry the friendsh with tedennedy. it is with a heavy heart that i stand here to give the salute to him. but know that i met him and knew him as a young social worker. i teified before the committee as a young social worker to talk about a brand new program called

medicare, about what was working, what was lessons learned. once again from the ground, what was happening in the streets and neighborhoods to help people get the medical and social services they nded. he listened. he was intent and asked me any questions. little did i know that i wh chollet minn in the united states senate to fight for medicare, to fight for health care, to fight for those senior citizens. like so many others in my generation, i was inspired by the kennedys for a life in public service. i chose the field of social wo and then went into politics because i raw politics as a social work with power. as a congresswoman i was on the energy and commerce committee the was a counterpart to what ted was doing in th senate. we got tonow each other at conference's working together. those were the great days of

bipartisanship. as we would come in from the energy and commerce committee there would be to kennedy and jay javits working to make sure that we could pass good legislation. and i saw theood legislation came from gd ideas that could be pursued with good humor and in an atmosphere of civility. because we got to know each other i admired his tenacity and he admired me because i could dish it out with the best of them as well. when he and for president in 1980, he askede to nominate him at the democratic convention. i was thrilled and honored to do . w remember the trauma of that. jimmy carter was an incumbent presiden ted, a kennedy wasn upstart. iacke kennedy. but it didn't work out and take called me and said i am withdrawing from the race. we are going to support president carter on hundred%.

though they are not free to nominate me for president i hope he will still introduce me to the convention. i said absolutely. but one day i hope to be able to nominate you. that might as i took the podium, it was the famous speech that everyone remembers that ted kennedy gave about the work going on, because this,he hopes still living and the dream never biting. what was amazing about hat speech was the way ted kennedy used not a moment in his life that some would have viewed as the feet but he used it as a time to redefine himselin public service and claim the mantle of being one of the best centers america has ever seen and he used that speech not as a retreat but a reaffirmation a recommitment of what he would

do. that night i did introduce him, and while all of my colleagues were in boston and i watched the funeral from myehabilitation room morning at his death feelings that i couldn't join my colleagues there i had that speech and i read it to themnd if i looked at it i realized that could get it again and again because when i took the floor of the 1980 convention, i first said i'm not here for barbara mikulski. i am here for all of those people who wld like tsay what they knew about ted kennedy and i am going to say today some of the words i said then that will be appropriate for now. i said i am here and perhaps of a lot of people who want to be here. the old woman desperately trying to use her sociasecurity check to pay for food a medicine and it frightened of her energy bills. students, mr. bush and has gone up so much they are going to have to work two jobs just to stay in schoo i spoke with small business

people trying to just keep their doors open. an the returning war veteran who was unemployed and while his brother was signing up for a tour of du he was snding in the on the empyment line. i said that the day after day edward kennedy spoke of those peole that he had been talking about economy, energy and jobs, long before many others. i talked about how edward nnedy said when bla freedom riders were being attacked and beaten he was the one who foht for racial justice and help to ge the voting rights act through. i said as a young social worker working in the neighborhods during the dark nixon years i wondered how old people were going to get the services they need. ted kennedy introduced the first nutrition program for the elderly. a program that guaranteed senior citizens at least one hot meal a day. it was ted kennedy who won the

passage of programs like neighborhood health centers, fought the war on cancer, led the fht to save versus scholarships and save them he did. in his fight for legislation he was always there. in my fighto help battered women senator kennedy was one of the first to be a strong and active ally. he said he knew very early on that all american women work, that too many work r too little pay for theirork. i said then and i say again ted kennedy wanted to change social security to make it fair dor women and extend equal rights amendment so we would be included in the constitution. was amazing. the issues he fought for than and he fought for continue to fight for all of his life. in the time i knew him at tt time knew him not just as a news clerk. i found him to be truly gallant

in public and private, caring about others and modest about himself. always abo grace, courage and valor. when i came to the senate, i was the only democratic woman, and he was there for me. but i saw how he was tre for so many other people. in 2004, when we were in boston, ted kennedy and all i had lunch in the north end. it was one of our favorite things, to get together for a meal and conversation. but i realized then as we enjoy ourselves with the big plas of antipasto alwayselt we would eat more salad and less of the costa i realized as we got off and walked around the north and his best ideas came from the people. it was his passion for people. i knew that he represented those people i cambridge who went to

harvard and often cannot with the kennedy school with great ideas. i walked around the neighborhoods with him, i saw that he actually listened to people, actually taking notes. as we walked down the street there was a man whoame out who talked about his mother's problem with soal security. take it down, he said. let's see what we can do. walk down a few feet more. my grandson wants to go to west point. how do i apply? said he's going to love it. let's see how we can do that. a few feet down the small business by said keep on fighting, tate. you know i can't buy this health insurance. can i call you? always calle, he said, and don't forget to call barbara. all of us know that ted kennedy had an outstanding staff whether

it was the staff in massachusetts who took care of case work and projects and the day-to-day neds and the staff in washington who helped ted kennedy take ide that came from the people, the day-to-day struggles and converted it into a national policy. that is what it was. people, people, people. when i came to the senate, it was only nancy kassebaum and i were the only women. he and along with senator sarbanes people i call who get me onhe rightommittee, show me the inner workings of the senate, ted was dermid i would be on his committee on health and education to get the ideas past. but he also was determined i would get on appropriations to make sure we put those ideas into the federal checkbook. he really was mydvocate.

one of the things that was clear that he was a champion for women. he was a champion for this woman to help me get on those committees and during those smmetimes rough days getting started. he would take me with senor dodd and while she drink orange juic with a little pot, so no one would knew he had a little vodka he was giving me shooters of chardonnay to boost my spirits and he and chris would give me a peptalk and i felt like it was rocky they would say get out there, fight, don't let it get you down, pk yourself up and i felt like i was goi to spit in the bucket and get back on the floor. he lifted my spirits just like he lifted the spirits of so many. but the sto tt i want to conclude with the because there e some meetings we worked on together is when i went to him and said this: ted, did you

know that women are not included in the protocols of nih? he said what do you mean? i said all of the research that we do, women are not included in the protocols. they just finished a famous study singing take an aspirin a day keeps a heart attack away and it included 10,000 male medical students and not one woman. i said i want to change th in keeping up with nancy and pat schroedernd olympia snowe and connie morella, who were in the house, he helped me create the office of women's health at nih so that women but always be included in those protocols. and we spoke out and said ted, a health care research for breast cancer is no. that is why tha reason for the cure. he helped us work with tom harkin to boost the money for research to also get a mammogram quality standards through so that we would get mammograms and also for them to be safe. but one of the most profound

things we ever did, again, working on bipartisan basis, dr. bernadine healy was the head at nih, and she wanted to do a study of the conseences of hormone therapy. ted and odd and tom did not believe we should earmas nih, and i believe that today. we made sure we put money in the legislative framework in place so that dr. healy couldn't to the famous hormone therapy study. well, let mll you the consequences of it. thattudy has changed medical practice. that study has resulted in breaancer rates going down 15%. so, when you say what did teddy kennedy to help women? what did teddy kennedy do? tel dan we worked together and we worked to save the lives of

wittman 1 million atime. this was my final salute to senator kennedy on the floor but i will always saluthimvery day and the united states senate to make sure we can continue with a sad how the corrine will continue. i ended my speech a the democratic convention in 80 when i said this, and i and my remarks here today by saying this: edward kennedy kept his faith with the american people. he hasn't waited for crisis to emerge or constituey to develop. he always acted, he always inires. god bless you, ted, and god bless the united ates of america. >> senatorrom alabama. >> mr. president, i'd like to take a moment to join my coeagues, and i see quite a number here on the floor now. to pay tribute to ted kennedy.

he was a truly remarkable force in the united stes senate. a champion of liberalism perhaps the nation's leading champion of liberalism. he belies government could serve the people d it ought to do more toerve the people. on that we sometimes disagreed. but he believed with a sincerity and he battled with it for consistency that is remarkable. he constantly sought to utilize the ability of government to do good for american pple. and that is andmirable thing. he also was a champion of civil rights. he was a force during the civil rights movement, and his activities, hisersonal leadership made a difference making this a better country.

and whout his leadership thin would have beenh more difficult for sure. i ha a vivid memory of him, mr. president, presiding as i did when i first came to the senate, a duty get into the unger members. in the night, ted kennedy alone the floor roaring away on the values he believed, and it was just something toehold in my view. i saw nothing like it from no other members. he had served so many years in the senate and i leaed today from the chairman of the judiciary, senator leahy he served on the senate judiciary committee more than any other senator in history. but even as years went by a many yrs in the senat he did not lose the drive, the will,

the energy, the commitment to give himself or the values he believed in. i told one reporter after his death, i would hope to be somewhat as effective in promoting the values i believe and as he has been in promoting those values. and if we disagree, as sometimes we certainly did, people continue to admire him i think unique degree. the were no hard feelings. he would battle away and then afterwards you would be a respectful relationship between senators. i think that is pretty unusual and something worthy of commenting on. he talked about being a -sponsor on a bill. he said he wanted to work with me on somethi important and it was a bill we refer to as a prison rate bill. a lot of concern that in prisons

people arrested with subjected to sexual abuse that in my view is not acceptable. the presiding officer knows people deserve to do their time in jai but they should never be subjected to those kinf abuses. and so we passed a pretty comprehensive bill and i was proud of it and proud to be with him at the signing ceremony of it. and i also talk to him and we talked at some length about a major piece ofegislation increase savings and america. savings for the average working american whose had not been able to share in th growth of wealth that so my have been blessed with in this country. i thought we had pretty good idea savings at that time had fallen below zero. actually 1% negative use as

people say things were going away and i guess fifer 6% savings ra after this turmoil we've had economically, but i n't ink that the idea should go away. maybe it lost a little steam in the fact that we have seen a resurgence of savings today. but i was very impressed with his commitment to it. the work of his fine staff and personal knowledge of the issue. i see my other colleagues here and i will join them in expressing my sincere sympathy to vicky and the entire famy for their great loss the senate has lost a great warrior and chamon of american values. i thank theherry and yield the floo

the supreme court heard arguments this week in a case involving campaign spending and free speech. we spoke with a reporter about the significance of the case. >> host: as mentioned sterday was the unusual argument of a case in this precourt. it also launched the debut for solicitor general elena kagan. here is her first question asked in the oral argument. >> are you giving up on your earlier arguments there are ways to avoid the constitutional question? to resolve this case? i know that we ask for further briefing on this particular issue overturning to of our courts precedence. but are you getting up on your earlier argents that the statutory interpretatn is that would avoid the constitutional question?

