response will muslims. we need a mechanism in which they can be heard. >> i want to point at that while we are having this wonderful discussion, we do not agree on what is the definition of sh'ria. gues>> what role do you think te press plays in shelling the muslims anin a negative light, in terms of stoking president' ? i work in a group of muslims and islam's and christians and these aren't every country in the world. no mention of these organizations in the national media. the question is, why do you

think that is so and if it is so, how can we change that? for example, i am jewish but not a billionaire. if you look at the press, all jewish people are rich. the stereotyping goes on with african-americans, with lots of debt from minorities, but how do we change the images so that america changes as the images change? . .

unless there is a conflict, and usually, if you look at the stories about muslims, it is usually about their religious holidays. ok, they're having another religious holiday, or there is an issue about the discrimination story about a woman who wears a head scarf, or a man who wants to wear his beard. that in and of itself is redemptive in terms of what the community -- the islamic community is all about. when it comes to the head scarf, i know it has become very politicized, especially in the middle east. and now has become politicized here in america. number one, a woman who decides to where the headscarf is not a press. it is her choice.

when it comes to the head scarf, we should not be telling them that they have to take it off. we should be pro-choice on that issue. and the other issues of discrimination, it looks like muslims are concerned about entitlements. as far as what is our responsibility, i do not think that we effectively answered the questions that our fellow americans have had about islam. we tend to just talk about worship, but they want to know what is our social interaction, what is our role in our pluralism. in 1988, we had about 100 people, muslims, christians, arabs and non-arabs go to the democratic national convention. we felt that we were part of that american experience. if we felt that we were contributing in terms of the

policy discussions and in in terms of interaction. now we find less people -- fewer people attending those conventions. there needs to be more civic engagement, and with that, more stories can be told about the muslim community. it is not about the scholars necessarily. it is about the mainstream voice. we've still have not understood where that mainstream voice is. >> next question. and >> you spoke a lot about people putting misinformation in the mainstream and people who were spreading hate and i was wondering if you could give us some names of organizations that we should be aware of. >> i think we can talk later. their web sites are known.

and they have been tormenting many of us for years. i have the great honor of speaking at the 45th anniversary of the signing of the civil- rights bill. the department of justice invited me to give the closing remarks. the next day, an article appeared, "holder's hezbollah buddy." the couple weeks later i was invited to speak at the iftar dinner at the pentagon. a couple of days later an article appeared, is zogby a wahabi? frankly, what troubles me is not only their website, which taught

college professors and urged students to spy on them and create disinformation campaigns about not just muslims but in particular, american leadership , but the degree to which they end up dominating on fox news and msnbc and cnn when it comes to talking about these issues. actually, we do not get the air time to talk about them. they do. if we get invited, we get invited to debate them. and frankly, i do not want to be engaged in a debate with these guys. it does become a bit of a problem. i think where the media has responsibility is to fatten the rolodex is a little bit and be more responsible. >> it is not just that we are invited to go and debate them. we are invited to go and deny dx2 stations -- deny the

accusations. it just looks like we are in denial. and it goes back to the media question -- how come the message is not going out? because the only time we are invited is to say, ok, we are not terrorists. if we are not extremists. so, that is all people think about. number two is also called part ahabi lobby. number one, we are not the lobby. we're just here to let people know what we are about. number two, it has always been clear that we do not accept any foreign funding. not because of an issue of legality. it is perfectly legal. but we have decided we want to stress the muslim identity. we wanted to be financially independent from the middle east. and yet, someone continues to call as part of the wahabi

lobby, and it gets repeated enough that it is all that is on people's minds. my doctorate in religion and i got my post religion iskinwork in how used in society. remember, george carlin did a routine where he talked about words and how they were used. basically, it was an interesting lesson because it was the lesson of how a word is used in a sense. the point is, today, the language of islam used by both this cast of characters that we are talking about, but also, the terrorists, are identical in that they are abusing language because of its kibaki of content. the guy that gets on the plane evocativee of its key operativ

content. the guy who gets on the plane who says allah or what ever, what he is really saying is, i hate you guys. i remember on the playground people called me names. the name they choose to call it is the name that has the most evocative reference. there was a time that i might have been called a marxist, socialist. wahabi being called a terrorists. if someone at one time said "jesus christ" they would be making a religious reference. now they could just be

expressing anger. the truth value of it means nothing. they're looking in their dictionary and they're like, what is the worst word that i can use right now and i think i will call them this. that will work. >> there is nothing new about this, really. i need new friends also every day, and new arguments. jefferson davis was not worried about this in his own days, about the media taking control and having more power than it should in a democracy. this is the problem that america has that it needs to solve not only with respect to muslims, but with respect to media in general. but as far as muslims, instead of complaining about it, which we have done enough of that, let's look for a solution. the solution for me is to start this. there are a lot of muslim

doctors in this country and business people in this country, but muslims in the past shrank away from being lawyers, from being reporters, and so on. now there is a generation of young muslim lawyers that i am very happy to see a around the country. where are the communication people? if you want your own authentic voice to be heard, where are you? if you are sitting there and your objection to the news is about to be published, maybe you can modify the news. my approach is, ok, let's now move in and do our part in correcting it. >> another question here. >> you have already referred to the media up the yield of moderation, interfaith work -- media appeal of moderation,

interfaith work and how that does not really work. you have also said that when you respond to someone's argument, you almost solidified that view in the mind of the viewer. what happens when you cannot sell moderation, we cannot sell our identities, what are americans supposed to do? >> we feel that -- you know, there is a reverse in the koran that refers -- there is a verse in the koran that refers to hate. in reference to a, it will float away like scum on top of the water. but the good work that you do of substance will benefit humanity. number one, ignore all of the rhetoric. it has been happening from the beginning and continues to this day. so, the good work, even though it is not sensational, even though it is not going to get the media today, the relationships that we are building is creating energy.

it is creating a movement for change. the people that we get to know, the jim zogbys the azizas, these are great people. jeremy denami of "j" street is a great person. we feel that this group of people working for american justice will prevail eventually. in terms of being more media savvy, for example, we have a public service announcement that went out onto the internet. and it got a lot of play. it got into the media. it was called "in justice cannot defeat in justice." it was basically a group of muslim scholars talking to young people and saying to not be fooled by the extremist

rhetoric. those efforts are getting significant media coverage, but as we know with any media, it is only within people's memory is short span. the next week is a whole new story. we have to think about telling that story over and over again. we're going to be doing a sort of 9/11 service activities, for example to help all of the clerics in the mosques on 9/11 to help depict the events of 9/11. it is just a shame that some diminished the victimization of the muslims on that day. we were all attacked as americans. telling that story is important. we will have a commemoration and because on that day, and then we will get some coverage, but we

will have to continue working about. the third thing is, now that we have social media, we really are creating our own movement in the sense that word is getting out through facebook and twitter and other forms of social media. that will get the interest of the networks at some point. we really have a lot of opportunity in getting the word out. >> let me also add that not all the ways in which you respond to this situation is the media. the some of it has to be hard, patient work overtime. that is the work of scholars. when someone says x, and they do not know that, they will say, prove it. we have to be prepared, because these articles, we cannot with them out of thin air. we have to take a long time studying and anna teisinger -- and annotating and footnoting

them. there was a country that i thought had a lot that was unfair to women and i was arguing that i thought they needed to change it. the legislator looked at me after i expressed what i think is the correct position on that in his time, he said, show me the footnotes. -- the correct position on that in the islam, he said, show me the footnotes. >> i am proud to be a muslim. i am proud to be african- american, as you can probably tell. as wellalso a veteran as a health care and disabilities attorney. it always surprises me -- you asked and i am asking you, do you think that we can change

people through the spokespeople of the muslim community? there are many other african- americans, even led to yell and european americans, who as you know, are the -- there are even latino and european americans, who as you know, are even more -- the more increasing group. and don't you believe that we should take the history note from african-americans in particular and to see when we have the reconstruction of the united states after the civil war, if there was a wry in anti african-american sentiment -- a rise in anti-african american sentiment that resulted basically, in lynchings and horrible acts across this country. just some months ago all of the attention was on arizona and the laws attempt to demonize

latinos. the groupsink that are just the gauck brothers that are finding some of these things, don't we see that there are really entrenched interest? >> let me just adjust your terminology a little bit. as opposed to seeing a parallel, the way we see it and teach it within our organization is that there's a continuity from the early days of islam because a lot of these african- americans were muslims. and we believe that americans from the 16th century -- african-americans from the 16th century and later have helped build this country. we are not immigrants. there is a ring of muslims that are natives in this country. not only is there continuity, but that experience that you are

referring to is our experience. the question is, how do we deal with the question of diversity within the muslim community? i think that has become the most conscious? recently and we are trying to deal with that. >> -- the most conscious question more recently and we are trying to deal with that. >> the more we represent a diversity the more diversity we will have in the telling of our story. i agree that we could have more diversity. there are problems that we're dealing with in terms of that issue. where are we in terms of the civil rights progression? i think we are still in the very early stages of that. we are not at the time of martin luther king, for muslim americans in general. definitely, african american muslims have contributed positively to understanding where we should be in terms of

getting our rights in american society. but i think if the muslim -- as the muslim american community, we are still in the stages of marcus garvey, for example, or w. e. b. du bois, or people who are developing these ideas. and the finding a home has not where our ancestors came from -- defining a home has not where ancestors came from or where my grandparents lived, but where we raise our children. and lastly, god wants us all to be thinking leaders, not blind followers. i think that is the message that is very important that we have to stress for the common muslim. >> we have about 10 minutes left for quick questions and

