business practices or principles? >> first with principles and policies. .. >> i do not know. >> could you find out for us? thank you. the point of the jamaica as i think we've run across something

that democrats and republicans in washington can agree on and perhaps that is that the aarp leadership doesn't necessarily protect the best interests of the american senior citizens but they pledge to represent. so i simply take a few as representing the leadership of aarp, please don't mislead our seniors. they sent all of us, republicans and democrats alike to this body to represent them. please don't use ms ponds to line your pockets on their backs. without a yield that. >> cannot comment? >> the gentlelady yells back. >> i think it's very important that we not allow the purpose of this hearing to be taken in a different direction.

the seniors of this nation deserves the right to know how money is being spent and whether it's been spent in their best interest. with that, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually agree with the notion about the senior citizens. i would first of all like to thank aarp because i have not always agreed on some issues, but i respect the work that is done. the folks back home provides lots of energy and activity. i for 1:00 a.m. sorry that you are subject to do something of that nature because they truly think reading through a 25 a half page with 2432 dresser that an authoritative in scholarly misses the mark.

i find it fascinating on page 17. you are taken to task because somehow you are undermining your long-term business interests because you have underwriting standards that are more flexible in the to the needs of people who are 52 mike 60 that caused potentially money. and you're taken to task for that. you supported the affordable care act, which now requires every american to have these protections, which you undertook that perhaps some financial disadvantage to their motto because you thought it was the right thing. i remember that when some members of congress who used to support top and seniors with end-of-life care, when the big lie about death penalty and they

retreated. aarp was part of 400 individuals and groups that came forward to tell the chairs. not just because someone like my friend from georgia thinks something is than that though doesn't put it in the bill. and i vitiate your zeroing in. this route port takes you to task because aarp had the audacity -- the audacity to support the children health program expansion. assuming you did not only for some sort of convoluted financial benefit, ignoring the fact that your members have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and we all want intergenerational cooperation. mr. chairman, i have read it.

i think it's a little bit goofy. with all due respect, the notion somehow that they focus on medicare advantage that is rocky and his nature conan cut. medicare advantage means that 75% of your members who are senior citizens have see first papers pay $90 a year more. so maybe trying to reform medicare and kitsch speaks to the 75% of your members and 75% of american seniors who are paying more because the system got out of hand. >> you've expressed her rationale. >> i just think i'm glad it's in the record. i hope people look at it. witchhunt is such a nasty turn. i look forward to bringing before s. people who have really crossed the line, people that

call mingle fun and push the limits are crossed over them in terms of irs regulations. but i think any fair reading is that your work on preexisting conditions, children's health, end-of-life, medicare reform speaks to what we need to be doing as a country and as a congress. sadly, this morning's exercise moves us no further along towards the implementation that the things that you came out for back in the day used to be bipartisan support in. and sunday, they will again. i appreciate your effort. again, i apologize for being a part of this, but i do hope people understand this but it is

no indictment of aarp. it does say something about this committee's operation. thank you and i yield back. >> shunning yields back. i think it is important to note that aarp and it written in formal testimony did not refute any specific conclusions or findings in this report. neither ranking member refuted any specific conclusions or findings in this report in their opening statements. so all of this talk about which congressional staffer was involved with the report or who the committee will investigate next is simply a stunt to draw away from the finding of the report, specifically that aarp students to gain an additional

$1 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the democrat health care law. with that, yield five minutes. with that i yield five minutes. i yield five minutes to the lady from tennessee, ms. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by saying how disappointed i am that this has been turned into a witchhunt. it is the role and responsibility when there are things that seem to be outside of what should be happening that we should investigate. but have concerns about other operations may not be operated or they have questions that they bring that before this committee. just a personal ax. and prior to coming progress and i was the executive director of

a 501(c)(3) health care foundation. we were careful because we were providing funds for the half ago, for which we were the foundation about co-mingling members of our boards. one of the things that concerned me a favor this report report was the fact that you are aarp ain't, the 50 -- 501(c)(4) organization is run by 22 board members, but you also have seven board members from your for-profit and all seven of those board members also served by your other board. and so i am concerned about the co-mingling of word members from your for-profit and private not-for-profit. if you could speak about that, i would appreciate it. >> i'd be glad to if i could. i'm not sure what for-profit you are talking about the seven members. we check in at the grantor trust? the insurance trust?

>> now you have -- explain to me how many different boards do have. >> thank you. i appreciate the question because it needs to be clarified. there are basically three different boards that are involved in the aarp organization. one is the aarp board. there's 22 members. there is another board, which is the board for psi, are tax paying affiliate, which has on it to aarp board members. there is a third board, which is the aarp foundation board, which has four board members on it. there are seven toto. but for aarp board members are in the board. the purpose of having the aarp board members on this interlocking boards is to make sure that the mission of aarp is

the first priority of each of the boards and that everything that goes through those present concert with her aarp policy and their mission. >> so which of those board sets your rate? the premium rate? >> premium rates are set at the state insurance. >> you have a contract with united? who oversees those contracts? which one of the boards oversee those contracts? >> contracts are not overseen by the board. there overseen by asi. they manage and oversee the contracts. >> you have members from your for-profit or not-for-profit, correct? you said you have to numbers -- >> two board members from aarp -- >> or nonprofit? >> nonprofit on the seven-member board of the asi.

>> and so with these three different boards, are they all in the same office? >> no. >> no, they have three different offices with three different managers? so, three different managers -- >> there is the president foundation, president of asi. >> as far as miniatures cocom your administrative staff federal three separate are three separate administrative staffs? >> it's been a few occasions where they may be co-mingled come at the time is that, but there are only a few of those occasions. most of the work is done by the staffs of the individual entities. >> mr. brand, are you the overseer of all of these? >> no cop on the aarp, the c-4. >> nonprofit c-4. >> to use it as an ex officio on

any of these motherboards? >> i said on the the board of asi is a nonvoting member. >> i am concerned about the intermingling of these board members have veto power and decisions that are being made by each one of these groups then these members being co-mingled. i am concerned about that and i will be interested to see what the irs looks at the way in which you manage your organization by the co-mingling of what they had to say because i know how sensitive of a situation that was as i've served as the executive or of a nonprofit and for-profit. >> the young lady's time has expired. with akamai we have a series of votes, so we will recess and reconvene immediately after the vote and we will continue with this panel. i apologize it will probably about an hour, but a appreciator

indulgence. with that i will recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee reconvenes. i'd like to first recognize the chairman of the committee, mr. boustany for a comment. >> thank you, channing.

i want to make sure her previous comment he made about mr. levin's comments that i spoke of earlier discussion. i want to be very clear so there is no confusion here that when mr. levin requested the irs commissioners shall mean an irs detail he be assigned republican staff of the committee, detailing would be looking into and i quote for mr. levin's letter, in areas related to tax-exempt organizations and other matters of interest to the ways and means committee. mr. levin was not aware that the detail he would be working on the investigation specifically. i just want to offer the clarification. i yield back. >> the chairman yells back. the chairman from california, mr. becerra is recognized for five minutes. >> chairman, thank you for yielding time. i thank chairman boustany for the clarification, which simply leads to more confusion because

the reality is here that we are looking on a document that was prepared without a think the knowledge of most every member on this committee. it appears to be a document that was prepared without the committee staff whole participation. it's certainly nowhere in the document indicates that this is an official report, certainly not an official investigative report by the ways and means committee. and in my 12 plus years have been on this committee, this is the first time i've seen us conduct business this particular way. we are a week away from a government shut down, where this house has been unable to reconcile its differences with the president and their members on the other side of the aisle, which talks about the need to shut the government in order to make the case.

we are watching is the discussion about a budget has become more an issue about a social agenda that some members believe they should have attached a fiscal bill. and i would think that most people watching this would wonder, with us just a week away from sandisk government shutdown in the services that would be provided to law that might be interested in this hearing is jeopardy as a result of a government shutdown that they probably wonder, is this the way that those who took control of the house of representatives intend to govern? i don't believe this is anyway to run run the largest economy in the world or the smallest business on main street. and so, i hope we get down to the real business, which i thought -- i remember both sides of the aisle people campaign back in november talking about job creation. jobs, jobs, jobs. i don't know how having this

hearing today, where we have requested mr. rand and mr. hammond to testify does anything to create jobs. and maybe this is the way the house of representatives will operate that this is how we do because fortunately with the work that has been done in the last two years, with the president, this congress was able to get the economy back on track. we just heard this morning that the economy was able to generate another quarter of a million new jobs in the last two months, 450,000 jobs created in the earth. but then again, when you recognize that in january of 2009, when new president barack obama was hemorrhaged 487,000 jobs in the pseudo-work right right in front of a. so in this committee, which is perhaps the most important committee in the house, the house, or stimulate the job. we find ourselves essentially

engaged in a discrete, aggressive attack on an organization that represents and has for many decades perhaps the population in america which deserves the most respect, those who made it possible for us to be here. and so, i guess this is the business of the day and so we will conduct the business of today. i do hope and chairman boustany has said this and i applaud him, we will continue to do oversight. because whether mr. rand or mr. hammond or any other organization that wishes to get favorable treatment from the taxpayers in this country, we have an obligation to do oversight, to make sure that no one abuses the opportunity to be treated differently than any other american who is paying his or her full share of taxes. and so, i think it would've been wholly wholly appropriate to

have aarp or any other nonprofit come before this committee and explain itself. if we legitimately thought there was something going on. and so, i hope, mr. chairman -- i hope will conduct true oversight because i can tell you about any number of organizations that swindle the american public out of precious contributions and very few things that are good for this country. the biggest concern i have is that -- it's actually kind of funny here today i realized i was walking back here today is april 1st, april fools' day. and the fact we've been at this for over an hour to be a joke, but this is not a joke and my sense is that is not a joke because i suspect what we are trying to do here, with some are trying to do through the hearings is perhaps silence voices instead of have full participation in the process. and i hope, mr. chairman, this

is not an effort to silence voices of seniors in america because my understanding with regard to medicare, medicaid and social security, there separates underweight to cut benefits and i hope that this house -- willing to do the hearings that it takes to show the american people we're working for them, not against them. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. kind is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i went to thank you for your presence here today. your patience is appreciated and to echo what my colleagues in california said, you know, you may think this to be some kind of cruel april 1st joke colony before a congressional committee, but it really is him. whatever you are subjected to a prosecutorial congress committee is a serious matter and i think it's unfortunate he has i do want to describe in a modest on the other side, but the surface appears to be or may selective

retribution or political retribution. there are many other organizations and individuals who could be sitting out there right now it's in the same types of questions and inquiries you have been subjected to over the last few hours, but they're not in a think that's unfortunate. if there's anything that ultimately works for the tax code, it is a feeling it is applied in a dress fairly to everyone in this country and not be news to some type of political weapon. we can go through it with the organizations that are collecting royalties or licensing fees, tax exempt from television patience to universities and the chamber of commerce, the nfib, association of health insurance plans and on and on and on, that same questions can be directed here. and on the surface it just smacks the political richard duchenne. and everyone on this committee and sure is not in complete agreement with aarp and where they come on policy issues. i was number two in 2004 when you are supporting the medicare

