guantanamo open. i think that is a top rate detention facility. i have been there. i think that is the best way to move forward. i am hopeful that we will resolve this. as we all know, it is very important -- it must make our trips so i agree when they come across someone that we had and released and they are now confronting again. i do not want them to be in that position. i want to ask you about iran. inin particular, admiral mullen, how would you describe iran and the activities in southern iraq? the shiite militias attacking our troops, how much is iran contributing to the increased violence in iraq?

>> over the summer there was a significant strike -- spike. they had control of that. we went by several channels politically, through iraq, then iran, and then it stopped. there is no question that iran can control this. they are shipping efp's and iram's in particular, and they are getting bigger and bigger. there's a great downside potential for destabilizing iraq. i think that the prime minister is concerned about that as well. in that regard, on the one hand is up to them. it is clear that they want to do it, they can do it. they have been warned consistent

with what the secretary has said about the network. that if they keep telling your troops, it will not be just something that we will sit idly by and watch. >> my time is up. i appreciate your answer. looking at troop levels of would say that it is in our national interest to have a government in iraq but is independent of iran and we do not allow them to be in a situation where a run has a greater influence that we would want to give them in terms of our posture towards iran. i am hopeful that we would take that into consideration to make sure that we have enough troops to secure iraq. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we all sound like a broken

record. here is the real deal. admiral mullen has been an incredible leader for the military. your family has been terrific. i have what i -- not always like your answers, but i have never doubted that you have given us your most honest assessment of any question being put your way. that is all but we can ask for, as united states senators. that kind of forthright, this is not always easy, real good information. sustainability. something that as we have developed in this military, counterinsurgency strategy, i think that the military has done a good job of figuring out how we work with the counter insurgency situation. i am not sure that we focus enough on sustainability. we have got a country,

afghanistan, that has without our help, somewhere between 2 billion in $3 billion in gdp. they are giving $16 billion per year because of foreign aid. there are two parts to sustainability. the first is what we're doing for the armed forces. the second is what we're doing for infrastructure. i have yet to have anyone swing to me how they afford it. they cannot. they cannot afford the economy that we've built for them. we built them in military university and it will cost $40 million per year just to maintain and operate. there gdp foreign-aid bill must be sufficient to operate that. and the other part, before either of you respond is the

infrastructure. who did the sustainability analysis on the power plant? how do we spend 300 million taxpayer dollars for a budget for a power plant that they cannot afford to operate well, even with that the gdp that they have with our aid. it is sitting there as a $300 million generator that is used every once in a while when there is a problem with the electricity that they are buying. they are purchasing electricity at a much cheaper cost than it would be to operate the power plant that we built for them. i am very worried that we are throwing money that is just not sustainable. that is the ultimate insult, i think, to the men and women who risked their lives.

>> we talked about this earlier. this is a critical issue that we understand. there is a lot of detailed work on it right now. it is not finished. this is not something where i can say that this is the answer. but we recognize that $12 billion per year is not anything close. it has got to be changed dramatically. and it needs to be shared. this is not just the u.s. burden in the long run. it needs to be shared with other partners, from an international perspective. we just got them to a point where we started to build them up. your questions are valid. we are asking them of ourselves, from an infrastructure standpoint. but i do not associate their gdp

this year with what is going to be forever. there is an opportunity to develop. a question that i think that afghan seniors are starting to understand. the government, to some degree. i would hope that there would have the answers over the next couple of months. questions like the one that you raised will have a better perspective on. i do not know enough about the electric plant in kabul. at the same time, we are looking at it. the president has tasked us with looking at this infrastructure along with -- along lines that you are talking about. plus the state department and other agencies as well. >> secretary, we have spent $70 billion on reconstruction and

development. this is not the ongoing training of the military. none of our military operations on the ground. i do think that it is important that you require, and that both your replacement and you, secretary panetta, require the senior leadership of all of the military in the pentagon to be the confecting commission report. it is an eye opening piece of work done by a very credible and a bipartisan organization made of a lot of expertise. it is really frustrating when you realize how fast, lose, and sloppy we have played with this money. i need to know, right now, who

is making the decision on the $400 million. i do not know if the american people are aware that for the first time in history our defense department has asked for a reconstruction fund. i remember that it was described to me as broken windows and storefronts. now, for the first time, we have in iraq reconstruction fund as part of the defense budget. i do not know what the thought process was. what i do not like about that is giving everyone the opportunity to blur the line as to who is in charge of this reconstruction into his making these decisions about adequate security for us to begin to invest harder and

taxpayer dollars in these projects. i am not confident about the project approval by a light of things that have been built but have been a giant waste of money. >> i do not disagree with anything that you have said. my job is that we look at all of those issues. based on the budget constraints we are seeing, we cannot afford to operate that way. we will have to look at reconstruction and every area to determine just exactly what is needed, are we doing this right, are we getting the best bang for the buck? on the whole issue of sustainability of the force, looking at the an extinct -- an acceptable cost of $12 billion per year, by virtue of looking

at infrastructure, we do not have to build the level of infrastructure in afghanistan to be built in this country. we can find savings. we can find savings in other areas to try to reduce those costs. we will have to implement much better discipline to make sure that we are not only accountable to you, but to the american people. >> i just want to circle back and make sure that these funds, i hope that someone is tasked with going back to iraq and trying to document the differences that were made. i do not think that we should hold on to the notion that we have to spend a huge amount on building schools, health centers, hospitals, and roads. that the american people have to spend a lot of money on that

under the rubric of a counterinsurgency. i want to make sure that that strategy has been borne out as successful. frankly, i have not seen the documentation. >> certainly, we can do the work. going back to the origins serp, there were certainly projects that were more expensive than others. the best majority of it, particularly at the heart of the surge, was turned to enable young soldiers in the field -- it was not just windows and servers. it was a lot of things that made a difference. while it may not be documented to the degree it needs to be, there is no question in my mind that it was significant in turning the tide in getting iraq

to where we are right now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> secretary panetta, first, let me thank you for your very forthright comments on the dangers of excessive budget cuts. i, as well, am very concerned about the possibility of the sequestered. i think it would be the height of irresponsibility for congress to allow that kind of indiscriminate, automatic cut to take place. particularly since it is so disproportionately part of the department of defense. that is just wrong. it troubled me when it was included in the debt package. i had a hard time deciding to vote for the package because of that. i very much appreciate your

putting this committee on notice about how devastating it would be if that were going to affect. i want to begin by thanking you for that. i would also be remiss if i did not thank you for your more than -- i think it is 40 years of service. it has been such a great pleasure to work with you. not only in your current position, but when you were the chief of naval operations. i appreciate all the to have done for the navy, for the country, and working with us in such a collaborative way. compare i want to follow up on the issue of iranian imports in iraq. funny and very concerned that with the withdrawal of our forces, and the shrinking of

hours of -- civilian presence as well, that we are creating a vacuum that iran is rushing to fill. we have seen a steadily increasing flow of arms, money, and training to the shiite militias. particularly in southern iraq. my fear is that there will be some in iraq who will use those strength and malicious -- militias to exert power and the exact change outside of the newly established political channels in southern iraq. so, admiral mullen, i would start with you. what concrete steps are we taking to counter that malign

influence in iraq? i know that we made it clear verbally that it is unacceptable. both of you have. but what are we doing about it? what can we do about it? >> talking about the political channel, which for temporary effect, it was shot down significantly from world war one. the general is not sitting back at all in terms of operations. and our support for security forces, along the lines that you talk about, senator collins and his group are obviously not insignificant. but they are out fliers. something from the standpoint of this being an area that you want to focus on. i know that the prime minister

very much understands this. i get a piece about the vacuum. but at some point in time, iraq has to take charge of its own. iran is not going away. they have had influence on that border to the cell forever. over the course of my time in that region, there is a sort of understanding, up two. , that at some point in time the iraqis will say that that is enough. i am hard pressed to believe, having fought for what they fought for, that they will sacrifice their sovereignty to this country. the backgrounds are deep and very contentious, historically. iraq has to take concrete steps.

clearly, they are consumed with political battles right now, figuring out how they will move forward to include that kind of balance. i do not know if it is next year or the year after that, but iraq will have to figure that out. that is part of what must be tied to the strategic relationship that we have. they know, from a strategic level, that we will be there with them in support. certainly, we want to continue to push back on and on in every single way. >> senator, when i last went, it was right in the middle of when we were taking heavy casualties. i made it clear that that was unacceptable. as the admiral has pointed out,

we do have encouraging results. the prime minister indicated his concern and they made it clear to iran that that had to stop. it's very important message to the iranians. secondly, they conducted operations against those groups as well, to make it clear that we are not a point to give them a free license to be able to conduct those kinds of attacks. the combination of that, in terms of what was taking place, it was made clear that this was a temporary thing and that iran would come back to try to do the same thing. the prime minister understands that this country cannot allow iran to be able to conduct of

that kind of influence within his country, providing those kinds of weapons, and undermining his government. i think he gets that. we will have to continue taking the right steps. iran needs to understand that we're going to be a round, while making it clear to them that we will not simply -- simply ignore what they're doing. >> another traveling player that we have all discussed, pakistan providing safe haven and undermining the efforts in afghanistan. senator gramm and i are both members of the appropriations committee. last night, we met late and approved the foreign operations bill. placing several conditions and restrictions on the

counterinsurgency capabilities. one of them is that the secretary of state must certify that pakistan is cooperating with u.s. efforts against the huckabee network and other terrorist groups. mr. secretary, do you support putting that kind of restriction on pakistan? >> i will let the state department replied to you directly. but as far as i am concerned, anything that we cannot tolerate, i think it would be important to do. >> thank you. i had a feeling that we might defer to the state on that. the best way to send a strong

message is to condition abundance. admiral mullen, a successful transition in afghanistan depends in part on the asking of forces willingness and motivation to fight for their own country. i know that you told me of a four but attrition in the afghan national security forces continues to run very high. as much as 32% each year. between january and june of this year, there were more than 24,000 afghan soldiers that when a wall. what troubles me is that that is more than twice as many as for the same time one year ago.

to meet, that does not represent progress. the department of defense noted that if levels of attrition seemed to continue for five months, there is significant risk to the projected growth. what efforts have been undertaken to increase the long term commitment amongst afghans? after all, as with iraq, ultimately both of these countries' citizens are going to have to take responsibility for their own security. >> that was not that long ago that we had those kinds of numbers. i think you have seen the attrition rate in the police come down to meet our goal. i know that on the side of the army this is an issue that they address regularly.

some of it got better compared to how we pay them. but it still is as you describe, a significant issue approaching roughly 30% per year. we do find an awful lot of afghan soldiers that want to be there and who want to provide for their country. there are clearly a lot to do not have that message. yet we need to continue to work, as i know it is. my counterpart there, they continue to work very specific way clearly, it is a significant risk factor. i have not seen, nor has any

commander told me about the strategy of risk. something that we can continue to address overtime. >> thank you both. >> good morning, gentlemen. i know that this is one of those mornings where lot has happened. engaging in a dialogue with both of you, in your testimony you said that we needed to be framed the line of questioning about sanctions. and how sanctions and reductions for military to pakistan might hinder the mission. broadly, commenting further on

that relationship. >> we have indicated, with regard to assistance to pakistan, that it is conditioned on several things that we have to pay attention to. one, are they cooperating when it comes to going after targets in al qaeda? in my prior position we identified a series of targets that remained. i think that that is kind of one test. second, have we taken action regarding the safe havens? dealing with the economies? that is another area in which we have got to say that you have got to take steps to be able to stop that from happening. thirdly, that we would like,

frankly, for them to continue efforts to go after terrorists that are threatening them. to their credit, they took action in south waziristan. they took a lot of casualties. i commend them for the action that they did, but frankly, we have to continue pressure on those terrorists. terrorism is as much a threat for them as it is for the united states. it is very important that they cannot choose between terrorists. if you are against terrorism, you are against all terrorists. something we have made clear time and again. >> i would not try to expand the discussion beyond where the secretary mentioned, including in the framework.

i went to south waziristan in 2008. one of the things that i address to the political and military leadership, including the deputy at the cia, i believe that the ii has to shift its -- isi has to shift its fundamental focus. they are the ones to implement, i would argue, as a part of government policy, the support of extremists. we have had our challenges with their organization. in many ways they support terrorism partners. the national strategy, because of the way that they live, has got to fundamentally shift, i believe. they will probably be the last ones to shift. how quickly it can be done, certainly that is an open

question. i think that we need to listen to them. this country is generally in decline. although the financial situation is generally better than one year ago. how is the economy doing? is there a way to open up the market as they look to the future, would they like to say -- kashmir actually unlocks the whole region as an enormously difficult problem, from my perspective. it has got to be pressure that needs to be brought to bear on solving that problem as well. one of the things that i get constantly is that their number one crop cotton. they cannot market that beyond the security issues.

there is no place, there is a chairman for accountability, it is a terribly corrupt country, a series of things that we need to listen to that will not be solved overnight. they have, quite frankly, supported us to significantly impact al qaeda. they are pretty choosy about the terrorists that they support with us. and the ones that they will not support.