>> host: on the screen right now is david savag a longtime observer and reporter of the supreme court for "los angeles times" papers. he was in the courtroo yesterday. >> guest: i s. >> host: listening to this in a press box. thers so much of what to ask but let me start with asking about the atmerics with all these unusual aspect to yesterday's oral argument. >> guest: its unusual for a new justice and the first case of the term to beuch a big deal. this is a case they carried over from the spring. looked like a very minor case volving, sort of the fun case involving hillary, the movie made by small conservative group. it had a little bit of corporate funding. the federal election laws unfortunately are as complicated as the health car laws. it's as if you get corporation money you can be regulated b the fec to have to disclose donors and what not. it got tied up in a big legal

fees, came to the supreme court and supreme court decided to be argued the case and focus on the question of should we overturn all our past decisions and for will that corporations have a free-speech right to advertise and seek to elect or defeat federal candidates. r 100 years fedel laws said corporations can't get t involved in politics, and suddenly this has become a very big deal on whether the court is going to overturn a series of decisions and basical allow corporations to get into politics big time. >> host: i want to get phone numbers so you can join in on this conversation. democratic front over democrats, 202-737-0001 for republicans and 202-628-0205 for independence. it seems and all of the reporting including force everyone is looking at two justices in the case, the chief,

john roberts, and samue alito. i will play another clip, one question the chief jusce need and then have texplain why everyone ilooking whathey might be thinking. >> guest: sure. >> mean i thought the doctrine is if you write o brought lee we are not going to pare back to the point where its constitutional if it is over broad its and velte. what happened to that? >> i don't think it would be substantially overbuilt, jusce scalia if i tell you that the fcc never applied stature to the book to say it doesn't apply to boks is to take off essentially nothing -- >> we don't pud our first amendment rights in the hands of fcc bureaucrats. and if you say you're not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet? >> i think a pamphlet would be different. a template is pretty classic eltioneering. so there ino attempt to say

that 441 bea only applies to video and not rint. >> host: that particular question was widely quoted. why? >> guest: sorted de pithy wind roberts is frustrated like a lot of conservatives are that this law is a complicated you can't tell people in advance while refining corporation moore's movie potentially illegal because it was based on george bush in 2004? there was part of the argumt that said what about a corporate funded bouck? said was a corporation forme a book and said as an attack on a particular candidate or attack on barack obama two or three years from now could the government regulate that? so this got into a very heated debate in margin and again yesterday on the shore, the principl is no corporateoney in politics, but how does that play out in a series of cases? and so roberts asked a series of

questions yesterday that he's sort of skeptical of the whole notion kf whether the government can regulate corporate speech involved. >> host: one more quick and then get to calls. this is from senator john mccain. understand both senator mccain and russ feingold were listening to the oral argument yesterday. >> guest: yes. >> host: and afterwards the approach reporters in the supremcourt plaza to comment. here is senator mccain. >> it's apparent to me that the questioning shows a strong disconnect, agreed disconnect between the justices and the reality of politics when corporate and union leaders were able to call, able to take calls from powerful committee chairmen who would say i want a check in six figures in st money and by the way your legiatn is up before my committee. we saw the corruption of soft

money. we saw it in the telecommunications reform act. we see it -- we saw it in other legislative activity results as well as the influence of special-interest and corporate and union money in washington, which crowd about then the right of the average citen who doesn't have the huge amount of moneyhat corporate and union treasuries do. i wish one of the jusce this who were so strongly standing up for people's first amendment rights had ever run for county sheriff. >> host: what's your reaction to that? >> guest: well i had several reactions. i heard john mccain a couple of weeks ago stand und say why he wa voting against sonia sotomayor, and he said i'm worried she's we to be a judicial activist. he had supported roberts and alito, conservative justices that he was very fond of.

it goes to the court yesterday and who is the justice is likely to strike down with the, chris has done? roberts and alito and scalia, thomas and justice kennedy. sonia sotomayor is going to vote to uphold the law. as you saw in the first question, she was basically saying why are we here, where we are doing this big issue in this small case? couldn't do when this narrowl by saying this was a dvd from a small group -- not even a corporation but they ought to be shielded from the federal regulations but we shouldn't get in the business of striking down the law against corporate funding. i'm a little intrigued by the fact i wonder whether john mccain would add any epiphany yesterday sitting there may be i backed the wrong people. >> host: couple points what you wereust wching. pardon me if you know all this stuff on the supreme court but you are listening to the audio because the supreme court does not permit television cameras in its oral arguments, and it is unusuafor you actually to be

able to hear the audio recordings immediately after the case is argued. news organizations have to petition the court for same-day release and the chief justice considers it decides whether or not to grant. sometimes yes, sometimes know. yesterday is a case he agreed to immediate release of the oral argument just after the argument was finished so that is why you had the oppornity to actually hear the justices, to hear the response of the petitioners in their own words which changes things when you can actually hearnsad of just reading about it. >> guest: i am in that ver small group of people that actually get to hear them all the time, but i do wish they released itore often. it seems to me it doesn't harm the court in any way and gives the public a chance to hear what is going on iide the court. the current policy policy seems as you said if they will release the tape immediately otherwise not. >> host: let's go to calls. waterloo iowa, fred reed democrats line. >> caller: yeah, good morning.

i'm kind of curious, i'm just an old person who's bn watching this for years, and i don't understand, i think it was 1896 or 1897, when the cgress i sure was bullied by the big plays blease to pass a law we that say corporations are the same as a person and the same way with t labor unions. and i don't understand whyhey ever ce up wit that law, and it's been goig on. and then teddyoosevelt past, you know, the big bill where these guys with corption and the antitrust laws, which was all -- yoe know, that came along, and you know, you have to convince me why the supreme court isothing more than, say yes, this is conitutional or

no it's not, and why does -- why do they even get a voice on labor unions or corporations? they are not -- i don't get it. could you explain some of that to me? >> guest: well, you've got exactly the rig issue. the whole question here is is a corporation like an individual. that was basically the argument. that for 100 yrs going back to teddy roosevelt's time federal law said corpgrations can be barred from putting money, giving money to candidates, and since 1947 unions, corporatis may not spend they've got to stay o -- you can't have corporate money in politics. the arguments being made now d it goes back to the 1890's corporations are le persons and so they have free speech ghts, and the corporatn wants to say deft nancy pelosi or whatever come she's the public oion an in the insurance industry we are not. hypothetical example it could

actually happen next year if the court were to rule corpotions have a free-speech right to get involved in politics you could imagine a l of corporatios in 2010 could choose to spend billions of dollars to from ads for or against members of congress. and what the supre court is really beisked toecide, and what they are closely divided on is what we are going to say corporations like individuals have a peaceful free-speech rights. if i had $10 million to spend, as an individual i have a free-speh right to run ads and, you know, putp billboards or whatever, and that is the issue here, to corporationhave a similar first amendment right. >> host: so this case is -- is guaranteed to be the landmark case as it is balled, based on that interpretation? some suggest the justices could decide to rule very narrowly. guessed the answer to the question is no. it could end up being a very

minor case. that is what we were watching for yesterday -- >> host: which wwi that go. >> guest: that's right. conservatives uned is going to win this case. thquestion is whether they will win narrowly by some decision that says your offer leeorporation, you said it be subject to the laws -- >> host: but the corporate interpretaon intact. >> guest: right. or they could write a broad opinn saying citizens united winsecause firsp amendment doesn't allow the government to regulate corporations, in a corporation when they are spending money on campaign speech. >> host: iowa city, iowa. republican line. >> caller: good morning. this ties into my concern als and really all i would like to make a comment a then ask the question. and it deals with the issue of is an indivial and the corporation, the rationship how we define corporation? of course we know how to define individual, hopefully. how does that relate what

exists now as law in the constitution? and is this even an issue? and then even further, have we revisited this in the mcca-feincold passage as far as what can be said at a certain time, you know, prior to but a federal election. so i guess my very specific questi is this: where would the judges' stand on this? would they ignore the political situation and go to the constitution and of ally dig out where the freedom of speech stands with individuals, and then what relationship does -- goes beyond the indidual freedom of speech? gree on history regarding this point.

scalia and stevens refer to the r ailroads who could challenge things because they had rhts sau so, the justices do not agree. i do not think there will agree in this case, but the fuamental sue is, do they want to treat corporations -- and i esume unions -- then they are going to say this whole fabric and the mccain-feingold low was really a law that sort of plug the

loophole, it plug loopholes in, as mccain said there was soft money wa the term that came into vogue because it was a way to get around the limits on spending. you could give it to a party. congss is always tried to come back a plug the loophole but it is always then with the understandin thasome types of money can be resicted and one of the types of mon was corporate money. coress is understood that ty can limit or restrict corporate money in politics and to say that is at least potentially an issue in this case. >> host: iowa city was just on e air, irene? >> caller: i just have a follow-up question. wod you agree that the issue here for the court would be number one would define a corporation? >> host: to define a corporation? >> guest: a corporation is the creation of state law. it is an artificial entity.

elena kagan try to make that point. corporations, youon't walk the street and bump into a corporation are talk to a corporation on the street. it is aegal entity and its job is to make mey. and ordinary variety has and friday of interest. justice scalia's view is a corporion is just a group of people, an association of people in plus there are a lot of small corporations. scalia kept saying three or four times e local hairdresser could be incorporated. do we really want to keep those people out of politic thenswer is no, but they can give money as individuals. i don't know whether they are going to try to define a corporation but they are gohng to define the first amendment rights of the corporation. the first of amendment says congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. ted tilson basicallyaid no law

means no law. this lot is restricting freedom of speech of corporations and you should strike down. >> host: alabama you are up next. >> caller: how are you doing. i was calling to ask, i believe in freedom myself. a loof corporations have ripped off taxpayers for years and i have a hard time dealing with that. i look at what corporations have done to us, and the government with the fda allowed to happen to us. i have a hard problem supporting corporatns right now. they may go like you said to make mey but look th are making the expense off of the backs of the american taxpayers. >> guest: youdon't sound like a vote for the corporations this case. it is the case that corporations right now have a fair amount of influence in politics. there are corporate tax and if

you are a corporate executive you can give money to a corporate funds a of course lobbyist. it is not like corporations have no voice but this potentially could ramped up quite a bit because what they have been barred from doing as i s is-- corporations can fun issue atsa and if pharma or one of the health care companies could run a series of ads that says health care is good for americans for the followi reasons. what theyave, what they can do under the current laws run an ad that says don't vote for nancy pelosi or don't vote for republicano-and-so because they have got the wrong position. that is what they can do and that is at least what they could win in this case. >> host: if your aft has the supreme cot historically ruled in-- and you has the most to lose from this case?