modernization act, which i'll created the new prescription drug is a plan for seniors. the main reason i wasn't as because it was the largest expansion of entitlement spending since medicare was created in 1965 and a nickel of that was paid for. at all what to deficit financing. a prohibitive price negotiation of drug companies that bill. significant policy differences. and yet, republicans have controlled the congress was a bill that offered a new supported it. they were not coming back the next week or the next month, subject to need these questions. it was only after you have the audacity to support the affordable care act that they want to call you before here and start questioning you about your loyalty payments for making a list of organizations could very well be subjected to the same line of inquiry. former representative. capitol hill publication here titled don't play politics with aarp. and in that article, i'd like to

just quote one paragraph that he wrote. the fact is that the organization of aarp did significant revenue from selling products, but that is an unusual. many nonprofit health insurers like carefirst, member organizations like nra to my trade associations like the american bankers association and human service pack goodies like the red cross get significant revenue from product sales and in licensing. that's the point i was just making. mr. rand, maybe you can inform the committee how many members duchesne members does aarp have today. [inaudible] >> 37, just shy of 40 million. it is my understanding that aarp does not spend a nickel to rackley advocating the election of any candidate running for office in the united states. is that correct? >> that's correct and we don't have a pack. >> said in a contributing campaign funds to any person, republican, democrat or otherwise running for office.

i do want to on the spot, but the 60 plus association is an alternative of aarp. gina how many dues paying members the association has? >> i don't know. >> let me answer that for you. none, zero. they take all the contributions for the interests out there that don't have to be disclosed in turnaround at gram-negative political act against candidates throughout the country familiar a tax exempt organization. it's not surprising that we don't find him sitting next to you here today either because they basically one on the attack against democratic candidates in the last election cycle. let me also ask you that, you know, let me get to the crucial question here. i think aarp supported the affordable care act today because there was direct financial benefit for you of what was ms legislation that was passed? or was it based on substantive policy regions of why you

supported the affordable care act? >> had nothing to do with revenues. it was 100% focused on our mission and what our seniors and 50 plus populations were saying they needed for the american dream. >> and what more specifically found in the affordable care act made sense for your members to mount the support of that? >> we talked about no preexisting conditions, which is what they wanted, which we advocated for. stop being of age discrimination through a trading, which they said as we get older we have less money. >> i want to thank our witnesses, you mr. rand, mr. hammond for participating today's hearing. with that, that will conclude our first panel that they took up her second panel. >> mr. chairman. >> please. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> ester chairman, according to

the release on march 25th, it to commit britain comments as long as they follow set forth as an advisor. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> and compliance to any organization, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and so, mr. chairman, with that the weather witness before us today, aarp? >> now, our witnesses today have had an opportunity to submit testimony because they've already had that opportunity. >> can i respond to that, mr. chairman? >> well, again, aarp has had their opportunity to submit

their testimony and submit for the record so that sardi ben edited out. >> it is my understanding that the report is 26 pages long with 243 footnote that was released on wednesday. this will not finish on time for aarp to have written comments. they should have the benefit unvested point to get all of our questions answered. >> i mentioned the gentleman we mentioned with aarp two weeks ago and went over this report with them so they've had two weeks to be able to submit to us a report. again, i would like to move onto her second panel. >> i just correct that? we went over four pages, mr. chairman. [inaudible]

>> i object. >> the witnesses have provided testimony. >> can i provide to the advisory direct quote from the advisor? a person or any organization wishing to submit for the human record for the hearing page of the committee website complete the information from the committee's homepage. >> that's for testimony. >> just a quote from our advisory.

in a limited time available to hear from witnesses will testimony, active testimony will be from indicted witnesses only. any individual not scheduled for oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the committee and for inclusion in the printed record of hearing a list of inviting witness will follow. ..

pauline neville jones is the british minister for security

and counterterrorism. today she talked about british domestic initiatives to combat threats coming from the muslim community in her country. her remarks were part of a long for among the phenomena of its luster radicalization. was the by the council on foreign relations in washington, d.c. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> for the center of radicalization and political violence i want to welcome you to our symposium today. united kingdom and u.s. approach is encountering radicalization. in putting together a conference like the one we have today, hope we have a big debt of gratitude to give a number of people and i'd like to single them out here. on behalf of georgetown university, i would like to thank thomas pooler us for his unwavering support for today's symposium and the george fund for intelligence studies at georgetown university.

the fun is named in honor of his father and on some hero but u.s. intelligence services and fun in the the fund investment for future intelligence studies georgetown center for peace and security studies. we'd also like to think long time member and supporter rita howser, was deeply involved in intelligence work through her service on the president's intelligence advisory board. thank you very much for all your support. >> i will also like to think georgetown university bruce hoffman and ellen mchugh. henry and peter newman of the international center for the study of radicalization and also thanks to my colleagues here at cfr led by ed hussain and steve simon and it takes a lot of people working in the background to make an event like to happen and my colleague heads up a

truly outstanding meeting steam here so i want to think nancy, chris title, emily mcleod, jeff, allyson and kate collins pulling today's conference together. i have a couple of housekeeping deals to go over. today's sessions are all on the record with two exceptions. the exceptions are session to on violent radicalization trends and section 6, new frontiers countering on line radicalization, i would also request if you have a blackberry, pda, any other electronic device that sends or receives signals if you could turn it off right now so that it will not interfere in the sound system and put out squealing painful sounds over the speakers i would appreciate that.

why are we having today's symposium? the answer is fairly straightforward. the united states is experiencing a significant increase in violent islamist extremism both abroad and at home, ongoing events in the middle east are a cause for concern about the probable rise of islamic radicalism at least in the short term. at home we have more and more instances of americans either plotting attacks against their fellow americans or attempting to travel overseas to receive terrorist training. the fort hood shooting in november, 2009 and the near successful car bombing in times square in may, 2010 by the most dramatic illustration of the trend of we are seeking in today's event to bring to the leading officials and experts

from the united kingdom and the united states to take stock to exchange best practices and develop fresh ideas for tackling some of the most important issues in the current debate. and i would like to think the british colleagues to troubled a considerable distance to get her this morning. i only had to take a metro subway ride. they had to come a long way. we are honored to begin today's conversation with a truly distinguished keynote speaker, the united kingdom's minister state responsible for security and counterterrorism minister neville jones has had a distinguished 30 year career as a diplomat serving in posts around the world including the former rhodesia, singapore, washington, she was also the consulate to the european commission. minister neville jones has had a

current position since may 2010 and i would invite minister neville jones to come to the podium. [applause] >> good morning everyone. thank you for that kind introduction. as has been noted i spent time in my path in washington and i want to see what a pleasure it is to come back. i think anybody that has spent time here seldom goes away feeling that they will never entirely stake off this town and it is good to be here and as somebody who has had some experience in the subject, and i

understand the administration is likely to be issuing a strategy in this policy area quite shortly i hope i can shed some light on the u.k. experience and i shall be talking on the point of view from the experience. not everything we've done or experienced is necessarily relevant to the context but i do think there are some common problems and solutions we might be able to share and respectfully benefit from and it is that talk this morning as well said the rather pretentious title for the minister of security and counterterrorism, and as a result of that, focused quite considerably since the coalition came into office last

may in our approach to radicalization and the key part of the successful strategy that i will now focus on. i suppose it is worth starting of course where does this story began? well, i make it very clear terrorism isn't just a threat which is external to the western countries and foreign accounts from overseas to strike or cities. it can and it does as we now know come from within -- within our own countries and inside our own population. and i think it's fair to say that every single country in the west needs to wake up to what is happening within our own borders. means we must strengthen our response with the capabilities of our intelligence agencies and the law enforcement officers but it's only part of the solution

and we have to get off the route. we must tackle the ideology that fuels and drives and the circumstances which give that id doherty appeal. we need to act against the existence of the perverse and traditions to the capricious ideology which is islamist extremism. let me stress this doesn't mean tackling the religion of islam which is one of the great religions of the world. the right-wing extremist fringe who argue that is exactly what we should do but they have it wrong. to say the west and islam are eternal the irreconcilable have more in common with the islamist extremism something we might like to think. this is the same argument of course by al qaeda and they do have it wrong we need to work

with islam. moreover, that even that last week in north africa and egypt and libya has demonstrated the population of the muslim countries themselves seek no incompatibility and they create the freedom that they see us in the western drawling and that's important and our domestic policy it should be a cardinal tenet that the space freedoms and islam are companions. the prime minister made clear in the recent speech which gave the conference islamist extremist ideology is the problem, islam is not. so that brings us on to the question of what is it about islamist extremist ideology

which can lead all the that the terrorism. clearly the space values need not of itself to violence by no means terrorists so how does the process all requisition work it's been a great deal of the academic research in universities and think tanks on radicalization and the agency's more for you than knowledge in that information to try to come up with an answer and what emerges is the on remarkable conclusion that there is no single cause. the requisition is driven by an ideology which claims muslims around the world are being oppressed and this is the key, this is the argument, then it legitimizes balanced and defense.

the legitimization of violence has the political vision, the restoration of the caliphate based on the purported meeting of scriptures. now this is a revolution message that is broadcast by the network of influential propagandists who make extensive use of the internet to penetrate the globe and it finds an audience among individuals with a former devotees which make that ideology seem both attractive and compelling. where the vulnerability are part of the community or virtual community with extremist views are widely affected the legitimization of the violence that comes easy and the path to terrorism is thereby slowed. we know in the u.k. from our own citizenship survey, and i will give you an excess dhaka that in situations where people believe

that if neck and face to groups should not meet and where people are segregated from the rest of society they are more likely to accept the extremist arguments. and the violence is easy. well crafted messaging has contributed to the perception of the symbol will global terrorist campaign which is often carried on bye terrorist groups that are of the same interest and we underestimate the infrastructure and powerful ideology. as our prime minister put it, we must confront and must undermine it. this will be a concerted effort for all of government institutions and citizens, all

of last. now in the u.k. we have had for some years the strategy to counter the radicalization and stop people becoming terrorists. there are parallels with the violent extremism programs which are being run in this country and by which i think will be talking leader in the day. we prevented the key component of the broad strategy of all aspects of terrorism. it's fair to say these days in many places with a police and local communities are now more willing to talk to each other frankly and constructively than previously about the threat of terrorism and the danger of radicalization and how we should try to reduce them. the level of awareness of the danger is much greater and greater share of purpose than was once the case.