>> thank you. that comprehensive overview, and i would not want to pin you down, but at times it appears the pakistani leadership is playing the role of arsonist and firemen. the economic policy change regarding their textiles, and they're part of congress, let me move in the time that i have remaining. we have reports of fraud, waste, and abuse on contracts in iraq and afghanistan. wartime contract is not a surprise to youtube. -- u two. at the same time, we have to be careful that we do not put in place the good projects that are

under way. mr. secretary, what other steps will we take? >> there were actually some pretty good recommendations. i would ask people to put forward those recommendations. without burdening the operation with additional bureaucracy, the fact is that in the contracts themselves, that is the first point where if you put in the right requirements and do immediate oversight at that point, it assures you that the contract is being handled right. my goal is to try to put those into effect. frankly, that kind of waste,

that kind of loss, is something that is a entitlement. >> when general petraeus took over their, he actually put in place a navy to star admiral that had done his work in iraq forum, running a task force over the course of six months 8 months, attacking this issue. she came up with many good recommendations. those are being implemented against existing contracts. some of them were canceled as a result of that, as we recognize that we were feeding the enemy in too many places. dramatically increasing the number of contracts over the number of years, contract oversight expertise in our own department, which we have devastated in the '90s, putting back into place individuals but

to be superseded. we all realize that this is an area where we are feeding the fight against us. >> that is the worst kind of twofer of taxpayer dollars being squandered to go to the enemy. any plan in place? >> frankly, it is too early to tell right now. i have asked that they determine if some of that can be regained. >> i doubt it, but it is worth a shot. >> thank you, admiral mullen, for your tremendous service. i wish you the very best. you do not have to hear these expressions of gratitude, but we are one to keep them coming your way, regardless. thank you so much. >> thank you for your service.

i apologize if i go over questions the other members have asked in my absence. what would you consider the right number of u.s. troops to keep in iraq next year? >> this is in the training peace. i do believe it is time for the mission. first of all, assuming that there is a number that, first and foremost, we should be able to protect ourselves. we cannot leave anyone in a position that is not able, whatever the mission, to protect themselves. i am confident that that is well understood of my entire chain of command. secondly, we are in the middle

of negotiations right now. honestly, in the end, i honestly believe that we understand where the gaps are, the iraqi military understands where the gaps are. in the end it will be something that the prime minister and the leadership make a decision on. tied not just to the training mission, but there is a department of state mission here as remove the normalized, relatively significant mission under the state umbrella as well. to be honest, there has been a lot of analysis on this. it has been covered extraordinarily well. but has not been determined yet.

>> what is the minimum number, in your opinion, required to protect the settlement. >> how much training is going to be done? assuming that we would do this, where would it exist? it depends on where it is in the country. west, north, south. it is just not -- i know that you and others would love to get a number of there. honestly, it is not determined yet. it really depends on what we are going to do and how often we are going to do it. >> on the side of the u.s. government. >> the secretary said earlier,

and it is important that when we get to that point, i probably will love be here, but we will consult with congress when we get to that point. from my perspective, we would be having circular conversations about this. >> to both of you, we have talked a lot about a new approach for pakistan and it has been a fairly broad discussion. it seems that we do not have a clearly defined new approach. i am not suggesting that this is a simple issue, but for me as become up with a clear it -- clearly defined proposal, i think it is important, as

importance that we are not just moving along, taking advantage of them again >> senator, i think the that as bar already happened. on the one hand, it is necessary, because we are fighting a war there. they do give us cooperation in that effort. recently they help us with a terrorist whom they hoped to capture. and they have given us other areas of cooperation. we know what the problems are, when they take place, and which forces go after the people. the most important thing is fat united states congress has to speak with one clear voice to

the pakistan used, making it clear that we do not tolerate their having these kinds of actions. we cannot tolerate terrorists coming across the border and escaping back into that safe area. that is not tolerable. they are the first ones were going to take action like that. if everyone speaks with one voice, if we all conveyed the same message, the admiral has done that with cayanni. i have done that with my counterpart. and we have sent a clear message that this is unacceptable. that is just the nature of the relationship.

the only way to deal with pakistan needs is to keep showing them where the line is >> i agree with that, i also agree with speaking with one voice. has it been articulated, the consequences of not changing? >> i have made it clear that we will do everything we can to protect our forces. i have not spelled it out for them. i would be surprised if they did. >> in terms of aid to the pakistani government? >> i liked the term that senator collins used. i think it needs to be conditioned. i think that we have to be

careful of definitions of terms here. multiple times, with many leaders and many times. secretary panetta, secretary gates, the vice president, terribly talented people. not just in our country. i do not know where the breakthrough is going to take place. i think that we can get their when the light goes on. if not, it is a very dangerous,

long term help will -- the outcome. yet, it is an area that is a lot of money. >> let me end on how i began this line of questioning. which is, a new approach and definition for the american people. maybe more clearly defined in private discussions with them. i think that it needs more definition for purposes of our continuing to support any engagement. i would encourage them. i do not think it is clearly defined the monks our numbers, much less the american people. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, first of all,

congratulations on the successful career. i am sure the two are not ready to retire. >> yes, i am. >> secretary panetta, i have the utmost respect and confidence. would you coming in with your new venture, i look forward to much success. with that, i want to make a statement. you have all likely know my feelings over the engagements that we have. it is my deep belief that we should be rebuilding america, and that afghanistan or iraq. instead of a death spiral bell, we can no longer have a ball. we must choose the notions that we can and cannot afford.

we must make a choice of where we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars. some believe that making the choice will weaken our security, but i truly do not believe that. as you said yourself, it is the greatest threat to our national security. if we do not address fiscal balance in the near term, national power with the road. our ability to maintain and sustain influence will be cut. we cannot cut the services at home, or call on americans to spend $485 billion over the next decade. i think that everyone of us, in congress, and secretary,

yourself, and the secretary of defense, we have all had choices to make. i will not ask americans to run the nation. i have simply said that i choose to rebuild america. i want to share with you the fax and insights about my opinions when our national security fundamentally shifted to appear mission of counter-terrorism. i will be specific, for the record. at the current rate, we will exceed $21.1 million by 20201. having spent more on interest and debt interest and energy combine. at the same time, the afghan economy is growing leaps and bounds. because american taxpayers are

funding the afghans. it has been suggested that afghanistan's gdp growth was 20.4%. while the united states growth rate was 2.2%. also, in 2011, the afghanistan growth rate was 8.2%. the united states of america's growth rate was only 1.6%. this might work well if we were developing a stable and self- sufficient afghanistan. the world bank reports that imports and exports have declined over the last four years. with 9% of their public expenditures in 2010. this is not an economy that can function on its own in any way. it is entirely fuelled by american tax dollars. in the coming days and weeks we

will engage with them on whether we could or should invest $50 billion or more to reinvest american infrastructure. but we will have already paid for that with $2.7 billion already invested to build afghan infrastructure since 2002. we will debate how to pay for the billions needed to modernize these schools, while the commission estimates that $30 billion to $60 billion have been wasted, according to the taxpayers, that could pay for all of the modernization. perhaps the greatest insult of all, despite the blood treasure we have invested in afghanistan, we are still not the preferred

partner of the economic group projects. in 2007, the state owned a chinese developments in larger provinces. this may yield $88 billion in copper and oil. to my knowledge, china has not contributed one penny to the security of afghanistan. instead, we are directly and indirectly helping china to fund as the fight to keep afghanistan safe. i have great respect for you. and for your service, admiral mullen. i would hope that you would take these considerations to heart. i am truly sincere about what i believe and what i say.

researching as best i can with the different available information to me, i have come with the conclusion that we need to get out as quickly as we can. fighting terrorism to keep it off the shores of america keeps the american people behind us, but i do not believe that we can win in change the afghans, iraqis, or pakistan is. that being said, i hope that we do prevent this from happening here. with that, i have a statement from you. if either one of you would like to respond, you are more than welcome. >> senator, you share those views with me before. i understand your concerns. i think that all of us, as the level has expressed our concern

about the economic situation in this country being a threat to national security, we do have to pay attention to it. at the same time, it is important that, if we are point to protect this country protect our people, that we also have to be able to respond to those threats to national security. and that it would not be to bus to just focus on economic challenges without focusing on national security challenges as well. that is our responsibility. i think that the reality is that from 9/11 -- we just celebrated the 10th anniversary of 9/11. we were attacked. this country was attacked.

a lot of people died as a result. we had a responsibility to respond. particularly with regards to afghanistan. that is the issue here. i know that there were differences as to why we got into it and to however -- as to how i love this was conducted. i also want to tell you that i think that all of the efforts of all the blood that has been spilled, we have made important progress here. that with regard to terrorism, we have seriously weakened al qaeda and their ability to conduct the same attacks. regarding iraq and afghanistan,

we have turned the corner. we are in the process of a drawdown in iraq. as well as in afghanistan. i really do think that, if you look at it as being on the right path in both places toward hopefully having a stable governments in both places being able to securely govern themselves, it will take work and commitment. i understand that there have been waste. but i also believe that this is a point where the united states has got to stick with it and not just walk away from those responsibilities. largely because the last thing that we should do is say to those families, who have lost loved ones, that somehow all of this was in vain. the most important tribute we can have to those that lost

their lives is to make this right. >> i do not think that it is the expense of the united states when our own struggles, we have not gotten much when it is not appreciated or respected. let's make sure that we never forget what they have done. seeking justice wherever it may be. thank you. >> if i could say very quickly, to the secretaries last point, we have to be careful and thoughtful about the consequences of how we come out. that that is the price that has been paid. and what does that mean for the future of our forests and sacrifice? one month and a half, two months

ago, i had soldiers with me who had fought, losing colleagues in baghdad. it looked like the lights at night, almost look like las vegas. more importantly, they had never seen traffic on this -- on the streets at night. when i took this job, we were at the height of the serious discussion in debate. the despair over where this was going was enormous. with no end in sight. there is a potential for 26 million people to be a better life. i understand the investment. this is not about how we got there or why we got there.

over the course of the next year or so, and the strategic partnership, along with the opportunity we have in that part of a world, to have a friend, is enormous. >> admiral. when you look back at your time, i would imagine the you feel very satisfied. there has been a lot of social change in the military in the world, yet you have been consistent in telling us what you think in terms of what is best for the military. i am very proud of your service in consider you a friend. to my good friend in west virginia, i could not disagree with you more. for those iraqis to have fought

and died, god bless you. our biggest victory was in iraq. the iraqi people said no thank you when al qaeda tried to take over. al qaeda was delivered a crushing blow in iraq. you would agree? you said we had to go into pakistan to get bin laden. god bless you. a hard decision by the president, who made a calculated risk. well done, mr. president, going in with the most risky option. to be secure, due in the simply it is great to a rigid to kill some of a lot, but the best thing that the due would be to provide the capacity to will,

saying that he is willing to fight, in the national security interest of the country, should we not help them? >> yes, sir. >> 350,000 fully armed but talk about infrastructure crumbling at home. in the place of afghanistan, it provided sanctuary to al qaeda, where they executed the whole attack for less than $1 million. everyone becomes is to hit him

and the whole point is for them to achieve sufficient stability so that that never happens again. >> is in doubt whether to fight them and the leflore banner of those the served in afghanistan and iraq are changing the world. it is costly, save more time, and is more labor-intensive. drone attacks are part of the strategy. the ultimate blow and they want to fight back. with our help, they build wind. at home all right?

it is painful. and i want to help. the defense budget should be on the table. in uganda of an awareness 450 billion, it will be substantial over the next decade. >> if savings cannot be found, a trigger will be pulled. $600 billion will come out of the defense department. is that correct? >> especially in that area. >> on top of what you're trying to save. >> that is right.

