>> i appreciate the answer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator brown? >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to follow up with a question senator lieberman asked. dia think it's important to have a military presence in iraq and he didn't answer. he said we need to provide important assistance. but do you or don't you think that we should have a military presence in iraq? >> i think that providing military presence that assists them with training that assists them whiff of iset operations continuing to work against terrorist groups is important but i have to stress to you, senator, that it can only happen if the iraqi agree that should happen. >> i get the impression that somehow everybody is deciding what we want for iraq and that is what should happen but it doesn't work that way. this is an independent country.

>> i want a chance to ask my questions. i have some very specific questions and to follow-up with senator mccain a little bit in his concerns about a contractor cost versus the soldier cost it is a tremendously large dollar amount. it's the same in afghanistan and the same in iraq. we will have potentially 16,000 contractors. how does the agreement or their ability to perform their duties over their affect the contractors? they will be performing security and have very serious challenges. how is it any different? >> i can take that one, senator. when i was running of the security transition command, training and equipping the iraqi security forces, i had a rather small military staff, about a thousand, and i had probably

three or four times that and contractors, and the contractors are often third country nationals. these are not all dod contractors. some security contractors could be from a third country, and as a part of the contract, there will be a negotiated position on protections and immunities but oftentimes they are not protected and if there for something happens they can be imprisoned and tried in the host nation and that is a common practice around the world. we ought to take for the record i think the issue of cost because there's a distinction on the kind of contractors used. a truck driver driving a cargo truck of food from kuwait to baghdad will get paid a certain rate is a contractor of a different rate these are not all contractors seeking $250,000 in year, so i think we ought to appeal that back a little bit for you to see the real cost. >> it's important to let the american public know because i was in afghanistan talking to

the soldiers who were deeply concerned about those drivers just from a post to post getting upwards of $100,000 you have a soldier that can do it in 20 or $30,000 when we are trying to squeeze out every last dollar i think it's important -- i would rather be quite frankly providing the tools and resources to our military personnel versus contractors so i would hope he would look at that and mr. secretary, you know, you committed to allowing iran to get nuclear weapons and i am still -- to you think we are accomplishing that? >> - fat the united states working with our allies and implementing the the sanctions that have gone against iran have combined with other efforts, you

know, in a heated their effort to move forward in that area. that's correct. >> we have so many sanctions, yet i think the biggest problem we have is nationally and forcing them. i can't remember the last time we found a company performing work and doing business in iran. how involved is russia and actually helping them gain nuclear capabilities? >> well, and you ought to ask or intelligence officials about the specifics of russian engagement but there is no question that they have provided some help. >> i bring it up because you bring up we are not allowing them to gain a nuclear capability, yet we seem to really not be putting any teeth behind the sanctions and i think we can do it better i guess is my point and maybe we can talk offline about that, but i also have heard in speaking to obviously members of the

committee and others that the prime minister has kicked out officials in the services and the army and replace them with their own loyalists. the report roughly 200 people have been arrested since october 24th on the charges of elitism with the ba'ath party under saddam hussein to conduct her was some within iraq. are you concerned with these types of arrests and whether it will require us to have a larger footprint or how it's going to be affected by the footprint being reduced. >> i am concerned by the actions that the prime minister took with regards to the arresting the baathist and at this point without charges and that raises concerns about the due process. at the same time i have to say that the sunnis and it is a reflection of what's happened in

iraq if the population recognizes their actions ought take place through the institutions of government and they are bringing pressure through the parliament and through the government to try to change the behavior and i think that is what democracy should do. >> at what level do you think in terms of a percentage basis would you give the counterterrorism forces today? either one. >> i will take that, senator. a number of 4500. >> how does that rank in terms of the percentage capability of being ready to perform the mission? >> i would describe their readiness to be about 8% and the gap is in their ability. they are extraordinarily good, extraordinarily good at closing on to a particular targets when the target is identified for them generally in their case. with the lack is the ability to use intelligence, signal

intelligence, human intelligence, and identify a network. you've visited -- by the way, nobody else in the world doesn't like us, so i am comparing us to them the point is when you visit our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and operation centers in iraq they will have a wiring diagram of the network in their particular area and that's, after years of adaptation and learning we have not yet managed to pass over to the iraqi counterparts we have in this office of security cooperation. we have a tawdry and trainers to continue to build that capability and close that gap. >> how functioning as the air force, is it capable of defending its airspace? does that matter at this point? where do you think we are with that? >> i will tell you where they are and then take a stab at whether it matters or not. as you know, they've got f-16s on order as a part of the military sales program.

the first 18 or so of what would eventually be 24 will be delivered in the 2015 time, so there is a gap between now to 2015 and their ability to protect their air sovereignty. as a matter? it doesn't -- it isn't apparent to us that matters that there is no air threat to the iraqi sovereign space right now, but after the first of the year as prime minister maliki sees with the security agreement, how that has evolved, but it looks like as we begin the withdrawal i suspect there will be some negotiation back on issues related to the air sovereignty. they also have long-range radars that come out this next calendar year to help paint themselves a picture so there is a gap at least out through 2015 probably beyond because you have to train pilots and when the chief of defense speaks about not being

ready until 2020 it is that kind of capability that he is talking about, not the day-to-day capability on the ground. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator brown. senator reid. >> thank you mr. chairman. general dempsey, was it to the uniform recommendation all with the joint chiefs and yourself for the president that was out appropriate for the american forces you could not maintain american forces in iraq? >> it was, senator. >> and that was -- from your perspective, the governor of iraq was not prepared to give appropriate immunities to the forces? >> the was the feedback we received back that based on the legal advice of lonely the department of defense also lawyers across the interagency the protections we've required could only be achieved through an agreement that passed through

the council of the representatives inside iraq. when that was not forthcoming than our advice was -- to senator mccain's plight we have soldiers all over the world in the joint combined exercise teams, but these are small groups of soldiers during the training missions. not what we believe would be a large footprint of men and women potentially at the checkpoints conducting the combat operations that could be very prominent, very visible and therefore very vulnerable to a very immature judicial system. >> meaning that they could be placed into a system without any adequate due process and be subject to the whims of whatever iraqi justice at the moment? >> that is the concern that the larger concern is that there would be some kind of incident would put us at odds with the iraqi security forces trying to

arrest one of our soldiers. as the mcginn week of the conflict. >> in the worst case. >> in the worst case. the necessity for the core from their assembly, the general assembly, this was the result of the agreement i presume that any amendment to the treaty had to be approved by the parliamentary procedures? >> that was their interpretation and our own. >> so the notion of who can bestow immunity rests on the agreement which the bush administration negotiated and signed? >> i don't know how far it goes. this is a longstanding legal interpretation that i am sure goes back well beyond the bush administration. >> you are more familiar. my understanding is that there was a very explicit language calling for the withdrawal of all american military personnel

that there was no language or no explicit language calling for further negotiations as to the continuation of forces. is that correct? >> if you are referring to the agreement that is my understanding. >> but then there are suggestions today that everyone understood that this is a place holder that this major policy decision calling for all forces to withdraw from iraq which was approved was simply a place holder because everyone knew going down the road we would renegotiate and foresight and good faith to come up with another combination. do you think that is realistic? >> i won't comment on its realism, but but i expected that there would be some negotiation prior to 2001 and there was and that negotiation terminated when the iraqi prime minister determined that he didn't need the mission we were willing and

capable to perform and wouldn't provide the protections. >> it goes back to the point that the secretary has made that that is the determination of the sovereign leader about what he felt was in the best interest of iraq and that without his cooperation and indeed without the approval of the parliament we have no standing essentially other than to follow what was agreed to in 2008 by the bush administration, is that correct? >> to my understanding, yes, sir. >> as you said just going forward we still have a relationship in terms of military sales, in terms of not only diplomatic presence but there is always the possibility that is not precluded by the 2008 amendments which in the future to allow for some participation of american military personnel with iraqi

personnel. is that true? >> is, senator. there's the opportunity for the routine fever corporation, general jim mattox will travel there in january. there is a committee called the hi coordination committee for each of the six lines of operation in the strategic framework agreement some of which are economic educational commerce but there's a security line that effort. it is the high commission, hi coordinating council that meets the general mattocks will go and come the men of the meetings in january to discuss future security cooperation. some of mr. secretary, and i presume for the record we are prepared to entertain any of these discussions at any time with primm and mr. maliki and his cabinet. it seems to be the key point in this juncture is the point at which prime minister now that he and his government begins to read on your way to their

position and their perception of the need for additional american military support, and without that the in the 2008 agreement which they negotiated the agreed to the scene to accept stands as the law. >> that's correct. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank secretary leon panetta and for being here on this important topic. i think all of us want to make sure everything that we have fought for and those that have sacrificed in iraq but we would we have done doesn't become underlined, and my husband is an iraqi war veteran and all of us share that. we would like to bring our troops home but there are serious questions that remain on whether the iraqis will be able to maintain their own security, and i think that is what we are trying to get at. i wanted to ask, secretary, in an october 21st conference call

when the withdrawal was initially announced by the administration that my staff participated in, the deputy national security adviser and the national security adviser to the president were both asked whether it's now the iraqi such change their position and we've received that immunity that our troops need, whether we would change our position on maintaining troops in iraq, and the answer we got on that call is no triet my question to you is is that accurate, today if the iraqi change their position and give the immunity that we are asking for, what we keep troops there? >> obviously both primm and

mr. maliki and the president or moving forward with the implementation of the security agreement, but as i've said here, we are prepared to continue to negotiate with the iraqi. we are prepared to try to meet whatever needs they have come in and of those needs require a sofa agreement to ensure that the trips are protected and obviously we would be prepared to work with that as well. >> so just to be clear when dennis mcdonough and tony blonden said even if we had immunity now we would withdraw together any way were they right or wrong in terms of that being the administration position? >> i think they were reflecting the decision at that point that was clear from the iraqi and from the prime minister that they wanted to proceed with the implementation of the security agreement and i think that, you know, the decision is that even with the iraqi is what's

proceed, implement that and then perhaps beyond that we will negotiate a further presence. >> but it would certainly be a lot easier to rather than take all of the troops out and bring them back then if we could work this out now you would agree with me there. >> we have been looking at this for a long time and i think that it came down to the fact that it was very clear from the prime minister and even the other leadership as a senator mccain said, other members of the leadership were interested in trying to pursue this, but when it was clear that they could not get immunity passed by the parliament that brought that issue to an end to this gimmick the reason i raise the issue when it was reported back to me that the answer from the administration was that even if immunity was granted tomorrow that we would still withdraw

altogether mainly concerned and that's why i raised it. i wanted to ask you about the wartime recent signings of the commission on contract in found that we've , waste, fraud, corruption and money goes into the hands of our enemies we have lost between $31,000,000,000.60 billion of taxpayers' dollars that were obviously wasted and the worst part as some of it went to our enemies. before the hour reservists readiness committee recently we had a hearing on the wartime contract in commission report the secretary testified before that committee and i asked him about what was happening in iraq roughly 16,000 contractors that would be left many of them

performing security functions with troops by the end of the year and when i asked about that, you know, how well the department secretary, the state department handle that, he told me there's a lot of risk in this transition and that the state department has never done anything this big would you agree with me on that, mr. secretary? >> that's right. >> also, that day before the committee, we have actual commissioners that did the analysis in iraq and afghanistan of the fraud, waste and abuse in the money that went to our enemies, and mr. zakaria who testified before the committee that they also asked him about what is happening in iraq and what the implications would be for the state department putting 16,000 contractors many of them

asked to handle security, and what he said to me really made me concern, he said i have tremendous concern. i have more concerns unfortunately than answers. clearly the state department until now has had trouble managing its contracts and it is no question that they have had some -- i don't know how they are going to manage all of this and he went on to say if you have a whole bunch of contractors there with guns who will be doing all sorts of things, to me to my mind this is something that involves security that is inherently governmental. it is high risk project so that you are going to have a bunch of contractors either being shot at or shooting of rockies this is a disaster waiting to happen is how he described it to me. can you assure this committee i guess i would ask you first

