iraq, iraq and the battle days was a threat to iran. an eight-year war, it was a threat to kuwait. the turks have interest in the north including the pkk presence there. other countries also. the iranian influence, i would say, is that of an important neighbor. it has probably the highest level of trade of any given country followed by turkey. there are a great many theological links between the shia center in najaf and many of the people who are now in the iraqi government, not just shia arabs but kurds and others found refuge in iran during the saddam regime. what concerns us is, first of all, the general role of iran in the middle east. we think that iran is attempting to expand its influence and expand it in illegitimate ways through violence, through supportive groups and such. we're concerned that will happen. our spread in iraq as well. but we do believe the iraqi

leaders including prime minister maliki and others are well aware of threats to their sovereignty, well aware of threats coming in various directions and they can be counted upon to do the right thing. >> let me ask you a quick question, does iran want this government to succeed or fail? >> one of the problems in assessing iran, and i'm not an iran expert, but i've worked on and off with it, there are different power centers in iran, senator. i think some of them probably would like to see an iraq that is not a threat to them. that's a legitimate concern given what they went through with saddam's invasion. and are happy to see an iran that is -- an iraq that is a success because they feel an affinity for the shia arabs who make up a majority of the population. i think that there are other people in iran who probably would like to see much more

iranian influence over iraq and would hold iraq's success hostage to additional iranian influence. and sorting out that is one of our challenges. >> one last question. we have spent about $20 billion to develop iraqi security forces and increased ministerial capacity. overall we spent about $58 billion in reconstruction in iraq, including the building of infrastructure, establishment of political and social institutions and a whole host of other things. now i understand the iraqis have a sense of their own budget crisis, but certainly with the challenges that we are having here at home, at some point one would presume that the shift of where we are spending our resources will go to the iraqis funded by, let's say, increasing oil revenue. how long do you anticipate the

united states needs to be engaged in this civilian mission at the currently planned support level? and how accurate are the current estimates of $5 billion annually? and -- or is it a more realistic number to say 7 to $9 billion as some academics have suggested? >> senator, at this point we're talking about a transition of three to five years. several things will happen in those three to five years. first of all, our assistance will drop. it is already quite low. we're looking at a police training program of roughly a billion dollars a year. the military is doing it now. we'll take it over. the program for fy 11, run from the department of defense, rather than the normal fmf program, that's 1.5 billion. and there is another roughly

$500 million, not counting the refugees, separate account, which is esf and related other things. so right now we're looking at fy 11 approximately three to thr3 billion in assistance going down from what you said, well over $50 billion we spent on security and reconstruction. in return, the iraqis, for example, their capital investment budget, equivalent to what we were doing a few years ago in water, electricity, oil, energy and other projects, is about $8 billion or about 15% of their budget. their expenditures on security, again, about $8 billion. about 15% of their budget. and the expenditure level in this fiscal year is about the same. so the iraqis are putting a tremendous amount of money into this, far more than we're putting in to this point. we have an agreement with them over the last year and a half

that on any specific project or activity we do, in a civilian side, they'll provide 50% of the funding or other support. so we're watching that. it is going down. it will go down further. as their oil revenues come up in a stability continues to improve. >> well, i appreciate that. let me close. my time is over. we will be watching it very closely as well because after $58 billion when we were told that iraqi oil would fund the full costs of our invasion in iraq and the costs of it, obviously it is tough to see here in america the challenges that we have, the lack of investment that we have on critical issues and spending $58 billion in iraq and a continuum of anywhere between 3.5 and $5 billion a year is something that i think is going to be increasingly under a microscope. i look forward to working with you on that and thank you for your answers. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator menendez.

senator coons. >> thank you for convening this important hearing on the transition from a military-led to a civilian-led role in iraq going forward. i want to express my deep appreciation to the witnesses today for their service, for their insight, for their candor and for the sacrifice that has been made by thousands of americans in our armed forces as well as civilians, diplomat, allied forces. the best way for us to honor both their sacrifice and the investment of over a trillion dollars here is to plan adequately for the transition. and hopefully for a stable and security ally in iraq. i would like to start by asking, ambassador, if i could about how you see relations between iraq and some of its other neighbors we haven't touched on yet, syria and saudi arabia, in particular. i believe there is still not a saudi embassy in baghdad. how do we transition towards a point where iraq can play a constructive role regionally as we move out of a military-led to

a civilian-led presence in iraq? >> thank you, senator. we touched a bit on iran. let me go around counterclockwise from north toward the west and south. turkey, as i mentioned, is a major trading, investment and energy partner of iraq's. that relationship is developing in a very, very important, almost dramatic way. the current erdogan government has taken a very different approach than earlier governments with the kurdistan regional government in the north and now has a good and close relationship with it. but also at the same time primacy to the central government, of course, in baghdad. we're seeing this in increased energy, exports, through turkey, increased turkish investments, not just in energy but particularly in oil and other energy fields, electricity, housing, and, again, two-way trade. the turks do have security

interests in iraq, particularly the presence of the pkk, kurdish guerrilla group in the north of the country and we have a process of dealing with that where -- >> what is the status of the syrian border arrangements at this point? >> the syrian border arrangements, there are agreements between iraq and syria, but frankly we're still seeing foreign fighters cross over into iraq and general austin might perhaps talk more about the security implications of that. but this is one of the major problems outstanding between syria and iraq. jordan, relations are very good. jordan has been very supportive. more generally in the arab world, then i'll touch on saudi arabia, iraq was in a special status beginning in 1990, 1991 with a variety of security council resolutions, huge debts, compensation for its damages that if created in kuwait and elsewhere, and it has slowly

worked its way out from under them. we had a breakthrough on the 15th of december. vice president biden presided over the security council as many of these security council resolutions were lifted. that sets the foundation for an increasing normalcy in iraq's relationship with the region, and particularly with its neighbors. the next step will be to try to deal with some of the issues outstanding still between iraq and kuwait. the kuwaiti prime minister recently for the first time in 20 years traveled to iraq. iraqi leaders are going to be traveling to kuwait for the anniversary of the liberation coming up here soon. that's another positive step. with saudi arabia, that's a complicated issue. i've traveled to saudi arabia twice and met with king abdullah on the iraq issue. and that's going to be probably the last -- the last step that will be taken in the normalcy. but, again, the iraqis are trying very hard. we recently had encouraging comments by the saudi form,

prince saoud and we want to build on those. what everybody is focused on with the saudis and the rest of the region is the arab league summit that will take place in baghdad for the first time in 20 years in march. we'll have to see how the situation in egypt overshadows that, but for the moment, this will be another very, very significant step forward. >> thank you, ambassador. if i might, general austin, i'm interested in security of the borders with syria as well as others. you made reference earlier to the iraqis' real challenges in maintaining any air superiority for the next couple of years. i'm interested in that. i'm interested in hearing your views about what lessons we can learn about our successes or challenges in standing up training and supporting both the iraqi police and their national security forces. and then what those lessons on both the military and civilian side, what lessons we can then apply to afghanistan from that experience. >> well, thank you, senator.

i would -- of all the security forces i would rate the border security elements as being the least developed. it is simply a matter of the way that we went about our work there. we had to stand up the army, stand up the police, and then enable them, the federal police and the border security forces were the last that -- of the forces that we're able to get to and work with in ernest. having said that, they made remarkable progress. there is still a lot to be done. the iraqis fully appreciate that. with respect to the foreign fighter flow, we're probably looking at somewhere between five and nine foreign fighters coming across the border on a routine basis per month. that's much decreased from what we saw back in 2007, 2008 when the numbers were much higher than that. part of that is because of the

great work of our ct forces. but also it is because of the work that -- the iraqi security forces are doing currently. we have been working with them and partnering with them. they have learned a lot, they're developing capability, there is still a long way to go in some cases. i talked about that earlier with respect to intelligence, collection and analysis. with respect to lessons learned, there are a lot of them. but i would say some of the key lessons learned are that, you know, by partnering with the host nation forces, and working with them side by side on a daily basis, we're able to move things along much more rapidly than we would have been if we had taken another approach. we're starting to see that some of those techniques have migrated to afghanistan in terms

of how they're approaching business down at the, you know, battalion company platoon level. as you know, general petraeus was in afghanistan and he was a guy that really helped to implement a lot of the techniques that we still use today. you can expect a lot of that would migrate over to afghanistan. but i think there are numerous lessons learned and we continue to catalog those and share them with the community at large and certainly push key lessons learned to afghanistan wherever possible. >> and, general, as you transition from a military-led to a civilian-led world, how you to see that transition working particularly in terms of supporting the police and security forces? >> i think the transition is going well, senator. i think, as i mentioned earlier, ambassador jeffrey and i really are working closely together on this. we were literally joined at the

hip. most importantly our organizations are working well together. with every responsibility and task that we transfer, there is a deliberate process of transfer -- for transferring those responsibilities. and the ambassador and i together oversee the progress of those efforts and so i'm pretty confident that we have good processes and i think our people are working well together. >> that's great. i was encouraged by your submission of joint testimony and by the chairman's opening comments about your joint operations and partnership. i thank you for your opening positive comments about our vice president as long service and i look forward to continuing delaware's long tradition of service on this committee. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator coons. we'll begin the second round now. let me bear down a little bit on a few things if i can.

