and that's really obviously up to them to continue to work towards. it was apparent to me in meeting both with the prime minister and the president that they're anxious to resolve and reconcile those differences. that's really up to them. >> did they suggest that they're getting any momentum? >> they really -- we really didn't talk about that. again, it was just -- they're very committed to getting together and to getting to a point where they make a decision one way or the other. >> do the u.s. believe that any future training mission in iraq could involve only contractors or do u.s. -- or would it be better to have u.s. troops involved? >> again, the u.s. doesn't take a position on this at this

point. we've got to get to the first point which is whether we even enter negotiations which could include the invitation on the particulate of -- part of the iraqis for support and assistance and training. and then it would node to be the specifics of what that support and training would focus on and then i think that would drive the answer to your question about what combination of military and civilian or contractors would provide that. we're just not there yet. >> thank you. we've heard a lot about what continues cooperation with the u.s. military operation would do for iraq. you can tell us apart from the military sales, what it would do for the united states? >> the united states is very committed to the region, it's very committed to a strong,

long-term relationship and partnership with iraq. and as is the case when we work with any country, we get to know each other better, we understand how our systems may operate together, there are exercises, training opportunities and over a long period of time the relationship just gets stronger and stronger. clearly with a country like iraq or other countries, you know, that we work with, we're at the beginning of that relationship from the standpoint of putting it in place long-term. i think probably in all in the most important part are the people-to-people aspects of it. often times these relationships get focused at a very senior level. my relationship with generals which is strong and he's a good friend and we're both very

committed to this, but equally important from my perspective are our young officers and our n.c.o.'s. they get to learn learn about each other when they're young so when they're in positions like this, we're not beginning a relationship, but we're actually continuing one that's developed over many years. and iraq is a critical country and a critical region. and i think there is great hope for stability, great hope for economic growth, great hope for a democracy in this region and so there are many reasons i think to commit to this overall long-term partnership and relationship, far beyond just the military-to-military aspect of it. >> [inaudible]. i know the u.s. military's not

directly involved in syria, but it must be of some concern to you, the mounting violence there. and is this something that is of concern to you, it's been discussed, but a possible -- not just the impact on syria itself but the destabilizing effect across the region, it obviously does matter to you, is it in your mind these days? >> you stated it very well. each of these countries that are undergoing this revolution and resistance, we focus on them individually, clearly, but they all have an impact in the region. and with respect to syria, we decried the violence and the violence needs to stop as quickly as possible. the people of syria are certainly seeking a different and reformed government and governance. many, many countries throughout the world have called for

president assad and his leadership team to make those changes and we would hope that the violence would stop immediately and that those changes would be initiated. clearly this is not a very stable part of the world and more unstable countries would not be helpful. being here in iraq, obviously a direct neighbor, there's concern in iraq with how things turn out in syria. so, again, we'd like to see the violence stop immediately and that president assad take steps to resolve the issues that are clearly being raised internally by the syrian people and issued -- people, an issue which calls for substantial change. >> [inaudible]. >> there's no indication

whatsoever that the americans -- that we would get involved. i think politically and diplomatically we want to bring as much pressure as we possibly can to affect the change that so many countries are calling for. >> "los angeles times"." i wanted to ask you about the group that is involved in making the attacks against u.s. forces. i was curious about us looking back, hundreds of these members were held in u.s. facilities and decision was made to hand them over to the iraqi government knowing they would be most likely released in the second half of 2009. when you look at that decision now knowing what they have been done and attacking u.s. forces, is that a decision you could take back? >> well, i think when you look

back at the tension issues in iraq, one point in time, they were upwards of 26,000 detainees here and that number has been reduced over the course of the last several years to a handful. and that has been part of what we -- part of the agreement we reached with the iraqi government. certainly as is the case in any detainee effort, we have worked very hard with the iraqi government to support them in their rule of law prosecution efforts and we continue to do that. we are very much aware that there are those who have gotten back on the battlefield and we continue to press the iraqi government very hard with respect to this and yet at a

very high level, strategic level from the standpoint of looking at the detention problems and challenges that existed in 2007, 2008, 2009, et cetera, i think we are in a much better place than we were given our commitment to returning all these -- turning of these detainees over to iraq. and there are those who obviously have been released, returned to the battlefield and we would like to see that stopped and we continue to address that. >> do you feel that the top of the iraqi government is good enough to crack down on the militia groups? i know recently the president, at the prime minister's request gave special amnesties to 50 who had been convicted in criminal court, many who had been arrested by the americans.

>> we are very concerned about the groups -- i mean al qaeda certainly being one but the shia extremeist groups. we have addressed this with the iraqi leadership and they have taken some significant steps internal to iraq and as i said in my opening comments, they have addressed it in tehran. we have seen a pretty dramatic drop. what one of the points i emphasize is that drop needs to be sustained. the united states will take whatever steps we need to to protect our people. and i appreciate the fact that president maliki has intervened in that regard, very positive short-term results that needs to be extended to the long term.

