afghanistan. what president elan said during the course of his campaign he would withdrawal all combat troops from afghanistan by end of 2012. he'll have to make his national decision with respect to that. what we would look to a country to do as they make national decisions, indeed we make national decisions as well. we decided we would draw down our surge troops the full 33,000 by the end of september of this year and that's what we're doing. but we would look to an ally to make those decisions in the context of the overall lisbon framework. and that framework allows for different kinds of contributions to be made by countries. contributions can include combat troops. right? i would point out that the province where the french of mother prominent, province scheduled to prns igs during the course of this year. what we would look to allies to make their national decisions in the context of the overall

alliance approach which has us in, isaf, until the end of 2014. you can make all kind of contributions. combat troop contributions. train and assist kinds of contributions. you can make other kinds of contributions, right? we'll have a discussion with the french about where they want to go on this, but the key concept here, though, is, again, despite the specific nature of the contribution, despite the national decision you might make about pace of withdrawal or timing, you are a member of the alliance, all-in, in together, out together as an alliance in a general fashion. >> we should look for something along the lines of what the u.s. has already done, or the u.s., maybe they my withdrawal combat troops but leave in training missions? can't speak for him, jessica, but those are the kinds of discussions we would be having. i'm being very direct. the kind of discussions we look forward to having what exactly will be the french contribution going forward catake into accou,

he ran on a platform. i'm sure he intends to keep his campaign commitments, but also france is a member of the alliance. it's a member of isaf. it's an ally of the united states. so i think it's fully appropriate for us to have a discussion about this. >> afghanistan -- are the u.s. pledges to afghanistan unconditional regardless of who wins the presidential election in 2014? >> that, i don't -- >> the national pledges? >> well, that, the strategic partnership agreement? yeah. that president obama and president karzai signed. a couple things about that. first of all that is an agreement between the united states and afghanistan. not an agreement between individuals. it's a national agreement. entered into because it was in interests of the united states and afghanistan. the first thing. the second thing is that it is obligations on both sides. which we would seek to being implemented. obligations on the u.s. side and

on the afghan side. >> okay. stephen and then we'll let tom go. >> how concerned is the u.s. that the continuing budget cuts and austerity in europe could have nato to xct act in the fut in a situation like libya? and growth in europe. do you expect any actions that could impact the economy, the european economy in a short term and obviously an effect on the u.s. economy? >> actions in what context? >> actions on growth rather than simply talking about how growth is an important factor. >> okay. with respect to nato and the way forward, one of the sessions indeed the first alliance session will be devoted to nato capabilities. and they have, the nato allies have undertaken a study over the last two years focused on those

capabilities that if believes are essential into the future pop. and parts of that, of course, are missile defense, and where by the way will hit a milestone at this meeting where we'll declare that the nato missile defense system is, has achieved a level of interim capability. that means that the united states at this point feels comfortable in making real contributions of assets including the radars in turkey. surveillance. where nato agreed to put together an alliance ground surveillance system. but that's the first point. the first point is, you need to decide what capabilities you need, and i think nato has done that and that will be approved at chicago. this allow, by the way, for efficiencies. it allows for false multipliers. right? that was the case in libya. i do think, though, it's a fair point to consider, though that even if you get efficiencies, even if you do have forced

multipliers tludhrough alliance work, even if you have focus on the things you need to do and some of the things you're not going to continue to do, it does take a level of funding, right, going forward, and you know, secretary gates gave a speech, val dicker to smeepeech toe nat. a fair and ongoing basis with respect to nato. i think it's a fair point. going forward, and one that needs to be, needs ap consistent focus. with respect to actions that could be taken, i don't want to comment on that. i think this is a -- this will be a discussion among the leaders. the leaders, like i said, will focus on specifics and specific concepts and ideas for growth and job us but i point out the all miss decision decisions taken on the eurozone and in fact a european summit meeting following almost immediately after the g-8 summit and the

nato summit on may 23rd in europe. >> tom i think it is appropriate, since you mentioned, professor knoller at the start, perhaps he get the last question. >> now -- first of all, taking the last question, one more question, of course, somebody started -- someone started here 35 years ago should really know that, not to take one last question. and secondly -- >> setting up camp david to accommodate eight heads of state, not all cabins of equal. have you decided who gets what cabins? what do you do with all the aides and assistants and security details? there's no room for them up there. how have you put this together? >> there are a couple of points on that. and the allocation system, of course, is classified. and really can't -- go into