it is my understanding that some requests for critical nonexcess equipment such as helicopters has been denied. ambassador, how -- if that's true, how does that impact the question of readiness and capacity for this civilian side to manage this. >> there has been a great many security-related requests we have made. i mentioned the mraps. we're working on the cram system for early warning and alarms related to direct fire attacks which is important to get people under cover. in addition, while it is not as easy to summarize, we're getting an extraordinary amount of effort by the u.s. military on all of the locations where we will be taking over because there are locations where the u.s. military and we are jointly

present at this time to do engineering, do joint planning, provide equipment, provide, for example, the containerized trailers if you will that people are living in. we're getting extraordinary support. the only thing that i'm aware of and you mentioned this was the helicopters. at one point we asked for blackhawk helicopters. but the military has -- as we well understand a pressing need for those in afghanistan and elsewhere and therefore the state department has gone out and purchase d 20 s-61 sakorsky helicopters that are on track to arrive, that will more than do the job, we'll support that with uh-1 helicopters that we already have or will be able to get. >> who will pilot those? >> sir, we have -- what we call a state department ear wing developed in central and south

america, some 20 years ago, very active in columbia. right now i have about -- all told in all embassy elements, over 20 aircraft operating in a combat environment today in iraq will more than double that. and we believe that we have the people we have been doing this for a long time. it is not an easy mission, it is not easy for the military either. the equipment will be there. we have got some of the world's best pilots operating. >> help me to pin down this question of need with respect to the numbers there. the current plan beyond 2011 calls for 17,000 individuals on 15 different sites with, as i mentioned, three different air hubs, three different police training centers, and two consulates, two embassy branch offices, five office of security corporation sites, that strikes

me as a -- that's a big footprint. that's a lot. do we really need all that? >> let me start with the -- to answer that with one word, yes, sir, right now it is a big -- it is a huge operation. but right now to operate under the current circumstance with the u.s. military as our partner, we have almost 8,000 personnel assigned to the chief of mission. we're all over the country. a few months ago when we still had what we call the eprts, we had 22 main sites and we had individual political offices with battalions and brigades and even other places. we were literally all over the country, sir. we were ratcheting that down. of the 17,000 personnel, the vast majority are going to be contractors. most importantly perimeter security contractors, people who don't go out and interact with the iraqi community and then a

smaller number of personal security details, security contractors, those people are registered with the iraqi authorities. the iraqis regulate them, they're under iraqi law and more importantly from my standpoint, they're under the direct supervision of our diplomatic security people who have somebody riding in every convoy. >> is it more expensive to do that than to maintain effort through the military? >> well, first of all, with the military, senator what you get is if you have a -- and general, austin, of course, as i say in this particular issue too, for example, we have artillery or infantry battalions providing support for our prts, but this takes up a company or a battery's worth of troops. these troops are being paid for. they're in the base of the department of defense budget. they're being paid, their equipment is being purchased and maintained and such. whether they're in ft. hood or whether they're in -- >> i understand that, but i'm trying to understand the cost analysis here, whether on a dollar for dollar, person for

person basis, when you finish costing it out, is one less expensive than the other? has that analysis been done? >> we haven't -- >> i understand the big rubric of the promise of our troops and the drawdown. i got all that. i'm just asking the question if notwithstanding all of that there is a simplicity and a lesser cost and even praperhaps greater guarantee of success for the different model. >> certainly you will have a larger chance of success if you have a u.s. army combat brigade providing security for you. you can respond at any level of reaction including a major massive complex ambush. but for the kind of security, we haven't seen that for a long time in iraq. for the kind of security threats we have, we think we have a model that will work. in terms of cost, it is expensive to do these psds.

we have many of them in iraq. and they do cost a great deal of money. but it is also very, very expensive just for the incremental costs of our u.s. military in iraq as well, senator. >> well, fill out what people are going to be doing on one of those 15 different sites. >> okay. first of all, on the 15 different sites, to sketch very quickly you have a set of sites in baghdad. you have an embassy and across the street the headquarters of the osci which will be a defense security systems organization under chief admission authority. under the current police training area where the military is now training iraqi police at the police academy, which we call it fob shield, we will take over that operation and have our own police -- civilian police trainered to replace the police trainers, the civilians that under the state department inl are providing to the military now. it is not a conceptually major

change. we will have also in the greater baghdad area some osci people doing training for the heavy equipment armor and such. at the airport we will have an aviation hub, again, taking over part of the area that the u.s. military is currently operating. then we will have four major locations, mosul, erbil, kirkuk and basra, basra and erbil will become consulates, mosul and kirkuk will be temporary facilities. this requires the iraqis to agree with this. we're working with them on the dimensions of this. >> land use agreements have not yet been signed? >> that's right. >> construction has not yet begun. >> construction, again, these are all sites where we are now operating with the u.s. military and we have done some

preliminary work. and we'll work through with the iraqis. we have briefed the iraqis on this. we're waiting for the final approval. >> what is the current cost of this mission? >> it is about -- the current operations that we have roughly not counting the foreign assistance is about $2 billion. >> going forward? >> moving forward, the construction is in the order of about a billion dollars over several fiscal years. and then the operating costs will up it many hundreds of millions of dollars largely for security and life support. >> at this point and time, how much revenue do we anticipate coming from iraqi oil? >> iraqi oil currently is abo about -- >> that is to say against those costs. >> right. >> not total, but -- >> iraqi oil, the iraqis are earning about $50 billion a year from their oil. it will go up this year because oil prices have gone up and as i

said they're beginning to export more. so, say, 60, 60 plus billion dollars would be the upper limit. >> and how much of that will go to defray these expenses? >> well, again, the iraqis are taking over much of the training and equipping of their own security forces, the vast majority at this point. we figure $8 billion this year. and they have taken over almost all of the earth turning reconstruction and capital investment. we don't do that anymore, senator. >> but we still have to lay out $2 billion against $60 billion of revenue? >> again, to maintain our own presence. now, for example, all of these sites that we mentioned and all of the others, there are basically small satellite sites, are all inside iraqi military bases. so the iraqis have an inherent responsibility to provide security. they're securing themselves. they're securing us.

we use iraqis for our movements through the cities. they support my movements. they support all the movements of our prts in the military through the cities as well. so they're contributing a considerable slice of combat power to work with us. >> well, i'll pursue that a little more with you at a later time. i used my time here. senator lugar and then -- >> mr. ambassador, in the process of transfer of authority and equipment and missions from the defense department to the state department, i want to inquire of you just as a person very responsible for this transition how this is perceived. i do so on the basis that we wrote last november to secretary gates i letter asking how the department of state had responded to several letters of request. and likewise back and forth. the department of defense

assured us that a draft to my staff that these issues have been worked out. but there appears to be evidence that it is difficult to transfer a military materials such as helicopters, early warning assistance, to protect facilities, for example, some have suggested facetiously it is easier to transfer these situations to foreign governments than it is for the defense department to transfer to the department of state. i just ask how smoothly are these transfers, first of all, of material working out and what do we need to do back in the weeds of our own situation to make certain that this huge change which may be unprecedented works smoothly, even more so with missions. the department of defense has been doing a great number of thins which the department of state has never been asked or tasked to do before at all.

and yet you've been describing the numbers, the personnel that will be on the ground attempting to do all of this. i just went from your experience as a diplomat and a person not only in the department of state, but someone who worked with the defense department and all sorts of ways, first of all, really how is it going -- what, if anything, can we do in the congress to help expedite this situation or is this entirely an internal administration proposition of defense and state department people finally getting their act together, getting some transition rules that will work for us here. and then down the trail in afghanistan where we'll have the same proposition. >> the short answer, senator, as you would probably would expect is it is going fine. a longer answer would be, in my 40 years of government service, i have never seen anything done in government go easily without hiccups and problems and various issues. and you just work through them.

what is important and what we have here is commitment of leadership, beginning in the field in baghdad between usfi and the embassy but going up to secretary clinton, secretary gates and the president and vice president. and we hope the support of the senate and house to do this and then we can overcome these problems. a few months ago, most of these things that you cited were issues and we were going back and forth and holding the proverbial government meetings and we have worked through this. secretary gates recently signed an agreement that has cleared away a lot of this in terms of the responsibilities for providing security and other support and funding for osci so that big part of my mission will be basically overseen by department of defense in conjunction with us so that we'll have the very powerful support of dod in making sure that that mission is accomplished correctly.