essentially my concern is we are putting a civilian army of contractors at an unprecedented level when we hit already had significant issues with contracting. we are going to ask the contractors to provide our diplomatic security personnel that are there, civilian personnel who will still be serving in iraq. will they be secure, will the contractors be able to perform the function that they are needed to perform, can you assure this committee that the state department will be able to perform this unprecedented task? >> there is no question that there are risks involved. what we are facing is an issue of the continuing and in part a state department role that relates to economic issues that relates to development issues

and relates to education issues and the other pieces that we have been assisting the iraqis with and the state department has taken the lead in trying to build those relationships. so they have a presence and they have bases throughout iraq where the locations and the state department officials will be. in the absence of not having the the military presence and obviously in order for them to do their job, they've got to have security, they've got to have support, food, transportation, and that is obviously brought about through the contract and approach. are there going to be risks associated with the contractor's? yes. i think that is the case. do we have any other alternatives? no. >> senator, can i comment on that question? do we have time? >> in response to the question, sure. >> this isn't entirely new. even from the very beginning when was the collision

provisional authority and then became the u.s. mission in iraq the state department has always contracted for personal security, and so it is not as though they have no experience in doing that but this is orders of magnitude and that is what people are reacting to but in order to help mitigate that, we've had a committee to the joint committee of the department of state joint chiefs of staff and in place since august of 2010 to talk about transition activities in iraq, 437 activities. we transitioned 387 of them and we would be happy to brief you on that. we are going to retain the contract management. the department of defense will maintain for the directing of the contractor management authority. we will maintain oversight kunkel to contracts because we have the expertise. the contracting officer representatives will be that part of state personnel on the ground, so we have recognized we are working to mitigate it. >> thank you general dempsey and secretary panetta.

i would add this. back in august of 2010 we were talking about having some military support and when i hear from the commission on contracting that this is a disaster i have concerns about this in terms of protecting our personnel and waste of taxpayers' dollars. 64. senator nelson? >> thank you. thank you secretary panetta and general for your service and for being here today. i'm going to try to bring things closer to home for the moment. the 935th aviation from the nebraska army national guard is scheduled to deploy in may. giving our pending departure from iraq i understand this deployment might be able to be moved and shifted to the new location or canceled altogether and i sure maybe the decision hasn't been made but if it has it would be interesting to know what it is. concerning the end of the

military missions in iraq, how is the department's handling the scheduling guard deployment pmi understand the already a source for the deployment and the will of started to make arrangements with their families, employers, communities to deploy everything from hiring temporary employees to covering the deployment of the soldier to moving families. as a, how will this work now to use units that are sourced for mobilization even when the requirements of iraq seemed to be changing right before our eyes? >> i will answer that and with my experience as the chief of staff of the army this is something we watch very carefully as to make sure that before we hit a mobilization date we understand where these organizations can be used so that we reduce the risk of having to demobilize them. so, this specific unit you are talking about if it is inside it is already been mobilized,

therefore it is trained and therefore we will find a place to use its. what we've done in the past is find a place to use that portion that wants to stay. the first step is to see if there are volunteers to go back home and we find that there are often a percentage of the unit will be happy to you that. the rest will typically be remission someplace first choice anybody oar others other attendees to do that as well. that's kind of procedure. you try to make a decision before but if the mission then changes we either remission and allow those that choose to go home. >> so it is probably unlikely that they would be mobilized to go to iraq. >> what kind of a unit are they? >> aviation. some aviation is in high demand and it is among our most high demand so it is likely they would be used and unlikely that it would be an in iraq.

>> about the military members and their families, i know that there has been a lot of discussion in connection with cost cutting and cutting spending particularly as it relates to the department of defense dealing with military pay and compensation and benefits. i think that the military retirement benefits need to be maintained and there is promise delivered. what are your thoughts about and recommendations to change the military for members who are currently serving? >> we obviously discuss this as we have gone through the budget exercise and i think that our view is that this ought to be given to a commission and the president made that recommendation we would support that to have a commission reviewed the retirement area. we also made clear that with

regards to those that have served the ought to be grandfathered. we've made a commitment to those that have deployed to put their lives on the line we think we ought to stand by the benefits promised to them. >> keeping the promise is important. i guess general dempsey might have a view on that as well and i would be surprised if it wasn't the same. >> it is ex ackley the same. >> general, you might recall some time ago i visited iraq and met with you in charge of the training and acquisition and you outlined at that time how the government engaged with our military by contract for acquisition military equipment because we were able to do it more efficiently and cost effectively than they were because it didn't have the acquisition structure in place to be able to do it.

do you remember why we engage them at that time and in that bilateral agreement and the liquid that they .. >> we've had a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of hiring outside contractors. that discussion will be ongoing,

and proof will be how it works out as to whether or not it's as advisable as it seems to be up front. now, in connection with that, in the cost deferentials, it may be there. is it possible to enter into an agreement with the iraqi government for cost sharing on continuing to provide security, training of their troops, and every other mission that we might company to help -- except to help them secure, stabilize, and self-govern? >> yeah, sure it is, senator. when we do multilateral or bilateral exercises around the world, there's always a negotiation on the cost and who will bear it. by the way, i have to mention in terms of the contractors supplying security -- in any nation in which we are present, dipmatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation, and then it's the closed in security we talk about that tends to reside with

the contracted support. >> and i think it's debatable, perhaps about the cost, given the fact the con -- contractors are paid by contract, and military provides more than the security, all the backup, the backroom, the supply, the support, that the military gets, that's a factor not necessarily included in the contractor's agreement. is that accurate, mr. secretary? >> that's correct. >> so it may not be as out of whack. i'm not an advocate for contracting, but it may not be as disproportioned as it sounds up front with contractors when you add up the back support for the military providing the security. >> i believe that's correct. >> general dempsey, do you have any thoughts on that differential and what it may consist of in >> i do. the answer is we can peel that

back and provide it to this committee or others. >> i think that would be advisable. >> we call it fully em dumb beered costs, and it's not as dpramatic as it might seem otherwise. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, general dempsey, before i turn to my question on iraq, i want to share with you an experience that i had yesterday. i visited a wounded marine from wanes at baa these da -- bathesda. he was severely wounded in afghanistan. he lost part of one leg, the other leg has a lot of shrapnel in it, his arms are wounded, and had brain injuries as well. he's recently moved into a new little apartment newly built.

they are wonderful accommodations for our troops and their family members, and his spirits are amazingly good and upbeat i asked him if he had any concerns, and i want to share with you his concern. he says while he praises the care he was getting, that there was a severe shortage of physical per miss and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. he's expected to be there another nine months. he's looking at a long haul, and this really troubled me because here we have this young man who's probably 19 over 20, wounded just six weeks after arriving in afghanistan. he faces is very long recovery

period, and his spirits are high, his mori real is good -- morale is good, but here's worried he won't get the care hi needs because there's a freeze put on the number of physical therapists that can be hired, and he described his session to me where the therapist helps him for awhile, and then has to turn to other patients to help them. he feels that's impeding his recovery, so i mentioned this to you. i promised him that i would bring it to the highest levels. i'm delighted that you're here today so that i could keep that promise, and i ask you to look into that because none of us wants to be scrimping in any way on the care that we owe these wounded warriers who give to

their country. >> senator collins, thank you for bringing that to my attention. i've been out to bathesda a number of times, but i had nod heart the problem with the physical therapists because most of the troops i visited with all need tremendous physical therapy. it's the only way they'll make it. they have great spirits as you saw, great hope for the future, but we've got to have the physical therapists there to assist. you can give him my assurance i'll look into this and make sure that that's not the case. >> thank you so much. i'm sure he'll be delighted that we had this exchange, and i will get back to him. turning now to iraq, we have been training the iraq security forces for nearly eight years now, and yet concerns still exist about gaps in the numbers,

the training, the capabilities, particularly as far as their ability to successfully defend the borders against the infiltration of weapons and militants from iran. now, some people contend until we withdrawal our forces, the iraqis are never going to step up to the plate fully to defend their country, and i personally think that is a legitimate argument, but others say if we withdraw our troops, that we will lose the security gains that have been so hard fought, so general, given the outstanding concerns about iraq's ability to defend itself against direct threats and against the infiltrations from

iran, are you concerned that we are jeopardizing the security gains, and that we'll see a deterioration of security in a step up in violence as we withdraw our troops? >> that was always a concern of mine, but i will say that in over the last three years in my contacts with those -- and i'm dated, i have not lived in iraq for about four years, but in my trips back and forth there and in conversations with those who are partnered with them, that is to say our forces, they all have considerable confidence that the iraqi security forces that we've build at great cost and effort over the last, as you said, eight years, will be able to maintain security and inside of that country, and what they lack is the institutions and that that's where our effort ought to be at this point. >> what about the kurdish region

in iraq? there are concerns that it stands out as an unresolved area where there's still a lot of tension with the central government in baghdad. i understand that only a small dod contingent will remain there, and it's my understanding that the state department is going back and forth on whether or not it should have a full consulate presence or maintain a less formal, diplomatic presence post. if there's no u.s. military presence to act as a buffer between the kurdish forces and the iraqi's security forces, are you worried that this region of iraq will become a destabilizing flash point?

>> i worry about a lot of things, senator, and i will include this among the list of things i worry about, but as you know, we put in place several years ago joint check points where there was a member of the kurdish, a member of the iraqi security forces, and the u.s. servicemen and women, and a coordinating center, and part of our office of security cooperation footprint will fkd our participation -- include our participation in the coordination center. we won't be on the check points anymore, that's true, and so we'll have to rely upon the continuing negotiations between the kurdish political leaders and their iraqi government of iraq, but this is not a place where we are completely removing ourselves, but you're right, we will not be on the check points. we were there as a buffer. the risk goes up, but the presence in the coordination center provides a stabilizing

influence to get them to find negotiated answers, not violent answers. >> and thank you, and finally, secretary panetta, we have military relationships with countries all over the world, and we have agreements with those countries. are there other countries where we have a military presence that goes beyond protecting our embassies where we do not have the legal protections that it provides or will iraq be the only one? >> there's obviously, you know, different -- in different areas, there's going to be different approaches here. there's some areas where we have agreements. there's some areas where we basically put them under, you know, diplomatic protection of

one kind or another, as they work out of the embassy, so it does vary depending on the area that we're talking about in terms of protections, but in each area, i guess what i want to assure you is in each area we try to seek protections for the groups there because of the concern that they be treated correctly if any kind of incident takes place. >> and that is absolutely critical. what i'm concerned about is while diplomatic immunity is pretty easily extended to troops that are guarding and embassy, for example, it sounds like our mission of our remaining troops in iraq would be broader than that. >> that's right. >> and so i'm worried about whether the legal protections will be there for them. >> and that's a concern that we all have. if there is to be, in the future, you know, a larger presence there, you know, we

have to ensure that they're given the proper legal protections, and depending on the size, that would determine whether or not an agreement would be required. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator kohl -- collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service. we appreciate what y'all are doing, and in light of senator collins' question concerning the wounded warrier that she met yesterday, about two weeks ago, my office, we hosted a wounded warriers luncheon for a number of soldiers from north carolina, and they brought with them their family members that was helping them recoop rate, and it was really -- recooperate. it was certainly a welcomed luncheon for me to get to attend, and also, i think, all the soldiers here at the capitol appreciated the outreach from

the office, and they also got a capitol tour, but what was really intriguing, too, was one young man lost his leg to an ied two months before. he said he was most anxious to get back to the battle, and that he was -- his job was to detect ieds, and i, too, just really highlight the morale, what the young men and women go through each and every day, so we need to have as many million therapists as possible so they get the treatment that they've certainly paid for and deserved. i wanted to talk about our special operation forces, and as you know, our special operation forces have engaged with their iraqi counterparts and counter terrorism and training and advising activities, and what will things look like in iraq from a special operation forces

