get smarter, get better, get faster, become more focused on delivering good value to the end user, and i believe that we've made a genuine progress or we wouldn't have made this without the jobs council. and i think it would pay off in terms of solidifying this recovery and allowing us to move forward in a way where it actually translates into jobs which is actually been the principal and primary focus making sure that we are creating a fair shot for every american who wants to work hard and succeed in this economy. ..

>> house minority leader nancy pelosi predicts democrats will gain seats and rewin the house and president obama will be reelected this fall. she was interviewed for a little more than an hour by "politico"

chief correspondent, mike allen. >> welcome to the first playbook breakfast of 2012. excited to be here with leader pelosi in a minute, and we're excited for a year of playbooks. i think larson gets the award for traveling the furtherrest from delaware braving the rain and fire alarms and all of that. i'd like to thank bank of america for their continued sponsorship of the partnership. these are important for issues that matter most in washington and bank of america has continued to sponsor these. we're grateful for that. i'd also like to give a shoutout to, i think that we have in the audience some alumni of the bank of america's urban alliance program. do we have -- good morning, welcome, thank you very much for being here.

welcome to you out in live stream land if you're following us on twitter, and here at playbook, read the papers together every day, a little news in the charlotte observer, looking ahead, a sneak peek, news for today, on the final night of the democratic national convention, president obama is going to deliver his acceptance speech at bank of america's stadium. convention officials announce this today, and it's part of an effort to mobilize voters in california, and there will be other changes to the convention announced today. you'll see that on "politico" today, and you'll see inplaybook tomorrow. "politico" is celebrating its 5th birthday a week from now, and because of that, the print edition of "politico" that you see and hold but people around

the country don't know it exists, today, for the first time, that's circulating every day in new york city, 4,000 copies every day in manhattan, and a playbooker spotted the box on the avenue and there was a picture of that, and that's in playbook too. i appreciate you being here. i'd love to welcome leader pelosi. [applause] >> good morning. >> welcome back to dc, i think. first time back here this year? >> no, we were here last week on the floor of the house seeking recognition. >> with a texas trip in between? >> el paso thursday, houston saturday, austin on sunday, and came here today. >> what is a schedule.

before we get down to business. there's a hardball for you. a giant san fransisco 49er's game, wants to bet you a box of chocolates versus the equivalent amount of haagan-daas ice cream from the bronx. willing to take that on? >> absolutely. sounds like a no-lose situation to me, chocolate one way or another, but i will definitely enjoy that. [laughter] >> now, what's your outlook or spread for giants and 49ers? >> they said three points this morning which was interesting. i'm not in the spread, just into the winning. [laughter] >> plus you're in dc, too. >> well, it is -- i had a lot going on with all that we had with martin luther king day and

the travel and the rest, my hometown, of course, is san fransisco. my native city a baltimore, so baltimore playing houston. my grandchildren live in houston my other grandchildren father's from colorado. we couldn't lose. favorite, of course, was getting ready for the mardi gras for the saints, but we tried to treat them very well, so it was a lot of good news one way or another no matter who won. it was great football all weekend. how about the 49er's team? did you see the last quarter of the game? you have not seen it? you're taking it down to minutes. it was something quite remarkable. if you're talking sports, when i grew up in baltimore, we had johnny, and two touchdowns in

the last two minutes, that was par for the course. when my children grew up in san fransisco, joe montana, two scores in the last two minutes. piece of cake. this victory was in the tradition of what we expected. >> pleased by not surprised. down to business. >> down to business? this is business. [laughter] >> welcome our c-span viewers. thank you for carrying playbook live. you said you support the message of occupy. now, they say they are occupying congress today. they have a permit to be down optimal, and do you think they have the right targets? should they protest government or who smit >> what i said at the time was that their message that the status quo is unacceptable is a message that i think is an important one for our country. i think if i had any connection to them what i would encourage

them to do is something we're going to do, first thing when we take back the house -- >> when is that, by the way? >> in ten months. >> how certain are you? >> well, we'll get to that. [laughter] but it is the most important message i think that they have is the status quo is unacceptable, and a critical part of the status quo is how campaigns are financed. it's a problem that has been exacerbated by the -- i don't like to say citizens united. that sounds too good a name, but the miserable decision by the court to allow any and all funding, and what we're going to do is right now we want, and i hope they share that view, disclose, where is this money coming from? when we win, amend, first order

of business, amend -- oh, no, reform -- that's what we can do by law, disclose, reform the system, and then try to amend the constitution to change the ridiculous notion that any and all kinds of money can weigh into campaign. this is created such cynicism in the public and justifiably. >> we knew citizen united would be big, but had super packs had more an effect on the 2012 dialogue than what you expected. >> 2012? well, 2010 was what we were interested -- >> but -- >> no, no, at that point there was no disclosure, and what's interesting because the court decision was earlier, but the change had not set in until the disclosed bill lost in the senatement once those major

special interests knew that they could contribute endlessly, secretly without anybody knowing where the money came from, then the flood gates opened. may of last year, not many people -- easter say, passover of last year, not many thought we would lose the house. by the time the bill failed in the senate, it was all over because it was going to be endless, endless money coming up on 9.5% unemployment. we tried to control the damage, but that's where they had, you know, where the element of surprise where that was big. hopefully, this time, the bright light is on it. the public doesn't like it at all. it has had -- they've spent -- my understanding is $50 million already in the republican presidential race, and have had an impact. >> we have a remarkable situation with two comedians,

john stewart and steven colbert. what too do you think? >> i think it's great. i'm not sure -- it's -- they're humorous, and i want to ensure the message is clear that this is really making a complete difference in our political system. you know, we've tried over time, and this is what i think the legacy of the democrats has to be when we win this next election, and that is to have new politics, free advertising, new and free are the two best words. new politics, free of the special interests so that we're not talking about just big money piled into these campaigns. we have tried that over time to

have checkoff systems so that the citizen participation in the funding of campaigns would work. we had it for the presidential. it's sort of what the republicans have a bill to -- >> special interests in politics did not just occur with kms or with -- republicans or with citizens united. >> we made progress with mccain-feingold, a bipartisan legislation to reduce the amount of big money in politics. it was progress. people resisted it. didn't like the fact that parties could no longer play their role, but what the court did is something so drastic. it rolls back progress for 100 years. this is something quite different, so disclose what the money is. that goes a long way. reform the system again and then

amend the constitution. that's a longer -- so that's a citizens united decision can want stand. we'll see if the public app fit goes that far. >> you read about it, have you seen it or seen some of the stuff? >> i know it quite well, yeah. yeah, and i think that that's really important, and the point -- >> how is it important? >> well, because any visit -- most people, you know, we sit in this room, we understand what's going on with this, that, and the other thing. generally, and the reason these packs have succeeded is most people don't know that they are there and how they operate. they just see the result of it, so if they can pull back the shades and show the mechanics of what this is, that anybody can give any endless money to say anything without any -- by the way, there's no regard for fact or truth or anything like that,

say anything they want about a candidate, it would detour you from running if you were thinking about doing such a thing if you were going to be at the mercy of, so, again, what i get the biggest response to is i was in the three cities this weekend, and silicone valley on thursday, just all over, and when you talk about disclose and reform, people are very ready for it. >> okay. now just to cross a "t" on occupy, how do you feel about occupy dc occupying congress? >> you noarks -- know, i'm a big believer in the first amendment -- >> not worried about chaos? >> well, i hope it's done in a way that protects the rights and the people who are involved, but i do think that it's important to note what they have said, and that is status quo is not acceptable. >> you agree -- >> if i were there -- >> okay.

>> i would have wedded this directly to the role of money and politics. >> what's -- they seem to be looking for a message. they could still do that. do you think that's a way the movement could have durability or impact or -- >> well, my understanding, and we're not -- opposed to the tea party which was practiceically a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party, we don't have much of a connection with the occupy. in fact, they probably have some sentimentses that overlap -- sentiments that overlap between the two, and one is a big concern that people have are the tax code, and its unfairness and economic policy that talks about the unfairness in the systems, the disperty of income, the disperty of ownership, of equity, people having a real chance, and many people -- many people i understand consider the

tax code a place where big money, special interest money weighs in repeatedly to the disadvantage of main street to the advantage of wall street. >> now, speaker, you were the highest ranking woman in american history. no one has been higher. in june, you'll be celebrating your 25th anniversary in congress, and you're going to get chocolate for it, i guess. >> i certainly hope so. [laughter] >> and yet you have a president head of your party who is going to be running against congress. what do you make of that? >> i'm all for it. [laughter] i'm all for it. the president said he's going to -- my understanding is the president -- he has not told me exactly that, but i've seen that he's running against the do-nothing congress, and he really should. this is a congress that has done such a disservice to our country, and you know, you have to give them credit.

bless their hearts. they do what they believe, these republicans, they do what they believe, and they do not believe in government that has any role in clean air, clean water, food sift, public safety, public health, public education, medicare, medicaid, social security -- >> george w. bush did the no child left behind act. >> he did that, but he did not fund it. he did not fund it. i'll never forget the first day the secretary page came to our committee, and the commitment was mandate and money. first day we say where's the request in the budget, and he said we don't need it. that was a setback, but president bush had the idea that no child left behind would be a good idea, part of the reason it hasn't succeeded because there was no sources to match the federal mandate, but my colleague, you know what they told me? one of the reasons we didn't have to worry about defaulting

on the government is there's other ways that we could reduce the deficit. one was to shut down the department of education. now, this is a member of congress telling me this. >> who was this? >> i can't tell you. [laughter] he was proud of it. oh, i'll clue you in, but he told me what what we should do to save money is the following -- shut down the department of education, turn the building into 435 condos to all live there together and slash congressional pay and we'd go along way to reducing the deficit. >> there's a cafeteria. [laughter] >> well, whatever. [laughter] i heard on the debate last night a very vigorous shutting down of the department of education. >> so you watched -- >> i saw some of it. >> it was the fox news debates from myrtle beach, south

carolina. what did you make of your opposition? >> well, here's what i saw because i have not had a chance to watch many of the debates. i have not taken the opportunity frankly, but i saw in between commercials, some of it, and what i saw -- >> you were watching something else and watched the debate during commercials. what were you watching? >> i don't know. i had the tv on. let's put it that way. >> "alcatraz"? >> that was on, and "castle," i don't watch much. i'm an espn fan. sports. it's numbers. less of anybody's opinion on anything, but it's just stats. what happened in the game. i'm a big espn. that's where i go for my television distraction, but here's the thing. here's my conclusion after last night. we had a contest without a

winner. the so-called right wing of the republican party described as evangelical and others are not supporting romney, at least not yet, because they don't think he's going to win. in other words, if they thought he was going to win, you could make the case he can beat obama. >> they don't think he's going to win the nomination or in november? >> in november. so they are like why should we compromise who we are? let's be for who we want to be and get ready for four years from now -- four years from now when it's a clean slate, no incumbent, and we can start to get ready building. >> you think republican, the republican right is intentionally digging in assuming a loss staking out the ground for 2016? >> well, there's something about the dynamic of a presidential election, and we see, shall we

say, dissatisfaction in all corners of parties, but in this case, i think, if they, you know, the argument, well, we should be for romney because he's going to win, i don't think they think he's going to win otherwise they'd be for him because this president, when he gets out there, makes his case, takes the message to the american people. this crowd that they have there is -- it's not exactly what you call the first spring of the republican party. i mean, i think they have better than that. >> like who? >> i would never say. [laughter] >> all right. >> it's hard to say, but nonetheless, you know, you got the third tier and the second tee is younger if you know what i mean. anyway, here's the point to bottom line it. if the far right thought romney could win, they might be more

enthusiastic about him, but they don't share -- they question what he stands for, and they don't think he's going to win, so, you know, what's the sell? i'm not sure he knows what he stands for, and that makes it harder, too, because that doesn't instill confidence as to where he might be on some issues. >> you probably know governor romney, what do you make of him? >> i really don't know him. i don't know who knows him. does he know him? i heard him say things last night which were really either uninformed or just plain wrong. for example, he said he would never negotiate with the taliban. question was one of your senior foreign policy advisers says this is the opponent, this is who you negotiate with, and he said absolutely positively not, and not making any distinction

among taliban who are ready to reconcile and reintegrate and what ron paul did, say al-qaeda or other dangerous taliban. >> interesting. "politico" this morning in the take away from the debate says this will be a big issue in the fall pointing out that governor romney took a shot at vice president biden on this. this will be an issue to see a lot about; right? so would mitt romney as a nominee make it easier for democrats to take the house? >> of any one of them -- >> [inaudible] >> let me just say in the house, one district at a time. it's not -- we want -- we feel very proud of having president obama at the top of the ticket going against the do-nothing congress. the president -- this no-tell politics, they're allowed to do that here in the building?

