need to expand credit unions faster. we should be looking at all the ways in which this can be done, including other organizations partnering with credit unions and encouraging their work. was report on the crisis commissioned by the u.k. government in february of last year and was given to ministers in early summer. it is still being suppressed. what is the prime minister afraid of and why doesn't he publish and be done? >> what this government is publishing is the fact that we have hundreds of thousands more people getting into work, able to provide for their families and get the peace of mind and security that the people want in this country. that is what we are publishing today and that is real progress for our nation. >> 45% of people do not pay their utility bills. one million of them do not have bank accounts. energy companies are charging

115 pounds extra for people who do not pay by direct debit on a hitting pensioners the most. i direct debit, hitting pensioners the most. >> i am happy to look into this issue. that is why we have taken steps to compel energy companies to put people onto the lower tariffs. we want to make sure that everyone can make a budget of that. we have also cut energy bills by 50 pounds by rolling back costs of some of these green measures. we should continue to make this market more competitive and give more choice to consumers, encourage the switching which happened a >> you have in watching prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. question time airs live on c-span 2 every wednesday and again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. you can watch anytime at

c-span.org where you will find video of past prime minister's questions and other british public affairs questions -- programs. tomorrow on c-span 3, the federal communications commission's illest commissioner will give his first -- newest commissioner will give his first public speech. we will bring you that live at noon eastern. later in the day, senators john mccain and christopher murphy will lead a conversation about global security challenges facing nato. they will be joined by a senior nato officer and other security experts live at 4:15 p.m. eastern. >> bill and hillary began their careers at the university of arkansas. bill came after graduating from yell and hillary came a year later. hillary clinton's career began right inside this building, the

law school at the university of arkansas where she was a professor. she taught classes such as criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedure. hillary was well-educated, ivy league law school grad that had worked in d.c. as part of the nixon campaign. nixon had been impeached about two weeks before hillary taught her first class. >> first lady hillary clinton monday night at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span 3. >> next, a speaker of iraq's council of representatives, osama, jiffy -- who somehow al=-nujafyi. usama he spoke at the brookings institution for about an hour.

>> i am very happy to be here with you today. as you know, iraq is a very important country. iraq havew that we in a very particular experience in the middle east. regime is followed by military occupation and a constitution that was written in uncertain conditions. that was also a roadmap the iraqis were not able to contribute to this roadmap because we were in a rush and we wanted iraq to be an exemplary democracy. iraq wasitution in

written in very difficult circumstances. period. very sensitive people were arrested or condemned to execution or exile. the psychological environment was very hard and there were mutual fears between the iraqi components. this was the reason why the constitution has some problems. some articles in the constitution can be interpreted in different ways. mechanism to build

institutions but the implementation of the constitution was not as it should have been because of the political tension. the institutions stipulated in the constitution were not built as it should because of the federal supreme court, the highest judicial body which ruled on the conflict between different parts of the country. we were not able to implement needs twois law thirds of the vote in parliament and all the political parties do not agree. have a court but it does not have the constitution and prerogative to be able to roll on the issue of interpreting the

constitution or deciding if the laws are constitutional or differences between the provinces and the center. or between legislative and executive powers. all this made life more, located in iraq and our path -- more complicated in iraq. there are bad implementation and selective implementation of the law. lawsament adopted some 250 for the stability of iraq and providing services to the people and building the state as it should be built. some of these laws were not implemented. adoptede abducted --

and theoretically should have been implemented. becausehey were not there are unilateral political decisions not to implement them. for instance the law that gives andogative to the provinces enough funds and means to implement decentralization of the state. law was not implemented because some in the country believed that it shouldn't. also about customs. it was adopted two years ago but it was paralyzed on purpose. we are facing many obstacles when it comes to building institutions in the state of iraq.

selectivity in implementing the laws. sometimes the law is implemented on some iraqi parties and not on others. hence a lack of confidence by the citizens in the political process and the state institutions and also in the participation in the political protests. iraq is now facing terrorist threats as we have seen since the beginning of the year. know how toto -- thishese terrorism terrorism at the security and ideological level. 2007 was the search of the american forces. violence ended in the country. we set a plan to fight al qaeda and terrorist groups with the