standpoint going forward and what type of engagement would our special operation forces have in iraq? >> yes, senator. the size of the iraqi special operationing forces is about 4500 organized into a counterterrorism section commanded by an iraqi lieutenant general. we're partnered with him at the headquarters level and will remain so. we're in discussions with iraq about training trainers that would stay inside the wire of their places where this counter terrorism force is located, not go with them on missions, but rather train them to go on missions, and as i mentioned earlier, the gap is actually in their ability to kind of identify the network and target it. we call it the fine fixed finish, exploit, and assess cycle. they are very capable of fixing

and finishing, but not so capable in finding and assessing so you continue to keep pressure on a network, but i'll tell you, they are extraordinarily competent individual soldiers. what we got to do is keep raising the bar with them on their ability to do the things as echelons above tactics. >> well, with the draw down taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue to training process to enable them to be able to do this on their own? >> they'll be limit limited. they don't have the air lift to carry them to the target we were able to provide or the isr platform to keep consistent surveillance over top the target. they are limited to ground movement and human intelligence, and we'll keep -- but, part of the office of security cooperation provides the trainers to keep developing those other capabilities, but we're some time off in reaching

that point. >> as we continue this draw down of our u.s. military personnel from iraq, i really remain concerned about their force protection, their individuals remaining in iraq, so what are these remaining challenges for our military personnel in iraq in terms of managing vulnerabilities and exposures during the draw down? >> senator, you're talking about getting from 24,000 down to -- the exirsing force now and having it back through kuwait? >> the ones remaining there. >> the ones who remain -- >> they're protection. >> yes, senator. well, they have will first and foremost, we've got ten office of security cooperation in iraq bases, and their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on dlieferring the far military --

delivering the far military programs. there's a team to help new equipment train and helping iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty. there's 40m-1 tanks now low cased east of baghdad, and the team supporting that training stays there, so this is not about us moving around the country very much at all. this is about being -- our exposure being limited to the ten enduring office of security cooperation base camps and doing the business of training and educating and equipping on those ten bases. host nation is always responsible for the outer perimeter. we'll have contracted security on the inner perimeter, and these young men and women, of course, have speedometer for their own -- responsibility for their own self-defense. >> there's contracted security on the perimeter? >> that's correct.

>> all right. iraqi count terrorism forces in partnership with the u.s. special personnel degraded al-qaeda in iraq's ability to conduct these spectacular attacks by repeatedly removing the groups mid and senior level leadership, that i complement you on. these were enabled by u.s. capabilities including unmanned intelligence platforms. what do you assess are the kates of iraqi counterterrorism forces to continue these similar operations, some of what you just described, general dempsey, against al-qaeda in iraq in the absence of our forces, and how will our counterterrorism activities comaing following the draw down of the u.s. military, and you've just identified some, but it just -- it seems with the lack of all the other personnel, that this is going to be a very hard task. >> if i could, senator, and, you

know, in my past capacity, we were helping to provide a lot of intelligence and assistance and i think some of those efforts will continue to provide intelligence, try to provide the assistance in these areas. having said that, you know, the one thing that i've been impressed by is the fact that their ct operations have been very effective, and despite the fact that we've drawn down 150,000 to 24 -- 24,000 now, they have been good at going after al-qaeda and being able to go after, you know, the threats that they have been able to perceive. there is a need, and i think general dempsey pointed this out, with regards to some of the capabilities. helicoptering in, being able to have the isr above, those are the areas we have to provide assistance to them so that they can develop that capability. they are still very good at going after those targets. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, senator hagen. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, both, for testifying. this is a very important issue for the country, and i think we've had a good discussion. number one r, i completely concur with the idea that american troops should not be left behind in iraq without legal protections. it's not fair to them to say that the iraqi legal system is matured is being gracious. if an american soldier were accused anywhere in iraq, i don't think they would get a fair trial, so at the end of the day, iraq has a long way to go on the legal side, and i think a long way to go on the other side. my concern is that i've never bought into the idea that the embassy pass was -- impasse was getting the parliament to approve an immunity agreement, and just one thing. i went over with senator mccain and senator lieberman in may to talk to the prime minister about a follow on force, and i was discussing with

him no american politician, republican or democrat, would accept a follow on force without legal protections, and as we talked about it, he said, well, how many people are you talking about? what's your number? i turned to ambassador jefferies and general austin and said you have not given them the number? he said, no, we're still working on that. that was in may. let's get into this, general dempsey, 16-5-10 cascading. is it your testimony we proposed 16,000 to the iraqis, and they then they said know. we came back to 10,000, they said know, and then we said 5,000, and then they said no, and then it was zero. what caused the effect? the commanderrings, general austin told me, and i'll tell you know because it's important. he said he thought we needed 19,000. i said, life-support, that's probably -- i said, lord, that's probably

more than the market can bear. i said that because i'm concerned about american politics, and then the numbers were aren't 15 to 16, and then it was 10, and nobody got below 10, so i know what general austin had on his mind. at the end of the day, general dempsey, it's about the missions you want that determines the numbers. we went through it well. iraq doesn't have the intell exafort we do. we have to make sure they have better intelligence, and they don't have an air force. we need vetters, trainers, ct, we need to referee the current dispete, and i think 10-12 is what you need. at the end of the day, we're down to zero, and i guess my question is, is iran comfortable with a democracy on their border with iraq, mr. secretary panetta? >> i think they are very nervous about having a democracy. >> let me tell you what the

speaker of the iraqi parliament, a sunni said. iraq now suffers from points of weakness. if anybodying countries see iraq is weakening and unable to protect its borders, then there's going to be interference, and this does not exist now. he was talking about how iran would step up their efforts to destabilize iraq if we all left. do you agree that is a more likely scenario? they are doing it now, they are only going to do it more if we don't have anybody there? >> i think there's a continuing threat. i think that the reality is that the iraqis do not want to have iraq exert that kind of influence. >> well, you know, if the sunni speaker of the parliament is worried about that, is there any doubt that the kurds want us there? if not for the kurds, there's 50,000 american troops in kurdistan. do you agree with that?

we know the sunnies are worried about this, and the kurds would have 50,000 if we agreed to put them there, and i wouldn't agree to that, but they are welcoming of u.s. troops, so i'm getting concerned that all the blame on the iraqi political system is maybe not quite fair. secretary pa panetta, you're a politician in another life. would it be a political problem for president obama to announce this year that we're going to keep 15,000 people in iraq past 2012? did that ever get considered in this administration? did anybody talk about the numbers changing because the democratic base would be upset if the president broke his campaign promise? did that ever -- >> not in any discussions i participated in. >> do you think it ever happened anywhere? do you think anybody in the white house ever wondered about the political effect of having troops in iraq on the 2012

election? you talk openly about the iraqis having political problems. you don't think there's any politics going on our side? did any commander recommend that all the surge forces be pulled out by september 2012? >> i honestly don't know, senator, but -- >> let me tell you, the testimony cleared. no option was presented to the president in july to recover all serge forces by september 2012, and you put general allen in a terrible spot, the administration has, and i think it's no accident that the troops are coming home two months before the election in afghanistan, and if you believe that to be true, as i do, i don't think it's an accident we got to zero. now, at the end of the day, we're at zero. do you think the people in camp, do you think they're going to get killed? what's going to happen to them? >> the, as you know, senator, the state department is leading an effort to ensure that --

>> can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there's no american forces there policing the problem? >> i won't say anything to those people because i'm not involved in the outcome. >> fair enough. i asked admiral mullen, your predecessor, what's the risk of the conflict in terms of a conflict if we're not present. he said it was high. do you agree with that? >> i might have said moderate because of my own personal contacts with both the kurds and the iraqis. >> so you believe that there is a moderate risk, not a high risk? if there's no u.s. forces policing the current borderline disputes 1234 >> i do. i'd like to take some time to articulate why i believe that, but if you like me to take that for the record, i'd be happy to do so. >> i would. do you believe it's smart for

the united states not to have counter terrorism forces? is it in our national security interest not to have any counterterrorism forces in iraq? >> it's in our national security interest to continue pressure on al-qaeda wherever we find them either by ourselves or through partners. >> but do you think the counterterrorism problem in iraq is over? >> i do not. >> okay. secretary panetta, you have been great about this saying there's a thousand al-qaeda in iraq. i know you're worried they will reconstitute. will you do the best you can to convince the iraqis, and i'm willing to get on a plane and go back myself, that they would benefit from a counterterrorism partnership with the united states? >> i made that clear time and time again. >> and they just tell you they are not concerned about that? >> what they tell me is that, you know, they are concerned about that. they have, you know, they

obviously have their forces that are dealing with that. >> is it your testimony that the iraqis would not have 3,000 u.s. forces -- they don't want any u.s. forces at all? they don't see -- they are not willing to expend the political capital to get this agreement done because they just don't see a need for u.s. forces? is that the iraqi position that they've come to the point in their political military life that they just don't need us at all? >> i think the problem was that it was very -- it was very difficult to try to find out exactly, when you say the iraqi position, what exactly the iraqi position was at that point. >> what's the kurd's position in iraq about u.s. forces? >> there's not any question. >> what's the sunnies, speaker of the parliament's voice? >> i think the same. >> when i was with prime

minister malawki in may, he would accept a follow on force if they would agree. >> i heard and read the same statements, but the problem is in the negotiations that involved ambassador, the ambassador, that involved general austin, and, you know, in those discussions, they never came to the point where they said we want this many troops here. >> well, i can tell you, and i've taken my time, i can tell you in may, they had no number given to them by us. they were in the dark early as -- late as may about what we were willing to commit to iraq, so this is a curious outcome when you have sunnis and kurds on the record and the prime minister of iraq saying he would accept a follow on force if the others agreed. i don't know who does the negotiations of the united states, but if i had three people saying those things, i thought i could get it over the

finish line, but we are where we are, and thank you for your service. >> mr. chairman? >> yeah, i'll have a second round for those of us here, just a couple questions each to get to the second panel. mr. secretary, did iraq ever request u.s. trainers or other troops remain in iraq after the december 31st, and if so, in what number did they request, and were they willing to grant legal protection immunity to our troops? >> there was no such request. >> >> senator mccain? >> just briefly, mr. chairman. i don't know how you expected the iraqis to agree when we couldn't give them a number, and that was not just the case in may. we came back, kept asking the president's national security adviser and others, what is our proposal, and we never had one until it got dob to, i guess, 5,000 or 3,000. i mean, history will show

secretary pa net that that -- panetta they were willing to negotiate in may, and we wouldn't give them a hard number both as far as numbers are concerned and missions are concerned, so it's hard to understand how anyone would believe that they were reluctant to negotiate when we wouldn't give them a number to negotiate from, but history will provide that, and i'm sure we will have further spirited exchanges on this issue in the future, but i also wanted to thank you for the letter that you wrote to me and senator graham. i think it put -- it crystallizes the challenges that our nation would face if we had senator collins -- quester. but your letter is hope is read by every member of congress and every citizen of the country because we can't put our

nation's security at risk. you gave us a definitive answer, and i appreciate that. >> thank you. i appreciate you, general, for putting up with these occasional insults that you have to endure here at the senate. [laughter] could i just -- could i just say finally, on the camp issue, i know that secretary defense -- i mean, secretary of defense is addressing this issue, but it is american troops that are protecting them nowment i hope that you can give us some ideas as to what disposition is going to be because it's clear the lives of these people are at risk, and i thank you. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, just on that point, turn it into a question, and maybe general, this needs to be addressed to you, too. what -- obviously, there's a greater risk to folks there unless -- unless the iraqis keep a commitment. what's going to be done to make

sure to the best of our ability they keep that commitment, and what about the question of removing them from the list -- not them, but the organization from the terrorist list? >> well, senator, -- >> we're all concerned about that. >> yeah, and we share your concern. lloyd austin shares the concern, and i know ambassador jeffrey shares the concern, and there is no -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to tell the iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protections of those folks in the camp, but right now, actually, the iraqi security forces guard with our adviser and assistance group with them, and so the concern when we do live that capacity is a real one, by i think we have to put the pressure on the iraqi government dipmatically is

