fairness, the common sense of foreign policy, etc., etc., and we all knew what our duty was going to be and where we were going to be going. host: so you're in your early 20's. you are about to be deployed into a war that had a lot of questions in the country, and you were front and center. former senator webb: i had a interesting conversation with my father who was career air force at the time, who really did not like the way mcnamara was running the war. i think he supported the war itself and my father was saying go in the navy. stay on the ship. don't be a marine. not only my father saying that. there were a lot of strong family discussions about how i wanted to be a marine. i wanted to do my part, but people who were over there, the young marines over there fighting needed the kind of leadership that i wanted to bring, and i wanted to go.

host: what were your parents like? former senator webb: my dad is my hero. he went to night school for 26 years to finish college preview finished college might final year in high school. my mother grew up in east arkansas, and existence as rough as anyone in this country has experienced. out of eight siblings, many of them died of disease, not childbirth. her father died when she was 10. a medical situation, and she chopped a lot of cotton and picked a lot of strawberries. host: brothers? sisters? former senator webb: i have two sisters and a brother. we cover the political spectrum when we have our discussions. host: what is that like at thanksgiving dinner? former senator webb: a lot of phone calls, and i get a lot of e-mails. host: what advice do they give

you, if any? former senator webb: they are pretty freewheeling and have a lot of political differences in our family, but i always respect the family, respect. host: so you served in the marine corps. then you came back to the u.s. you worked on capitol hill for a while. doing what? former senator webb: well, i was wounded in vietnam. i tried to stay in the marine corps and had a medical retirement from the marine corps and went to law school at georgetown and started writing when i was in law school. actually, i started writing my last year in the marine corps, and i really found a strong passion for it while i was in law school. it built on our strategic position in the pacific focusing on an issue that is right now that is relevant,

okinawa, how you reshape the american military presence out there and i traveled the region and gave my idea of what i thought our position in the pacific should look like, and then became a committee counsel for four years in the congress, working with veterans issues was lucky to be meant toward by the world war ii veterans who really reshape veterans law. the world war i veterans had gotten a terrific view, and the world war ii veterans were beneficiaries of the world war i people. learning a great deal. and making a living as an independent writer, i would write for a while and then this

leadership challenges, going back into government for a while , and miss writing and then i had an alternate career path with no particular intentions at all. i just found that i loved to do both. host: you have written 10 books and have won an emmy. you have written a screenplay that turned into a film. have we ever had a president who has done all of that? former senator webb: not yet. post: how do you go about writing a book? what is the process for jim webb? former senator webb: books themselves, for me -- a novel, i was told, starts with a theme something i would really like to be able to explore, and then the characters fall out of the themes. as a good example, i wrote a book about general macarthur with japan's greatest world war ii general, the tiger of malaysia, and always came back

to me when i read about the story, why did a great man killed a great man, which is basically what happened, so taking that theme i ended up writing this novel, very into world war ii, the beginning of postwar japan, all about the complexities and what was going on, etc. etc. host: the in them, as you know is now a close trading partner. would you have thought of that 40 years ago? former senator webb: this is what we were trying to do 45 years ago. this is a key in terms of how we approach southeast asia. when i came to the senate, i brought my staff together, and we keep talking about it.

we began the strengthening movement in asia two years before the present administration came into office. i brought myself in, and i said you're going to work to invigorate our relations with korea, japan, vietnam thailand, singapore, and change the formula in burma, and i think we have had a pretty good track record on all of those. with respect to vietnam, i started going back to vietnam in 1991 and i have participated very strongly in the evolution of our relationship with their present government. it was pretty much a stalinist regime when i first went back. they were kind of a little brother of the soviet regime. they were being subsidized by the soviet regime, and when the soviets went down, they needed alternatives, and that was one of the reasons to start opening up but a very enthusiastic and

vigorous participant in bringing the annam into the international community in a positive way and also addressing the issues. posts: as you write, vietnam has shaped american foreign-policy. the mistakes in vietnam with regard to iraq and afghanistan and other policy issues. former senator webb: a lot of people have wanted me to make that simple parallel, and i have resisted. i know that vietnam is kind of like a rorschach test with respect to foreign-policy, but even in my first book, which i wrote when i was in law school when i was 28 years old, i was talking more about how we should articulate our national security interests around the world and

where we should be willing to be vigorous and terms of our involvement, which led me on one hand to say that the invasion of iraq, the occupation by the united states of countries and that part of the world, a huge strategic wonder, but at the same time, i think i can i have been one of the leading horses in discussing chinese expansionism and the way that we have to do with this situation that we are seeing now in the south china sea. i started writing about that and speaking about that 15 years ago. host: and we are seeing it right now, even this week in china. how worried are you about what is happening in that part of the world? former senator webb: well, as i said i have been writing and speaking about the situation of chinese expansionism and how the united states must remain as the strategic balancing force in

that part of the world for many years. what has happened, or what has come to the fore here in the past month or so has been going on for a good 15 years. it is a classic pattern of an authoritarian expansionist nation, where they make claims of sovereignty, and in their case now, the area all of the way down the straight, far away 2 million square kilometers in the south china sea, more landmass then japan and vietnam put together. they make sovereign claims. we have spat out there, and then we tend to think these are tactical claims, and over time, they have created a political jurisdiction. they did this three years ago. i did a piece in the wall street journal, encompassing that

entire area of the prefecture which reports directly to the central government, and we have to be firm that this is a violation -- what they say now is this is ours. this is our land. this is our political jurisdiction, and if you say anything, you are violating our internal situation, which is just not true. i made a .2 days ago that if i were the president right now, i would be directing might ministration to pursue a motion of limited sanctions against china with respect to trade on defense matters, and i would be -- we have to be up to indicate that this is a very serious matter. host: so how would you assess the foreign-policy of this president? former senator webb: he was

given a pretty poor hand when it came to the situation in the middle east. i would say i think the great mistake of the administration was the way that the arab spring was handled. it is going to take us a while to untangle the decisions that were made there, particularly with respect to libya. there was no direct american interest in that issue that called for military force. there were no treaties in effect, no attack or threat of attack. there was not even a civil war. we make this point over and over again. what were the consequences under which or the circumstances under which a president should be able to use military authority without coming to the congress? i think that is the issue that is really going to have to be unraveled.

host goleman has the president been a strong leader? former senator webb: i believe that in some areas, president obama has and in terms of working with the congress, we would be a lot better with more direct sitdown's, people from both sides of the aisle, working through the issues. host: take russia. take china. how do you think they view the u.s.? former senator webb: i believe our country needs a new and clear strategic doctrine. the last clear strategic doctrine was actually the nixon doctrine that came in 1969 1970, regarding when the united states was going to be involved in internal violence

particularly since the fall of the soviet union. we have not had a clear explanation of how we are to pursue our national interests and after 9/11, it got more difficult, so i think all of these major regional powers -- china, which is attempting to be more than a regional power, china and russia will be conducting military exercises in the mediterranean this summer. they need to hear from us that these are the areas in which we as a country will declare our national security interests, and we will back off our concerns, not just with military confrontation but with economic sanctions or messages, as well. host: and you have seen this not only through your eyes, but your

son. what advice did you give him before he was deployed. he served in iraq, correct? former senator webb: yes, he did. my son left penn state and enlisted in the marine corps and was a rifleman with the marine infantry in ramadi, and we are seeing a situation there every day with isis and some of these problems. advice about military service is not something you just sit down and give somebody right before they go. we have had thousands of hours of discussions, the same way my father did with me when i was growing up. this is what we talk about at the dinner table. how do you motivate people? how do you lead them? how do you make difficult decisions? what kind of leader would you want? would you want a leader who is making you do something, or would you want to have a leader who is making you want to do something?