[laughter] we have to be very careful in the capitol, so i don't know if this is -- >> oh, feel free. [laughter] >> here's the thing. in states where we expect to do very well, california, illinois, new york, the presidenten won't really be spending a great deal of resources to get out the vote because he's beginning to win those states. we have to be on our own in the individual districts. if you want to win the state statewide, you go to the inner city, but we're -- our races are beyond the inner city. we understand that dynamic. i was a state chair in california. i know if you want to win the state, you do one thing. if you want to win the legislature, you do another. anyway, we'll be big in those states. hopefully -- not hopefully, knowing the president has an inspirational imagine that works in those states.

we just have to get out. we have candidates, just get out to vote. texas, on the other hand, he won't be spending money for the opposite reason, but we have great opportunity in texas, and, of course, we're waiting for the supreme court decision, but we will have opportunity to pick up seats in texas. >> florida is the state where we have a three-way commonality of interest. we have presidential, we have the senate, united states senate seat, and we can pick up seats in florida, and those five states become very close to picking upmost of what we need, not all -- we need more than that, but very close to what we need. the drive for 25, that is takes us to the 218, i want 35, so we need more to get that done. for us, this cast of characters, it's not about them. it's about president obama, how well he will do. our candidates, how they compare

and contrast to the candidates that are running against them, so i'm not going to be tempted into telling you who would really be the biggest winner for us on the republican side, but we feel it's not about them. it's about us, and it's about our president. >> now, what have you thought about mitt romney digging in on the immigration issue? he said he'd veto the dream act. how does that affect -- >> he said a number of things which do not seem consistent with the ora they want to put out about somebody who will go in there and be fair minded and bipartisan and that. i mean, to say that you would veto the dream act tells you a lot about the person. >> what's that tell you? >> it tells you you really don't

have an understanding that the education of these young people are critical to not only their self-fulfill m, but to the competitiveness of america. anyone whose ever been to a dream agent event, and i have been to many around the country knows that these young people are more articulate on the subject of our founders, our country, and what america means. they are the living example of the american dream. part of what we are proposing this year is reigniting the american dream, building ladders of opportunity to play by the rules, work hard, and take responsibility, put down ladders for them to come up and not just roll up the ladder and walk away. that would be the difference between us. we have important work to do, an dream agent was passed in the house, very proud, just fell

short in the senate. i almost wish that that's an overpromise on his behalf. he's not going to be president, so i think it's indicative of a hard line that doesn't seem consistent with who he was as governor and the rest. >> a hard line, you say? >> that's a hard line to veto the dream agent. >> how will that affect republicans' effort performance for hispanics? >> it won't be helpful at all. it will be harmful. >> why? >> the hispanic community, and, again, i was just in el paso, three places where i interacted and california, of course, every day with the hispanic community. the education is a key issue to the hispanic community. it is the key in our whole

society in making a difference how people perform and how they succeed. i always say this -- when these families come to america to make the future better for their families and the next generation, with that hope, with that determination, with that optimism, they make america more american because those are american's driving principles, optimism, hope, determination to make it better. it was founded on a predicate that each generation takes responsibility for the next. when they come, that reinvigorates those ideas, but education is central to it, and his panic communities knows that, and so for these children who came here, many as babies, some of them with no familiarity

with the country they came from, not even speaking the language in many cases of the spanish language, doing well in school and the rest, they are here. they are here, and we're saying we're not going to give them the opportunity to go to college and succeed? they are fabulously counted, among them some of the most fabulously talented good people. one thing we did on the immigration bill, comprehensive immigration reform, was to hold it together for a long time. we're not going forward unless we have a full package, dream act, legalization, secure our borders -- >> held it together, but it didn't pass. >> no, we made a departure saying, okay, let's just go with the dream act. that was the departure because for a long time -- >> comprehensive didn't pass.

>> no. >> today is back to school day for the house. job one is the payroll tax cut extension. madam leader, would you be for extending it the full year if paid for by spending cuts rather than taxing the wealthy? >> well, i think i'm always open to seeing what offset somebody wants to put forward, but it seems hard to explain to someone why we have tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country which are not paid for. they are 50,000 of the wealthiest families in the country have tax cuts and they make over a million dollars a year, but we cannot touch one red crept of that money, but if we're going to have a tax cut for 160 # million americans, we have to pay for it? we'll have unemployment insurance part of the package that people is paid into.

we have to pay for that. we vice president. we shouldn't have to do that, and so i would say of the three things, the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the shall we say the ability for seniors to see the doctor, their doctor, under medicare, that sgr could be paid for my overseas account, perhaps some of the other rest of it could be, but it would be hard to say -- >> that's the first time you said that. >> what, oca? i've been for them paying for things. >> i think you're thinking on pair-fors evolving. what's your thinking on pay fors going into the negotiations? >> we talked about pay fors in the grand bargain of the super committee, and so we said if you have a big deal, that's going to

save -- cut the deficit by $4 trillion, then some of these cuts can be justified if you have growth. you have to have growth to have revenue. if you have growth and entrepreneurial package, how do we have growth to create jobs? how do we -- what revenue can we bring in? spur the growth but also to offset the deficit, and cuts, spending cuts that would balance that all out. we're not doing the big package anymore, but we want cuts here when you really get nothing for it. >> so, are you -- you're proposing another grand bargain? another larger package? >> i'll never give up on that. i never give up on that. that's not going to happen in two weeks or whatever it is when

we come back. we are in four days in january. >> you're expressing more openness to spending cuts than in the past? >> to offset. i think we have to say, okay, if you think, and i don't think you should have to pay for it because you don't pay for tax cuts. the wealthiest people in america, why are we paying for it for these people? now, there's a reason for that because if you offset it, you detour some of the stimulus impact of the tax cuts. the tax cuts are important because they are received by people who need the money, will spend it immediately, will eject command into the economy, and create jobs. there is a macro economic purpose to those tax cuts for 160 # million and for

unemployment benefits of millions who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and want to go back to work so that, if you look at what the economists tell us, the unemployment insurance is one of the biggest drivers of job creation because people need that money to spend it immediately to make not only ends meet, but to have any survival, and on the payroll tax cut, a similar impact, so to the extent that you start offsetting, you start weakening the ma crow economic impact of it. >> okay. >> so, however,,you know, in order to get that job done, if there's a way to look at some offsets which could be revenue, could be subsidies for big oil, subsidies for airplanes, could be some of those kinds of

things, that might be used for that, but it shouldn't come out of our investments in education and the rest which, again, grow nothing brings more money to the economy, to the treasury, nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. early childhood, k-12, higher ed, post grad, lifetime learning. nothing brings more money to the treasury than education. >> okay. housing is a huge issue in california. it's going to be a big issue in the presidential campaign. given all the efforts that the administration made to stabilize the housing marg, do you think it's time now to accelerate foreclosures? let the housing market reset? >> our members from california have written to the president asking him to appoint -- well, i don't want to say replace demarco, but he's been there

for awhile, and they are not pleased with the pace of things there, but what i'm seeing now are some more -- i wouldn't say overly enthusiastically, but more positive signs about how that is going. i have always been one who said reduce the principle, you know, all kind of ways that we could have reduced the principle and the interest payments and to the extent we did that, we wold take some of the upside when the market came back, federal government would have part of the upside, and the owner would have part of the upside so that somebody else who was paying his or her mortgage on time and all the rest didn't say i was penalized because i did what i did. >> some of these pending foreclosures are a cancer to be cut out; right?

>> well, it's a question of how they originated. some of these were sub prime loans. some were people who just lost their jobs, had nothing to do with the sub prime loan, and there was an initiative to, which exists, to help people who lost their jobs, have not been able to make payments for like three months or something like that, for them to stay in their homes. it's a really going to be a tough minded, cold-blooded analysis of all of this at some point. i had people come to me and say my banker has said to me, even though i said i'm, you know, i've recooped, back to work, have the money, i'll put it in the bank three months ahead of time so you know i'm going to pay, and the banks have said, and the bank in this particular instance said you are more

valuable to me in foreclosure than in pay. >> who needs to do the cold-blooded analysis. >> we have a responsibility -- >> the government or administration? >> congress, everyone with a hand in it because it's not -- that would be enough reason. it's not just about people staying in their homes and the dignity of that. it's also about what this means to our economy, and our economy is never going to be fully well until this happens. >> right. >> there's some who said let it hit rock bottom and as it comes back, then we can recover. >> so what should the administration or congress do to jump start the housing market? >> well, i think we're a little bit -- i think something could have been done sooner, similar to what i said before, which is how do we keep people in their homes? how do we keep them paying what they can pay and take some of

the downside of ownership as they stay in their homes? >> i think we lost people to a fire alarm. usa today, front row, congratulations. you had a great run. i think sue has a question for the leader. >> thank you for doing this. i wanted to ask you about, and you referenced redistricting with an impact on 2012. what struck me, and i know not all the maps are fully settled, but when you look at a on a national level, it seems this round of redistricting continued a culture of what could be incumbent protection, that a lot of the districts were drawn in a way making it easier for law lawmakers to be reelected or not in competitive districts. in your drive for 35 now, if you worry that just the nature of redistricting has just created

districts that just by the math are not exe five now to put in play the number you would need to put in play to take the house back. >> you never know what the consequences are going to be of redistricting. in california, the republican party made a very, very expensive and concerted effort to put a commis on the ballot, permission to draws lines. i'm all for commissions drawing loins, but they have -- lines, but they have to meet certain standards. i hope we can have a national bill that had those standards in them, and then states could take them on with their own characteristics of their own states. what happened in california, and i never have ever, ever feared an objective redistricting. that's what we want, an objective redistricting, but what happened in california is they spent a lot of money, passed this we districting

commission, which would not have been the redistricting commission you think is the best in terms of votes rights act and that sort of thing, and what would we do in california? we'll probably pick up four seats because if you do it objectively -- same thing at -- well, in texas. i don't know if you want me to go into the back and forth of texas. the republicans saw it, the worst venue for preclearance which is the districts court here in washington, d.c., justice department, took it to that court, and that court said take it back to the -- that was the texas legislatively drawn maps, take it back to the court in san antonio, and they drew the lines, probably gave us three or four seats the the supreme court decided they wanted to hear that case. they reached down to do the

case. now in this case, what we're concerned about is do they -- why would the supreme court with all the important work they have to do get involved in an interim redistricting? this is just a redistricting for this next election. it's not a redistricting for the next ten years. this was just something the court in washington said to the court in texas should draw the lines and go forward. we're concerned that they may want to use that case to repeal title ii and title v of the voting rights act. justice scalia is in charge of the -- they divide the country in nine section, and he's in charge of texas and deciding -- not a fan of the voting rights act, decided that they should hear that, so we're concerned about what it would do in terms of the line, but we're more

concerned about what it might do about title ii and title v of the voting rights act. any of these places, again, if you can have the objective -- i'm all for having a national -- i don't want to say a national commission, but a legislation passed that has national standards for commissions that states would use to take it out of the legislative process. legislative process works for you if you have it in your party or against you if you don't. just in terms of the public's confidence of the system, let's just take it all to state determined commissions that meet national standards in terms of voting rights act and the rest of that. >> davis? >> we're going food really well. they said they were going to win 10-20 seats in redistricting, the republicans.