correct. >> just to assure them if you would, but there's a real strong feeling around here that if they violate a commitment to protect those people, assuming that they are still there, and if they have not been removed from the terrorists to find other locations, if they violate that commitment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship between -- i think i can speak here for the congress, although, reluctant to every say that, i think there's a lot of concern in the congress about it, and this will, i believe -- in my opinion, will severely, negatively impact their relationship with the u.s. congress. i'll leave it at that. >> senator, i want to assure you that general jeffrey made that appointment loud and clear to the iraqis. >> senator lieberman? >> thank you, i think you can speak for congress, members of both parties and houses in expressing the safety of the people in the camp: this is one

of a series of what i call what-ifs that have different answers now that we deal with a sovereign iraq, and this is true whether we had troops in iraq or not. we're outside, in the neighborhood, relying on diplomacy, cajoling, but what if -- the victimization and what if they want the u.s. embassy out of baghdad begins to strike at the embassy beyond the capacity of the security forces? what if -- what if conflict breaks up between the kurds and the sunni arabs there in the north? i think that leave that question, it's an answer to be spelled out in the negotiations with them. i don't know if i'm quoting somebody whose testimony in the second panel i read, but it's a

great quote. it could be from somebody else about diplomatic diplomacy. frederick the great said diplomacy without military force behind is it like music without instruments. there's something to be said about that. if you just spend a moment to develop in a little more detail the statement you made earlier that we will have 40,000 american troops in the region, does that include the 4,000 now in iraq? have we made a discussion now to -- decision now to increase the number -- based on the failure to have troops in iraq after january of next year, have we made a decision to increase the number of troops in the region outside of iraq to -- for the what-ifs that i just talked about? >> senator, that did not include iraq. what we have now is in kuwait,

we have almost 29,000, saw ya raib ya, 285. in bahrain, close to 7,000. >> right. >> uae, about 3,000. qatar, 7,000, and if you go through the region and add up the numbers, that's the 40,000. >> so has there been a decision made to increase that number at all because we were unable to reach an agreement about continuing presence of american troops in iraq? in other words keeping them in the region. >> not describing it as a cause and effect relationship based on what happened in iraq, but rather or continuing concern with the more assertive iran. >> right. >> and we are looking at our central command footprint. you know, senator, that prior to 2001, we had routinely rotated brigades in and out of kuwait for training and deterrence. >> right. >> we have not negotiated this

with kuwait yet, but it would be my view to have a rotational presence, ground, air, and naval. >> some of those are combat troops? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> senator shehan did not have -- just one question? >> [inaudible] >> no, we'll go to senator shehan, just limit it to a couple questions this second round. okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary panetta, general dempsey, news to have you -- nice to have you both here: you mentioned general dpemp see, the more assertive iran, and clearly, iran's attempting to assert influence throughout iraq. can you discuss how we work with our partners in the region to twhart that influence starting

with turkey? with the kurds in northern iraq, and we're seeing that violence between turkey and the kurd rebels has escalated since the summer. there was a major turkish operation into iraq, and yesterday, there was reports that u.s. drones had deployed into turkey from iraq for surveillance rights. give us an update on that situation. >> i can, thank you, senator. each combat and commander has a security theater cooperation plan that supports both building the capability of our partners allowing us to make ourselves better, and detours potential adversaries, and so in turkey, for example, we have -- we've recently, as you described, taken the isr platform flying out of iraq, and it's now flying out of turkey to support the

turks that their fight against terrorism. the turks recently agreed to put the tipi2 radar as part of the european phase adaptive approach innovative air defense against the possibility of a rogue missile strike from iran if they develop that capability, and then if you walk down the gulf cooperative council, we have bilateral agreements with each of them, some of which are multilateral, for example, air defense, some of which are exclusively bilateral, and the other thing we do is exercises as well as the foreign military sales program that becomes a significant -- it becomes a significant corner stone of our relationship with these countries. >> relative to the u.s.-turkey cooperation on the kurds, how has iraq responded to that? >> iraq has consistently denapsed the presence of the

kurdish, the pkk on iraq soil, and so, too, by the way, has the kurdistan regional government, and so there's not been any friction as long as there's been transparency about intent. >> so we're cooperating with them as we're doing these kinds of actions? >> we are, senator. >> and you talked about some of the other neighbors in the region. obviously, again, back to the iran and their effort to influence iraq in the region, does iraq view it's potential to be a proxy for iranian influence and for some of the other influences in the region to play out in iraq? do they see that as a possibility, and are they concerned about it? >> i think -- i think they are

aware that that's a possibility, and i think more importantly, they clearly resist that effort. they've made very clear that iran should have no influence as to the government in iraq. >> and, again, to stay on iran, i know that the hearing is about iraq, but given the recent reports this week from the iaea about iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, obviously, that threatens not only us, the region, but iraq, i would assume, is very concerned about that prospect, so are we working with iraq to try and isolate iran in response to this report, or have we been doing other actions around iran's potential to get nuclear weapons? >> we've, i mean, we've worked very closely with iraq in trying

to make it very clear to iran that they ought not to provide any kind of military weaponry, particularly to the extremists in iraq, and they cooperated fully in that effort. in addition, i think they share the concern about any kind of nuclear development in iran. >> and are they also working with other nations in the middle east to share that concern, so do you see in terms of their relationship with other middle eastern countries, saudi arabia, qatar, the other countries mentioned, do you see that as a cooperative effort that everybody's concerned about? >> i mean, i don't know the extent, you know, the cooperative effort there, but i think they've made their position clear, and from my own experience, the other countries in the region basically share that same viewpoint. >> you talked, i believe, in your opening statements about our continuing strategic relationship with iraq, and as

we look at the future, the next 10, 15, 20 years, what's the shared interest that we except to continue to have with iraq? i mean, obviously in the short term, we've spent a lot of resources and certainly human lives to help defend iraq and support their ability to have a free democratic country, but long term, i think we're in a different situation than post world war ii, for example, where europe and japan had the threat of communism to help us have a mutual strategic interest, but what do we see that interest being in iraq? >> senator, i think the president's made this clear, and the prime minister made it clear that we're going to continue a long term relationship with iraq, and obviously, it's going to be multitiered, and, you

know, my hope is that we can develop that normal relationship that we have with our countries in the region so that we can assist on training, can assist on counterterrorism operations, and can assist with regards to intelligence and other areas. i think if we can develop that kind of relationship with iraq, that we can actually strengthen their ability to deal with the threats that we're concerned about. >> if i can add, senator, because i lived there for three years and studied it quite extensively, i think when you talk about the future of our relationship with iraq, iraq studies on three prominent fault lines, arab, persian, sunni, shia, and so i think iraq has the potential to be a stabilizing influence, and it has the potential to be a destabilizing influence. it has been for 20 years what we would expect and io spire them to be a stabilizing influence

with tremendous economic potential. i think we should take a long view of this thing. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator sessions? he's not had a first round either. >> i have not had a first round, but senator graham had a time constraint, can i yield to him? >> of course. >> i'll be very quick. one, there's a -- we have people in military custody in iraq; is that correct, secretary panetta? >> that's correct. >> there's a suspect that ducked hezbollah suspect accused of plotting the murder of five or six american soldiers. do we know what's going to happen with him at the end of this year? >> we have made -- we've made our concerns known to the iraqis about the importance of

detaining that individual, but others as well that we're concerned about. >> do you agree if he's agreed in an iraq court, justice will not be delivered, and he should come to the united states to be tried before the military commission? >> i think he'd find better justice here. >> i promise to be quick. general dempsey, did any iraqi commander ever suggest to you that they did not need follow on force, or did they ever object to a follow on force? >> the iraqi military leaders were universally supportive of us continuing to partner with them. >> one last question. do you agree with me if we had 10,000-12,000 forces refereeing duties between the kurds and arabs and had training, that the likelihood of iraq becoming a

successful stable state is dramatically improved? >> i'm not equivocating. i don't know, senator. i think that probably there's a higher likelihood that it would be stabilizing, but there is, nevertheless, the possibility that it would destabilizing. >> would you recommend to the president if the iraqis would accept, give us immunity to keep troops there? >> if the iraqis approach us with the promise of protections, and we can negotiate the missions -- >> right. >> then my recommendation is to find a way to assist them. >> is that true, secretary panetta? >> [inaudible] >> thank you, both. >> thank you. senator sessions? >> that was a very significant question because we have a big decision to make, and we're heading towards a path that from my perspective creates great

concern that as a result of an artificial deadline, we're placing at risk a goal that we spent many years now working towards, expended a great amount of money, lives, and blood to achieve, and so to accelerate too fast in the last days for some artificial reason, not a core military reason, is very worsened to me. now, that just my perspective. i'm really worried about it. secondly, mr. secretary, you have been in the white house, you know how it all works. there's been a belief somehow that the state department can fill the role of the military, we're going to have a big embassy there. we're going to have 16,000 state department. does that include the security personnel also?

they are going to repoliceplace the military. forgive me, but i'm just not confident that they are capable of fulfilling that role. state department people can't be asked to go down a dangerous road. general dempsey said we're going down the road, they salute, they go, putting on their helmets, bullet proof vests, get in the military vehicles, and do their job. they meet tribal leaders, regional officials, some mayor, they do that, so you we're going to have a series of state department compounds, apparently, and with some private security, but would you not agree, secretary panetta, that the determined adversary could place the state department personnel at risk if they move away from those compounds and

actually get out and travel the country side and attempt to build a stronger, healthier nation? >> obviously, that's the purpose of having that security detail with them, but i would also say, senator, that our hope would be that this suspect just a state department presence, but that ultimately we'll be able to negotiate a further presence for the military as well. >> well, thank you for saying that, and i just would say sometimes in the white house, elbows fly. you've been there. you know they do. i think, would you bring to bear your experience and best judgment, and would you be sure that it's well discussed, the dangers of a total removal of the military, and totally

turning this over to the state department? >> i think everyone understands the risks involved here, and that's the reason, you know, we're in negotiations with them about trying to maintain a military presence that can assist them to help provide the right security. >> well, i remember secretary condoleezza rice saying to me, maybe in testimony, that she was prepared to call any member of the state department that they needed in the theater and asked them permly to go, the personally of state -- the secretary of state personally asked them to go. that reveals state department personnel are not required and have the same duty that the military does to go into dangerous areas, and i just would tell you first of all, thank you, general dempsey, for your service in iraq and the war

on terror, all the men and women who gone into harm's way, gone wherever they've been asked to go, even if it was dangerous, and state department personnel are not assigned to do that in the same way, and i just believe we'll lose something if you're not successful in map tanning a -- maintaining a military presence. i thank you, mr. chairman. i know the votes started, so you guys can relax from my perspective. [inaudible conversations] >> we thank you, very much for your testimony, and we just appreciate all you do for our troops and their families. we'll move to the second panel now even though vote has begun. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations]

>> what we're going to do here is begin this this panel, and i'm going to try to catch the end of the first vote and vote for the second vote -- [inaudible conversations] >> you can see this hearing on iraq security issues in its entirety online at c-span.org. >> in a few moments a political discussion with florida's

senator, marco rubio. in less than an hour, texas governor rick perry campaigns in iowa. >> republican senator maria elena salinas -- senator marco rubio of florida says he's hopeful they agree to a plan by next week's deadline, and he spoke with "politico's" mike allen for an hour speaking on politics, immigration, aids, and developments in syria. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. thank you for coming up so early. it's kind of you. i appreciate you being here for the playbook breakfast.