and we have a pretty clear understanding of what our family has done for a very long time. host: and you are smiling like a very proud father. former senator webb: it was a very hard time particularly infantry combat. it was hard. on the one hand, you feel a great amount of pride and respect, and on the other hand, people pay the price when they serve, and it is our obligation as leaders to make sure that they are properly rewarded. host: and something else directly behind you a replica of that statue that is at the vietnam war memorial, not far from where we are at the mall in washington, d.c., and you insisted that it african-american was represented in that memorial. how did that pan out? former senator webb: that is a very long and complicated story. actually, this statue i think is only one of two ever made.

i was given this as a gift to thank me for the work that we did to get the sculpture at the memorial and working with him over many, many months. he is an artist. he talked and wanted to know different things before he put the sculpture together. we were successful in getting a sculpture there. a flag. at a time and they were not a part of the original design. i wrote to the inscription on the flagpole. i'm very proud of that, and when the sculpture was first agreed upon, it was going to be an american soldier, and my father actually was visiting at the time. he turned around and said, who is the black soldier going to be? and i said, you are right. we cannot do it with one. we have to do it with three, and

i think it has worked, and i am very, very proud. host: you mentioned your wife is from vietnam. former senator webb: she was born in vietnam. her family, like so many others fled when the communist took over in 1975. the entire extended family, seven siblings, got on a boat. they were scooped out of the ocean by the united states, and she went to two refugee camps including one in arkansas, and spent most of her growing years in new orleans. worked hard. you know the story of the american dream. she worked hard, got scholarships, went to the university of michigan for asian studies, and then to cornell law school, and we met when she was an attorney. in washington, i was working on a project inside vietnam, one of a number.

host: in 2005, 2006, you were announcing your candidacy for the senate, and most people told you you could not win. how did you defeat george allen? former senator webb: first, i spent a lot of time thinking about it before we announced, and a lot of people were worried people -- worrying. people think you have to get out there and do these things, but i wanted to be clear in my head that i could put 100% of my energy into the campaign. i announced nine months before the election. we had no money and no campaign staff, and we were behind 33 points and i decided to put the issues out that we cared about and to stay on the issues as best i could rather than getting sidetracked in a lot of the other things that are inevitable in the campaigns. we stayed on message.

we never approached the money that the other side was able to raise. and we got 14,000 volunteers to come out and help us, and i think that was the difference. host: i have to ask you about that one moment, when george allen used the term "macaca," and it became a youtube hit. did you realize at the time its significance? former senator webb: while, for me, the key moment, i think at that moment, and of course george allen can probably give you more insight than i could but i think what probably happened is people across the country who were dismissing the campaign started paying attention. that is when we started getting money. and the defining moment in the campaign in my view was "meet the press" in september, which

was a couple of months later and tim russert had a side by side and asked us questions, and i was able to have a one-on-one when i explained my views and that was the big one in terms of campaign finance. host: what did you find when you came to the senate? was it what you had expected? former senator webb: it was. i spent four years as the committee counsel, and i had many different billets, and five years in the pentagon. what i did not really expect was the way that campaign-finance drives american politics, and that was -- for someone who has lived in or near washington for a very long time and written a lot of political commentary, that was a stunner, to be in the middle of it and realized what campaign-finance did two campaigns.

host: what did you accomplish? what would you say was your biggest accomplishment in the six years in the senate? former senator webb: i think we had a lot of major accomplishments, despite the paralysis that infected the system after the elections. we brought right out of our office the best g.i. bill in history, with millions that have a g.i. bill that was very similar to the world war ii g.i. bill, for a whole generation of veterans to be successful. we brought criminal justice reform out of the shadows into the national debate, and we took a lot of hits when we started doing it. we were a voice in foreign policy particularly in asia policy and the strongest voice in the congress in terms of asia policy. before this so-called tilt towards asia, and i have been involved in the military one way or another all of my life.

we have made a lot of contributions on the armed services committee, and my number one accomplishment -- i said this at the beginning when i was in the senate, what was going to be your legacy, the people that i brought in. i said that at the very first of my term. my people are going to be my legacy. we brought in people. we gave them my approach towards leadership, sort of an oil slick theory where you have got people out there in other places right now, and the country is going to hear from them. host: i want to go back to your service in vietnam. and you came back, did you feel gratitude or scorn by americans? and i ask you that because people say thank you and so much has changed with regard to the military. what did you experience? former senator webb: the vietnam veterans or the vietnam age group was starkly divided

between those who supported the war and those who did not, and those who did not support the war in many cases were among the more privileged and elite in our generation and they had by the positions that they took, they had made it very difficult for a lot of people who came back from vietnam. in other words, instead of just saying, now, since we do not have a draft, instead of saying think ought i did not have to go , the word out there on the street was this was an immoral evil, genocidal war, and i am not going to take part in it, so that was a heavy burden for the people who came back. at the same time the country as a whole has always supported veterans. we did a landmark survey when i was on the house veterans committee, 9.8% -- let me get

this right. on a scale of one to 10, 9.8 was where the american people stood with the vietnam veterans. posts: i want to go back to what you said back in 2012 when you decided not to seek reelection, and you said, i faced the choice of either turning into a perennial scold or surrendering a part of my individuality to the uncontrollable collective nature of group politics. former senator webb: well, i think if you look at the senate and the way larger bills come to the floor the caucus has a tendency to neutralize a lot of strong opinions, and so you either end up voting on these large bills, and people still ask me about different ones, or you end up down on the floor. some senators are just talking

and i am very thankful for having had six years over there, but i like to get things done, and there are other places where you can get things done better, i think. host: do you enjoy campaigning? former senator webb: i enjoyed a face-to-face meeting going to the town hall meetings and listening to what their thoughts are, but i do not enjoy campaign-finance. we have heard a lot about that. i actually said when i announced the exploratory committee that one thing i can say is that i will never go anything to anyone if i am elected, but it is a very tough proposition to be able to raise enough funds in order to conduct a viable campaign, and that is really where the decision was. host: so based on that, and based on your campaign here in virginia, what would potentially, a jim webb campaign look like? former senator webb: talking to

people and saying exactly what i believe in terms of my views of the country. i had had vigorous -- whenever i go to town hall meetings, they are vigorous discussions. when i decided to run in the beginning with the senate campaign we had a contested primary. we were outspent i think 10 to one by a longtime virginia democrat. we just got out in a jeep. i called one of my old radio operators, a very close friend of mine, working at the number one honky-tonk in nashville tennessee, and i said, i need your help, and he came over here and moved into my basement, and off we went. we would go to three and night and set down and talk to people and tell them what we are about and we won the primary convincingly. host: as you know, any campaign is about a choice, and your campaign, if you were to run against hillary clinton or

lincoln chafee or others, what is your stance? former senator webb: well, i would not be running against any of them. i would be running for the presidency of the united states, and that is my message. this country really needs leadership. not only that you can trust but that you can look back and see a pattern of getting things done and a consistency and a willingness, and i think that is what we need. host: finish this sentence. the state of america today is -- what? former senator webb: we remain the most unique society on earth , and good leadership will enable more greatness. host: we are in your office in arlington, virginia, overlooking the national mall and the memorial and how you spent some

time at arlington cemetery. what do you think about it? former senator webb: it is a great -- i have a lot of friends there. so it is a great place to go and think about our country and service, and what we care about. host: do you think a lot here? do you write a lot here? former senator webb: this is my writing off the street of course, when you write, you think. host: so what is your timeline in terms of a candidacy? former senator webb: we have to make a decision soon. post: and what do your kids tell you about a potential run question right maybe your brothers or sisters? former senator webb: when i am with my kids, i talked to all of them pretty regularly. we can talk about issues, but we

do not talk about whether i should run or not. we don't talk about it. post: and finally when you are not involved in a potential campaign or are not involved in writing, what do you do to relax? former senator webb: by oldest daughter was asked back and said: make sure he is working on a creative project. part of me will always right. and we are on a project right now in the series i have been writing, and i have always been an avid fisherman. a bass fisherman. one of the great connections with my brother, my son and other people in our family. going on fishing trips, all sorts of things. post: jim webb, thank you for your time. we appreciate it. former senator webb: thank you.