.. be brimming against each other in some cases maybe of the same party but we feel pretty good

about california to new york which hasn't done the redistricting yet but just for the meetings are there new york, california, texas, florida, arizona i don't want to show my whole hand here today but we believe that the makings of the 25 to 35. estimates keefe predicted you are going to retake the house with that question. >> what i always say is right now today we see a path to that victory ten months from now. islamic that's not predicting you must be able to go further than that. >> what i said to my colleague is you are used to sports analogies, and i grew up with my brothers. i'm into sports all the time, but when we come to that we are back here in february it will be

nine months until the e elections, nine months we have to have every one of those days very healthy days and nine months we give birth to this wonderful big victory. shall we say the experience we make very good use of that. with that raise the republicans, thought a redistricting of the republicans, without recruiting the republicans. this is the most important part. what if you have to have a candidate, the candidate usually will tell. >> you've done for hundred evens this cycle to get people to house democrats as opposed to the senate or the presidential race and the facts and all the stuff.

>> we have the candidates and that is a big selling point. the candidates come and we have -- in order to win 25 seats you have to play when the 50 seats and so we have to have about 75 but we would reduce to see how they play and then that comes down to 50. >> are you at 75 now? >> we'll have 75 now. >> when does it narrow? >> maybe they all succeed and meet the standard, but here is the thing. we have like 35 women over 30 are women. we have a large number of candidates. it's really a very mixed group with the women that we have and the police chiefs in orlando florida, she is a young woman who has been in the police

department for like 20 years to the level of police chief. i know how to protect people. you have tammie who served our country in the military, you know her personal story, not today, not on my watch are they going to do this. >> how optimistic are you -- >> why are you so confident? >> it's still a primary, too. she and another wonderful person running but i believe that she ran before what she has a national constituency, her story is a very compelling one and believe swa it will be here but that is not to say the other candidate might win that seat whoever the nominee is in that seat we will win. >> tell us something about speaker boehner that we don't know. >> i don't have the faintest idea. tell me what you don't know.

[laughter] >> you can relate to him. the rest of these a lot of party-line votes, number two who wants her job, what you have seen that movie. what advice would you have as he goes into this session? >> well, i would hope that they wouldn't need my advice but i would hope that they would act on behalf of the american people. that didn't happen last year. >> what something that -- specifically how would you play your cards differently? >> you have to give something in this respect. when i became the speaker i knew the members for a long time. i have helped each of them when the relationships over time and when we went to our legislation, it was like a finely woven fabric. and everybody's thread is a strong thread of what they

brought to that. we built consensus and both our legislation so that was very strong and people stayed with it. you can do that if you know the priorities people have. the particular mission of their districts, the courage the members will have to do what they need to do. so we all know each other very well and we were able with the opportunity to present to us and when we won the house and then when president obama juan we knew what we were capable of. >> how does that contrasts with of republicans? >> you knew that all these people came in i don't know how well they know each other, and so it's a different dynamic. i really do think that contrary to what you may think or know,

we always built from consensus and it's harder to do if you don't know what the possibilities are because you just don't know the members. >> we have time for -- >> when he's not really in charge. what are your observations in the nine or ten months ahead at least to marshall the party process? >> the speaker of the house has power of setting the legislative agenda, the power of appointment to the committee's, the power of recognition if we will be on any particular issue, and it's a very special place in the

legislative and federal government and legislative process in the federal government. far be it for me to give any advice about how they have their dynamic, but i would hope that what we all come here to do i don't think anybody comes here to be a party regular. i think you come here to work together to do what's right. when i came 25 years ago it wasn't this way. it wasn't until new gingrich it got to be so poisonous and then after that. but i think that -- i would be the last person on earth to be giving any advice to them accept the strength that we have from what we were able to accomplish which was very significant and the more related to of lives of the american people and the philosophical ideological agenda

of the more successful we were in moving fourth on the legislation. >> he can as far as he could keeping him crawl towards the goals that you identified. anything from mr. boehner in particular rather than just a philosophical that you just gave us? how does he keep people in? >> you're going to have to ask him. one thing he is going to have to do is keep them. >> what do you mean by that? >> we've been in the football so many times with the republicans this year that we are almost there on let's start with the first they didn't have the vote and negotiated and than they didn't have the votes and we had to preside but we didn't have the input into the bill. that's one. then you go to the fault.

that was terrible. by and large they openly said they thought it was okay if we default. they would take us to a place we would be downgraded because of the uncertainty as to when we would pass legislation to honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. if they want to do that or not. what he wanted to did he just want to prolong it or 41 to find an agreement i really don't know >> rapid round with david rogers. you are a historic figure both as the first woman speaker and the legislation that you passed. what do you want now most besides the doubtful? >> what i want to see is the healthcare bill be recognized for what it is. we are in plaid in terms of the

law you never know what happens in court. one of the reasons i am here is the passage of that bill and now its safekeeping and its transition into what the public knows it is in terms of the difference it makes in their lives no longer being a woman in a pre-existing medical condition millions of kids already are on to their parents policy until they're 26-years-old. children, young children for a while now cannot be discriminated against because the pre-existing medical condition it's about innovation, it's about prevention, it's about a healthy america and not just health care for america. so my focus is still on that. >> david also asked about the super wi-fi and the community. are you surprised that the gop is against this and unwilling to guarantee some reserves kept

unlicensed for this purpose? >> nothing surprises me about the gop. but i do think it's really important that we recognize the importance of the unlicensed spectrum and as we try to use the spectrum as the cash cow, the atm machine to pay for all things pitted estimate last question of democrats could get the promise of a permanent fix for medicare would you give more ground on medicare savings? are you resigned to just another patch? >> if we could get a permit which is what we did all along we can get a permanent fix. there's been some interest on the part of the republicans to appease them. we would like to do it all, get it off the table so there is no uncertainty as far as the seniors and their doctors as to the care they will receive. again, it wouldn't relate to sg

ar if there are some other elements that would come into the picture the would justify doing something on medicare. but you can't say we are taking care of you with this and now we are going to hurt you some other place on less there is another upside. there is concern in our pockets that while republicans say they will put forth their budget again for this year which makes senior -- thousand dollars a year more for medicare, you know why is that a good idea to get the money someplace else? >> another issue you are passionate about this democracy in which china always talked a lot about that on your visits. do you still think that the activists who were arrested and jailed in haiti in men's wear is it still raised with chinese delegations? >> absolutely every single time much to their dismay. we had a change with the chinese

government the decided we'd been fighting for so long that we might have who get to know each other better the invited me for the head of state visit to china in a couple of years ago, and i told them i want to focus on climate issues and energy issues and that is a place we need to work together but i'm not going to ignore the human rights issues, so this is -- i see them there are many of the dissidents in the u.s. i see them from time to time to the estimate there are still people in jail, right? probably a lot. >> yes. and it's some are being released and others are being arrested to read some of them were in jail at the time that trademark and then came out and now back in. but the most excruciating pain that a tyrant can exact on a political prisoner is to say

nobody remembers why you were here. they don't even care that you are here. and we had promised the dissidents as well as others that we will always be beating the drum beat so that their names will be read the rallies or on the floor of the house or the rest. last year i had one really special privilege to be invited by the chinese dissident who won the nobel prize to be part of the delegation which his family couldn't even go with the delegations who chose to represent him and norway has you may recall it was an empty chair the nobel prize sat on the empty chair and was a very eloquent statement that went around the world that the chinese would not

allow him to come and actually the nobel people said this further proves we would like to give this prize. in >> i think that he's going to do great. you know, he has had a big hit going over there. standing in line with a backpack on his back with a two upon getting a coffee and i guess starbucks, the equivalent starbucks would be a big hit, proud of the cultural heritage, but as we leave the subject of human rights that let us focus on what's happening in this area this is just stunning 5,000 people probably already killed by the regime. we were all helpful -- hopeful for a long time. i'm going back years now but clearly the regime has a tender to what's happening in its own

country and the reaction to it. >> i forgot to ask you state of the union are their dates again, what's going on with that? is there a buddy system of republicans? >> is. [laughter] it's always worth a try. i like the date for when the countries will meet to do the tax cut. >> who can be your buddy this time? >> i'm just back to see who -- >> they will ask each other but it's a nice gesture. the fact is let's not fool ourselves into say we are singing the kumbaya off and we are not giving tax cuts 160 million americans who need them. >> it sounds like you think it is silly. >> actually quite frankly when i came to congress i wondered why people sat on different sides of the ideal. when i became the speaker i said can't we bring the speaker's

podium in the chamber closer together why do we have to speak a different putting a second piece get each other's podium so i am all for this but i would like to see some follow-through roswell. estimate as we say goodbye we've done something i'm going to do and i rather fear and many in this room are going to do. you switch from blackberry to iphone. >> yes. i love it. [laughter] >> why? >> it's magical. [laughter] it is a manifestation, it is the manifestation of all of the choices people have in life to live 25 years ago i came to the conference. some of you were not even born and we had three networks and the newborn cnn, my friend from cnn. cnn was very new at the time.

there was a choice. the passage of the telecommunications act, the laws by the late nineties. five or 600 channels to choose from tv and no right in your very own hand not only that trace that you have, but a trace to receive your information in real time in so many different ways not waiting for the nightly news or anything, just to have it in real time. this information is changed. it's everything. it's so important, so i just loved having my little pal but let me tell you this one story. [laughter] - 3-year-old grandson says he is a chef. now they are four and five but this was at thanksgiving. and he said moi i am a chef.