>> if we pull the trigger, will we be shooting ourselves in the foot? >> you will be shooting ourselves in the head. [laughter] >> it would be the dumbest thing. you know what congress would do such a thing? you do not have to mention that. [laughter] that is the dumbest construct in the entire world, to try to find $650 billion in savings and put the defense department at risk and destroy the finest military in the history of the world. i am disappointed in the republican party in allowing that to be part of the puzzle. but go to iraq. you will not tell me the zero number. i know why you will not tommy the number. on a scale of 1-10, how important is it that iraq and terms of ourn

security interest? >> 8 and above. oflet's look at it in terms eight and above. the resources in four and eight funding is reasonable. the iraqis want to take over, but they need your help. if you look at the kurdish-arab disputes as a potential failure point in the future of iraq, where fighting could break out, admiral mullen, how would you rate that as a risk? >> 5. have a bshmurka -- marke they call it the lions brigade. what i would ask you to do, when you look at the number troops,

make sure the that fault line does not crack. we have a plan to implement the iraqi security forces and we are the referee. over time, we will build a transition force that will be more capable. there is a time in military engagements -- we are the point now where capability matters. my point about 3000 -- i know that is not the number -- intelligence gathering, what ability does the iraqi have to gather intelligence on their own? >> i would describe that as one of the gap various that they clearly need to work on. it is not zero, but an area that they -- >> but they do not have close to what we have. if you want to keep iran at bay, the more we know about what iran

is doing, the better we are. >> i do not think that we need to make them as either. yes, they need to improve -- >> but we still have security interests in iraq. it is in our security interest to know what is going on inside that country. when you look at the intelligence gathering capabilities they do not have and you look at trimming their air force and they're an army and having a protection plan for our diplomats, the numbers began to add up. would you feel comfortable with a member of your family serving in a fall in force of 3000? >> i have confidence that, assuming the there is a number, that force protection will meet the needs of whatever might be there. in that regard, yes.

>> one last question. secretary panetta, we have come up with the market with some conditions of pakistan. i want to provide it with you. would you provide me a letter to show that we're on the right track? if we tell the pakistanis that enough is enough, believe the cannot trust them or abandon them. do you agree with that statement? >> yes. >> would you agree with me, if something does not change in pakistan substantially that we are on a collision course with pakistan? >> it has to change. we cannot continue with the situation that is there now. >> thank you both for your statements. >> thank you all very much. secretary panetta, and mulleadml mullen. hopefully, this is the end.

i want to echo of my colleagues and express my deep appreciation for your leadership and for your service to the country. thank you. i would like to pick up from where senator gramm ended, pakistan. you both pointed out in your comments what happens and pakistan has a great deal to do with what happens in afghanistan. i have the opportunity to company chairman love and to -- german levon to afghanistan in august. one of the things that we heard from our military leaders when we were there was the growing influence of the houshaqqani network and the influence of their having, not because of their own now operations, but their influence on groups in pakistan.

my question, admiral mullen, first to you -- do you think that the pakistani leadership recognizes that the threat the haqqanis present not only to afghanistan and to our forces there but also to their own internal security and to their own military? >> uses of the very important, senator. i think the secretary would agree with this. what we have seen over the course of last several years is the coming together many of these terrorist organizations. years ago, they did not like each other much at all. but we see more and more back, including recently in the attacks on our embassy. that is worrisome. with respect to their future, it

is very clear that the ha qqani network is imbedded in pakistan, essentially a cross from taqtica. that is the jet stream to kabul and they want to own them. because of their relationships with other organizations, there's also an internal threat that pakistan is trying to deal with. they have lost lots of soldiers, lost lots of citizens and that is a priority for the leadership. he has 50,000 troops deployed in the west. he cannot sustain that. he cannot rotate them. not many of them have been able to rotate out of the last several years.

we need to recognize that there has been plenty of sacrifice their. haqqani is a tough group and they have not been willing to take them on militarily. there's concern about the ability to do that. that is why this emphasis is so important. in the end, it will be the strategic issue but they haqqani network that can effect change. i think the risk there is a very high over the course of the next couple of years. i think the biggest fight will be in the east, enabled by us and by afghan security forces and coalition forces, more than anyplace else. the south is not problematic. but we're in a much better place than we were a couple of years ago. it will be the east that answers as from a security standpoint. and haqqani is at the heart of that. we have not talked about the others. they have not gone away. that is a part of this which we

also need to work with the pakistanis to help address. and we do get some cooperation there as well. so it is a mixed bag in terms of their overall support in ways that they have helped us. in other ways, they have not. >> we had our meetings and pakistan to the extent to which they still had troops fighting the terrorists within pakistan and the amount of casualties, both civilian and within their military that they have already endured. i think it is important to point that out. we also visited rc east while we were there. are you confident that we have enough troops and that we have a strategy on the ground there that can address the growing

influence of the haqqanis and the path that goes back and forth between pakistan and afghanistan in that region? >> one of the things that general petraeus did what he was there was set up this layered defense. it is a much tougher spot then it was a couple of years ago. we have a new commander. before, there is a new -- we did not talk about this before. there is a new team there. it is an exceptionally strong team. i have looked for a positive outcome because of that team. general allan is looking at how to first of all finished this fighting season, if you will, and then, based on the results, most of us expect that he will have to redistribute forces in these from the south before next year. the specifics of that, he is

still working his way through them. there will be some net increase in the east not coming from outside the country, but from inside of the country as things have gotten better in the south and he looks to fight a tougher fight in these in the next couple of years. >> i appreciate your mentioning the new team there. there were very impressive. i think both of you also mentioned the confluence of india and their impact in the region. one of the things that we heard from the leadership in pakistan was their efforts to or their overtures to try to reduce tensions with india. how much of that you think is real and has the potential to have a real impact? and how much of it is show and

not going to have any real impact? >> i think it is real. i think they're making an effort to see if i can find a way to resolve the issues between pakistan and india. they have made efforts at that. i think what has happened is that they really do have to make this a higher priority. they have to really focus on this. in terms of the security of pakistan, if they could find a way to resolve their differences with india, that country would be a different country. but to do that, to achieve that, i really do think that they have to put a much larger effort into trying to resolve those differences with india. they cannot meet one day and wait a long time and then come together. it has to be constant. that is something they're not

doing. >> just a final follow-up on how receptive you think india is to those kinds of overtures? >> india has, in some ways, resisted engaging as well. i think both sides need to roll up their sleeves and get to work on this. it is tough. it is the politically in both areas. but in the end, we will never achieve stability in that region until the issues between pakistan and india are resolved. >> thank you both very much. at this time, we will close the hearing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> lamar alexander discusses his decision to step down from republican leadership. he also talks about how congress has changed its operations over his four years of leadership. and the key issues in congress, including appropriations in

dealing with the debt and spending and revenue issues. "newsmakers," today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in my opinion, i think that the bounds of academic freedom have just gotten -- have been pushed to 4. >> in the faculty lounges, tenure/jobs for life mentally needs to go. >> professors of nutritional studies who have tenure now. when pressed who is toeing the party line will say, well, we need somebody who has tenure in security studies to talk about immigration being controversial. and some of the nutritional studies needs to say something controversial about obesity. >> that is faculty lounges and other reasons why you won't get

the college education that you pay for. abbasesident mahmoud a requested un membership. he as the negotiations will be meaningless as long as israel continues to build on land the palestinians claim for that state. his remarks are about 40 minutes. >> in the name of god, most gracious, most merciful. mr. secretary general of the united nations, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset, i extend my congratulations to his excellency on his assumption of the presidency of the assembly for this session. and i wish him every success.

i also congratulate the secretary general mr. ban ki- moon for his reelection at the helm of the united nations. his efforts have strengthened the role of united nations. the question of palestine is intricately linked to the united nations, barring resolutions

adopted by its various organizations and agencies and through ascension and lauded role the united nations relief and works agency in the near east which embody the responsibility for the plight of palestine refugees or the victim's of the catastrophe that occurred in 1948. we aspire for and seek a greater and more effective role for the united nations in working to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in our region that ensures ine unknowable -- the indelibl alienable rights and legitimacy embodied by the united nations. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago, at the same time as in this hall,

distinguished leaders and heads of delegations addressed the stalled peace efforts in our region. everyone had high hopes for a new round of final status negotiations which had begun in early september in washington under the direct auspices of president obama and with the participation of the international court at as well jordan.t and jorda we entered those negotiations with open hearts and attentive years. and sincere intentions and we were ready with their documents, our papers, and our proposal.

but these negotiations broke down just weeks after they were launched. after this, we did not give up and did not cease our efforts for initiatives and contact. over the past year, we did not needed door to be knocked were channeled to be pursued or path to be taken and we did not ignore any formal or informal party of influence and stature to be addressed. we positively considered the various ideas and proposals and initiatives presented from many countries and parties. but all of these sincere efforts and endeavors undertaken by international parties were repeatedly smashed against the rock of the positions of the

israeli government which quickly dashed the hopes raised by the launch of negotiations last september. the core issue is that the israeli government refuses to commit to terms of reference for the negotiations based on international law and u.n. resolutions. and it emphatically continues to intensify building settlements on the territory of the future state of palestine. settlement activities embody the core of the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the palestinian people and all of their brutality, aggression, and racial discrimination against our people that this policy entails. this policy, which constitutes a breach of international

humanitarian law and u.n. resolution, is the primary cause for the failure of the peace process, the collapse of dozens of opportunities, and the burial of the great hopes that arose from the signing of the declaration of principle in 1993 between the palestine liberation organization and israel to achieve a just peace that would begin a new era for our region. the reports of united nations mission as well as reports by several israeli institutions and civil societies convey a terrific picture about the size of the settlement camping which the israeli government does not hesitate to boast about and which has continued to execute through the competition of the palestinian land and construction of thousands of new

settlement units in various areas of the west bank, particularly the arab parts of jerusalem and throughout the west bank and through the accelerated construction of the annexation wall that is eating up large parts of our land, dividing it into separate and isolated islands, destroying family life and communities and harming the livelihood of tens of thousands of families. the occupying power also continues to refuse issuing permits for our people to build in occupied east jerusalem. at the same time, it has intensified its decades-long campaign of the demolition of homes, displacing palestinian homeowners under a policy of

ethnic cleansing in debt pushing them away from their ancestral homeland. moreover, they have reached the point where orders have been issued to deport representatives from the city of jerusalem. the occupying power also continues to undertake excavations that threatened our holy places and military checkpoints prevent arab citizens from gaining access to their mosques and churches. it continues to besiege the whole city with a ring of settlements and with the annexation wall imposed to separate the holy city from the rest of the palestinian cities. the occupation is racing against time to reach the borders on our land, according to what it wants and to oppose a fait accompli on the ground that changes the