announcer: and we will be live at about half an hour at 3:15 as the highest-ranking sunni muslim official speaks at the institute of peace to talk about iraq austria's challenges, that parliament considering what has been said is central to that country's ability to confront isis. president obama held a news conference today in germany shortly before leaving for the u.s.. he talked about the middle east, hacking, and a number of other issues, and you can see that briefing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow c-span3 will be live with a hearing on government watchdog accounts, the transportation security of illustration challenges including a dhs inspector general and a former tsa official officer who has written several stories about his tenure with the agency. that is tuesday morning at 10:30 eastern. announcer: tonight on "the

communicators," we hooked up with an author and asked about why the internet is not the answer. authuor: it is not working currently. it is lending itself to undermining jobs, compounding the inequality of our economic lives. it is creating new massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the 20th or 19th century, and it has created this economy and which we have all been, all internet users, have been turned into products. you and i have been packaged up. when we use google or facebook we become the product. it is like a big hitchcock movie. announcer: tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. announcer: looking ahead to that tsa meeting tomorrow, this morning, we heard more from the

tsa about the assistant administrator. host: this is your money segment, and we take a look at initiatives of the federal government to see that only how much they cost but homage they accomplish. joining me is someone who works in washington, d.c., but before, he was at the transportation security administration, and administrative for policy. thanks for joining us. our topic is tsa, and it was in the news again last week because of a test conducted. can you kind of paraphrase what this test concerned and what it was about? guest: yes, it is testing that takes place at a checkpoint so tsa has testers. dhs ig has red team testers, as do others, and they are always probing to see what they can or cannot smuggle, and in this case, it was a very high failure rate. what we have seen is that there

is a success rate for these red teams. you want them testing the system, probing the system, so they are improving the checkpoints. the startling case in this test was the 90 6% failure rate, so almost everything they tried to smuggle through the airport they were successful in. host: these were items with -- on a person? guest: one, they conceal the weapon or the prohibited item on their person, and they go through the checkpoint or they conceal that in their carry-on baggage. it goes through the x-ray machine, and they get it through the checkpoint that way, so it is really those ways, on the person or in the baggage. host: and we have people and technology, and yet, we have this failure rate. can you connect those for us? guests: yes, there is a variety of reasons. at the start is complacency. it has been 13 years since 9/11.

we really have not had a domestic events in the u.s.. most of what we have seen our overseas, coming into the u.s., so that does not touch on tsa screeners, so that workforce has not a major incident of terrorism in the u.s., and day in and day out, there is complacency there, and that is not just the screeners. it is the supervisors and the tsa headquarters, and i think that is certainly a factor. another one is the training. he training at the checkpoints. is it sufficient enough? and the third leg of the stool is really the technology. i think what we have seen is the technology at the checkpoint is just not cutting it. you have got walk through metal detectors, which is fine, that metal is not the enemy. it is weapons, explosives, so you still have a two-dimensional x-ray, of the checkpoint, and that was there 20 years ago. host: about $7 billion spent for tsa. how much of that goes to a the

screeners? what is the breakdown when it comes to security issues? guest: they have a $7 billion budget annually. about 3.2 billion of that goes to paying the screeners and training the screeners and that is benefits and everything. outside of that, you look at technology, they have a capital fund for technology. so you are looking at something between $350 million per year for both checkpoint and checked baggage, and there is the luggage that goes in the cargo hold of the aircraft, and that is where the vast majority has been. the checkpoint at least in my view has been given the short shrift. the tsa has tried to do that on a very limited budget. host: you worked from tsa for years, and when you see a headline that talk about the competency what would you advise your fellow associates?

guest: yes, we need to do something dramatic. it is not enough to say we have got this under control. it is not enough to say we have taken a look at the results and the training procedures. i think what you have here is a loss of confidence that people have in the tsa, that folks on the hill have in tsa. i think you need a third-party group to come in and take a look. i think the tsa has lost a little credibility in this realm. having them take a look at the checkpoint and having the training being done. do we have the right technology? and if we do not, what is the right technology? i think it needs to have a comprehensive view. having a third-party look at it i think would be a step in the right direction. host: the incident that happened last week, the of questions about how tsa operates or questions, here is your question. democrats republicans and

independents, and if you want to tweak us, you can do so at c-span wj. 43,000 screeners so far. tell us a little bit about who gets selected to be a screener and what technical aspects do you have to bring to the job. guest: u.s. citizen, high school diploma or ged, and then you go through a rigorous background check process. should all of that check out, it is obviously the location of the airport you are applying for. all of that checks out, you can become a tsa screener, and once you become that, your trading kicks in. on-the-job training starts, and then another 60 hours of on-the-job training. and then you go into specialized training. checkpoint, check baggage --

checked baggage, and then throughout the course of the year, there is more training. so there is a variety of different training programs and aspects. host: so how often -- talking about updating the skills, how often do those skills get updated, and what about additional training? guest: probably not enough. most screeners i've talked to want more training, and that it becomes an issue of more resources and what can be accomplished there. host: the number four callers. to our guests come he not only works in washington, d.c., but was also a former transportation security administrator for security policy. that is a big title. did you come up with a policy that the screeners follow? was that your job? guest: that was part of it. there are a lot of different offices that have a very specific role.

there is the operations folks who make sure what is going on at the checkpoint is operationally feasible, but yes, there is a policy behind this checkpoint procedures, and that was a part of my job as well as others. host: let's hear from loretto from ohio. go ahead. caller: a 5% success rate is high for washington, and nobody gets fired up there no matter how incompetent they are. they just shuffle them to another job, and i am very disappointed that nobody ever has to answer for anything. guest: yes, i think it is a good point, and i think what we saw here with the tsa acting administrator being dismissed last week points to the severity of the issue, and that is not something that the tsa does lightly or the dhs does lightly, so i think they may be right decision in replacing the acting

administrator at the tsa, but i think more needs to be done. and i've talked about a third-party group coming in and taking a look at the operation. host: if there is a screener that is having problems, how long will it be before they are let go or reassigned? guest: if they continue to miss items, they will be dismissed but it is not sort of a one and fail and you are gone. they will go through recurrent remedial training. they get a chance to improve. host: from mobile, alabama debbie is up next. debbie, hi. caller: i think they should fire all of the tsa agents and bring in marshals, with dogs, and just get away from this total independent screening junk. when they are screening persons and things like that, they should have a dog there with the

screener and just get completely away from tsa and let the marshals and dogs handle it. thank you. guest: a couple of thoughts there. i think the tsa has a robust canine detection unit, so they do use canines at the airport. obviously, the federal marshals service is part of the tsa, and, of course, that is on the aircraft is up. i still think there is a value in having a checkpoint operation and having screeners. in some instances, that is the last line of defense, for individuals, but how they conduct that is really a question. are they doing it the most efficient way or the smartest way? post: one guy looking at this says, why are we spending billions of dollars? not a single plane has blown up from terrorism. launching a plot is much more

difficult than we think. i understand this is contrary to the fear mongering we hear every day. is that something you subscribe to? guest: in part. it is tough. if you look at tsa's law, they confiscate hundreds of weapons. these are firearms. they are not just small, little pocket knives. in some cases, they are knives. there is a value that tsa provides at the checkpoint. they are stopping a lot of items getting on board. the question becomes is a weapon going to take down an aircraft, and what you're really looking for is explosives, subbing that will take down the aircraft and cause a disruption, so you have got to balance those two, and i do not think you can do one and not the other. , subbing that will takehost: is tsa still stringent on the amount of liquids that you can bring in? is that an issue, as well, the amount you can bring in? guest: yes.