he wears a white hat and a robe and coax. on thanksgiving weekend i was cooking and he was on like the counter behind me and i said okay, thomas i. it said it up. bdy want to cook breakfast? he said no pity i said you are the chef and i turned around and he had picked up my iphone at 3-years-old and was watching cars. i couldn't get that movie on there in a million years of 3-years-old, cars too. so just imagine the difference all of this is making. think of all the choices we have to be in some ways we are spoiled and in some other ways it is right that we should have all of that access of information to make us better informed and that's what we want to do with the election. everybody knows where the money is coming from, is supporting

whom so that the decisions that are made are made in the public interest and not in the special-interest. >> i feel much better about my change. i want to thank the light stream audience and c-span and thank our cnn friends and so do our urban alliance graduates and congratulate them and we think our friends from bank of america for making the conversation possible and all of you for coming out in the rain. madam leader, thank you. >> i thank all of you, too. [applause] for the opportunity. >> thank.

let our opponents stand on the status quo while we seek to refresh the american spirit. [applause] let the opposition collect their $10 million in secret money from the privileged few, and let us find 1 million ordinary americans who will contribute $25 each to this campaign.

a million-member club that members could who will not expect special favors for themselves but a better land for austal. [applause] c-span.org/the contenders. >> new jersey governor chris christi state of the state address. our coverage of this 45 minute event is courtesy of nj tv. [applause] the [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much.

thank you. thank you very much. lt. governor, madam speaker, mr. president, members of the 215th legislature, members of our congressional delegation, members of the supreme court, our former governors and the people of the state of new jersey. this has been a difficult week for all of us who work in the state house and are committed to public service. over one week ago we lost our friend. during this week we have submitted his life in the chamber at his weekend at his funeral mass and undoubtedly in the homes of the thousands of new jersey and whose lives he touched during his 23 years of service in the assembly. we count that we give

recognition today by signing all flags and government buildings across the state at half staff. now, as you all please join me in a moment of silence to honor his life and legacy. >> thank you. knowing alex as i did over the last 19 years, i know at this point she would tell me enough let's get back to work. that is what i intend to do. it's a pleasure to return to this chamber to report to you on the state of our state.

today i am proud to report that the new jersey come back has begun. [applause] how do we know that it's begun? just look around you. in the last two years we have come together to address the mess that was our state budget. the decline coming deficit and departures played the state just two years ago have been reversed. the budget is balanced. our unemployment rate is no longer going up is coming down. job growth has been restored. in the private sector where we want it. new jersey is back. we have restrained the growth of the property taxes. we put our pensions on a more stable and sustainable footing and in doing all of this, we have restored confidence and pride in new jersey. the new jersey come back is taking place in large part

because what we have done in this chamber together we've done something that trends haven't seen in a very long time. we work together, we achieve compromise and we put new jersey at its people first. [applause] for new jersey today the date is not about who to blame for our failure it is how to build on our success. it's no longer about how to deal with devastating decline. it is about how to push new jersey even further ahead. do better than we thought we could be. in these last two years new jersey set the standard for governments in america. be honest. it gets worse. do the big and difficult things

not only because it is right but because it lays the foundation for the future. job number one, the economy. consider where we were just a few years ago. what i raise my hand to take the oath of office saying i could not say with confidence the state would meet its payroll within two months, imagine that. new jersey unable to meet its payroll. to the gravity do to the mismanagement which reigns in this town before our arrival. our deficit for the fiscal year already more than half over was more than $2 billion. the budget problems for the next year, fiscal year 2011 were the record deficit of $11 billion. the solution wasn't easy but there was also not complicated. we have spent too much of the state we have lived beyond our

means. by trying to tax their way out of it previous governors and legislators have left new jersey in 50th place that last -- dead last among the tax burden it places on our citizens. we have the highest tax rate in the nation. because the highest unemployment rate in a quarter-century. and the largest budget deficit per person of any state in the nation. step one was to stop the bleeding by stopping the spending. we cut 375 programs in the first fiscal year, saved $2 billion for the taxpayers and about john karzai's budget into balance. next, with your help we enact a budget that imposed discipline in the form of another cut in spending for the second year in a row, cutting spending for each and every department of state government. that was tough medicine that was the beginning of better health.

last year because we took that medicine, we were strong enough to reduce business taxes and approved new jersey plant for the job creation. i want to thank this legislation for clearly recognizing that our managers to grow private sector jobs again must reduce the tax burden on our citizens and our businesses. [applause] step number 21 controlling property-tax is as everyone already knows the difference in 70% in the ten years before i became governor. rising property taxes were driving people love of the state so we joined together again. i want to thank this legislature and in particular your leaders president sweeney come speaker oliver, the property-tax growth

no more than 2% a year for the interest arbitration award that we are getting rises to higher taxes we and we must never forget that the root cause of the rising property taxes is always excessive government spending. as with all problems you must get to the root cause and together, we did it. here is the good use the canoes. it's worked. two weeks ago the state's largest newspaper announced the results of its comprehensive study of property taxes in new jersey. the headline said all, tax relief. step number three was to get a grip on our long-term liabilities. the pension system as $54 billion in debt at the start of 2011 and is scheduled to be under water by $180 billion in three short decades without a change in the course. it is imperative that we save

these to the middle class and the same time lift the burden off of our taxpayers creatively and unrealistic promise made by career politicians. succumb to the obvious, negotiated a solution to the excellent to save taxpayers over $120 billion. the pension of every state worker of every teacher and a free retired municipal employes he are more secure today by the tough choices that we make today we save their pensions. [applause] again the solutions were not easy and they were not always popular but they were also not complicated. we have to raise the retirement age. we had to get a grip on the

respective collis. we had to make sure the contributions of the employees were fair and that the state kicked in also. but by taking these steps, we made a big dent in the problem. at the same time, we have a public employee health system that was $67 billion in deficit in january of 2011. to right this wrong we rely on two simple principles first. we should give employees more choice and second, everyone must take their fair share. we once again compromised with each other. to write the feeling system but in the process make political history in new jersey. we came together. we took on the special-interest. we put our citizens first. at the time "the new york post" said we pulled off something of a miracle in the pension reform. but you know it wasn't magic. in a country dominated in so many places bipartisan bickering

we just had to be honest and realistic about the math and grown up about the answers. the good news is this. the people of new jersey can take the truth. we've shown the rest of the country that we are jersey strong. today the result of that jersey strength and attitude are beginning to show. since our administration came into office, new jersey has added over 60,000 new private sector jobs. remember, in 2,009 the year before we came into office, new jersey lost 117,000 jobs. according to rutgers university economist, 2011 was the best private sector job growth here in new jersey since the year 2000. 60,000 new private sector jobs since we took office the best job growth here is more than 11 years. here's my promise to the people

of new jersey we will keep the momentum going. i'm not permitting anyone to reimpose reimposing this that tax spending year responsible ways of our past which led to the dog into the cudgeled decade. stand strong with me and i will stand up with you. we are going in the right direction. [applause] >> a would impose any move that would return us to the despair of those properties and the pain they brought to new jersey and its citizens. a new direction is clear. we've changed the business environment in the state and as a result we are changing the jobs environment from ashura in

which established its reasonable headquarters in bridgewater which picked new jersey for its northeast research and to look and center. we've been able to attract new jobs around the country to new jersey. from the pharmaceuticals which moved to pinnacle foods which moved into cherry hill. employers are beginning to understand that new jersey is once again a friendly state for businesses and jobs, a great place to work and a better place to raise your family. and it's not just around the country. people are recognizing the new jersey come back all around the beer but it's not american headquarters in morris county and middlesex county and lt electronics in bergen county. we've begun to turnaround in the space of strong national headwinds prieta plus our country growth is still anemic. there's been no national solution to the debt and deficit

problem, no catalyst for growth, no leadership on the economy, the politics of envy of overtaking the imperative of opportunity, our economy suffers while washington politicians in both parties fettle. america's pressures enough strength and leadership around the world deteriorates while our leaders bricker and plame in the last two years new jersey did the same opposite. we achieved results because we did it together. over the last two years we've said let's put aside our differences so that we are able to work together on others. it doesn't mean we didn't shout at each other. it doesn't mean we didn't get angry. you may even recall some of my friends had some very colorful nicknames for me. [laughter] [applause]

now that ander is natural, that passion is good. but we have shown that on important issues from the really big things we can still come together to lead the people of new jersey to a better outcome. we've shown that it's possible to hold fast to keep principles but still reach a compromise to read we've shown new jersey and america that there is a better way, the divided government can work, that democrats and republicans working together is possible and in fact is necessary. two years ago i asked the speaker to join me in handshake to demonstrate our commitment working together sticking to our principles which finding common ground for the good of the people our hand she could do was

a symbol because it could be nothing more than that. back then, we have nothing to show the people that our good faith and the promise of tomorrow. today no symbolic handshake is needed. we've shown through our deeds really to work together. substance over the form, accomplishment over the partisanship i want to say thank you to steve and sheila for being my partners in that process. [applause] in this year in 2012 let's continue to show the state and the nation with what is possible and he let us continue to have new jersey set the example, let me jersey continue to lead the

way and let's do it together. over the last two years we had to make some tough choices. it was important to do what was difficult and what was necessary to get new jersey out of its toll. but because of these hard decisions, the shared sacrifice is and because we stuck to our discipline we can now focus on our priorities. we have to continue the line on spending i guarantee you this budget i submit next month and in the budget will ultimately signed in june will be truly honestly balanced. we have been working to get to this. finally they had new jersey right side up so we can focus on the big things. to challenge ourselves to be better. to strive for greatness to insure that everyone in new jersey is given the opportunity to have the life that they want. so in my budget i will fulfill a promise i made to all the people

of new jersey in 2009. real relief from the heavy personal income tax burden that has struggled our family forcing many of them to move away. i propose to reduce income tax rates for each and every new jersey income for every tax bracket by 10% across-the-board. [applause] i also propose to fully restore the earned income tax credit for new jersey's working poor which we are forced to cut during the

dark days of 2010 when growth was gone and we had no money. to understand what this means, every new jersey will get a tax cut for the working poor, the struggling middle class, the new college graduates getting their first jobs, the senior citizens who already retired from a single mom, the job creators, the parents trying to afford to send their son or daughter to college. everyone made the sacrifice, everyone will get the benefit. [applause] this will send a signal to new jersey, to families now living here and a family is with us to businesses and job creators thinking of coming here and those who have struggled to stay here. new jersey is once again in

place to plan your future to raise your family come to grow your business and someday retire. the new jersey come back has begun. [applause] now, let's be under no illusion knowledge of turning jersey around as far from finished. we've improved our tax climate, but there is much more to be done. so make no mistake, we are in a competition to be competition for jobs among countries, yes, but also among states. in the last decade, two-thirds of all companies which move jobs to relocation has now moved to other countries. the move from one state to another. here in our region almost direct competitors are making very different prices. in connecticut the governor has raised income taxes on the top earners, small-business and job creators. in new york last month enacted

legislation to do the very same thing. other big states are also raising taxes. california has proposed to raise the top rate already among the highest in america by up to two percentage points. in illinois has already adopted to raise all income taxes by 6%. now in this environment the best way to compete is to show a completely different direction. let others choose tax increases. the jews responsible tax cuts to give a more overburdened citizens real relief and helped new jersey grow. [applause] some will argue a minute, governor the only raise taxes on the rich. why not about governor cuomo's

package? you're the facts if we enact the same income tax rates, put into law by new york last month every person earning less than $100,000 in new jersey to face the tax increase of anywhere from 150 to 200%. and by the, those earning a million dollars would get a tax cut. is that what we want? is that fairness? i don't think so. an across-the-board tax cut is fair to every new jersey taxpayer will benefit. every new jerseyan's and rates will go down. that is exactly what i was talking about when i took office, that the tough choices would lead to the right ones. because we have to put our fiscal house in order and budget for our priorities and give a tax relief to all of our people. tax relief that will lead the

better lives for our citizens and more jobs for our state. job number two is to reform our education system, to strengthen our schools. over the course of last year on the proposals from this podium - worked with this legislature to put in front of you a package bill that will address the biggest challenges facing public education in new jersey. we have had a year to debate, discuss and deliberate. now in 2012 it is time to act. new jersey in so many ways is blessed. the majority of our school children continue to perform well. above the national student test new jersey has so many great features, producing so many great students. to many in the educational establishment however use that success as a camouflage for abject failure elsewhere in new jersey.