again, on the transfer of equipment, everything that we have needed other than the helicopters, which we have another fix for that i'm perfectly happy with has gone forward. there are issues, for example, on the way the dod will fund the osci. they'll need some changes in legislation or other things and so we'll have to work that and that will be an issue as well. but i'm absolutely convinced that at that level we'll get everything done. in the field, we have a big job physically doing the construction, deploying the people, and actually getting these things up to, as senator kerry said, full operating capability. and that's a challenge that we have before us in the next year. >> this is a follow-up for that. frequently over the course of several years we have had testimony as to how funds have gone in the minds of some of those who have testified disproportionately to the department of defense as opposed to the department of state. what was once a fairly equal

type of funding situation has become disproportionately very different. secretary gates recognizing this has been among the leaders in saying really some things can better be done by the department of state, and almost a question of how can i transfer my money or what have you to get the thing done over here. i raise this because we stated we're dealing with this in iraq now, going to be dealing with it in afghanistan, nobody knows how many other times, and just as a veteran of the trail of these sorts of things, how can an administration, this one or another one, better testify to us as the congress, as appropriator and so forth, really who can do what or how in this world we need more flexibility. should we rewrite some laws, regulations what have you to make this sort of thing possible

or is this pragmatically going to have to happen country after country in the field, depending upon circumstances? >> it is a big question, senator. in the last administration, at the height of combat activity when we had 150,000 troops in iraq, decisions were made for certain -- what normally would be considered the usaid assistance programs, the isif program for the equipping of iraqi forces, again something that would be normally funded by an fmf program. went to dod and the police training with were doing in '04, '05 went to dod for management and funding. again this is an issue that administrations have to take in the heat of combat. what we're doing now is to basically migrate those activities back to the normal

place where we normally do them. assistance programs, esf are requests of over $300 million for iraq will be done by usaid in the future. we're looking for an fmf program beginning in fy 12 and the police training program as we have briefed has already begun to be funded through the state department and will be fully funded through the state department. so without getting into the very detailed and very controversial and complicated issues here, i would say under a temporary war time basis, funds and activities, responsibilities were shifted to dod. as soon as we could in the transition we're shifting them back to the department of state. >> hopefully with memos and white papers or maybe in memoirs you'll describe the situation that will be helpful to your successors. i thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator rubio. >> i wanted to briefly examine

the detainee issues. i know that we have turned over several facilities to the iraqis. what is the status of -- i don't know who the appropriate person to answer that, maybe both, what is the status of those facilities that have been turned over to iraqi administrations in terms of recidivism rates and things of that nature? >> as you mentioned, we have turned over all of the -- the detainee facilities with the exception of one. we continue to hold a number of detainees, about 200 at camp cropper, which is -- we plan to transition those detainees in the summer. and we're on track to transition them. so i don't think there will be any issues there. but inrecidivism, we continue to see some recidivism, that's to be expected. but by and large i think we have

been very effective in the way that we transferred the detainees over to the iraqis and we didn't have any major issues as a result of that. >> do you -- general, do you know or have any indication of how many foreign fighters have been released by the iraqis and have we re-engaged with them at any point and so forth? >> i don't have at my fingertips the numbers of foreign fighters or former foreign fighters that were detained and released by the iraqis. but there are no question have been some. and, of course, we detained them and based upon the evidence that is available, the iraqis will determine whether or not they continue to detain them. so there will no doubt be instances where people have gone through the due legal processes and as a result of evidence or lack thereof may have been released back to the population

at large. >> and i guess my last question on the detainee issue is i know we had had some level of success, i success, i think, at dealing with some of the less radicalized prisoners that have come into some programs set up to pull them away from that sort of stuff. have the iraqis have continued with that, and if so, at what level of success? are they doing that as well? >> the iraqis doing some things but not to the degree that we were doing down in buca and other places there. i think as their system develops, they'll learn from what we did. they'll also learn from what the saudis have done and complement more and more of those processes. >> ambassador, this question is for you. it's a little broader, but i think it ties into what the testimony was about today. we're watching the events in egypt and before that in tunisia and yemen. what's your sense of how that's

perceived by people in iraq and how that could manifest itself over the next few months and years in terms of this government's ability to sustain itself? i know it's outside the focus today, but i think clearly aligned, any thoughts you may have as to how this could be perceived in iran by people there? >> in terms of iraq, i've been out of the country for a week. so i haven't been following it as close as we normally do, but i think that from what i've seen and from talking with iraqis, they believe that in a democratic system. you were the purple finger elections in 2005. this is part of the ethos of that country, a democratic political system. frankly, they think they're a little ahead of most of the rest of the middle east, and they're proud of their constitution. they're proud of their elections, and i think we'll see

to some degree what's happening, if it turns in a good direction, towards a more true democracy as a confirmation of the path they have taken. a path that has been challenged violently. how it all plays out, of course, and that's the question we're still working our way through is not certain, but we hope for a good solution in egypt and elsewhere in the middle east. we support democratic reform throughout the region. the lesson i take from that and of some relevance today is we need to be, first of all, out all around the country. you can't follow what's going on in egypt or iraq from cairo or baghdad any more than you can try to figure what's going on the in the united states from washington, d.c. closed our consulate in

alexandria as budget-saving move and it probably is a mistake. i know what it's like to be out there in the countryside. i think that that is very, very important. it's an early warning system and one reason why we're asking for the funds and taking the risks we are to keep our people out in iraq to basically keep our finger on what's going on and try to help our friends and particularly to help the democratic transformation. to provide a platform for the u.n. also out there and other members of the international community. in terms of iran, it's an excellent question. i can't tell you how they're reacting. they had their own street demonstrations a year and a half ago. they were put down with merciless violence, and i think that this is not a good development from their standpoint. he they may try to exploit it one or another way by seeing this as an opening for extremist

groups, but my sense is that would be fairly hard for them to do. >> i don't mean to put words in your mouth or exaggerate your point, but your sense is people in iraq look at what's happening in egypt and other places and feel like they're ahead of the curve? in essence those couldn'ntries coming their way? they take pride in the idea that they've begun to build for themselves the society and, in fact, these other countries are coming in that direction to one extent or another? >> as i said, i've been a little bit removed from the past week, but i think you're on target, senator. >> general lee. >> nothing further. thank you. >> just a couple of quick questions before we wrap up. senator luger may have more. general, can you speak to the uptick in the rise of violence recently and last week, about 159 iraqis killed last week in one week. what do you attribute that to? >> thank you, senator. i attribute it to in one word

opportunity. as i stated earlier, last week was the week of an annual religious observation or celebrati celebration, and during that religious event millions of pilgrims, she shia pilgrims get the road and walk to karbala. we anticipated that during the celebration or observance we would see al qaeda use as an opportunity to try to ferment violence by attacking shia pilgrims, and they did much as they've done in years past. as we look at the pilgrims on the road this year, about 9 million this year and last year

it was about 3 million. so that indicates that there's probably a greater sense of security by -- on the part of the iraqi citizens. but the numbers of attacks were about the same or exactly the same as we count them. eight major incidents last year, eight major incidents this year. the numbers of casualties, however, were down this year from what we saw last year. so with a much-increased number of pilgrims out there, so a much bigger target, less -- they were less effective in their attacks. that speaks to the diligence and professionalism of the iraqi security forces. they continue to improve. again, they plan and conducted, coordinated and conducted the security for this event themselves. >> well, that is encouraging. let's hope that that can continue. obviously, one of the biggest threats to long-term stability is the relationship of kurds to

the arab community. i think it's accepted that you had a good success with the combined security mechanism in which you have the arabs, kurds and u.s. forces coordinating to provide the checkpoints, et cetera, and the joint patrols. i guess that's taking place in four provinces. is that going to be able to continue when you have completed the drawdown? is the state department going to have the ability to maintain this combined security mechanism, which has been successful? >> certainly the embassy is taking a hard look at how they do this. i'm let the ambassador to speak to that piece. there are options. it depends on how the iraqis want to address the issue in the future. you could seek a third party like the u.n. to come in and

fill that void, or you could seek another element to come in, perhaps nato may look at that and say that that's a place that they would like to contribute. or you could approach the management of those combined security positions differently and go to bilateral arrangements with an oversight element at a higher level that routinely visited these sites and made sure we kept our finger on the pulse. there are a number of options to address our departure, and i'll let the ambassador speak to that. >> the bilateral would be the arab and kurd and we'd come in as the oversight? >> correct. >> ambassador, do you want to speak to na? >> the csms are extraordinary successful, but they're an important tactical tool in the field to suppress possible

violence or possible disputes or possible sparks that ignite a confrontation. let me talk about the strategic and operational level. at the strategic level much of what we're doing and what the iraqis are doing is aimed at reconciliation between the kurds and the sunni arabs up in that regi region. we've seen encouraging developments with the sunni arab traveling to meet and come up with a common position on government formation two weeks ago. that's a first. the compromise on the oil exp t exports is another development. the agreement to move forward at the hydrocarbons. as you develop these cooperative steps between the political forces and between baghdad and iribil, you create an environment where people are

less willing to let, you know, a curse or a chambered round start a conflict along that line. at the operational level, there is a new effort to resolve these problems, which are related to where you draw the boundary, who has security, where these territories go. some of them are associated with kirkuk and what's called the article 140 related to the iraqi constitutional process to come up with a negotiated solution that would then be confirmed by a referendum. the u.n. head of unami, the u.n. organization in iraq has launched another round of visits in the region to try to kick start that. we'll support that and try to work that out at every level. back to the tactical level, our hope is that -- we haven't worked out the detail yet. that the iraqi military would continue these. there are a number of

coordination centers we would like through the embassy to still have eyes on in these coordination centers and provide as much of a role as possible in supporting it. to do that, we have to be in kirkuk and mosul sul where two of the centers are. >> fair enough. it's a process still in the making, obviously, that particular component of it. i respect the dynamics you described. the final question i would have is simply regarding the integration of sunni. we've received some reports that the integration of the sons of iraq into the army is an uneven process. if the new government were to break down into sectarian divisions, which is always a possibility, the question then is whether the extremists have an opportunity to pull people

back into insurgency. i wondered if you'd sort of speak to the of the iraqi government's determination to continue this beintegration and how you see that proceeding. >> yes. senator, i think the iraqi government is committed to continuing this migration of the sons of iraq into jobs either for the government or into the civilian sector. as you know we were making progress, and at one point we stopped that transition because we needed sons of iraq to help with the security for the elections. certainly as the the new administration solidifies and comes on board, i have ever

reason to believe they'll continue with the work they've done up to this point. there are some good signs out there. the sons of iraq are getting paid routinely now versus a year and a half ago. we really had to struggle to work to make sure that people were being paid. of course, as the economy begins to improve, there will be more opportunities to transfer from the sons of iraq into meaningful civilian employment. i think that will be a great help as well. >> gentlemen, senator luger, i don't know if you have additional questions. i want to thank you very, very much. we've covered a fair amount of territory, and i think you've been very helpful with respect to the committee's concerns. there are obviously a lot of things that you'll be tracking and so will we. it's going to be a challenging year with enormous consequences. so we look forward to working with you at we go forward.