the screeners have a very difficult job. they have five to eight seconds about do i give that back a deeper look? do i take the contents out? do i packed down the individual more? the only way they can do that is if they have the technology to do that, and to go to your question, the 3-1-1 baggy, and you take your laptop out, all of that interview it's to time. the screeners are under tremendous pressure to keep that line moving, i would say they are sacrificing, so you really need to make sure they have the right tools in the toolbox, and right now, i don't believe they have the right tools in the toolbox. so you have to look at some of the more up-to-date technologies. some the technology used in the checked baggage room can be used at the checkpoint. we have not talked in the last years about checked baggage because we are using state-of-the-art technology.

i think if we move some of that we will see better controls. host: from virginia, republican line, you are next up. caller: hi, guys. how is it going? i have worked for a technology company that was developing new technologies for tsa checkpoint security and i have been in airports pretty much all over the world, and i can honestly say that the biggest problem for security anywhere is management. you have people from the 1940 mentality wanting these checkpoints, and one of the big problems is public perception. you have public perception due to the fact that people are standing in line, waiting to get to their planes, and they do not see anything being done to speed up the lines, to improve the process. you are using metal detectors and i will not get into the technology, but it is totally a

waste of time. you're not point to find anything you're looking for for metal detectors, and management has know that for 40 years, and they have changed nothing, so fire everybody from the screener up. the screener is not every one of these guys want to do a good job. they are focused on trying to do the job, but they are not being given the right tools because there's too much bureaucracy at the top, too many people making $200,000 per year and not doing their job. that is the bottom by. it is the technology that will fix the problem. host: thanks. guest: i would agree with you. i think technology is a big part of this issue. you have to give the screeners the right tool in their toolbox. we have seen a variety of different technologies, some have worked, some have not.

my opinion is that they have lost that credibility with capitol hill and the traveling public. we need a third-party group to come in and take a holistic view without preconceived notions of what should and should not be there, and get the right technologies at the checkpoint. it also goes back to your point about about leadership. again, i agree 100%. it should not stop there. i think they need a different mentality at tsa. if you recall, after 9/11, we were in a hiring frenzy, we needed people. we staffed up from zero to 45,000, 55,000 people in a very short timeframe. a lot of those folks came from a law enforcement background. that may still be the model, but i think what you are seeing is folks need to look at what is the right management set.

it is a security background? it could be. tsa has always tried to balance between security and customer service. the pendulum goes back and forth. i think what you're seeing in this case is the pendulum swinging a little to the customer service side. screeners want to make sure the line is not backing up, that the flow of the checkpoint is operating smoothly. frankly, it is in their mantra, and mindset, you have to do the line moving. host: here is vincent in miami, florida. you identify yourself as a tsa officer. caller: yes. host: what do you do for tsa? caller: prior to tsa, i was

law enforcement officer in state of florida. basically what happened is i came in 2002. like everyone else, i was very upset with what happened in 9/11. when i became an officer, i had to sign a document saying that i would not join a union. we do not have protections. when they created the agency they took away every benefit that every federal employee receives. you have people like myself who on the floor have been harassed, come from law-enforcement backgrounds, but to management, we are treated like peons. the fact that they bastardize the entire agency, we're like the walmart of the federal government. the reason we have so many problems on the ground is because we are under sequester, and we're also underfunded. we are the only agency that has part-time employees working. you have people there are trying you have people who are trying

to go to school, there is no tuition reimbursement, there are no veterans benefits for being an officer. how do you have an agency that was built on 9/11, and you do not have veterans benefits at the agency? the problem is that we should have followed the same guidelines as customs or prisons. we should be a regular federal agency, but the thing is, we are on a pay-for-performance agency. we are not a time in system. i would like to hear your response to this. thank you. guest: there are couple of issues there. one is the budget. i think that is one that tsa always struggles with over the years. do they have the right resources for the job at hand? i think what we see -- obviously, we have to remember that tsa's authority and mission

is beyond aviation. they do all those of transportation modes. we see is they are geared towards innovation and the airport. i do not think that will change. how we pay our screeners and others needs to be looked at. it is a large workforce. they are screeners that have some level of training, but they are not law enforcement officers. i think we need to realize that. folks need to understand that when results like this happen when red team results occur, you need to keep that in mind. collective bargaining, tsa screeners do have that right. they do not unionize presently. it is an issue that we have heard from screeners time and time again. working conditions are tough. how we are treated is tough. i think that is why you see on an annual basis tsa is one of

the lowest-ranked federal agencies to work for. there is a morale problem there. when tsa was created, there was recognition that it has to be flexible. getting it on the same schedule as other agencies at the time, the decision was let's give them a little flexibility. we can decide whether that is working or not working. host: from the bureau of labor statistics, 43,000 screeners about the median annual wage of about $38,000. is that right? guest: that's right. host: how much higher can they go from there? guest: there are different levels. you can progress into a different career path within tsa.

it is not for everyone. not every screener has those opportunities. as you come in to be a front-line screener, supervisors and others should identify which of those move up the chain. host: josh, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. my question is -- the fourth amendment. it clearly states the right for people to be protected against searches and seizures. how are these searches legal that are being conducted on people at the airport? obviously, it is in violation of the constitution.

what legislation gives the tsa the authority to do that? the gentleman who is beginning to set up a get treated poorly. you are basically conducting illegal searches on everyone who has to go across the country. a lot of people will be upset with that. guest: it is certainly a question that tsa has gotten a lot over the years. the enabling legislation created tsa and gave it broad authorities in a bill passed by congress. tsa has gotten a lot of questions about the fourth amendment. it has been determined that the searches they are doing are perfectly legal. that is about all i can say. host: a screener has about the eight seconds to make a decision. what strikes them off? what gives them the sense that somebody should be investigated further?

guest: it depends on what screener we're talking about. there are behavioral detection screeners, looking for types of behaviors that passengers have. the idea there is that someone is the fairness, perhaps it will be sweating. there are physical clues. those are more behavioral science. host: and they are undercover? guest: sometimes. other times, they are in a tsa uniform, walking around. sometimes people get the wrong idea, they're just walking around, not doing their job. in fact, they are. there is the ticket checker. as you go through the checkpoint, the first person you interface is the person checking your ticket and your i.d., making sure they do match up. there are also do some sort of behavior detection, making sure you're ok. you will go through the checkpoint, and you have a couple screeners working.