reality and undermines the realistic potential for the rise of the state of palestine. at the same time, the occupying power continues to pose a strict location and there are assassinations, airstrikes, and artillery shelling, persisting or regression of three years ago on the strip. it resulted in the massive destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques and thousands of dead and wounded. the on killing -- the occupying power continues encouraging occupation through raids, arrests, and killings add

checkpoints. in recent years, the criminal actions of our settler militias who enjoy the special protection of the occupation army, these actions have been testified with the perpetration of the actions you answer people, targeting their homes, schools, universities, mosques, fields, crops, and trees. today, they killed one palestinian who was peacefully protesting, despite repeated warnings. the yacht -- the israeli authorities have not acted to curb these acts and we hold them fully responsible for the crimes of the settlers. these are but a few examples of

the policy of the israeli colonial settlement occupation and this policy is responsible for the repeated failure of successive international attempts to target the peace process. this policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-state solution upon which there is an international consensus. and here i caution and a caution allowed that -- and caution aloud that this policy threatens to undermine the structure of the palestinian authority and its existence. in addition, we now face the imposition of new conditions that have not previously been raised, conditions that will

transform the region conflict in our inflamed region into a religious conflict and a threat to the future of the 1.5 million palestinians, citizens of israel, a matter which we reject and which is impossible for us to excepaccept. all the conditions in our country are a series of unilateral actions that came to entrench occupation. israel has reestablished the administrative and military authority in the west bank with unilateral decision and decided that is military authorities are the ones the determine the rights of any of the citizens, whether they're to reside in any

area palestinian land. and israel is the one who decides to confiscate our land and our water and to obstruct air movements as well as the movement's -- extra hour movements as well as the movement of goods unilaterally -- obstruct our movements as well as the movement of goods unilaterally. ,adies and gentlemen, and 197in4 hall.eader came to this fal [applause] and he assured the members of the general assembly of our

affirmative pursued for peace. here urged the united nations to realize an ineligible national rice of the palestinian people. he said do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. in 1988, president arafat spoke in geneva. he submitted the peace program adopted by the palestine national council. when we adopted this program, we were taking a painful and very difficult step for all of us. especially those, including myself, who were forced to leave their home and their towns and

villages, carrying only some of our belongings and our grief and are memories and the keys to our homes to camps of exile. in one of the worst operations of upgrading, destruction, and removal of a vibrant and cohesive society that had been contributing in the pioneering and cultural and economic renaissance of the arab middle east. yet because we believe in peace, and because of our conviction in international legitimacy and because we have the courage to make difficult decisions for our people and in the absence of absolute justice,

we decided to adopt relative justice, justice that was possible, a justice that could correct part of the great historical injustice committed against our people. thus, we agreed to establish the state of palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical palestine. by taking that historic step, which was welcomed by the states of the world, we made a major concession in order to achieve a historic compromise that would allow peace to be made in the land of peace. in the years that followed, from the madrid conference and the washington negotiations, leading to the oslo agreements, which was signed 18 years ago in the

white house garden and was linked with letters of mutual recognition between the palestine liberation organization and israel, we persevered and adult responsibly with all efforts aimed at the establishment of a lasting peace agreement. yet, as we said earlier, every initiative and every conference and every new round of negotiations and every movement was shattered on the rock of the israeli settlement expansion project. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, i confirm, on behalf of the palestine liberation organization, the sole legitimate drug presented to of of the palestinian people which

will remain so -- the sole legitimate representative of the palestinian people which will remain so -- i from the following. number one, the goal of the palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights and their independent state of palestine with these to jerusalem as its capital on all land of the west bank, including east jerusalem and the gaza strip, which is real -- which israel occupied with the achievement and a just and agree upon solution to the palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194 and stipulated in the arab peace initiative which presented the the consensus arab and islamic vision to resolve

the core of israeli conflict as to achieve a just and comprehensive peace that we are committed to and work towards. to this, we adhere and achieving desired peace requires the release of political prisoners and the prisoners of freedom and palestinian detainees in israeli prisons without delay. no. 2 -- the palestine liberation organization and the palestinian people adhere to the announcement of violence and reduction of -- production and condemnation of terrorism, in all of its forms, especially state terrorism and terrorism by

settlers and we did hear tool agreements signed between the plo and israel. third, we adhere to the options of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in accordance with resolutions of international legitimacy. hear, declare that the plo is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the basis of the adopted reference based on international legitimacy and on the basis of settlements. no. 3, our people will continue the resistance to occupation. we will continue the popular peaceful resistance to the ears really occupation and its settlement and apartheid policy and its construction of the racist annexation wall and

receive support for their resistance which is consistent with international humanitarian law and international convention and has the support of peace activists from israel and around the world reflecting an impressive, inspiring, and courageous example of the strength of this defenseless people, armed only with their dreams, courage, hope, and slogans in the face of bullets, tanks, tear gas, and bulldozers. when we bring our plight and case to this international podium, it is a confirmation of our reliance on the political and diplomatic option and is a confirmation that we do not undertake unilateral steps. our efforts are not aimed at isolating israel or

delegitimizing it. rather, we want to gain legitimacy for the cause of the people of palestine. we'll name to legitimize the senate -- to delegitimize the settlement activity and apartheid and the logic of ruthless force and we believe that all the countries of the world stand with us in this regard. i am here to save, behalf of the palestinian people and the palestine liberation organization, we extend our hand to the israeli government and the israeli people for peacemaking. i say to them, lettuce urgently build together -- let us urgently build together a future for our children where they can enjoy freedom, security, and prosperity. let us build the bridges of

dialogue instead of checkpoints and walls of separation. let us build cooperative relations based on currency and equity and friendship between two neighboring states, palestine and israel comments the policies of occupation, settlement, war, and eliminating the other. mr. president, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, despite the unquestionable right of our interest and to the independence of our state, as stipulated in international revolution, we have except in the past few years to engage in do we have accepted in the past few years to engage -- we have accepted in the last few years the stipulations. despite the occupation impose on

us, a serious expansion project was launched that included the implementation of plans to enhance and advance the judiciary, the apparatus for the maintenance of order and security, the development of administrative and financial oversight systems, upgrading the performance of institutions, and enhancing self reliance and ordered to reduce the need for foreign aid. with the thing full support of arab countries and donors from friendly countries, a number of large infrastructure projects have been implemented, focused on various aspects of services with special attention to rule and marginalized areas. ral and marginalized

here is. we have been strengthening what we have thought to be the future of our state, our future state. from the preservation of security for the citizens and public order, to the promotion of judicial authority and the rule of law to strengthening the roll of women and participation, protecting public freedom and society institutions, to institutionalizing rules and regulations for ensuring accountability and transparency in the work of our ministries and departments to entrenching the pillars of democracy as the basis for the palestinian political life. . when division struck the unity of our homeland, our families and our institutions, we were dedicated to engage in dialogue.

we succeeded in achieving national reconciliation and we hope that its implementation will be accelerated in the coming weeks. the core pillar of this reconciliation was to turn to the people for legislative and presidential elections to be conducted within a year. because the state we want will be a state characterized by the rule of law, the exercise of democracy, and with protection of freedom and equality of all citizens without any discrimination and the transfer of power through the ballot box. the reports issued recently by the ad hoc liaison committee, the united nations, the world bank, and the international

monetary fund we believe have confirmed and lauded what has been accomplished and has considered it a remarkable and unprecedented model. the consensus conclusion of the ad hoc liaison committee describe what has been accomplished and a "remarkable international success story" and confirmed the palestinian people and the restitution for their immediate independence for the state of palestine. that was the statement of the international community. i do not believe that anyone

with a shred of conscience can reject our application for a full membership in the united nations and red mission as an independent state -- and our admission as an independent state. [applause] mr. president, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is no longer possible to redress the issue of peace talks with the same means and methods that have repeatedly been tried and proven unsuccessful over the past year. the crisis is far too deep. it is far more dangerous to be

simply circumvented for its exclusion postponed. it is neither possible nor practical nor acceptable to return to conducting business as usual as if everything is fine. it is time to go into negotiations without clear parameters and in the absence of credibility and a specific timetable. negotiations will be meaningless as long as the occupation army on the ground continues to entrench its occupation instead of pulling back and continues to change the democracy of our country in order to create a new basis on which to augment the borders. this is totally unacceptable. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, this is a moment of truth. our people are waiting to hear the answer of the world. will it allow israel to continue the last occupation in the world? we're the last people to remain under occupation. willow world allow israel to watch -- will it allow israel to continue occupation? is it acceptable? mr. president, the heart of the crisis in our area is very

simple and obvious. either there are those who believe that we are an unnecessary people, and wanted people in the middle east or those who believe that, in fact, there is a missing state that needs to be established immediately. [applause] mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, i come before you today from the holy land, the land of palestine, a land of divine messages, ascension of the prophet mohammad, peace be upon him, and the birthplace of jesus christ, peace be upon him, to describe the plight of the palestinian people, and the homeland in the diaspora, to say that, after 63 years of suffering of an ongoing tragedy,

enough, enough, enough. [applause] it is time for the palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence. the time has come to end the suffering and the plight of millions of palestinian refugees in the homeland and in the diaspora, to end the displacement and to realize their rights, some of whom were forced to take refuge more than once in different places of the world. at a time when the arab people affirm their quest for democracy in what is now called the arab spring, the time has come also for the palestinian spring, the time for independence. [applause]

the time has come for our men, women, and children to live normal lives. for them to be able to sleep without waiting for the worst that the next day will bring. for mothers to be assured that their children will return home without fear of being killed, arrested, or humiliated. for students to be able to go to their schools and universities without checkpoints obstructing them. the time has come for sick people to be able to reach hospitals normally and for our farmers to be able to take care of their good land without fear of the occupation season land and its borders which the world prevents access to or the fear of the settlers.

-- fear of the settlers with their guard dogs who attack the palestinians. they up through the olive trees that existed in palestine for hundreds of years. the time has come for the thousands of prisoners of conscience and freedom to be released from the prisons, to return to their families and their children come to become a part of their homeland, for the freedom that they have sacrificed so much. my people desire to exercise their right to enjoy a normal life like the rest of humanity. they believe in what a great poet said -- "standing here,

staying here, permanent year, eternal here, -- permanent here, internal here, and we have one goal, one goal, one goal, and we shall be here." ladies and gentlemen, we profoundly appreciate in value the positions of all states that have supported our struggle and our rights and recognized the state of palestine following the declaration of independence in 1988 as well as the countries that have recently recognized the state of palestine and those that have had the representation of palestine in their capitals. i also appreciate ban ki-moon

who said that the palestinian state should have been established years ago. be assured that this support for our people is more valuable to them then you can imagine. it makes them feel that someone is listening to their narratives and not try to ignore their tragedy and the horrors in the occupation from which they have so suffered and it reinforces their hope that stems from the believe that justice is possible in this world. for the love of hope is the most ferocious enemy of -- the time

has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other people of the earth, in a sovereign and independent homeland. mr. president, i would like to inform you that, before delivering this statement, in my capacity as president of the state of palestine and chairman of the executive committee of the palate -- of the palestine liberation organization, i submitted to his excellency mr. ban ki-moon an application for

the admission of palestine on the basis of borders of june 4 1947 with jerusalem as its capital as a full member of the united nations. [applause] this is a copy of the application. [applause]

i call upon mr. secretary general to expedite transmittance of our quest to the security council and i call upon distinguished members of the security council to vote in favor of our full membership. i also appealed to the state to have not yet done so to recognize the state of palestine. ladies and gentlemen, the support of the countries of the world for our flood, it is time for true justice, law, and international legitimacy. it provides the chances of success of negotiations. your support for the establishment of the state of palestine and for its admission to the united nations as a full

member is the greatest contribution to peace making in the land of peace and throughout the world. mr. president, i have come here today carrying a message from a courageous and proud people. palestine is being reborn. this is my message. they all the people of the world stand with the people of palestine as it marches steadfastly through its appointment with history, with freedom, with independents right now. and i hope that we shall not wait for long. thank you all. [applause] >> israeli prime minister benjamin met in yahoo! is urging palestinian president

mahmoud abbas to meet with him. he said palestinians should first make peace with israel and then have their state. the prime minister says israel wants peace, but it cannot happen without direct negotiations. his remarks are about 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. i invite him to address the general assembly. >> thank you, mr. president. ladies and gentlemen, israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. on behalf of israel and the jewish people, i extend that hand again today.