answers. >> i guess i have two questions. the first would be, what contemporary muslim country which operates under sharia law right now would you point to be benign example of sharia that was described here today? and second question is, which modern groups spoke out when the -- when it was discovered, the messages of the muslims in here in virginia that were talking about murdering jews? >> our belief is that there is no moslem country now that is following sharia law -- no muslim country now that is

following sharia law. the very basics of islamic society, including the election of the head of state legitimately by the people is not taking place. where do you go from bad? i am not standing here to defend any moslem country, and i hope that within the united states i can be a better muslim that i can in of -- in some of the other muslim countries. you call it a benign sharia law. it is like, what did we do to it to make it benign? i do not like that terminology. the only issue is whether our laws are applied or not apply. and in fact, there is no muslim country that applies it, but there are tons that claim that they do. they are trying to tell the people that they are there and

their laws are there by divine will, so to speak. we need to tell these people that this is not true. and the divine will would want the will of the people to speak out. >> and comminations? >> it goes back to the question, do you want to validate the accusation that muslims do not speak out? the fact is, we have spoken out in every instance and it gets ridiculous how many times things come up, to the point where we do not even know the cases that come of, whether they are even valid or not. gentleman -- the gentleman refers to some of the commission leaders have been questionable views in terms of religious freedoms for muslims in america. i do not want to get into the politics of that commission or that academy, but when it comes to anyone saying that we should be murdering christians and jews, we condemned that.

and we denounce anyone who espouses those beliefs. jim? >> if i could quote the new testament, "those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" those stories. i was on crossfire when the story first came out and i was asked about it and i said it was gross, despicable and wrong. i went a couple of years later. i was invited to saudi arabia by the u.s. ambassador at the time, who had not been able to have a guest for a long time. he wanted me to do a luncheon at the embassy and he invited a number of saudi businessmen. he invited me to speak to a number of groups around town, and one of them is called wami,

and it involves a number of young muslim leaders in saudi arabia. i was introduced, i spoke, and then they drove me back to the embassy when it was over. i got a question about pat robertson and some other u.s. preachers preaching hate about islam. and i said, condemn it. we work really hard every day to fight these guys. we are working harder than you can imagine to deal with this bigotry in america. and then i said, but let me remind you, that you have imams in this country that are saying things about jews and christians that are deplorable. are you fighting them? they all nodded guilty and what ever and we had a conversation about it. a week later, i get back in the country and one of these characters that i mentioned a moment ago writes an article about "zogby, a supporter of

wahabi, speaks at wami." they did not nor was invited by the ambassador and did not know that i challenged their thinking in this group. pay attention to what is done, what is said. i think we would do a lot better in this conversation if we did just that. >> question over here. >> [inaudible] in which i as a muslim have trouble with, as if we had to have a word first before st. saying, "muslims" in this

country. if you are wearing a hejab or you are going to the temple, then you do not qualify as a moderate muslim. the problem is, those are the people that we need to talk to, regardless of whether they are not practicing muslims, or just not cool looking. >> i would like to approach this label of modern muslim in a different way. in islam, there is nothing wrong with saying that somebody has interpreted islam and in accordance with the society that they live in. in fact, it is a required effort of muslim scholars when they live in a society, whether

american, european, iraqi or whatever, that they look at the standards of society and explain their roles -- basically, the rules do not change, but they explain them in light of that society so that when they are applied, they cause positive results and not negative ones. the general rule in islam is that god made these laws in public interest, and not against the public interest. there are scholars here, including myself who are looking at american society and are trying to understand islamic laws within the context of our society. what you are talking about is something more political. i will let the others answer. >> first, the koran says that it is god's will that you be a community of moderation. that is directly out of the koran.

and the profit is against any kind of extremism to the left or to the right. -- and the prohet is against any kind of extremism to the left or to the right. the appropriate response is for muslims to apply that. i agree that the term "moderate muslim" has been highly politicized to the point where now moderate simply means a muslim that agrees with the ideas of the status quo. so that, the only people that are moderate spokespeople are people who have left islam. there is a paradox in there that is ridiculous. these people are the moderates, like aiyan hushiati, who is not a muslim and is giving book tours. for people who support certain

industries. ok, they support wardak they are moderate. the support -- they support war? they are a moderate. they support israel, they are moderate. to be a muslim means you are a hearing to the principles of the front. to promote terrorism means you are a criminal. you do not have to question whether you are a muslim or not. >> alongside with an increase in civic and political engagement from the muslim american community, what should we expect from our elected officials? what role should they play in this atmosphere? >> they should stick to the values of the constitution and create harmony among the people and protect their rights. >> and they should be responsible. and they are irresponsible these

days. the park 51 dispute to the degree that it was in manhattan fight, we have seen it before over the issue will -- kelly lebron academy -- khalil jebron academy that god guided, which was terrible -- that got gutted, which was terrible. and one by one you have issues. you have candidates in states that have been asked their position on the mosque. but some have said, they have the right to build, but i do not think they ought to do it there. or, what are they doing defaming hallowed ground? it became nothing to do with

states and cities and congressional district across the country. politicians behave irresponsibly. what should have happened on the port of media -- part of media is that we should have called them out early on. you are being irresponsible. what we learned after 9/11 is that our patriotism is the degree to which we will fight terrorism the safely. i am listening to some of the rhetoric that i'm hearing on radio and television shows, and i'm listening to the political views of those, including presidential aspirants, are saying. the clash of civilizations crowds on both sides are driving this debate.

it is irresponsible. it is a shame. george bush was right and it is abroad andr image an hurting the fabric of our people. >> what i would like to see is for politicians to put the interest of the country ahead of political interests. that will serve as quite a lot. >> on that note, that had to be the last question. if we are out of time. -- we are out of time. >> thank you all for being here. we never have enough space, but i was thinking with our panel speaking, it is only in america. we have a public room and anyone can walk in. you do not need an appointment. you can just walk from the halls if you want to. and you know, c-span is dedicated to public discussion

with the american people. we hope to have many more discussions in the future. let me thank our panelists, our moderator who was the brainchild behind this and pulled it together in four days. we needed to have it. we have our vice presidents, communications director, both on the senate side. and our program coordinator as well. i want to thank the health sciences committee. thank you so much for being here. we hope to see you in the future. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> president obama will mark the end of american combat operations in iraq tonight in his second formal address from the oval office. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern, followed by your calls and reactions to the speech. after that, house republican leader, john boehner, speaking at the american legion national convention. watch it all night here on c- span. rushing has covered the iraq

war for years. josh russian, thanks for joining us. what did you hear from troops as they made their way out of iraq? >> the some of the soldiers were only 12 years old in the original invasion. but some that were there originally, they said it did not end of the way they expected. i said, what did you expect? and they said they expected to see them blowing themselves up as they left this country. i thought that was interesting. they have been going there every other year for the past seven years. some have been there three or

four years in the past seven years. this felt like it was closing a chapter for them. the departure is maybe not the end of the war, but this war for these soldiers. >> the combat grade -- combat brigades barely beyond have quite a mission ahead. there are still 50,000 troops there. what do those military service members need to hear or did they hear as combat operations are winding down? but they actually were the same thing that the other -- >> they actually heard the same as the others. the real changes are happening at the strategic level where the commanders are being told to hold back. that is what is really different about tomorrow as opposed to the -- today. tomorrow, iraqis will be in charge of their security, maybe for the first time since the days of saddam hussein.

we had a number of missions and a larger majority of those with security. there was a smaller group that was counter-terrorism. now the first group are gone, and the lead elements are there to assist, advise and train. the iraqis have taken up the main mission of security for iraq. that is the real difference. you still have 50,000 troops on the ground there. they are combat brigades. that is 24,000 soldiers in those six brigades, plus another 4000 special forces and counterterrorism. the other 20,000 is there to release support the massive infrastructure in iraq from all of the aerospace and air fields and the kind of stuff. >> we have josh rushing here

with us for showing some of the footage from your trip as well as aljazeera. what do the troops near to hear from the president? -- need to hear from the president? >> i think they need to hear a job well done. whether this was worth it or not, i think they need to hear that they did what was asked of them. but i think he needs to be cautious here, because if things could turn bad -- because if things turned out in iraq, and there's a good chance that could happen, you could look back at a year from now with more u.s. troops trying to quell the violence with the 2011 deadline. a lot of reporters are saying that this could be obama's mission accomplished moment, out he basically saicame saying that combat operations were over long before they were.

if the government does not form soon, if sectarian uprisings spread throughout the nation, if the kurds go for more independence than they have -- so many things could go wrong and you could see the u.s. troops into that. and everybody would say, i thought obama said battlthat cot operations were over. i think he has to be very careful about what the situation in iraq is and what the future there is. i think the vice president is out of touch with what is going on on the ground. i think he is almost flippant in a way. >> what is positively has he said that makes you think that? >> the truth is, it is just politics. there are a lot of assassinations going on. i had an iraqi intelligence

officer tell me that he is being forced to underreport the violence so that it looks like it is safer. i know there's assassinations because there are executions where someone is shot in the back of the head with a trash barrel held around the web been -- with a trash bag held around the head. it just seems that politics has broken out there and it is a very bad situation in baghdad right now. >> you cover the war for a number of years and you spend time as a marine. what does this feel like emotionally for you on this last day of combat operations? >> you are right, this has been a personal story for me for a long time. i was a marine at the start of the war and i think i have always felt some connection to it.