.upport of the sunni clans and were armed, financed there were promises they would be part of the forces. they were able to defeat al qaeda. we were able to bring stability witness.the world is , there was noory photo up of the premises and -- for instance to integrate the armed forces, what they need to protect themselves from being targeted by the terrorist. got salarieshem

that were very low. arrestedhem were because of systematic deletions by concessional parties or even by al qaeda because they wanted to undermine the role of the clans. from 2009 until a few months ago , these forces were almost completely destroyed and al qaeda came back stronger than before. al qaeda was able to paralyze stateans and the central did not follow up on its promises to al qaeda. politicaloiting differences. the feeling of frustration among the iraqi people that it is also exploiting the system at the

political and economic level. it is finding support, finances and means in some private sins in iraq. more than 9000 iraqis were killed and more than 25,000 were wounded. this is the highest figure in the last 10 years. so the political components in iraq were not able to build an iraq a political system to implement the constitution. they were not able to implement and getas it should be rid of corruption and abuses. they did not respect all the iraq a components that represent them in an equitable way in the

armed forces according to the constitution, they did not .rovide enough funds according to the constitution, also it did not adopt the law on hydrocarbons or gas which is very important. some parties are implementing the constitution based on their own perspective and this is hindering the building of the cohesion andtional is leading to more division. more and more people at this point do not trust the political system anymore. this is something we have seen by the very low turnout in the

last general elections and the one before. is at thisthat iraq point on a crossroads. -- we can find a solution. what we need is a strong determination, political will, for everyone to agree on the constitution and forget about the problems of the past, to and stopnd the fears punishing the iraqi people and move towards a reconciliation iraq from event greater problems. province there was a law adopted to amnesty

everyone who committed a crime against the kurdish people. some of them are accused of many crimes but they decided to amnesty everyone and the situation -- everyone is participating in the political process. the province is now an example of security and successful investment and wise politics. iraq we are still and we are also implementing the law on justice and accountability in a partial sectarian way. we are still punishing some of the iraqi people who were not for of the previous regime andons that are political

unfair. processe the political is now strengthened and we need to act seriously and quickly. the next elections are very important and may face many problems. the situation will be stable and avoid anye should political measures that are provocative as happened the day before yesterday, the decision to start a military campaign against the provinces which led to a reaction. also what is happening in the other province. al qaeda is there and we should fight al qaeda and the clans are fighting at this point but not everything is terrorism.

demands andlitical rights. and problems that the political solutions, not military arrangements. i am ready to answer your questions but let me state once again that iraq is on a crossroad. give a successful example of a democratic system in a troubled era or god for bid we will move into something similar to the syrian situation and this is to be expected if the problems are not faced in the right way. needst this point ,econciliation, wisdom understanding and partnership to train the iraqis instead of the

marginalization we are seeing. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. again, welcome to brookings. thank you for your remarks. i think that you justified my theent, that you are one of most important and most constructive iraqi politicians out there. i think you lay that out very nicely in your remarks. i wanted to start my question for you where you began your own prepared remarks. with the constitution and the nature of the iraqi situation. you said the constitution had been rushed. we have heard from a wide variety of different iraqi politicians and iraqi leaders who have different ideas about the nature of the iraqi state and what it ought to look like, who have different visions of a future iraq.

i wanted to begin by asking you about your vision of a future in iraq. you were very eloquent and passionate about the missteps that have been taken and the implementation of this constitution and both the laws and politics that have followed the implementation of the constitution. i wanted to begin by asking you what your vision for iraq was, what your vision of iraq a democracy looks like and whether you felt that your vision of a future iraq was different from your sense of the prime minister's vision of a future iraq? >> of course i have a vision about iraq and iraq democracy. specificities. it is not similar to all

democracies. we have our traditions, our legacy, our history. that should be respected. but we do also agree on many of the international criteria when it comes to democracy. i do believe that iraq is able modelome a very important the middle east. the constitution has many flaws as i said but at this point it guarantees liberty and freedom. it guarantees partnership and the building of a strong state. articles would need to be amended and this is 42pulated by article number that says some of the articles should be amended. at this point, the constitution can bring iraq into a better era. i do not agree with mr. prime

minister in the way he manages the country and i believe that committing to constitution and applying the rule of law is not obvious in the policies of the government. it is a selective policy. sometimes laws are implemented in specific circumstances. in other circumstances, they are not. issue of justice and saysntability, the law that people who reach some levels in the party should not be nominated at certain high government and so on. when we moved to what is happening on the ground, many of the military commanders that are in charge of important units in high-rankinghave

posts in the federal police or ministry of interior were previously members of the party and were also at that time in high standing positions. this was simply put aside and ignored and they remain in their jobs. counterparts, officers from other provinces -- and i have to say from a professional perspective, are being ignored, , areeing marginalized almost pushed into the arms of the terrorists. there are double standards in implementing the law and dealing with citizens which is leading to a lack of confidence in the political process and a lack of respect by the people towards the state.