i extended to the people of egypt and jordan with renewed friendship, with neighbors with whom we have made peace. i extended to the people of turkey with respect and good will. i extended to the people of libya and tunisia with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. i extended to the other peoples of north africa and the arabian peninsula with whom we want to forge a new beginning. i extended to the people of syria, lebanon, and iran with all it took courage of those fighting for repression. but most especially, i extend my

hand to the palestinian people with whom we seek and just and lasting peace. [applause] ladies and gentleman, in israel our hope for peace never wanes. our scientists, doctors, innovators, applied their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. our artists, our writers, in which the heritage of humanity. now, i know that this is not exactly the image of israel portrayed in this hall.

after all, it was here, 1975, that the age old yearning of my people, to restore the national alliance in our ancient homeland was when we were branded, rather shamefully, as racism. it was here, 1980, that the historic peace agreement between israel and egypt was not praised. it was announced. and it is here, year after year , that israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. singled out for condemnation

more often than all of the nations of the world combined. 21 out of the 27 general assembly resolutions condemning israel to one true democracy in the middle east. this is an unfortunate part. the u.n. constitution has become the theater of the absurd. it often casts real villains in leading roles, libya chairing the commission on human rights. the u.n. committee on disarmament headed by saddam hussein. you might say that that is the past, but this is what is happening now. today. lebanon presiding over the un

security council. meaning that the organization presiding over these world securities -- you could not make this thing up. here, in the united nations, automatic majorities can decide anything. they can decide if the sun sets in the west. or rises in the west. the first has already been determined. they can also decide -- they have decided, that the western wall in jerusalem, their holiest -- jerusalem as holiest place, is occupied palestinian territory. yet even here, in the general assembly, the truth and sometimes break through. in 1984, when i was appointed

ambassador to the united nations, i visited a great rabbi. he said to me, and ladies and gentlemen, i do not want any of you to be offended. personal experience in serving here, there are many hon. and capable men and women serving their nations here. here is what he said to me. he said that you will be serving in a house of many lives. and then he said -- remember, that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide. today i hope that the light of truth with cheyenne, if only for a few minutes. in a hall that, for too long, has been a place of darkness for my people. i did not come here to win

applause. i came here to speak the truth. [applause] the truth is that israel wants peace. the truth is, that i want peace. the truth is, that in the middle east and at all times, but especially during these days, peace must be anchored in security. the truth is that we cannot achieve peace through united nations resolution. only through direct negotiations between the parties. so far the palestinians have refused to negotiate. the truth is that israel wants peace with a palestinian state. the palestinians want a state without peace. the truth is, you should not let that happen.

ladies and gentlemen, when i first came here, 27 years ago, the world was divided between east and west. since then, the cold war ended. great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber. how the -- hundreds of millions of risen from poverty. countless more are poised to follow. the remarkable thing is that so far, this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. yet, of malignancy is now growing between east and west. it threatens the peace of all. it seeks not to liberate, but to enslave. not to build, but to destroy. that malignancy is militant islam.

it cloaks itself in the mantle of a great state, but it murders, christians, and muslims alike, with unforgiving impartiality. on september 11, it killed thousands of americans. it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. last night, i laid a wreath of the 9/11 memorial. it was deeply moving. but i was going there. the outrageous words of the president of iran yesterday, when he implied that 9/11 was an american conspiracy.

some of you left to this call. all of you should have. [applause] since 9/11, militant islam has slaughtered countless other innocents. in london. in madrid. in mumbai. televisa, jerusalem, and every part of israel. i believe that the greatest danger failed -- facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself. this is precisely what iran is trying to do. imagine that man, who rented here yesterday, can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? the international community must stop iran before it is too late.

if iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism. it could become an iranian winter. that would be a crisis. millions of arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty. no one would benefit more than israel if those who were committed to peace and freedom were to prevail. this is my fervent hope. but the prime minister of israel, i cannot risk the future of the jewish state on wishful thinking. leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. we must do our best to shape the future. but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present. to live around israel, it is

definitely becoming more dangerous. militant islam has already taken over lebanon and gaza. it has threatened to tear apart the peace treaties, poisoning many arab alliance against the west. opposing out the policies of israel, but the existence of israel. and especially in these turbulent times, israel must make territorial compromises. this theory is simple. it goes like this. the for territory and peace will be events.

-- leave the territory and peace will be advanced. do not worry about the details of how peace with israel will defend itself. international troops will do the job. everything will work out. there is only one problem with that theory. we have tried it. and it has not worked. in 2000, israel made a sweeping peace officer of that met all of the palestinian demands. palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed 1000 israeli lives. afterwards, the prime minister made a more sweeping offer in 2008.

but israel did more than make sweeping offers. we actually left territories. we withdrew from lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of gaza in 2005. that did not calm the islamic storm. the militant islamic storm that threatens us. it only brought the storm closer in and made it stronger. firing thousands of rockets from the territories that we vacated. the moderates did not defeat the radicals. the moderates were devoured by the radicals. i regret to say that international troops did not stop the radicals from attacking

israel. we left gaza hoping for peace. we did not freeze the settlements. we did exactly what they said. get out. go back to the 1967 borders. dismantle the settlements. and i do not think that people remember how far we went to achieve this. we pulled children out of their schools and kindergartens. we even move the loved ones. -- we even moved loved ones from their graves. then, having done all of that, we gave the keys to president of

loss. the theory says, that it should all work out. president of boston and the palestinian authority bowed to -- president of boss and the palestinian authority without -- and thent of boabbas palestinian authority without it to withdraw. a bold act of peace. but ladies and gentlemen, we did not get peace. we got more. we got iran. which through its proxy, hamas, and promptly picked up the palestinian authority. authority collapsed within one day. saids ent o

that they are armed only with hopes and dreams. yes, hopes, dreams, 10,000 missiles and ground rocket supplied by run. not to mention the legal weapons coming from libya. thousands of missiles have rained down on our citizens. given all of this, you might understand, is rarely is rightly ask, what is to prevent this from happening again in the west bank. most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from gaza.

opposite of the west bank, most of our cities far away from the edge. i want to ask, would any of you bring danger so close to your cities? your families? would you ask recklessly to play with the lives of your citizens? israel is prepared to have a palestinian state in the west bank, but we are not prepared to have another gaza there. that is why we need a real peace with palestinians but simply refuse to negotiate with us. they irresponsibly and buys israel to go down the same perilous path again.

you read what these people say and it is as if nothing happened. secret meetings, as though none of this happened. critics continue to press israel for concessions without first being assured of israel's security. baekeland of those who unwittingly seek [unintelligible] as bold statesmen. those of us but insist that we must erected barrier to keep a croc about, or jam an iron bar between the bars. so, israel must he better advice.

better it bad press that a good eulogy. better still would be a fair press, whose sense of history extends beyond records and which recognizes israel's legitimate security concerns. i believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed. but they will not be addressed without negotiation. and the needs of many. because israel is such a tiny country. without the west bank, israel is all of 9 miles wide. i want to put it for you in perspective. that is about two-thirds the length of manhattan it is the distance between battery park and columbia university. do not forget that the people in brooklyn and new jersey are

considerably nicer and some of israel's neighbors. how do you protect such a tiny country? surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by iran? obviously, you cannot defend it within that narrow space alone. israel needs narrow were strategic depth. which is exactly why security council resolution 242 but not require israel to leave all the territories that a captured. they talked about withdrawal from the territories to secure the defense of all boundaries. and to defend itself, israel must therefore maintain a long- term israeli military presence in critical, strategic areas in the west bank. i explained this to president of

abbas. he answered that if a palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such. why not? america has had troops in japan, germany, and correa for half of this century. france has forces in three independent african nations. none of these states claim that they are not sovereign countries. there are other vital security issues. take the issue of their space. again, israel's small dimensions create huge security problems. america can be crossed by a jet airplane in six hours. to fly across israel, it takes three minutes.

is israel's tiny air space to be chopped in half been given to a palestinian state not at peace with israel? a few kilometers away from the west bank, without peace, with our planes become targets for anti-aircraft missiles placed in the adjacent state? how will we stop the smuggling into the west bank? not really the west bank, but the west bank mountains, dominating the coastal plain where most of the population sits below. how can we prevent smuggling into these mountains? i bring up these problems not because they are theoretical problems, they are very real.

for israel, they are life and death matters. all of these potential cracks have to be fielded in a peace agreement before the state is addressed. if you believe it until afterwards, they will not be there. these problems would explode in our face. palestinians should first make peace with israel. and then get their state. i also want to tell you this. after such a peace agreement is signed, israel will not be the last country to welcome a palestinian state as a new member of the united nations. we will be the first. [applause]

and there is one more thing. hamas has been violating international law by holding soldiers captive. they have not given one red cross visit to a single soldier against all international norms. he is the grandson of a holocaust survivor, who escaped in the 1930's. he is the son of as -- every israeli family. every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. [laughter] [applause]

[applause] if you want to pass a resolution about the middle east today, that is the resolution we should pass. ladies and gentlemen, last year in israel, in [unintelligible] university, this year in u.s. congress, i laid out my vision for peace in a demilitarized palestinian state that recognizes the jewish state. yes, the jewish state. after all, this is the body that recognized the jewish state 64 years ago. i think it is time that palestinians to the same. the jewish state of israel will

always protect the rights of all of its minorities. including the 1 million arab citizens of israel. i wish that i could say the same thing about a future palestinian state. as palestinian officials made clear the other day, here in new york, they said that the palestinian state the amount allowed in each used in -- allow any jews in it. jew free. that is ethnic cleansing. there are laws there today that make the selling of land to je ws punishable by death. that is racism.

israel has no intention, whatsoever, to change the democratic character of our state. we just do not want the palestinians to try to change the jewish character of our state. [applause] we wanted to give up the fantasy of flooding israel with millions of palestinians. president abbas stood here and said that the core of a conflict was the settlement. but our conflict has been raging for nearly half of this century. before there was a single israeli settlement in the west bank. so, if what he is saying is true, then i guess the

settlement he is talking about jaifa, bujerba. maybe that is what he meant the other day when he said that israel has been occupying palestinian man for 63 years. he did not say from 1957. he said from 1948. i hope that someone will bother to rest in this question. because it illustrates a simple truth. -- to ask him this question. because it illustrates a simple truth. settlements are a result of a conflict. settlements have to be -- it is an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. the core of the conflict has always been, and unfortunately

remains, the refusal of palestinians to recognize the jewish state and in any border. it is time that the palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized. from lord george to president truman, even president obama yesterday, israel is the jewish state. [applause] abbas -- president abbas, stop walking around this issue. make peace with us. in such a generous peace, we are compared to make painful compromises. we believe that palestinians should be neither citizens or subjects of israel. they should live in a free state

of the road. they should be ready, like us, for compromise. we will know that they are ready for a compromise and a piece when they start taking israeli security seriously. when they stop denying our connection to our attention homeland. i often hear them accusing israel of jewilizing jerusalem. it is like using the british of anglicizing london. do you know why we are called jews bellow become from judea. in my office -- jews? because we come from judea. in my office there is a seal that was found next to the western wall. it dates back 2700 years. there is a name of the jewish

official inscribed on the ring. in hebrew. his name was netanyahu. that's my last name. by first name, benjamin, dates back 1000 years earlier, to the son of jacob, also known as israel. he and his first son roamed these famous fills 4000 years ago. there has been a continuous jewish presence in the land ever since. for those that were exiled, they never stopped dreaming of coming back. spain on the eve of their expulsion. in the ukraine. fighting in the warsaw ghetto. they never stopped praying.