i think i feel the same thing as those soldiers, some kind of closure. but i'm still frustrated with what has happened with the state of occupation from day one until now. the u.s. was never able to provide what it promised, economic hope and security and all that the u.s. forces were supposed to bring with it. i am disappointed about my own personal role in it as a former marine. >> use the term closure, and it did you ask the troops if it feels like a victory? >> no, it does not feel like victory. i was a spokesperson and we were out there saying there were wmd's here and of course, there were not. clearly, there are security issues as the u.s. is pulling out. it looks like a dicey time to be pulling out with no government in place.

and i guess, any time is dicey to leave. there will never be the perfect situation, but at least having a president, prime minister, a speaker -- those things would help for you in a pullout. to me, i am frustrated not as a journalist, but someone with a personal history with it. i am frustrated that the u.s. is pulling out now. >> thanks for the update. >> tonight, science and technology we continues on both tv prime time -- on "book tv" prime time. "book tv" in prime-time tonight on c-span2.

join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the importance of historical study the sunday with pulitzer prize winner gordon wood. it will be live for three hours and new eastern on c-span2. >> u.s. bank regulator sheila barri said today that she does not anticipate a double-dip recession in the u.s.. the quarterly banking report was released and said that 54 banks were added to the list of troubled banks. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, and welcome to our release of the second quarter results were fdic insured banks and thrift syria these results -- and thrifts. these results provide more information as to moving along

in the recovery. the economic recovery that began last year is beginning to be reflected in rising credit and improved quality. we have had the best quarterly profit in the banking sector in almost three years of $21.6 billion. nearly two out of every three banks are reporting better year over year earnings. as long as economic conditions remain supportive, most should increase their capacity to land. -- lend. the industry's $40 billion loan loss provision in the second

quarter, while high by historical standards, was the smallest since the first quarter of 2008. and despite the lower provisions, 62% of institutions increased their loan-loss reserves during the first quarter. loan-loss suggest that many banks to see asset quality problems moderating. as you can see in the next chart, the levels of those non- current loans and charge-offs are finally beginning to trend downward. however, this chart ultimately illustrates the problems remain. in particular given economic uncertainties, we believe that all banks should exercise caution and maintain strong reserves. the problem rose to 829 during the quarter. however, we saw the smallest number of increase on the list

in over a year. also, the majority of the banks on this list do not fail. about 20% of institutions lost money for the quarter. that is an improvement from a year ago at 29%, but it shows how far the industry has to go. in 118 institutions that failed so far this year, we still anticipate that the numbers this ofr will exceed 2009's total 140. we also continue to see designing -- declining loan balances. the sector has made much progress in cleaning up its balance sheet and lending standards are starting to ease for certain types of credit. the landing will not pick up until businesses and consumers gain the confidence they need. improvement in banking sector results also had a significant positive impact on the insurance

balance. the balance at the end of june was -$15.2 billion compared to - $27 billion in the first quarter. as we have noted before, this balance is negative because of actual losses we have incurred to date, and the large amount we have set aside in the contingent loss reserve to cover the cost of prospective failures. this continue to decline for the second straight quarter. the decline is for reduction in failures that have already occurred, an estimated losses in future bank failures will fall. our total cash position was $44 billion at the end of the quarter. as we expected, our cash has increased this year, but our projections indicate that our reserves are more than enough to anticipate failures.

finally, i would like to make a few comments to reduce the steps in these financial crises. in july, president obama signed a to act from a lot to promote space saver financial marketplace -- signed a law to promote the safer financial marketplace. i assure you that the fdic will be seeking extensive input on overriding -- on all underwriting. transparency is a priority for the fdic. we have announced an open-door policy that will provide the public with a larger role in the rulemaking process than ever before. we will hold a series of roundtable discussions with prospective parties in the process. the first will be held in this room later today and will be webcast for public viewing. in addition, any interested

party can request a meeting with the fdic officials or staff. we will disclose all meeting between senior fdic officials regarding implementation, which will enhance openness and accountability. financial reform is a global endeavor. we continue to work with our counterpart to hear and received stronger market structures and better cooperative framework to resolve across-the-board corp. in a manner in the order. crucially, the proposed reforms define the ratios between overall leverage in good times and bad. earnings in remain lower by historical standards, and the members of unprofitable institutions do remain high. but the fed -- banking sector is

gaining strength. most qualifications are rooting in the right direction, putting banks in a stronger position to lend. thank you very much and had the happy to take your questions. >> the indications of the economy may have -- may not be very strong. is there concern that the improvements we are seeing could be stunted since it is a lagging indicator? >> right, it is a lagging indicator. we ourselves have seen recovery and i think we are still seeing it. it is a wait-and-see posture at this point. tos a double-dip were happen, it would be how the west would impact the banking industry.

it could, though, impact the cut off values for the damage from the recession. i think we do not see it happening, but we will continue to watch for a full recovery. we are taking a wait-and-see posture. >> if these trends in this report continue, can you give a sense of how many quarters it will take before loan balances start to come up? >> that is a really good question. i think if we continue as we want to continue to encourage banks to continue lending, i think businesses need to have confidence in the recovery before they start making decisions.

>> i was wondering if you could give a little bit of an update on where we stand in the process, and in particular, what is being done to try to get germany on board. >> [laughter] those are confidential meetings and i know there is an issue about whether they should be. that is not my decision to make. i will just say on a positive note, i think there is an overwhelmingly strong case for capital standards and the signature in role for this crisis -- and the significant role for it in this crisis. very strong capital standards to give investors confidence that they are stable, because of the government should not have to.

>> the type of banks one of, but assets one down. two things, are there plans going to help the small banks in what has already been done? and you see -- a do you see a time when the small banks will start a recovery in the same way as the larger banks? >> the small banks are recovering, but they are working through their troubled assets. those balances have been coming down for quite a few quarters now. there is progress in the community banks, too. it was typically first in the larger banks. i do not think we see any new programs, other than what has been done already. and i think most community banks

are strong, and to their credit [unintelligible] they are trying to do their part and extend credit. they are working through their funds as well. thanks very much. >> at this point, if we can turn it over to our technical panel that will be available to assist with the results. >> i'm wondering if maybe you can expand on the comments

about the protection of assets, the assets from institutions that failed, if they will be lower than last year. where are you finding those numbers? is it just that more large institutions failed last year and you cannot expect that number this year? >> yeah, well, we made projections for the board, which we last shared in june c'mon losses that would be incurred -- in june, on losses that would be incurred over the next year. while the number of banks that will be feeling this year over last year is higher, it will be smaller institutions.

the larger institutions are hit first and then the smaller institutions. >> those effects hit a low but later than the larger institutions -- hit a little bit later than the larger institutions. >> obviously, credit quality seems to be needing a little bit. how much of that is because of charging off and working through these problems? is it a combination, or is it because they have taken these aggressive steps quarter after quarter that we are suddenly starting to see that flow through some of these indicators? >> olad of the improvement is a tremendous amount of charge offs have been taken. that is reflected in the numbers.

what is left on the books are generally a little higher quality, so they tend to perform a bit better. really, it is dependent on the future of the economies. >> loan balances continued to decline, and the chairman said she did not expect lending to be happening unless businesses and consumers gain confidence. i was wondering what your projections are of florida's balances and if you think [unintelligible] >> we do not make projections exactly. what is interesting, this has been a balance sheet recession and a small businesses and small households have been particularly hard hit. the wave is going now, financial

institutions are making significant progress. we are still not seen the hiring in the economy. we are still not seen the expansion that the businesses need to generate. once our banks are in a good position from a capital standpoint and a balance sheet standpoint to meet the demand, it will take some time to meet that momentum. but we are in a good position as we move forward. >> all right, thank you. >> president obama speaks to the nation tonight to mark the formal end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq. we will have live coverage of the president's remarks from the oval office at 8:00 p.m.

eastern, followed by your calls and reaction to the speech. and after that, house republican leader john boehner spoke today at the american legion national convention. and christina romer talk tomorrow about her time with the obama administration. her comments life at the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern. the >> the french parliament recently held a hearing on the wings of purpose in public. before we get to that vote, joining me is delaying game -- a name ganley from the associated press. . .

>> they did not want it to be as sweeping as the government party wants. >> can you tell us what led to the parliament vote on this issue and why is the debate so a

important? >> since there are only 2000 people in france to cover their entire faces with veils, it could bee argued this is inconsequential, but that is not the case. the french see this as something connected to integration and even french values. it got kicked off by presidents are cozy himself -- sarcozy last june syria and they said that burgekas are not welcome in

france. >> what is the next step? >> it was approved by the lower house. it goes to the senate for approval very good it will likely be approved. it could amended. -- it goes to the senate for approval. it will likely be approved. it could be amended there are potential challenges. they have to make sure it conforms with the constitution. >> what will the requirement be if it becomes law? >> if it becomes law, there are two categories of punishment if you like. one would be for ladies in the street wearing this band clothing. there would be an equivalent to an end in a $185 fine or

citizenship classes or both. -- equivalent to a $185 fine or citizenship classes or both. there is another that has to do with victimization. husbands or fathers who would impose this dress on women in their family would be convicted of forcing this, and they would be at risk of prison and a $38,000 fine. >> what has been the response by muslims most affected, and have there been reactions from the international community? >> even those who wear western dress -- the majority of them

have been opposed to this legislation. demesne councils have come out against it, saying it stigmatizes the entire muslim population of france. even though they recognize it is such a minority, why point the finger at the entire population, which it is already doing and will continue to do. it has been quite divided. there have been negative things said about the british government, and the united states is not happy about it. there have been prayer leaders

in saudi arabia co. and now all denouncing it. they say if it is the law of the land, we are going to have to respect it. others denounce it entirely. >> now a portion of that debate. you will hear from france's justice minister as well as a member of the socialist party. france is one of several countries that have been debating banning of facial veils.