>> guest: there are a whole series of complications regarding diffence dozens of different contexts. implementation cases, all sorts of business cases so i don't think there is any way to say corporations usually win or usually uses an platts as i was saying to susan earlier there are a whole variety of corporations. scalia said there famous cases involving the naacp in the civil-rights area and they are technically a corporation so i dot think there is a particular ptern. this actually has a partisan cast too. a lot of the republicans, including the republican national committee have been strong suppoers of this notion of free speech rights for rporations. the democrats, the obama administration, the clinton administration lawyer thereas been strongly opposed to the notion of more corporate money in politics so for whenever it is worth, th would be i think

re applauded by the publicans, conservatives, libertarians and opposed by democrats and liberals if the court were to go down this road. >> host: a buer chris mclinn talk as is a corporation different from other groups such as teamsters, religious groups? common ideas, not individual voices. >> guest: there are some similaties. i think the difference between a religious group or some other social group is elenkagan tried to explain, mt people don't know when they have a mutual fund. they own money in corporations where a pension fund, you don't buy the stocks and you really don't do it because you are interested in the company's political views. you are doing it because you think they will,tuff will go up and you will me money so i do think there is a difference

between an interest group that mes together that supports a particular idea or cause are issued and a corporation, that comes together as a pticular legal forum, andt is only real goal is to make money. >> host: on the supreme court october 4th, say c-span will debut its feature series a whole week of programming. there is a documentary on the night of october 4th, which we will tell you more about the building and abouthe justices who work there and then the following weekend we wl have in their entirety each of the one-on-one interviews that seas thank conductedith the sitting justices and justice'connor where they talk to you about their view of the cou's role in society and how they approach their jobs. it is very rare that these justices sit down in frontf television bamer. we iite you to watch and then you can find it on our web site

after it ears. ltimore is up nex david on the democrats line. fa. >> caller yes, how are you doing? >> host: good morning sir. >> caller: when it comes down to campaign contributions to these governments when they are running for offices, all of these industries, corporations and insurance eight companies that give these campaign contributions to the government running an office, then later on when the big scandals come out and the corporations have issues and it seems to me they get better protections in court through the system to help them once they have been allocated as a thug or something like that. it seems to me that most of these insurance companies are getting away with fraud and it

is nothing in the court system that is actually do you know, safeguarding the citizs and the public against this, because they are the big campaign contributions to these governments running in office. and it sms to me that the average citizen is losing out to these big corporations and these insurance companies when they battle fraud in schemes and stuff like that committed by these industries and come in the court and theverage citizen or the public cannot defend theelve against. we wanted to know, where can you take these complaints to a higher court ainst eight insurance compy or corporation that make campaign contributions to the government? >> host: i don't think we can answer the second question that we in yterday's-- would david's preside?

at the expense of the individual? >> gue: elena kagan who was the solicitor a general, her job iso defend e law but also that then the reason why congress passed the law and since waxman was representing mccain-feingold, both of em made the fight-- same point. one of the consistent them in aeerican history, corporations have enormous power because of their ney and wealth. they are going to have some role and influence inolitics. we don't want them to have too much of the world. you allow corporations to be finding candidates direcy through campaign ads and what not the danger is to get lawmakers who basically right all the laws to proct corporations and insurance compans and make the problem worse, more than better. >> host: we have a clip of elena kagan, let's listen to that and then i would like to

talk to you about her debut. >> we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amedment area, precisely because, at least i am, i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbentso draw election restrictions that not favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> i think justice scaa it is wrong. in ft corporate an union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the single most self the ninth thing that congress has ever done. if you look at the last election cycle and look at corporate tax money anthat's where it does, it does ten times more to inmbents thato challengers and in the prior election cycle even mor than that in for an obvious reason, because when corporations play in the political process they want

winners. the one people who were produced outcomes for them and they know the way to get those outcomes, the way to get those winners is to invest in incumbents so that is what they do. as i said in double digits times more than they invest in challenger so i think that rationale, which is undoubtedly truen many contexts, simply is not the case with respect to-- >> host: what was it like in the room, watching her in her first oral argument in her approach to the bench and the justices interactions with there? >> guest: she was very impressive, very good for a argument, particularly they first argument than a complicated piece. what i was most impressed with and that clip highlights a very nicely, she was not shy at all about taking on scalia and roberts and saying no, the premise of your question is wrong. scalia has said several times we

can't trust congress to do this because their self-interest and then she made the point it they really wereelf-interest of they would lift the ban on corporate and union spending becausthe corporations would give the money to them. so she was basically sing several times john robebts said water was supposed to do with a case like this when there's a first amendment issue? she said you what to do what you normal do, decide the case narrowly, focus on the facts and on iue a big role in. roberts has said this several times in the past and i thought she was very quick, very well-prered for this case and i thought sheandled it exceedgly well. you know when you are in a situation like that you are going up against five justices who disagree with you from the start. the matter how well you are going to do you are not going to convince them but she was very good at responding to each of their questions and sort of turning them around and making a strong point of ron.

>>ost: a bolles of lije was not to win but to narrow the scope of the loss? just and whayou suggested. >> guest: her goal was to lose nor-- nearly. >> host: you are trying to say what i tried to say. >> guest: robertsaid you are giving up your argument that was previoly made? she sd no, if we veo lose we would rather lose on these grounds. it is okay to narrow the lot and say an ideological group, a nonprofit group that is incorporated maybe shouldn't b covered by the law but don't go the next step and say all corporations including profit-making aorporations have the same free-speechight. >> ht: we are listening to david savage. the next call for him is from michigan, dave on th republican line. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask the man this question. if you don't want these

corporions to have, we want to restrict their freedom of speech, but why are we doing that when the left, the democrats are continually and publicly assaulting the don't they have their right to defend themselves and suggest that we vote for somebody that won't assault them publicly? and anoth thing, your comment about john mccn, hat is one of the reasons he lost support froms republicans iss very the opinion about campaign finance reform. it was very much to the left of politics, so that logic does not pertain with us conservives. but i would like to know whdo you restrict the corporations speech so much when the left is continuously assaulting them like they are the devils of society? i think they should have a right to defend themselves and make a statement of who they wld like to see an office and who they

wouldn't. >> host: thank you david, you have made the point. >> guest: let me splitted down the middle. they cerinly have right to defend themselves. for example of the insurance companies having heard barack obama speak last night say, we are being unfairly shed and they want to run some public campaign to say ge are the surancindustry. i is not our fault the costs are going up. they are certainly free to defend themselves and spend a lot of money to put out their message and they do that. granted there is this one restriction at is stayed in the law, which is the can't give money directly to the candidates for congress or president and they can run as the safe defeat smith or lech jones said yes there is a restrtion but corporations have a fair amount freedom to give up the message and defend themselves. >> host: the next call is from brooksville, wisconsin, independent line, you are on the

air. >> caller: good morning. thanksor c-span. the reason i'm calling is, during his last presidential election i was listening to a couple of cable channels and they were talking about all of the money that was being donated to candidates from foreign countries and they said what these foreign countries do is they would say, a lot of people suppedly gave a 20-dollar donation and what the foreign countries would do is they would bundle all of these donations they got and send large check two whatever candidate they wanted to. i thought that s against the law. why isn't anybody investigating this? i remember when al gore was running for office, the big scandal there was because i think it was some nuns that were with some aging group and he wasn't supposed to accept that money, so why are they allowing foreign countries, people in

foreign countries to donate money so they can scootur elections and get who they want elected? >> host: caller, thank y. >> guest: you are absolutely right on a lot. that is it is illegal for foreigners or foreignompanies to put money into the election campaigns. i don't know the facts that you are referring to, that that supposedly happened in the 2008 election. it shoulbe investigated in should be stoppedn the federal election commission should look into it by not aware of it. >> host: if corporations are equal to individuals under the first amendment how to corporationsike toyota, honda etc. which are non-american corporations fit into the scheme of things? >> guest: that is a great question. ginsburg asked basically the same question yesterday. you are arguing mr. olson that the is no distinction between individuals and

corporations what do we do with the meghan national corporations there are a lot of companies that operate in this country that are forgn owned companies. can they put money into camp inmates-maggette? it is one of e big problems as they go do this road that you uld have intertion corporations. >> host: here is a c-span watcher that listen to the argument asking what he explained what happens between-- the difference between contributionand expenditus by corporations as discussed during the proceeding? >> guest: this goes back to the valeo casin the mid-70s. the court at that time, this was right after watergate, created a division that is sort of what the seversents and it sort of messed up the laupecode basically said the government can restrict contributions and if i have got millions of dollars the government can restrict it. how uch money i give to a

candidate. i can only give $2,500 but they said if i want to spend money on my o have a free-speech right to do that. that is what actually created the air of self fance candidates, ross perot, steve foes then mayor bloomberg in new york. there is a free-speech right to spend as much as you want but that is still an issue in this case even the conservative justices agreed that the government can forbid corporations from giving money directly to congressional candidates but the s the government cannot forbid corporations frm running campaign ads that say elector or defeat conessman jones so that division between expenditures and contributions is sti around and it is one of the many complexities of the election law. >> host: stephen, chlicothe, ohio you a up next.

>> caller: yes dave, i have a question. i was born in 1943 so there are a lot of my people my age that don't know what was passed. but i understand back in 1945, the massey ferguson act was enacted to exempt the insurance companies from antit laws, which means that five knock rung , they are exempt from paying taxes. what you think that truef, that is the reon why we have the health care and the other things? >> host: tha you. >> guest: i am not familiar with that law. i do no insurance is a state regulate entity. it is a another whole area of law that is the issue in this case but i'm sorry i'm not familiar with that pcular law and what tax winces as it would have.