they never stop learning. they whispered -- next year, in jerusalem. next year, in the promised land. [applause] as the prime minister of israel , i speak for 100 generations of s, who were dispersed throughout the lands, the suffered every evil under the sun. whenever give up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only jewish state. ladies and gentlemen, i continue to hope that president abbas will be live partner in peace. i have worked hard to advance that peace. the day that i came to office, i

called for direct negotiations without preconditions. president abbas did not respond. i about mind a vision of two states, for two people. he still did not respond. i remove hundreds of roadblocks to ease movement, facilitating fantastic growth in palestine. again, no response. i took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in settlements. no prime minister did that before ever. you applaud, but there was no response. no response. in the last few weeks, american officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. there were things in those ideas

about borders that i did not like. there were things they're about the jewish state that i am sure that the palestinians did not like. but with all of my reservations, i was willing to move forward on these american ideas. president abbas, why do you not join me? we have to start negotiating about negotiations. let's get on with it. let's negotiate peace. [applause] i spent years defending israel on the battlefield. i spent decades defending israel in the quarter public opinion. president abbas, you have that a

kid your life to advancing the palestinian cause. but this conflict has continued for generations. will be enable our children and grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? that is what we should aim for. that is what i believe that we can achieve. in 2.5 years, we met in jerusalem only once, even though my door is always open to you. if you wish, i will come to ramallah. i have a better suggestion. we have both just flown thousands of miles to new york. now we are in the same city. we are in the same building. today, in thee united nations. [applause]

who is there to stop us? if we generally want peace, what is there to stop us? i suggest that we talked openly, honestly. let's listen to each other. in the middle east, as we said, let's talk [unintelligible] that means a straightforward. i will tell you my needs and concerns. you will tell me yours. with god's help, we will find common ground of peace. [applause] there is an old arab saying, you cannot applaud with one hand. the same is true peace. i cannot make peace alone.

i cannot make peace without you. president abbas, i extend my hand, the hand of israel, in peace. i hope the two of breast that. we are both of the sons of abraham. we share the same patriarch. we dwell in the same land. our destiny is intertwined. let us realize our destiny. that the people who walk in darkness will see a great light. let that might be the light of peace. >> in a speech to the u.s. general assembly -- united nations general assembly, jalal talabani says that he endorses

the path for full recognition by the u.n.. his remarks are about 20 minutes. >> allow me to congratulate you, and our brothers, on the occasion of your presidency in this 66th session of the general assembly. we have confidence that your experience and wisdom will be an important factor in the success of the general assembly. thank you also to your predecessor, for his presidency of the general assembly.

i would also like to congratulate the un secretary general on his latest collection as secretary general, wishing him all of the best in his work. it is an honor to stand before you one more time, to work with you on these multiple developments. on this modern state working for peace with its people and neighbors. iraqi is building a homeland where everyone lives in peace and stability, regardless of ethnic iterations. where a human rights are respected. a system that is based on democracy and the peaceful transition of power.

this is the basis on which we embarked. currently taking place in the arab region, the righteousness of the path forward has been proven. proven. the message of change are what iraq will always call for, becoming an essential part of the aspirations of our people and their ability to choose their political system. the system based on democracy and human rights. we have come a long way in the political system. iraq has begun to restore elements of strength. internal and extra war that was

conducted as part of the isolation that was experienced. strife threatened at the national existence. also, the collapse of the former regime, we began to uncover ethnic activity that became history thanks to the international community. having made these improvements on the security situation in iraq, through the years of 2010 to 2014, the great government of iraq emphasized in in 2010, the last thing that we needed, licensing. oil and natural gas investments

improves our own industry. pushing the economy to those advance levels. the trend women -- include about 2700 projects. the cost -- the plan will provide 4 million job opportunities. it is hoped that by the end of this plan, the capital income of the iraqi citizens would increase to $8,000 per year. additionally, we were able to get rid of the jurisdictions imposed on iraq as a result of the invasion of kuwait.

adopted on the 15th of december, 2010. iran has been the british completely from the restrictions forced on it. restrictions forced on it. iraq has claimed sovereignty over its financial resources. the road to democracy and development is where our opening of the doors comes wide open. therefore, economic policy is based on encouraging investments for legislative environments so that iraq can become safely invested in such

as oil, natural gas, electricity, and electronics sectors. collaborating with iraq in the field of investment, taking advantage of the field of opportunities. iraq has seen important investments in construction, economic culture, and other access. things that were destroyed by the former regime were rebuilt. the region has more than 15 public and private universities. more than 100,000 students. our one university under 2000 students, at the end of this year the united states will distraught in accordance to the agreements.

during this year, our security forces proved a great ability to combat terrorism. our forces are proficient in withdrawing the vacuum created by the united states forces. promoting the iraqi ability to achieve the new iraq. however, the need pushes the however, the need pushes the government of iraq to keep numbers of experts and others to benefit from their experience in the case of training and capital city building in according with the needs of her back. on this occasion, i would like to express, on behalf of the government of iraq, that the government and people of iraq are thankful and appreciative for the united states and others.

who provided assistance to the iraqi people and government. i avail myself of their being here in new york to express to the people of new york and all americans, the feelings of sympathy and solidarity on this anniversary of the terrorist attacks in september, the 11th of september. the constitution of iraq and national programs, the iraqi government determined the general basis of our finance policies, proving that iraq is in effect of not -- an effective member, also being a member of the islamic world. working to hold the arab summit at the end of march, 2012. moreover, iraq expects the moreover, iraq expects the principles submitted into

internal affairs. establishing relations on the basis of common interest, respecting its international respecting its international obligations , which is why we invited the two neighbors to solve the issues and stop farming areas that are causing many victims of monks in this and civilians. myself, i would like to take this opportunity to thank for the release of the prisoners in iran.

the constitution was clear in the determination of iraq in the resolution of this issue. item nine e, international obligations in the non-use of chemical and biological weapons. associated to the craft materials for the production of such weapons. on this position and commitment of a rock concerning -- iraq concerning disarmament, december 15, 2010, 1957. 15, 2010, 1957. power and technology, according

to the rules and rhythms of international convention, constituting one of the foundation's of the armaments system and non-proliferation. with regard to the nuclear with regard to the nuclear issue, we believe that the use of nuclear energy for of nuclear energy for international instruments that dialogue and, diplomacy of the best ways to achieve this goal.

regarding security at great risk, and the tragic situation practices are incompatible. iraq is doing everything in its power to support the struggle of its people in getting all of their inalienable rights to establish independence on its homeland. homeland. in this regard, iraq endorses and supports the united nations. the palestinian states, during a meeting of the car -- current session, all of these loving forces in the political struggle achieved its goal from

all of the arab territories occupied in 1967. occupied in 1967. crucial to achieving stability, putting its nuclear facilities under a safeguards system, the countries of the arab world are witnessing significant development that is unprecedented with political changes and will extend to areas beyond their effects. beyond their effects. supporting the struggle of the people of the region, choosing

their political system, the right for peaceful demonstration, and the so-called arab spring. we hope that these changes will continue through regional stability other countries of the region strive for international cooperation. the othersding where the governed political process and reconstruction, and the united states of america, mentioning these two parties. because we are linked by mechanisms of action that should be implemented. be implemented. we will remember this, following

the withdrawal of united states forces by the end of this year. an agreement, signed between the countries in 2008. covering all aspects of life. after finishing the partnership and cooperation agreements between iraq, the european union, and possible signing of the agreements in the near future, the understanding of the strategic partnership and cooperation between both parties, covered by this

agreement. economic and political relations with the people's republic of china, arab countries, india, and pakistan. our relationship with the united nations will continue in the forefront of the security council and will keep the commitments we have made. i would like to express appreciation throughout his time in iraq. i wish him success in good health. i welcome the new secretary- general. general. we will continue to operate with him in a way that will enable him to carry out his resolution

1770. receiving all forms of support and assistance during the next phase, we will do our utmost. mr. president, with the forward with confidence and optimism to the future. we want to make iraq and emerging democracy. the country that brings with the richness and human resources. importance to the regional prosperity. different ethnic and sectarian groups. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we plan to bring you more the march from world leaders this week, here on the c-span network. >> you do not play politics at a time of national crisis. given up by politics with the economy. and you never play politics with people's jobs. >> watched the british deputy prime minister, tonight at -- on c-span. in the weeks ahead, party conferences with david cameron. >> we will get an update on the training of afghanistan's security with a tenant general, william caldwell. live tomorrow, 10:30 in the morning, on c-span.

>> aside from doing the deal, you have to do and education campaign -- campaign. you have to have a president willing to show what the facts are. >> but think that the american people need to be educated.

they need to be a part of the discussion. they need to know how severe the problems are and why they're going to have to come up with some frankly painful solutions. once they know the facts, the average american is very sensible and needs sensible plans to deal with the problem. >> and i think that the american public understands that we have a tough challenge concerning the cit -- to do it in a productive and successful way. >> if you tell people what you're doing it, and you explain the process of how you got to the numbers of the decision that you were making, they will respect the process. they will respect you.

>> the question is, will he do in a pre-emptive and prudent manner? or will there be a crisis on our doorstep in which they take dramatic actions to stabilize the markets and restore stability? >> everyone, from each party, has to give something. is it not about doing what we need to do for the future of our children and grandchildren being better than the one that we had? >> i choose to be obstinately optimistic.

disciplining ourselves in the future, even though apple and companies like it, they have demonstrated many times that consumers do not know exactly what excites them. the common sense, persuasive program that has economic co. i look forward to the day when people have been able to summon the courage for americans and their programs [unintelligible] >> i think that they go big approach is easier than they go small approach. you get one interest versus another.