they are working the whole body imaging machine. once you get to that point, they are relying on technology. that screener is looking at that bag as it goes through on the belt. they have back after bag. you have to make a split second decision on does that object -- is it ok? or do i need to take another look? he will stop the belt, and that causes backups. the screener is incentivize that if i stop that, it is for a very good reason. sometimes they get right sometimes they don't. host: by the time you reach that first ticket person, is it already determined the need to go through a search? guest: not necessarily. a lot of times that is determined before you go through the checkpoint. a screening makes the chairman

on if we need to take a closer look at you are not. sometimes that decision will be made before you get there. there are things that you can do an airport at the checkpoint that will have you pulled for a closer look. host: here is fred in indianapolis. caller: i was former baggage and also i worked checkpoint. it is ridiculous. you have screening managers that walk around in these empty suits, hitting on the female screeners. i have heard that they had been drinking. it was layer and layer of useless empty suits, everything from the fsd down to the assistant screening managers, supervisors. if you play the game of political correctness, and all those training, most of it is about diversity.

they get in trouble and send them off to d.c., pay them six figures, i have seen it from top to bottom. it needs to be fixed, exposed to the private sector, and you need to wipe away $5 billion of your $7 billion cost with the empty suites hitting on female screeners. it is ridiculous. host: ok. thank you. guest: it goes to the issue management in tsa. is it a loaded, bloated system? congressman mika has been outspoken about that, and others

have been as well. my view is that we need an outside organization looking at the structure. tsa says, we understand the red team, the results, we are looking into it. i think you have lost the credibility to do that in a constructive way. it is the agency bloated? it is a hard question to answer. i think someone needs to look at it to see if the structure is in place, both at the headquarters and at the airport. host: this third party, who should comprise it? guest: folks outside of the industry.

there are players that need to be reached out to, communicated with. i think it needs to be a third-party group that has no vested interest in the outcome. those folks are critically important in making sure that the right decisions be made, and be communicated with. it has to be an independent group. host: is there willingness within tsa or on capitol hill to the capitol and on bringing a new technology? guest: it is a great question. after 9/11, there was a hard push to make sure there were checked bag systems in the airport. it was a heavy investment. i think what we got at the end of that process, which was a two- to three-year process was fatigue on the part of congress

saying, look, we invested all this money, and that we have to turn to the checkpoint, and frankly, we don't have money. they said, we will give you more, but it will come in drips and drabbles. tsa says, we cannot have the very best, we wish we could, but we can't. i think that having buyer's remorse at this point. they say they want the machines to be upgradable, and they're not. i think that taking a comprehensive view. we have got great systems screening checked baggage, i think we need to move those to the checkpoint. do we need walk-through metal detectors? and the whole body imaging systems, do they work as intended? i think all that needs to be looked at. yes, technology is critical because it helps the screeners. it will either enable them to do their jobs or not. host: joseph, your next.

caller: thank you very much. i just wanted to make two observations. one is -- every time i go to the airport, i am faced with what i do not like to see from my government. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome. welcome, and as we get started i wanted to call your attention to the headsets on your seat yes will be speaking in arabic. you can find english interpretation on channel one. and channel two has arabic. so please wave your hand if you are having trouble with your headset. yeah.

good. and we have got people on it, so just wave your hand. my is nancy -- and i am president of the united states to of peace. usip is a nonpartisan institute, and for the last years we have been working on finding practical solutions for preventing, managing, and recovering from conflict. my very distinct honor today to welcome and introduced his excellency dr. saleem al-jubouri, is thise -- i would also like to thank the iraqi delegation who has joined us today. it includes many current and former members of iraq council

of representatives come and a shout out and welcome to ambassador the iraqi ambassador to the united states from any valuable partner for usip. as many of you know iraq has been a priority for usip for over a decade, and with the support of our iraqi american partners, who have had an office in baghdad is 2004 from and last year we opened an office in erbil. none of this could've been possible without having amazing teams here at usip, so i would like to thank our acting ice present of the middle east and africa, and the director of our middle east program them and the person who leads our iraq programs. so we are here today at a time when iraq is confronting enormous challenges, and we're almost to a day, the year since

mosul fell. we haven't on going conflict with diash and the cost continue to grow. i understand it is about an average of 1000 soldiers or civilians who died in this continuing conflict, and have witnessed 3 million men, within women, and children who have been displaced. communities, villages, towns are sustaining considerable damage. however, even in the battle, it is critical to lay the future for a more peaceful iraqi future. we have recently had the honor of hosting prime minister abadi and another, both of them who have underscored the same cause

for looking out for the future, for emphasizing dialogue and reconciliation as critical for helping iraq forward. usip teams are working with local iraqi partners now to anticipate that joint daish future and alleviate the tensions that are arriving from massive displacement and prevent cycles of revenge and the overrated areas. nasa are supporting our iraqi partners to bridge relations between communities of police in places like baghdad basra karbalah, and carekirkuk and we are working for facilities to help address the best facility -- this will the tatars. and in his work we have seen the power of iraqi communities who are determined to build a better future.

we have seen the commitment to come together to resolve differences, and continue to be inspired by local leaders and partners were eager to lay this groundwork for a more inclusive shared piece. now more than ever time to talk about peace. for the last several months, we have witnessed the tumultuous events that have rocked iraq. and throughout this recent turmoil, today's speaker has served as a permanganate -- pragmatic voice. he has worked to find solutions that work him and he has been an advocate for an inclusive approach to politics that is absolutely essential towards working for reconciliation. he is a prominent leader from -- is a former law officer, and i would say he is part of a new generation of iraqi leadership. this is a generation with the

potential to build a more engaging, more inclusive political process, and he and others are working to position the council of representatives to be a key player in the reconciliation process and a more inclusive future. dr. al-jubouri will deliver his opening remarks and arabic. for those of you on twitter please remember to use #iraq ispeaker, to help us expand the conversation. with that, i am very pleased to welcome, on his first visit to washington, you see, our speaker, dr. saleem al-jubouri the speaker of the iraqi council of representatives, and please join me in welcoming you have to the podium.

mr. al-jubouri: [speaking in arabic] >> allow me at the beginning to express my thanks an to the institute of peace. i want to talk about important issues during a difficult time. i wanted to limit my talk about peace, that my talk would be limited to peace in my country and in the institute that is key to achieving peace and reducing crisis in the world. but regrettably, i am talking to after the passing of a year and the appearance of diash which

is an occupation of 1/3 of the country, and the accompanying destruction and killing -- [indiscernible] and what has caused two women and the destruction of churches antiquities, and taking women hostages and instruction of churches, and the holy shrines. some of these antiquities returned to thousands of years in the depth of history. despite all of our pains, which has infected our people in terms of -- we are not surprised about this movement. i know it is a result of the polls the of -- the policy of exclusion and -- of freedoms

during the past few years, and the natural result to the administrative corruption and financial corruption, which spread to the military institutions and other to should of the state. as we know, spoke with our allies inside and outside and our friends the catastrophic results to which these policies will lead us to, but regrettably they did not take our advice seriously and we were dealt with as if this was part of the struggle between various -- but others considered this phenomenon in normal -- a normal struggle. sometimes in 2000 -- [indiscernible]

to a country of displaced. iraq has --in areas that are controlled by diash. in the framework has reduced our -- have started tying -- [indiscernible] instead of containing them and redirecting ideas, we have prevented them from reaching the shores of safety, and as a result it created a large army of people that are -- of diash, futures that are wasted -- focusing on what balances, externally, internally come and

my -- [indiscernible] and here we are, watching the results of this, which resulted from the this places -- from the displacement. he will continue to play a role of watchers, despite the situation which is so dark. yet i will talk to you about peace. peace that can be achieved from this war that is --in the face of this dark movement. [indiscernible] because we are sure you and all the forces will stand by our side in this confrontation.