good morning to everyone out in live stream land. thank you for making that possible. people on twitter. this is hash tag playbookbreakfast, and i thank bank of america for continuing to support these conversations, and i'd also like to recognize special guests this morning. we have, fortunate to have several student interns from the urban alliance high school internship program, and this is a dc non-profit connecting with local young people, companies in the area, and three of the students today are in attendance, interns at the bank of america. there's a great program that helps the community, and there's more information on your chair about being involved, and as you came in, you might have got one of these cards. very exciting. baby's first book. the right fights back. the first in the series of e-books that "politico" is doing about this campaign. this is something that's never been done to tell the behind the

scenes story in realtime. i think we maybe announced the book inplaybook, but this is the first time we really talked about it. we have great interviews with some of the candidates talking about what it's like to have king scream at you or whatever it's like to be a candidate, and we go behind the scenes with the advisers and give you a sense of who is going to be -- who is going to be running these campaign, and so you can get that at politico.com/bookshelf. let's get started with marco rubio. senator, good morning. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thanks so much for coming in. >> thank you. >> appreciate so much. >> thank you. >> senator, as soon as you leave here, you're going to make some news. you and another freshmen senator, chris coons, democrat of delaware, are going out to audiocassette about what you call a real bipartisan job creation plan. i feel like we need jobs, not

jobs plans. what's different here? >> yeah. first of all, the frustrating thing is we fight about things we agree on. there's significant differences between republicans and democrats, and a lot is based on significant, you know, ideological differences, and that's why we have elections, and so sphoors the role -- as far as the role of government, that's why there's elections in 2012 and beyond that. >> you giving up already? >> there's just not issues we're going to agree on. it's called the agree jobs. the bill is called the agree act, and it's basically going through everything republicans proposed, democrats proposed, the president propped, and the jobs council proposed to identify things 245 -- that were in all the plans to put in one bill. is it going to save us and turn aren'ted economy? no. but it's going to pass things we agree on, and secondly and more importantly, it sends a message we can get things done here in washington. one of the things having a

dramatic psychological impact on consumer confidence and the economy in general is the inability of the process here to function, to get to a result, so we're going to try to move the ball forward, and we'll see how it works out. >> i don't want it induce a rick perry moment here, duh do you know what agree stands for? >> the actual acronym? no, i don't. >> you learned. >> i didn't come up with it, but what's important is in the bill, and i know that well, and we'll continue to add things to it. >> what's something -- there's parts from the white house, parts of it from gop legislative plans. what's something in it that the white house loves and president obama will say, man, i love it. >> it's all things he's supportive of for the most part like the bonus -- the 197 provision issue i don't want to get technical, but it allows small businesses to write off 100% of the costs of capital

purchases and investments made in their business, things they buy and things they least in the next year that's set to expire. .. you were at the top with the florida politics, came to

washington short-term political gain as part of the reason for reluctance. what else? what is your diagnosis? >> a significant difference of opinion about the royal government in the country and we can't understate that and that's in america you look across the country a constituencies that elect someone out of san francisco will have a difference of opinion about the role of government constituency to elect somebody of northwest florida for example. what happens when someone from northwest florida comes to serve in the house and from san francisco bay will have a difference of opinion about role of government. what they do is they will reflect the people that sent them here and that's part of the conversation we need to have. there are traces to be made and consequences. in the and i think all americans generally want our country to have full, compassion and prosperous and finding what the role should be accomplishing those goals has been at the center of the political debate for the better part of a century

now and certainly the core of what we are talking about today. >> every single person in this room is interested in going on the super committee. let's start at the beginning. what is it a good idea? >> i didn't vote for it and ultimately we have a responsibility to come up here and draw our job to pay us to do our job. we wanted this job everyone of us ran because we wanted to in the house and senate and that's why we have the process when you create these entities which are conceding is that it's designed for 200 years ago and it's involved over time as can't deal with the pressing issues of our time at second reading of the super committee will face the same challenges the congress in general faced and that is a significant ideological difference of opinion about the role of government and those issues like that is what this election needs to be about and a decision the country needs to me, kind of government. >> the super committee will succeed or fail? >> i don't want to say they will fail. even the why wasn't in favor --

>> it's important because let's walk away from it. these guys have worked hard and i don't want to diminish the hard work they've put in and the work they are still doing and i'm hopeful there's something meaningful that will happen but i wouldn't put a lot of money on it certainly not 1.1 trillion but let's wait and see. >> cementer you are a bit of a bridge. you were the ultimate state government insider in florida and you managed early to capture the imagination and energy of the tea party. people in this room didn't think he would be the senator. how did you do that? >> on some days neither did i.. two things. i think the inside and outside thing is not the way to analyze. it's a question of why is someone going into office? is it because they want to do something or be somebody and there is a difference between those two things and we are all guilty in the process of wanting

to be liked. nobody wants to be disliked the there come times you have to make a decision and my in this to make a difference or am i in this because i want to use it as a catapult for something else or i want to be a celebrity or just want to be left? i think too much in politics the last 20 to 30 years we've had a lot of people that have gotten involved because they want to be liked and i thought that is one of the fundamental things that plagued the process and i ran because i wanted to make a difference. that is the thing that motivated me to get in the race. i didn't see anybody were running the would stand for things. >> how did you make that original connection with that sort of populist movement? what specific issue or language worked for you in establishing that? >> i wish i could tell you a bottle and calculation but it wasn't. when i got in the race there was no one else running saying the things i felt which was early in 2009 president obama was elected

the majority in the house and senate and moved rapidly on things like the stimulus plan and then moved off from there to the health care bill so there was a counter reaction and expansion of the role people were not comfortable with and i think what our campaign was able to do to give voice to an alternative and i didn't just want to be the opposition, i wanted to be an alternative at a time i think the republican party was having the debate about whether in order to be effective in the future republicans have to elect people more like democrats and that never made sense to me. we don't need the democrat party is. we already have once a these are the kind of things we were able to articulate but i think helped along the way. estimates are the moderate republicans the equivalent? >> the term moderate -- >> that is what you said. >> it is used as a legal. people fit neatly on the labels we want to create. the bigger point is there has to be a voice for limited government in america and the party does well when it's a legitimate voice on behalf of

limited government. that doesn't mean no government but it means a proper role for government and the end of the day that is where it draws its strength. >> how durable is the tea party? is it a mood or movement? >> you are watching how durable it is. it is a movement and it's not just a movement is a sentiment that found its way expression into a movement. the sentiment isn't new it just didn't have social media and people that didn't know each other to connect and work. >> it will continue to be a factor because the things that he part of the league believes in which is a constitutional limited role for government it's not going to go away it will be a vibrant force. >> would be more centralized it would certainly be more effective -- >> i don't think it will become an organization and if it does it will end up quickly falling apart. i think it is from the strength of the legitimate grassroots movement of everyday people from all over the country who share differences of opinion on a bunch of issues but ultimately on the core of what the government should be a fine, now

that the and able to express it in ways that were not available years ago. >> the one argument i have seen that the tea party wouldn't last and some of you heard me express this over iced tea or whatever we were having at the moment, but whoever becomes the republican nominee at this time were almost by definition have found a way as you did to bridge the establishment and the tea party i wonder if that is what dilutes the sort of a tea party weasel like to cover. >> i don't think so. it will be held accountable. as members of congress are now on what did you say you stood for and then at the same time are you doing it now, so i think you will serve as a accountability mechanism not just on the individual candidates but the republican party. >> senator, you are the second dentist senator. >> by six days. so he says. [laughter]

>> your porth 43 coo zero. what sort of culture shock was there? what do you see anyplace that is much older and driven? >> there's this old joke i was told when i got here. about a week ago, a year ago this week was our orientation and it's hard to believe you remember this legislative body where so much important measures have been taken place over the years and one of the senators -- >> he said to me i know right now you're looking around and wondering how you got here but six months from now you will look around and wonder how they got here but the truth be told by and large they are very nice people and haven't had a run in with anybody that's been negative. who work very hard for the most part really believe the things they are fighting for. some of them are just really wrong in my opinion and have policies i think are bad for the country, but ultimately what you need are pretty pleasant people, and i think when you talk to people there is a -- a couple

people told us and joe biden told me once i written the book jesse helms wrote also it calls to light uzi there's something different and that is why the state elected them and obviously i'm still getting to know a lot of these folks as other people you don't get to know them all in 11 months but generally in the work ethic and the subject matter but also a little bit disappointed by the lack of urgency on some of the major issues that come from the country. i saw some people wearing it and thought maybe that was the day. we haven't pulled it. i'm kidding. [laughter] >> senator, one of the interests is human trafficking. against it. [laughter] >> thank you i think it was

march or april it brought to light the issue of -- >> this was the one about craigslist. >> this is when demi moore went somewhere in africa and started looking at the issue in general and my wife got interested in realized was a problem domestically and it wasn't just sex trafficking rightfully so there's all sorts of forced labor issues and i've been semi aware. what i've been shocked by is the prevalence here in the 21st century and in some ways the laws are to contribute to rate so you look at it on a domestic level florida plays a role and internationally and it adopted a passion in terms of the human rights issue and one that really is one of the great human rights causes of the early part of the century. something i hope we can work to eradicate because 50% of the battle is being aware that it's happening. and so --

>> one fact about it is in this very city there have been the willamette's that have been accused of being people to work for them as domestic workers and aren't paying for them about to have contact with families abroad, they keep them in squalid conditions, and we have a couple incidents going on as we speak of that. so i think it would shock people to know there are members of the diplomatic corps who live in the city walking distance from the city and for all practical purposes living in the quarters. >> what is the number one thing the congress can do? >> we have the reauthorization bill we offer raises all kinds of measures and important, it continues to become victims centers with fish his victims are the most important of the element because without the testimony and without the cooperation you are not going to get convictions or be able to bring people of on charges. it's calling attention to every chance we get. the state department does a review of all the countries depending on their level of compliance and cooperation and

really pressing that agenda it starts with our own a sample. we have to show we take it seriously as a domestic issue and call attention to it. i will frequently on the floor and give a speech i hope in the weeks to come of the different specific excess of domestic tiemann trafficking problems because we have to hold ourselves up to a high standard of we will be a leader in the world. >> he made a visit to the texas mexico border and what have you learned there? >> there are four sectors where people enter the united states through and one of them is that el paso border sector and that is the one i visited. you were impressed there's no doubt there are places made with barbwire put up by the owner of the land and now there's a more impressive structure in its place that has the antitunnelling features etc, and you can see where they are constructed in the right places and pulled make it more secure on the border and see the challenges associated with it.

there are areas harder to secure in the mountainous regions. it's kind of breathtaking to stand there and watch and real lives. we stood on this side of the rio grande and on the one side is el paso texas which is one of the safest cities in america and they brag about how well they've done keeping the crime rate down and on the other side is one of the most dangerous in the hemisphere and supported by and you realize those are the factors contributing to this but in their own country people are not able to find opportunity and when people can't find opportunities and provide a better life for their children and grandchildren they are going to try to find a place they can go to that and ultimately that is the driver behind what we are facing on the border. >> use it the republican party needs to be the pro legal immigration party. how did they get on the wrong track on this issue? >> i want to be fair about it we have an illegal immigration problem and people are becoming increasingly frustrated by it.

americans are compassionate and open people. the emigration has been something we have brought about. only recently as immigration become something so difficult for us to fully embrace although in the early 20th century there are obvious examples and times people react negatively and by and large you have a problem that's gotten worse exacerbated by the downturn in the economy 9% unemployment makes people more upset. government spending problems around the country makes people even more upset and the sense i get from talking to people is almost a sense we are being taken advantage of, the compassionate or openness is being taken advantage of and it's never that simple. i don't think people are thinking that. sprigg but it has occurred. >> but it is in the calculation people have when they enter the country legally i'm going to take advantage of this but for the most part driven by the desire to provide a better life for their children and their grandchildren and i grew up around it and is the story of my family and of the people we grew up around. but the problem is how do you do

that and the 21st century and a way that is conducive to the process that is controlled an orderly and that is why we need the system that functions and that's where we need to begin to focus. it's pretty clear we are not in favor of amnesty. what are we four? what modernization are we four? i hope we can enter this conversation because there are things we can do to improve the legal immigration system and make it work better for everybody involved and in fact help deal with the illegal immigration problem we did. >> what would help? >> the visa programs are broken. they do not take into account the quotas we don't have a workable program that takes into account the 21st century. the guest worker program that adjusted to economic needs. so we would argue when unemployment is at 4% the need for the guest workers is higher than when it's at 9% but either way there is some need so why can't we provide a system whereby people apply in their own country a willing worker overseas, there's a job that no american will fall that's been verified in the united states.