our information and understanding is slowly getting better. the police have a mandate grounded in their community policing role to negate vulnerable individuals and intervene to help them and along with cooperation of local governments and volunteer community bodies. and community-based groups have been engaged to provide antiand the requisition services and we can report the successes in stopping people being radicalized or drawn into terrorism. however, there is a however, we do think that the mistakes have blotted out a good deal of the progress. there's been accusations of the stigmatization and the police spying on muslim communities and the perception which has been meant for the color and by the role of the police in the personal interventions.

the government has also been accused and they are only interested in the british muslim has so far they represent a terrorist threat. the health or education or housing of no concerned and the securities and approach to muslim communities. the result is it is lost in the good will and designed to halt more widely its also for trying to do too many things a month for wasting money and also for spending it on the wrong projects. it was clear that compared with the other parts of the counterterrorism strategy when the incoming coalition came we had to do something about this because it wasn't working and

could be so that is what we have been focusing on. our first conclusion was that the segregation communities were becoming more pronounced and the wrong vehicle as it was designed to come to it. indeed, sit in the white policy context i think it's clear special programs are liable to have the effect opposite intended for from uniting the of the tendency to isolate all accusations. we reckon we need the new strategy of integration and its own right within be the component part rather than the other way around. and in the munich speech british prime minister said we must build a stronger societies and identities at home to criticize

past policies and multiculturalism which encouraged the differentiation between communities instead as we see the task of actively fostering a sense of what we share and value. to give you an example of the kind of things i think we need to do part is the big society program, the government has introduced the national citizens' service in which six senior notes more runs and walks of life would spend two months living and working together. we want to create division of the society to which all including young muslims feel they want to be long and participate in and their something we can learn here from america. you have created from your country the powerful sense of national identity and the american dream and the acceptance of the immigrant communities. this is a task the british and government seeks to create the sense of shared identity in our

country and we need this and it's stand independently of counterterrorism it is however a framework within which we will challenge non-violence and violent extremist views. so if our values need anything, they must be equal to taking all opposing opinions however hostile the debate and we want discriminate, we will come from all forms of extremism from the far left to the far right from fascist to the militants. the government will work actively on this task for those of all faiths and viewpoints who share the values. we will not rely on extremists to combat violence not merely because they do not espouse violence themselves. we will not promote the advocacy

of violence and we will exclude from the u.k. those from abroad who have a track record of preaching or in advocating violence. everett retires prevent strategy would be implemented within the broad context. would be narrowly focused on violent extremism and the pathways that lead to the espousal of the violence and a sense what is an issue is people and networks that the work and live and it will be more granular in its approach dealing with people. we need also to remember the threat we face from terrorism is the following and we need to be flexible in our response. at the core to prevent would-be ideology, institutions and individuals. the idea which it supports terrorism and those who promote it.

the requisition might occur which will be crucial in disrupting its impact and the individuals who are vulnerable to the radicalization and i want to say a little bit more about each of these and why they are important, first of all ideology. challenging extremism is part of the normal functioning of space societies and as i've made clear it finds an important place in our wide integration strategy. and when it comes for a spousal it's a concerted response is required which must be more focused and specialized than can be the case in the normal cut and thrust of space debates, the sustained messages called for. much can and should be done at the local level by communities themselves and prevent our focus on the project. as i mentioned at the outset, the exploitation of the incident

also needs to be at the center of our attention. this is a serious issue. the internet plays an ever more significant role in the promotion of terrorism. we know that in the u.k. the goods gather to view the preaching of the violent men and the many thousands of miles away and what this does have a powerful effect on the young minds they've been radicalized to the point of being willing to kill and to try to do this as the result carrying such material. the british mp suffers serious injury in this way from a woman who can to see him and his constituency office and this is and justice that the man it is a step up the open democracy and we must take action to slow the place and which comes across the border and requires international action. a child pornography on the

internet stimulates the volatility in real life and we go after it. and we believe that we should go after web sites and other activities which enables terrorism. we welcome the awareness on the part of internet providers on the dangers of such materials and we look forward to working with partners on effective action for example, to give you an exit, google has now added referral flat on youtube for content which promotes tourism. the country of the activity directly such as helping build the capacity of the civil society organizations who are campaigning to build on the awareness of the moderate organizations encouraging the creation of websites that offer on-line topic let fisa beyond muslims and engaging in online debates about extremist - and

ideologies at the local level and we also have a civil society concerned of individual directly and attractive -- active. our experience suggests certain institutions such as prisons and universities and colleges, indeed mosque's may be especially vulnerable to the influence of charismatic radicalized. our universities and colleges, academic research and freedom of expression and the government respect this and really defend the rights of free speech as we will defend the rights, all citizens' rights to free speech. but we do believe that there is a responsibility which universities carry to ensure these freedoms are not exploited and prefer to by speakers on the off campus. and if taken seriously the

individuals needing help and guidance are spotted and assistance is available to them. and the training of the english is absolutely fundamental to bonding the fate of young muslims of the western social context of which they find themselves. the u.k. has a thriving faith sector which offers some of the best education available, and that includes muslim schools which receive public funding and we are not going to stop that but we will seek to maintain national standards of instructions and those schools as an all else. muslims in britain are represented in the presence. we need to ensure prison doesn't become an incubator of the

violent extremism. the u.k. is developing programs for prisoners inside and on relief to increase the likelihood of success full description of the temps of radical ossetian and recruitment and the chances of successful rehabilitation and integration in society. i would like to claim it is easy but is very important. it has often been seen as a part of the problem and there have been instances of this. today i think the issue is less of mosques harboring preachers being suspected of fostering violent extremism and that alone being guilty of at. it's more in our view one of the gaps of confidence that still exists between the mosque and local authorities and the police and this is a gap which will be vital to close if we are to be a

successful in dealing with the individuals. you can see the cooperation between the local mosques and local communities and local authorities is very important. individuals, those individuals who are on the path to radicalization don't exist in the vacuum. in the neighborhood they need friends and families and they come into contact with local community sector workers such as teachers, police officers. individuals who especially if trained to notice changes in behavior and it's working with the local community organizations or community groups who can provide the deal radicalization interventions that we get some of the best results, and this is an intelligible route and it is crucial obviously to have the support of the local muslim

leaders, vital, frankly to the long term success. as we've already had quitted the experience on this work and we find it to be helpful and cost-effective, hundreds of people have now been referred to the flagship channel program, this type of multi agency intervention channel enormously more cost-effective than maintaining an mi5 investigation or dealing with the consequences of a successful attack. that's why i prevent such an important part of the broad sanctions. ..

>> we believe it can be done, and that in the u.k. within the broader program of strengthening our collective identity prevent the key role to play in persuading people from being drawn by the foreign message. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, minister, thoughtful set of remarks. i'd like to begin with an issue

raised in your remarks about the role of integration and the importance of national identity. you quite nicely complemented americans on the strong sense of national identity and the great pride that americans have in incorporating immigrants into society, and i think because of that for many years, more thans thought they were immune from the risk of home-grown radicalization, but recently weave been forced -- we've been forced to grapple with this problem. why do you think it is america's facing this challenge given that it has this century of incorporating? >> well, i think it's necessary but not sufficient is probably my first answer. we don't have enough of it, and so as we think actually it is the framework within which cow can then deal with the specific problem. that's why we have laid a lot of emphasis on that necessary framework. i think that it's not sufficient because i hope as i try to make

clear, there is a healthy democracy and will conduct a really strong cut and trust, and emphasize your values and you it's a really, really important part of living your beliefs, but if you get to -- when it comes to people who are preaching to potentially rather close communities and who have successfully drawn people away from listening to that democratic debate, participating in that democratic debate, being willing -- willing come pepping of the party, and we have some of that, then it's very important actually to carry out, and i think through specific interventions designed to get at that kind of community, and that is where i think we feel that we have to have a specific program. it works best when it is

conducted by muslims themselves. there isn't a doubt about that, and one of the things we have to do is to gain the confidence of the country such that they are willing themselves to lead these programs, and we've gone a bit down this road. we -- in a sense we pilot tested what we need to do. we know it works, but it's got to be much broader, and that is why i can't help feeling in the end if they are going to be willing to do that, may must feel two things, one, they are part of a broader society and they have no rights as well as duties in the place, and that they are regarded as equal brits, and what they're doing is valued, so i think, i think it's partly -- it can be of leadership, and i think it's the getting into that little, that little corner, you got to get

into which i think is important. i did, in fact, know that response to american experience, but it certainly, i think where we feel that you have to, you have to underpin the values of democracy by doing actually a special program. >> i take it from your remarks there's a challenge in doing that and doing it well. >> there is, there is. >> you spoke of it and the american context emerging in a great deal of fear in what americans are going to do, what the u.s. government will do leading to stying anyization of muslims and make the problem worse than better. >> certainly. >> talk a little about your thoughts -- >> this is not easy stuff. >> no. from your perspective or the british perspective what are lessoned learned and how do you avoid the area you know you shouldn't commit? >> we actually this have problem, and one example of where different parts of the

strategy actually do damage to each other. as you know, we've had, i mean, we have to have given the nature of the kind of plots that we have had to deal with, of course, there's been a pursuant strategy alongside of that dealing with counterterrorism. now, it's not too difficult to find those things entangled, so that's one danger. second danger is, and, of course, it's spirited wittingly, and there has been mistakes. one example of the police force in one area in the country and on the whole, cctv cameras. >> closed caption televisioned? >> yes, that's important. it gave rise, and it gave rise to the acquisition so you didn't have to be transparent about who you're doing, but i think the government has to constantly explain what's happening, it's

all one at the end of the day that you can only do it locally. on the on the ground where the local communities are operating where the confidence is. all this is trust and confidence, and we have to rebuild that because there's an erosion. i think we believe that to start again you can't just accept that having made a mistake that you're bound to be on the objective. we have tried to reshape the framework in which it is and put what we believe to be the dominant thing which is getting the country together as the overall framework and prevent within it, and we've changed the way the money is spent, and we have put the integration strategy into the hands of a different government department so that it's quite clear that this is a different activity, but come back in the end to saying that we have to gain confidence, and we have to work very carefully at the whole

business of personal and individual intervention. i believe at the end of the day this is a gran newel thing. you are dealing with people, individuals, and the best people to deal with individuals are those who are close to them, those who think they have some regard for them, a certain role model. it's there that we have to go. we'll have to build this strategy. >> you talk about reaching out to individuals, that's, as i understand it, the program, to engage, friends, family, the community. can i just try a little bit about more how that works in practice? >> it literally works in long sessions with individuals debating issues, arguing, going over the terrorists coming back to the issue, and it's, it's particularly mind stuff. what is this world of ours?