>> mr. chairman, on may 11, 2010, when you voted unanimously, your assembly expressed in an exemplary manner its importance, the importance it attaches to hour impact. the legislation is entirely compatible with the expression of vigilance that was expressed by the national assembly in terms of up holding our principles and values i would -- values. i would like to start by

congratulating you. i would also like to praise you that you were gone and non- partisan basis. this work is an honor to our democracy. the desire to live together is guaranteeing everyone of the citizens the freedom to practice a religion of their choice, and we have seen days and the meeting we have had with leaders of all religions, and we saw this was a broadbased effort.

this is not a religious issue. this covers all forms of covering one's face in public. this is not a problem of religion. it is an issue of our concept of the republic. your it is a matter of dignity, a matter of the quality. it is a matter of transparency. of these values that we defend, no matter what our party, it should prevent us from hesitating and making compromises or taking half measures. this idea of the band of -- ban of covering faces in public spaces stems from the day tierra that would be used as a

pathological -- pedagogical -- of the idea that would be used as a pedagogical idea. the scope of this stems from the legal foundation. the fact it should be applied in all public places is based on a foundation, which is public order. of the notion of public order has traditionally included security, peace, and health. it can also include a social component, but that is of lesser importance. this component is just is important -- as important.

if this provides proportionality between the gall and the measures taken, -- the goal and the measures taken, it is because it allows us to take these measures to implement a broad band. this is also explicit in their case laows, even though it is less explicit with a constitutional commission. we see this exists, and i would cite quickly the law passed in 1959 for the order from the commune, that was passed in 1995. even if it is not explicit in the constitutional commission, it is implicit, and that is why

we see on the decision in 1993 concerning immigration control or the decision on all law -- in 1999, these illustrate the idea of immaterial public order. in order to deem is unconstitutional stems from the life of public life together. hiding behind a full veil is contrary to the values of public order. whether this is done voluntarily or impose, if it is imposed and they are forced to cover themselves, there is also an attack on their human dignity

and enslavement or degradation of human beings is strictly incompatible with our constitutional values, but even when wearing a veil is done voluntarily, this is still tantamount to cut in oneself off from society, which is based on a desire to live together. the end result is their identity is dissolved. the wearing of these sales is contrary to the principle of our constitution richard veils -- of

these veils is contrary to the principle of our constitution. it is important we have this ban, and the justification stems from constitutional precedent. anything that would be a breach of the peace or public safety and health, anything that is what enforced should be proportional and in keeping with the law in question. this type of faban is something that could be general or broad in scope. we saw that explicitly in the decision and the law voted on.

the fact but we would limit it to certain places or times would not only be legally incoherent, but it would also impose practical challenges in terms of enforcing. the other thing is a partial ban would affect the scope and even the significance of our message. how can we continue to confirm a full veiled those not -- does not respect human rights if we allow a van at -- ban a government office? how are we going to convince french citizens that women's rights starts when you enter the train station but ends when you

leave? it is not logical from a legal point of view or from the point of view of our values. when the commission was consulted, it did not say it was against the general ban. it simply said the constitution have not yet explosive the recognized the notion of social public order. it was saying it implicitly recognizes, and it is not something because -- it is not because something has not been explicitly confirmed that we have to renounce it, especially when we are knowing these are values of our republic reuter -- republic. if this is a widespread vaban, there will be exceptions. there will be exceptions that

will be justifiable. obviously, there are activities when you would have to cover your face in public, but these are not harmful for the public or do not disturb public order. there could be health reasons or professional career reasons why someone would have to cover their face. there also may be some sports when you have to do this. i know people do fencing, and we're not going to tell people they can not wear their fencing masks when they are fencing, but there may also be holidays, festivals, artistic, or traditional shows or performances why you would have to cover your face, so that is to say this would not apply to all those situations, as long as they are compatible with the desire to live together in societe in -- in society.

i think we can see in legislation and logic that this ban has to be brought in terms of covering one's face in all public areas, the and we will affirm one thing, and the effectiveness of this principle will be guaranteed. there will be penalties, and i would like to remind you, and i think this is in the spirit of the commission's work when they were studying this, but the idea is also to try to convince women and have this be a tool of deterrence. if we can convince women to give up wearing full body vails themselves, we can also hopefully convince those who are forcing women to cover their entire bodies to except the role

of life in common, the principles of living together that characterize the french republic. there was one distinction made in the french legislation. depending on whether this was committed by somebody voluntarily or whether it was done under stress. the sense it was committed voluntarily, and we also need to have an adaptive response, said the legislation strikes a balance between pedagogy and deterrence. in pedagogy, we are hoping with time we will be able to educate people with these penalties, and that is why there is included a six-munhall waiting limit to give people -- six month weight to give people the chance to stop wearing these coverings.

this is part of the teaching aspect, and we are hoping women will spontaneously give it up on their own. if that does not occur after six months, either this law -- under this law, voluntary defenses would be considered second degree defense. there would be a maximum of 150 euros and also a citizenship course, because we do not want to give of this aspect of teaching or training, and that can be substituted for the penalty, or the judge could impose it in addition to the penalty, so the judge has an arsenal of tools to use, based on or depending on the situation, or an arsenal of sentences that could be issued the pending honda defense itself

-- depending on the defense itself. it is much different if it is a situation in which it is forced covering of one's face. the republic does not accept the tax on human dignity. we cannot tolerate of using -- abusing vulnerable people, and the commission works hard to improve the initial legislation, and if i am not mistaken, you approved an amendment offered by the socialist group, and it was an amendment to have stricter penalties than we are including in the initial legislation.

the fact that a person would force somebody to cover their phase -- cover their faces was a crime and a maximum fine of up to 30,000 euros. you also have to ensure the sentence could be double period of -- could be doubled. at a time when we are seeing globalization, at a time when our society'ies are becoming moe complex, at a time when people are seeking reference points to share their life together, i think it is our duty to be

vigilant -- these are the implementing principles but support our republic. we must continue to be vigilant and to reaffirm our common values. i believe when we look of the rest of the world that i think we can be proud of this model, which is at the bases of our social impact, which helps us a sport -- export our values, of respecting human dignity. what i would hope is during this debate we will together show this desire we have that is part of our heritage, and we will show we are responsible for the

future of our nation, and i hope you will continue to show the importance of being a french citizen and the privilege of living in france. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ministers, colleagues, and this stage of the proceedings, i would like to point out what brings us together. on behalf of the socialist group, we want to affirm as clearly as possible that we have no tolerance whatsoever for extremist, fundamentalist practices which we are discussing today. in the name of the republic, we do not condone the wearing of a

full body veils, and we condemn these practices that run contrary to the principles of the republic -- the principles of liberty and the freedom of women. am i going to have to listen to this all night? i would like to ask their respect. we are talking about republican values, and we have this. >> go ahead. >> there are days that are unnerving, but c'mon. this goes against the principles of liberty and the freedom of women, and it is especially the freedom to not wear these fails we are discussing, and the freedom of millions who are fighting for the right to not

have to wear this full veil o. they deserve our fight. it is also in the name of principles of equality and freedom. this is also imposed by women. that is why we condemn it as strongly as you do. this is based on our desire to live together and have mutual respect. as we have heard said before, faces are to sea with and to be seen, and that is what facilitates our exchanges as citizens, so we have no disagreement on that. where we beg to differ -- we have no tolerance for these

extremist policies. there is no need to have any complex in terms of having this maban, and we have imposed bans that further civil liberties. it is our desire to achieve this consensus that we voted on the resolution that was proposed several weeks ago, and that is why we have been pursuing this dialogue with the government in trying to arrive but this consensus. we have not been able to reach a consensus. it has to be said there is a political context.

there are people with many more things in their heads than the debate we are having. the social crisis, the unemployment, the future of their retirement, and it is maybe only a side issue that they are concerned with this ethical debate. what is surprising is to seize that the national of -- to see the national affairs would deal with this. we have to be able to say there is a political context. we believe the dow -- the

majority has been playing with fire in holding these debates, and with all the debates that have gotten off track, it as a way to draw attention away from the other issues is furthering of the debate. then it was fear of minarets. next it will be the burqa or people who do not share our values. i have the right to think differently, even in this assembly. you might be shocked by that, but that is a fundamental right of the parliamentarian, even one who is not forced to stand at

attention. this has not been a healthy debate. it has not been good for republicans in consensus. there is another reason we're not able to reach a consensus, and that is because the chairman of this party has used the means to find a consensus. everybody says it was a throw an investigation. -- a zeroth investigation. -- thorough investigation

because of the parliament members working on this, he had this idea, i am better than everyone else. they should just do what i said. there is no worse showing of arrogance. dii heard on a major tv station, it was still the same thing. they should listen to me, but i do not feel you have been a third republican in this -- a good republican in this, because you have prevented us from reaching a non-partisan consensus, because democracy does not need to be agitated.