i look forward to getting out there fairly soon to visit. get up to speed again on some of the these issues, but i want you to know that we're here ready and willing to be helpful to try to break through any of these logjams and/or to help think through some of the these solutions. again, on behalf of everybody here, you heard it from everybody but let me rerate we are enormously grateful for your personal service and for your efforts here, which are of huge consequence to our country's national security interests and, of course, we are as i said in my opening comments grateful beyond words to the sacrifices made by a lot of families, a lot of folks who are on third, fourth, even some fifth tours. it's a pretty incredible demand that's been made of our armed forces, and we're both grateful and proud. thank you very, very much. we stand adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [crowd murmurs]

>> today, egyptian president hosni mubarak announced he will not run for office again in september elections. we will have his remarks next, and then get reaction from president obama. after that, a political debate between former democratic party chairman howard dean and dormers

-- former house speaker newt gingrich at george washington university. on tamara "washington journal," we get an update on the political situation in cairo and the effect it could have on the arab world. steven cook joins us. after that, gary shapiro will talk about the ways the u.s. can improve innovation. gretchen morgenson of "the new york times" on her recent article on freddie mae and fannie mac. that is hear on c-span. this week, a federal judge in florida ruled the new health care law is unconstitutional. the senate judiciary committee will examine the legality of the old law. we will hear from two former solicitors general. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> there is no other way forward. we have to learn to work together as californians first,

members of a political party second. >> today, step by step, we're putting ourselves on a better, more sustainable path, and pushing ahead on the road to growth. >> find and watching this year's state of the state addresses as well as inaugurals online at the c-span video library. search, watch, and share with every program since 1987. >> egyptian president hosni mubarak said he will not seek reelection this fall. this comes after a week of anti- government protests. mr. mubarak has ruled the country for nearly 30 years. he was vice president when viet then-president was assassinated in a military parade in 1991. >> good afternoon. >> [translator] i address you

in difficult times, when egypt is facing -- these conditions are about to take us to the unknown. the homeland is facing hard moments. difficult tests. there is the right for peaceful demonstrations. they were insulated and take advantage of by those who wished to wreak havoc and to violate legitimacy and devour it. these demonstrations served from a very civilized and modern scene to regretful confrontation

and standoff manipulated and controlled by political forces, which aimed to add fuel to the fire, targeting the safety and stability of the nation by enticement and incitement, looting and pillaging, arson, hijacking roads, and assault on public, private, and state property. there are diplomatic missions on our soil. we are facing painful days. it has haunted the majority of the egyptians. there are concerns and worries

about what the future is holding fo them, their households, their families, and the future in this city of their country. the incident of the past few days require us all, one and all, people and leadership, to choose between chaos or stability, and lay ahead of us different egyptian realities, which should be addressed by both are people and our resources with absolute prudence for the interest of the people and the nation. my fellow countrymen, i immediately sought to form a new government with a new priorities in response to the

youth demand and mission. i instructed the vice president to engage with all the political forces on all the issues raised for political and democratic reforms, and the commitments to the legislation in order to materialize these local demands and restore stability, calm, and stability. there are certain forces who turn a blind eye to dialogue simply for their own agendas, turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to this defining moment we are facing. .

i address you today directly. to the people of the nation, farmers, workers, muslims, and christians, elderly and youth, each and every egyptian man and woman in the countryside i neverthe city'ies, sought power or influence. the people are aware of the harsh conditions where a shoulder that responsibility and what i offered to the nation. i am one of the personnel and it is not my nature to betray or abandon their responsibilities. my top priority now is to restore the security and stability of the nation to

ensure the peaceful transition of power in an atmosphere providing security and saving the people, guarding the people, to pave the way for this, who is to be elected by the people in the coming elections. i tell you in absolute voracity, regardless of the current circumstances, that i did not intend to run for the coming presidency. i have exhausted my life serving egypt and its people. however, i am totally keen on the ending my a regime for the sake of the nation in a way that guarantees handing over the banner in an atmosphere of security, stability regarding our legitimacy and preserving

the constitution. , i will work toward restoring the procedures that will guaranteed the peaceful transition of power by virtue of the i call them to discuss the amendments. but there are qualifications for dedication to the president for thet. to debate on these amendments.

to ensure the participation of all. if they abide by the judgment handed down. i will continue to follow on the work of the government in a manner that ensures the manner of the people. i will respond to the political, social, and economical call. it will enter social ones. i instruct them to shoulder the

responsibility and undertake this to protect and save the citizens in absolute dignity and honor. the controlled powers to immediately continued to identify the rest of the outlaws and those who perpetrated the security. this is my promise and pledged to the people during the bid to repeal months remaining in my current term. i pray to god to guide me to end my career in a manner that is

applicable to got and the people. will parade through the circumstances more strong, most we are more keen to hold said fast to this. hosni mubarak takes pride in the long years he spent with egypt and his people predicted this is my homeland. i defended its soil.

a. will die i will be judged by history for my merit. homelands will live on. the banner and trust will be handed over we should ensure this in dignity and pride, one generation after the other. may god be with you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good evening. over the past few days. the american people what the situation and fold. we have seen enormous demonstrations. we have borne witness to the new chapter of the witness a day to break. my administration has been in close contact with a broad range of. we have stood for a set of core principles. we oppose violence i want to commend the military for the patriotism it has shown in allowing peaceful protest what excepting the people. we have seen tanks covered with

this. going for over, i urge the military to continue the effort to help injured that this type of change is peaceful. we stand for universal value, including the right of the egyptian people for the freedom of of speech, assembly and to access information. we have seen the incredible potential. going forward, at the united states will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that of human beings deserve. third, we have spoken out on behalf of the need for change. after a speech tonight, i spoke directly to president mubarak. he recognizes that the status

quo is not sustainable. all of us that our privilege to serve douceur at the will of our people. voices tell us that this is one of those moments. it is not the role of any other country to determine each of its leader. only egyptians can do that to give an orderly transition must be orderly and peaceful. it must begin now a mega -- it must begin now. it should lead to elections that are free and fair play our

responses to the aspirations of the egyptian people. throughout this process, the united states will extend the hand of partnership and friendship to egypt to give we provide any assistance necessary as they manage the aftermath of this process to prepare for the last few days, the passion and dignity that has been stated by the people of egypt has been inspirational. it is also those who believe in the inevitability of human freedom. the people of egypt, we hear voices. i hope there is a better future

for your children and grandchildren. there will be difficult days ahead. i am confident that the people of egypt will find those answers. that truth can be seen in community in the streets and in thatother and father's protect this. a human chain is connecting a great civilization to the promise of a new day. >> thank you very much.

>> how the tax policy can affect the deficit begins to live coverage from the budget committee begins at 10:00 eastern preven >> now a political debate between the vermont governor howard dean and newt gingrich. >> good evening. washington university. i am chairman of the college republicans. it is our pleasure to welcome me

in. never before had the most prominent protestant organizations collaborated on an event like this. . we recognize that despite standing on opposite sides of the spectrum, we were united by the idea that we wanted to encourage activism among the student body. our organization aims to make the george washington university a beacone to tell everyone and we need not be divided. before we began, there are a few people that deserve recognition. i like to thank our programming director and our vice president. they put in quite a bit of work.

i get all the attention that is really bears. as well as ours didn't activities advisor -- as well as our student activities adviser. we cannot do well without them. i like to thank our director of publication for publicizing this event as the rest of my a sticky to board >> -- rest of my student board. i like to extend our gratitude. our moderator is the professor

of this. help me extend a warm welcome. for democrats everywhere, let me introduce the 79th governor of t.e state of vermont it is my pleasure to announce the former speaker of the house newt gingrich. >> thank you. welcome. i want to thank all the

organizers and co-sponsors predel. there is a special kind of energy where you have students and have the passion, ambition come and adazzle to pull this off. it makes it a great place to be. my job is to facilitate this by asking substantive questions regarding the previously agreed .pon topics for t they reflect this for a provocative exchange.

it gives it a sense of the intellectual underpinning capit. i will ask one debater a single question to get the ball rolling. i will then ask the next for a response. i may redirect to the conversation. i will exercise some discretion in keeping us on a pace to cover of five topics. each candidate will have the opportunity to give a brief statement. >> thank you.