>> host: james, go ahead. >> caller: real quick. if the white house called the pharmaceutical corporations up to capitol hill or the white house and would shake himown for $80 billion i would think john mccain's naivety comment was in little bit over, over the top because they do strongly believe associations and corporations can do this capitol hill lobbying than they ould also have the right to run advertisements on the television before an election. thank you. >> guest: fair enough. that is the argument. they are into these and they have a free-speech right to lobby so why not go all the way and that candidates and that is what the crt is going to decide. >> host: we are going into an election year and this case obviously could he a big effect on the outcome for the prophets for next year's election depending on how-- when

will we know? >> guest: i think that is one of the reasons they scheduled it early because they want to g this case decided before t election year kicks in. i think december is a good guess. they could hand down a decision in six weeks or six weeks from now but white decision it will be-- somebody writes the descent and they will try to get it out before the end of the year. >> host: thank you so much for being withs to explain not only whatapned but e implications of the decision. david savage of the "los angeles times." >> guest: thank you.

the uss intuable latin the mcquistoversus m2 test it nson kettle philbrick of the senate foreign relations committee hearing the hour and 15 minutes instead that massachusetts senator john kerry. >> today ware honored to be joined by america's top diplomat from baghdad and long time-- we

lookorward to testimy today and i also want to recnize the the efforts of allf our very capable and iould say courageous diplomats who are serving in harm's way. they often, almt always don't get the credit that obviously the soldiers on the front lines get but in many ways they are eqlly at risk and they do an extraordinary job d they deserve our gratitude and we extend to them today and always. six and one-half years after going to war, we are fally entering our iraq endgame. by next august, consistent with the president's februarypeech at camp lejeune, american troop levels will be at 50,000 are lower, barely one-third of where we are today. is the residual force will leave by december of 11, in keeping

with the bilateral security agreement that provides the legal framework for our ongoing presence in iraq. these redeployments are going to take place in a complex political and security landscape ago when the iraqis go to the polls next january they will elected to parliament in gornment and they are also scheduled to participate in a referendum to ratify the security agreement. if the iraqi public rejects t agreent, then i believe we have no choice but to withdraw all of our forces as quickly as we can. this would complicate their redeployment in severely curtail our ability to assist the iraqi security forces and government but at this point i'm n sure how we would justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary if ty are formally thisbided by the iraqi people. in aense security reemt the bush admintration negotiated with prime minister

maliki made moot the old, ould we stay or should we g argument. even so iraq remains frankly a roszakest for punditsnd for policymakers. on the one hand, aerson can look of the security gains since 2006 when sectarian violence threatens to tear iraqis decided part and conclude that the iraqis have stepped back from the brink. and it is true that since the words dates in 2006 than 2007 violence has dropp by 85%, even with the recent mass casualty attacks. eran fatalities are at their lowest rate of the war. al qaeda and iraq, while still deadly, is only a shadow of its former self. there has been politil progress as wel in the january elections, unlike in 2005, sectarian and ethnic

identification is unlikely to be the sole organizing principle of iraqi politics than by no ambassadors hill will share some thoughts with us on that. the leader of the anbar awakening, a group thait evolved out of the insurgency has been talkingpenly about political aiance with shiite prime minister nouri al-maliki. such an announcement would have been unthinkable just 18 months ago. othar sunni factions are exploiting the coation with the kurds. electricity production which have long been stalled quietly increased by 40% in the last year. that is the optimistic side of the legislature, but one can also look the same set of facts on the ground and come to a more complicated, perhaps even pessimistic conclusion, namely that removing an american presence that is then the linchpin of security improvements with the lead iraq back into a downward spiral of communal violence.

it is frankly too soon to know whether the rise in violence since americaforces withdrew from the iraqi cities in june is an uptick or an upswing. whether it is a blip or a trend, reason islands has been troubling. august was the deadliest known for iraqis in more than a year and a devastating bombings agnst e ninth foreign and finance ministries last month were a stark reminder that forc opposed to reconciliation remain capable ofevastating attacks that could alter the country's direction. the attacks were also a blow to the iraqis people's confidence in their own security fgrces and of course iraq's problems don't and there. errett, kurdish tensions remain unresolved. corruption is rampant. millions kf iraqi refugees in the internally displaed persons remain far from home waiting to be resettled.

iraq's relatio with its neighbors are volatile. there are a few, these are just a few of the many challenges iraq is going to face in the coming months so what is it going to be? which do peally represents the outcome? is iraq beginning to unravel again or just the inevitable bugs in the road for returning responsibility of iraq to iraqis? what will happeafter we leave? we don't have definitive answers but as one who is long advocated the response of a redeployment of american troops from iraq that believe the president has made the mosof the difficult situatio that he inherited there. at this point in our missi america must approach the rack with a dose of humilit ere are limits to what we can accomplish there and we may be approaching those limits. as the iraqi politics, we no

longer have thebility to dictate outcomes in ples where we did or if we ever did. whe the american people stand read to help iraqis, it is time to take the training wheels off and let the iraqito find their own future. the task aheads we drawdown our forces is to provide a nudge here and there to ensure that iraq doe't crash when the wheels to come off. in the last year so that maliki vernment has been increasingly keen to signal it is in corol and capable of maintaining secuty. we should encourage this. aqis ability to keep their own use in order is the key to leaving behind a stable iraq. in the meantime perhaps the tragic bombing spoke persuade iraq's leaders to make a more honest look at their capabilities in needs. today iraqi politics have room to breathe in ways that they simply didn't have in 2006 or

2007 but the real test remains, not just for prime minister maliki but all of iraq senior leaders. are they willing to make the political compromises necessary to forge a sustainable political compact that provides the foundation for a stabl iraq? that the answe will go a long way to determining iraq's future. of mr. ambassador iraq today i think evidenced here in this room to some degree has become the now forgotten war whereas afghanistan was previously, largely pushed offhe headlines and out of the evening news but that that's a mor tk any sier and i don't need to be thone to tell you that. the families of the 130,000 troops and 1,000 diplomats in iraq need no remindethat their loved ones remain in hs way. just two days ago for american soldiers were tragically killed.

afghisn will receive a lot of attention in the comingeeks including by this committee, as it should but i hope thi hearing will help serve as a reminder that while it is coming to a close, our mission in iraq is not yet over. i look forward to hearing your testimony and i thank you for making the trip back to washingt to be with us today. senator lugar. >> thank you mr. chairman hare and welcome back to the committee ambassadors hill. two months ago i the privilege of meeting with prime minister maliki as he read the iraqi delegation in the signing of the pipeline treaty. he predicted that exports from his country would still have that pipeline. two weeks later the prime minister m with this committee here in the capitol, presenting a confident face to members of the-- as they questioned him on

everything from i ran in kurdish relations to refugee return and the readiness of the security forces and his government to deliver for the iraqi people. in the international arena of mr. maliki is traveling extensively, making the case that his country iready to join the community onations to emerge from chapter 7 status to carry on responsively as mature state. domestically as t prepares for the january 16th elections, he is projecting com, confidence in full control of all quarters asserting the aqi sovereignty and advancing and the iraqi first agenda. however the devastating car bombing attacks inside the bad debt securities on three weeks ago which killed scores and injured hundrs more, strip off e confident the near. the coordinated explosions which

targeted finance buildings rattled the govnment and the prime minier who pointed fingers and second-guessing decisions to bring down surity barriers in parts of baghdad. senior members of the government even questioned the reliance on u.s. forces for security. the answer showed that a smooth bypass for iraq is very unlikely. their positive signs in iraq but the political accommodations sought by the united states has notome about despite the political space created by the surge and other factors. the central government remains weak and ethnic and sectarian divisions remain. appears influencing comptroller achieved by traditional means and meanwhilehe government models today today operations. serious questions remain about our policies going forward in our stregy for the president in the vice presidencontinue to speak about troops coming

home at the end of 2011 but we do not hava clear understanding of how the withdrawal will occur under optimal conditions, much less the worst-case scenarios. metricsoming out of mnf and embassy in baghdad point to positive directions. that wou be a welcome change to the repressible suation of earlier years. today ambassadors hill, from you we need realism not the naïve opportunism of the authority base to assess whether strategic foundation is firm. key questions for you today would include furs, and the last few years many critics charge we were taking our eyes off the ball with respect to afghanista are we at riskf taking our eyes of the other ball as t@e new resources shiffer my rack. is planning for withdrawal in

normalization diverts attention from riorities delia head in iraq particularly beyond the january election. are we developing lasting relationships in institutions, having moved from the construcon phase it not as easy to see progress wn power generators are not theroduct by assuring the rack inot backsling. and third what and who will fill the power void as u.s. force withdraw, first from cities but progressively from the entire country. the house to withdraw is even more important thathe wind. the kdishegion has been brt sibley, and the crisis group recently warned a destructive political conflicts could arise over kirkuk as the iraq's army and kurdish forces are opposing formations.

can this confrontation be resolv and what are the consequences if it is n? the czar iraq's neighbors blank instruct pearls? what about iran? to putogether a coalition, is there ahancthat the platform of develop a new way tt further breaksown sectarianism and finally do we and the iraqis see eye to eye on the prairies going ahead? arana policy foundations firm? are you receiving the clarity of direction you need from washington? as we work to complete the appropriation bill for 2010 the answer to these basic questions are essential to the work ofhe congress and to this committee. as much as we'd like you to be the one to tells wh things will look like at the end of 2011, it is more important to give us yotr best guess on how things are progressingoward

that they and how things stand today. we thank you so much for coming. >> thank you very muchenator gar. ambassador we look forward to your testimony and thank you for being with us here today. thank you very much chairman kerry. i have a statement. >>e will put the full statement in the record as if read in fallen that will give us more time to have a full dialogue. >> members of a committee thank you for the opportunityo speak today about our opportunities to men iraq as we transition from the military to civilian led mission and our efforts to develop a strong long-tm relationship with iq. this is the start of a 12 month period at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn. >> is that my phone? this is the start of a 12 month period and which, during which or at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn.

we have huge interest in capitalizing on the oppornity in iraq. iraq is athe center of the middle east bordering key countries like saudi arabi iran and our nato ally, turkey. it is the border between kurdish lands and arab lands and it is real where sunni meet shia. it is really a ry central part of the middle east in something, a country which wput should have the enduring interest. for tha first time in decades and that the rack is a chance to become an engine for regional stability and reonal enomic growth rather than a source of regial tension and dispute. a convergence of events presents the psibility ogenuine advancement. our civilian effort will help foster security directive diplomacy to begin to resolve the eternal disputes by showing

the iraqis out to build a market oriented economy of genuinely representative and accountable government. overtime as we make progress in the economic and political goals we will see signaficant reduction in our civilia presence both in the provie andhe embassy in baghdad but for now during this transition we intend to actually stngthener civilian presence as a military begins to ramp down. we need to show we are taking over some of the tasks our military has been engaged and than that will mean, strengthen civilian operation began also to ramp down. mr. chairman as iraq is indeed suffered a series of attacks over the last weekr, including several minority communities, particularly horrifying with the attacks on the iraqi foreign and finance ministries on august 19, but in that the reality is e

iraqi people have stood firm and rejectedetribution and so far they have prevented the beginning of a new cycle of violence. it doesn't mn that these attacks don't need to be taken seriously. they do need to beaken with great seriousness that we have found tha the iraqi ppl are reacting well to this. we have found that the iraqi security forces are reacting well to this and w believe this is rlly quite a change from in the past. also there has bee some good news in iraq as well. the sge to rounds ofhe ccessional elections of the provincial council elections in jaary and thelections in the kurdistan regional government just a couple of months ago in july. in both cases voting was free, theron provincial. th kw that the voters will have an opportunity to judge their performance.