that. but they'll have a couple things to say. one is, that it's a complex of buildings, as you know, and there is adequate and during the planning, before i made the decision, a team led by those here in the white house military office went through this in great detail. and they're adequate facility there's for each delegation, each head of state to have his or her cabinet, as i said, and for each to be accompanied by a key staff person and in some case two or three staff people. additionally, of course, there are a setup for communications and some of my team and others up there. but it's adequate. it's a pretty extensive facility and maybe we could get a deeper briefing on that, seriously. on the -- i'm as interested as you are. >> speaking for heads of state -- >> is it rustic? >> rustic up there? >> you know, i grew up in

providence, rhode island. never had a lawn bigger than three feet in the front of my house. so, yeah. i'm not really the one to comment on rustic, mark. >> thank you, tom, very much. >> thank you all. good to see you. >> a briefing. >> yeah. >> press surroundings at camp david. >> [ inaudible ]. >> we'll have more details as they become available. >> thank you. >> you all may have had your fill of briefing. that would be fine with me, but if you have -- bill has, for sure. if you have any other questions, i can take them, for a few minutes. yes? >> worth repeating the general policies of the administration, international unity. what's your reaction with senate republicans blocking senator reid from moving forward on new sanctions against iran since i

assume you wanted that action to take place before camp david to show unity. >> well, i think, ed, we have worked with congress as we built the most significant sanctions regime against iran, and we will continue to consult with congress on iran's sanctions, and we will welcome additional tools, if congress makes them available. to pressure the regime. you know, i think broadly speaking it can be said we share congress' view on a range of iran-related matters, and that was reflected in the presidential announcement of an executive order using technology to help the iranian and syrian regimes commit grave human rights abuses. so i don't have a specific reaction to today's action on the hill, but we have viewed this in a way that i think demonstrates we share concern

about iran with congress, and we have worked with congress to, to together build the kind of sanctions regime that has, as you know, put unprecedented pressure other than the regime, isolated that regime to a degree that. has never been isolated before and we believe successfully led to a point where's now we are in a p-5 plus 1 negotiations that hopefully will move forward. >> quick oun weren't the euro debt crisis. obviously tom was asked about possible tensions between germany and france, the british prime minister put out a three-point plan today. elements of that, that angela merkel does not support. given those divisions, how does the president approach this? what is his goal to try to bring the parties together? does he -- all of these different plans are floating around for months. they're going to turn the

corner. what do you hope to get out of this, especially since the u.s. has its own debt problems, and how could that kplingt the president's hand when he's got this fight going on with boehner? >> a couple of things. first of all, i'd point to you some of the comments that tom donilon just made here, the national security adviser. he spoke clearly about the fact that we do have a stake in europe's economic future. and that fact is reflected in the manner with which we've engaged with our european counterparts, both at the he of the president and at the level of secretary geithner and others in the cabinet and we continue to dot that. in a meeting at the g-8 will be another opportunity for president obama to meet with eurozones heads of state to further those discussions.

as tom said, we, you know -- the president has long made clear and certainly made clear at the g-20 in cannes he believes an approach that takes into account the need for further growth and job creation, a balanced approach that includes not just austerity but growth in job creation is the right approach and it's something that we can, when we discuss this with our european allies, we can point to some of our own experiences. i think that as you know, the last several years of positive gdp growth here in the united states, the last 26 months of positive private sector job creation point top the efficacy of taking measures that help stimulate growth and create jobs, and the president's commitment as demonstrated by the laws he signed that have already resulted in locking in

$2 trillion of spending cuts and he his commitment to do more through his budget proposal demonstrates you need that balanced budget approach. that facilitating growth and job creation in the near term can be joined with efforts to deal with medium and long-termfiscal issues. that's what the president and the view he'll take into his meetings this weekend. kristen? >> -- not planning to attend this weekend. does president obama see this as a step backwards in the reset with russia? >> no. we addressed this at the time when president putin made clear he was in the process of building out his government that he was not going to be able to attend. he'll send prime minister medvedev. as i understand it.