it's fundamentals about what people think they are there for. now, if you get somewhere with someone, what you then want to ensure that they got a job, that actually they see their family has a future so the whole thought of a series of other things that need to accompany that. you start not just change the mind set, but also reintegrate, and so not only is the agency working and they are very important in this. >> at this point, minister, i'd like to bring the audience into our conversation here. i would ask you to please wait for the microphone. when you get a microphone, please speak into it. please state your name, affiliation, and i ask people keep their questions concise and source and that there is a question so we can do as many as possible. i promised the minister to keep her on schedule. >> what can you tell us about the 400,000 pakistanis going

back and forth between the u.k. and other parts of pakistan, and how does one persuade those people, vis-a-vis, those living in england permanently and never go back to pakistan. >> quite right to say the single largest muslim community in the u.k. is subcontinental, and there is a lot of modern communication and modern travel and a lot is coming and going. we should be quite clear that it is a tiny, tiny fraction of those people who travel backwards and forwards who were up to no good, and if you ask the average pakistani origins, brit, what do you think about that, they will give you the answer. they want nothing to do with this, and that's absolutely clear. what we have to establish, however, is 9 --

the willingness of individuals to come and say there is a problem here. we have a problem in our local community, and that's the gap we have to bring, and it does happen. it does happen. some of the most important pieces of information, the authorities ever received in the u.k., have come from individuals in the community. that's exactly what we want to encourage. it's assuming i can be on site, but i don't need to be. i'm not neutral or with these guys, but i give the outside to the rest of the society, and that's the bit we have to try to accomplish. i have to say i think we have a real opportunity at the moment. sure, look at what's going on in the middle east. we ought to be able to do something about it. it's preaching to the kind of messages that we want to get across that is islam, western values combined together. i think that part of our way to go back and forth of course is

the way we interpret the world to our own societies and how they see and how they fit in. i think foreign policy -- i don't have time to go into the issues, but policy on how government explains and defends foreign policy, and it's quite an important part of overall mind set and particularly applies to when it comes to an issue like pakistan. it's clear that we have a strategic relationship with the pakistan government in a corruptive enterprise against terrorism. we set them as our partners, and they are indeed a difficult task between us as we know, so i think that -- i think we got our messages right on that, we just have to get a little bit more link up where people say, right, there's something wrong here, i'm going to go and talk to the mom, and mom will do what's necessary. >> yes, sir.

>> hello, i'm timothy ritter, and i've heard you say just now two things that sound to be a little bit like they are intention with each other. one is you talked about the narrative that al-qaeda and other organizations put forward that first muslims are embattled and under attack around the world, and second that the proper response is a violent one, and now you just talked about the fact that britain has a strategic relationship with a pakistani government. how do you take apart the narrative that you talked about for those who believe that the pakistani government is part of what is o oppressing muslims in that part of the world? now we've said you have an explicit policy of backing them on or at least on a number of issues, so how do you sort that out and explain it? thank you very much.

>> the relationship with the government doesn't mean you necessarily endorse or back everything that happens under the roof of that country. i think on the other hand, though, i would defend very vigorously the pakistani government in its intents to deal with terrorism on its own soil. i think it faces a very, very difficult problem, and there difficulty are not going to be dealt with at all easy, and it's part of our policy to try and help. the situation in pakistan is very complex obviously. because it's very complex though and because it's difficult, it is precisely why we need to help, and we help with the underlying structures of the society and there's a lot of money in education and trying actually to make the

underpinning of pakistan such that they are both education and economic activity available to more people. i mean, these are absolute fundamentals, so it's getting a stable society in that part of the world, and it's an important part of our policy, and i don't think we see contradiction in between. i said there's no quick wins in this, that kind of long term support, and a working together, you know, against violence. >> i think we have time for one more question. before i take the question, i want to remind everybody that this session is on the record, and in fairness, i'm going to the back of the room since the first two questions came to the front, and the young lady all the way at the end, last row. >> thank you. department of state. what is the u.k. government's

approach to engaging with allies, moderate voices in the muslim community or maybe not so moderate voices, but nevertheless leaders who have a nonviolent approach but support the ideology. thank you. >> it's hard to hear, but it's the question of nonviolence on muslim, is that right? >> [inaudible] >> well, i think -- >> microphone. >> clearly, what we are concerned with is the transition to vims, and it's there we focus. i did make clear, however, one of the things, and this is the difference between ourselves and predecessors is we don't believe it right to work with the education agency of those who are themselves on the separatist tendency or extremists in their views and use them as agents because they are not violence. we believe you can do this

affectively with people who share your values, and we want for that, and we do believe the resources are available to share our values to help us and we'll be together in this, but we're not, i think, pakistan as a notion that somehow you can easily get the right result by trying to wait for the agency of those who themselves don't share your value m systems, and it goes obviously to your analysis partly of how you think the relationship between extremism and extreme values and values that aren't ours and the actual ease spousal of violence works, and we don't trust the notion that somehow you can effectively deal with preventing and discouraging people from violence working through those who are not of the value

system. >> minister, i know you have a very busy schedule today. i want to say on behalf of all of the sponsors of today's event, thank you very much for coming here. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i'm the counterterrorism correspondence at national public radio, and i'm going to welcome you to the third session of today's symposium, intelligence in encounter radicalization. once again, turn off your cell phones, not on vibrate, but completely off. as a reminder, this session is on the record. the last session was off the record, so we can't refer to anything we heard in the last session. that goes for the speakers too because that was completely off the record. in this session what we're going to do is compare and contrast theling cartilages between

intelligence and law enforcements in the u.s. and u.k. and see how violent extremism changed the business of intelligence. we have the world's most perfect panel and starting with charles allen who was at the cia for more than 40 years and basically was doing intelligence longer than i've been alive, and people that i have -- [laughter] it's a complement. people i spoke to about mr. allen referred to him as a legend, and i never interviewed a legend before, so i'm looking forward to that. bill bratton is the smartest cop in america, and if you don't know a lot about him, but he's the only person alive or dead to led the two largest police forces in the united states, the nypd and lapd. also peter clark from the u.k. is here today. with all the focus on the royal wedding, he used to be in charge

of the royalty and protection department, in charge of protecting the royal family and residences and looking for a way to get prince william and kate into the conversation, but i couldn't find a smooth transition, so we'll focus on his other job as the former head of the antiterrorist branch at scotland yard. you have bios in your sheets, so that gives you an idea of who we are speaking with today. i thought we would start by using definitions, and defining how bad the scope is here in the united states and how bad it is in the u.k., and perhaps you could give me a number, ten being the greatest amount of extremism, and one being very little, and what number would you think corresponds to the u.s. and to the u.k.? mr. allen to start. >> i would start with moderate terms because, treemism has

grown -- extremism has grown in this society, in certain areas, small pockets around our large, large country, but the actual numbers has been a very tiny minority. i believe the scope and size of this needs to be debated more publicly. that was where i was hoping chairman king would start his hearings with trying to size the issue. when you look at the number of cases of people indicted between 2001 and the end of 2010, it's relatively small. i think 176 individuals according to a rand statistics. it doesn't mean it's insignificant. it grew in 2009-2010, we had about 35 cases, but we only average between 2001 and 2008 four cases a year. i think that's pretty small, and how much growth has occurred, i don't think we have a good handle, and that's one the

disconnects that i believe we have to address in the future. >> how about you mr. braton on a one to ten basis, where are we? >> well, in terms of the united states i think echoing charlie's comments much less of an issue than it is colleagues what they deal with in britain. the briefings i've received when i go over there and meet with the met, it was frightening to me in the sense of all that they were dealing with. peter can speak much more to that, and at the same time, with what i thought to be a very significant set of issues versus what we were dealing with in the united states and in my city of los angeles and prior to that, new york, that there seems to be less public concern and focus on the issue than here in the united states was that seemed to be a much smaller problem in terms of actual cases as well as

the unknown which is what's going on out there that we don't know about. >> there's less -- >> i think almost in some republics much more -- respects much more public attention to the issue here, and maybe about because of the litigations they can report on relative to the cases versus here the ability to keep turning it up even after the incident during all the various aspects of the investigation and the court case. >> we like that about here. >> i'm sure you do. [laughter] >> mr. foreman -- mr. clark, how about you? >> is it serious and enduring in the u.k.? yes. the last security minister was an admiral and described himself as a simple sailor. i'm a simple policeman and i think of this in terms of criminality. when analyzing criminals, what do we say? do they have the motives, means,

and opportunities to commit their crimes? as we think of terrorism, do they have the motive? any of the underpinning issues giving rise to such a grievance gone away, my analysis is no. do they have the means? yes. we seen in the u.k. very low tech, very low cost attacks, 52 people killed by the kitchen sink bomb mac -- makers. do they have the opportunities? well, yes, of course. in society there's as a vulnerables, but also the opportunities that arise with radicalization. we talk about ungoverned spaces being fertile breeding ground, well, we have internal government spaces, and in particular the home government spaces are in universities and mosques and in prisons, and i don't think we're anywhere near yet addressing the issues yet. the government has been putting out guidance for instance to

further education sector, and there has been push back about this. recently a spokesman for the association of teachers and lecturers in the u.k. said more monitoring was a bad thing in essence and it's up the educational authorities to police. well, if it's not for them, who is it for? is there a role for intelligence and law enforcement within further education publishment? hugely controversial, but issues that need to be debated openly and honestly. >> that's the next point of law enforcement and intelligence, and presumably when intelligence works the right way it helps make the distinction between as you said last night between the vulnerable and the belev lant. that's what i wanted to talk about today. mr. allen, have they been successful in making that distinction here in the united states? >> well, i think we are moving

in that direction in ways that we did not have homeland security intelligence on september 11, 2001, but with the formation of the department of homeland security, federal bureau of investigation changing the way it operates forming a director with 2600 analysts, putting theming in the field with their 56 stations, i think there has been, and the emphasis on trying to understand what is occurring in this country, the degree of radicalization to try to not only look strictly at a predicate where you can open the case, but look to see if there could be intelligence tips or leads, but i really do believe that part of the response here is it will come, i believe, from the community, from the bottom up. the people that know the community are the police departments. they are 18500 of those across

the country. not all of them have intelligence elements. los angeles, of course, does and did under chief braton. new york has an excellent one, but to get a better understanding and to be able to really work on tips and leads, the police departments in our country are very diverse and sort of reflect the neighborhoods where they do their work, and i just believe we're in the early stages of blending intelligence and law enforcement, and i think a lot more can be done while still protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all americans. we have dob careful -- we have to be careful about this, but heading in the right direction. it's being talked about in many universities across the country. i met many of the professors and deans of universities when i was secretary of homeland security. we're in the right direction. i do believe we have a good deal

to go. >> i think everybody agrees the chief component is outreach to muslim communities. can you talk about what's working and not working and what we should be doing? >> sure. charlie talked about the blending of law enforcement with policing, and post-9/11, that has been accelerating, off to a slow start, but the bleeping is important. one of the previous speakers talked about how they are pessimists and worrying about what they don't know and what's going wrong. american police saying on the successes we achieved in the 1990s continuing into the 21st century in our traditional role of dealing with crime and improving community relations, we are optimistic. i'm an optimist, and in the 1990s when american policing was the -- led the assault on traditional crimes with the ideas of

community policing, problem solves, crime mapping, broken windows, those ideas percolated from the local leferl, and that was important because the people impacted by that crime problem were the community. the federal government partnership was essential for funding cop's program research, similarly now in the era of the crime issue, the optimism of the local law enforcement community is critically important, and charlie can speak to this because as secretary, they really opened up homeland security to allowing local law enforcement a place at the table because local chiefs understood that in dealing with this new form of threat, the idea of, and as we've seen, an increasing threat in the homeland rather than coming from the external areas that had previously been the problem, that local police were going to have to be a

valuable partner at the table. from our on optimism and successes in the 1990s, and those successes can help inform the continuing successes into the 21st century. first, as charlie pointed out, the level of the problem is still relatively small. it has been accelerating, but the numbers are still really very small. our sophistication intelligence gathering efforts, the coordination is improving and improving at a rate faster than the growth of the problem, so that as we move forward in trying to deal with the issue of trying to prevent the growth, the radicalization, nobody is better positioned to do that than the local police because our successes in the 90s were reaching into the community. in the 80s and 80s, we were isolated from the community. the l.a. police modeled that.