to use the success of others as an excuse to block a change for those that we are failing. it's not only wrong but it is immoral. to many of our schools are failing our children and they have been for far too long. we live in a time or educational attainment and economic success are correlated as never before and that is a good thing. it means for this generation of americans we can achieve what would be driven by not you'd you know but by what you know. the gift of a recent harvard columbia study of two and a half million students over 20 years in america. the support from what i told you from my heart and from this podium one year ago. great teachers have a more significant impact on their students' future success than adversaries. but even more important, average teacher's have an even greater effect other students when they replaced underperforming once.

research that confirms our own common sense. tenure reform will lead to even greater achievements because replacing the underperforming teachers would even an average teacher raise each classrooms lifetime earnings by over a quarter of a million dollars. so let's act on the real reform now. what's placed despair which hope in every classroom because i believe it is a scene to be satisfied when the chance for a life full of hope and opportunity is determined not by how hard you are willing to work, but by where you happen to live. not by your intelligence, but why your zip code. let's face this fact. more money doesn't lead to a better education. today we spent $23,000 for construction services. 20% of land graders this year will receive high school diplomas in four years. and the park is similar.

almost $30,000 a year are nearly 75% above the state average. but the dropout rate is almost ten times the state average. and the s.a.t. scores lagged the state average by 180 points. it's time to admit the supreme court's experiment with the new jersey children is a feeling. 63% of the state aid over the years has gone to the districts and the schools are still predominantly feeling. what we've been doing isn't working for children and the failing district citizen fare. fundamentally unfair to the other 557 school districts and to our state taxpayers who spend more per pupil than any state in america. basic human decency and simple common sense say it is time for a different and better approach. [applause]

the tools to give our children and their parents who are confronted with the schools the chance for a better outcome are before you. they are embodied with our bipartisan nature and consistent with the reform advocated not only by me but by president obama, education secretary duncan and most recently by new york governor andrew cuomo. the information received hundreds of meetings with educators, parents and professors across the state. the are supported by independent research study at harvard and columbia. most importantly, they reflect the intentions we should all have to put children first. the momentum to put children first began last week when you passed and i traveled.

this will allow the school districts in new york, kansas and trenton to the private sector to build and operate the renaissance schools in these districts so in need of change. we've given senator urban schools a signal that hope is on the way to read and i want to thank senator donald more croft of kansas for their bipartisan support of this idea. you and i both know that this is a good start but only a start. there is much more work to do. so here's what i propose. first, reform the tenure. bye measuring teacher effectiveness with professional observations and objective, quantifiable measure to the student achievement and thereby giving the tenure to those who are the strong evaluations and taking it away from those whose ratings are unacceptably weak we cannot ask parents to accept failure in teachers under their children's lives hang in the

balance. it is unacceptable for us to turn our back on this issue any longer. second of the layoffs are necessary, remove the least effective teachers instead of just the most junior ones. it's time to end the system of the last game and first out which protect some of the worst and penalize some of the best. third, pete teachers more when they are assigned to a failing school or to teach a difficult subject. compensation should be designed to attract and retain effective teachers where we needed them the most. fourth, let's and the forced placement. teachers shouldn't be assigned to schools without mutual consent of the teacher and the principle. when the place and cannot be found a middle months the districts should have the right to please the teacher on the permanent unpaid leave. fifth, we should reform the process of restarting schools to attract the best operators to new jersey, to streamline the process for the best performers, to focus on our failing school

districts and encourage innovation. we must give parents and children in the failing school districts as many alternatives as we can. last what's as double tax credits and provide scholarships for the income students in the worst performing schools in the state to enable them to attend a better school. opportunity should not be offered to only those in an excellent school district for parents who have the money to release their children from the prison that is a failing school. let's pass the opportunity scholarship act now. [applause] these are not radical reforms. they are common sense. they are not rash.

they are long overdue. and they are not luxuries which can afford the language for another six months for another year. they are essentials to the new jersey future success to date i have a message that's not for me but from a single mom and newark. struggling parents as well as employers come all of our states. education reform, real education reform has waited long enough. new jersey is one of america's most diverse states. this means we have diverse problems but also delivers opportunities. it means we must build the skills and improve the opportunities for many kinds of people to all backgrounds and all walks of life and it means we must work in multiple ways to improve the quality-of-life for everyone. as we discussed creating jobs and fixing the schools are probably the two most important ways to do that. but there are other steps we can take as well to improve the quality-of-life here in new jersey. this leads me to job number

three. we need to reclaim our inner cities, a response to the underserved regions and engage our most vulnerable citizens. a few months ago, i hosted a town hall meeting in the union city with senator bryan. a woman from the work was there. a mother, a neighbor, a concerned citizen. she asked me very direct question and i believe it was a question for all of us. she said this. i just wonder, governor, if the amount of violence, the amount of shootings, the amount of murders that take place in the city in newark i wonder sometimes if it bothers you like it bothers us. particularly the mothers who've lost their children. and she ended her question with a plea. helpless, she said. helpless. that woman was cassandra and i met with her and her neighbors in this building. she's here in this chamber

today. i ask all of you to send a message to the new jersey we are creating a place where everyone is given the opportunity to live the life they want. i ask all of you to join me in saying to cassandra yes, we will help you. [applause] [applause] here is one example. we can improve our quality-of-life by keeping the most violent criminals off the streets. so i would ask you to approve my reform package which is near the

federal system. it would keep the history of violence who are in danger in the communities in jail until the time of the trial instead of releasing them back into society to prey on the public. this may require a constitutional amendment but it is a reform that is long overdue. do you know that if a person arrested with a long record of violence we can't d-tn that person in jail pending trial. we must release the person regardless how dangerous they are to the potential witnesses were innocent members of our society. let's amend our law to allow judges to consider the factor of dangerousness to the communities before we release a violent person back on the street to maim or kill the trial. [applause]

this too is simple common sense. but at the same time, let us reclaim the lives of those offenders who've not committed a violent crime. by investing time and money in an in-house secure facility rather than putting them in prison. [applause] experience has shown us treating nonviolent drug offenders is two-thirds less expensive than warehousing them in prison. and more important as long as they haven't violently victimize the society everyone deserves a second chance because no life is disposable. [applause]

i am no longer satisfied to have this as a pilot project so i'm calling for transportation to the way we deal with drug abuse and incarceration in every corner of new jersey. i ask the legislature and the chief justice to join me in this commitment that no life is disposable. i proposed mandatory treatment for every non-violent offender with a drug abuse problem in new jersey, not just a select few. it would send a clear message to those who have fallen victim to the disease and drug abuse. we want to help you, not throw you away. we will require you to get treatment because your life has value. every one of god's creatures can be redeemed. everyone deserves a second chance. [applause]

so, these are the big things i would like us to focus on in 2012. these are my priorities. we represent some of the toughest most direct in america people who were destined for great things. we just give them the opportunity. but we also know that for too many years these same people were depressed about what new jersey had become. promises that were not even attempted to be kept. our economy suffocated under the wet blanket of over taxation, overspending, over borrowing and

overregulation. our education system failed those who need it most. and our leaders decide be patient we will fix it. in new jersey it becomes a punch line rather than a place of crime. so what's happened over the last two years. over the last two years new jersey has now seen around the country once again not exclusively as the butt of late-night jokes that the focus of the evening news and the sunday talk shows. why? because once again, we are leading america by taking on the big things in the public policy. our state is destined for great things. we just need to give the people of our states the confidence that comes from watching peters work together and from a state rising again all around them. to everyone in this room, to everyone watching at home or listening in your car, have one simple message. for the new jersey come back to

continue and grow, we must all come together. this obligation is not just mine and it's not just steve's for sheila come it's not just tom or john. the new jersey come back is not about what happens in trenton alone. all of you are in this, too. our wins and losses are your wins and losses. our successes and failures are yours. the new jersey come back didn't just start here and it won't be sustained just here. the comeback is yours, too and say why will say to you regardless of where you are, regardless of what region of the state to come from, regardless of what political party you call home, you have had a stake in what has happened over the last two years and you've contributed to making it happen. now is not time to stop. now is time to double down. now is not the time to put the brakes on new jersey's growth.

now is the time to cut the lead to put the foot down harder on the accelerator. now is not time to turn back. now is the time to make new jersey greatness a reality again. [applause] that is what the next two years of my governorship will be dedicated to everyday. we have climbed out of the whole that was left to us together. now it is time to raise the great flood of the state of new jersey as high as we can together. i cannot do it alone. republicans cannot do it alone. democrats cannot do it alone. as martin luther king once said we have come on different ships but we are in the same boat now.

we must do this together in every town and every city in every county across the state. if you are ready to join us in the next two years as you have in the last two years, we will be your two years from now looking at the state that once again as a leader for the rejuvenated america. if you are willing to join a fight, so am i on your behalf. that is what you have elected me to do and that is a solemn commitment i make to you again today. thank you. god bless you, god bless america and the great state of new jersey. [applause]

[applause] if if

only those who have shown the result to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard it in the challenging turbulent and unpredictable times that lie ahead. >> mr. president, the decade in this century before us must see the last thing liberty of the common cause. the world means britain and britain needs us. there are some countries in the

common market that would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a european central bank and by the parliament as much of the power that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over further power from the parliament to other bodies. >> search, watch, cliff and share. it's what you want and when you want. >> former obama administration national security adviser james jones says that 2012 is the year that the u.s. will have to deal with iran one way or the other. his remarks came during a panel discussion on international homeland security cooperation with homeland security secretary jim at the public, and former acting cia director john mclaughlin. from the aspen institute, this is a little less than an hour-and-a-half. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to the willson center. i am jane harman, the not so new president and ceo, and as i like to say, ecp from the united

states congress. i would like especially to acknowledge the present tough the chairman of the board of the wilson center, joe and his wife, and in a moment i will introduce many dear friends who are members of the aspen homeland security advisory group. unlike the lincoln memorial are the washington monument, the wilson center is a living memorial to our 28 president and provides and the essential link between the world of scholarship and policy-making. that is essentially the homeland security advisory group at the aspen institute, which i co-chair with my very good friend, former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff, seems to do. we are a bipartisan group with extensive expertise and strong opinions, no surprise to meet periodically to discuss homeland security and counterterrorism issues and make recommendations

and policy numbers. many of the group are with us. i can't be sure that i have everyone sitting in front of me but i see many of you. let me just list you have the clich chiarelli allen. this charlie allen here? zoe baird, who i know is here. stewart baker. richard ben best day. p. jay crowley. steve had lee, brian jenkins all the way from california, michael liter who was a marvelous head of the national counterterrorism center and poppa to be. stuart levy. jim hooley, paul mchale in the united states congress. bill mudd. eric olson. marin strameki.