if you go big in this model of 1986 tax reform, you have these interests going against each other. resisting the cries of 1 million angry interest groups. if you goyou win over the peoplt simplicity in the tax code and our budget. the people are willing to say that everyone has taken a hit, they will be a lot more willing to go along with you than if they say, i am taking a hit but they are not. >> they know we are living beyond our means. they know we cannot grow or cut our way out. we cannot tax our way out. we need to put everything on the

table. everybody needs to be at the table and we need comprehensive reform to social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, and other spending as well as comprehensive tax reform. we need it soon because the clock is ticking and time is not working in our favor. >> to members of both parties come you were elected to make tough decisions come elected to provide leadership in these tough times. you are being put to the test and it is critically important that you work together. in fact, you have to watch each other's back. this should not have become an insolvable problem. if the super-committee fails to me you will have failed the congress and our country. >> we have taken the country to

a press because of default on our debt. i have spoken to numerous business leaders, large and small, and have indicated to me that the success of a debt reduction committee is critical if they want confidence in america's ability to keep our economy growing and maintain fiscal stability. >> ok. we will now turn to the second panel if the first was not filled with in of all stars. this one is. why will quickly go down. we have and the stern, the senior research fellow that was on the fiscal commission. pete domenici. dave mccurdy president of

american gas association. former chairman of the committee and charles kolb. sometimes people can stand in the way to have it harder to make a big budget deal. what is the public's response? many of these people have been out there talking to people and listening to how they respond to different proposals. but that is something we hope to get out of this rich discussion. if you want to talk about the first couple of questions? >> in terms of the public, given the debate we have seen over the some symbols -- simpson bowles and others, is the american

public ready for what you will come up with, potentially $1.50 of a cut, or the idea of going big. andy, i will start with you, are the american people ready for the stock price? [unintelligible] >> they are tired of it. it has gone on too long. we needed to the issues important to them, they are more concerned about their particular area, so i think they are as ready as they will ever be. this is about making the tough choices and moving on. >> senator domenici, is the public ready for this? >> i am of two minds. i will let the part that i think

is more realistic answer. i do not think they are because of one major thing. the biggest special interest, believe it or not, are the senior citizens and of the aarp membership. it is the biggest lobbying group, without question. some people say it is not fair and that they are not a lobbying group, but they are. they're difficult to be if they are dead set against the. where are they? from my standpoint, we have it some more education to do. it is very targeted. they have a lot of information from public american in the last six months. they do not understand yet that the program they're going to

participate in it or will participate in, medicare, they do not understand that there is something basically going wrong with the program, so they're still of the opinion that when you say we're going to change the program to save money they say, "why? it is my program and i paid for it." until we have a far more saying, "we understand it is our program but america has not paid for it yet and we will listen to how you might fix it." until we get there with a few more million people, we will have a tough time getting around it, the biggest most powerful lobbying group around, the seniors and retired people. >> mr. novelli, your own thoughts? >> the public is not ready in there are several reasons for

this. the public is too busy being worried and scared. this whole business about jobs and under-employment, people moving back in with their relatives, all of the different things we see going on with our faltering economy is what is grappling with the public. these issues in the first panel showed us that these issues are so complicated and difficult for the policy people to grasp that it is very hard for the average citizen the figure out what is going on. the third thing is they see this to fight in washington and they want to wash their hands of it. finally, we are coming in to an election season and they're getting all this conflicting information, all of the sound bites. if you add all of this up, you have a public that is not ready, but this is all the more reason to go big. we cannot do this in fights and

anchorman's. we cannot keep coming back to the trough. we need to get the public engaged come and get them honest information, and we needed to lead. that is the policy makers, people in the state capital, that is what they need to do. the public is not ready. they would be supportive but we could do a good job of bringing them along. we have to take advantage of the election season and not run away from it. >> dave mccurdy then john spratt, two former members of congress. what is your take? >> we have to go big because i do not think there is an alternative. to do that, we sold two things. one coming you provide economic certainty and a roadmap to the future for both the job growth

and foreign industry to invest. you also have a chance to restore confidence. the political system and there is absolutely none today. the irony, and i think erskine said it properly, is that there is a better opportunity to go big and better comprehensive than there is to go small. everyone has to have skin in the game and it seen as being part of the solution. in our experience, that is the only way you can have a big move like this. the business sector want predictability, certainty, a level playing field, but they also want to see congress and the administration rise above partisanship and provide solutions. the biggest fear i have, and it has changed a lot in this town, is probably because of digital

technology, media, and the rhetoric, but we're losing our capacity for strategic thinking and acting. leaders have to step up and move beyond the horizon. in the short term, we are in the food fight. we all understand that if there is a fair process that we will not have an opportunity to affected. >> john spratt? >> when you take home the tax code, this spending coat, entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense, you will see special interest swarming capitol hill. it is extremely important that as we move forward the country moves with it. we have yet to do the job of

explaining to them what is at stake and what it will mean to the average american taxpayer. we need not just to inform but to galvanize. there's a lot of sentiment in this country that is strongly concerned. where i come from, and i think dave will tell you the same about oklahoma, but people are concerned about that. they can look at what is happening to each and it there's no question that a great deal of concern. they're not ready yet for if they can solve this problem. it took us four different settings come four multi-year plans between the balanced budget agreement to bring the balanced budget in the bush years. that is just an indication of a much more tractable that this than today. it still took us four plans to

resolve it. i think we should be thinking about getting certain things done seriously, one step back for another. >> the one thing you'll know when pete and i talk, when we were in congress we talked about billions, not trillions. it is a different discussion today, a different dynamic. >> and i have only been out three years. [laughter] >> normally i am an optimist, but this time i will answer the question no. i do not think the public is ready or the congress. first of all, everywhere you look in this country, you see a people addicted to short-term. you see this reflected in the obesity epidemic. we cannot make investment puts -- decisions when it comes to

eating. we over consume and we do not exercise. we have a short term-ism problem and we do not yet have the leadership to turn this around. with regards to the congress, i want to make a point that i do not think has come out today. i think it will be very difficult for us to fix this until we take a hard look at the way money comes into our political system, campaign finance reform. look at what happened at the last time the carried interest world came up to the chopping block in the special interests came after that issue within seconds. i think if we're serious about this, if the congress is serious about this, we have to take a look at what is coming into the system and it is a whole lot worse now in the wake of the citizens united case. 28 years ago, i went to work in the federal government and the

first cabinet member i met is sitting here in the front row, dave stockton from the omb. when he left the government, he wrote a book that became a best- seller. i hope is still available in print on on kindle. it is the basis of the comments he made in the previous panel. i am skeptical. i'm not sure the country is ready for it yet. it is making a much harder for men and women, republicans and democrats, to come together. the financing of our political system has led to increased leverage and polarization among our elected representatives. >> great points made by all.

i want to pick up on where you were, charlie. i am struck that we a people with backgrounds from labor, aarp, business, and a few former chairman of the budget committee, which to take advantage of this group of the prospective is, but i disagree that the public is not necessarily ready to go big. i think what frustrates the public so much is that there are these huge skirmishes. the public realizes that there will be huge skirmishes involved. there were like there to be a successful landing this time. i think congress may not be ready. one question we are thinking about is if there is a way to change the tone and the allow

the leaders in congress to know that there is a widespread group of leaders and the public that actually do want them to make the tough choices. when i see these people making a case to go big, it is powerful. how would you help the super committee get over this hump of being willing to do something that is incredibly hard? senator domenici? can you put your microphone on? >> i came in with this chart. i am for going bad because i think it is just as hard to go big thing to do it lesser or smaller. -- i am forgoing big. i know this will exempt the rules. from this day forward, anyone

who invites me is going to have this sign with me. this will be a part of the discussion of our problems, one way or another. you can see this blue line and understand. if i give it to you, i cannot do this, but the blue line is health care. the other are major federal expenditures. they're not under control under anyone's budget. look up the one that is out of control -- health care. do you see this blue line? do you see the blue line? you citizens who are listening and want to be leaders to fix the problem, the president, this

group, whomever, take your budget, go to the cbo, and tell them to turn that blue line down. it may be in 15 or 20 years. if it does not, tell them to go back to the drawing board and start over because they do not have a realistic budget. i will not keep up any longer. that is the case on how you solve this problem. it is without which there is no appropriate answer, without which there can be no answer. i am a republican, but i'm not afraid to say that everything should be on the table, literally. i think when you're immediately say, people are almost jumping

with joy that you can tax people more. i'm not that kind of person in terms of new revenues, but i do believe you need to restrain the growth of government than do need to do something about the revenue base. you must do something about this blue line or you will just be dumping taxes forever into a growing government and it will go up to 35% of gdp. having said that, i want to say two other things. i am convinced as one who has been working 25 years and i have seen in three or four balanced budgets and i am proud of it. he had a magic asterisk. heat balance the budget with an asterisk.

having said that, there is no question in my mind that we must convince the american people that the future of this republic is dependent upon us fixing this problem. if we do not thickset so that we have a sustainable situation in terms of measuring the amount of our gdp that we consume, if we do not do that, we will not be the type of country we are today in 25-30 years. we will be a lesser light on the horizon of countries in the world and we will not have much for ourselves and the it will be a vibrant feature of our children. it will not be that they have to pay our bills, but that they will inherit a second-rate

country instead of a first-rate country with dreams. if that is not worth working for, i do not know what is. i am getting old, but if they asked me to come, i will bring my chart and tell you to fix health care costs so government does not have to pay that much and the rest will fall in line. that should tell you something because nobody yet has submitted a budget that touches health care. what about the president? but these do not make me say much about the president other than to say nobody submitted a budget that takes care of or even comes close to touching the health-care problem. i do not know why, but i believe they're scared to do it. when we had to take a vote on social security when i wish chairman, and everybody decided we would like to do that, i

insisted that they all vote together. when we say how are we voting, you all put up your hands together so no one can accuse anybody of the voting first. if you vote first on that, they will run ads on you that you started all of this and therefore you should not have your seat. it is that difficult. in other words, i invented a word called simultanean. we have to have the people together for the tough issues. they have to be together and vote simultaneously so that the burden is shared. everything is on the table, the burden shared by all on everything and anything. >> senator domenici, i will say two things. i feel bad for everyone else

when i tell them they could not bring charts. i think everyone should look at the proposal that you and rivlin put out on health care reform. you put forth what i think is one of the most cutting edge approaches to thinking about controlling the cost of health care in the long term. i direct people to your report to see some of the details in your report. >> i made a mistake in not telling you that it is done. it is in the domenici-rivlin budget because we do have a good reform the health-care system. it would not start for a number of years. >> charlie? >> we have made it clear that we support savings.

we also need to look at the defense portion of the budget. at the committee and members do that, we will support it, work on it, and tried to get business leaders to come in. we worked very closely. this was as a result of one of the early tea party actions. the need to help strengthen the

backbone of the members of congress. they're trying to pick off the very people we need to provide a centrist solution. >> i would just say that is very logical and history has proven that through the last three major issues that bill and i and others have a bipartisan group of people to deal with the issue, business, labour, the seniors, and yet we failed miserably to create a bipartisan backbone for people to act. on the debt ceiling, on everyone was saying we could not walk off the cliff of a debt ceiling and there were very few people said we should just let it drift and see what happens. we have seen in other cases, which we can go through, where there's lots of bipartisan support.

it is a precondition to do this, because you cannot have everybody not for it, but i do not think it is efficient. there is a sad lesson to be learned or informative lesson that when people run against you in the primary and when people take your job away around a certain issue, it grabs everyone's attention. >> i wonder if the political moment has or is changing. over the summer, i felt like there was a difference. there has been a bipartisan report for tough choices looking at those 36 senators standing next to each other and announcing they felt we should go big, it seems like the moment may be changing. i add that to the question about how we could help the super committee do their work. [unintelligible]

>> i had the privilege of the serving on the domenici-rivlin test. it took two meetings and they are points that they can understand very readily. the problem is way more serious than others think. this is not some trivial issue. there's no escaping the fact that we need a balanced approach. we need to do spending cuts in the whole thing. the public can be made to understand this. in order to do this, everything does need to be on the table.

those are messages that we can convey. when we went out and did town hall meetings everywhere on social security, we basically said here are five or six ways to really address the benefits. we want you to figure it out and tell us what you think. but we can get the public understand the three basic points and engage, we can sway public attitude which will have a big effect on how congress acts. >> to answer the question, but there is a different political moment here.

congress may have actually backed into a solution because the fiasco of the the debt ceiling created a mechanism that we have not had. the only analogous situation was everyone wanted to protect their military bases in their district and the only way we could force a collective decision to make tough choices and decisions was to form the brac. this super committee is similar and gives you an up or down vote, a majority. there is an earnest approach on this right now reaching out with the business community to build support for going big. again it, it has to be big and

include everything. it has to have the $4 trillion or the curve, sustainable. we need entitlement reform because arena where the largest part of the budget is. there needs to be simplifications of the tax code. part of the tax code will not produce all the revenues that people are talking about. there are people on this super committee who are believed will have the coverage to do this is business and other groups recognize there is no other option. i believe we can change that momentum. >> let me pick up on that if i could. there's a conspiracy theory out there that there are special interest groups that may have a bet -- a vested interest in seeing a super-committee fail. but these cuts would be less

painful for their various interests than with the super- committee would come up with or what "going big" would mean. >> i spent the last 15 years in the business community, and i have not seen that conspiracy theory. manufacturing, energy, high- tech, financials, they all realize that failure is not an option. just going at the level of the mandate from this panel is a failure because the debt will be larger at the end of this process than they went in with. in order to reverse this come we have seen the downgrade of greece, the downgrade of our own debt. we survived as american businesses when our consumers, customers, fellow citizens drive. -- thrive.