and president obama will meet with president putin very soon at the g-20 in mexico. so they've had conversations by phone, and you know, our approach to our relationship to russia today is as it has been which is, we have engaged with russia. we have worked with the russian government on shared interests and goals in a cooperative fashion that have produced i think beneficial results for both countries, and we've been clear about issues that we disagree on, but the overall mind-set has been, i think, both here in washington and in moscow, that -- that we should not let the fact that we disagree on some issues prevent us from making progress on others, because we can continue to work on those areas of disagreement. for example, with regards to missile defense, and try to resolve our disagreements, and

even as we do, continue to make progress in other areas. so the pret looks forward to meeting with president putin in about a month. jay? and then -- jashg and then andre. >> you joined the obama team long after president obama had cut off his ties with reverend wright, but his name re-emerged in the news lately. there was a proposal for a super pac that the "new york times" broke to run and ad campaign that generally the -- that talked a lot about the influence of reverend wright on president obama and also reverent wright himself gave interviews to conservative offering, talking about his conversation with then senator obama and other allegations. i was wondering what you thought about first of all the idea think was re-emerging and second of all if the administration has response to the things reverent wright has been saying in his intervi interviews. >> on the first, i saw the article and would point you to i think the statement that the campaign put out about this issue.

i'll echo that and say that -- to launch a multimillion dollar divisive attack campaign is not what the american people want, and i think in are moments when you have to stand up and say that that's not the right way to go, and i would -- you know, i would point to numerous comments that echo that, not just from democrats and political observers but by republicans today. secondly, you know, i -- the book that is the foundation for the other element of your question is, you know, not one that i would read, because i know that the author lacks -- but it is what has given rise to this and lacks certain credibility and i haven't listened to the interviews that you talk about. i'm not a regular viewer of sean

hannity or reader of ed kline. some of these issue was featured, you mentioned, in the 2008 campaign. much discussed. the president gave as a candidate a very memorable detailed speech about his views in philadelphia at the constitution center, and you know, i think that was a memorable moment, and right now in 2012, we're focused on what the american people are focused on. jobs, the economy. issues of national security that tom donilon just spoke about. thanks. >> thank you. >> okay. i just promised andre and then april -- yeah. >> the question, the russian president reports there will about meeting between the president and the russian prime minister. it will be slightly outreached. my question is, there will be --

prove you are saving some for the later meeting with putin? >> well, i think ben rhodes said as he was on his way out, we don't have the announcements about other bilateral meetings that may take place but may have more information for you between now and the beginning of the g-8 and nato summit. and i don't have a schedule for the agenda in mexico. we're focused on the upcoming meetings. april? >> jay, i want to -- [ inaudible ] what jake asked you. since this president came into the oval office he has worked hard to deal with policies and looking at issues of race. the issue of race is raising its head again with some of the words, metro sexual, black abe league. how does this white house thwart those type of attacks as you try not to bring race into the

issue? >> i think i would just repeat what i said to jake. the campaign put out a statement with regards to that specific story and that would be campaign -- >> this is presidential and tried to walk with that dealing with policy. now it's coming back i. thi. >> i think some of the issues were very clearly discussed and addressed back in 2008 and the president gave a, what i think became a -- a highly regarded speech in philadelphia during that campaign that talked about some of these issues. his focus is not on that issue or those issues. his focus is on the work he needs to do to help this economy grow. and you know, i'm not just saying that because that's the

preferred answer. i'm saying it because i know it for a fact. i know that that's the issue that the economy and jobs are the issues that he spends the vast majority of his time on and that's what he's going to be talking about going forward. our views on this ad campaign, you know, reflected in the statement by the campaign, which i echoed, you know, these kinds of divisive, unfortunate approaches are not you know -- are not what i think the american people want to see, and i think in a -- in a manner that's at least in this early stage in the aftermath of that article, somewhat reassuring i think you've seen a broad array of people criticize or con dhaem approach. condemn that approach. i don't have anything to add ton that because that's not what we're spending our time on here at the white house. you guy, we've been doing this more than an hour. i'm going to leave it at that.

thanks a lot. take care. president obama meets with the g-8 industrial leaders at camp david. he chairs the meeting this year after the g-8 he meets with nate oh members starting sunday. the u.s. house is spending the afternoon on defense department programs and the policy for the next fiskcal yea. more than 140 amendments maying considered. the house voted overwhelmingly to extend the national flood insurance program through june. the 17th time its been extended while negotiations continue over a long-term solution. the senate voted today to fill the two remaining positions on

the federal reserve board and voted on food and drug administration user fees. the senate is live on c-span2. the house on c-span. to learn more about members of congress, c-span's congressional directly is available. it's a complete guide to the 112th congress with committee assignments and district maps. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and happened handling. order online. c-span.org/shop. when immigrants show up in significant number, somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1930s, very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they're showing up to in to a political environment qualified to vote as soon as they become citizens. the kind of politics we're talking about. an image from "harper's" weekly in 1850, just after election time, and it shows a saloon and a polling place. if you wanted to voe, you see the doorway in the back.