democracy needs serenity, yet you need those late agitated democracy, and it shows -- serves no purpose to have an agitated democracy. i know your research was more respectable, but you came in a little too late, and the damage was already done. at the heart of the matter, this was our motion to deny it is based on, but we think there are dangerous political stakes involved. the council of state gave its opinion to the national assembly. we can talk about everything said. i have heard of the highest levels, but it does not matter

what you think about them. the council and leighton's the government in giving its opinion about the legal risk, and they did so in a moderate way, yet they said these were not negligible, and it was this opinion which we share and which leads us to the following conclusion. that has nothing to do with the veil. they said as the law is written you cannot do this. you are mixing everything up. i am sorry to say that, but please continue. >> if i am interrupting, i have the right to respond. >> but you are also provoking a little bit. >> now you are sitting in judgment of what i said.

the chairman of the assembly is sitting judgment on what i say. the opinion was that there would be not only legal risk but political risk, and that is our main point of disagreement, because of the legal risk proves true, the political result will be disastrous, and it will be an inspected -- an unexpected victory for extremists. we are running this risk. i also think there are a lot of things that have already been said on this subject, but i would like to say a thing about

secularism. i have heard in this assembly that this is savannah -- a ban that deals with secularism. i was not directing my comments at you. if these practices are not religious but political, they said this has nothing to do with religion. it is not a practice session by islam, and the principle of secularism does have a legal interpretation in our french tradition. it is based on neutrality of the state's, protection of freedom f

the conscience and religion, and also the plurality of different religions, which is also not an issue here, so secularism have nothing to do with this, so what legal principles should be invoked to justify this law? dignity? i would say philosophically, but that is the weakest argument. you say you're not justifying this on maintaining dignity, but that is the only thing actually written into legislation. the other argument that might be more solid legally as a weak political argument. you say are you are justifying that, but that does not even mention.

-- that is not even mentioned. you are talking about social order, but that is not the same thing. i am talking about what your government does. if you want to talk about what your government does, you can come to the stand, but it is my turn to speak. you are saying any of thing. public order include health, safety, and peace, and this idea of immaterial public order is based on respecting human dignity, and that is what this is a matter of theory but in order to avoid censoring this legislation -- that is what this is a matter of. in order to avoid censoring this legislation, we have to make sure this is based on legal principles, and the civil

liberties arthur role to -- are the rule and that bans are the exception. we have never had a broad, widespread? -- widespread ban. the basic idea of respecting privacy is an obligation in our constitution. we saw this in the order concerning non-residential buildings, and this affirmed the idea that the general ban would go against our constitution and bring a lot of risk, but we want to avoid condemnation by the european court of rights. as you know, it is largely

focused on individual liberties, and it also focuses on the right to dress as one wishes periods -- one wishes. this is a serious matter, but the decisions the european court took against turkey shows that with many respects, these are very similar to what you are trying to impose. the european court condemned turkey for limiting rights. from the philosophy it -- philosophical point of view, it does not matter, but from a legal point of view, it presents considerable risk. we are taking a legal risk, which is considerable, and this

is a political risk the public cannot take. the first time on one man is sentenced for wearing a full vail, there will reject a woman -- the first time a woman is convicted, there will be an appeal. you know this will be an issue. so what if the french republic is condemned, but you will bear the responsibility of this. that is why we are offering a counter proposal that has been submitted in the form of a piece of legislation, because we think we should have a ban that

curves only as far as european and constitutional law allows us to do you are very agitated. don't you think it is not possible to modify some mediators? don't you think we should explain what the values are? we are offering this proposal.

we have offered our proposal as an amendment as we discussed the articles of will, about, and we would like to say as calmly as possible that we do want to have a consensus. >> let him finish. >> i did not insult the right of the parliament to work. i am speaking as somebody from a party that does not dictate, but in order to have a consensus- based solution, we are ready to

continue the discussion, but it is based on our political conviction that this is a risk we cannot afford to take today. >> president obama speaks to mark the end of the combat mission. live coverage at 8 eastern, followed by your reactions to the speech. then john boehner spoke today at the american national convention. we will show you his remarks after the president's speech. the u.s. senate has unanimously confirmed the new ambassador to iraq. he served as the former u.s. ambassador to turkey. here is his testimony. this is about an hour.

>> thank you very much. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, to give my views on relations if i am confirmed as ambassador to iraq. i would like to thank president obama and my beloved wife. also, my son and daughter. i would like to thank my parents for making it possible for me to be here today. i would like to acknowledge my colleagues, chris hill, and the

predecessors, whose leadership prepared the way for what we are announcing the iraq hour with -- we are announcing. the iraq i would be returning to is very different from the one i laughed. it is a very big mission as we transfer from a military lean to a broader approach. we are committed to a long-term relationship with our partner, iraq, and we are committed to doing what is necessary to bring that about. there are many challenges for us today.

you mentioned oil. you mentioned intentions. there is also the issue we are concerned about. there is concern about nabors, trying to exercise undue influence on a rack at this time. as you also said, the sacrifices of the men and women in our armed forces and the more than 4000 who have lost their lives along with many personnel weigh heavily on us. our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. iraqis have also paid a heavy price. i believe we can now point to real progress that must be built upon through continued focus, dedication and the resources we need to carry the mission

through. i look forward to your comments and questions. >> i think why don't we go to our meeting. why don't you go to your questioning, and we will have a chance to follow up. >> we are grateful for this opportunity pierre reagan -- for this opportunity. we just returned from a trip to the region. a good deal of our time was in iraq. you and i had a chance earlier to speak about some of these issues. one of the overriding messages i

have a sense of by the end of our visit -- you can only learn so much in today's, -- in two days, but we did learn a lot. we saw one graphic presentation by way of a chart, which by plotting the groups of violent incidences', suicide deaths, car bombs, when we looked at the six months of the end of 2006 and the first six months of 2007, in both times, it numbered above 1000, so well over 2000 for roughly one year.

when you compare that to 2010, that kind of substantial violence, the number was somewhere in the nature of 50. it has come down on a lot, and that is it news. -- that is good news. i also want to give your sense -- to get your sense as to how you see that credited over time. whether or not we can continue to keep violence levels lower than they were, even as we are drawing down our forces. >> i have seen similar charts as

well. it isn't least a 90% drop -- it is at least a 90% drop. that is extraordinary, and it a test to the efforts of our own forces and the iraqi forces. none of them were yet capable of sustaining combat. that is an extraordinary growth in just a few years, and they are getting better at the job, and as president obama said, they're going to be in the lead at the end of next month. we have seen this post-election. we have not seen a surge in violence. we have dropped our forces by about 50% compared to several

years ago. the violence levels have not gone up, so our hope is that they will go down even further. we're worried about iranian support of militant groups who have attacked us in the past. this forms a framework for development in the political and economic lanes of operation. one problem is we could not even drive from the air forced to the green zone because of the tremendous levels of violence. with that under control, the iraqis are in a much better position. >> our troops have been magnificent in their ability not just to take the fight to the enemy and be successful, but

also in training over the last couple years. the other question related more to the broader objectives in general, but even more pointedly, how we define success, how we define our objectives. i know you have worked with the former ambassador, but i sat with him in august of 2007 and raised a question about what i thought was president bush's inappropriate language when it came to our objectives.

goopresident bush used words abt victory and defeat that was misleading and not helpful. when i raised that question with ambassador crocker, he said the way i define it is in terms of argos, sustainable stability. -- in terms of our goals is sustainable stability. in my opinion, they never use language like that on a regular basis. here is the question. using that kind of description of what our objectives are, when you use words like sustainability in iraq, i can

certainly use the level of violence going down as being consistent with that goal. what are the other metrics? what else should the american people be looking towards in terms of metrics in connection with our assessment as to whether or not we have sustainability in iraq, apart from the violence levels we just talked about? >> president obama laid out the mission statement that we end the military take. that is an iraq said is stable, self-reliant, sovereign, with

the government that is representative. those are the top line goes. we are moving towards them. there is the political reconciliation, that is so important between the groups reagan -- the groups. there is the economic development we are beginning to saee, perhaps a doubling of irai oil production from almost 2.5 to 4.5. that would be another indicator, but also, the services to the people raging water, electricity, health, education.

we have made considerable progress, but a lot more needs to be done all of these are positive indicators, along with the democratic system, but the key you mentioned is sustainable. we do not know how sustainable this is going to be. that is one reason we are continuing our presence and will move gradually to a very broad iraq but without as much emphasis on the military side of things. >> i want to mention the question of oil. right now barrels per day production is -- did you say t wo to two and a half? >> 2.4.