preparations said the gun for national elections scheduled in january 2010. the council o representatives is working on an election law to govern the conduct of electins. iraq's hi electoral commission has begun to register votersnd political parties in negotiating collections. we will continue to work with the iraqieadership to ensure this process is compled. in tconomic area i racks economy remains very much a work in progress. it is beset by drought, falling oil prices earlier this year which indeed hurt the budget but this production and export levels have begun to increasen oil recovered, oilrices hav recovered in recent months 's budget has improved somewhat. nevertheless we have many near-term fiscal concerns about the fiscal stability. iraq it's going toave to work very closely on a standby agreement with the intnational monetarq fund and were pleased it isoing so. it also needs to undertake economic refor which will lay

the groundwork for greater help from the world trade organition. we can be helpful. in the economy the time has come for iraq to step up in the play. thers the question of iraq has the resources to be stable and successful but it needs to better mobilize these resoues starting with the oil. the iraqi people are blessed with enormous oil reserves estimate to be in theumber three country in the world and on june 30 of theirraqi ministry of oil held the first round in iraq's-- with 32 international oil cpanies competing for the six oilfields, and one field was awarded. it is a major field and if it livs up to its expectations it is possible iraq's oil exports could actually double from this one eld alone. iraq needs to do more in this area and we need to work closely with the iraqis because we need to see increasingly iraq thing for its own bills as we ramp

down our bilateral assistance. iraq nee to work on ae diversified economy and we are very pleased that prime minister maliki and we have worked together on the u.s. iraq business and investment conference to be held on october 20 it here in washington. 200 representatives from iraq will attend the conference. there will be a delegation of senior officials and we hope this conferee together with a hi level, it discussions with high-level officials of the dialogue of economic cooperation will really act to spur investment in iraq. the on some of these economic issues i want to stress that the iraqis used to not exist in a vacuum. a bucket the map shows iraq is located in the center of a complex neighborhood. iran's influence is very much a reality. we recognize elements of the rent influence such as trade and religious tourism can have a positive impact but too often

iran plays in-rope, meddling in iraq's internal intert in training beilin malicious. tensions persist between baghdad and damascus. jerkiest petulant jewson the north and iraq's history with talid is difficult and the problems reachack beyond 1990. there is a fundamental question, is the sunni arab world prepared to make room for an arab state that will be let in all probability though not domined but led by the shia? how iraq dealsith its neighbors will define whatind of region emerges in the comg ars. we need to help iraq find solutions to some of these longstanding regional issues. i think our diplomacy in iraq both internally and in bilateral terms but also multilaterally will have the vital role to play. we have expanded our efforts to facilitate force containing the beginning to resolve disputes in

northern ira beten the kurds and arabs. i was just in the iraqi kurdistan of the weekend discussingow we can move forward on issues like developing vital oil sectors in a way that benefits all iraqis in how to address, begin to address the thorny dispute in kirk cook. we need to begin the process of getting various ethnic and sectarian communities engaged unsettling their disputes. the u.n. has an important role and we want to work closely with the u.n.. our diplomatic track is designed to fully complement our military efforts to foster cooperation between kurdistan regional security forces and peshmerga and those of the central government in baghdad and general odierno has been very much engaged in this area. i think hping, we need to, we need to understand that the decision or theirst milestone of the security agreement that

is removing u.s. cities-- u.s. forces from the cities and villages in iraq on june 30th turned out to be an important da more peoe than many people tught because for many iraqi people they look to the question, with the u.s. fill s obgations under the security command and that think the overwhelming majority of iraqis cizens to believe we have done just that. this decision, or the state has turned up to a very important date because iraq-- iraqis see that the u.s. can be trusted in the agreements we signed and i think the iraqis are very interested in moving on to see begi implement the strategic framework agreement. thstrategic framework agreement for the sort of companion piece to the security agreement lays out all the elements of a long-term relationship with iraq and this is the agreement we very much want to follow and to guide us

in the years ahead. to be sure, the transition to a civilian led mission presents many chalenges for us. we need first of all to make sure if we have the fundi to takep task that our military has been proving in the past and the state department has been workingard to make sure we have the funding. there are elements of the assistance that for example police training that the military has been engaged and. these will be transferred to the state department and we are very much on the issues. i think this strategic framework agreement that we are pursuing was verch the focus of prime minister maliki's visit to washington in july. he and secretary clinton convenedhe second meeting of the higher court dating committee. weiss stavish joint corda eshing committees and we will continue

to be very much engaged on these issues. mr. chairm, withhose comments of our overall trends d nigh. stand ready to hear your questions. >> thank you verch ambassador. we will do seven minutes rounds as we have a numbe of senators here and try to expedite. you mentioned the strengthen cilian efforts. what do you mean by that? we have the largest embassy in the world. our unvisioning-- spp embassy is indeed very large and frankly it is unsustainable in its current configuration and will need to get smaller. just on the issue of housing for employees re set up for about 600 employees. we have some over 1,000 people there. we have taken one bedroom apartments, but she brought divider through a small living room and made them into a o-bedroom apartments.

42 unrelated the employees, just in terms of the physical infrastructure we are not set up for the size we are and we need to get smaller. that said there certain gravitas and the very nearerm that we need to take up and take up with great seriousness to make sure first of all the iraqis derstand that the u.s. is not leaving, the u.s. forces may be leaving but the u.s. is not leaving. chief among these of course is the issue of the police training, the function that was peormed by the military which will soon be performed by people from the state department. so, in doing that we need to look at the overall, what, how we protect these people, are we going to have to have additional security for these people know that we no loger have u. forces to do that? there will be some near-term issuesike that. the overl footprint o the u.s. and indeed the overall funding for the u.s. will go

precipitously down. the issue is how in some areas we have to makeover for what the military has them but i want assure you mr. chairman i want to see that embassies smaller. >> mr. m bester you also talked about the issue of reform in iraq and you know we have been sitting on this committee listening to this talk and i can member secretary rice down in th lower building, the lower rung of t dirksen testifying three or four years ago saying the oil law is almost don we are moving forward on this and that, etc. etc. we are least freer for leaders-- years later and still those remain contentious. it seems to me that those may be e explosion points also in the absence of an american presence. would you en your view on that and on the prospect of actually resolving these?

>> first of all i would like to say getting t economy the and operating, namely getting oil starting to be pumped out of the ground is essential to the future of the country, and frankly, we cannot be funding things that should be funded by the iraqis can would be funded if they were able to move on the oil sector. wi regard to the hydrocarbon law i will-- when out there with the expectation that we would move on that but i know it has been held up for three or four years. i have really brought that issue. we tried to break it down and find that where the real differences are between the kurdish government and the iraqi governnt. it is a complex piecof legislation involving four separate pieces of legislation having t do with revenue sharing, having to dwith the institution building, having to

do with how the ministry would operate in a realistically speaking it will probably not get them before the january elections. so our concern has been the cannot have-- held hoste to this one piece of legislation. therefore, we were pleased that th iraqis did move ahead with the beginning of something they hadn't done for decades and decades and that is bin the press of bidding oilfields to foreign concern. they didn't do it during saddam and they dn't even do it pre-sadd, so they have begun that. >> that is all well and good but if all those revenues a piling up in even greater amountsnd without some distribution mechanism-- >> there is the distribution mechaism. the 17% is basicay agreed by all sides so even when the kurdish regional government, when they were able to export

some oil with an agreement with baghdad they did it under the provision of 17% so i think these things can't be properly distributed. the issue is, i won't say the long run but certainly the medium run they are going to need this law because t main issues go to things like infrastructure. aq's oral structure is very much in trouble with aging infrastructure. they at deborah agreements on how to pay for that other issues having to do with the southern part oiraq in their o regional concerns so i think they can deal with some of the key elements but itould be much better they dealt with the kiger cochra law. i am giving you my sense of the situation and i don't think we are going to get there before january and that way we rlly want t focus on getting them to bed of these deals because of getting british petroleum and there's the good development.

>> mr. ambassador syria and iraq had indicated a willingness to try to cooperate on the borders and be able to find the fighter issue which is very much in our interests and we have been pushing th on both sides but the bombing in august 19th have now seen sort of an explosion between the two countries. they pulled their ambassadors and traded recriminations, so where do we stand on that? what if anything can be done to end that? will turkish mediation make a difference? is there sething that we should be advocating at this point in what you think is the prospects for getting back to the place that we hope to be? >> i think we would like to see iraq and syria have a good relationship and it w@s rather ironic that on august 18th, 1 day before the bomng, the prim minister maliki was in damascus and signed a number of onomic agreements. obviously things are in a difficult stage and this are

frkly on hold ght now through this downturn and the relationship. the iraqis areery concerned about the fact that some senior baathists leaders wynton found refuge in syria and remained in syria and the iraqis have derstandably called for their return to iraq. that iue need to be, frankly needs to be workedhrough. in terms of foreign fighters, there has been a diminished flow of forei fighters from seriate to iraq but i don't think anyone could say that is gone to zero and the issue of foreign fighters in syria is also an issue that w need to, i think everybody needs to be focused on. the iraqis in their investigation of august , came to the conclusion that this is more than an al qaeda strike. they believe there is

considerable externals influence in this. eir fingers tend to point towa syria we would like to work with the iraqis on what evence they have. we would like to sre with the iraqis what evidence we have to try to understand precisely what happened, and then get on with deaing with that and improving the relationship. syria obviously has been a troubled neighbor for iraq but i think in the long run iq needs to develop this relationship. prime minister maliki spent 18 months-- years and is live in syria so when one talks about syria you have to do it with respect that the fact that he knows a thing it to about a. >> thank you mr. chairman. ambassad, as americans read th newspapers about the tax now

in iraq, the question is ised in a common-sense way. ter the withdrawal of our forces from the cities on june the 3h, what is the outlook of the ordinary iraqi citizens in cities aut his or he security, or about their homes, their neighborhoods? in essence there was rejoicing that we have fulfill their commitment and we did so, and yet even the people that we have tried to train have left-- seem to be inadeate for that task. granted the numbers of casualties are dn andhe number of attacks by any statistical measurement but@ nonetheless, life has to go on inn ordinary way for peopl with or withouthe united

states. what is your prognosis of the curity arrangements iraqis are providing for themselves and the perceptions of their citizens about that? .. >> yeah. i think with regard to perceptions, obviously, there are concerns ang iraqi citizenry about the capability of their forces and their ability to handle a great security challenge, which their own government believess not ju developed within iraq, but also has someoreign roots. so this is a major issue there. that said, i think the locust of opinions that it is time for e iri forces to protect iraqis. ald so the u.s. forces, which i do believere the greatest fighting force theorld hasom

ears been tremendous effort put into making sure the iraqi is are able to manage this issue. we have a great deal of cooperation as we try to have transparency and what we know about the situation and what they know. the iraqi is will do things a little differently than the u.s. forces aome of the things they do in our opini all to be changed. the question is can you get them to change things or do they have to change by experience? one issue is checkpoints one issue is you have checkpoints enough to solve these problems do you have to have much more aggressive patrolling that sort of thing. so i think tse are things the iraqi forces are entirely capable of learning. right after august 19th there was a lot of things, war the police doing enough, the army during enough, etc.. i council this isn't a ti for finger-pointing.