you had to go in there to vote. >> this weekend on lectures in history, from mungsy, indiana, ball state university professor examines immigration, voting and the roots of pluralism in the united states. saturday night at 8:00 eastern. part of american tv history this weekend on c-span3. the bipartisan policy center previewed the upcoming talks on iran's nuclear programs. those meetings, may 23rd in baghdad, include the five permanent members of the u.n. security council plus germany. this include dennis ross. and elliott abrams, former deputy of the national security adviser to president george w. bush. >> there's nothing like a couple of rain drops to make sure president kennedy the assertion about washington having the charm of the north and efficiency of the south.

i appreciate all of you fighting through traffic to be here today. i want to welcome to you what is going to be an extremely informative and clearly timely discussion about our continuing efforts as a nation and a world to achieve a peaceful resolution to the ongoing nuclear crisis with iran. one of the core ideas that encouraged senators daschle, dole, baker and mitchell to join in the policy center five years ago is the idea we need to have forums in this country and certainly in this city where we can have rich and very public discussion answer the consequential issues facing the nation. nowhere has the work been more value able or challenging than the ongoing three-year effort to promote a comprehensive strategy to address the iranian nuclear ambition. all you-oof you know meeting mad and there's burgeoning hope in capitals in what can and might

be accomplished during these discussions. encouragingly, congress has been in recent weeks advancing legislation that has broad bipartisan support to increase the pressure and i think in a focused and comprehensive way in iran. and those made in our reports are appearing in the pieces of legislation. so i would now offer the forum to dr. mike mccuskey, directs this to set the stage and context for the conversation we are going to see today and thank you, again, very much for coming. mike? >> thanks very much, jason. we at -- as jason indicated, we at the bipartisan policy center have always considered preventing a nuclear iran to be the most pressing national u.s. -- the most pressing u.s. national security challenge.

as president obama recently said, preventing nuclear iran is profoundly in the security interests of the united states. over the last four years we've issued four reports and our most recent one was issued on february 1st and as jason indicated, co-chaired by senator chuck robb and general chuck wald, and it also includes a distinguished panel of four former democratic members of congress, three retired four-star generals and admirals and also other distinguished foreign policy and energy experts. our last report reinforced a view we've always held which is that the best approach to this crisis, to this challenge, is a simultaneous pursuit of a triple track policy which is diplomacy, sufficient sanctions and a credible invisible military threat. and we also subsequently issued

a white paper in the last couple of months on each of those tracks. i'm going to quickly highlight one recommendation on each of those tracks and then turn it over to mort zuckerman. on sanctions, we urged congress to assess and report a regular intervals progress of iran's nuclear program to determine a degree to which sanctions are forcing iran to slow down or cease nuclear development. on a military threat, we believe the united states should boost the credible both of its own and israels military threat to iran's nuclear facilities, and we have spelled out how to do so and one element has been selling israel 200 gbu bunker busters and three kc 135 aerial refueling tankers. at voe kating an israeli strike, no, but believe such sales send a strong signal to tehran to negotiate in good faith, encourage india and china and other buyers of iranian oil that the alternative to supporting

u.s. sanctions could be military conflict and a cutoff of oil from the persian gulf. and as jason indicated, we are glad legislation is progressing that shares some of these proposals. on diplomacy, we played out in april, on april 9th a white paper, principles that we believe are important to negotiate with iran. number one, extend and open handed. approach the talks as a serious opportunity to resolve this challenge and test iranian interests in negotiating this crisis. two, negotiate from a position of strength, that reality toll our view of boosting the credible. the military threat and rankining up sanctions. three, set and enfours deadlines. we don't want -- these talks are a stage for stalling while iranians centrifuges continue, and we kind of threw out the

idea of july 1st when european sanctions are forally supposed to go into effect as perhaps a deadline after which if talks are going well, and if talks have gone well we could perhaps hold off anymore sanctions or we should, if 23409 going well, hadn't gone well, start ratcheting up pressure through sanctions and other means. number 0 four, fourth and final principle, is upholding u.n. security council resolutions. there have been five in recent years that addressed iranian enrichment. the inspections of iranian facilities, and weaponization. and i should say that they've also explicitly spell out, the u.n. security council resolutions call for suspense f enrichment. we believe these principles maximize the chance of reaching a solid deal while protecting our interests and those of our close allies who incidentally are not at the table, won't be at the take in baghdad, but