>> i have seen different projections, but it is 2010. what do you think is the best projection for five years from now? >> the iraqis are predicting a further increase to 4.5 million barrels a day, which would put them above iran's production and would make them one of the top producers in the world. that would be a significant achievement. it would also require rapid deployment of contracts and considerable deployment of iraqi investments. they have allocated a great deal

of money, but it would require more work, and that would be ambitious. we think we will see a very extensive growth in the iraqi oil production and exports. >> thank you for your service, and i want to thank your family. i know how difficult it is. it speaks to the country when people of your caliber are willing to make a sacrifice. on sunday, there was a double suicide bombing. can you tell us where we are on that? it seems something is trying to drive a wedge, and the government and where we stand on that and also how we do with integrating into the iraqi government. >> the senator was one of the

great success stories, because it came from the iraqis themselves. they participated in it. the attack you mention are primarily actions by al qaeda to try to undercut these people, because they have successfully tested wide swaths of sunni areas from outside the control -- outside the control -- al qaeda almost 100 people were enrolled in the program. they have been integrated into iraqi security forces or other

positions. there was some slowdown because of our concerns and the iraqi government concern that there may be an uptick in violence, so some of them have been kept on the rolls. the continued integration of these people who fought with us into it iraqi economic life is very important. .

iran has $7 billion to $8 billion of exports and joined the butchers and of the things we need to watch. in addition, they have certain claims on one of the offshore terminals and some of the oil fields as well. most troubling, and they do support some of the radical groups in iraq, and that is a worry to us. with syria, they had a bad relationship with iraq. i supported iraq -- they supported iran and the iraq-iran war. there were accusations of the iraqis that the syrians were behind a terrific attacks on the ministries of finance and foreign affairs in downtown baghdad. it's in the flow of foreign

fighters from syria drawdown significantly for various reasons, but it needs to draw down more. syria is home to many iraqi refugees. it is a very complicated relationship that could be better and we hope it would be better but it needs more work. with the rest of the suny arab world, we see more success -- sunni arab world, we see more success. we have seven or eight further arab embassies on the ground. slowly but surely that relationship is picking up. but the broader world, the eu, the wto, the imf, and particularly the un has been heroic interact, despite attacks on them in 2003 and particularly in the work on the elections, we have a lot of help out there.

>> the formation of the government? judy and we're following that very actively. by president biden was out there recently. we're not engaged in any involvement in this. it is an iraqi responsibility but we are concerned that it move forward as quickly as possible. we want to set government that is inclusive, very important at this point in iraqi development. we want a partner with us. we are concerned about the delays but we point out that that government has done a pretty good job, services are continuing to flow, and the iraqis are working out a long process. it is frustrating to all but it shows the real politics is under way and that people are engaging. in our military involvement goes

down and are civilian engagement -- can you talk about that? >> yes, sir. five going to plan for locations outside the baghdad, and three embassy offices with robust political reporting, economic and assistance activities, rule of law as well, and rights monitoring. other than basra, they will be primarily in the north. we will also use several of them along with baghdad. there will be platforms for the police training programs. those programs, the state department will pick up from the military in 2011.

we're looking at several foreign -- several hundred police advisers, including fire personnel, and securities and logistics personnel, with a wide variety of sites. that is an expensive program and we're working on the funding now. these programs are not long-term programs. if we seek the three branch offices closing within three or five years, and the police program run a quick ending in that time. if they provide as a transition where we can -- that provide us a transition, as a supplement to what the military has done, and with the military will continue to do under embassy direction. it will open at the end of 2011 under the embassy office of security cooperation, like the office i have with military personnel to help with training and equipping. it is a very broad and very deep

embassy, the likes of which we have not seen before. >> how was questioned by every leader who met in iraq about a long-term commitment of united states to iraq. can you talk about that? >> this commitment is sealed in blood and treasure. but iraqi and american, and it is something that those of us have continued to be involved in and and we're not one to walk away from to the extent that we can. we hope that the american and iraqi people feel the same way. in how we demonstrate that commitment, the main platform will be this very large embassy mission, temporary but still large, taking on some of the functions that the military has done. up to now and to the end of 2011. again, integrating iraq into a deep regional, diplomatic, and paul medical architecture, working with them as one of our

-- and political architecture, work with them, there is a network of relationships, both with us and each other, and it is important have iraq fully plugged into that. dow will require a lot of work. it is one of the things president obama emphasized in his february speech. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i just have one or two more and we will be transitioning. we may take a brief recess in between the two panels. there was a story that appeared in yesterday's of " new york times," the new iraqi government. it's a name we have not heard as much about in the recent months as we used to. that is working now.

in the first paragraph of the story, it says that al-sadr was meeting with maliki, and later in the story, he met with mr. paul lally -- allawi, traveling from damascus to iran, and what do you say about that in terms of the meaning of that? i know that he his followers won 39 seats in the parliamentary elections. is that significant, not significant, or is it something you cannot quite assess yet? >> it is significant, senator. it turns out to be representing

10% of the above, almost exactly what he received in 2006. his popularity is staying about the same. it is not insignificant because of the fact of the nature of the parties, it is one of the largest single groups in the parliament. what we have seen is a transition -- when i was there in 2004, we were engaged in heavy fighting, and in some sent -- subsequent engagement, and several times since then. but our hope is that while we disagree with many of his views including his views about us, that he can become integrated into the political system fully. that is, we do not think it is good to have people who on the one hand run for office and said in the parliament and on the other hand threaten to use extra parliamentary and militant

means to carry out political goals. there are some concerns with him. when i was there in 2005, i dealt with some of his people who were ministers in one government. we will work with them as long as they are within the political system. >> thank you very much. we want to reiterate on your contribution in your public service and the difficult assignments, and by extension, the commitment of your family. we thank you for that. and until the chairman in the ranking member come back, we will recess. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] > [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i apologize and thank you for your patience. ambassador jeffrey, share with us -- can you speak to the level of iranian influence right now in iraq? >> mr. chairman, can speak more to their in. then what they are getting out

of bed, which is not very clear. -- their input and what they are getting out of it, which is not very clear. they have extensive intelligence apparatus in baghdad and elsewhere. they have considerable -- that put considerable attention in to the iraqi leadership, and they are -- they have very senior leaders traveling constantly to baghdad. a very diplomatic -- extensive diplomatic set of context. they provide money to various groups, and more troubling that provide continued weapons and training to groups that have attacked us and are capable and are threatening to attack again. we're very concerned about that. if they are also trying to increase their economic investment posture in iraq. they have about $8 billion in trade.

they have considerable aid programs. they offered $1 billion in aid and executed at least a significant portion of that, i think $400 million, but i am not sure. a very significant presence. on the other hand, our experiences -- mine and those of our ambassadors and other people out there over the last six years -- indicates that the iraqi people, patriotic iraqis, they do not want anyone, not us, not the neighbors, governing -- telling them how to run their affairs. i think a strong political system in iraq, economic development, and relationships with many neighbors and the international community is the best way to resist this. >> how -- what you think they're trying to achieve? >> our general view is that they

are basically seeking interact -- an iraq that is politically weak, but that the shi'a have a major political role in that. defensively they want to ensure 'athists do not come in power again. they want a friendly iraq on their doorstep. they want political and economic security influence over the iraqi political partisan over the iraqi political system, and that probably want to see our influence decline as rapidly as possible. >> how long do you think this impasse can go on for? jim and i cannot predicted. particularly before, if confirmed, going out there and talking to people on the ground.

looking at the constitution in the way that they have worked it, it can technically go on for an indefinite period of time, if but we're seeing the population and our experience has been in 2005 and again in 2006 that after five months from the election, things began to jell. it is hoped it will happen this time. >> what forces will come into play to make a gel? do we have a role to play? can we help it gel in a way that we have not yet a question mark >> -- have not yet? >> any outside actors -- that was the case when i was there 2005 during the stand up of the first government, iraqis do not like to see any direct overt expressions of interest by their

friends in the international community. the work and is working very hard on various activities related to this. it requires twa things. -- two things. the ruling out of options were coming upon an option that will work. various factions each finding work. we and the iraqis believe that an inclusive government is very important at this stage in the development coming out at the conflicts that have been involved with. it is imported get everyone involved and it is hard to find a matrix. >> do you believe the iraqis believe that? it is your understanding that the iraqis believe that? >> has been the nature of every political resolve their to maximize their power and position with others, but i also think that everybody in iraq is

very aware of the danger of a setback poured increase violence. the sought in 2006 and 2007. from everything i've heard, and i have not been out there for some time, but everything i have heard and read is that they are well aware of the need to avoid that. transition the prt's in the wake of the drawdown? >> right now, we have 16 prt's and six embedded. these are security and life support by the u.s. military. roughly october of 2011, has the military draws down into its final stage, we will transition down into several steps to five posts in mosul, basra, and

others. we will go from a total of 22 to 5. >> it is my understanding they will essentially be embassy branch offices. >> two will be consulates. the idea is to transition and close down within three to five years. after the end of the military security agreement and the withdrawal of military forces in december to a dozen 11, we have another phase where we will have a all large embassy presence with the police training program and these three branch post. we will also have another program during that period as well, with a office of security cooperation under the embassy doing these functions which are

right now been done by the military. >> and that is to provide security for those post? >> know, the office of security cooperation basically is similar to but larger than the office of defense coordination, in my embassy. an ams training in executing an advisor effort, but under different authority. the security for all this would be done by the department of state under the current plans. >> is there any way in which you might judge that prime minister maliki is simply not going to work in good faith to try to put together of legitimate

government ordered that he would just hang on and hang on and stay in a stalemate? that transition will crumble lot of the democracy we created into another strongman situation? >> i see nothing that indicates that the president of the government. he is a good governor. at the end of the day, he realized he did not have the support to stay on as prime minister and he left. it could be well that prime minister moloch people find the support to remain prime minister, but -- maliki will find the support to remain prime minister. we have no basis to question the legitimacy of these folks at this time. >> bank you very much, mr. chairman. i am going to read most of the opening statement i would have read that expresses my views about the candidates today. and then now we use what