>> "washington post." i want to turn to a domestic matter. a year ago, you said the biggest threat to national security was the national debt. i wonder the votes that were taken yesterday and those that will be taken today, americans are safer. and still talking about hundreds of billions in the pentagon budget and are you concerned and what would you tell lawmakers to think about as they proceed in the coming weeks and months. >> i don't do very well counseling lawmakers. [laughter] >> the recent debate and resolution for the near term i think are important steps. but it's really up to the congressmen and president to figure out how to move ahead with respect to the debt. i haven't changed my view that

the increasing debt, continually increasing debt is the biggest threat we have to our national security. with respect to the deal that's been made, i don't have any details on that yet. i don't know. i certainly have an expectation that there will be defense cuts as a part of this. i just don't know what those will be. i just perfect that we'll find out the details here in the next couple of days. i think we are still at a point where the senate has not voted. with respect to -- we have done a lot of work in recent weeks and months with respect to expectations to cut the defense department budget $400 billion over the course of the next 10 to 12 years and there are various combinations of options on how to proceed ahead. but a lot of that depends on

what the top line is and we don't know that yet. and also the -- our judgment on degree of difficulty of making certain jufments. i don't have any more detail right now. i think when we get that and some of us will have to move quickly because the fiscal year 2012 budget starts in under 90 days, is a budget we put together last year and we will have to figure out how to execute that budget as congress gives it to us. >> quick follow-up. talking to the troops and the parents of troops who have died here and their concern that washington isn't fully aware of what's going to happen in december. there is some concern if things don't get sorted out, all this

will be in vein. should families be concerned that this has been in vain. >> i first came to iraq in 2004. and i took this job in 2007 right at what i consider to be the peak of the downside, and when i have returned and i see the progress that has been made and i will speak specifically to most ull, i see the u.s. forces having now turned over the security check points and there are iraqi forces exclusively iraqi forces patroling these points and doing it in a way, quite frankly that i get feedback from my people, which is more advanced than further down the road than even our own

people expect. and i see that as representative of this dramatic change. and so -- and i flew over the city last night and you see the city lit up and traffic on the roads, which was just not the case. you see an economic infrastructure starting to emerge that in a few years, given particularly the oil resources that are here and the investments in that, where there is just this tremendous upside for the 26 million people. so as i look at it and we have details to work out on what the relationship looks like, but certainly as i look at it, the blood and treasure that has been sacrificed here given the opportunity to 26 million people who had a bleak future to have an entirely different future. i see it in front of me and see it change it for the better each

time i come. they're more stable. there are huge challenges and i don't want to understate those, but progress is palpable over time and continues to be very visible each time i see it. and this is a conversation i also have with the troops. troops have been here multiple times. troops who came here in 2003 and they just sit back in amazement at the change and the progress that is very evident here. so from my perspective -- >> "new york times." there was an incident north of baghdad over the weekend which iraqis are alleging that three iraqis who were not the target of the mission being killed. can you shed any light of that

incident? >> i wouldn't talk about any details of any mission. i will say broadly that the united states is going to take necessary action to defend our people. we have done that historically and will continue to do that. we also do that in conjunction with iraqi security forces. that has been the case and that continues as well, but i wouldn't talk about a specific incident. >> iraqi troops in general need at least 10 years to be ready. from your own perspective, how do you think the u.s. troops -- [inaudible] >> there isn't any plan to have any troops here based upon the security agreement. i'm aware of the statements and

we have worked hard with the iraqi security forces and the iraqi political leadership to identify areas that need to be -- areas that need to be supported. so i think that's very clear. we need to get to a point where the iraqis make a decision about whether we're going to have any u.s. troops here, any kind of training or assistance or whatever the troop composition would be. we're not there. that's the internal discussions that are going on right now. if that decision is made, then we will work out the details certainly to include the length of time. and this will be a negotiation. so it won't be one side or the other gets to decide. it will be the two sides that get into a negotiation and make

a determination on what capability, how much, how long, that kind of thing. we aren't there yet. we have to get to a point where the iraqis make a decision that asks for this kind of assistance. >> associated press. the question of immunity seems to be from the iraqis' point of view one of the real sticking questions. if there is an agreement that they have to have immunity passed and approved by an iraqi parliament? is that your view? >> yes. consistent with how we both negotiate and reach agreement with countries around the world for our people to be consistent with that and the law here in

iraq, that that kind of an agreement which would include privileges and i am mupets for our american men and women in uniform will have to go through the court. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama signed the debt ceiling and debt reduction bill just hours before the u.s. government could have defaulted. we'll see the president's comments about the legislation tonight at 8:00 eastern. then from capitol hill, senate democrats also talked about the debt compromise. later, a couple of briefings on job creation, a senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell followed by house democratic leader nancy pelosi which starts at 8:00 eastern on

c-span. tomorrow morning, mike glover of the associated press and james pindell how the 2012 presidential candidates reacted to the debt compromise and gordon adams on defense spending cuts. after that "national journal correspondent looks at the federal aviation administration funding and your emails and phone calls. washington journal live wednesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. earlier today, a president signed the debt ceiling and deficit reduction bill that his remarks coming up at 8:00 p.m. eastern. press secretary announced the signing to reporters and asked answered questions about the president's future economic agenda.