guy swan. evan wolfe. gary hart, former senator gary hart, a good friend and member of the group here from colorado, and the director former homeland security inspector general corker -- clarke ervin. we're pleased to partner with the aspen institute for this discussion we have held with homeland secretary janet napolitano. today we are examining the international dimension of homeland security. huh? most people of recognize what an important role the homeland security please internationally as a recovering politician as i mentioned who sat on the house homeland security committee and chaired the subcommittee on intelligence for many years i do know about this. representing two of america's

largest points of entry and target l.a.x. and the port of los angeles i spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to that the people who enter our country without slowing down tourism or, as a compromise and individual rights. but it's not just about securing borders. as a coal author actually the original author of the safe ports act of 2006, i urged that we needed to push out america's borders because we don't want to discover a container ship with highly enriched uranium at the port of los angeles. .. ..

our panel will explore these issues. we have a extraordinary. experience group of people. secretary napolitano a former national security advisor and former deputy director of the cia. moderated by an excellent homeland security reporter who happens to be a woman, jean meserve. before we hear from this

panel secretary napolitano will say a few words. everyone knows she is the former governor of arizona and our third secretary of homeland security. our second is sitting right in front of me. she was the first woman to chair the national governors association and was the first female attorney general of arizona. you do need to know however that i knew her, she says, i knew her i know when i knew her as a young lawyer in phoenix the she said she had a perm. that is somewhat unimaginable. somewhat unimaginable. but even then this was absolutely clear that janet napolitano was someone to watch. and i think, she is not only someone to watch in this job but she is some to watch in the future. she is a dear friend and protecting our homeland and we stand here and sit here. please welcome secretary janet napolitano. [applause]

>> thank you very much, jane, for that introduction. thank you to the wilson center for hosting us today and to the aspen institute as well. and i really want to mention the aspen institute and their committee on homeland security co-chaired by jane harmon and michael chertoff, a number of the members are here today. and it is part of our ever-maturing process at homeland security to really think strategically about its role domestically and in the world, and how we serve the people of our country in the best possible way. i'm also glad to be here with my friends jim jones, john mclaughlin. i think we will have a very interesting discussion about homeland security and its role in the international sphere. and let me, if i might, turn briefly to that to kind of set the stage for our discussion. we have personnel now

stationed in 75 countries around the world. we have the third largest international footprint of any agency of the federal government. our work in the international sector is increasingly substantial. it is essential and innovative. it recognizes that in today's world domestic security, and international security are inextricably intertwined. a security decision made in one part of the globe can rapidly impact security half a world away. and that means that we have to look at our physical borders as our last line of defense. and not as our first. our international engagement at dhs is focused on a set of core approaches and goals. these include improving information-sharing. fostering better operational alignment and joint activities and insuring

better law enforcement coordination with other nations. since i became secretary almost three years ago to the day, we have now executed 118 major international agreements that go to many of these goals with a number of other important initiatives currently under negotiation right now. i will start, for example, in the aviation sector. we have now negotiated a new passenger name record agreement with the european union, the poeflt-lisbon treaty european union to improve information sharing and insure that dhs personnel have the information they need to identify threats before someone embarks on a plane to the united states. that we have greater tools. that we have greater awareness. the agreement has been accepted by the european commission. it has been approved by the council of ministers and we

are now awaiting a ratification vote in the european parliament. it is, and i will apologize in advance for alphabet soup. i will try to explain some of these as we move forward but pnr, passenger name record, is a critical tool to assess a passenger's risk before he or she boards a flight to the united states. it allows us to better identify passengers to whom we should pay more attention. it also, by the way, as we move forward, will help us also identify passengers who are low-risk and can be expedited through lines. the new agreement incorporates all of our commitments into a single document and it does, i think, help and insure the safety and security of the traveling public. and i mentioned that to start with because this is a major agreement for which the dhs was actually named as the lead negotiator on behalf of the united states.

but that's not the only one of the moving on to cargo, we are working hand in hand with our international partners bilaterally and through multinational organizations like the world customs organization, the international civil aviation organization and the international maritime organization, to secure agreements to improve security while promoting the movement of cargo around the world. with respect to cargo security we worked with the wco, im o&i iko. i told you there would be alphabets in this presentation and with our partner nations to share info, build resilience and smooth travel and trade. a good example of this known as global shield. global shield protects the supply chain by preventing theft or diversion of precursor chemicals that can be used to make improvised explosive devices, bomb-making materials. as of december of 2011 we

have accounted for seizures of over 45 metric tons and 19 arrests related to the illicit diversion of these chemicals. more and more nations are now joining into the global shield network. with respect to passenger security, i always, i already mentioned pnr. but we are also moving to preclear more passengers through the world and this is done through cbp. what does this mean? cbp is customs and border protection as you know and what preclearance is that somebody can actually go through the customs process, the international border travel process abroad, so that when they finally get to the united states, they can expedite through the lines. it allows us to screen passengers internationally. and it is identical to what they go to here except it is abroad. it is preclearance.

last year we processed 15 million travelers through 15 preclearance locations and last december i announced a new immigration advisory program in abu dhabi that is specifically designed to lead to preclearance agreement out of the airport there. this would be the first such agreement in the middle east. we also have announced a new iap in qatar and negotiations are underway in other countries as well. programs like that and programs like global entry which is cbp's kind of fast travel program. that gives you your precleared card to expedite through international arrival, a new pilot that we have just started called precheck which is the domestic part of global entry so that working off of the same platform we can clear passengers through domestically. all of this is designed to improve access to passenger information.

to allow us to better assess passenger risk and to allocate resources to higher risk travelers. these programs make the passengers travel experience safer, and more efficient. and that already has had a positive impact on many. rather than standing in line after entering the united states and by the way, if our, in our discussions somebody wants to raise an issue about where they last stood in line, one of the problems we have of course is that some of our airports are older and they are not built for the wide bodied planes and the mass arrival of passengers all at the same time. well one of the ways we can deal with that is better differentiate among maerngs and -- passengers and also conduct more and more activities outside of the physical border of the united states. that requires international negotiation and international agreement and building that consensus. it is right in that sweet spot where security and economic and efficient,

efficiency can be united. let me touch briefly on two other areas where we are heavily engaged in the international sphere. one is cybersecurity. in an age of course of rapidly evolving cyber threats physical borders are almost irrelevant, exempt that they have jurisdictional meaning and that requires us to work internationally. we're working now with international partners on the budapest declaration, on the european cybercrime forum. we conducted an international exercise this fall and we are working within the auspice of the u.s.-e.u. working group on cybersecurity and cybercrime. we also recently entered into a partnership with mexico to enhance our mutual cybersecurity and infrastructure protection efforts. and then the third area i'd like to briefly touch upon is countering violent extremism. we know that terrorism, whether home ground or --

homegrown or imported internationally remains a threat in the world today. we know we are not immune to homegrown threats. we know we have a lot to learn from our international partners on the issue of countering violent extremism. so we have been engaged internationally with a number of countries exchanging best practices and really trying to explore what is meant by violent extremism in terms of what kinds of indicators, tactics and techniques we need to be watchful for so that we can in turn share information with the state and local law enforcement partners we have who are within the united states the first line of prevention. so what is all of this mean in concrete terms? it means, obviously that homeland security requires working internationally as well as within our borders. it means there is a new avenue of negotiation and diplomacy occurring outside traditional state

department avenues. although we work very closely with the state department and coordinate our activities with them. it means that we are finding new ways to unite effective security with good economic business practices as we smooth and secure the movement of goods and people around the world. and given the economics and the sweet spot i described, it means that it is within the self-interest of the nations of the world to participate globally in these initiatives. and finally, it means that we have matured the concept of homeland security to the point that we can dissolve the traditional dividing line between international security and homeland security and recognize that each can strengthen the other. so, thank you for your presence and your attention here today and, i thank also many of you for your ongoing efforts in this arena. i look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you all for joining us. secretary napolitano, thank you for setting the stage. i just want to assure you we all have perms once upon a time. [laughter]

let me introduce our other two panelists. i'm sure many of you are familiar with them. but general james jones is here with us. 40 years in the marine corps, holding many important positions including commandant of the marine corps and head of all nato forces. he then became president obama's first national security advisor. he left that post in 2010 and now is president of the jones group international. and john mclaughlin, three decades in the cia. rising to the post of deputy director and eventually serving also as acting director. now a senior fellow at the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins. thank you all for being here. i can't have this menu of guests and not ask you all about the current threat situation. a couple weeks ago a video was released online that appears to show u.s. marines urinating on members of the taliban. there has been a lot of discussion about what reaction that might provoke.

secretary napolitano, let me ask you, are you seeing anything in the chatter or in other indicators that worry you that perhaps this has been some sort of a trigger to action or maybe in the future? >> first, i think the activities that were videoed are not the policy of the united states. they're not the practice of the marines or other other fighting men and women and they deserve the highest condemnation and i know that appropriate actions are being taken in that regard so we begin with that. we have obviously, are always watching for things that could trigger an international reaction, that could have impacts within the homeland. and it is an example of how something that happens abroad or that happens in the so-called international or dod spheres could 12 have real impacts within the homeland. i don't want to talk about

the intel we have except to say that is the kind of thing that in the past has caused violence and violence against western interests and against the united states. so obviously we are monitoring very carefully what is going on. >> the other big point of tension right now, iran. concern over their nuclear program escalating tensions with the u.s. over the strait of hormuz and so forth. let me ask you general jones, what aspect of this relationship between the u.s. and iran concerns you most at this point in time in terms of its possible rampy -- ramifications for the homeland? >> i think it is enormous. i think 2012 is announcing itself as the year that iran is going to have to be dealt with one way or the other but it is an enormous shadow that casts its, its, the demands our attention in many different ways.

the threat of iran possessing nuclear weapons obviously is a threat to one of the sovereign country neighbors, israel. it's a real threat to a possible nuclear arms race in the gulf, and third it's, it's and the most pervasive threat is national security advisor is the one that i thought had the most risk is the fact that in a world increasingly populated by nonstate actors, iran could export that kind of technology of a weapons of mass destruction, nuclear but others as well, to a nonstate actor. if that happens i think the world we live in changes dramatically. so it's a big deal. >> the u.s. has tried to mount an international effort vis-a-vis their nuclear development and had limited success. does this show the limitations of international cooperation on security issues?