remaining time i have four direct questions of the ambassador. i say that join the chairman in welcoming our four distinguished ambassadorial nominees and we thank them for their ongoing service and courage in taking on these challenging assignments. i saw ambassador jeffrey as an anger last summer when we attended the pipeline treaty signings. ambassador jeffrey and i had the ability to assess the critical and economic benefits of fostering energy cooperation throughout the region. while making fewer headlines, the situation in iraq continues to be vital to the national security of the united states. iraq held parliamentary elections on march 7, 2009, and an agreement on who will be the prime minister may not be concluded for several months. the redeployment of american forces in iraq has begun, and by

september all but 50,000 u.s. troops will have departed the country. if president obama has so that by the end of to thousand 11, all u.s. troops will be out of iraq. but at the meeting, we had an opportunity to visit with prime minister maliki and the iraqis, and the hope then was that they would be able to provide natural gas for the pipeline. it illustrates the ties that iraq has and could have with western europe and likewise with our security arrangements with our native friends. plans submitted by the administration suggest that u.s. involvement in iraq will remain robust well beyond that, with more than 5000 diplomats and civilian advisers working with civil society and the iraqi government. the uncertain political situation creates risks for our transition plans. our military has been involved in areas of governance far

beyond security, and turning over these critical responsibilities will be challenging. the state department has asked for more than $800 million in startup costs for a police mentoring and training program. the program envisions having 350 advisor is at three camps who will fan out to 50 sites in the country, about half of which would be reachable by ground and the rest by air support. with the military departure, we're told the department may hire as many 7000 contract security personnel. an ap article last month suggested the iraq mission would need the equivalent of a squadron of blackhawk helicopters, 50 ambush-protected vehicles, and equipment to protect against rockets and mortars. it is important that the administration flesh out how all the pieces of this unprecedented operation will fit together in iraq as american troops depart.

thee also considering nominations of frank barker tony -- frank ricciardone i serve as u.s. ambassador to turkey. turkey remains a vital partner for the united states despite several recent disagreements. our next ambassador must continue to develop opportunities to reinvigorate the u.s.-turkish alliance. one opportunity concerns energy security and the development of the nabucco pipeline as a southern energy corridor to europe. completion of the nabucco project will directly connect nations of the caspian region, the caucasus and europe, bringing energy diversification that will benefit supply, transit, and consumer countries alike. ms. connelly in mid-may, the committee met with prime minister side ari -- saad

hariri. members engaged him on the full range of issues and expressed particular concern about the daily like the progress on the ambassador it -- on the implementation of un security council resolution 1701. on june 8, senator casey's subcommittees' held a hearing that highlighted the intransigence of hezbollah, which continues to act counter to lebanese interests and regional stability and poses a daily threat to peace. our ambassador to lebanon is a key figure in persuading the hard rock -- i read -- hariri government's to withstand the counter pressures and support the programs in which americans have invested more than $1 billion in 2006. terrorists have struck americans

in yemen and we require a clearly articulated policy for curbing the terrorist threat there. let me conclude by just asking for your reaction initially to these figures which are so impressive about the new civilian presence in the far right? likewise all the security that must be provided for them. had you in any way been an adviser to this process? do you have any editorial thoughts about all this? >> thank you, senator. first of all, i have not been confirmed and have had no role in putting this together but i have followed it closely for the last quarter months. these figures aren't daunting

and that is the reaction i had to it. -- are daunting and that is the reaction i had to it. the embassy has grown since then. we have roughly 3000 security personnel now. that will increase somewhat. i don't think it goes up to 7000 on as you throw in a large portion of the police force and military officers, the security cooperation. that may be a bit high but i will look into that. we already run as a squadron -- run a squadron of helicopters. we have them in operation now, four fixed-winged aircraft, and we're going to make it even larger. we're taking on missions that the u.s. military has done, and that is inherent in the parallel processes, the security agreement that we signed in november 2008, which has a responsible drawdown of our --

and the departure of our military combat forces, all our force appeared on the other hand, a strategic framework agreement that sees a broad partnership, political as well as education, security, and cultural, and picking up many of the missions that the military's doing now. police as a important one. we have training programs, at the office of security cooperation would do. in addition, the securing and the logistics of all these people in these various sites. as i mentioned to the chairman, but there prt's supported by the military for that support will go away. we will have to do more if we want to have the presence nationwide that everyone in this administration is -- believes is necessary to carry out the progress. >> i appreciate your response.

i simply make the point because many americans, maybe members of congress, talking about our withdrawal of troops from iraq and do not appreciate and no -- and new contingent of living in. these and not military people, these are state department and other agencies, but it is a huge commitment. a considerable budget. it follows that after we have had a war and a period of peace- making, moving on to the future is not the same as a conventional indices situation in countries where there have not been this sort of conflict. i appreciate your outline of it, and we appreciate your management of it. naked, mr. chairman. gigot thank you, senator lugar. senator feingold. . >> this remains critical to our

national security including our ability to focus on the global threat posed by al qaeda. you have a very important task ahead of you, if confirmed, as the transition to the civilian interaction with iraq. last year we had testimony that any delay was poorly received by the iraqi people. do you agree with that assessment? >> i have seen all the polls, senator. i reviewed them in the last two days that we have taken another people have taken. the iraqi elite -- the iraqi populace in white numbers does want to see our forces withdraw. >> the state department plans to double its security, even though such contractors don't have the essential security capabilities that are provided by our troops.

i'm concerned that this will be dangerous and also lead to a situation where we do not have meaningful control of our own contracts. what alternatives have you considered? >> senator, this is an extremely important. bank. if confirmed as chief of mission, my first concern will be the safety of the underlying supervision. and i put time and effort into putting this -- and put out -- i put a lot of time and effort into looking this. the black water security people, the state department did a thorough investigation. i have read that report. included and i think that this conclusion remains true today that the state department has done a very good job in an extremely lethal and bar in protecting its people and keeping them alive and safe. however they needed to be certain steps, technical steps, rule of engagement steps, coordination steps, coordination

with the military and the iraqi a party, and more supervision. now we put a direct hire state department officer person with all movements, and we have more technical control through recordings, audio and video equipment and such, so that we are able to determine what happened and review any incident. since then there has not been a serious incident. i want to say that this is a difficult mission. this is a defensive mission and involves thousands of people, many movements in a very legal environment, something we need to remain -- something we have to remain concerned about. >> in previous years, reports of abuse during the rest particularly by they minister of defence battalion level forces continued to be common.

federal law requires certification before the united states can continue to provide certain kinds of security assistance to any state that has a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights law. how many violations but occur before such certification of a consistent pattern of abuses is required? >> i read the report and i would have to look at this in more detail. the effort we're trying to do, including the police training effort, is to get at the violations and the abuse which we have seen in the past and we saw when i was there and since then. it has been documented. our hope is that we can see this on a declining slowed and something i will look at very carefully if i'm confirmed in a fight the weather. >> i applaud that and i urge you on in that effort. my question was -- how many years of violation. >> i did not know that at this

time. >> can you get back to me on that bridge mark >> i can. >> how closely with you work to overcome that? today that is the assessment of the state department human rights report. iraq is coming out of the terrific conflict -- and horrific conflict of dictatorship and almost constant war with iran and kuwait. it is going to take some time for a back, even with a democratic government and democratic institutions, to move into an environment more than what would like to see in more developed parts of the war. it is going to take time. >> security remains very big in

iraq, including security forces. how will you work with the iraqi government to make this issue a priority and push for concrete improvements crush margins in their very efforts that we already have under way that i will review and reinforce if i'm confirmed. been entered joint patrols -- we now do joint patrols with iraqi army forces, along the disputed internal borders. we're putting a special effort into the minority communities. i mention that in my opening statement. it is of great concern to me. it remained so. we are also looking at the makeup and composition of the security forces. it has improved over time but it is something that has been worrisome in the past and something that requires continued vigilance. >> hundreds of millions of

dollars of crude oil and refined products are being smuggled across the iran-iraq border every year. what steps has the government taken to address this problem, with the potential to undercut our efforts with iran and sage and resource sharing in iraq itself? >> we're very concerned about this, given the latest sanctions legislation that the u.s. has passed. the role of that in the relationship between iraq and iran, i know that we're looking into this. the latest charges are related information at the embassy and with the iraqi government and also with the kurds in the north. some of the smuggling has been identified as being in the north. >> we thank you. >> i have had two rounds.

