president, secretary gates is prepared to retire this week. you can watch the retirement ceremony later this week on c- span. you can also look back at both men's careers. it is washington your way. tonight, president obama's white house press conference is next. that is followed with news conferences from senate leaders been hidden john brennan presents the administration's new counter terrorism strategy. >> president obama held his first press conference in three months. he urges congress to raise the debt ceiling before the august 2 deadline for and he also runs a reporter's questions about the economy and military operations in libya. this is an hour and tenants.

>> good morning, everybody. have a seat. i want to say a few words about the economy before i take your questions. there are a lot of folks out there who are struggling with the effects of the recession. many people are still looking for work or looking for a job that pays more. families are wondering how they deal with a broken refrigerator or a busted transmission or how they will finance their kids' college education and they are worrying about the possibility of layoffs. the struggles of middle-class families or a big problem before the recession hit in 2007. they were not created overnight and the truth is our economic on this will not be solved overnight. but there are more steps we can take right now that would help businesses create jobs here in america. today, our administration is

trying to take those steps. we are reviewing government regulations so that we can fix any rules in place that are an unnecessary burden on businesses. we're working with the private sector to get small businesses and startups the financing they need to grow and expand. and because the partnership we have lodged with businesses and community colleges, 500,000 workers will receive the right skills and training for manufacturing jobs in companies all across america. jobs that companies are looking to fill. in addition to the steps that my administration can take on our own, there are also things that congress could do right now that will help create good jobs. right now, congress could send me a bill that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea. we cannot give innovators in other countries a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs. that is something congress could

do right now right now, congress could send me a bill that was construction workers back on the job rebuilding roads and bridges. not by having government bonds, but providing loans to private companies and states. that is pending in congress right now. right now, congress can advance a set of trade agreements that would allow american businesses to sell more of their goods and services to countries in asia and south america, agreements that would support tens of thousands of american jobs while helping those adversely affected by trade. that is pending before congress right now. and right now, we could give middle-class families the security of knowing that the tax cut i signed in december will be there for one more year. so there are a number of steps that my administration is taking. but there are also in #steps that congress could be taking right now -- also a number of

steps that congress could be taking right now to put more americans back to work. many of these ideas have been tied up in congress for some time. but, as i said, all of them enjoy bipartisan support and all of them could help grow the economy. so i urge congress to move on these ideas right now. of course, one of the most important and urgent things that we can do for the economy is something that both parties are working on that right now, reducing our nation's deficit. over the last few weeks, the vice president has been leading negotiations with democrats and republicans on this issue and they have made real progress in narrowing down the differences. as of last week, both parties had identified or the $1 trillion in spending cuts already. but everyone also knows that we need to do more to close the deficit. we can i get to the $4 trillion in savings that we need by just

cutting the 12% of the budget that pays for things like medical research and education funding and food inspectors and the weather service. and cannot just stood by making seniors pay more for medicare. we will need to look at the whole budget as i said several months ago. and we have to eliminate waste wherever we find it and make some tough decisions about where the priorities. that means trimming the defense budget while still meeting our security needs. it means we will have to tackle entitlements as long as we keep faith with seniors and children with disabilities by maintaining the fundamental security that medicare and medicaid provide. and, yes, we will have to tackle spending in the tax code. there has been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in the last weeks. i spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary americans. and i want to extend those middle-class tax cuts.

the tax cuts i am proposing we get rid of are the texters for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners. it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we have to make some tough choices if we are meant to reduce the deficit. if we keep the tax breaks for the corporate jet owners and for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars then that means we have to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. that means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research that means food safety may be compromised. that means that medicare has to

bear a greater part of the burden. those are the traces we have to make. the bottom line is this, any agreements to reduce our deficit will require tough decisions. before we ask our seniors to pay for more for health care, before we cut our children's education, before we sacrifice our commitment to research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, i think it is only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys. i do not think that is radical. i think the majority of americans agree with that. so the good news is because of the work that has been done, i think we can actually bridge our differences. i think there is a conceptual framework that would allow us to make huge progress on our debt and deficit and do so in a way

that does not hurt our economy right here and right now. and it is not often that washington sees both parties agree on the scale and the urgency of the challenge at hand. nobody wants to put the credit worthiness of the united states in jeopardy. nobody wants to see the united states the fault. -- default. the vice president and i will continue these negotiations with both leaders of both parties in congress for as long as it takes. we will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its means and give our businesses confidence and get this economy moving. with that, i will take your questions. i have my list here. starting off with ben feller. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i would like to follow up on the

comments you just made as you tried to make a deal to raise the debt limit. you keep saying that there needs to be a balanced approach, spending cuts and taxes. but republicans say they will not requested not what a balanced approach. >> they do not want any tax increases, as they put it. that plan will not pass the house. some question is will you insist ultimately that a deal has to include those tax increases that you just laid out? is that an absolute red line for you? if it is, can you explain for us how that could possibly get through the congress? >> i think that what we have seen in negotiations here in washington is a lot of people say a lot of things to satisfy their base or to get on cable news. but hopefully, leaders at a certain point rise to the

occasion and do the right thing for the american people. that is what i expect to happen this time. call me naive. but my expectation is that leaders will lead. i just want to be clear about what is that state. -- what is at stake. when the republicans said they want to reduce the deficit. every single observer who is not an elected official, was not a politician says that we cannot reduce our deficit in the scale and scope that we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything. democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our contest -- heard some of our constituencies and women not like it. and we have shown a willingness to do that for the greater good to say, look, there are some

things that are good programs and are nice to have, but we cannot afford them right now. i, as commander-in-chief, has to have difficult conversations with the pentagon and say that there is fat here and we have to tread out and bob gates has already done a good job in identifying $400 million in cuts. and we will do more. a promise you, the preference of the pentagon would be not to cut any more because they feel like they have already given it. so we will have to look at entitlements. that is always difficult politically. but i have been willing to say that we need to see where we can reduce the cost of health care spending and medicare and medicaid, not by shifting costs on to seniors as some have proposed, but rather by actually reducing those costs. even if we are doing it in a smart way, it is tough politics, but it is the right thing to do.