we'll take care of business, and you stay over there. the business we took care of were the crime problems in the african-american communities, but now we have the terrorism crime in the muslim community, and who better to reach into that community with local police that learned in the 90s to deal with crime, you have to develop relationships, and we are getting better at that. in los angeles, a significant amount of our time is spent learning about the muslim community, reaching into it, understanding howdy veers it is. we think as one entity. it is not that. it is incredibly diverse like the rest of american society. we are, i think, on the right path, so much more to be done, but i think we have informed from the mistakes of the 70s and 80s, and what we learned in the 90s. >> i want to talk about an issue that brings together the tension of the intelligence and law enforcement, and that's the issue of stings.

back in thanksgiving there was a 20-something from seattle who wanted to detonate a car bomb at the local christmas tree lighting. the fbi found anymore a chatroom, and they stepped in and provided him with what he needed for the operations, fake explosives, vans, a telephone to dial to detonate this. depending on what side of the fence you're on, some people see this as entrapment or good police work. mr. allen, if i could start with you. can you talk about the operations and what they represent in terms of the intersection of intelligence and law enforcement. >> well, i mean, intelligence and law enforcement officer, but the fbi has been really careful in the way it operates when it comes to the stings. there's been a small number of them, not a large number of them, and you have to remember the fbi would operate on tips, leads, where they would see

someone who has become radicalized who is moving to advocate or engage or be willing to engage in violent actions. i think the fbi has operated under some very tough rules and guidelines over the years, and from my perspective, this is a fine line. as an intelligence officer, it's something that is a little foreign to me, but i believe in this case that the fbi working with the department of justice handled this, i think, quite well, and the numbers are not great, but you've got to remember there's one thing here, and that's the intent. the intent and a number of cases -- and we had a couple after the plane in detroit and a couple sting operations brought to closure by the bureau and the intent was to inflict damage to kill innocent, to hurt critical

u.s. infrastructure, so it's a fine line to walk. being an intelligence officer, it's one i'm not as comfortable with as perhaps law enforcement, but i believe the bureau operated effectively and very carefully in this arena. >> i'll get to you in a bit, mr. clarke, but mr. bratton, can you talk about the effect these operations have in the community? >> from a law enforcement effective, stings are part of what we do whether it's internal affairs issues, directed at our own police officers, or in the traditional criminal world directed at criminals. in the nypd, we created sting operations, hundreds of them directed against our officers even, and they were required we effectively set up stings to see if our officers were accepting citizen complaints. charlie points out correctly they have to be done

appropriately in a way that they are not subject to criticism. the use of stings in this new paradigm, the new crime in particular the sensitivities of the muslim population, that it is a thin line that has to be followed. i think the bureau, my understanding of their cases without having details of them other than the ones in l.a., i think they've done a very good job here, but what has been missing is the relationship between whether it's the bureau or local police to be able to explain, to be trusted if you will to explain and to have a level of transparency that we are able to show what we're doing, # why we're doing it, how we're doing it, and stings are incredibly valuable also for the intelligence gathered from it. how was this individual radicalized? what was the chain of events bringing him or her to a point to take this kind of action?

are there others out there that are involved? they are incredibly useful intelligence gathering opportunity also. >> there's also a sense i guess that if you get the community involved or community leaders involved earlier in the process, than think are not -- then they are not surprised by the headline. >> we were continually going into minority neighborhoods, flash bang, drug houses, really making a big scene, and the neighbors would come out and be concerned because the traditional police response was go away. what we changed was basically going in with a whole group of community service officers finishing up the action. those offices were working through the neighborhood. this is why we are here. here's the complaints we received about this drug activity, this violation associated with the house. we are responding to the issues of concern. that's where american policing began to learn to basically be

inclusive rather than exclusive and saying to people go away. instead, let me tell you what we're doing, why we're here. you may remember the movie "chinatown," and everybody remembers the last line. this is chinatown, jake. the last line was the lieutenant turning to the crowd saying get off the streets. well, that's the way we policed. get off the streets. instead, let me tell you what's going on and why we're here. that's what needs to change. >> mr. clarke, how does this not happen in the u.k.? >> it's not true to say it doesn't happened, but we conducted a few operations, not many, where undercover officers are used, but the parameters of what is permissible in the u.k. law is different from here in the united states, but i think the important thing is we've tried to use the criminal trial process as a means of showing the objectivity and integrity of the counterterrorist effort in

the united kingdom, and intelligence communities had a huge part to play in that, and they deserve a huge amount of credit in how they moved into the evidential arena and worked closely with the police service looking for evidential opportunities because the openness of the criminal trial process has been a means of dmon straiting to communities what we're trying to do on their behalf. i think with this sting operation and indeed any operation that moves you upstream if you're down on the grounds of public safety, there's an issue around perception around communities, and certainly it's expressed by some that fought crime in which something for which people are being punished, and there's some aspects of u.k. legislation glorified terrorism for instance which some, i find confusing let alone anybody else who knows what it means. it is important that we are careful about what perceptions

we generate with certain types of operation, but certainly in the u.k. it's not permissible to run an operation where the objective was to find how fast somebody would be prepared to go given the opportunity. >> which makes it very different from the united states. >> makes it very different from the united states. >> may i add a point on this? >> please. >> we were behind back in 2008 with the somalia community in this country, and we had a lot of meetings, i remember a meeting on veteran's day at the white house just trying to get our arms around it with the fbi, with intelligence agency, and i think we did that fairly effectively. one the things i think is very important to remember that in places like st. paul, minneapolis-st. paul, we found that local communities reached out to the bureau some and especially local police in many ways. something that's positive when a sting operation is executed, we do find that the communities do

respond if we do the policing the way chief bratton just described. >> well, now we're going to invite audience members to join in the institution. if you could wait for the microphone and speak directly into it and stand, state your name, and your affiliation, and if we could keep the questions as con size as possible, that's great. anything that you learned an hour ago from the last session, please don't refer to it in your question. yes, sir, in front here. please wait for the microphone. >> john from va systems former u.s. intelligence community, and terrific panel. appreciate your thoughtful comments. we heard this morning something we've heard frequently from our own government, and that is that the threat is from islamic extremism, not from islam. that's hardly an endorsement of islam, and the way that's translated down in some cases to

local law enforcement is, well, they are not all bad, but we have to figure out who the good ones are and the bad guys are, but when you look at a strategy for intelligence collection or for investigation, how do you deal with -- is it a religious issue? if it's islamic extremism, that's re-- is it some of the criminal activity because that would seem to me to be an issue for how you develop a collection system where you go to collect same thing with investigations, so what is it religion we're talking about or ideology when we talk about the radical threat that we're facing. >> i look at it not as religion, john, but as extremism, the manifestation of which is political islamism which is very

hard for local police and law enforcement to understand that. i really do believe that this is where a lot of work has to be done. there are instructors. i sent people out to talk about these issues. we had a whole office of civil rights civil liberties who really hell the round tables -- held the round tables in all major cities and continues to do so, and these things are very effective, but if we confuse islam with what is occurring with those who are advocating violent, what i call islamic extremism, it then we get confused, and i think there's a lot of confusion across the country. some of it on both sides of the spectrum. politically here in the country that seems to fuel this kind of, i think, misconception.

i think from the intelligence perspective and homeland security ring we worked extremely hard to get this right. we even put out a broture looking at political terminology in the care of with which we should use certain languages or our language very cayfully, and we did this. i believe we have a very major task to work with state and local governments, with our fusion centers, there's 72 of them, to start explaning this in a more articulate way as part of intelligence training. we don't have an easy and immediate answer on how to do this, and -- but we are in the right direction, the new undersecretary took my position and is concerned and working closely with secretary and has more ideas on this than i do. >> i think this is where we can really learn from the past and

the successes and failures. i came into the policing in 1970 with the whole issue of crime in the next 0 some odd years, and it was -- the idea of policing a lot of what went on in policing and lapd in particular was really an occupying force in los angeles and almost at war with the african-american community when the issue was particularly the gang community some 20,000, a huge number and the policy as that time was one of staying apart from the community, and it wasn't until the late 80s and 90s with the concept of community policing where we

began to change the partnership. it just wasn't with the alphabet agencies, fbi, dea, being able to utilize their skills, but most importantly, the idea of measuring our success by reaching into that african-american community, the leadership understanding that the diverse aspects of it and separating the problem of that population, the gang population from that and focusing on that group, but talking with and listening to, and some of our actions were controversial. for example, several years ago, we worked very actively with gang interventionists. some cops didn't want anything to do with them because they saw them as gang bangers who were deceiving us by appearing to go straight, but in the african-american communities, these were there sons and brothers who thought the police were not supporting the efforts

to help them get straight, but once we set up academies and other ways to work with them, the community began to see us in a different way. similarly with the issue you raise about religion. if we are going to demonize a whole group of people because of their religion when it's a small group trying to use that religion to inspire their own purposes, then we're going to lose. that's why the efforts to understand the community is essential because quite frankly, we really don't. up until 9/11, i couldn't tell you the difference. i thought muslims were all alike, but we understand now there's differences. there are many beliefs. let's learn from the past, the successes, and the failures. we're beginning to see a lot of that can work with this issue. >> you think some of these

things that you learned in trying to stop gangs will be applicable to this? >> definitely, definitely. having a discussion with a senior british official over the last day or so relative to this conference, and the idea of in a sense how do you get intelligence about what's going on in that portion of the community, in case of gangs, the gang community, in the case of the radicals, how do you e lis it getting into that group? very often the policing tactics had been to coerce an informent, the threat of actions against the family versus the new thinking and the idea there are other ways to do this without coercion to access, an it's an expansion of the thinking about how to approach this problem to try new ideas and the idea of sthairing what is -- sharing what is largely a british initiative with american

policing, and i'm very intrigued by that because the experience we had is a shared experience. we come at it from different perspectives and laws certainly, but we can learn so much from each other and strength in the issue is the exchange between british and american police services is extensive. i used to spend a lot of time in london, i love london, it was a good excuse to get over there, and they were ahead of us in that respect. [laughter] >> i entirely agree with all of that. many of the fundamental features and prince principles of policing apply to this with other criminality. that's the important thing. basically, i said earlier i'm a simple policeman. these are criminals looking to kill their fellow citizens. it's important that there are consistent messages about this, and i have to say i was really disappointed last year when the

member and his father who had gone into the united states embassy in legos expressing concerns about his son. >> this is the detroit bomber, go ahead. >> the man who is serving british might be steer went on to bbc question time, former mosque in south london and said that his father had snitched on him. now, i think that's the most unfortunate use of language. he wouldn't use that language about any other type of crime. you wouldn't use it about a concerned parent going to the police because they are fearful their child is getting involved in drugs. it should be allowed to be expressed as a proper expression of concern. we shouldn't put this into a different category. >> other questions? way back there in the back. >> fox news channel.