i may see more optimistic than necessary but i say that the situation in iraq does not call for -- despite -- [indiscernible] do not look at the cost of the confrontation, but by the values and principles -- the forefront of which is peace and reconciliation. but we need the help of our friends to be victorious -- thank you -- [indiscernible] the international coalition led by the american -- have been stated by us -- to multiply their efforts. many of the efforts in our country from an release the aid

for equipping the emerging democracy through the members of the -- of nation conceived our children from the policies of not keeping previous agreements. as the speaker of the iraqi parliament i think there is no other alternative to go into this matter side-by-side with you in all of our battles because -- so we will not have any other terrorists organization threatening our peace and the implementation of the three-party solution --

the public in the council. so the national guards will be the guarantee for the government. we must and all aspects of military outside of the military -- [indiscernible] this is a militarization of society to have a system that is utilitarian -- [indiscernible] we ought to have a political reform and restructuring of the security is solutions, based on efficiency and away from the -- ethnic as well as sectarian. it is important also to adhere

to the federal law and separate between the powers of the state in order to maintain the independence in making decisions. ladies and gentlemen the method of reforming the prolific -- the political process in iraq cannot be s -- which made correct field for regional strife on behalf of the partners and iraqis who have paid the price for the blood and wealth. cannot get out of this policy

except for the help of our friends and united dates and the western states -- united states and the western states -- and the decision taking centers in order to use stop the intervention of internal affairs of iraq in support iraq to reduce confrontation. instead it has been a mechanism to --through through daish -- and the political operations that have touched our skilchools churches markets. the success of its process through reform and establishing

confidence between the partners will be a source for a democracy in the whole area, and the american message was after the getting rid of saddam hussein because of the difference. finally, i put before you some principles that expresses a comprehensive project for reform and overcoming the challenges. to finish the issue, we must think about stability after the liberation of the areas that are captured by diash, if you give a model to motivate those who are still living under the authority of daish so that they can do everything possible to use this challenge. the second thing the military

support is threaded by restrictions controls that cannot be -- by friendly countries, these states must not neglect human support. the third issue that is a struggle in iraq between the state and nonstate and institutions that were established based on elections must be maintained. there are other institutions that work outside of the framework of the state that wants to take the authorities to itself and impose itself on society and make the decision itself. building a stable space correct is a guarantee for the protection of our minorities and marginalized. -- cannot be forgotten and we cannot violate it. arming the tribes with the

training and equipment because the local populations alone -- and changing the role of tribes and -- we must also rehabilitate the local police in the areas controlled by diash in the forces will remain under the control represented by the commander general of the armored forces. the problem of duplicity of leadership will lead to the collapse of the army, just as what has happened in ramadi. national reconciliation will prepare for a military the. building a model state to the

help of its friends come extremism and terrorism, a very strange phenomena in the iraqi society, and has resulted from political circumstances that were complicated and will end with the end of this problem before. dis[indiscernible] is an important one, but it should not be a cover for emergency cases that threaten the security of the state, and some societies sometimes resort to a miserable solution, and we should not contribute to this.

i call on you to support that just request of our people to get rid of terrorism and your efforts to spread the ideas of living in peace and understanding, and i call on you and all those who love peace on the earth to support the reform and democracy in iraq, and this is why i decided to come to you here, to show that we can invest in our partnership in this endeavor. otherwise our faith with -- otherwise our fate -- and peace be upon you. >> thank you.

>> mr. speaker, thank you very much for that presentation. most impressed with your words at the outset, expressing your optimism, expressing your commitment to peace expressing your friendship with people here and other allies around the world. so this is a very positive message that you have a lot to us here today. you have a difficult job. as the speaker of the council of representatives, aba body that you

would probably agree as sometimes had difficulties in coming to agreement, incoming to compromise, incoming to final conclusions that support the movement forward of the country of iraq, can the council of representatives under your leadership and with the other leaders in the deputies that you have an, can the council of representatives be a place in a wreck that brings reconciliation, that comes with cogburn eyes -- with compromise to move forward. do you see this a role for the council? mr. al-jubouri: thank you very much. when we started in this term for the council of representatives, we had a lot of compilations of

problems. the nature between the executive and the legislative, between the council representatives and the government, to the point it had delayed the issuance of many laws, the laws, and also postponed the oversight, and i can say this was the main challenge. he could have been able to build a balanced relationship, but at the same time, we agree about the common ground: and we can differ on the details. but the situation in iraq -- with corporation so we decided to talk with the cooperation between all authorities in respect of authorities every side. the form today in the council of representatives today, and the government that is present them

approved the budget for 2015 in record time. we were able to issue some legislations that reached the point of voting. we are going to vote on the law of our political parties, which is a very important step. also, the media law. and we were able to reach voting for the federal law, and this has been in the council for eight years. we also have other legislations, the current council came at a critical time, the appearance of daish in several areas. if the members of the council are green with their job in this framework. i think the national reconciliation and it is being

launched from the council of representatives come and serious reconciliation between the social physical partners, so we have a continuous dialogue with the parties and order to achieve this project. mr. taylor: you mentioned several of the pieces of legislation that have made out as you agenda. also mentioned more remarks a piece of legislation -- you mentioned your remarks legislation having to do with the national guard. many people here will know all too well that there are many formations, military, incorrect. the national guard law would

bring some order to this. how would the national guard law work with the shia militia were the forces -- militia or the forces under control with peshmerga, with the sunni national guard? you mentioned the should be under control, under the command of the commander in chief. how will the new law in these three or more military formations work together? mr. al-jubouri: to be frank with you, why did the idea of the national guard came out? was put into the political agreement and considered in agreement -- eight a a condition. some groups are not represented

the second representatives into the present of daish in these areas, because the population was not able to confront daish because they were not part of taking the security decisions. the idea that the national guards were merged to do with this problem. the problem is to have the communities to communicate within the military apparatus and to defend the areas so they will not need daish. particularly, when we agreed to establish a net national guard the agreement was to do it locally under the orders from the government, and in a larger issue he would take the role of commander of chief in the armed forces. after we established the

law, now it is being put to vote. part of the political forces, so that the project of the national forces have deviated from the main track on which it was put forward. be another military establishment that will be added to the other ones, such as army or intelligence or police. that is not really the purpose of it. also, the national guards in the eyes of some is a cover for the militias that work outside of the officials. in our institution, anybody who is not in the armed forces cannot carry -- and according to article 9, these militias are prohibited. consequently find an official way -- consequently, we must

find an official way to reach this multiplicity of loyalty because will not read any progress. the law -- not lead to any progress. the law, what do we need from this law? some say this is going to be a case is going to be like -- it will not do what it is supposed to. others say it will not be like that. mr. taylor: mr. speaker, if this unified national command in the military effort is successful in certain areas, when the military in these various components does liberate areas, and areas are liberated from daish you mentioned in your remarks that

reconciliation that stabilization would be importance. we have some experience. you have some experience americans have some experience in this effort. how would this time be different from the previous times stabilization, reconciliation, to avoid the problems that could come if we make the mistakes again? mr. al-jubouri: of course this this is a comprehensive project. some areas in which daish, they have committed heinous crimes and have liberated the local population in several areas need some kind of hardware to be able to coexist, and some who support daish and some who are against it. so there is a control from groups that were allowed to

carry weapons and others that were not allowed to carry weapons. consequently, some parties became stronger than others. the model is there. for example, there are those who used to carry weapons even if he supports the military forces against daish, but when daish was moved out, those who have weapons are in a much more powerful situation than others. how can we create an equal situation? we know anybody who cares weapons has the ability to impose his will on others. and we have several examples. so i call for the international community to focus on a project for stability after the liberation of the areas from daish. this project for stability is