>> no. i think, i think it's certainly is always difficult. i think one of their signature achievements of the administration and the first couple of years was to be able to rally such generally despar rat countries like china and russia and many other countries to the cause of sanctions against iran, sanctions that have not really run their course nor have they been ratcheted up fully as they can. we're seeing individual countries and some of our arab friends and neighbors as well starting to really tighten the screws on iran. there is a ways to go in terms of things that can be done and i think iran knows that and i think that's one of the reasons we're seeing the bellicose behavior of iranian forces in the gulf, in the a babe -- arabian gulf or threatening the straights of hormuz which is one of their favorite tactics. it is clear that where world

opinion is concerned the majority of the countries that we have relations with are certainly with us on this side of the issue. >> john, are you also concerned about iran's relationship with certain groups like hezbollah? >> yeah. i think the problem with iran is that we have. three courses of action. we can use diplomacy or can use sanctions or people keep saying the military option is on the tail. i think it would be a very bad option, the latter one to use. one of the reasons is that iran does have this relationship with hezbollah. hezbollah has not attacked american interests in recent years but last hot of has lots of plan on the library shelf in the event we got into a confrontation with iran and hezbollah has been present in the united states at least in fund-raising. one of the big problems with iran is if you get into a

open confrontation, a military confrontation, you risk a cycle of retaliation and response with great difficulty seeing where the end point is. >> if i might, on iran, a couple of things. one is we've seen some activities that are in open source obviously now that seem a bit irrational but can fit into an overall picture. the matter for example, the, individual brought to the united states ostensibly to as senate the saudi ambassador here. that's an example where cbp working with our other domestic law enforcement partners was able to help make sure that that arrest occurred and that no activity was underway. the other thing is, when you talk about some of these organizations, one of the things we do is analyze, at what point do you move from say, fund-raising for lack of a better terrell, to

planning a tactic or an operation that could actually take place against a western interest, a u.s. interest abroad or within our homeland and share that kind of information with the police around the country and law enforcement around the country so they know the things to watch out for and share with them information where we know specified groups could be located. now we've just had an arrest in thailand of someone purportedly a member of hezbollah interested in targeting tourists spots, possibly israeli targets. any iranian connection there? and was that by the way, an example of international information-sharing thwarting something? >> let me not comment on the connections there and so forth but i think many of these events that are in the open source press are now good examples of information-sharing that is occurring around the globe between security, homeland

type security officials as well as other officials. we all have an interest making sure our peoples are safe. >> general jones? >> i would like to point out i think we've been very fortunate having two outstanding secretaries back-to-back. secretary chertoff is here. i was privileged to work with him in my nato hat. it was at that point really started thinking about the international aspects of dhs and when you look at the threat envelope that's out there, one of the last conferences i attended as national security advisor was a russian-sponsored conference which 43 countries attended and the subject, the main subject of the conference was the increasing cooperation between terrorists, drug merchants and organized crime. and this is right in dhs's sweet spot in terms of an emerging threat.

43 countries roughly at the table talking about this. this is about a year and a half ago. and this is, this is a clear and present rising threat and dhs is, as the secretary admirably pointed out, we want to defend our borders as far away from our physical borders as we can. and the way you do that is by international engagement. and so the presence of dhs and the importance of dhs, on the international arena as part of our combatant commands, for example, having a residence in those commands, is very, very important in order to, in order to deal with that threat in conjunction with the inneragency process and i think one of the great things that we did early on in the administration was to decide to combine homeland security and national security and rename the national security staff the

national security staff and that has spawned a great cooperation which i'm sure goes on today but when you see the, and mike lighter is here as well. when you see the cooperation that exists in the inner agency level where dhs is one of the prime movers of this entire process, it is really, i think, it is very comforting to the people of this country to see the progress that has been made. >> just to follow up on that briefly, when you have a merger of homeland security and national security at that level, what do you lose? don't you lose some capabilities through a merger? or is it all positive? >> well, since it happened early on and with the, with the agreement of the secretary, you know, from my standpoint we didn't lose anything. we gained a lot. and you saw that reflected in not only the amount of work that was being done

involving the inner agency where everybody was present at the table and it wasn't instant and we had to grow it a little bit but i'm quite sure that in the past year it has even gotten even better. i would be very surprised. if it hasn't because we, we see, the president presided and i'm sure still presides over regular meetings involving homeland security, dhs, and dhs is always present, the secretary is always present at the table where other big decisions are being made in terms of international security as well. so this, this growing partnership is really a tremendous achievement i think and if you liken it a little bit what we did to reform the intelligence community where we took disparate stovepipes and forced them to all bend towards the middle, this is what is happening in terms of our homeland security as well and it's a really a

work in progress but i think the secretary is being very modest about a lot of the achievements that have been, that have been made in the last couple of years. >> if i could add to that, jeanne, i don't think you lose anything. i think we realized very early on after 9/11 that the secret to not being attacked again was involved many things but two of the things it involved was integration of information. putting it in the starkest terms, if some trooper in nebraska picks up a group of people and finds them suspicious and can't reach into a database that includes what cia picked up in the back alleys of cairo of istanbul or wherever and integrate that, it is arguably an intelligence failure these days. so that merging things into at that graduation is always a good thing. the other big secret is also in something the secretary said and that is international engagement. if you went back to the wold war -- cold war we shared information with numbers of people with the u.s.

government around the world. we had to build a worldwide coalition. you can not do this job yourself. you need a lot of hands in it. you need to pick up the phone and call some police chief in a southeast asian country and say i need you to do this for me tomorrow and they need to respond. that only comes about through constant engagement, and to the degree we also integrated our own information, home lan and foreign, it facilitates everything. >> certainly you can't share all information with all players? >> that's right. and i think one of the things, one of the value added propositions of dhs if i might, you know, sometimes we get the question, why do you have your own intel and analysis sections? you've got the cia. you've got the fbi. you've got the ntcc, et cetera, et cetera, dni, et cetera. the value added to really take intel, that is obtained through a variety of ways and to integrate it into what is, what is an can't be

and should be shared real time or over time. state and local law enforcement and with the private sector within the homeland. and to combine the intel, the data points with analysis that really says, all right, we have this. these are the things you want to watch out for. these are, the kinds of behaviors the tactics, the techniques, that good law enforcement should be aware of. we share those things through integrated centers throughout the united states. we have 72 of them now. we share those things with the private sector, particularly where critical infrastructure is concerned. our utilities, our telecommunications. and build in that way, kind of the homeland security aspect of what is being collected and, and analyzed around the world really. >> but internationally you can't share all information with all countrys? you can't trust everyone, can you? >> that's right. and we don't. now some countries we, we have a very, very close relationship with and mutual

sharing is very robust. . . >> what that's mean at the ports? what's that mean for training? what's that -- which countries have to engage?

you know, who going to intersect with all of the alphabet soup of international organizations, and to do that at a level that is very focused on operational activities needed to follow-up on the policy decisions that are made, and that's really what that shop is designed to do. >> now, -- >> there's the state department forming counterterrorism, but i guess i'm wondering how much unity of effort ultimately there's going to be or whether those two entities and the others that exist end up either tripping over one another or being duplicated or are they all positive energies as they say? >> of course it's all positive. [laughter] >> i can't speak about the state department, but in reviling all of the things dhs is doing overseas, i was frankly surprised by the sweep of it and

the numbers. the question i asked myself was how does this fit with what my former agency is doing and when what other intelligence services are doing? i came away thinking it's very compliment ri because what homeland security is doing is essentially a layer above what's going on in the intelligence realms, and so, for example, if someone in the intelligence field develops concerns about a group of individuals who may be traveling, it helps a lot to have a customs and border person from the united states at an airport. it helps a lot to have dhs doing passenger name recognition. it helps a lot to have an agent who can look into whether there's a high risk traveler involved here so i'm not doing this anymore and i don't know how precise it is, but if i had my hands on it, i assume there's

an advantage to be gained here in terms of how additional intelligence works in the field having people from dhs out there who can take this material and do something with it that ultimately protects the homeland. >> one of the things that as national security advisers i tried to encourage among countries is other countries should have a national security adviser so i would have somebody to talk to. [laughter] >> was it that lonely? >> no, but a lot of them did, quite a few did, and the united states generally gets mimicked by our friends and allies. i was curious if you're seeing an international trend towards developing homeland security departments that your peer group -- or do you do what i did, well, they don't have a national security advise e so i have to call the next close eases thing. >> i think what's happening is

they are -- many countries have departments that overlap with homeland security and their missions are being amended or changed to more closely mirror the myriad of missions we've now swept under the rubric of dhs. my peers are the home secretaries, the interior ministers of the world. those tend to be the closest relationship, but because of the things 245 we do, we also have partnerships with ministers of transportation. we have agreements on the development of counterterrorism, science, and technology and sharing of some of that technology, so that occurs at a different level. we have agreements sometimes with commerce departments and things of that sort, but the primary relationship i have, the people i call on the phone, the people i meet with abroad and here are the ministers of interior and in some cases known as the home secretary. >> some of our closest

relationships are with the europeans. they find themselves right now in a big heap of trouble economically. how is that impacting what their doing in terms of protective measures? in terms of intelligence? is it hurting? >> well, i think right now they are under tremendous budget pressure as are we all. are we being unnecessarily redundant and the like? we are trying nod to be recognizing that in some areas you need multiple layers because there's different functions to perform. i think we don't know. i think the intent is not to see dead degages, but when you see how that plays out over time is unknown. however, the budget pressure requires us to act more internationally, have to leverage resources with one another, and we are actually

exploring some pilots where leverages and checks abroad with other countries, we do some, they do some, all for the same standards, all with mutual embeds to ensure the standards are abided by, but the idea is to say, look, we're all under budget pressure. there's things we can do together now, and we ought to be exploring that, and we are. >> how worried are you about the future ramifications out there? >> well, i worry about a lot of things. >> i'm sure you do. [laughter] >> that's my job, but i think, again, when we meet and speak with each other, the idea is all right, that's the situation we have, has the cards we have been dealt. how do we make it work so there's a maximum ability to detect and interrupt before violence action takes place. >> now, the u.s. internationally

provided advice and sometimes equipment to help partners in this security battle. is the u.s. still going to be able to do that to the extempt it has been given the budgetary constraints you're facing? >> well, a lot of that we do through the state department, and this is where funding for the state department, one of the many reasons state department is key in all of these security areas. for example, our efforts with mexico, which provides equipment and even helicopters is funded through the merida initiative and state department. we work with them on how and what makes sense. we work with the mexicans on what makes sense and what should be prioritized and obviously on the joint training and vetting of law enforcement personnel, ect., and so all of that happens within the state department and

exemplifies the linkage to occur there. >> we talk a little bit about the current threat picture, and i don't want to clearly spend all of our time talking about the threat, but i would like you to look forward in time for me, six months, a year, and tell me what you see emerging internationally as your principle areas of concern, your top two or three, the list could be endless, i know, there's yemen, iraq, somalia, afghanistan, but what's the top two or three? >> john, you want to start? >> we're not out of the woods yet at all with terrorism. it's too fashionable to say al-qaeda is strategically defeated and so forth. in a sense it is. the al-qaeda at 9/11 is, but today, it is still alive. it isless structured, and it's more in the mode of go do