>> thank you to george washington for doing this. it is wonderful. it may be the only place where a college a democrat and republican share the same headquarters. s oughtk the president to write congress and show them how is down. we want to get to this. 2008 was a pivotal election. it is the first time in my lifetime people under the -- the more people under the age of 35 voted then people over the age of 65. it is a milestone. the first thing you do is select a multi-cultural president.

your generation, unlike mine, i did not live with they will all lot of different kinds of people. you grope with every fiber of race, sexual orientation, religion. we like each other. we disagree on a lot of things. this is a transition point for the country. there are a lot of changes that will happen. your generation has a larger

band with them by a generation. -- bandwidth than my generation. you are more fiscally conservative. we will have to deal with this. there is a lot of change coming down the pike. i think this country is in great hands. i am delighted that our shoes will be filled by people your age. we should have a role say no one over the age of 50 should serve in the united states senate and then we should be set. [applause]

>> i want to mention that i have three current students that are working with me here beg. they were able to brief me on what this would be like. i do want to set the stage by disagreeing with my good friend a little bit. i am not sure what life was like before. in my generation we dated, too. i thought i would start with that. it is not like we all invented the world anew every 40 years. there is obviously disagreements

about the president from the. i want to make some big differences. we are not a multicultural country. we are a multi-ethnic country. there is a huge difference. 80% of the american people believe in american exception alyssum. they believe and private property rights and people working with each other. there is an enormous, and american civilization. the people come here to become america. this is an important debate to have. why did it work here?

we do something magic here. the last generations are free to talk about it. they are afraid to focus on it. that is very dangerous brit. the great flaw -- and president obama was a great candidate, he did a remarkable job -- the core flock in the campaign was that i believe candidates obama thought the president of the united states could save the country. that is impossible. there are 513,000 elected

officials. there are 305 million people. the tv series of most republics where we are is a "wagon train." when americans had wagon trains that moved west, you denied hire someone and say wake me when we get to los angeles. you had to feed your own horses. if you were attacked, you had to be part of the defense course. we need a fundamental change in this country. it is impossible for a bureaucratic centralized washington-based system to effectively govern a country

this size. we are in real trouble. that is the point i want to make. your generation -- there are moments in history that transcend normalacy. you either stand up and make it work or your country collapses. the problems are so much bigger than george w. bush and barack obama, so much bigger than newt gingrich. if we do not find a way to have an adult conversation and a recent your our system, we are in deep countrtrouble as a coun.

thank you. let's begin that adult conversation. the first topic is healthcare. the first question is for governor dean. you have been an advocate for more sweeping reform of the health care system. in december of 2009, you wrote that it would do more harm than good to the nation. with republicans in control of the house and the alternative having shifted, i wonder if you are prepared to defend president obama's claim in the state of the union address. >> when i wrote that, if somewhat helped in the house. it is a republican bill. it uses most of the private

sector. the strike to belittle this down. -- let tried to whittle this down. there is much more transparency in buying insurance. that will help in the existing system. i do not think anybody thinks they want to go back to the system of allowing insurance companies to keep you off the road if you get sick. to say a 26 year old cannot stay on their insurance policies. it is bureaucratic. we need to allow people choices.

we have a private sector system. this is called medicare. is a single payer system. we have a socialist system of health care bri. i think people should choose was system they want. if people want to be in a socialist system, it is commented by the exchange is this fixable? i do not know. i would have liked it to come out differently. the biggest problem is that

there is no cost control for any of these. we get paid for doing things whether you need them or not. this system is broken. quebec has plenty of problems with their system. this makes a lot more sense of what we are doing. i do not think it needs to be run by the government. economic incentives work. that is why we have the rate of inflation going up. >> let me start with a very

simple question. heineman if you have a cell phone? raise your hand. -- how many of you have a cell phone? raise your hand. how many you have a modern cellphone like an iphone or an android? raise your hand. have you ever wondered why it is that some technologies collapse and yet we have a health system that is a total mess? in 1943, when the government traded on wage and price control by allowing companies to offer insurance to their workers as a device, we have the private sector your resume.

if you were responsible for your you become a lot closer to controlling this. to show you how bad the system is, american express pays. 03 of one is term -- pays ;.03 of 1% in fraud. you are 330 times more likely to pay eight crok in the government then -- a crook in the government of then the private sector.

if you really want to dramatically reduce costs, you have to have tort reform and a reasonable source of adjudication. we did a study. the doctors estimated that a tender billion dollars a year -- $800 billion a year is spent on defensive medicine. we produced three charts which you can download for free. the first is 18 square feet and has 159 federal offices. the second is 15 square feet and has all of the deadlines.

the third should be 90 square feet. it is the 1900 number to grant the authority to washington bureaucrats. i know they believe the federal government command offices in nationwide deadlines. i think this is a very improbable system. i do not worry about global budgets. i worry about your help and my grandchildren's help, my mother in mom's help. help is a personal and not a global thing. that is why i would not like to see the canadian model year. -- model here.

[applause] >> i will disagree with that. i think the canadian model works. there are some problems with it. we should have an american model. but i do disagree with a lot of what he said. who is going to like 1500 offices? we are spending an enormous amount on health care. they are great with health care. every time our rate goes up, that is caused by the business community.

the system we have does not work. it is a plan. where i disagree is individual choices. republicans have always loved the savings account. i never once [unintelligible] it does not work like that. will make a difference in the margin it? yes. it is $40,000. we need a cancer, you will not [inaudible]

you have to have a different model. it is a significant issue predel. the big problem is, how will we have a different timing? i have not heard one suggestion from the right cited the aisle as to how you might control the florida. the guy was on the board of the biggest hospital. you ask us for an 11% increase. of course your premiums will go

up. i agree with these medical decisions being put back in the hands of doctors and nurses. if living within our means means all of us do and not just congress, it is time we live for ourself. >> we should move on to the next topic. >> it is very different. the fact that governor dean is saying that things are not free market is so much of the democratic party. if he -- the one thing i

believe in is the transparency of cost and quality. if you go to the mayo clinic or utah, all these places are less expensive with better outcomes. i thought they would shop as intelligently. 90% can be negotiated. this p, -- this idea that people are trapped is not true. it is not how america works. if you want alternatives, go to

helptransportation.net. -- healthtransformation.net. i think there are good ways to benefit the cause. >> there are obvious parallels between the political situation today and that of 1994. the economic situation is more precarious than it was in 1994. president obama has made some political issues.

is the stance on federal spending really viable? >> other than the fact that that is a loaded way to describe. burn.a notslas slash abdnd 55 million out of a budget of how many trillion debt. we balanced the budget. we adopted the first tax cut in 16 years preve. people left food stamps and medicaid and unemployment and

began paying taxes because they had a job. president clinton -- it was very tough negotiating with him. we spend 35 days. the deficit is bigger than the entire government. the deficit alone is bigger than the entire government for thei. i think it would be a good starting point. >> with this money amounted defense? like if you could find a way, sure. awk but a cheap hawk.

we have procurement programs the zwirn -- that run 15-20 years. if you and the federal government he would save $125 billion a year -- if you ran the federal government like a high- technology company, you would save $125 billion a year. you want to be smart, and not cheap. georgia and last week reported a 36% teenage unemployment.

this is very dangerous bill when he starts giving aid generation of young males with no future, you have a scale of problems that are very dangerous. this is the dominant source of crime and social unrest. this is a very deep problem. i think they should hold hearings. they should have a series of hearings and job creation. the bills are designed to keep the economy going. >> this is one where we would disagree on the specifics. we do not disagree as much as you would expect on principle. originated both

parties. 60% of all the deficit was caused [inaudible] both president obama and pr president bush -- the entire world economy was on the verge of collapse. i supported hank paulson when they did these things even though it kill me to bail out these people on wall street. we would have been worse off. these are tough decisions. you have to pull together. i've always been a deficit

hawk. i do not think these republicans are deficit hawks. they do not like taxes but they do not talk on taxes. i do not think you are ever going to come to a bipartisan deal with it you think he will continue to give tax breaks to people who make millions of dollars a year. i do not think that is going to happen. i am not and willing. democrats were very upset with me. i'm not afraid in making cuts. the government has to provide a safety net.

the government has to provide for a defense. i think we ought to go back to the tax rate. this is one reason why they were able to balance the budget. adding republicans get a lot of credit for it. one thing i think we ought to do -- we are not doing much in creating jobs. they are starving for capital. it is in the last places in the world where we have a huge advantage.

this is not help the economy. what helps the economy is investing in biotechnology. i will get rid of all the preference for capital gains. you pay 0% tax unless you earn it. america needs to be great again and get back into manufacturing. >> there are a couple places -- to describe taxes but money that

belongs to the government. the money does not belong to the government of ind. if you go out and work hard the one light is the government's money. republicans lost in 2006. people got ahead of the spending. they said they approve more than one government source spending. i think you can get a balanced budget without raising taxes. if you want to compete with china, i would go the opposite directions. china has zero capital gains tax. would i like to drop my money in america where they will grab it

or somewhere safe? guess where they send it? i agree with helping the biological industries. it is a great industry. it is $20 billion a year. i am very attracted to this. you have to fundamentally overhaul the fda. i will show you how deep our problem is. in 1999, a doctor at harvard grew seven bladders for children and put them back in

the kids. they had a rare disease. 12 years later, they are all still alive. the seven letters cost $7,000 each. they then transferred over to the commercial division. under a commercial provision of the fda, the next 16 bladders cost $6.6 million each. they were totally artificially created by the government. new eans that all mov implementation will be done outside the united states because the food and drug administration is so distracted. they have figured out a model to

do very well. you have to reform regulation, taxation come and help, and energy. it'll be hard -- taxation, hel alth, and energy. hard.be >> i love germany health care. but they have universal child care. bring it on. >> while attention has been focused on the split between president obama and progressive democrats, there is a more fundamental divide given some moderate democrats on certain issues. the president campaigns and vocal opposition on wiretapping

and military tribunals. two years into the presidency, very little has changed. does the present so represent democratic parties? >> let me explain this bil. i was very proud when the president said he would close guantanamo bay. is an extraordinary country because we have an extraordinary founding documents which set a high bar of idealism. that is true. that is why people are aspirational about this country. one domino represented one of the region guantanamo bay

represented an exception to that -- guantanamo bay represented an exception to that. i agree with the president. what has changed is that the president is now president and not candidates obama. suddenly the director of the cia in says something like this -- we have these 150 people. we can probably let 30 of them go. we have to have an open courtroom to discuss all of this. we have to out our entire pakistani intelligence operation. they are risking their lives in the security of the united states. now what do you do? now you have the principles that are important. you also have the safety of the country.