this question is for mr. allen in regard to yemen, and al-qaeda. what does it mean they declared the province an islamic emirate -- >> which province? >> abeian province. >> oh, yeah. i don't know that it has a great deal of ramify ramifications. we know it's active and aggressive and conditions may be more favorable if the president does not survive and more ungoverned space develops within yemen. we -- it's back to the idea of, you know, a ruler versus an article, ide ideological driven elements within an area to cause a great deal of problems for the

west and for the very area, more the stability of the arabian peninsula which we all know is very important to us. i don't know that that in itself has that much resonance. aqaap is under a lot of pressure. iraq is under a lot of pressure, but there's other leaders within qap which is -- which we know well and are very important, more hardened, more operationally experienced so i don't think we should overstate this. i think what we should have concerns about is the whole stability of the arabian peninsula as a result of what is occurring within yemen and we, again, have very -- we lack a great deal of in-depth understanding, but i'm not more concerned than i was. we are concerned and have been concerned over the last three

years over yemen. it's not something we learned only when he became a popular name back here in the united states. >> question on our subject intelligence and counterradicallization, how about the gentleman there in the blue shirt. right by the microphone. >> hi, john brown, georgetown university. you mentioned methods in dealing with this with policing and other gang problems with post ideological problems, but in the u.s. at least, how do we encourage community members to let's say talk to police about their children they might be concerned about when the punishments dealt out are so severe with terrorism and some people get 20 years for lying to a federal officer, 40 years for perjury, and in the case of the

dc-6 and the somalia americans who went to fight, it was the parents who turned them in, but why would a parent turn in their child when they are certain to be in jail for 30 years. >> specifically in the minneapolis case, you recall the mothers didn't want to tell the police their kids were gone because if they were back they would go to guantanamo. >> i'll make a comment on this. this is not the first time this problem is here. we had it in united kingdom where parents expressed concerns about their son, and unfortunately, at that time, there was no opportunity or means of diversion, and so this young person ended up inappropriately, i think, within the criminal justice system which is why i think it's so important now that initiatives such as this project are nurtured, funded, and allowed to

grow. there has to be a means of keeping people. if they are vulnerable as a person, it's possible to keep them out of the criminal justice system for reasons you just articulated. >> make new friends for them? is that what happens? explain diversion. >> diversion -- look, if somebody said to you we're concerned about our child. we think they are possibly getting involved in drugs. in many, many ways of dealing with that in trying to prevent the young perp going down -- person going that particular route. a few years ago there were none as all in terms of the problem we have today. there are some now, and there's people in this audience speaking this afternoon who are far more qualified to talk about it than me. >> other questions? yes, here in front please.

>> rita houser. one big difference in the u.k. and u.s. is gun control and the availability of weapons here is very well-known. in the fort hood case, the major in question, i forget how many days, but several days before required a big arsenal which was known and the authorities did nothing about it. i can envision not all these fancy bombs, but people buying a lot of big guns and assault weapons and going about their business easily in the country. i was wondering if you had anything to say about that question and how you see the differences here in the u.k.. >> are you looking at me? [laughter] we know we have a gun issue. unfortunately. >> we have -- it's good to see you again. we have a huge problem. i worked for secretary because

president bush was deeply concerned, and so president calderon with the guns pulling south. there's guns within normal law enforcement, but within the law enforcement arms of the operating components of the department of homeland security because a vast amount of guns, as you know, flow south into mexico, and our ability to detect and prevent that is limited, but, yes, the availability of guns i don't think -- but i don't think it's going to necessarily add or subtract from what is occurring here as far as the growth of islamic extremism. i think the two, yes, may converge in certain ways, but fundamentally, that's not the issue. the issue is how to scope size and determine how best to influence and change attitudes because we found certain communities who arrived here in the last 10-15 years in the united states are not nearly as well assimilated as those who

arrived in the 60s and 70s. i met those muslim leaders who are well educated lawyers, doctors, great intellectuals, i met these people, and had a tremendous dialogue, but it's the newer immigrant communities who feel very much alienated and segregated into communities. there's where the federal government doesn't have the answer, not the department, not the department of justice eitherment i think it comes from community-led outreach and community-led policing. that's the reason that chief bratton outlined is given our federal system of government, which is very different from the u.k., i think that's the way we have to operate in the future, but gun, we know have been a problem in a variety of criminal ways, and it could be a factor here, but it's not a driving factor in my mind. >> what is actually amazing considering that we have 300 million firearms in the country,

enough to give every infant to grandmother in the country their own weapon that there's not more terrorist-related violence because the spot nayty of it -- spontaneity of it is so easy, but the pension for developing the bombs is much more complicated, takes more time, allows us more opportunity to protect and prevent it versus with a firearm so much of our violence and the recent violence director of the police officers in the last couple months is the readily availability and the person who snaps for whatever reason. we're fortunate. we wonder why there are not many more terrorist-inspired shooting incidents. this portion of the country was tear require z when the two men went sniping.

we never have been able to figure that out, but because there's nos the pension of building bombs, we have the opportunity to prevent it before it actually occurs. >> just because i want to do front and back of the room, the gentleman with the red tie there in the back please. >> john stevenson, naval war college. mr. clarke, i thought very precisely characterized universities, mosques, and prisons as internal ungoverned spaces that were particularly vulnerable to radicalization, and i wondered if either mr. allen or chief bratton thought that prisons, mosques, and university in the united states, bearing in mind the united states doesn't have as bad of a problem as the u.k., whether those places also are relatively fertile grounds.

>> certainly prisons. we know that for certain. there was a case in california while i was chief out there. a mom in one the state prisons was basically training people to go out rob gas stations for the intent to raise money to buy more weapons to then assault army recruiting stations in jewish synagogues. there was a firsthand example that the california prison system has a lot of gathering of intelligence efforts focused on that concern and there's phenomenal capabilities in that area. ..

foot cultic the thin line you can fall off are so difficult >> yes, the gentleman here in the blue shirt. >> thank you. i have a related question to that for mr. clarke ha ha what one proposed to government mosques and universities in particular in a way to protect civil rights and liberties is that possible and if so how in your judgment? >> if i knew the answer i doubt

i would be sitting here. [laughter] there are no simple answers to this but i did what we need to do is have an honest and open debate about it and that is lacking at the moment and i think today we heard about the need to do politics out of this and that is an important thing. for many years counterterrorism in the u.k. was characterized by the census it brought down in 2005 and legislation going through parliament to the controversy all and the debate split on party lines and the whole discussion then about the balance between security and liberty is put on the party lines and as a result that hasn't gotten back on an even keel. it became an election issue and there's no legislation again going through parliament supposedly redressing the balance. we do need to get the politics out of this and only then i think can we have moved forward to have a discussion about these

really difficult areas mentioned >> the gentleman here. >> my question relates to the cooperation and law enforcement leveraging of the u.k. having restrictions against sting operations are there other countries significant to your operations you know of in the past to have similar restrictions? for example like australia or france or germany or spain for example. >> from an intelligence perspective i can't recall this issue coming up. cooperation on dealing with the inbound threat al qaeda or working with our closest allies abroad on al qaeda threats, extremist threats, affiliated networks on the view that we've had a dramatic effect on both al

qaeda central, and some of them have literally disappeared from the landscape. i'm one of those who believes good things have happened and perhaps they are on the back foot in the middle east. good things may happen so that issue hasn't come up in my intelligence experience with the chief may have something to add. >> i'm not aware of my dealing in seven years with the l.a.p.d. that our national relationships were through the jttf so that issue in terms of what other countries allow i just don't have that experience. >> jttf is the joint terrorism task force. >> if i left the impression we don't do sting operations in the united kingdom i didn't mean to.

we love doing them it's just -- [laughter] heuvel legal framework is different from here in the united states. yes, sir. >> no, i'm sorry, this gentleman here. >> i have a question to kind of follow-up on. we seem to be struggling between the law enforcement issue and the ideological issue and so i guess i wanted to pose the question are we fighting a political warfare battle or are we fighting a law enforcement bedle? the reason i pose that question is because in the example of gangs we are dealing with an economic issue and of northern ireland i would argue it's a political issue, and so the question is do we view for example the issue of northern

ireland or of fighting the soviet union as a law enforcement issue or a political issue? >> there's a third element they're referencing gangs would be primarily a societal issue. a lot of the attractiveness of gangs of young men and women is the disillusionment of their own traditional and family environment so they go to gangs for the civilization, the protection if you will, the excitement, so there's the social aspect as well. >> which makes it similar to what's going on with radicalization. >> in many respects so many of the people we encounter, the lone wolves if you will on the american experience has been grouped for so many of these loners who are seeking to latch onto something and then through the internet now, unfortunately through academia, prison or

religious institutions they find other like-minded souls where they can come together but a lot to buy tickets societal, people wanting to be part of something. >> we've time for one more question and i want to remind everyone this is on the record and the last session was off the record. do we have anymore questions? >> yes, sir. >> i'm interested in how do you feel differently with terrorist related intelligence versus the information you've gathered from the time and no real about gangs or drugs or other kind of the activities? is their something that makes essentially different from those kind of things law enforcement has traditionally engaged in? >> i think they do go together, but we have a lot yet to do on the intelligence side to determine what are the minimal a central intelligence we need for

terrorism related activities in this country. we haven't talked about -- i spent all of my career until the recent years working foreign intelligence. there's a bright line between foreign and domestic and we didn't cross that. we just refuse to do that. the bureau was case oriented, didn't have the intelligence capability, but in my view there is intelligence, it helps us understand the new law enforcement world, so we are moving in and converging in ways i think our actually now starting to play off in small ways, but the british i think with a different system of government to have some advantages that we just certainly don't have. >> the concern about terrorist related intelligence is based on