there will be plenty of time for that in the future. what they need to do is come tother and figure out how to do things better. there has been a lot of talk whether these issues are related to brhnging down the team balls. i t anyone was visited the foreign ministry and indeed i took some of your colleues to realize that it wasn't just an issue of the tea balls, ipas very well funded terrorist group with large truck platform now carrying thousands of tons of explosives doing damage to thi in a way i think most americans understand you think back to oklahoma city. it was that ty of agricultural chemical-based wh it. so my judgment is the iraqi forces and indeed theraqi

government is. i also am of the judgmenthat they will learn from these teible events and will make the adjustments they need to make i don think this is a note -- this is a function of the fact that somehow if we turn it over to them i hear fro now or two years from now the issue would be much dferent. i think they have to simply learn and i think they are doing that. they are very capable people in the security forces. >> let me ask a follow-up to that about the security of american personnel. you' indicated a thousand people are in iraq and in diplomatic situation. but these news accounts would indicate more persons americans are in iraq still completing various projects. what security do your personnel have were the people doing the

ojects, and how much security as we to b required in this period of time we have to get all of the equipment and infrastrucre whatever we have in my back all of iraq? it must be a he deployment withdraw situation not just the people, of a plot all these goods and armaments. how was the preceding? >> i think the military is working the logistics very well of how they will get their personnel and equipment out of iraq. but the roes they will use, how they will protect the force. as a humble a american ambassador i don't think i can give any advice to general odierno on this matter except to say that as the general statement let me say the environment in my back tends to be vy dangerous. and if you just measure progress in iq by the degree of danger,

i think it is very much in t interest oterrorist and insurgence to crte the impression that it's extremely dangerous therefore there has been very little progres we believe that we have adequate security to protect our civilians. when i go out i go out very much and reinforce convoys. i must say as a personal observation when you arrived there and look at the nuer of people tt have to be moved when i need to go from point a to point b you think to yourse to i need to go from point a to int b.? can i do this on the phone or something? but soon you realize if you allowed yoursf to be just motivated by worrying about how many people are moving when you're moving you won't be able to get your job done. so, a lot of security people are moved whenever dlomats mover in the country. weind it absolutely essential to get into the so-called red

zone. i say soalled because outside the green ze is the red zon. but we need to be out there. it is not without risk. we have lost people in the embassy. we may lose people in the future. we believe it's the right approach. we take all precautions. nobody is interested in doi anything against precautions of securityeople. so it is a very tough environment. i must say arriving their realizing the difficulty just getting from the aport to the embassy we are all very struck by it but we are not cui to get into it. we are going to get our job done to stand the job up, and when our people believe they will leave with a sense ojob accomplished and that is what we are going to d >>hank you, sir.

>> thank you, senator lugar. setor feingold. -- before, and askour help for being here. i would likeo thank the aian for holding this and i am pleased we have a timetable for ending involvement and the war in iraq and while i am concerned that the redloyment is not being done as promptly as it should be this step will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al qaeda. i remain convinced as foreign occupations are usuahly not a good strategy for combating a global terrorist network we need to fild ways to relentlessly pursue al qaeda while simultaneously developing long-term parerships with legitimate lal actors to the koza with through efforts that do not involve a massive military footprint. and now as we transition out of iraq is extremely important we focus on making this orderly withdrawal doing everything we can through dipmatic means to help promote political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peac to iraq. as to some questions, ambassador, how do the iraqi people feel about a redeployment u.s. troops by the end of 2011 a required by the

bilateral@@ agreement? is there any -- is tre a danger that any indication we are backing away from that commitment will be greeted with strong opposition? >> i think the dates of december, 2011, august, 2010 were agreed with iraqi government and at the end of 2008. i think any indication that we were not prepareto live with the states woulde poorly received by the iraqi people. and indeed we solve this in the movement of the cities in ju 30th, 20 alana. whenever we try to discuss that in terms of nuances immediately the iraqi media, the iraqi public got concerned that somehow we were looking for way not to accomplish that. in the end, we did exactly what we said we would do which is we pulled our people out of phe

cities and i think it really has stopped a reservoir of trust that when you reach an agrment with americans you can take it to the bank. so, i think it's very important to live up to these agreements and i think the iraqi people even though they do have great concern about security i think they want toe responsible or see their country responsible for their own security. else said earlier this will be difficult moments ahead, but these will be none the less iraqi moments to handle and i think they will deal with this. we are dealing with a very confident people, very intelligent people and they will know what to do. >> thank you. the iraqi government tends to hold a nationwide referendum on the bilateral status of forces agreement and while there has been a lot of speculation how

this could impact redeployment timetable. i would like to also point out both iraqi parlient and iraqi people have had a chance to vote on the agreement even though the u.s. senateas not can you assure no potential modifications to the security agreement will be submitted to the senate for ratification? >> the issue of the senate ratificaon of my ret but i will take that question to the state department and get you an official answer on that. i can give you my personal opinion at we wou not want to be changing this -- we would not engage in changing this security agreement without considable consultation, but as with e actual relationship between the senate and executive i would like to defer to a wyer at the state department. >> tnk you for that answer and i look forward t further comments on that after you've

done that. the recent revelations about the security in the sea continue to have -- to have adequate security do you think you would be preferable to have the military provide security for u.s. embassies in war zones which would insure we have a legally nding commanand control over such psonal? >> you know i believe our military has been tasked with a lot and this@ is one wherehen we talk about security personnel and embassy this is one we ought to take and i believe these contractors who report to mission elements to intered report to me that we have adequate control and what i can assure you is i will do my best to make sure we don't have incidents. incidents d happen. they have been everywhere, every

institutiobut i can assure yo we do a lot to try to ensure they don't happen. and i would rather not task the military with still another miion. >> tnk you. according to the department state inspector general, tre is no plan in place regarding diplomatic if we are not adequately prepared for military redeployment. in response to stateepartment has produced a unified transition plant whichas under review when can we expe to see a final approved transitionlan to ensure diplomatic operations remained an interrupted as the jointlproducg a plan with the department ofefense in order to ensure the transition is well cord need? >> we are working very closy with our colleagues at mnfi selling palender ambassador whdeals on a daily basis with

military. we also have a joint campaign plannd work through it on a daily basis. we know the absolute responsibility. we have as a state department to ensure the gains that have been achieved by our men and women in uniform are not lost. i mean, that we pick up and take the ball whethey get it and we are ready to move with it. so we will -- we have an overall joint campaign plan. we have a number of other documents in terms of the planning how we take over funcons whether it is police training and im sure we can share those with the committee. >> is there a unified transition plan that is under review the we are going to be able to see? when will we be able to see that? >> you will be able to see the joint campaign plan we worked out with military but i am not sure about the other document may be likened to the question

thank you mr. ambassador. >> thank you senator feingold. senator corker. -- before. good to have you back. and mr. ambassador, for your service, thank you very much. i know typically we would have witnesses from state departmt and/or services would have witnesses from the military. but to follow a little bit with senator feingold's comments, or questions, the takg down from 130,000 troops to 50,000 troops is a pretty big logiscal feed and i know we are going to stay pret and up until the after the elections and then vy shtly thereafter be down to 50,000 troops. are you comfortable that logistically in doing that the plans are being set in place to make that happen? >> i'm very comfortle. i talked with generaldierno on a number of occasions. he has some of the finest players i have ever seen working on thiand you're quite right the overall nbers stayed pretty much constant although they are coming down a little

already. but they stayed pretty much constant through the january eltion andhen start ramping down in the spring. and his players work this very carefully. >> so, to the hardware, anybody -- all of us have been there, and thamount of hardware o the ground negative quote shock most people th haven't seen the billions and billions of dollars of equipment that is there. you know, what is -- what is going to be the outcome of that? to me th is an even greater logistical wish you as to h we move all the hardware out of the country, where is it planng to go at this moment? uld you give some insight? >> again i have to defer to my colleagues in the military but there are some 2 million pieces of hardware in that country. it is simply extraordinary vehicles and generators, things like that. what you gere discussing or what you're asking though is a suect of ongoing planng by the military to cede which

things are worth carrying back to the states, which might be left for civilian use that awe take over the military role such as i keep mentioning police training but that is one of the most obvious because it is one of the biggest so the questi is whether there is hardware on that side, the military side that could be transferred to the civilians. we are looking at that issue. there is of course the issue of the iraqi army and what equipment would be appropriate to be transferred to them and then whether there is any other regional contingency for that equient. i agnaldo the one to talk about -- i am not a boat wt to talk about how the military should be divided, but i can assureou there is a very active discussion especially within mnfi and other military planners on how to do that. >> one can't help buthen you sit and talk to the leaders to

realize there is no way that iraq as a country even with the amount of oil they have and revenue generated there is no way in the short term they can sustain themselves but it's terribly. i an, with the troops, the police, allf the things, the reconstruction that's necessary. am wondering if he might talk a little bit about how long you think you wilbe into the future that we as a country are supporting iraq finafcially. >> senator, i think that is a very fair question. iraq needs to stand up a lot more revenue. and in pticular,hey have only in august of this year reached 2 million barrels a day of oil exports. this is a country that is at leasthe third largest holder -- third larst oil reserve in the world.