that is what has happened. i am willing to cut the president a lot of slack on afghanistan and on civil rights stuff even though guantanamo bay is a terrible symbol. it is a matter of national security. it is a bad idea that never have been started but we did. now we have inherited it. it'll be incredibly hard to close. i also believe we never should have gone into iraq. i do not have a lot of problems with the foreign policy. there are those that obviously do. i respect him. standing up for constitutional principles is very important. but when you are sitting in the chair, it is harder to make .hose decisions for th

10% of all the people at guantanamo bay are now back fighting with the terrorists. you have to think about these things. it did not make the guantanamo bay right. it might be the lesser of a couple of very bad evils. [applause] >> i think this is a particularly good night to talk about national security because of what is going on in the middle east. i hope that most americans will listen carefully to the dialogue pre. this is not about the presidents of but about the american system. any honest assessment on 9/11

this year, 10 years after, will have to include losing the war. they are teaching hatred. the network of terrorists is bigger and not smaller. it is moving to a different society. in pakistan, the governor was killed by his own body guard. there is the real possibility that egypt will join plaza and lebanon -- joining gaza and lebanon. you have to understand how serious this is in the long run. the attorney general said that 126 americans have been indicted

in the last two years for terrorism. 126. he cannot bring himself -- there is a movie called "america at risk, wel." someone asked him, does radicalism has something to do with this? i do not know. various people were trying to kill us but they may have some connection to radicalism. a car bomb fails to go off in times square. our entire apparatus goes down. they noticed the car is smoking. the cop notices a. noticesb sachs squad know

a. they do not say it is radicalism but maybe it is someone opposed to obamacare. out of hundreds of terrorist incidents, none were by people who were opposed to obamacare. the car bomber was a pakistani who lied to become an american citizen this will tell you of how bad our lead to war. do you swear an oath of allegiance? he said, you are my enemy. i am at war with you. i lied. that is such a strange concept. your generation will face a long struggle at least as long as the cold war. i think it to be very dangerous andh psychological -

biological warfare for a bill we need to have a conversation about how bad it can get -- warfare. we need to have a conversation about how iback a can get. >> heineman conduct a full listing on radical islam. radical anything is what is -- i am uncomfortable focusing on radical islam. radical anything is what is the problem. [applause] if we arrested 126 peoples for terrorism, let's say we missed three times, their 2000 people in america trying to blow us all up. that means there are many who are not trying to do that. citizens whorican cynicis

are fighting against terrorism. what radicals do is that they polarize people. when we signed up for this mission and made of this incredible constitution. we are getting there. there is a difference between what is going over in egypt and what happened in years ago.

it does not have to be this way. i do not think any fundamentalism is an attractive quality. you cannot fight intolerance with intolerance. the radicals that are attacking us are and misogynist --- are bigots and misogynistic. i do not like the term radical islam. it singles out a bunch of people know i do not believe are radical.

>> i think this is an important dialogue. i would be happy to fight an alternative term for thei. there have been no radical norwegians or from des moines. i said nothing about those folks. to suggest that servite -- describing accurately the belief system of the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda and aqaba did the job -- does not need to be smeared. -- we are where i

wary of adding replaced with a muslim brotherhood d. the core belief is to destroy islam and history the united states. all these folks who were apologetic about progress were apologetic about germany and italy -- please do not tell the truth about how dangerous it is because then i have to do something. you will find out in the next few years that there are no norwegian schools and teaching hatred. we ought to be telling the saudis that we will take extraordinary steps to cut of their funding to ended the hatred.

at some point, we ought to have the courage to tell the truth about this. i am happy to have an alternative phrase. they have the courage to say what happens but th. to have the accuracy to describe to the hour. it does not suggest that modern muslins we ought to talk honestly about where the problems are.

>> we will move on now. >> the first question on immigration is for you. you have put an emphasis on bridging the divide between the republican party and the latino culture. he recently hosted a forum on .atino issues per th they are not inclined to focus on immigration. given the centrality, is there

any path there? >> i love the way these things get set up. when marco rubio became the center from florida -- cheers] when a number of new hispanics were in there, i find it fascinating that we have a problem for th. the present minister emphasized

correa. columbia is more important in many ways --- korea. colombia is more important in many ways . you should have a series of steps we want legality. we want easy deportation of felons. we expect every language. we believe every citizen ought to learn american history, both

american born in first generation beg -- first -- both american-born and first generation. i would never trust the federal government with these programs. any employer who hires people who are not starting to be american citizens, i would hammer them economically to eliminate hiring people

illegally. have --you have got to i think you have got to have some system of human discrimination that says -- for example, there is a young man in texas who came here when he was 3 big be. he does not speak spanish. to say to them, you need to go back to mexico, strikes me as something that no common sense american would do. [applause] but everyone who ends up as an illegal guest worker has to go to the back of the line in applications for citizenship,

because we cannot punish those who have done it legally by telling them, you were dumb. you should have broken the law. anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported within 48 hours. with so much nonsense regulating against deportation. most of the people here came in a legally, and then there visa expired and they stayed. but if we could build a majority and pass each of those building blocks, we could do an two-three years. >> this is why i became the object of consternation by a few democrats after i was misquoted. i am not going to disagree with

what he said. he said something i agree with. why deport someone that does not even speak spanish? but then, why didn't the congress passed the dream act? i think it is good for the country that hispanic candidates have been elected. i am delighted to have everybody's side with us, but then -- in general, what is good for the country does not always make everyone comfortable in both parties. the united states senate voted to make sure that to ural's you're dragged here illegally are going to be kicked out. -- two-year olds who were

dragged here illegally are going to be kicked out. the tea party was excited about the constitution until they read it. it says that if you are born here, you are a citizen. i think we need people to stand up and say what he just said, at some rest. but it is not the democrats that voted down the dream act. >> does the dream act provide for residency or citizenship? >> citizenship. >> that is why they voted it down. you cannot give citizenship to people -- he cannot jump past millions of people around the planet who have obeyed the law

and waited their turn to come here. i would support finding a way to do two things. one would be to have service and military count towards becoming a citizen. two, i would support finding a way for residency, with something like a red card, if here under certain circumstances and you are clearly a minor. a residency is different from citizenship. the dream act was created to be a political issue. it is unfortunate that harry reid wants to create political dialogue rather than create law. [applause] >> i take exception to that, and i will tell you why. that is blaming people that have done the right thing. if you come here at the age of 3

and you do not speak a word of spanish, you've done really well, you go to college or you serve in the united states military, why should you be a second-class none citizen? why do we have to do that? [applause] i do not go for this anti- immigration stuff. i agree with new. he is common sense. we obviously cannot open our borders, but i do not think we should demonize people who have come here and done the best they can. how many people here have a american indian blood in tampa -- in the them? everybody else is an immigrant. everybody else is an immigrant. [applause] the reason this country is such an extraordinary success is because we got those people who dared to leave their homes,

dared to do something different. every american family has a narrative of that, someone who worked hard, got year, and their children or grandchildren, or great grandchildren got to go to george washington university. those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. when the irish got here, no irish need apply. when the jews got year, the jews could not go to the ivy league. it when the italians got here, at the same type of thing. isn't it time we got past this? [applause]

>> i want to applaud governor dean. first of all, thank you for recognizing the much of what i said is reasonably thought through. [laughter] it is nice at a time when people are exhausted by partisanship to actually exchange ideas that we can chat about rather than scream about. [laughter] that was not a reference to howard. that is a sign that you have wicket minds. -- wicked mind. that was a wonderful emotional speech. i was personally deeply touched. [laughter] but it was the perfect example of the liberal democrats model. it was factually inaccurate, but

terrific emotionally. [laughter] i does want to challenge my friend over here -- i just want to challenge my friend over here, by whom i was deeply moved, my grandfather and grandmother -- my grandmother came from poland. they rode down to where she came from, what ship she was on, and they inspected her for help. they would have kicked her out if she had not passed the health inspection. we have this mythology of ellis island. i have two objections to the dream act. first, i do not think we should put people ahead of other people who have been obeying the law

for years. i think that is wrong. second, senator reid deliberately brought the act up in an amendable form in order to make a political point. i think that is tragic. it is not a healthy way to enter the 21st century. >> we need to move on. you said this would help you everywhere after i said this would not help you in iowa. are we making news? we really knew -- we really do need to push ahead now. i am going to ask each of them to answer a different question, a question tailored to them. i will start with senator dean. you have indicated that the democrats should close ranks around the president for the