the apply in their own country and receive a work permit, the enter the united states and work for that defined purpose of time and return home and come back again when they are needed and if you have that kind of system will only would it make us more secure it would actually cut down on overstate because one of the reasons people overstays because once they get in they are afraid to leave and never be able to get back in again. >> what something your party can do to do better to let you know? >> well, you know, i think the number one issue in the latino americans of hispanic descent among them is the same as it is in the national and that is jobs in the economy. unemployment is higher than it is around the country. joblessness is hurting as much as it is anywhere else. >> party took a dramatic downturn from where president bush was to where they work. what accounts for that, how do you do better? if you don't do better with the hispanic vote we won't have another president. spread it on to the political calculation. is not involved say the hispanic community.

the hispanic community needs it has different needs and different parts of the country depending on their heritage, where they came from, there is commonality between puerto rican voters and central florida and, you know, mexican-americans and southwest and there's also a difference in their experiences. but at the end of the day what really drives people and brings people to the united states is a desire to provide a better life for their family. so which political party is going to have an economic agenda that offers that and i think republicans have to make a better case. myself included the american free enterprise system is the best system in human history to allow people not just to provide for themselves but give their children and grandchildren a better opportunity to do that. the rhetoric on immigration as heard because it's harder to get people to listen to that argument if they think maybe you are not being friendly to them or their point and so it's important we get the rhetoric right and it's important that we before pro legal immigration measures but ultimately, what will help the republican party do better among all americans including those of his and a

proper role of government. >> let's look abroad. what happens when pastor boies? time has been on their side obviously and they are trying hard to institutionalize and protect their economic gains. it has become a kind of communist military dictatorship where the government is in business in cuba as their land holding the latest gimmick what is the business with this bacon solar cars now and buy houses? >> it is sad to think that -- is almost like throwing crumbs off the table saying we will allow you to eat a crime but not a loaf of bread. people are allowed to buy and sell property based on what the property rights laws. are they going to revisit the property rights? list importantly to get to the fundamental issue in cuba which

is political freedom that people of cuba are 80 people at the can choose any economic model they want. they could choose a western european model, the american model, i mean, that's up to them to decide what kind of economy want to have. my fundamental concern in cuba is not the economic model features although i would have some suggestions. i think by underlining concerning cuba is political freedom and there are no political openings in cuba, none whatsoever and that is what we should be focused on is the political openings come and people in cuba have a voice in the process. they can choose the economic system for themselves and that is what we said be a voice on behalf of commesso political and that isn't happening. >> i will tell you for two reasons, number one it's because any relationship you have with cuba is on their terms 100% so remittances and travel to the island which i think is well intentioned but you know what it does its it is a major source of hard currency that the regime uses which the administration concedes as.

it is a currency that they used to fund themselves and keep themselves in power. the second is leverage. you asked whatever happens after the disappear i think that the economic sanctions on cuba will have more influence on what happens because now we can go to them and say you want a relationship with the united states, and economic relationship. to to join the rest of the hemisphere and you do that and have a friend enough's of the leverage of the sanction is critically important. >> we have a microphone with. give carvel a sort of on the foreign policy of carved out a straight as a bush style talk to you were the head of the president of libya and got to where you were roughly. if the u.s. has credible evidence that they were about to commit a massacre of civilians

should the u.s. intervene? >> let me say that it's kind of already there and he's willing to kill anybody that wants to overthrow him so he is willing -- there isn't any price he isn't willing to pay or any act he isn't willing to take to place himself in power. foreign policy is complicated because no two situations are alike and you out line syria and libya the consequences of the different situations. they are making progress. at one point they were making tremendous progress and we're on the verge of toppling the regime and they specifically asked for a no-fly zone to help them finish the job. you don't have that in syria, and quite frankly i don't know if we want that in syria because one of the things that the regime is using and syria is the understand violence. they understand how to deal with violence and so if they are confronted by the violent uprising in syria they know how to crush that. they don't know how to deal with a peaceful protest.

that is a hard thing to advocate for when i am sitting in washington, d.c. and they are getting their had cracked open in syria but that is the thing that frightens the regime is a peaceful movement and so i would think that the ideal scenario is not an armed conflict that the united states gets involved in but rather a peaceful one that actually continues on the route it on now you see the arab league taking measures. i think al asad is running out of time to read the question is a difficult one and i don't, you know, i don't know if there is a situation where the u.s. and there's a difference of opinion. joe lieberman is much more hawkish about it but i don't know if there is a military engagement the u.s. could get involved and even in the international coalition that could prevent that and syria the way that was able to prevent in libya. >> use all the other night the debate rick perry said he would start foreign aid from zero. would you think of that? >> i'm not putting words in their mouth and don't know what they met other than i think the concept is that what they are saying is everything needs to

justify itself. i think everyone would agree with that. when has it ever been a good idea to throw the money? >> you have an interesting idea about foreign aid. >> it is a very smart overall budget and we don't have a choice. we are not luxembourg. everything that happens day to day virtually everything that happens on the economic life is deeply influenced by what's happening around the world. europe may seem far away to people but you may not know that your pension or retirement is invested in europe and certainly in things that are going to be impacted by europe and its impact by what happens in libya whether it is the oil prices or political instability. and mass migration that comes as a result of that. my point being the u.s. doesn't have a choice to be involved or of the world and many of these countries the only thing you know about the united states for example in africa we provide and how hiv medication and the aid to the humanitarian thing to do and i think the united states we are not just a smart people are

hard-working people we are blessed. no nation on earth. comes an obligation and i think we have to live up to the obligation within our means. that is why foreign aid is important in the affair is an instrument of influence if you are not involved in the country getting foreign aid in egypt as an example and other places where do they care what we think? you have to use it as a level of influence. >> do we have a question here have some of the microphone? yes, sir. >> if you don't mind saying who you are. >> it's like a talk show. >> good morning. i'm from the health care foundation. good morning. i wanted to talk briefly about aids in the united states specifically the assistance program. it provides drugs to people of low incomes.

recently your office has been approached about shifting funds from the critical uses in the budget and other places in the cdc to the program given the recent studies that showed that treatment not only saves lives but it's the most effective way from preventing the infection, preventing it 90 per 6%. would you be in favor of shifting from this -- funds so they can save their lives and prevent infections? >> first of all and before -- so what to make public things about shifting a lot of money within one budget to another and the tough economic times and the consequences i would hate to make a commitment to come back and say what i will do is go back and look at that carefully as something we care about. on the broad perspective and actually calls attention to what i think is one of the fundamental issues we face in the country and that is the balancing act of the people. on the one hand we want

prosperity and we want compassion both compassionate and prosperous and how do you accomplish both things? we are too rich to prosper and to compassionate of a people to allow people to die or allow people to suffer because they can't afford access to lifesaving medication. retek said that something we want our government to be involved in doing. the fundamental question and it doesn't go to the issue specific about you are identifying where the money will come from a lot of people that comes from a funding request don't do that so we will get that and take it seriously but more importantly is a fundamental level is this the proper role of government and for things like this it is. we should never be prepared to say we would lead the disabled, the elderly to fend for themselves. on the other hand these problems have to be created with an eye on the fact we have to have an economy that can afford these things. we have to have enough prosperity so we can afford to

pay for these things we want our government to be doing and i think atv is an example of something we've made tremendous progress on as a nation. it was a crisis when i was growing it in the early 80's the was basically a death sentence and today you have people look live normal meaningful lives with hiv with the advancement in the education and access to the treatment regimen so thanks for the question and we will certainly answer. >> back in florida republicans to restore majority of the congressional delegation and yet everyone who looks of the presidential race says how could that be. >> i think the republican party has done a better job and for the better organized and run better candidates and better e. elections. i think the macrolevel a bigger picture when it comes to voting for president or even for

governor people are a little bit more open-minded than they would be at a lower -- if you are a party line vote person and that his identification as a member of the party your public as well informed about the candidate as you are a who's running for governor or president so florida has a lot of people registered democrat for example in the northwest region who have voted for republicans in the past and vice versa and many people registered as republicans in southeast florida the would vote for democrat in an election pence you see the back-and-forth between george w. bush winning the elections in florida and then barack obama and now we will see so is a toss up states as i guess neither blue or red doesn't make a purple state and i think it's a plight for all the national issues front and center and one of the reasons i felt florida should be early in the primary cycle. >> what do you think is the republican's nominee chance? >> at least 50/50 but they both have to be earned. >> what is the nominee tomb to

get for the? >> the same things have to do to win nationally and again that is a testament to florida's microcosm major. here are the things we need to do to make that happen and the things stand in the way and do it in an optimistic way because people of the court even though they're pessimistic about the short term believe things can get better if only a few fundamental things happen and they're looking for someone to show them the way and it's important for republicans to provide a contrast from the policies they will pursue and the of constable generate as compared to the record the last four years. >> use touched on some of the themes when you give a speech at the presidential library in simi valley california. what was the library like? >> very impressive. i grew up in the era of ronald reagan. i guess i was in third grade when he was elected and i was in high school when he left and some you kind of the major

influence in the upbringing. i grew up in ronald reagan's america said to be there and see that pretty impressive. meeting mrs. reagan was impressive. we had an opportunity on of the great things with their marriage that it is for so many people of how committed they were. janet starts asking ms. reagan about ronald reagan and what he was like and she turns to her and says you know, ronnie, she calls him, used to send my mom flowers thanking her for having me and i would think ghosh. over 700 love letters or something and i'm thinking i made the poll i will never catch up. >> , of the republican convention this year. what is that going to be like?

>> we will have access to the day and it's not just an but it is the region including st. petersburg it's a great in the downtown areas with a lot of entertainment as the elements but beyond that the access and encourage people to go out into the gulf and find a way to get out there the beach is particularly in st. peter's it's little monkey. >> that's fine what you do what might? >> it depends who you are. like i said there's a lot of very fine entertainment establishments in the downtown area of tampa and st. petersburg >> what is the largest one collection or something? >> i've only been there a couple times. >> what is another couple pleases? >> in the tampa area, actually

it's right by the airport, that's the one i recommend. a hall of fame he has a restaurant right near the airport people should try that. >> in tampa it might be you have a big entourage with you. are you prepared to be president? >> to be president of what? i'm not running for president of the united states lie in the united states senator and -- not about me or anything in general but ultimately what you want and the president is the ability to analyze the situation and make decisions based on sound judgment and oftentimes particularly on foreign policy what you are making decisions on is not between the two good choices it is between less than ideal traces and you try to figure out which one is better and which one is worst of that is the quality to look for in a president and i think for the most part i'm not running for president but as a senator many of the decision making process these or similar you have to take positions on the issues you will be judged by history

whether you made the right tricks or the wrong choice of for example when i spoke on the foreign policy things some in my own party or for the mood we should disengage from the world and focus more on domestic things and i guess that it's a very appealing but if you look of the big picture and analyze how the decision will be looked at ten or 15 years from now i think to disengage from some of these issues in the world ten or 15 years from now will be a major mistakes and you have to analyze things like that. it's something i hope i'm developing in the senate and the kind of quality i'm working for for the nominee and the next president. >> you said you don't want to be vice president. why not? >> i'm focused on my job in the senate. >> what's wrong with the office? the question is where can i have a bigger influence on the things i'm working on and i ran for the senate because i wanted to be a senator and serve in this institution and to the kind of things in working on now. i wanted to be a voice for florida and i am just learning how to do that and i think that we are getting the hang of how to do that and i am enjoying that and it's what i ran for.

the question is how we've come to believe that in the senate is no longer a meaningful place but it's even a better job out there somewhere. >> 90 seconds and then come back for another question. you commute it down at miami the two sons, two daughters. how has the family adjusted to this? >> it's been tough and hard and we still think about whether we should move up here or not. eight some days are tougher than others and it's hard to realize that you are not around on tuesday or wednesday and if it is not -- it's difficult on the kids on sunday it difficult for me so i've got to figure that out. the girls are 11 and nine and the boys are six and four. >> what is the consideration? >> that's a good question. we have deep family roots in miami and all of her family and my family it's where we grew up and i like getting back to the state every weekend connecting to people, going to the grocery store, having people tell me nice things and not so nice

things. on the other hand i still believe and i'm not sure i will always get this right but my number one job as husband and father writes got to get those right and it's hard to do that when you are not there so it is an ongoing struggle. >> you have both the catholic church here and at home. islamic i tried to go every day. one of the treasures is the ability to go to mass every day and i try to do every day. i don't always make it but they have confession at 11:50 which i found useful in this process. nothing bad but -- >> no felonies. [laughter] >> nope that's a pretty low standard, you know. and then obviously on sunday and we have established a relationship with a non-catholic church we've enjoyed going to surface for years and go there from time to time.