some 115 barrels of oil on th ground. i think they have to do a lot better job of getting the oil sector to srt pumping this out, which is why earlier we were discussg this iue of the bids and the fact they give to brishetleum dor negotiation a field called ramadi which is down in the south. if that goes well, ramadi will get somethg over the next five years, and tnk's it's kind of the time frame to answer your question. within this five-year perio we should be looking at, just from that field, they should be able to get up to maybe on the order of 1.7 million barrelsay. put that together with too, that is almost doubling their exports. so in the timeframe i would say in the next three to fiveears they should be able to substantially increase their exports and therefore their funding. >> but not to support themselves as a country? >> no, i think they can. i ink ifhey are -- you know,

they have enormous supply of oil, and i think if they start getting that out of the ground and suming oil prices are what thre, iraq should able to pay their own bills. there's no question the should be able to pay their own bills. but they have to do is get over the notio-- and it is a notion that goes beyond or before saddam hussein. it goes into the 1950's. it goes maybe even into the british occupation in the 20s and 30's this notion that they don't want to see assets be tued over to foreigners to develop a they have got toet over that. there is a sign of that in june when british petroleum was invited and to negotiate on the field. they are going to do additional bids later this year and we a hoping this will result in substantially increased oil. i mean remember this is the third largest reserve of the world. there's no reason thecannot pay their bills. >> last night when the president

spoke he continues to compare himself very favorably the previous administration especially as it relates to dgetsss, which by the way of the budget isss i very much am glad that is the case, that you are feeling they will continue the patte of not asking for any money for iraq and supplementals but it will be done per normal budget request an through normal appropriations. >> againhow moneys are to request either through supplementals or through the normal budget process is aet of decisions that goes beyond my averitt and in baghdad i have enough problems in baghdad but what i canell you is we need certain funng for our operations inaghdad and funding for the various programs we are dng and it's thesual

push and pull but i believe we are getting what we need in order to get the job done and another thing i can aure you iq we are going to be vigilant on what -- how that money is spent. i have taken -- we have an ambassad who came out ned patricia and put her in charge of all of these assistance matters so everything comes to her and we are looking to see whether these things are working, whether the iraqi is are using them d if all we are going to cut them. >> my time is up and i know my colleague from maryland is next. i do hope in writing after this you will potentially give an update where the u.n. sanctions issues are as it relates to iraq. obviously the sanctions in place and 1991, the great work you'r doing has cost iraq to be a very, very different count as have many others. there have been huge sacrifices by many folks that's inhibiting

iraq's progress and i just love have a written update wh is happening to change that because my time is up. again, thank you f your service. >> that is one of my favorite subjects and i would be ppy to be in touch with you on that. >> thank you, senator corker. senator cardin? >> thank you -- >> everybody, we have a vote i think in ten mutes or so. there may be a another round of people want to have- >> ambassador hillt's always a pleasure to with you. thank you again for your service in iraq. i've talked to you befe about the issue of iraqi refugees and displaced persons. significant number stilliving in jordan and syria and certainly what are no longer living or they used to. can you brg us up-to-date with the iraqi government has been doing in regards to the refugee

issue is? what is happening in the neighboring countries? and whether were actively involved in trying to encourage more activities with regards to the refugees? >> senator we are very much acvely involved. first of all, in terms of internally displaced people there have been progress getting people back to their homes. it's often called an easy process becse of their behalf to eject pple from their homes before we can bring the origal holders back. i will tell you though very frankly that the progress on refugees some 1 milln or 1.5 milln refugees who are mainly in and jordan and syria. we have named speal coordinators to deal with this in the washington and. i have an extremely capable refugee coordinator in the embassy in baghdad who have a lot of experience in this.

and we have -- need from the iraqi say similar commitmento bring these refugees home. the iraqi soft and tel us there are no barriers, ty can simply come home. we believe more needs to be done to make sure they feel welcome and safe. so, i can assure you this is a real priory because these refugees in places like syria and jordanre not having an easy time. it's costing everyone money and we would like to get them home. i have raised thisith the iraqi government and i will continue. there is one specific thing the agreed to name an interagency coordinator cause this can't just be dealt with in the ministry of immigration. the need to have a more interagency proce. the degree to do this and i think that we are going to hold them to it.

>> thank you. i've had a chance to deal th some iraqi refugees in syria and jordan andou're absolutely right tt there is safety issues of concern. there are more complications than just being able to return to iraq itself and it does require the attention of the iraqi government and its of the areas i have had great concern whether they are getting high enough priority on this issue. i know they are concerned about it but i would urge you to continue to press for progress. this is a humanitarian issue and one that needs to be dealt with by iraq if it is going to be able to move forward in governing its people. >> iompletely agree with you another element is a lot of these refugees are precisely the kind of skilled people that iraq needs back in the country. savitt is not just that the refugees need to get back. iraq needs these people back so with your permission i would

like to take yo comments back to the iraqi govnment and stress the fac this is a major issue back here in washington that we look at this issue closely. the u.s. is very much engaged in helping refugees throughout the world and expect our partners to be similarly engagedn thi >> could you give a little more detail as to what is happening betwn syria and iraq since the august bombings? whether there is diplomatic counications and progress being made between the two countries, whether the united states has a role tolay or not and justhe loss in more how affecting the relationships between iraq and syria. >> there is no question it affected the ongoing relationship. on august 18th, the day before the bomng plan minister maliki was in damascus for the first me and in man months and they gned economic agreements and agreed to ke somprogress so

that was probly the high point. at a laterhere was the bombing, to bombings in baghdad of course and within da the iraqi govnment expressed very public concern about syria's role. i think as that has happenethe ambassadors have been recalled. there is dialogue. there are diplomatic communications and as you know, turkey has attempted to try to do some mediation. but i think their needs to be further work in terms of syria needs to understand the depth with which the iraqi consider the fact the syrians have given refuge to senior members of the ba'ath party who are very much dedicated to a violent change in iraq. this is very much sothing a iraqis worry about we havbeen concerned in the

past about the flowof foreign ters through syria. this is diminished in recent years but it hasn't stopped. so, it iimportant for us to see this situation calmed down but i would like to make a broad point which is with the iraqi sourcing is that some of the problems of terrorism they are encountering including these mammoth bombs which were oklahoma-city like were bombs that couldn't b done just by people in the country. there is for an influence and for this reason iraqis have go to the united nations and asked for additional help and i think their prime minister sent a letter to secretary-general balky new. i know the u.s. is consideri what to do about this so the point the iraqi is are making is

the issue goes beyond iraq and the neeneighbors to sp up on this including syria. i would like to say as i sit in the opening testimony one of the real tests are the questions to put it that way for the region is can region which is dominated by sunni governmts, can they make room for an arab ate that will probab have shia government, are they prepared to do that? this is a changin the equation if saddawas very much a sunni so when we look at the influence is in iraq we have to be number onconcern about iran beuse they've been very much present in iraq and a very malevolent wayutlso we have to be concerned about the sunni countries where there has been evidence to sugst they have been funding some of the terrorism and aye.

>> i think we would be interested in findg out as much infmation as we can on cereus's role with rard to iraq. it's not unique to iraq our concerns about cei and transport support for terrorism and i think it would be important for us to be kept iormed as to what we determinecereus the five roles in regard to the august bombing. >> th@nk you, senator cardin. the vote has started but i want to try to ask a few more questions before we break out of here. first of all with respect to the relationship senator cardin referred to which is the majori of the neighborhood i am concerned about what you said

and can you be more specific a little bit about where the pockets of tension wh respect to the relationship in the sunni world are coming om and how rious is that as we go forward with less american presce? >> what we want to be concerned about or what we want to avoid is the situation whe countes think or equate the withdrawal of u.s. troops, witrawal of cuba's interest in the region, i am sorry, u.s. interest in iraq we would like to stand up to a long-term relationship with iraq. we want to be activ we've invested heavily in every way so we want to be very much

there. and if there is a perception in e neighborhood that somehow the u.s. lost its interest in iraq we could have a great game going on where neighbors including especially iran, but also sunni states as well as he somehow that iraq is up for grabs, and so that's what we are main concerned about. now, >> are using that is the curre sunni perception? >> it is a perception among some sunni countries. i don't want to name names, but i do believe some sunni countries believe that somehow it's an aberration phat there is a shia government that somehow in january i willlip back and they just need to be a little patient or show a little more effort to try to g the sunni

parties to be better funded and somehow theyould emerge victorious with a split shia community. my point is there is a perceptionn iraq that they could be subject to this kind of process of neighbors trying to influence the outcome of elections. i think that would be very dangerous and i think it is very much a perception that we need to tapown especially with other countries in the region. we need to convince countries in the region that the answer to iranian mischief is and sunni mischief, the answer to the iranians malevolence is to do what turkey is doing, that is to be openly engaged in iraq and trying to help what is a very difficult time. in our view a strongraq is essential to the region. >> what do you worry aut the most? next aprilo august we will

draw down ostensibly some 70, 80,000 troops. the election takes place in january and it may well be they galt have a governme set up by the time the drdown takes place. >> aadi worry about precisely that issue. that is i feel the real threats are not necessarily security because i think in the long run the iraqi figure out security. i worry about developing the political foibles of the game and what i don want to see is an election that results in six months of government formation during which there is a loss of some of the progress that has been made so why worry it will take a long time to form a government after january. >> do you pick up any whisperings were discussions in back rooms or prately? do you of an expression of fear about the potential of a greater

flow of power to permit mr. maliki and a greater grasp of power and the potentialor democratization in some affect? welcome senator come the privac of this hearing room i will say that indeed when the you talk to iraq we are i any election period and there are strong opinions about pmm and mr. maliki across the board and if you listen to all of those opinions that is our job in t embassy to understand what people are thinking. yes you will hear the opinion you just expressed. you also hear the opinion that because prime minister maliki's government was put together with great care after a great deal of political horsetradinge has a situation some of his ministries in his view hour of loyal or functioning so he in appointing people around him in the prime mister's office to be essentially what a ministerial

function because he needs to get the job done and often this is a country where the ministries often deal with just providing basic services. that sort of thing. so, you hear other peoe say he needs to get thesehings. he needs to bring the these people all around him in order to gethe job done. >> but has been the impacon fortunately wa have to cutff because i have to go vote but what has been the impact of abdul's passing in the times of the power center? >> i think it is too early to tell at this point. i went down to the compoundhat day or a few days later for part of the memorial morning at period and it was quite exaordary. every senior iraqi politician was there. thousands of people gathered around this mosque area. it's hard to tell but i think thatt's looking to be a major

player in e elections. they were the first to try to form a coalition. it looks le his son is going to be taking over for t time being and we have to see how they do in the elections. >> mr.mbassador we do have some additional questions. the last thing i want to do is burden you with written record but if you will permit there are a few thingwe would likto make sure our part of the record so we will submit bills to you and i will leave the record open unl next week for purposes of any senators who have questions th need to submit. we are grateful. it's a long way to travel and i thank you for switching your schedule with the house to comply with our needs here and the same thinge said to you as we send you off and confirming your nomination tthis, we think that you're the right persof for the job. are grateful that you're ere. it's tough, and i think a lot of the questions that have been