not assistance in kind and food and others but it is to achieve stability and to build a new democracy within the minds of people. and trying to spread this spirit of participation and reconciliation. this is not a human project. it is a human projects, but it is also a security project. it is important that daish does not come to us under a new name. how can we -- if we achieve justice and stability, if we return, if there is marginalization and exclusion and if there was a feeling that -- so the important message we must send to the inhabitants who are not less than 2.5 million

people under the rule of daish some of them are afraid, some are women and children. the most important message to send to them is that the models we established after the liberation from daish are now in much better condition. if the models are bad, they will not take of venturing with their life against daish. why would they defeat daish? so we should have a project in establishing stability that takes into account the security and the continuingity of democracy. mr. taylor: we are so pleased that you will be able to join us here. you will find a group of very

interested people here come a very interested in your country, in the direction of your country, and the peace that you have just described. let me open the floor to questions. i am going to do i think two at a time. he will enter one at a time, but let me get to at a time so a microphone can be in your hands and we will save some time that way. so why don't we start up here, right here yes and then appear as well. there you go. very good. certain? -- sir, name and affiliation. >> i work in somalia. thank you for hosting this very important forum, and i would like to welcome him and his delegation. for years am a i work iraqi groups from 2004 until 2011 on a program, so i have interest in

what is going on in iraq like somalia. i have a question that i cannot find an answer for, which is now specifically with the popular mobilization forces that have taken iraq. many of the sunni area, they are complaining this is a shia-led force that is doing a lot of atrocities in the region. so i would like to know your intake into that, and very quickly, many blamed the bush administration for what is going on in wreck today because of 2003 -- in iraq today because of in 2003, ambassador bremmer, the dismembering of the iraqi army.

mr. al-jubouri: mobilization, popular mobilization -- i am going to speak very clearly about that. when daish controlled several areas in iraq and the iraqi army collapsed, we found herself in a problem. how could we confront daish? directives were issued from religious leadership to mobilize the people to support the army and to stand by the army in the liberated areas. there is a positive aspect to this and a negative one. the positive one, when i look to the population of the government, and they come from -- and the south for them to have their bloodshed in --

cousin their presence with the armed forces, this is a kind of support, and we should not deny the great efforts that were exhorted and the important role that was played by these people. this was a very positive aspect supporting the popular forces to the iraqi army in the liberation. what happened in the liberation and afterwards which gives this data picture? -- this negative picture? there were some practices that showed that these forces are not regular forces and they are not disciplined, and some of the misdemeanors were bad, and as a result we cannot say who is responsible and should be

punished and held accountable for this. and frankly speaking, even the idea of mobilization as an idea which means participation of all people and of course the peshmerga. the shia has the popular mobilization. the sunni -- how can we contain them, and what is the framework to which they confront the terrorism? they had a previous experience in the tribes. they confronted -- and many of the children of the tribes had to givehe desire to confront daish , so they were using forces that came out of their governments to defend their areas. now the number of those

mobilizations of forces reaches 100,000 individuals. we have 17,000 only that belong to -- the mobilization. so we must also take into consideration that because we need training or equipping for these forces-- mr. taylor: let me identify the next question are here. ok but you will follow this gentleman right here. so if the mike can get to this person right here. >> mr. speaker, since mr. abadi became prime minister of iraq, have there been any significant steps toward political reconciliation and are you

satisfied with the pace of physical reconciliation in your country? there seems to have been no progress on an amnesty law. you mentioned the national guard. the national guard does not exist because your council of representatives cannot pass legislation on that. a case can be made that the international community should do more, but the perception here is that iraqis have not done enough of political reconciliation. do you share that, and what do you think needs to be done? thank you. mr. al-jubouri: in abadi we look as partners. he needs support, and he also must take initiative to implement agreements that were concluded in the past, because

waging or delaying will create a kind of feeling of no commitment to agreements that were neutral. and the project of reconciliation, we are partnering with him in it. when we continue to partner to achieve it, it is not an easy project, it is not slogans, it is a practical project, with commitments on both sides. so my evaluation to this project is not -- the reconciliation project is not convincing yet for me. but there are many challenges that are facing us all, and definitely the method acquires efforts from everybody in order to be able to achieve it. we cannot blame one side alone. the truth that those who are committed have fallen upon -- but we are all partners in the

results that have been achieved. mr. taylor: this will be the next one here, but before you, madam, right here. >> you made a compelling point that in order to inspire iraqi sunnis to can take up arms, we have to offer them a vision of the future that they can hope to have in iraq and a vision in iraq that treats them better than they were treated before the abadi government. some of the key things that need to happen have been stated by people such as yourself, the national guard reform in a number of different areas that have just been stonewalled by the iraqi parliament.

what are the sources of the objections that your fellow parliamentarians are amounting to the reforms>> with regard to this framework, maybe we will put it to a vote in the final language, some of the political parties have the required discussion.

this very important issue to reach consensus. this is the method. this issue of consensus is very important and an aspect we consider very crucial. it may require a simple discussion, and we may, in fact, it deals with the problems that it was created for, and not just the process of having a new system.

host: we will need another microphone. >> i need to ask my colleague and my dear brother, who i worked with him at the iraqi parliament one simple question. what is the definition of reconciliation? [speaking foreign language] sorry. i am just -- the first female judge in the history of iraq and the middle east, and i am proud to be that because this is something in favor of my country, iraq. host: we are honored to have you here. welcome.

>> [speaking foreigtn language] misguided people, which room we should make, reconciliation. with the bath this -- baathists. killing. selling iraqi women[. speaking foreign language] >> she speaks in the two language.

iraq. all of the -- thank you so much. host: judge, thank you so much.

speaker: thank you for the words of the lady. there are to go to classes in iraqi society. the society and the politicians. for 10 years, they raised reconciliation, and i would like to say clearly that the iraqi society as a society, not as a political class, has not had what distinguishes it in regard to sectarianism. i believe i am from the largest drive in iraq which is in the south, sunni and shia, and they all have relationship. our problem with regard to this,

when people start using it for their own advantages, when they want to get the sympathy of the people, speaking in sectarian terms, he tries to use what he thinks is suitable to face his opposition. this is something that we should look at, and we can overcome, as a matter of that. host: so we have bob, and then the next one will be in the back here. there was a question. yes, right here. >> yes, i will speak in only one language. host: thank you. bob: my name is bob kelly. i am a customer with a washington consulting firm. as an iraqi, how do you feel about iranian influence in iraq,

and secondly, was there any irregularities in the vote to discharge the governor of the province? under our constitution, the congress cannot take away the discharge jerry brown from the governor of california, and so, the irregularities, but first about him. mr. al-jubouri: [speaking foreign language] there are two ways, including the council of representatives face on a request by the prime minister. in accordance to the law. if there is something wrong with this the law gave the right to

appeal with the procedures. and the decision with the council cannot be vetoed. any decision by the council can be vetoedcouncil cannot be when looked at by the federal court, and it is decided whether the procedures are correct or incorrect. one of our problems in iraq, the neighboring countries are influence in iraq, and not only with the coordination of positions. they sometimes go beyond that to achieve a priority on one interest on the other, and i mentioned in my statement that the iraqi field has become a field for a struggle of influence between states, but we aren't paying the price for it in our blood, iraqi blood and iraqi wealth.

consequently, yes. it is a part of the national security to intervene in iraqi affairs, and we reject any intervention, in the same way. we need this to achieve common interests, which is allowed by law. host: here in the back. yes. >> i am with a news network from iraqi kurdistan. i have two questions, mr. speaker. in order to liberate the areas we would need to have the participation of the sunni forces, and that is also for the long-term stability of those areas.