the 9/11 experience, the cataclysmic potential of some of that activity versus traditional crime wouldn't be usually anywhere on the scale. however the convergence in terms of the same as reflect on where we are going with huge incentives and around the country. increasingly many of them are crying the information relative to traditional crime is going into the same location where terrorist specific information is being analyzed because the appreciation particularly as we are evolving field that local information of what seems to be local crime may in fact increase the next to the terrorist threat devotees and we've seen a case after case -- of this at a breakfast this morning with the commander of operation l.a. and

in the course of ten minutes she related half a dozen instances where local crime information being analyzed to the terrorist related investigations and so that is where we are improving and also the critical importance of the partnership between local law enforcement with the fbi, homeland security inclusion rather than exclusion and the recent report that came up from homeland security that something along the line of 80% of the detected and thwarted turner's related activities which are relatively small as pointed out the result of a citizen or local police piece of information rather than the billions that we are spending on national and international intelligence so there is strong support now of secretary napolitano falling on

the heels of secretary chertoff transcending the public administration and to a democratic administration on this issue there is a wide support for the idea of partnership on this issue. >> how about you would you like to comment on that? >> there's a great difference between colonel intelligence and intelligence relating to terrorism in the u.k. because the lead for counterterrorism intelligence fits on the security service which means they don't have the same freedom of vexing as he or she would do in the criminal case which means from the beginning of the case there has to be extraordinarily close working between the owners of the intelligence and the security service and the police and this is the feature of the past ten years and if you really want to go into this look at the transcript from the recent into the attacks. you will see the case which is a precursor to the plot the year

before there were 50 consecutive meetings chaired by the national coordinator involving the security service where all the intelligence is put on the table in a classified environment but that means no shocks or surprises, nothing that can be real the operation and it is an entirely agreed shared strategy and that is the future of what we've tried to do over the years to make sure the intelligence is properly handled and protected where it has to be but also it's not just possible it is available to support the prosecution's in demonstrating what it is we are trying to do. >> in the united states we are not there yet. >> i don't think we are but we are evil thing and moving into giving back to secretary chertoff's time in terms of

allowing local police into the room to set the table and for a while below the salt of the british expression but eventually we have allowed the salt so we are not there yet, there is a lot of tension and the have and you just describe it off and we are there yet. >> it's night and day from what it was three or four years ago. we do information sharing and state and local and have mcnamara who your who played a key role in the office of the right director of national intelligence and he helped us through a lot of issues, but we did a lot of it ourselves and secretary chertoff, you know, he pushed me to get the intelligence out to the state and local to do joint assessments of the fbi to encourage the fusion centers to do the assessments and also give the training down so we were always mindful of privacy and civil liberties as we do share

information and some of it sensitive at times in the state and local levels. >> thank you so much for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

next highlights from question time in the australian parliament when prime minister upon and cabinet members

answered questions to cut greenhouse emissions. they accused him of breaking a promise not to levy the carbon tax. the prime minister also answered questions on the border security policies and on recovery efforts for communities affected by recent floods. this is 40 minutes. >> the next and felker plans for the carbon tax and australia to fight climate change. the idea is being resisted by opposition leader on the conservative side of politics. during march, the government also had to defend its border protection policies after riots on christmas island where the houses for more than 2,000 asylum seekers. during march the government and opposition declared the support japan after the earthquake tsunami and nuclear disasters.

here are the highlights of the latest parliamentary system. ♪ >> the deputy leader of the opposition. >> my question is to the prime minister. i refer the prime minister to the press conference on the 24th of february where she committed the government to a full cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. is the prime minister aware president obama has stated that a cap-and-trade scheme because electricity to skyrocket? why is the prime minister's promise on compensation for skyrocketing electricity prices any more believable than the promise that would be no carbon tax under any government? >> the prime minister. >> i can say to the opposition i

watched channel 9, too as it happens. i did watch the interview and i did watch the statements that she's referring to from president obama. i think it was the sunday before that that went on the air so we are seeing the usual degree of research by the opposition we come to accept because of their lazy approach to politics and lazy approach to policy. can i find it to the leader of the opposition and answer to the question she's asked me yes, she's absolutely right i did say before the last election campaign i wanted a full cap-and-trade of emissions trading scheme and we will get the full cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. i thank the deputy leader of the opposition for their applying that to the house. of course in referring to the statement from president obama, number one, i think he would

note that it was some time ago. number two, she would note that president obama has committed his nation to a clean energy future. president obama is in a situation where with the congress, the american people have elected he's not in a position to legislate and mission trading scheme and the member says why would we have one? the reality is, and let me explain this to the members, i am someone who shows a great deal of admiration for united states of america. i think that was under slide when i recently traveled there but the members of klemstine may not realize this but we are not americans. we make decisions for our own country. not every economist is telling us the least we of dealing with

carbon pollution is carbon, so why, as prime minister, what i divide this nation the most efficient, least costly way of dealing with carbon pollution because president obama has made a different position? why would i do that? of course i would not. this nation deserves to have the least costly way of dealing with carbon pollution and that is pricing carvin and that is exactly what we will do. initially through effectively like the tax then moving to an emissions trading day and as i don't mind on behalf of the government and as i outlined on behalf of the multi-party climate change committee. on that side, what do we see as the alternative? what we see of course is taking $30 billion out of the purses and wallets of australians and giving it to big polluters.

on this side, we will take money from big polluters and give it through generous assistance. >> the prime minister will resume her place. stannic the deputy of the opposition on the plant order. >> mr. speaker the question is about president obama's skyrocketing. it is now no longer relevant to the question and she should be sat down. >> order. >> the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and as i was indicating, the division here is whether you want to put a price on polluters and give assistance to households or whether you want to take money of households

and give assistance to the polluters. we will put a price on pollution. the price will be paid by polluters. we will generously assist households for the impact they will experience and i've been very up-front about that. with the opposition wants to do is to take money off of australian households and give it to big polluters and the opposition should come clean about the price tag for all chileans $720 straight off of them come straight out of the purse and their wallets. >> welcome backend congratulations. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to the prime minister. the statement on freakin' of detainees on christmas island that this is the situation that is well on had. within 24 hours a statement riots break out, teen is --

teargas, fired, staff had to be rescued and the police had to take the facility by force. can the prime minister guarantee no asylum seeker who has obstructive commonwealth offices will be granted a visa? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i thank the member for his question and i am glad to see he has replaced as the spokesperson on this issue. mr. speaker, and on the question that he's asked me about christmas island, but i can say to the shadow minister for immigration is that follows. first and foremost, of course criminal charges can be laid by the commonwealth director of public prosecution, following a police investigation into the incident. this kind of violence and destruction is wrong and

criminal behavior and just as we would expect in any other part of the nation that someone had engaged in criminal behavior than the police investigate and charges can follow, mr. speaker, a proper investigation process. on the migration act, as the member is probably aware under the immigration act, character is an important consideration in determining whether or not someone should be granted a visa. the minister for immigration has been that it will be considered on a case by case basis as is proper the migration act requires them to consider cases one of the time and to have his decision turn on the facts of an individual case. but as the minister has said and the matters are considered on a case by case basis character considerations will be taken into account for those on christmas island who have organized and have the trade this sort of activity.

can i say generally to the member and to the house what i have said publicly and i am happy to repeat here. this kind of conduct by individuals on christmas island is grossly wrong. this kind of conduct can and should cause criminal charges following the proper police investigation. we know from our ordinary understanding of the law that acts of violence and destruction of our criminal act. this kind of violence and conduct can and will be taken into account under the proper procedures of the migration act. what i would say to the members -- what i would say to the member is as i have said publicly, no one who engages in this kind of conduct will profit from, no one who does it will profit from it. the minister for immigration has made that absolutely clear and i

am happy to restate its in its place. >> of the leader of the opposition? stand mr. speaker this is a supplementary to the prime minister. will she guarantee that the asylum seekers who have been engaging in this behavior will never get a visa to this country? order. prime minister? >> thank you mr. speaker and the leader is effectively asking me to do something not in accordance with the law and migration act. the laws of this country apply and that's what happens when you live in a democracy. maybe the members may want to study that in this time outside the chamber. the laws of the country apply to everyone. the migration that is the law of this country. it requires the minister for immigration to deal with cases on a case by case basis and

requires the minister for immigration to look at the facts of each case, but as the minister for immigration has said publicly in the as i have just said in the parliament in considering questions of character, the conduct engaged in by the individual can certainly be taken into account on questions of character. what the leader of the opposition is inviting me to do is not in accordance with the migration at, it's actually not in the best interest of holding to account the people who have engaged in these contacts. it could arguably give them some legal ground to contest the decision is the minister may or may not like and in relation so rather than engage in that kind of silly shenanigans in this parliament, we will continue to go through, mr. speaker, the police will do a proper investigation charge the

minister for emigration will consider the case by case as required by the law, taking into account questions of character and certainly the kind of bad conduct we have seen on christmas island can be taken into account in that character determination. >> thank you, mr. president. my question, mr. president, is to the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. can the government please explain the statements by economics professor and his sixth of greater part of a strange kindness will always be exhumed from a carbon tax, and i could come from the beginning, and that ahead of its coverage the government buys carbon emissions them. it does this government have another plan apart from a planned public has told the australian people to actually

included violence in its carbon tax crux >> representing the minister for climate change and energy efficiency senator long? >> thank you, mr. president, and thinks time senator joyous for his own ongoing interest on this issue. the center is reporting -- kloden i think from one of is it now seven of the professor -- >> [inaudible] >> seeks, the professor has now the report and again i would emphasize that these are reports which the government fought at the request of the members of parliament and the multi-party committee in climate change and they are intended to inform the debates on what is an important public policy issue. unlike those, we believe that

climate change is real and something needs to be done about and we are determined to insure we work through, that there is a policy issues associated with this very difficult public policy problem through the multi-party committee and more generally. so protective's report is a contribution to the discussion. a contribution which is important that goes to a whole range of issues. coverage is one of them but also more recently we sold the discussion about the means by which assistance to households, we saw the discussion of what sort of assistance should be provided to the industry by way of transition so these are all issues that professor garner has respect to you but there are issues the government debt has made final decisions on and the minister has said we will work through this process dealing with the various policy

questions that the dairy policy questions that prevent themselves when you look to put a price on carvin. in terms of the carbon initiative and the election policy announcement, senator lithwick -- >> the time is expired. >> thank you mr. president. and i think the minister for the answer but states that it's the announcement we have to be clear about these days. it is an input will the government commit before the legislation and any proposal to the taxes they decide to change the commitment will be taken to an election before its adoption but estimates before. the initiative was a policy announcement if and as a policy

announcement we are -- >> [inaudible] >> ignore -- please continue. >> it was an election policies and they will enable landowners to benefit. the government has made it clear which aspect, with its policy and the announcement prime minister made in relation to the change from work i refer senator joyce to these indications rothkopf so the thing that's quite fair.