attacks where you are. there are ways in which it's weakened, and, for example, the middle rank bench is pretty much gone so there's a gap between the top leaders of that organization and the muscle at the bottom. those middle leaders are dead or captured. they are having trouble fundraising, and the arab spring is not working to their advantage yet, yet. >> it's not clear it's going to work to our advantage either. >> it's knot clear it's going to work to our advantage. that's up for grabs. we don't know what's going to happen next there. if i were giving the top two or three worries, i'd have to say i'm worried about the core of al-qaeda, but i'm more worried about the affiliates and there, the alarming thing is the relationships and connections that are developing among them. the major ones are, of course,

al-qaeda, the airian peninsula and yemen which now, if not controls, at least is influential in about 50% of that country. >> the death of alawaki. >> he was the principle spokesman to a listening audience. there's two or three characteristics of that organization that we have to worry aboutment one, they move fast. their operation that sent mutaalob here in 2009 was a pick up game. they're cheap. the package bomb operation cost about $4200, and they have a strategy which is a thousand cuts so attack us where they can, and they are not routed out of the important cities in yemen yet, and they are connected. that's the other thing. they are connected to al-qaeda

core, and they are connected to somalia which is strong and a magnet, it seems, for americans of somalia heritage, who are becoming quite important in that organization in terms of leadership. >> are we seeing americans leave for somalia? >> yes, we are. we work closely with the somalia-american community itself building bridges there within the homeland, but it is a growing organization, and one that is quite concerning. >> your top two or three? >> well, you know, i don't rank them like basketball teams. [laughter] i would say -- i would agree with john that we should not be facile about the threat of international terrorism. it is there. it takes different forms. the threats constantly evolve, and they kind of target the opportunities to change and

requires us to always be leaning forward and try to be thinking proactively what's the next best thing, and so, you know, the al-qaeda affiliates, aqim, aqi, aqip, ect., all are of concern. then one of the things i constantly keep my eye on is what is going on in mexico and central america? what is going on south of us in this hemisphere that could actually effect us undually in the homeland itself. >> your level of concern with an election approaching 1234 >> well, you know, there's an election in mexico in july, so in their election season now, and president calderón has undertaken a terrific effort there to undertake the cartels. it's a violent struggle, and we

see it all in the papers, and it is ongoing, and our hope is and our plan is to keep working with the mexicans at the mexican federal government in particular on the efforts. >> what if he's not reelected? >> he won't be. >> right. excuse me. the new -- >> the party? >> yeah. by the way, a story just in recent days about indications that the drug cartels are trying to influence the election. >> well, i think we will work with whoever is in power in mexico. we have good relationships there, a lot of different levels, but it's similarly an indicator of while we keep our eye on the middle east, on africa, other places, hot spots, and this is one that we also work very closely with because it's so close to home. >> general jones, your top two or three? >> well, i think not necessarily in any particular order, but i think in addition to terrorism,

proliferation is a huge threat and cyberterrorism is one of the joints coming down the road at us, but i would say the one component that defines all of these threats is the speed in which you have to b respond to them. the speed is really something that is defining the times we live in. you have to respond quickly, and i was very encouraged during my time as national security adviser of how we were able to build repore with friends and allies, a lot of traditional friends and allies, but the speed in which we passed and shared information, more information than we ever did in the past without vetting it because time was of importance. when you think about threat, you know, there's really two formulas if you will to think about a threat. the first is somebody has a hostile intent and puts together

a capability and then that's a vulnerability for us. if you take the vulnerability and -- i'm sorry, the capability that becomes a vulnerability and then you take the threat and vulnerability and then you have risk, and then the newest formula would be that risk plus consequence helps you or forces you to determine what priority you're going to respond to the threat in, and that, i think, gets into the questions you talked about with regard to, you know, how much of your resources you're going to devote to the priority, and it really is 5 clear priority. >> on that point -- proliferation is worth mentioning too that in the context of terrorism, a number of the people in al al-qaeda who had interest in proliferation and wmd attacks are still at large. we -- among those that we've taken out are not all of the wmd

people. has been interested in a wmd attack. can't underestimate him. he doesn't have the charisma of bin laden, no one's printing t-shirts, but he's a tough disciplined guy with a lot of credit in the organization for his time in prison and his operational abilities so -- and there's a lot of stuff lying around in the world. the president has an initiative underway, of course, to tighten up on lose nuclear material, but we have not made a lot of progress on that. there's like 2300 tons of enriched you rain yum and -- uranium and varying degrees of security, and it leeks. 2003 to 2006 there were significant amounts across the border in georgia. >> what do we do? >> it requires exactly what the

secretary was talking about in a different context and requires international agreements and commitment by a lot of countries to tighten up on the control of those kinds of substances and within the terrorism context it requires focus on that because, you know, that could be a game changer on the terrorism front. that would be the big game changer, even a dirty bomb opposed to a nuclear weapon would put them back in business, inspire recruitment, and put them back on the map at a time when they seem to be back on their heels. >> we've been talking about international cooperation on that front for decades, and yet, we still have a long way to go. how do we get there? what's the obstacle? >> well, i think in this area in particular, our efforts, our protection efforts for the country begin with good intelligence because there's so

many ways material can be smuggled into the united states, and so good intelligence and good information sharing, and that's where the international engagement occurs is the realtime information sharing, and as general jones said, a lot of times you don't have the opportunity to make sure it's perfect information, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. it has to go; however, back in 2005 with the rob sillerman commission said, "the u.s. has not made intelligence collection of lose nuclear material a high priority." has that changed? [laughter] i -- i think it has, but it's one of those really tougher targets because you do need excellent cooperation among allies, but you also need things like provision of equipment to partners who have the potential to monitor borders, sophisticated equipment that can detect nuclear material coming

across borders, and we've done that. that's how we know that it does leak. we intercepted significant amounts of highly enriched uranium at different parts of the world, so, yeah, i think it's improved, but i don't think the president would have undertaken the initiative he undertook in prague if not for the fact there's still a long way to go here, and in terms of gaining international cooperation, it also involves, you know, treaties on things like control of fiscal material which we have not approved in our own country and are still controversial in many others. >> i think we made a lot of progress. ment particularly with russia, i think. for the first two or three years of the administration, we've been able to, i think, work very closely with the russians in terms of having our two countries at the lead of this effort, and that should

continue, and the league conference of 2010 was also very good. i think it's absolutely essential that the united states maintain its leadership in this particular arena. >> and if i might, in terms of this, but also the importation of other kinds of weapon type material, that's why we have a secure container initiative negotiated around the world to really be able to screen high risk cargo around the world and there's ct pat, basically a form of the same thing. it's why tsa and cbp we have united data bases so that we can track, travel, and travel patterns in such a way that it enable les us to do further examination on higher risk travelers who have a pattern

through countries that cause us to say, look, we want to double check. those things are the operational side of what do you do? >> yeah, the other thing i'd say is that, you know, especially in the intelligence business, you're constantly struggling with priorities. you can't do everything. you have is a rot of reporting on the movement of illicit materials. one thing i would say to you that i hope would be the reports are run to the ground. you have a volume of reporting on everything. some of if you just don't pursue. on that reporting, all reports are run into the ground no matter how off the wall it might be because you can't take the chance one might be right. there'sthat's a high priority. >> we talk about and gravitate talking about things that are kinetic because those are the

things that are obviously involving lives and sometimes hundreds of thousands of lives, but the energy -- the security threat on the cybersecurity, when you have a disaster like a wikileaks, for example, it causes people all over the world to pull back a little bit. it's a natural reaction. you say i don't want to be involved in that, so i'll be careful with what i work with in terms of other countries, and we have to be very aware that cybersecurity threat that is growing in the country effects everything we do. >> [inaudible] >> pardon? >> big -- zapos. >> we know what that is. no worries. [laughter] >> you must be into high heeled shoes. [laughter] >> we have better intel.

it really affects our commerce, our trade, it affects our industrial secrets and everything else, and that is, to me, the most competitive arena that the united states faces in addition to the kinetic threats, but how do we compete in the new world and what role will cybersecurity protection play? >> how do we deal with this with so many non-state actors? >> well, i think one of the things you work on is how do you protect networks? do it in such a fashion that critical infrastructure is protected. we did an exercise that included a number of international partners this fall called cyberstorm, and, you know, these can be exercises that involve infiltrations or attacks by non-state as well as state actors. now how you attribute and what actions are taken as a country, you know, that's differentiates a bit, but in terms of

prevention, interdiction, response, that all is something that we are working on and must work on international, and i would say we're really, in my judgment, only at the beginning of that. this is the new international sphere that's going to require robust engagement if we're to be successful. >> i just want to touch on another subject before we open it up. a lot of programs you outlined here is about keeping bad stuff out of the country. there's a lot of stuff here already people can use. we have had people who were going around to beauty supply stores buying what he needed to conduct an attack. it comes down in large measure to the people, and intelligence is imperfect. we don't always know who the bad guy is when he's coming in. we still don't have the exit system worked out so we know when people are leaving. general jones, is there --

>> faisal shahzad, the time square bomber, david headly, connected with the attacks in mum buy, all three of those are examples of data that was helpful in identifying an unknown actor before the fact. >> general jones, speaking on the other -- on the phone the other day you mentioned something not talked about often in washington which is a national id cardment do you think that's something that it's time for to help secure the country? >> well, this is a very personal opinion, but i do believe that technology has gotten to the point where something like that could be contemplated in how you put it together is up to us, but who individuals are really matters, and i frankly having

grown up in a country where you had to have a national id card to have access to just about anything, that would be france, post-war france, it's called a ray card, but it was the document that you had to have when you were pulled over by a policemen or tried to get access to health benefits or anything like that. it's not a new idea, but when you think -- >> it's controversial. >> it's very treferl. >> if you really are thinking about security, i believe that there's more that we can do to ensure the security of this country by virtue of knowing who is in the country, who is authorized to be here, and who is coming here, and technology can help us get there. whether politically anyone wants to take that on, that's another issue. >> let's ask the secretary. are you willing to take that on

politically? [laughter] >> you mean after we do counterterrorism, immigration, enforcement, cybersecurity, ect.? >> sure. >> look, i think that that's not in the cards so to speak, and there is room in a national dialogue about security and privacy and other values. we are always in our shop talking about that a lot. we think about it. we have a presidential privacy office within dhs, and many of the agreements i discussed with you today like pnr have a huge privacy negotiation that we talked about carefully with the europeans, being cognitive of their interests in that regard. that is not to say, however, that there is not room for things like a global entry card where those who wish can

voluntarily provide information subjecting themselves to a check in exchange for which they in essence can be construed as prechecked as low risk travelers and move through the system more conveniently, but there's -- there is real room there for discussion and debate. >> i'd love to take questions from the audience here. i see some in the back, but i'll start here with the congresswoman. do we have a microphone here? yes, we do. want to come forward? >> is this on? >> it was. >> it was? it is? i'm not sure. i'm not on? i don't know. i think it's on now. yes. there was a comment about security and liberty, and i

whole heartedly agree. i think we have to think about both at the same time and also we'll be having more conversations about that, but my question is something not mentioned by the excellent panel and that is the role of the private sector. cyber threats, for example, of course affect the dot-com space, but the largest space in the country is the space everybody else in the audience uses and you also on the weekends, and that's the private carriers, and in order to do the job we have to do with cybersecurity, i know you agree. we have to build adequate connections with and information sharing with the private sector, so i just wanted to raise the question how are we doing? i thought i'd