>> what kind of churches that? >> um the southern baptist convention but they are motif is not the nomination and they have done a great job of that. >> using you to establish relationships. their pastor is for a good and we enjoy that but a the end of the day i found our faith has been a source of strength and clarity and gives everything perspective. when your perspective as eternity and i'm not saying mine always is, i'm as guilty as anyone but you get a better perspective i think on what matters and what doesn't. >> good morning.

>> you mentioned the trip to el paso and how that reflected the difference of the economic conditions but surely it also reflects the war on drugs and mexico and how that's being conducted there. the mexican people are considering whether it's worth conducting the campaign at all so how should the united states continue to make the cases with the cost or should reconsider it altogether? >> i think mexico deserves better. it has the conditions to be prosperous and provide a great opportunities for its people. you can't do that when drug gains run the country and i think the mexican people understand they are paying a high price similar for what you saw happening in colombia and the efforts still happening to try to kind of game the control of the nation and their own sovereignty.

on the other hand the continue to encourage that boezinge relations and assistance to mexico and quite frankly dealing with the domestic consumption problem which is a driver of this any time you talk to the mexican government or mexican people about the problems they are facing i will remind you very quickly with the drugs are headed for american citizens so in order to have a standing on the issue we also have to do a better job of addressing the domestic issues we face in terms of consumption so i think mexico deserves better. one of the developments will be if mexico can emerge from this and grow economically. imagine the united states border by mexico and south and canada and the prosperous nations what it would mean as a nation and the people and i think that is what the mexican people want and we should be helping in that regard in any way we can. >> good morning. thank you for hosting this. i'm azoff with the george washington university school of affairs so i was wondering if

you are going to weigh in on florida i knew he threw his hat in the ring. what do you think about that race? >> it continues to develop and i'm not going to get involved in the primary. my opus to help the republican nominee because i want us to get a majority in the senate. we can do a lot more if we were in the majority but i don't intend to get involved. we have good candidates running to offer themselves up for public service and we will see how it plays out. >> you're unique in this room. you are both an autobiography and a biography. yes pitched a book. what's going on with your book? >> first people have to want to read it so here is to the people writing the book and me as well billeting guess far as writing the book some people are just interested in the background and how that means but however

arrived me to reach certain political conclusions and i have something i want to say not just with the 2010 election but the issues facing our country and what i get from people all the time is what is it like, what have you -- what has surprised you were disappointed your most surprise you that is what we are going to outline in a meaningful way. >> the washington book is out next year. what is it like to be written about? >> we will see when the book comes out. >> a question i asked of replete of breakfast is our people not wanting to be you? what do you do to succeed in washington? what do i do to be successful? >> there's a lot of ways to be involved in the process you can cover it and redican beans or work for an office in the policy level and there are all choices that come with consequences.

they come, you know, i got involved with a congressional office in 1991 and that is how i got involved and from there ran for the city commission and ran to the florida house and just the fallout from there. there were different ways of looking at it. one of the people i admire has been jeb bush and his advice was which i always took go to business and be successful and then go to politics i kind of devotee of their way and there are benefits to that and consequences. the benefit of being involved in politics is a certain level of idealism and drive that doesn't mean you can't be idealistic and you should be but time develops people in that way sometimes you are right and sometimes you are not. others benefits to life experience to having been the ceo of a business and opportunities of having raised your children, so it depends

whether the time is right by encourage people to get involved. it can be messy but you always have to understand we have elections in this country and we have like arguments and say nasty things to each other in this country but the same issues are resolved in other parts of the world. they should each other. i would rather have a negative act than half one shooting at my house. >> what about the scrutiny though? >> someone doesn't like you in american politics they read an article about you or try to get one written that someone doesn't like you in some countries around the world they like decapitate your blow out your car. >> it's painful and the moment. spec ultimately it's part of the deal. you know, ultimately when you sign up for the dish comes with all these things and this is one of them. if you want it to be accurate

but it's part of the deal. i don't have to do this. i want to make a difference and i get it. the price of the missions to this stage i am blessed to be on it and i think it's the end of the day people will make decisions. is it true that you like rap? >> [inaudible] i get in trouble when i listen to that, maybe i shouldn't listen to that anymore. but the music is good. so i will tell you what i've developed over the summer, alj bit of -- now you're going to ask my favorite artist has -- a thing against, i will probably get to that .1 day i suppose.

it sounds really good. >> in the senate he will get there. >> i do like the music stuff and sometimes you have to ignore what the politics may be and just enjoy the music. >> use it gets you in trouble. why? >> people listen to the lyrics and think should you really listening to that? certainly my kids won't be listening to it. [laughter] if i limited my music to conservative artists i have enough to listen to so they are artists, i listen to their music but not to their politics. >> we are appreciative to the bank of america for making of a conversation possible. think you for coming out so early. senator rubio, thank you. >> really appreciate it. [applause]

presidential candidate rick perry to iowa of republicans monday that if elected he plans to, quote, approved all three branches of government and overhaul washington. he was of the scott county republican party ronald reagan dinner in bentonsport in eastern part of the state.

[applause] >> thank you very much. it's an honor to be here withi t you. the hardest working woman in an show business. where. susan frazier is out there susan, somewhere. there you are.she' thank you. she is my scott countydoing coordinator and is doing athankr fabulous job, so thank you for , sl that you are doing andnd obviously just kidding to watch you and stand up for iowa watch that secretary of state the country. it's like if you're not for the home team, who are you for?

matt, thank you for the work you've done. the people of iowa are very proud to have you and the work you do, and to the local senators and representatives, thank you, all, for coming out and for your public service, your sacrifice you make, and certainly these three individuals who got up and shared their hearts about the future of the country, the individuals that want to represent you in congress and they truly get what this is really all about from the stand point of nibbling around the edges is not going to work anymore. we have to send people to washington that truly make a difference, and i can see all three ready to walk into the room with a sledge hammer and get work done, so, anyway, honored to have them up here. [applause] and, you know, being here i'm

always refinded when i show up in iowa, the pundits think they are the ones to pick the presidents. nope, it's the people of iowa who pick presidents. [applause] i got that figured out. i'm feeling a special connection as brian was sharing with you being the son of a couple farmers from back out in pan creek, texas, and it was not a town. as a matter of fact, it was just a little community out there, and it was a small school on a farm to market road, had about 110 kids, grade 1-12, a methodist and baptist church across the road, your choice, and as i was growing up, there were basically, judy, thee things that i could be doing -- go to school, that took up a good bit of time, working at the farm, and being in the 4-h, and showing club calfs or going to boy scouts, and mom made sure i never missed a revival.

[laughter] our teachers there at that little school, they lived around the -- they lived around the campus dock. they were having their own -- it was just an incredible little community and a place to grow up, and it was -- it was pretty humble beginnings. i will be forever grateful for that. we weren't rich. as a matter of fact, people would probably say we didn't have much materially. we were rich. we were rich in things of faith and family. we were rich with great neighbors who took care of each other. i learned up like in a lot of western societies that opportunity wasn't granted to you because of your family name, but because of your capacities to dream, your willingness to work hard. you know, as americans, we do

not believe government exists to punish success in order to spread the wealth. we don't believe that. we believe government exists to protect our rights and to guarantee our freedom. i think washington today has it all wrong. they punish success rather than multiplying it and think they can stimulate the economy when that's the job of the private sector. they think the answer is just add a new agency to government, and i can remember most of them. [laughter] [applause] i, for one, don't pleef the people who got us into this mess can get us out of it. senator john demint or excuse

me, jim demint from south carolina said are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? [laughter] the solution is not to nominate someone who's going to nibble around the edges as i said earlier. we have to have people like these congressmen to be, that walked in here tonight talking about bold ideas. about really making a difference. washington doesn't need a new coat of paint. it needs a completely overhaul. [applause] you know, it's really interesting as i look across the country and as i've traveled a good bit since the middle of august and america remains mired in the ruins of this washington, out of touch, big government, economic policies, and when you go into washington, d.c., though, and that surrounding area, they are doing just find.

it's truly interesting. in fact, washington metro area is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country, and that's because all of those lobbyists, that's because all every those overpaid czars and bureaucrats have not suffered one bit while we've gone through one of the worst economies this country's ever seen. main street is getting boarded up, but the cash continues to flow to those wall street financiers, the beltway profiteers. now, tomorrow, i'm going to unvail a plan to uproot all three branches of government and overhaul washington. it touches every branch of government because they each have contributed to the demise of america. i'm going to address lifetime federal judges who air gauntly

-- arrogantly rewrite our laws from the bench. i'm going to address the permanent bureaucracy of the executive branch that twharts the will of the american people to advance a big government agenda. i'm going to put forward very dramatic reforms for a congress that not only spends too much, but it is in washington too much. [applause] the question facing iowa in 50 days is not whether to embrace change, but to decide for them, iowa, to decide who is the most credible messager of that change. now, i'm the first to admit i'm not the most polished candidate out there, but let me tell you one thing -- i stick to my principle, and that includes a

flat tax so simple you can file your income tax on a postcard, right there. [applause] i'm batting even timothy geithner can fill this out and get it in on time. those principles include creating a level playing field. that's why i'm for closing the corporate loopholes and carveouts these lawyers and others use to feed that washington trough. i'm the only candidate who has a plan to balance our budget by the year 2020, and with our nation, just as you heard john say a while ago, approaching $15 trillion in debt, i think any discussion of funding for foreign aid should start with the number 0. [applause] we will not fund nations who

oppose our interest and harm our soldiers. that's just a fact. when it comes to protecting life, i offer more than just pro-life rhetoric. i got a pro-life record. i signed a parental consent law for minors seeking an abortion. i signed a budget that defunds planned parenthood in texas. rather than bowing to the political correctness of the liberal elites, i led the charge in texas to change, or i should say to define marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman, and we put it on the constitutional amendment and put it in the constitution. just this last session, i was proud to sign that legislation that in our state, when you go to vote, you must come with a photo id. keep at it. [applause] you're on the right track, brother.