2012 election. should that extend beyond that election? should 2012 candidates go for a more unabashed liberalism? >> look, there are disadvantages we have because we are not a parliamentary democracy, but there are some advantages. what advantages that you can run and say who you are. i am not the chairman anymore. i am not going to support everybody. i went around looking for people i agreed west -- i agreed with less time and raising money for them. there will probably be a few whose primary opponents i will support. but i do not think a candidate running for office has an

obligation to support the president or any of the stuff. their own pace will pick the candidate they think they should. e will pick the candidate they think they should. parties are important because they raise money. we go through reasonable exercises, but nobody pays much attention to them. we give you an idea of who the candidates are, and people are going to be in the spectrum. i am going to support the president. what i think the president will be better than the alternatives, no insult intended. [laughter] i think, in general, this is a nation of independent-minded people. >> mr. speaker, at some point, sooner rather than later perhaps

a republican wins the white house in 2012, the tension between two divergent political impulses in the republican party will have to be sorted out. the tea party is about federalism with a strong libertarian antipathy towards authority. successive republican presidential administrations, and much of the intellectual and bureaucratic apparatus surrounding them, have given the president and his administrative officers almost unlimited constitutional latitude. in which direction should the party turn? [laughter] >> let me start and say that i treasure most that governor dean made clear that he will support president obama to me.

i want to make sure that everyone in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, knows the governor dean prefer is president obama to me. [laughter] hiding there is actually a mixture of the two that would work reasonable -- i think there is actually a mixture of the two that would work reasonably well. i am a federalist in the sense that i believe in limited but very strong government. i do not believe in weak government, but it should be limited government. it should keep the dollar worth the dollar as opposed to having inflation. it should set the general framework for the economy in dealing with the world of large. there are a number of things that the founding fathers thought through pretty carefully. the federalist papers are pretty useful stuff. when it is an issue of national

security, as commander in chief -- this is a document written, presided over by george washington, who had been commander of the army for eight years. they want the commander in chief in award to be the commander in chief. in 1942, the nazis landed spies that were all captured within three weeks by the fbi. the president said, i want you to tell the supreme court said that they will be tried within three weeks. they will be executed. i will not accept habeus corpus.

he was acting in the spirit of abraham lincoln. he wanted to send a strong message of national security. so, faced with a threat to national security by a terrorist, would i be prepared to support a strong president? definitely. we need to understand that there is an enormous difference between fighting a war against an enemy and dealing with domestic civil liberty under the structure of peacetime. now, having said that, do i think that means we need to have a trillion dollar government that micromanage is everything? i do not think that.

i think things should go through it citizens, up through local, then that state government, then federal government. our current model goes from the top down. a deacon of the small government with a strong national security apparatus -- i think you can have a small government with a strong national security apparatus and they can work very well. >> we are going to take questions. going to the closing statements. >> i just have one message to all of you.

this has been the most extraordinary experiment in governance ever undertaken anywhere on the planet. we're the only society that put in our founding documents that your personal rights, from your creator. you loan power to the state. the state does not loan power to you. for four hundred years, this has attracted more people, created more opportunity, generated greater prosperity, and created more opportunities than any other society. we are now mired down in a cultural, bureaucratic, political and financial mess. are you prepared to pick up the

work ethic? to pick up learning about america? to take on the responsibilities of citizenship, not to tell the government, you should do it for me, but to be actively engaged yourself? are you prepared to lead an american economy capable of competing and winning? he will make these decisions much more than governor dean or i will. you face the toughest challenge of any generation in our history since our founding, and i think it might be the longest and toughest the goal of anything we've faced in the history of this company -- of this country. i am very optimistic we can do it. we will once again prove that a free people can outdo all the different leaderships in the world combined. [applause]

>> i think that was very well said. i also want to add a note of optimism. i think we should be focused on doing things locally. changing your own community is the way to change things. change really does come from the bottom up. also, change migrates from the extreme to the center. things they used to being considered extreme ideas are now considered the center. your generation is interested in doing, not just modeling. here is the difference that i have, and what i think it is the difference between republicans and democrats in general.

i do think that the government has become too unwieldy. it is a problem in china. the chinese worry about this a lot as well. the problem is, what responsibility do we have to assure people that they have their personal rights. you can say you have personal rights through the constitution, but if you're serving in iraq, you cannot exercise those personal rights. in the state of texas, 22% of children have no health insurance. in my state, 3% of children do not have health insurance. i cannot tell texas how to run their state, but i do believe that as an american, i have a

responsibility to the children of texas, not just the people of texas. that is why lyndon johnson put and medicaid, so that all kids would have some form of insurance. i do not think all democrats want big government and all republicans want no government. the battle comes in how are we all americans in this together. how much is too much. we have all seen societies where the tax rate gets too high and innovation is stifled. we have also seen societies where the government is corrupt. but we also know that the bigger the gap between the wealthy and the poor, a less stable country is likely to be. this is a legitimate debate. i have enjoyed the conversation.

but it needs to be a debate because it is a difference of opinion. i think it comes down to social justice or fairness. we live in a country where everyone ought to be able to enjoy at least some of the fruits. i do not think we should all have the same income, but i do believe that you can have a state where 22% of the children do not have health insurance and be happy with that. [applause] >> we will take questions from the audience now. it looks like people are queuing up. we have three microphone stations. >> my question is for speaker gingrich.

you recently called for the abolition of the environmental protection agency. the epa was founded by a bipartisan majority. every polls those -- every poll shows the great public support for the epa. can you explain how you think the epa arms business and why we need to overhaul it? >> i called for its replacement with an environmental solutions agency. i suggested that you needed an agency that was collaborative, not dictatorial. second, we need an agency that focuses on the entrepreneur is and study science and technology. if you look at the whole process of the cleanup of toxic waste dumps, we spend about two-thirds of the money on the administration lawyers and about one-third actually cleaning them up. it is taking far longer then it should and it is far more

expensive, and it is a field day for trial lawyers and bureaucrats. when i was speaker, we had virtually every african american mayor in the country to talk to being -- come to me to talk about brownfield's. on one side of my street was a huge bethlehem steel plant. the epa said, if you do not clean it up to a standard that would be appropriate to a kindergartner, the result was, the cost of doing that caused the company to leave the city and build on a green field elsewhere. the inner city lost the jobs and the internal lost another section of grain. i think there -- the environmental lost another section of green.

there is a linear, intellectual model. three or four years ago, the congress had to pass a law blocking the bureaucrats at epa from pursuing the question of methane gas from cows. i think the idea of trying to figure out, of all the major problems america has, where would we rank methane gas from cows, it would probably not rank in the top 300. that is still level of bureaucratic absurdity that makes no sense. as opposed to, how can we build a clean coal plant that has a carbon neutral output? we are still studying and think

we may get a bill by 2016. the chinese are already doing it. this should be of very high value and have a big incentive, because it would do more to clean up the environment than worrying about cows. >> good evening. thank you for coming out tonight and for your great discourse. i have enjoyed it. my question brings us back to the middle east. i have read in a couple of places a comparison between what is happening in egypt right now with what happened in iran in 1979. a popular islamic uprising in deposed a dictator, one that happened to be a close u.s. ally. i am curious really what you

both think the relevant parallels are, and also, as far as the current administration is concerned, what lessons could president obama draw from jimmy carter's experience with that situation? >> i spent about six hours on this today because i served on the board of the national democratic institutes which has people in the ground. -- which has people on the ground. i have talked to a lot of people involved in what is going on in cairo. at this point, i think there are no parallels' whatsoever between egypt and iran. first of all, of the crowds are showing an extraordinary amount of self discipline. with the exception of the looters. secondly, the army is playing a

relatively neutral role, and this is evolving, so we do not know where we will be two weeks from now. third of all, the islamic brotherhood, as of yet, they have joined the discussion, but they have not yet tried to take over the majority and they did not have much to do with starting this. egypt is a nation of 80 million people that have virtually no experience with democracy. to expect a smooth transition to democracy here is expecting something that is not going to happen. the question is, and if you go back to the soviet union, there was a democracy in russia for a short time. then the bolsheviks came in. that trumped everything. we know what the result of that

was for the next several years. 75 years. i remain optimistic, but it is a scary time. could this be taken over by an islamic group? yes, but i think the people of egypt at this 0.1 -- at this point are doing exactly what they need to do. i do not think they will have the same president a month from now. the question is, who will be their leader? there are a few people who are acceptable to the protesters. they have a shot, but they're going to design a constitution in a country that has no history of democracy, design of

parliament. this is a heavy, heavy left. -- heavy lift. i hope that the new majority in congress will really think about what our aid money does. we have been in egypt for a least 10 years and to media for five. -- tunisia 45. we have a dialogue with those people. we have worked with them for a long time. i think there are virtually no parallels a ball with the iranian revolution -- at all with the iranian revolution. we do not know where this is going, but we should be optimistic and also be prepared. we should make sure we do not get hijacked by people with

authoritarian principles. >> for those who are interested, the author of black hawk down wrote a remarkable book that is a very detailed study of the iranian crisis and how it came about. it is worth looking at because it gives you some sense of how the system worked in the late 1970's. the thing that is most bothersome to me, if you go back in love, the ayatollah khamenei had been kicked out -- if you go back and look, the ayatollah khamenei had been kicked out of iraq by the shot. -- shah. he clearly stood for a very anti-american model. for a long time, the carter

administration could not bring themselves to understand how dangerous this was. i think the muslim brotherhood would be a disaster. i think we are likely to get a military leader and are somebody who is acceptable to the military, someone who is open to exploring democracy, a greater stability, a more open society, but i worry about the kind of confusion that could allow the muslim brotherhood to take-over. >> first of all, thank you both of you for speaking here. my question is directed at mr. gingrich, but i would like mr. dean to feel free to respond as well. the republican party has long stood in opposition to gay- rights, specifically gay marriage. you wear speaker of the house when the defense of marriage act passed.