>> thank you all for being here. iffer an announcement. on september 11, 2011rks the president and mrs. obama will join with the rest of the american people marking the 10th anniversary of a day we will never forget. the president will participate in commemorations at each of the three locations, lower manhattan, shanksville, pennsylvania and at the pentagon. throughout the day, he will pay tribute to those we lost, honor the americans who responded on that day and who served in harm's way over the last decade. he will underscore the strength, resilience and unity of the

american people. further details of the president's schedule will be announced in coming weeks. on september 10, the vice president will attend the dedication of the flight 93 memorial in shanksville, pennsylvania. further details about the vice president's plans will be announced in coming weeks. with that, i take your questions. ben from the associated press. >> on the debt legislation, when is the president going to sign it, as soon as possible? >> you don't think he should just wait for a few days? as soon as possible. i'm sure we will let you know. there is a process by which legislation having passed both houses makes its way down pennsylvania avenue and lands on his desk and we will let you know when it's signed. it will be by hand. >> we heard the president talk about the need for balancing tax

increases and i'm wondering why they should have faith and what's going to happen in the next round. that argument, we have heard for weeks and didn't happen in the first round, why do people have faith it will happen? >> americans may have lost a little bit of faith in the process here in washington as they watched what for much of the time seemed like a circus that wasn't producing anything but stale mate. in the end as the president noted, republicans and democrats and the president came together and reached a compromise that averted a crisis and which do some good things in terms of reducing our deficit that will be positive for our economy. as to the next step, second stage, the need to move beyond just cuts in discretionary

spending to go at some of the issues that really drive our debt, entitlements or spending through the tax code, you are right, these are hard issues. and we didn't get there in the grand compromise that the president was negotiating in good faith with the speaker of the house. a reason for perhaps some optimism is that while in the end, we were not able to achieve that, there were great strides made in terms of making the case for why balance is so essential and why if you really want to get a hold of our deficits and do something about our long-term debt, you have to deal with revenues as well as entitlements. i would note that after the gang of six released its framework, its proposal, that nearly 20 republican senators endorsed that approach in addition to obviously the many democrats who did. i would note that the speaker of the house, by his own account, put revenues on the table in his

negotiations with the president of the united states. there are many other voices in the congress and certainly outside of the congress that recognize a lot on the republican side, recognize the need to take a balanced approach. i noticed that senator graham made just today probably in the last hour or two where he thinks we can close loopholes and deal with things like itemized deductions in the name of reducing the deficit. it won't be easy but we have a mechanism in place, special committee that will be set up by this legislation. and through the incentive placed on congress by the so-called trigger, to hopefully reach a situation where congress will recognize that the best way to tackle this problem, the only way is by approaching it with

balance. >> we are already hearing rumblings from republicans that won't take members who will vote for tax increases. does the president have any say who gets picked for those -- that committee? >> the authority is vested in the leaders of congress to appoint these members, bicameral, bipartisan membership of the committee. the president has made his opinion known and will make his opinion known that it's important to take this seriously and appoint members who will try to get to a product that can emerge from the committee and get a yes vote from congress and balance is required to achieve that. and this is not -- to decide otherwise, to stack the membership with folks who don't want to get anything done, you

might think is fine political tactic if there is no consequence to that, but there is, obviously, which is the very ownerous actions forced on the congress by the sequestration, but by the trigger. we hope and believe there will be pressure on congress to take this seriously and the leaders to appoint members who take it seriously and who respond not just to what we say but what the americans are saying, that if we are serious, as many people claim they are about getting our deficits under control and doing more than just cutting discretionary spending, then we have to approach these big issues, entitlements and revenues and the way to do that is through the committee. >> jay, you mentioned yesterday extending the payroll tax and the president alluded to that in

his statement as well. how do you expect to do that with this congress? >> how do i -- how do we expect the congress to pass a tax cut? >> how do you expect to get this through congress? >> i don't have a legislative strategy to lay out to you that congress acted to extend the payroll tax cut last december for this year. that decision has resulted in $1,000 in the pockets of every american, typical average american family and that is positive for those families as they deal with making ends meet because that extra money that ends up in their paychecks gets spent and put back into the economy which helps generate jobs and business and that's very important. i think the same arguments that made it compelling last year will make it compelling this

fall. >> do you see bipartisan support for doing that >> we expect there will be bipartisan support for that. >> the president mentioned in his comments that he will talk about businesses hiring and expand. can you give us a clue? >> i'll let him do that. he will be talking about the need to grow our economy and increase hiring, create more jobs and that will be something you'll hear a lot about from him in the coming weeks and months. >> are there big new measures that you have planned? >> that suggests that every idea you have on day one and implement on day two. we have a dineic changing situation in both the economy and in our politics and so you are constantly thinking about and putting forward new ideas to address this number one