>> thinks mr. speaker. treasurer why is it important to address the pollution through the market-based mechanism? >> the deputy prime minister of the treasure. >> tenth thank you. we do believe that it's real with this is a very big reform for the economy. one of the reasons they had 20 years is the past government signed up the fundamental market-based reform which has given district resilience who served that well and has given the 20 continuous years of growth and this is before we must ensure we have another 20

years of growth and do not fall behind the risk to the crest of the world and that is why economists like ecclestone, like ross are telling us there's a problem here that must be fixed and the problem as it pumps pollution into the atmosphere and that has come, it's cost the environment, the community and the economy and that's why we must of the approach to deal with it. we need to give them the incentive to produce the incentive and that's what we have to. tough that's why we've described the reform and of course that is what the treasury believes we must do. it's what the oecd believes we should do but the other side of the house

>> [inaudible] >> the treasure should be careful with -- >> [inaudible] >> it's become clear in the house today there are climate change skeptics. >> the treasurer state the member for the point of order. >> as i've been asked to withdraw pinocchio in the past few the treasure should be asked. >> many members are receiving today >> order. order! order. the minister for defense to

withdraw. >> dollar winstrol mr. speaker. >> while not calling on the deputy prime minister with to withdraw, the point he's got in his response is starting to be really hard to see if out what is relevant to the question. if it will be relevant to the question. a treasure. >> they don't believe in the power of markets anymore. this is the point. nor do they believe in the science of climate change, mr. speaker and that is a destructive combination based on

the equivalent of the central planets of russia decades ago. as bixby to not believe in the basic time and economics. >> some of them did believe, mr. speaker. the deal with carbon pollution. this is what they have to say today that he went into the law came tough. it's ten days that lie quote until two dozen to win david kim and i argued that we should have an atm in the house cabinet is 2002 to rely believe the market - is the best way to price to

its 2002, that's what he took a couple of prominent authors in the book about the power of markets off and where the view was and that's why who describes it like all the balls because they don't believe in the power of market or the science of climate change. this is somewhat embarrassed by this, mr. speaker. >> [inaudible] that have been in the same category. tortfeasor. order.

order. >> free trinkle linda, member >> the parliamentary . >> the member from north sydney will return to his seat. order. order. order. order! members for the treacherous be given the opportunity to have to discuss the the date outside. the an julich member for north sydney will get back scott flipse.

>> why is an julich presence and -- [laughter] he approached the dispatch box and has been very lucky. >> my question is to the prime minister. i ask this on behalf of the thousands of people gathered outside of the parliament houses. who is a prime minister wouldn't talk to so i asked will she face a mandate before she reduces legislation into this house? will she seek to meet the next election a referendum on her tax? >> the prime minister. >> order.

ordered. the pri minister has the floor. >> thank you i think the leader of the opposition for his question on the question of attending the rally out of the parliament today i'm not aware, mr. speaker but as i understand, the leader of the opposition didn't lack redheaded company at that rally mr. speaker, he had a redheaded friend at that rally so i'm sure he would not have missed me. on the question he asked me get out talking to the australian people and campaigning for climate change action let me remind the leader of the opposition who seems to have forgotten the everyday t. set in the cabinet for years, he seldom has his political mentor and

making decisions for the government and among the the decisions the howard government made, it went to the 2007 election arguing for an emissions trading and the labor party in 2007 is arguing for an emissions trading game and we went to the 2010 election arguing for an emissions trading game. we understand the leader of the opposition wants to continue and he only knows one thing. he only knows one thing which is to scare people to try to make them afraid, to deny the future. he has no policy and plan. what's remarkable isn't his politics but what is remarkable is he would walk away from the legacy of the howard government at march away from the primm minister's commitment to

treating high beams. march wheat from the liberal party for the power of the market. the leader of the opposition may be just in the denial and stuck in this inability to make up the policy for the nation's future but we are not. we will get on with the job of leading this nation to the clean energy future. if you care about the jobs of the future you want to price carbon. if you care about the environment than you want to price carvin and that is what we will do. >> the member? >> thank you. my question is to the prime minister. the progress of the government efforts to fund the structure of the regency by the natural disasters. >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and of the members for the question and of course she was one of the members in this house who spent one of the

week of the summer assisting the communities that would be hit by natural disasters in her case what this city being hit by flooding hoopoe and also leave it for what an extended. of time that members on both sides of the house work called upon to assist in their communities and when that time what flooding had and still win her some parts being called upon to help assist communities who've suffered flooding in recent his. during that, period if we emerge from the natural disasters with the flooding on who phoenicians who have had and that is we wouldn't let go we would assist the community that suffered greatly during this period to rebuild. all australians would be with them during the rebuilding and the recovery effort and we would get on with it with good judgment and common purpose so that we could assist the communities to rebuild and get

on with their lives. last night with two bills passed the senate, the 51st and the 52nd bill to do so in this parliament, and it was the legislation to ban the reconstruction and recovery effort. what the disasters have come at a terrible human cost to the economy. when they suffered so badly over one-fifth of the economy and the treasury what estimates suggest gdp growth will be have revenue would have otherwise been in the case. the production will be around $1.2 billion that, $300 million in tourism and production could be 16 million tons in the march quarter. as we go about this recovery and rebuilding we do know despite this economic setback from natural disasters that the underlying economy is strong

whoa and that is why it is appropriate mr. speaker to pay as we go. as the economy trends back to the full capacity we won't take the option by deferring the savings until four years from now. that's why the government took the decision to engage and savings. it wasn't easy but it was the right thing to do, and we took the decision to defer infrastructure. once again it wasn't easy but it was the right thing to do and we took the decision to ask australian people of goodwill for the flood levee twitch was constructive so the 60% of the taxpayers one payless than a dollar a week. now of course mr. speaker we made the tough decisions and rather than climbing it was easy and in doing so we didn't play the politics of fear or cut

programs to earn what we got on as necessary to rebuild it with the nation. can i say to the members of the parliament . spec this goes to relevance, mr. speaker i wonder if the prime minister could outline what the plan is -- >> it's hard for me to decide whether the member should know on the basis of the predecessors knowledge of the standing orders that that is not a standing

order, but i would indicate to him the next time that he interrupt proceedings in that manner he will be dealt with. being eight hasmonean doesn't get any special privileges but i just warn member the prime minister has the call. >> thank you mr. speaker and of course we will rebuild. mr. speaker, and you would recall and the house would recall the government's plan was met by the politics, the government's plan was met by the campaign, led by the leader of the opposition. mr. speaker, that scared campinas silent now, and what we should learn from that example

was ultimately the leader of the opposition carbon pricing campaign and there is evidence it's already filed fall in silent because deer cannot stand up >> my question is to the minister representing for climate change and energy i refer the minister to the statement in the group in february, 2008 and which he says and i quote, the introduction of the carbon price ahead of the election can lead to incentives for such industries to relay source production offshore. there's no point in imposing the cap in place domestically which results in emissions and productions bearing internationally, so

environmental game. i also refer to research showing china's copenhagen offered will see its carbon dioxide emissions rise by 496% by 2020 on 99 levels. given china is responsible for 23% of global emissions, does the government agree with its estimate and if not, does the government have any estimates of its own? >> climate change representing the minister for climate change and energy, cementer wong. >> thank you very much mr. president and to the senate for the question which is a fine question. perhaps i could assist with some other quotes, but unlike the point that that speech is referencing my recollection is part of the justification the government was putting forward

for ensuring it was appropriate transitional assistance in other words what we were saying is that we need to take into account what is occurring in the risk of the world and to ensure the transition for the support of australian jobs and that is what we did. that is what we put in place under the carbon pollutions the true negotiations consultation with industry. so, they can come in here and throw different and what i say to him is this. we do have a fundamental difference between the two parties of government and we think we need to act on climate change. you don't. that is the difference. and what we have said very clearly is that we should ensure that we go through the process of deciding very much to the

national interest to ensure jobs in the transition and the clean energy sector of the economy. when it comes to china and other countries i would say those on the other side are keen to suggest no one else is doing anything in the fact don't stack up. as usual on climate change, the productivity commission to put forward the report of what is occurring in other countries and i look forward to that report because it might help ensure this is a debate that proceeds more on fact and less on fear. >> mr. speaker my question as to the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. how does the government planned to take requirement change received why is it important that the date on the challenges such as climate change be based

on sound judgment and leadership and -- [laughter] are you aware of commentary on the issues and what is the response? >> order. order. order! the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. >> thank you i think the member for her question. the government of course respects the plant science to cut pollution and today like a number of members i had a meeting with representatives of climate scientists australia who reiterated of course to me as they've done to others today the need to take action on climate change. during the building today because it was organized by the members of the side of parliamentarians and i'm very

pleased members of both sides of the house attended that form. however, there are of course others who obviously contested the science and opposed the actions on climate change -- >> the rally at the parliament house yesterday, mr. speaker, which the leader of the opposition encouraged as part of the people's revolt the following sentiments were expressed on the issue of the science. carvin really isn't pollution. in his reject science and carbon - dioxide isn't pollution unlike co2, say no to the carbon tax for the u.s. and global governance people's agenda 21 genocide. [laughter] and as we saw on television there was much worse.

>> the so-called people's revolt against carvin pricing has also attracted as we have heard supporters such as one nation, the league of riots and a number of climate change skeptics. mr. speaker, it is important for the leaders of the community and particularly -- the major political parties to not be associated, not be associated in a debate over the carvin pricing and not only the leader of the opposition refuses to quit the associate himself from these groups about last night on abc-tv, he said, and i quote, that was a representative snapshot of mittal lostroh leah. you must be kidding. [laughter] on sure why there would be why many of the opposite when that

didn't find what i represent of their own few who are the values and the tradition of the liberal party either. the fact is, mr. speaker, it wasn't someone who wants to be the leader of our nation. it goes to character and judgment and the -- >> the member is warned. morning when the members on a remind people that it is the first step under standing order 94 were for future naming and then the practices of the house that some i understand are not aware of yesterday. the minister. >> all of this is important in this delete because what we are seeing from the leader of the opposition is lots of aggression and not much courage when it really counts. it's worth while reflecting on

the words of the prime minister john howard what to the press club in july, 2007, when explaining the need to act on climate change through the missions scheme because these are in the tradition of the liberal party. and when he said as follows it brings assets to the challenge, and can do and people on the modern flexible economy world-class scientific expertise, global engagement and the reputation for institutional building and reform. no great challenge has yielded to fear or guilt and i couldn't agree with it more. >> of the highlights of the australian parliament in march. the next sitting will be the budget sitting in may you can try for an update them. for now i'm david spears. ♪