if you truly believe that lgbt people do not have the right to marry you they love, i ask you to tell all of my friends who are gay why you believe that right now. [applause] >> look, i am quite happy to say that i come out of the tradition that is several belsen years old the says marriages between a man and a woman -- several thousand years old the fed says marriages between a man and a woman. i defend that tradition. i have a right to believe then i believe i have as much right to the police as you do as yours. >> -- i have as much right to my belief as you do to yours. >> i do agree that you have as much right to your belief. the problem is, you have rights

when you are married that you do not have when you are single. the issue for me is the right to be treated under the law as any other american citizen. [applause] now, i have debates about the marriage-word. what i am interested in it is the right, not the word. here is why. as long as everyone has an equal right under the law, i do not much care what you call it. if you want to enumerate all 1700 laws -- in no, and it is founded on the notion, and i think most americans reject

this, that people do not choose to be gay. there is often a misconception that people have made a choice. but what 14-year-old and high school would voluntarily choose to be gay? especially among groups that are very tough. there is not a gay gene, but there is plenty of evidence that this is not a choice. as it turns out, which i think is interesting, when george w. bush decided to send tons and tons of americans to iraq, the first person to step on an ied and the previously injured was a

case staff sgt of the united states army. gay staff sgt of the united states army. if you're willing to give your life for the united states, i think you should have the same rights as everybody else. [applause] i think everybody deserves equal rights under the law. i do not get involved in the marriage debate, but i think everybody deserves equal rights under the law. if you can think of another way, i do not have a problem with the, but for now, the only way to do it is same-sex marriage. >> let me add one conundrum to the comment. in massachusetts today, there are no catholic adoption services because it was illegal to run a catholic adoption in

massachusetts. 80this city, after years, there is not an adoption service. it is important to weigh the balance of equity. as the democratic nominee for the u.s. senate in massachusetts said when asked if catholic doctors should served in the emergency rooms, she said maybe not. what she was saying was that a catholic doctor would not perform an abortion. we are at a complex point where freedom of religion is rapidly being subordinated to other values. you cannot say this. you cannot believe this. you cannot practice this. your institution cannot exist.

if there is going to be tolerant, and there should be a tolerance for religious liberty that comes from thousands of years of of belief that are equally valid. >> i do not think they are equally as valid. look, the bible is full of all of this. enough already. it is more than 2000 years old. [applause] if you have freedom of religion, you can practice it as you see fit, but you cannot practice it at the expense of my daughter's right. if you are a pharmacist, and you do not want to give the birth control, be my guest, but you better have somebody there when she goes to kill her prescription. if you do -- fell our prescription. if you do not want to -- feill

her prescription. if you do not want to perform an abortion, i believe that is your right. but the fact is that somebody might need to have an abortion, and they have the right to have someone who can do it. there was a story about a woman fired from a catholic hospital change because she gave an abortion to a woman who was going to die if she did not have one. when different people have different approaches to moral issues, you have to think about the rights of those people as american citizens. i would never ask a catholic doctor to perform an abortion. i think that is wrong and improper. your she has the right to follow upon -- he or she has the right to follow the teachings of their

church. but i also believe that individual citizens have rights that can not be impeded because of someone else's religion. if you want to create women as second-class citizens in your religion, be my guest inside your church or synagogue, but do not treat women as second-class citizens want to get out into the country. [applause] >> we have gone a little over time. one more question. >> this question goes out to both of you. in january of last year, the supreme court decided citizens united in which they affirmed

that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited under the first amendment. i know that speaker gingrich has been featured in several films under the citizens united production name. with that, what positive than negative impact would the case have on the future 2012 election? >> i believe this entire, highly regulated federally supervised bureaucratic model of citizenship is wrong. i believe it has put enormous power in the hands of labor unions, corporations, political action committees and a the like. i believe it has allowed some people to buy office that if you had (a real competition, you could not do it. it has given rich people an

enormous advantage. i think that any american citizen should be able to donate in any amount they want to as long as it is filed every night on the internet and everybody can see the support of everybody. i would rather have the money go back to candidates and parties and get out of this model where operatives of both parties create these organizations that are part of the whole underlying mess. i think things are going to get worse until we decide on a very clean, simple election system that allows the candidate to go out and raise the money directly rather than this say, i will take your $2,400, and my friend here would take $10 million because that is so works under the six system. -- how it works under this sick

system. >> i think this indicates the nature of the supreme court. nowhere have i found in the constitution anything that says a corporation is a person. that was invented by the right wing. [applause] here is what i think. i think one of the most interesting things about public financing of campaigns, which i think is a good idea, is that it was adopted by a vote in two states. one was arizona, arguably one of the most conservative states, and the other was maine, obviously one of the most liberal. i do not think corporations should have a right to personhood and be able to buy elections. i do not think the right wing things that is so good either, do have corporations running elections. i do not think money is the same as speech. if this, then people you have

$10 million have a whole lot more freedom than people have temples and dollars. i do not see how that contributes to what -- $10,000. i do not see how the contributes to what americans are all about. i believe unreasonable, thoughtful selection rules. i think arizona has a smart public financing system, but republicans and democrats, including the current republican governor, have said it is reasonable and thoughtful. this is a two-way deal. this is not just republican versus democrat. this is a big interest versus small interest and ordinary people. i am with the ordinary people as to whether we can make it work. hope >> thank you all, and thank again to our our

audience. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we will get an update from the pentagon on afghanistan next on c-span. then president mubarak announces he will step down after 30 years as president. then as senate foreign relations committee on iraq, john kerry commented on egypt. tomorrow, a hearing on how tax policy can affect the federal deficit. live coverage from the senate budget committee begins at 10:00

a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> sunday, we welcome emmett tyrrell. he has written over half a dozen books including his latest, "after the hang over the quiet -- after they hang over." join us at at noon on c-span2. >> a u.s. commander in afghanistan says he expects the taliban to increase the targeting of local political leaders -- leaders this spring and summer. lieutenant-general david rodriguez also talks about pakistan border operations in u.s. troop withdrawal. from the pentagon, this is about 45 minutes.

>> i would like to welcome back to the pentagon briefing room someone who is no stranger here -- lieutenant general david rodriguez, the commander of the international security assistance force joint command, also known as ijc. he also serves as deputy commander of united states forces -- afghanistan. general rodriguez assumed his duties in june 2009, and he subsequently became the first commander of the ijc in october 2009. if previous so that, he was commander of regional command east for 15 months, and from january 2007 to april 2008. he has spent 34 of the last 48 months in afghanistan.

the general most recently spoke with us last summer via satellite from kabul, and we're grateful that he is made time to update us today here in person on the situation in afghanistan. with that, sir, i will turn things over to you. >> thank you. it is great to be here in the pentagon briefing room. for those of you who know me, know there is a little tongue in cheek there. [laughter] thank you for your interest in afghanistan. this morning i will tell you where we have come from over the last 18 months and give you a sense of where we're headed. 18 months ago, we wrote the first country-wide operation- level comprehensive campaign plan that included our afghan partners. that combined team of both isaf as well as the three security members -- the three security ministries all put that plan together. one important concepts was to concentrate and synchronize our

efforts where it was most important -- population centers, commerce routes, and areas of economic potential. that is the shaded area on the map in front of you. at the afghans, they were the ones who told us and guided us to those key areas, based on their knowledge of the human and the physical terrain of afghanistan. the process started a yearlong effort to get everybody on the same sheet of music, synchronizing efforts in time and space. our first foray using this strategy was down in the central helmand river valley, a coordinated civil-military effort on both the international community and the afghan partners. that is number one on your map. while there were almost immediate security effects through the partnered operations that we conducted there, the afghans, supported by the international community had

a tougher time building government capacity in the wake of security gains. but the partnered team learned some significant lessons during those operations that they were able to apply in the summer and fall of 2010 in kandahar city and its environs. and that is number two on your map. several of these lessons included the need for prior planning to prepare government activities in advance. we all had to improve the complementary effects of the convention and special operations forces. the minister of interior learned some lessons on recruiting and training police forces, which were much more effective in the follow-on operations. and we all learned that building local political bodies that represent the people is an iterative process. and that more and more people

are mobilized, the representative councils become more representative and more effective. so now in arghandab -- a district just outside kandahar city that you know has been a tough place since the first time we will iran and there and stayed, beginning in july 2009, was a taliban stronghold, and people could not move around without fear. in that 18-month period, the district governor was killed, the district police chief was maimed, and there were no government officials or police present any place but the district center, which some of the afghans described it as a combat outpost. i was there two weeks ago, and there were 16 government employees working with a new district governor. there is a new police chief who has a police force that is out and about. and the people on a friday

afternoon, afghan family time, were picnicking in the arghandab river valley -- a significant change from 18 months ago. the threat this time, in other regions of the country, in kabul city, kabul province, as well as the east, the north, and the west, we made smaller but steady gains. in kabul city, number three on your map, there were very few spectacular attacks in 2010. in fact we met -- we went almost seven months without one, the longest on record in the last several years. also several important high- visibility events, like the kabul conference and the peace jirga, that were conducted without incident with an afghan national security forces in the league. league. -- in the