this democracy, some believe, is selective. it is a democracy for some and oppression for others. the problem is a problem of commitment. than 30diagnosed more violations of the constitution by the government in the last two years and these violations are obvious. attempt toso an undermine the role of parliament, to prevent parliament from voting and and saying that laws should be dictated by the government. they are undermining the constitution courts, the court was created before the constitution and the court decided that what the government is doing is right, therefore we

-- we aboutg able laws of the government rejects them. policies will not lead to a strong democracy in iraq. we need to review this. we need to have a separation of power. we need to respect the constitution and the law and build the institutions. the institutions should be built. deme decisions are ma unilaterally. level allurity decisions are in the hands of the prime minister. all iraq is should be able to contribute. >> i want to push you a little bit further on this. i want to ask you about a particular word. that word is federalism.

some believe the answer is moving toward a more federal structure. that isn't the case i would be delighted to hear why not. federalismgreater for iraq look like? >> the iraqi constitution is encouraging the creation of provinces. -- we have the kurdish province and there is also a mechanism about creating new provinces according to the constitution and laws that were passed in 2008 about the

.echanism in the beginning, some components were against federalism. they believed this was some sort of division of iraq. after we went through the political process, and we started seeing the double standards and the lack of fairness, many people started -- in the province there is a majority who support federalism. federalism that you were talking about is that of the provinces. the administrative borders of that thisce determine is a province.

two thirds of the council of a province would submit a demand to the prime minister, not to be agreed upon but just to be officially submitted to the high commission of the elections which would organize this. voters agree, meaning 50% of those registered to vote agree, then we will have decentralizedh prerogatives. the aim is not to create sectarian provinces but more of an administrative division. the provinces would have the necessary financing, the necessary management capabilities, the necessary .rerogative i do believe in federalism.

i believe it is a solution to many of the problems we are facing in iraq. ofhdad would be in charge the main ministries, finance, issues, oil and other relating to sovereignty. the provinces would manage their own local business. this is completely it has the potential to solve many problems. ago, theya year submitted a request. it is not followed by a referendum as the constitution and the law stipulates. it was kept in the drawers of the office of the prime minister . they simply did not follow up. this is a huge violation.

just before yesterday, a province in the north resented a request to become a province and more than two thirds of the members of the province sent a request to baghdad. this is something to be encouraged. solve the political problems. as a proud son, i would like to follow up and asked the question given the state of tensions, if the government does not follow up on this petition for regional status, what is your sense of how the people of a province will react? how would that go over? >> of course, when we cannot refer to the constitution and law anymore and those in charge

do not respect the law, the --izens committed.ey are not they would have other alternatives. this is dangerous. we are warning against it. this is why there should be commitments instead -- implementing the custom tuition. we do not have negative repercussions on the constitution. on the election, we do not want people to start working or employing laws in their own provinces. we should allow for the provinces to be created. be on a basis. shiites andi and

christians and so on. it is a very diverse protestants. -- it is a very diverse provinc e. this applies to baghdad as well. it is very diverse. , each province would take five dollars from each barrel of oil reduced in the province. also when it comes to refining the oil in the province -- a budget was submitted. it only gave one dollar to each province on one barrel and cap four remaining dollars. when asked why, we got no answer. will of some others to not implement the law.