[applause] leadership is not about style. it's about substance. it's about action. the test of any american is not whether or not we get knocked # down. we're all going to do that. every one of us have. it's whether we get up. throughout the years, americans were defined by men and women who got off the mat and fought for their values. it started with the pilgrims. they wouldn't accept religious persecution in their homeland so they sailed here to find new life and new freedom, and then it continued with the colonies who bristled with the taxes and the distant crown, and they never stopped fighting until they won that battle. generations of americans have not slunk from a worthy fight. in the 20th century, america

fought the forces of fascism and two world wars, the forces of communism and korea and vietnam and the cold war. since then, our troops have fought dictators who threaten our vital interest in the middle east and asia. right now, there are millions of americans on the mat, not because of a foreign power, but because of flawed, federal policies. too many know the shame of going home to tell a loved one that they lost their job today. too many have to tell their children that they can't afford to go to college. millions have lost their homes because the federal government and the credit rating agencies misled them into thinking that they could afford zero down. who is it that's going to fight

for those people snow who will stand up for those americans? not an administration that is making our economy crisis even worse. not a president who in the last few days has called our people soft, lacking in ambition and imagination for his words, who just saturday night said americans have gotten lazy. mr. president, americans are not lazy, and they are not soft. americans do not lack a vision or ambition. we lack leadership in washington, d.c.. ..

want rest until those that are looking for work have found it and they can have their dreams again. we've had enough of leaders who point their finger and say there's more to blame. i want to point this country in a new direction. i am in this race for the presidency not because of some lifelong ambition but because the american people are yearning for a leader who will tell them the truth who will put forward a bold and visionary plans, who will not appease the washington establishment, but dismantle.

if you want real change, if you want to overhaul business as usual, i ask you for your support. i ask you to caucus for a meeting you were a third. let's get america working again and let's get this movement started right here in iowa. god bless you. thank you all for coming out and being with us tonight. [applause] >> governor, don't forget to file your taxes. [laughter] >> i want to thank you all for being here tonight. another round of applause for governor perry. terrific speech. [applause]

>> i am excited to might like i was when we did this two years back because she could see the energy and excitement within the republican party that indicated we had land at our back and were ready to win. we were ready to win in 2012 let's continue the hard work and continue to be united. go to the caucus. whoever wins the process and let's go and have agreed republican victory in 2012. thank you for coming. god bless you. i have to remind you the silent auction will remain open for ten more minutes secure bid of one last time and then when auction is over, take your sheet but not the item to the front desk and they will check you out and then you can pick up the item. thanks again. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> good morning everybody. today we receive testimony from two panels of witnesses in security issues relating to iraq including the withdrawal of u.s. troops and a long-term relationship. the first panel consist of

secretary of defense leon panetta ed, chairman of joint chiefs of staff and general dempsey followed by a panel of outside witnesses. first day warm will come to you mr. secretary, in to you general dempsey last month the president announced all u.s. military forces would be coming home from iraq by the end of this december. as required under the 2008 u.s. iraq security agreement agreed to buy a george to the bush and prime minister al-maliki. the film of our obligation under the 2008 agreement represents a bipartisan u.s. policies set by republican president carried through to completion through the democratic successor per u.s. forces is on track to meet the legal deadline for the withdrawal of the

remaining u.s. military forces and the equipment. as of today there are around 30,000 u.s. military personnel in iraq, down from a peak of 160,000 during the surge in 2007. at the beginning of operation new dodd, the united states had 92 basis in iraq, after the closure we're down at "tales for little rascals." the defense to park their property has declined from 2 million pieces of equipment, as september 1 year-ago, around 600,000 pieces of equipment out. we'll arrive at this point* after a point* five years of conflict and a great sacrifice by our servicemen and women coming families, american people. many men and women in uniform have served multiple tumors in iraq and have been separated from their families months and years at

a time many will bear the scars for the rest of their lives for over 4400 u.s. personnel killed in nearly 32,000 wounded in iraq with a direct cost of operation and iraqi freedom totaling over $800 billion. we all the immense debt of gratitude to our military men and women and their families. yet mr. mischa's sought to reach the agreement with the iraqi government for traders to remain after december 31st. however those reached an impasse on the issue of legal immunity for our troops. protection from prosecution in the iraqi court. once it became clear the government of iraq was not prepared to grant our servicemen and women the same legal protection they had had been under the 2008 security agreement, and the same legal protections that

the u.s. military has entered agreements with other countries in the region, president obama decided all u.s. military forces would be withdrawn as provided for under the 2008 agreement. i believe that was the right decision. i would have supported a small u.s. residual presence in iraq with a limited vision of training iraqi security forces it, provide additional protection for diplomatic personnel if, and only if, iraq had agreed to legal protections for the u.s. troops. i believe the military commanders supported the being a residual force if, and only if, of legal protections for provided if they did not support those without immunity from prosecution in the iraqi courts. our military withdrawal is a

agreed to in the 2008 security agreements cents a clear message to those in the arab world that the united states keeps its commitments and puts the lives in propaganda a of the united states as the occupation force to rest. it is time to complete the transition our responsibility for iraq's security to the iraq government. the iraqis were in a position to handle their own internal security, violence has dropped to 90% from a peak during the surge come at the same time there iraqi security forces have made significant progress and according to u.s. forces the iraqi security forces exceed 650,000 people and in addition it can assume the cost of its own security with oil production reaching record highs, during the first nine months of 2011

were more than 50% greater than during the same period the year before to exceed the iraqi budget projections by more than 20%. the withdrawal of u.s. forces from iraq, when chapter closes and another chapter opens. the new chapter is not an abandonment common united states remains committed to the bilateral strategic framework which was entered into at the same time as the 2008 security agreement. the strategic framework agreement sets out numerous areas for continued u.s. iraqi cooperation including defensive security issues. they have set up a cooperation that the u.s. embassy to manage the efforts in support of the

government of iraq. by january next year the office will administer nearly 370 military sales totaling $10 billion. certainly it faces a number of significant security challenges that the united states, would assist al qaeda and iraq seek to exploit ethnic divisions among the sectarian groups and minorities. in this regard recent arrest of suni leaders by the al-maliki government have exacerbated the tensions potentially creating an opening for al qaeda to explain. grew be interested in hearing from our witnesses this morning what steps the administration has taken to try to diffuse that situation. in northern iraq the internal boundary remains under dispute under the gulf and iraq in the kurds the

it -- the was put in place to reduce or avoid and with the three-way mechanism with your and iraqi security forces to one operating bilaterally between the kurds and iraqi forces and help the witnesses will show how we play the role along with the internal disputed boundary particularly through the u.s. consulate in the office of security cooperation society and kirk cut. also interested hearing if there is a role for the multilateral peacekeeping force to maintain well the party is address the security issues. our concern about the security of the christian minority is very strong we need to work with the government of iraq to ensure it has the will and the

capability to protect their religious communities from targets of violence and persecution. the status of the residents from the iranian dissidents remain unresolved as the 2011 deadline approaches the administration needs to remain diligent that the government is up to its commitment to provide for the safety of the residence until a resolution of their status could be reached to make it clear to the government of iraq there can be a repeat of the deadly confrontation begun last april by iraqi security forces against the residents. it is every and severance to influence the political and security environment it continues to fund and equip extremist groups that have targeted u.s. forces.

i hope hour of witnesses this morning will address the capability of iraqi security forces and the willingness of the al-maliki government to respond to i tat -- attacks to these groups after withdrawal of u.s. military force. the departure of u.s. military forces in the coming weeks consistent with our legal obligation can contribute to a fancy in the normalization of relations between the united states and iraq based on shared interest and that can strengthen the stability throughout the region. senator mccain. >> thank you for convening this important hearing and let me think our distinguished witnesses for joining us today for their continued service to our nation and their tireless support of our men and women in uniform. this is to examine the implications of the

president's decision of october 21st it to end to negotiations with the government of iraq to retain a small presence there beyond this year. as a result all u.s. military forces will withdraw from the country by next month. i continue to believe this is a failure of leadership both iraqi and american come at us said case of political expediency, supplanting military necessity both in baghdad and washington. and will have serious negative consequences for the stability of iraq in the national security interest of the united states and hope that i am wrong. but i fear one of the main architects of the church said we won the war in iraq and we're now losing the piece. let me be clear i am eager

to bring our troops home. did not want them to remain a and i iraq but also at what point* do their leaders show that to the u.s. forces should remain a while longer to help them secure the gains that we had made together. >> the generals and other military commanders all believed we needed to keep some troops in iraq. this is what they consistently told me and others during our repeated visits. our commanders held the view for a very specific reason, which they make clear to this committee on numerous occasions. for all the progress the security forces have made and it is substantial you do some of some critical gaps to endure beyond this year.

that includes enabling function to how the counterterrorism operations. and external security russians and training in sustainment of the force. latest report of the inspector general the chief of staff is quoted as saying iraq cannot provide for arizona external defense until someone who days between 2020 and 2020 for. saying iraq cannot defend its own airspace until 2020 at the earliest but unfortunately the president chose to disregard the nearly unanimous in price of the military commanders, not for the first time as well as the long-term need for the military.

advocates are point to new point* out the current agreement that requires all u.s. troops to be out by the end of the year was concluded by the bush administration, that is true. it is also beside the point*. they'll raise intended for it to be renegotiated at a later date to allow some u.s. forces to remain progress former secretary of state condoleezza rice whose state department negotiated there was the expectation we would negotiate something to look like a residual force with the iraqis "everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force. clearly you can believe testimony and statements we have heard or you can believe the comments of the then secretary of state believed would be the case

as regard to the residual force iraq. clearly iraq is a sovereign country we cannot force the iraqis to do things they don't want to do but it also misses the main point* of blocks wanted some troops to remain. along with senator graham in the berm and i met with the leaders this year that is what day told us it it had to do with the administration unwillingness or inability or both the more the location to provide the iraqis with a clear position on what our government wanted. the ministrations seemed more concerned with conforming to iraq political realities and shaping those referring to iraq's interest in securing the critical interest we had with the process. what is the implication of full withdrawal?

my concern is that all of those destabilizing trends are now a much greater risk to become more threatening in the events of the past month offer many reasons to think this might already be happening. when such a threat to is the rising sectarianism. at the end of last month prime minister al-maliki government at arrested more than 600 iraqis who were characterized as the baathist who may have included an ordinary political opponents of the government. the action has exacerbated tensions with the sudanese who already see the political process as unresponsive and exclusive at the same time longstanding tensions between the iraqis and arabs and kurds are rising. last week the president of the kurdistan regional

government warned their withdrawal of u.s. troops could lead to the open-ended civil war. in short, while the democracy seems to be a growing risk some of the sectarian rival almost pulled the country apart before the search are now showing troubling signs of reemerging. the threat comes from one al qaeda and on the other side and the november 5th article shows a growing concern the iraqi leader's addis propose for a dead the resurgence is 71 of the most dangerous military groups participated in a gathering of terrorist groups in beirut that included hezbollah and hamas suggested in the iranian-backed forces may seek to establish the

concern save face a or to ring gauge in the stabilizing activities but at the same time it after the president's install, but two al-sadr looking at the embassy officials as occupiers and they should be targets of his resistance movement. this points to a final threat come of the rise of iranian influence and father isn't -- influence the fact the number one priority was to get all u.s. troops out of iraq. they will not accomplish that goal in the every a supreme leader has barely been able to contain his enthusiasm. he is referred to the withdrawal of u.s. troops as constituting the golden pages of the iraq history and other iranian leaders have described hour pending withdrawal as a great victory for iran.

iraqis appeared to be making necessary accommodations in the week after the president's announcement comment kurdistan went to iran and next week the chief commander of the iraqi army will visit iran and it is hard to see the withdrawal of u.s. forces as anything but a win and the parting baghdad in 2009 he warned the events for which the iraq war will be remembered by us and the world have not yet happened. unfortunately the events of the past two years culminating in the administration failure to secure a presence of u.s. forces and iraq have unnecessarily increase the odds the war in iraq is not as the emerging success as appeared when the administration took office but something tragically short.

considering all of our troops have sacrificed and our enduring national security interests, we have a solemn responsibility to stay committed to the success of iraq but cannot avoid the fact it is now at greater risk than any time since the dark days before the search and it did not have to be this way. i think you mr. chairman. >> secretary panetta? >> thank you mr. chairman, as senator mccain and distinguished members of the committee. thank you as always for your continuing support for our men and women in uniform in for their families of eight deeply appreciate this of four we get from new for those who put their lives on the lybrel i appreciate the opportunity to describe our strategy and iraq to do so alongside general dempsey who has overseen so many