asked today may still be open-ended and i think that you know that, too but we look forward to working with you and look forward to being out there sometime in the near future to get a better look at things. thank you very much for the job you do and pleasehank all the embassy personnel and of course the military personnel. it is and forgotten here. we know they are there and we care enormouy about the outcome and i appreciate what he id today about the need to secure the gains and me sure the sacrifices to the greatest degree that we can were made for a purpose that we aretill fighting for. thank you for that. thank you. stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

now, a pentago briefing with lieutenant and general charles jacoby commander of american force in iraq. he speaks with reporters the satellite about the ongoi security operations in iraq. this is just over 30 minutes. >> -- an overview, brief update, then take some of your questions. he's speaking today from camp victory in iraq. general, will commandf thank you for your time this afternoon. >> good morning, everyone. thank youbraun and, for the introduction and thank you, ladiesnd gentlemen allowing me to join today. it's a privilege. our operations in iraq are progressing but enemies here continue to challenge and test the iri security forces. many areas remain dangerous and that was made apparent again

tuesday wi four of them were seice members were killed while executing their mission anwould like to jt take a minute t offer my heartfelt condolences to their families. currently our enemies are resorting to a campaign of sensationalism through suffering by directing attacks against iraq's most vulnerable targets and attet to discredit the government of iraqnd iraqi security forces. we are seeing determined extremists, insurgents and terrorists employee id is against markets, shrines and other places where families gather and civilians go about their daily lives. even so, we are witnessing the iraqi security forces address the challenges head-on. they are not backing dn and are mang steady progress towards taking full responsibility for the security of iraq's people. our @artnership with iraqi security forces is very strong so much so i believe it is

betterow than it was before 30 june. we continue to provide advisers and trainers to support iraqi security forces who are securing iraq's aities. our combat forces that are outside iraq cities are in playing a full spectrum of operations partnered with iraqi securi forces i order to deny safe havens forriminals and violent extremist groups prevenng their ability to move freely to androm iraq populated areas and helping to secure its borders the sons of iraq is another critical are that is seeing success. the government of iraq whic took over the responsibility of paying the sons of irain may is current on paying all province in addition more than 5500 sons of iraq have now been transferred into ministerial jobs with more scheduledo come. on the horizon we are working towards one of the decisive pots in the recent history of iraq. iraq is moving forward toward national elections.

iraqi people have embraced this chance they have for continued decracy. they are actively for registering tvote right n in large numberand iraq slightly political activities and dates are a constant sigthat i iraqis have rejected secretary in based violence andre choosing political discourse to resolve differences. there is a chance for success here in iraq but it's very important to remember our mission is now complete. our enemies will continue to attack progress and they ll do it by kiing and injuring innocent iqis. they will test iraqi security forces as we move toward the ections and as a new government is seated. but i am confident iraqi security forces will pass this test and now i am happy to take your questions. >> we will get started right here. dane weigelou leadoff? >> good afternoon. dane. according to your intel is al

qaeda iraq behind most of the atcks we have seen wheatley and e of the perpetratorn mind perpetratedy al qaeda and w big is the network today i iraq and are there mainly for insiders or iraqi? >> thank you for that question. we think al qaeda and iraq remain a very big problem and they are greatly diminished nce the days of just a few years ago. but they are still able to generate these high-profile attacks we are concerned about. the frequency of the attacks, the scale of the attacks not like we have se in the past but the ability to generate a high-profile attack now is causing concern and i would say

it is the targeting of the attacks that caused the most concerned and as i said in my opening statement clearly they are going after targets like civilian population centers where civiiansre meeting, where they are conducting their daily lives. they are doing that to discrit the iraqi security forces. they are doing that to try to incite secretary and violence. i believe the iraqi people have rejected that. we have not seen resort to secretary and violence because of these attacks. but it remains a concern. i also believe that al qaeda is still supported to some extent much less than in the past from outside of iraq. it is mostly a homegrown version of al qaeda in iraq but it remains unchallenged. i think that al qaeda and iraq will continue to test thiraqi

security forces. but as i t in my openi statement, i believe iraqi security forces panered with us is up to th test. >> one follow-up. cayou give an idea of what is the proportion of attacks perpetrad by al qaeda? to get an idea on thisave of violencee are seeing. >> yes. i will tell you that we believe ny of these recent high-profile aacks our signatural qaeda attacks and of course we takeach and every one of them and investigate them thoroughly with iraqi secury force partners and it' important for us to determine where these attacks are coming from, the intent behind the attacks but i believe many of the most recent attacks remain al qaeda attacks and as i said, they have all theignature of

many of the attacks we have seen in the past. >> not sure you got the question. the question is what you consider these attacks a majority? >> in the period that we are lookg right now post 30 jun i consider most of the attacks the high-profile attacks you are seeing and thegetting the publicity or al qaeda attacks. >> jeff with stars and stripes. when i was in baghdad appeared u.s. troops were taking more of a garrison posture. givethose circumstances is it possible to accerate the u.s. drawdown from iraq?

>> thanks. well first will i wouldn't characterize anyf our forces as taking a kurson posture. i think what you're seeinis the difference between being counterinsurgency in the cits and doing stability of this in the cies. and when we are doing stabity of, what we are doing are providing advice, assistance, we are enabling iraqi security forces and training with iraqi security forces. so those are the kind of activities you see in stability operations and in partilar in the cies. throughout the rest of iraq we are doing fl spectrum operatio tinclude counterinsurgency operations and we are doing them partner with iraqi security forces and so we're it's required weill continue combat forces outside the cities to do that. right now, our strategy is on track. we are confident in the direction we are going and we

are headed in the full execution of the plan in terms of transitioning the force over the next year and a half. >> also when i was am i writer and officers a baghdad make it clear they don't want to use erican forces. so if americaf forces are essentially on the periphery in baghdad does that mean you can withdraw more of themuicker? >> now, we @re happy with our current schedule. we think that the straty is sound. we think our tactics are appropriate. think iraqi security forces ardoing their work in the city's. we are annealing and assisting thems they ask. they don't need our combat cities. the kind of things we help them with our intelligence rveillance, reconnaissance,

medevac, some logistics'. but i think in the past we have seen them do a credible job. i would point to some of the high-pfile events like the pilgrimage where they were able to provide almost complete security throughout very difficult times where millions of pilgrims have entered a very important shrines and were throughout the city. so i think they've demonstrated some greatapability. i think we have got a good balance in things we are doing outside of the city's to partner with iraqi secitforces putting pressure on the networks helping secu the borders and then providing those kind of special assistance that's requested non-combat assistance requested by iraqi said the city's , mil with the american force press service.

i am curious about what you see the role of these new aab's flew into iraq. where do you pn to concentrate them and how well what they are dog support wyour goals are? >> i thinkou asked about aab's; is that correct? >> yes it is. >> okay. thank you. the advisory assistance brigades -- it is a concept we bieve. we think it is the right way to go as move from coter inrgency and fullpectrum optus to our strategy of being done with combat orations for u.s. forces in august,010 and then we will be reliantn our advisory aistance brigades. i think that the important part abt an advisory assistance brigade is that it is a mission

and a mind set and a series of tasks that we do. i ran through them earlier. they are advice, assist, aníbal, tree those kind of tasks that are clearly within the stability of this. believe iraqi security rces will be fully capable of conducting the combat operations and oth leads in security operations required at time. the advisory assistancbrigade should be fully online by august, 2010. we are having some goodork wi brigades right now that have been able to transitioin the stability operations learning a lot of lessons, sending those kind of observations back to the field or back to the training base as we continue to develop th advisory assistance brigades. a great exchge of information between theater and back home in the training base. >> where do you plan to concentrate these newrides?

>> we've de a fair amount of work and study on where we think the advisory assistance brides can best serve tha mission. we wl focus onreas where we can best support provincial reconstruction team is, where we n best continue training with iraqi security forces that would like us too that, and so they are very well dispersed throughout iraq concentrating on those primarily those two factors. where es training need tget done and where does support to provincial reconstruction >> this is courtney from nb news. in response to the recond question you said that y are happy and content with the schedule. i believe you were referring ecifically to baghdad tthe s. tros in baghdad.

that both secretary gates and genel odierno recently said they are looking into th possibility accerating a drawdown of additional force out of the country before the end of the yr. where do you stand on that? where does that decision stand right now? do you still and as a baby 100,000 u.s. troops in the country by the end of the year? >> thank you. really no cisions have been made about acceleratg the drop down. we retain sufficient flexibility as we udy the operational environment if general odierno directs us tchange the drawdown in any way we will study that and we will make decisions based on changes in the erational environment. but right now as the corps commander planning the daily nu and bolts of this operatio we have not been

asked to speed up or slow down the withdraw. we are o track satisfied with the conditions on the ground in termsf our abity to get the mission donner and remain well thresources to accomplish that mission. >> planning the nuts and bolts of the daily operation do y think you could deal with fewer troops in iraq if you wer asked geral odierno asked the? >> rht now that discussion is not ongoing. right now as i mention, in the opening comments we are going through a period of time where the iraqi security forces are going to be tested. i satisfied that we have sufficient forces on the ground gh now to partnerith iri security forces outside of the city to meet the requirements for security. we also have the cability required to provide assistance

requested by iraqi security forces. so i would say that if asked we would study that and get back and would be a question of balancing cabilities against any risks we would see but right now there's no discussion of aclerating or slowing it down and were satisfied with the path we are on. >> you talked about the posture in baghdad where you are engaged in cil theperations but you incated your engaged full spectrum operations across most of the countryutsi of the city's. could youescribe the essence be specic if you can, the degree to which the troops are engaged in combat operations particularly with operations might be taking place in the

area? >> yes, sure. throughout the rest of iraq outside of the major urban areas there is a number of missions we arenged in and i wlell you all of them are partnered with iraqi security forces. and so there is a nber o places it is still required to clear a support zone, an area, hiorical area where there may be al qaeda forces that our training or prepping for attack so we will continue to conduct operations in those zones. you may of cose be familiar with the terms the belts around baghdad, support zonesre not mosul, partner with aqi security forces. we still conduct operations in those areas to deny those areas as safe havens. and so, it mains a dangerous

job, when the troops are trained and resources for and one that incrsingly we doith iraqi security forces in the lead, and will see that for some time to come. especially as we work hard to set the condition for a stable and secure parliamentary election in january. but we are having a good success. we are working hard onhe borders as well, working to develop iraqi security force capability, working to interdict anything that might be coming acro the border that would facilitate iurgents that still remain here and so those are the ki of combat operations that u.s. forces are still engaged in >> general fi could fall upon the operations in the northern area of iraq specifilly around mosul, and how