legal do not give us our rights according to the law, we will stop producing oil. we will start a rebellion. the governor of baghdad said. why do we push the iraqis and to such difficult decisions? have to be committed to implementing the laws in the country. >> this is a very important discussion. one of the great questions that many americans have about what is going on in iraq today is a question of where do average iraqis stand? how did they see their situation? there is the status of one of the principal leaders of the iraq sunni community. you will pardon me for using that moniker, but i think that is a fair way to put it. i think would be helpful for the audience to hear a sense from of certainthe people

areas see the situation. what are they looking for? how do they look at the current crisis? how do they feel about the government? how are they seeing their own lives, and what would they like from it? if you can give some sense of how the people in the provinces are viewing the issues, i think that would be helpful to all of us. >> as i said, justice was not implemented as it should. the authority of the states, the huge capability was used to implement selective systems, which is encouraging the supporters and punishing those who are opposing the government. there was a way of dealing with the citizens.

this is something we have seen at all levels starting with ordinary citizens and moving to high-ranking politicians. this is a feeling of frustration and therefore, rebellion. people believe the state is not respecting the rights of some of the provinces and therefore we should react and say we are against people and you should deal with us fairly. politicians talked about these issues within the parliament in political circles with the government and during negotiations about forming a government.

also when it comes to the agreement of 2010, which led to the formation of this government. we set a roadmap for giving their rights in decision- making, but there was no follow- up. the agreement that the minister should be a sunni potentially the security for the sunnis and for the kurds, but this was not what happened. there were huge demonstrations that lasted more than a year.

they look for a quality and the toequality and the right implement laws and releasing of innocent detainees, and they wanted the government not to use accountability to punish people of the provinces for no reason at all. two years ago thousands of young people were arrested around baghdad. when the authorities were asked, why are you arresting them, they said it was a preventive arrest. we have doubts about some of these people being terrorists. some of them remained in detention two years after the summit was held. they are still imprisoned. there was also one of the

elected members who was arrested and accused of being a terrorist. he was in there for six years and was released without any charges against him. the provinces are asking for their rights. the demonstration was militarily the first. many were arrested, and the demonstrators were accused of harboring terrorists, and the problem started with disbursing demonstrations in al anbar. of course in such demonstrations where 100,000 people are participating, probably we can find some unacceptable slogans, but these do not represent all the people.

the demonstrators are not responsible for terrorist among them, but none of the people demonstrating ever attacked security forces. there were classes here and there. i don't believe these demonstrators did anything to harm central authorities, but still, they were dispersed by force. even the presence of al qaeda, they occupy parts of al anbar. there are a few dozen to 100. people say they do not respect these demonstrations, and it is pushing people to carry weapons.

people in al anbar the iraqis agree should fight al qaeda and get rid of them. they are a dangerous force, but at the same time, we should have a political process where we would listen to the demands of the people, that would give them the funds articulated by the constitution, the forces that are part of the thesis and making in iraq. if this does not happen, we are in a crossroads. the picture is not white or black. it is great. -- it is gray. we need to work on some of the political problems constitutionally.

>> the last point is important for americans. it's one thing americans have the greatest disability -- misunderstanding, the reemergence of al qaeda in iraq. i can remember 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago indirect driving around, and you forgot al qaeda even existed because the security situation improved so much. it was no longer an issue. today they are back. they are controlling parts of falluja, parts of ramadi. they are contesting other areas, and i think a lot of americans have a great deal of difficulty trying to understand how it is they have come back, so i think it would be helpful if you could

explain a little more. you are starting to touch on the fact that most iraqis do not have any love for al qaeda, yet nevertheless, we see the black clad men, the black flags flying in falluja, and it is very hard for us to understand how al qaeda is back if it is not the case that the people of falluja and ramadi didn't want them back, so please help me understand what seems like a puzzle to many americans. >> as i said a while ago, al qaeda was defeated. after the battle ended, the promises made to the people were not kept. the government dealt with them as if they were opponents and enemies. they were not allowed to join armed forces.

it was as if they did not want to have military units from these provinces. they were mistreated. this led to frustrations and mistrust. people are convinced they should not deal with baghdad because their representatives are not able to get them their rights back or to move their legitimate demand forward. they saw the government was trying to marginalize some iraqis and not giving them the role they were elected to play. at the psychological level, there was a lot of stress and lots of frustration.

this allowed al qaeda to come back. when the people do not trust the army and al qaeda, they are confused. if they fight al qaeda, the institution would go back to what it was in 2006. if they fight al qaeda, they will be a target afterwards. if they do nothing they will because between the fire of the army and the fire of al qaeda because they know al qaeda would be bringing worse progress back, but the psychological situation at this point makes it easier for al qaeda to come back. we need to convince people the government and the state are

theirs, too, that they should deal with the government in order to defeat the extremists, and afterwards, their rights will be kept. this is the most important question at this point. al qaeda is limited, but they are exploiting the situation. as some germs can exploit a sick body. but if this body is healthy again, it's easier to fight germs. many countries in the region are facing al qaeda. al qaeda for instance cannot find a stronghold in saudi arabia or kuwait, but it can do so in iraq. it can find a safe haven, so we need to win the population back. we need to give people the rights to support them at the security level, and then, al qaeda will be defeated within days.