i would like to know your assessment. has it been slow, too slow so far, and whether the united states can do more to make sure there is a sunni force being formed quicker than it has taken so far? and do you believe the united states should arm directly be sunni forces or should go through baghdad? and the second question is about the -- there has been a lot of talk about creating zones, like the kurdistan region, which has been basically a model of stability for iraq. do you believe the sunnis want to that? the sunnis initially, when iraq was invaded, they were opposed to that idea outright, but are they more in favor of that idea now because they believe that they are marginalized with a shia led government now?

thank you. mr. al-jubouri: the first question gives me an opportunity to speak about the first question, to blame shia and to say -- i am a sunni myself, and i am a proud of that, but i have nothing to do with them, -- that group, not the kurds or any component to the iraqi society because it is a project that is limited to killing and blood but how can we deal with this so that we can encourage them to confront them? again, in 2005, they were able to defeat it.

all of those who were carrying weapons charged of carrying weapons against the law. many of them were tried and detained, and then when that group can, they need guarantees. if they confront them, who is going to protect them from the state afterwards? who is going to stick with the law if there is no mechanism in this respect? therefore, they are looking for someone who can stand by them, and the party they need most is the prime minister, to act with them, and there are economic problems and problems related to weapons, but my own conviction is that the arming of the tribes

is not good. it is not complete. the question is, there are three points that i mentioned. we must arm the tribes. we cannot eliminate that group and they have guarantees so that these weapons would reach the local population to confront them. there are matters that are very important. and some of that is under the control of them. they are engaged in commerce. they are investing in these areas economically and so we

have to look at the interest and the exchange of relationships. what is the value of the land, if its inhabitants are not protected and are not taking their rights? the more we save lives, the more we will have a partnership with the other governments. host: so, yes. a question. one second. and there is a gentleman here. thank you. sir thank you,.

>> in the same sentence, you talk about arming the tribes. any reconciliation between these two, and what about other alternatives to fighting and defeating isis on the ground in the south of kurdistan area, and then with the current group that you want to dismantle. there should be more control of government over them and a better alternative? thanks again. mr. al-jubouri: we have two options militarily to confront them. to rely on the official military forces and to strengthen and to build it and to restructure it and to go in the direction --

this direction and to not give anyone else an apology. it is consistent with the idea of the state. the problem is we are in exceptional circumstances. they are requiring the official forces, so if we arm groups, the shia groups and the tribes and will there be a struggle and the future. the answer is yes, they would be. within a unified command.

and there is a victory of those. and if you want to take another approach we must be cautious about establishing a system that we can distribute. host: next. first, here. sir? >> iraqi monitor. [speawking foreign language]

host: right here but we're not getting interpretation. >> repeat? host: please. >> iraqi monitor, from washington. [speaking foreign language] between the federal government and the government. the issue is raised, and for the

success of this idea, that proposal i have now is with the command of the national guard under the presidency of the republic, not the prime minister, to achieve the idea of checks and balances. this is a presidential republic. the president -- the deputy, and the islamic party. it is under the president to solve many problems. it could be, again, the constitution. the constitution gives the authorities. but because the shia component in the constitution, we as the sunni component should review the law and they should be

under the presidency of the state. and thank you. host: do you want to speak? ok. so we have time for one last question, and it is here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am with the wilson center. i would like to go back to the issue of the iraqi army. there has been a lot of controversy about why the army did not fight as would have been desirable in mosul, and why, in your opinion is this the case? is it a problem of training? is it a problem of weapons? is it a problem of morale?

what is the reason for this failure? mr. al-jubouri: since we are talking about the military, having the chief of the armed forces, we have a commander-in-chief with authorities, which is the prime minister and higher, the president of the republic, and the second thing in the army, in remote he -- in ramadi, not up to the required level, there are

indicators to move military sectors and not in a unified vision. this raised a lot of questions. the military orders would be sectors without others, so this is a problem resulting from the unified command. we would not be able to will hold anybody accountable because we do not know who and why he did. host: sorry, sorry. we are out of time. i understand that he has another meeting, so, mr. speaker, on behalf of all of the people here

today, let me thank you for your frankness, for your willingness to answer questions, and thank you for your optimism that you began this discussion. i hope this is not your last visit to the united states, and i hope you will agree to come back to the institute when we have more peace to celebrate, so please join me in thanking the speaker. [applause] announcer: ladies and gentlemen please remain in your seats until the official party departs. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: tonight on "the communicators," at the consumer electronics show, we met up with an author and found out why he the internet is not the answer. andrew keen: the internet is not

the answer. it is lending itself to undermining jobs. it is compounding the inequality of our economic lives. it is creative new, massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the 19th or 20th century, and it has created this date economy where all internet users have been turned into products. you and i, we have been packaged up when we use google or facebook. we become the product, like a hitchcock movie. announcer: tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. tomorrow on "washington journal ," taking a look ahead at the week in congress with derek wallbank. then, examining health care subsidies under the health care law with alan weil. then a discussion of the new

survey of people with disabilities and current workplace barriers they encounter. last, i will take your -- they will take your calls and tweets on c-span. also tomorrow, a hearing on the current challenges of the transportation security administration. we will hear from an inspector general and a former tsa official, who has written about his tenure at the agency. the hearings start tuesday 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. earlier today, president obama told reporters at the g7 summit that they are going to impose additional sanctions if they do not abide by the current minsk agreement with russia. also cyber security and immigration policy? these remarks are about 35 minutes.

president obama: good afternoon. let me again by thanking chancellor angela merkel and the people of germany for their extraordinary hospitality here at the g7. my stay here has been at near it. i wish i could stay longer. one of the pleasures of being president is scouting out places that you want to come back to where you do not have to spend all of your time in a conference room. the setting is breathtaking. our german friends have been absolutely wonderful, and the success of this summit is a tribute to their outstanding work. the g7 represents some of the largest economies in the world, but in our g7 partners, the united states also embraces some of our closest allies and strongest friends in the world

and even as we work to promote growth that creates jobs and opportunity, we are also here to stand up for fundamental principles that we share as democracies, for freedom, for peace, for the right of nations and peoples to decide their own destiny, for universal human rights and the dignity of every human being. i am pleased that here we are shown the most pressing global challenges, and america and our allies stand united. we agree that the best way to sustain the global economic recovery is by focusing on jobs and growth. that is what i am focused on in the united states. on friday, we learned that our economy created another 280,000 jobs in may. that is the strongest month of the year so far, and more than 3 million new jobs over the past year, and that is at the fastest pace in over a decade. we have now seen five straight years with private-sector job

growth, 12 point 6 million new jobs created, the longest streak on record. the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in years, and wages for american workers continue to rise, and since i took office, the united states has cut our deficit by two thirds, so in the global economy, america is a major source of strength. at the same time, we recognize that the global economy, while growing, is still not performing at its full attention, and we agree on a number of necessary steps. we support efforts to find a path that enables greece to carry out reforms and return to growth within a strong, stable and growing eurozone. i updated my partners on congress with the authority so we can move ahead with the asia-pacific region and another here in europe. agreements with standards to protect workers, public safety and the environment. you continue to make progress

for a strong global climate agreement this year in paris. all of the g7 countries have now put forward our post-2020 targets for reducing carbon emissions, and we will continue we will continue to work our climate finance commitments to help developing countries transition to low carbon growth. as we have done in the u.s., the g-7 agreed on the need to integrate climate risks in the development assistance and programs across the board and to increase access to risk insurance to help developing countries respond to and recover from climate related disasters. building on the power africa initiative, the g7 will work to mobilize more financing for clean energy projects in africa. with respect to security, the g-7 remains strongly united in support fo