>> 90. -- thank you. i have only had one round. it will not take long. i had the opportunity to join senator casey and senator kaufman on their recent visit to iraq. i was impressed with the progress that has been made there. but i appreciate the fragility of the current situation. i understand that those who would promote instability in the country act without a government having been formed did. i understand that the current failure to form a government gives an opportunity for those extremist elements. can you talk a little bit about what you think forming a government could do and the difference that might make and

how that should be done? >> certainly, senator byrd first we are hopeful that the government will be formed in the near future. unlike in the past, this time in that interregnum the government has done a good job of providing services, has pushed down security incidents, whereas in the last time it rocketed up, and it is dramatically, than either 2006 or 2005. the iraqis are learning to deal with the situation that we see from time to time in parliamentary democracies in europe as well. nonetheless, it is time to move on with this. once the government is instituted, first of all the whole process of forming a government to some degree is the job of government in iraq to bring in the various groups and ensure that everyone feels that they have a share, to be as

inclusive as process -- as possible for that as part of the message of the whole project. and that has been done before you actually sealed the deal on the government. once we have a government in place, there are certain priorities that the iraqis have set up that this as say -- that they say president obama laid out in his speeches. first to move forward on the oil front, to try to deal with these very difficult internal borders, to work on whole rule o'clock in the legal system complex, to encourage the private sector of non-oil and non-agricultural economic development, perhaps work on the food subsidies system which is very extensive, and there several other major projects out there that the iraqis themselves are looking out and that we

agree -- we have programs and advisers and support with the un and other agencies to try to help them do that. there is a big agenda that is waiting on the formation of the government. >> you talk about or you alluded to the fact that as the military pulls out, we will have 22 prt's around the country they will no longer have that support. obviously that applies to so many other areas where the military has performed many of the functions that civilian government might normally address. can you talk about -- given the change in the numbers of troops, the reduction in resources, because certainly there will be fewer resources in iraq on the civilian side to help address the continuing challenges -- how you see them working and the role that u.s. ambassador and

program brigid that you as ambassador -- that you as ambassador and other programs will continue to play in the country or to mark >> we will be losing the support and we will be dropping from 25 to eventually buy the beginning of 2012, they posts outside baghdad. there may be other satellite post for some of our military trainers who would be under the auspices of security cooperation, but that will be the major package. it will be a major effort just to support those five places which currently are being supported by u.s. military, and take on the additional job of the police training and then to some degree a logistical and security support for the detachments of our security cooperation that we may have with our iraqi forces or the iraqi bases.

so it is a big new mission. we're on top of a huge mission that we're doing is essentially right now. i would put into a rigid particular attention to the security of this because that is a born. decent life support, and we're using this money in an effective way to carry a commission and to ensure that we're getting engagement with the iraqis. that is the whole purpose of this larger platform. >> how long do you think of for the iraqis are able to take over their own reconstruction and investment needs? >> in the short to medium term, that will have to come from an increase in oil revenue. the iraqis already budget a good deal of money for their capital investment accounts, but they have not been able that hesitated on that -- to execute on that. as to the development of their oil fields, it begins to kick in

in the middle years of this decade, and we hope with the 12 contracts they had, we will see that by that time and the iraqis are planning for that if by 2013, a very ambitious program. the amount of oil revenue available for further development, for paying for their military forces -- they already paid for more than half of their regiments, and they will be able to move into basically the mid-income range of countries, and during that period, we will transition away from police training programs, which has a five-year life, and away from the embassy grant offices. after 2011, it will be critical for our future and catering, because that is where we have these temporary but large operations, and for the iraqis, because that is when there will

program kicks in. that is the time threshold we're looking for. >> they give. >> what to do viewers say about the significant date? >> it is a bittersweet thing. you have to take a back to march 2003 when we ramp up, and we talked it that time, we were a year and half past 9/11 and everyone was gung-ho. even those of us who supported the war without fail have been through some potholes' of confidence, even under president that was supported, president bush, and that defense secretary that was supported in fits and starts, and donald rooms filled. cult war was not handled right but the search came. it worked.

-- can the war was not handled right but the surge came. it word. and now president who never supported the war will be able to claim an interesting style of credit. there is no doubt in just to ramp up, there's no doubting that he is able to possibly blame this war to an end because of something he never supported and the troops effort that he was never behind. >>. a lot said today that he is going to steer clear of the phrase that was so associated with that may speech of george w. bush, they mission accomplished speech, as it has become to be known. he has to say something about the banality of this moment for the u.s. troops. >> he does. he could establish some consistency points with the following observation. when president bush was on the uss abraham lincoln under that

banner, that banner was accurate to the extent that it referred to the effort expended to topple saddam. in no way did it mean that we were pulling out, we were done, we had no further task. similarly to be bipartisan here, in a predator obama was to actually say "mission accomplished, if" i would view it as a welcome tip of the hat from a commander in chief to the troops who made it possible. once again, it does not mean we're done, nice and tidy, everything is neat and secure. but it does -- we have reached -- all war is made up of many missions. president bush oversaw this as breton obama does not. he is overseeing a portion of the iraq war where things are secure enough, stable enough, that we can transition out of

our presence there into one that a supervisory. >> the best case scenario is that this is the thing that president bush or president obama may take the credit if things work out. >> i hope that they do. president bush deters credit for the surge, and president obama deserves credit for sending, however grudgingly, more troops. i want history to smile on presidents who helped us win just wars. in invoking history, you have a good point. in what decade will we look at an iraq or in afghanistan where this happened -- we know it is secure and stable enough, they are functioning democracies, or they have just completely stalled into unmanageable hellholes? one of those to destinations

will send up the flat where it is time for history to write a chapter about this. that is a long tunnel with. >> us talk about politics before we wrap up. this is a political year. there's a fine line between the liberals in tea parties who have never supported the war is so much as the conservatives and the republicans. >> that is why you get so much emphasis on, i said i would in the war and i have done so. cindy shehaan and michael more, they have bludgeoned him, why have you not ended the war? we still have 50,000 troops in that bottle supervisory role. guantanamo is not closed and i do not think it is going to. the president wants to seem

like a confident commander in chief and he earned points for me and maybe some other critics when he did agree with the petreaus plant of more troops to afghanistan. this is a tight rope people what for the remainder of his days, how many ever there. >> mark davis in dallas. you can find it at wbap.com, and also the dallas newspapers. thank you for taking time this afternoon. >> and about 10 minutes from now, president obama will address the nation from the oval office about our right in the end of combat missions there. it will live -- it will be live here on c-span and we will take your phone calls after the president's speech. the house republican leader john bonner talking in milwaukee today. tomorrow on c-span3, live

coverage of that change of command ceremony in iraq. re portiere no -- ray ordierno will be replaced. before we go live, we will see some of the changes that happened in the white house while the obama is were on vacation in martha's vineyard. >> the head the oval office me model from the previous look that was left over from the bush administration to a newly designed space that hand-held camera crews were allowed to shoot for about three minutes. highlights of the changes as provided by the white house are new and reupholstered furniture, new wallpaper, as well as a new rug.

we recently spent time with president obama in the oval office before was redecorated about asking -- asking them about life in the white house and working in the oval office. >> what is it like to live in the white house? >> it is an extraordinary experience. i think the idea -- the thing we appreciate most is the staff which are so diligent, constantly thinking about how to make the first family comfortable in what is to some degree an artificial environment. they're wonderful and it -- and they become great friends. i also have the shortest commute of anybody i know, and that makes a huge difference. no matter how long i am working on any given day, i can always go upstairs and see my wife and kids. that is something i appreciate more than anything else, being here in the pie house.

what would you change in this room? >> we have not even redecorated this room. the tradition is that every president comes in, they reworked it. given that we're in the midst of a very difficult economic times, we decided to hold off last year in terms of making some changes. i did make a few personal changes. one was that boston martin luther king, jr., to remind me of all the extraordinary dedication of a lot of people to allow me to have the privilege of serving in this office. we got some of these need to gadgets -- neat gadgets, original patents that were provided, and some of them date back to the early 1800's. a good reminder of part of what

makes this country so great, our inventiveness. their.t a whole place of >> you keep george to washington here? >> i kept george washington here. i kept clicking here. this is one of my favorite pictures. this is donated by steven spielberg, i think, to bill clinton. it is a norman rockwell. from that distance, it looks like a portrait of the statue of liberty. when you look closely, if that these three guys up there cleaning the torch. it is a reminder that constantly have to renew the plans of our democracy. >> when people come into this room, had you noticed them react? >> somebody said this is the greatest home court advantage

that you could have, adding this office. fice.ving this of people have a certain reverence for this space because it symbolizes what has been extraordinary record of tough decisions that had been made in this room. usually people have a pause before they step in. my job is to make them feel comfortable, and after that, they're usually find. >> u.s. not in some off the record meetings over in the dining room. what is your relationship with history? when president had nine of them.

>> when you occupy this office, your kossel reminded that you're just one of the series of people -- you are constantly reminded that you're just one of a series of people who have dedicated their lives to protect in the country and making in our democracy function. it is a very humbling experience, so i spend a lot of time reading history. just to remind myself of the standards i have to live up to. of the mistakes that have been made in the past by occupants of this office. having the chance to talk personally with these historians helps, particularly in this 24 hour news cycle that we live in here in washington. so much attention is on the daily ups and downs of politics. my job is to constantly

remember what i do here is on behalf of not just tomorrow, but on behalf of the next generation. >> have you looked up and thought i cannot quite believe this? >> everyone does at the first day that they are here. that the tradition previous occupant leaves behind a letter. president bush was very gracious to both me and my family during the transition. he left me one. i came in here by myself, i read that letter a beautiful, sunny, cold day. >> we're in the white house to you find yourself happiest -- do you find yourself happiest? >> the south lawn is extraordinary.

we built this place set out and sasha didlia use. they are getting older. i have kids of staff coming. there times when i am working here, i look out the window, and someone is on a swing or laughing as they go down a slide, and it reminds you why you're doing what we are doing. little ones run by and that is always cheerful. bo is a good friend. >> what about a lincoln bedroom? >> i do not go into it much unless there are visitors. every once in awhile i will say sneak in to read the gettysburg address, especially when i get ready to make a speech. i'm consulate reminding myself

that that speech was three minutes long. if i am getting long winded, it's helpful to look at that piece and take a look and remember that there is something to brevity when you make your point. didn't you ever feel like you're going to be here for a long time? >> no, i think that both me and the family recognize that this is the people's house. we're tipperary occupants. that means we want to make sure that be the displaced in this extraordinary a condition as well as we found it. -- that we leave this place in as extraordinary condition as we found it. the also want to bring people into the white house. we do a lot of offense or wondered for years, for kids from surrounding