>> you make an excellent point, but i would like to ask a hard question i think is important from the other side. i think you are aware there are other communities in iraq. the shiite community is very frightened by the reemergence of al qaeda. it is subject to terrorist attacks from al qaeda and other groups within iraq, and it is pressing very hard on the government to come down on al qaeda and to root it out. i would ask him how do you speak to the shia of iraq. many of you are very friendly with -- these are important elements.

how do you speak to them who want nothing more than to see al qaeda crust and say until it is until it isnd say crushed, how can we have these negotiations? how do you help explain what needs to happen to help allay their fears as well? >> let me correct the information. al qaeda is not only targeting shiites. it is targeting all refugees. tens of thousands of ordinary citizens amongst the shiites. in iraq we also have militias that also forced displacement on people, especially in baghdad and other parts of iraq. in some ways they are not being held accountable. the sunnis and the shiite should work on re-conciliation, on being committed to getting rid

of the militias and al qaeda. adopting the militias and al qaeda is dangerous to iraq. the shiite leaders understand what is happening. the sunnis and the shiite should work on re-conciliation, on being committed to getting rid of the militias and al qaeda. adopting the militias and al qaeda is dangerous to iraq. the shiite leaders understand what is happening. they are not blaming the sunnis. they are blaming al qaeda particularly. they believe as we believe citizens should feel there is justice and equality, and this

will allow us to be rid of the terrorists. it is not true to say the sunnis are all al qaeda. the sunnis are a target of al qaeda. they are killing sunni leaders. sunni politicians cannot move freely because they are targeted by al qaeda. at the same time they are targeted by the government and some militias, who are doing something similar to what al qaeda is doing. the shiites are more free to travel around shiite provinces. we need to determine which is the common enemy. each one carries legitimacy outside of the state. al qaeda is an international

enemy to all countries and should be fought. i believe the shiites understand what is happening in iraq. the majority of them agree with us if justice is back in a rack al qaeda will be easily defeated. >> the last issue i want to talk about if the united states. you are here in washington. i don't think it is because of the weather or the desire to see our monuments one more time. i believe there is some reason to do with the security of iraq. i would like you to share some sense of the role you would like to see the united states play in this. how can the united states be constructive?

i would like to recognize america's influence is where it once was, and many americans are feeling reluctant about greater involvement in the middle east. with those caveats in mind, what is it you would like to say to the american people about how the united states could lay a constructive role in helping a rack move forward in this ellicott situation. >> i believe the relation between the united states iraq is about the strategic contract and stability in iraq is about the whole world. if this were to turn into a civil war, this would have a negative impact on the united states and the countries in the region. it would be worldwide.

of course i do not call for any interaction, and i resisted, but france also should provide support and should play a role. they should support their friends when they are in trouble. we need economic support, and the united states needs iraq to be a stable country, to be , tored and produce energy be democratic. all these are american and iraqi interests alike. we felt iraq was left when it was not stable enough and was

not able to completely move towards a transition towards a strong state. this is why at this point the center of power reached the situation we are seeing today. the united states was through in the last few years, and they started shifting their attention away from iraq. now with the escalating violence in a rack, the united states is looking back, and i believe the united states can play an important role in bringing the country closer to iraq in its fight against al qaeda and provide the expertise to encourage national reconciliation and to try to

restore cohesion in iraq and to know iraq has imported relations with other countries. the united states has an influence over all the countries in the middle east. iraq needs a long-term friendship with the united states, a friendship based on democracy and respect of human rights and a stable, successful state, not the state that is working with discrimination and oppression. i think americans understand the problems of a rack, and they should concentrate on iraq once again to fix the lack of stability. we americans also do not want iraq to support terrorism. >> one last question.