we cannot thrive with the cost of doing business, regulation, and all of these. we need to clean the slate and say now is the time for a fresh start. in the 30 years i've been in washington, this is one of those points of the country. when you talk to politicians individually they say yes, but only if they are involved. you have to kind of jump off of the cliff collectively. he talked about simultanaeity. we will suspend parochial interests but the national interests first assuming that people demonstrate the way. >> a couple of nights ago we heard the former secretary of

state and former secretary george shultz speak. i want to share his comments because i do not think it has been shared in the press. he was talking about some of these things and he was talking about the famous presidential line, "ask not with the congress 10 years from now will spend, ask what the congress will spend this year and next." i would be more optimistic about the long-term effect of the congress was able to do the things they were able to do every year. there will be discussions about another shutdown crisis. i am an optimist and i want to think and act big, but the congress, to distinguish itself with the lowest public approval rating in its history needs to get its act together before the end of september. they can spend -- send a sign

right now without waiting that they are serious about doing the things they need to do every year. >> andy, can i get you to weigh in on the special interests side? you served on the simpson- bowles and did not vote on it. now that the super-committee busier coming you're advocating going big now. your thoughts on the challenges confronting them and how they may deal with them differently than the simpson-bowles. >> even the people who had disagreements always agreed we needed to go big. i will just say that we all made a mistake. that was the best opportunity at

a moment of history to do something and it probably could have spent more time having it work for all of us. what were we all thinking that things are going to get better when they just keep getting worse? to me, the recommendation is it you think it will get better, it will only get worse. for people like me, we have to solve this problem to diminish suffering in do what erskine bowles said and make sure the people with the least do not hurt the most. the longer we wait, the longer it hurts everybody. >> having served for 28 years, there has been dodging and

ducking of the serious issues. if you will recall 1997, we got together with erskine bowles who had just come to the white house and we wanted to finish the balancing effort. we worked together. it succeeded that year because everybody leaned into the problem. there was only one democratic leader who lacked enthusiasm and the rest of us were all leading into the problem and the president supported us fully. every time we met, his team was in the room. this was not some sort of scholastic debate but an actual meeting where decisions are made

and in the and we put together something that balance the budget for the first time in 30 years. then we paid top $400 billion in the national debt. >> are you optimistic about the structure of the super committee and its time line? >> there timeframe is tighter than ours, but that is ok as i mentioned a minute ago, these problems are a lot more difficult than they were. this committee has a great opportunity and they can do it, but not without the leadership supporting it. this is just a way of kicking the can down the road. you will only be able to dodge and dock for so long before it ended in your lap and you have

to make a decision. >> i think the problem would be insurmountable if they had addressed it in the regular order. we have seen it demonstrated over the past decade or two that in the regular order they are not able to do it. we have had panels and recommendations that took the time to provide us with a road map, but domenici, rivlin, simpson, bowles, whatever. it is a question of leadership. how do tax reform in relation to this? it has to be a multi-step approach. you can set goals, set the parameters, and then say the committee have a certain time to do it. we always say we cannot ride and

guide it, but they can but the parameters in and they can force the administration to step forward if they can seem that a majority supports this in a single vote going before the congress because it will be the most historic vote, other than more -- war, n history. step up, do not fall short, go big, and we will have your back. it will not be easy, but we have to do it. >> is this on? i want to make a confession. i did not think of is coming here today to listen because i did not think they have much to tell me, but i will tell you right now that i do not know you

come and the stern. i know of view -- know you, andy stern, but you are notorious. you are damn well known. what you just said, we should start with. anybody who thinks the condition of their great country will get better if we kill this opportunity is more than smoking pot. they are absolutely without a mind. mr. stern just told you to put it off, it will get worse. we are in the most complicated situation anyone could ever be in to put together an involuntary bankruptcy. but it is so complex, you will not believe it. i hate to use the bad word, but things are going from bad to worse.

all kinds of things are on the horizon. it strikes, riots, who knows what? if leadership does not come up with a solution in the next couple of months, things are going to get worse. from my standpoint, the members of this special commission have to be sold on a proposition that is much bigger than anything they have ever been sold on. they must believe that they're voting for something positive that in fact solves this problem. i need to verbalize this. the blue line. if someone needs to solve the blue line and say to themselves, "it does not matter if i ever get elected again. i just save the country that i

love." if that can be the test, we have a shot. i met with one of them who invited me and someone else to talk to them, and that was how the meeting ended. if you are worried about that, i am telling you that they can put together the right kind of package, i do not know if i have to keep coming back here come getting elected come and running. is that a refreshing thought? if we can get that permeating this mission, i want to close by saying the most difficult thing in my mind is that the big problems that have to be solved are very long term.

you can do what you want to in the next three or four years if you put together a plan that in the sixth, seventh, eight year reforms medicaid and all the other entitlement programs and reforms the tax code. if you can do that, i guarantee we would be on the right path. >> it was very powerful. andy, i got chills when he said that. it is an incredibly important moment. i hope the people listening and people who know that and understand that know that we have to help the super-committee feel like we have their back. so many people will be pushing them saying "do not do this." they need to hear about how these people are actually willing to put the collective

interest ahead of the special interest, the things they care about on the table in order to get this done. it will save the country. if we do, it will be a problem. i am going to turn to charlie. >> i'm going to follow up on something that senator mccurdy said. >> the business community's backing for stability. one thing why i think the community is not ready is because they are confused. if you look at what happened in the last two administrations, you have seen tarp, aig, a takeover of gm and chrysler, qe1, qe2, and a twist. wall street behaves as if to have atrial the fibrillation. there is some degree of uncertainty among the american public.

this is something george shultz addressed. we have to slow down and put in place serious policies with the right incentives that will correct the problems that we just lived through. we need a "steady as you go" with policies consistent with prosperity without inflation. we thought we would fix medicare, and i remember one of the career people at the allenby in we have cost containment in medicare. it took about 18 months to figure out how to move stuff into outpatient services and game the system. so some degree of certainty on the part of this committee and congress will send a positive signal to the country and the

american business community and everyone is concerned about the $2 trillion they're sitting on and have not invested and have not produced jobs. it's all part of the same package. >> the other side of this equation -- some here in washington argue $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, that is something to build on. it is worth this super committee going as ordered as opposed to going big because that will build confidence toward something down the road. >> it is completely illogical and fewer in any other place but washington, you would think that was true. let's just put information technology and to health care. everybody agrees we need to

modernize our system and we never did it. let's pass children's health care. if we do that, we can take the next step and we never did it. it's a completely logical argument that never works. we are going to cut $1.5 trillion. it will either be sequestered or they will do it. the real challenge is everyone is -- the people and america are sick of this issue. they'll understand congress is not stepping up to the challenge and worrying about something more important, which is how to their kids get a job? >> i completely agree. we need certainty. not just business certainty, consumer certainty. it's the public believing there's a future. it is foreign markets. if we can get this done right

and not do it in an incremental chunks, if we can get it done in a way that is a major plant plan with recovery built in, then we will have done a great thing for the country. strategic leadership has been provided this country and it's not done in thousand page reports. it's usually done in very simple form and i think there is opportunity here. he did not talk about a whole geopolitical strategy by laying out all of these research studies. he said this is the research and made a convincing argument. perfect is the enemy of good here and good is maybe not enough. that is why we are using this

term -- go big. 60% of gdp debt ratio is a serious number. at a few years, you'll be in 100, and that's not sustainable. the least fortunate are having a hard time. joblessness is there. this cannot be cut a immediately. they need to know that signal is there and it needs to address the big problems. if you look at where the spending is going, discretionary spending is becoming a big portion of this budget. i think others who are as principled conservative says you can find, when they say there's

an opportunity to get the right thing done by putting everything on the table, this is something we collectively need to sit up and listen to. >> i think we have time for one question from the audience. >> i read in several articles that the current congress does not have the authority to make spending and revenue decisions that bind future congresses. i would like to know if this is true and if it is, what does it say about the staying power of any agreement the super committee produces and is adopted by the current congress? >> that's a good question. i think we can take a second question and put both of them out there. >> i don't know anybody that doesn't agree with what's been said. i don't know anybody that would

argue it's easier to get bigger than small if kiev been in the process at least. when i listen to everybody talk about the urgency, i don't think anybody at -- anybody disagrees. what i have not heard is an aggressive comment or commitment rather, when business and labor to support the people who do the hard thing. we all know it's a problem. that's not the issue. we all know -- what i want to know is his business going to kick ass? i should not say that, get serious about actively supporting the people that got it out. if you don't do that and they think they are exposed, i don't

-- same thing with labor. >> our business and labor going to kick ass? >> i think my friend from the business roundtable, i see other business leaders. i know the u.s. chamber, other groups have been having serious conversations and i don't want to pre announce things, but you have seen the ceos step up and have seen other former leaders and i think you are going to see business associations and organizations that is it's very challenging to get unanimity. but we're not talking about that. we're talking about broadbased support for the approaches we have seen. for both sides of the aisle, you will see there's a willingness

to support if they take on the real problem and try to overcome the extreme partisanship, everybody is going to have something in this game. i guess going to be strong. >> you have been a longtime trustee of economic development. we are going to continue to try and work with more business leaders around the country to support the elected officials who are courageous and trying to do the right thing. but let me add one other point. the american public doesn't have such a high regard for the business community. the good news is it's not quite as low as members of congress. but the american business community has been on defense. this is a marvelous opportunity

for american business leaders to step forward and do the right thing. it's not only self-interest -- self interest, but it is also the right thing for the country. we talk about business leaders and business statesman and that phrase comes from our longest serving trusty. for years, he has been urging business to step forward. now is the time. is your moment. it's the right thing for you, and the business community. >> i have no idea what the business community is going to do. what people want to hear is you are going to endorse me if i am going to do this. they don't want to hear we're going to support you, we love you. i hope when we talk about this

that there is a level of sincerity about sticking with people who do it. that applies to labor just as well. deporting people is a lovely concept, but it does not have any sector benefits. >> the question about current congress is binding future congresses, we do it all the time. we set a cap, it applies to this congress and the next congress. he can't undo that cap or adjust the cap, but and has to be signed by the president because [unintelligible] >> i would like to say this with reference to support.

it appears to me -- i'm very sorry. >> there's going to be a lot of support. >> what i was going to say is i think the most difficult part of this to get the job done. you can bet those of us to understand the nuances, the bill that has been written, it was created by people who really want to give this committee all lot of authority. there has never been a committee with the authority this committee has.

we are going to be looking to find ways to give them the maximum amount of time that is conceivable so that they can get it done and lastly, i just want to conclude that if in fact, as serious as we want republicans to be serious about revenues, somebody has to start working on both of them. both are terribly complicated and they cannot be done on short notice, namely to reform medicare or the tax code. thank you for doing this and [unintelligible]

>> the bipartisan policy center, everyone who stepped up to serve, you did a national service. a lot of important positions, the most important job he has ever had. we all owe a hurry -- we all owe a huge debt of gratitude 3 >> we owe this panel huge debt of gratitude while the next one comes up. >> in my opinion, the bounds of academic freedom have been pushed too far. >> in her new book, she suggests jobs for life entitlement mentality needs to go. >> there are basically professors of nutritional studies have tenure now. when pressed, a professor towing

the party line will say we need someone with tenure in security studies so we can talk about immigration, and someone in nutritional studies needs to say something about obesity. >> that and other reasons you won't get the college education you paid for, tonight. today on "newsmakers" we're joined by senator lamar alexander. >> to announce you're going to step down and say it -- and said it would be a liberating. what does that look like in the senate and what does he do he might not have done? >> in some ways, it -- i have already had twoal