the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit -- deficit reduction, then i think it would be hard for the republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we are not willing to come to the table and get a deal done or we are so concerned in projecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies -- in protecting oil and gas subsidies for all companies that are making money hand over fist, that is the reason we will not make a deal. i don't think that is a sustainable position. if you talk to republicans who are not currently in office, like alan simpson who cochaired my bar private -- might bipartisan commission, he does not think that is a sustainable

position. pete dementia does not think that that is a sustainable position. you can reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix. and the revenue we are talking about is not coming out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling. it is coming of folks who are doing extraordinarily well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before i was born. if you're a wealthy ceo or hedge fund manager in america right now, your taxes are lower than they have been ever. they're lower than they have been since the 1950's. and you can afford it. you will still be able to ride on your corporate jet.

you'll just have to pay little more. i just want to emphasize what i said earlier. if we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships. if we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that will be required might compromise the national weather service. it means that we would not be funding critical medical research. it means that food inspection might be compromised. i have said to some of the republican leaders -- you go talk with your constituents, the republican constituents, and ask them if they're willing to sopromise their kids' safety that some corporate jet owner can continue to get a tax break. i am pretty sure what the answer

would be. so we will keep on having these conversations and my belief is that the republican leadership in congress will hopefully sooner, rather than later, come to the conclusion of the need to make the right decisions for the country, that everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position and they need to do the same. my expectation is that they will do the responsible thing. trucchuck. >> there have been a lot of questions about the constitutional and traditions of a few decisions you have made. do you believe the war powers act is constitutional? do you believe that the debt limit is constitutional? the idea that congress can do this.

and do you believe that marriage is a civil right? [laughter] >> well, that was a hodgepodge. [laughter] chuck, we will assign you to the supreme court. i am not a supreme court justice. i will not put my constitutional law professor have on here. but me focus on the issue of libya. i want to talk about the substance of libya. there have been all kinds of noise about process and congressional consultation and so forth. let's talk concretely about what happened. did not say, who prior to a stop -- gaddafi, who prior to some of and leighton, had been responsible for more american debts than anybody on the planet, and was threatening to massacre of his people. as part of an international coalition under a u.n. mandate

that is almost unprecedented, we went in and took out air defense systems so that an international coalition could provide a no-fly zone to provide humanitarian protection to the people on the ground. i spoke to the american people about what we would do. i said there would be no troops on the ground. i said that we would not be carrying the lion's share of this operation. but as members of nato, we would be supportive of it. it is in our national security interest and it is the right thing to do. we have done exactly what i said we would do. we have not put any boots on the ground and our allies, who historically we have complained are not willing to carry enough of the load when it comes to nato operations, had carried a

big load when it comes to these nato operations. as a consequence, we have protected thousands of people in libya. we have not seen a single u.s. casualty. there is no risk of additional escalation. this operation is limited in time and in scope. so i said the american people here is our narrow mission. we have carried out that narrow mission in exemplary fashion. and throughout this process, we consulted with congress. we have had 10 hearings on it. we have sent reams of information on with the operations are. i have had all the members of congress over to talk about it. so a lot of this fuss is politics. ly atf you look substantive le

what we have done, we have done exactly what we said we would do under a un mandate. as a consequence, a guy who was a sponsor of terrorism against the united states of america is pinned down and the noose is tightening around him. when you look at the history -- now, when you look at the history of the war powers resolution, it came up after the vietnam war in which we have had 1 million soldiers there, tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of billions of dollars spent. and congress said, if you know what? we do not want something like that happening again. so if you will start getting into that kind of a mess, you have to consult with congress before hand. and i think that it is entirely appropriate. but do i think that our actions in any way violate the war powers resolution?

the answer is no. so i do not even have to get to the constitutional question. there may be a time in which there was a serious question as to whether or not the war par's resolution at was constitutional. i do not have to get to the question. we have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend. we should be sending out a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give people a fair chance to live their lives without fear. and this ugly becomes the cause -- this suddenly becomes the

cause celeb for some folks in congress? come on. you had a three-parter. >> there were some questions about the constitutionality. >> i am saying that i do not have to reach it. that is a good legal answer. let me start by saying that this administration, under my direction, has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation. and we have done more in the two and a half years i have been in here than the previous 43 presidents to uphold that principle, whether it is ending don't ask/don't tell, making sure that gay and lesbian partners can visit each other in hospitals, making sure that federal benefits can be provided to same-sex couples. across the board -- hate crimes -- we have made sure that that

is a central principle of this administration because i think it is a central principle of america. what we have also done is we have said that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. we have said that we cannot defend -- the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same-sex couples. what i have seen happen over the last several years and what happened in new york last week, i think it was a good thing. what you saw was the people of new york having a debate, talking through these issues. it was contentious. it was emotional. but ultimately, the may decision to recognize civil marriages. -- they made the decision to recognize civil marriages.

i think it is important for us to work through these issues because each community will be different and each state will be different to work through them. in the meantime, we filed briefs before the supreme court that say that we think that any discrimination against gays and lesbians and transgendered requires scrutiny everything that doma is unconstitutional. -- and we think that doma is unconstitutional. >> in different states, the argument --

>> chuck, i think what you're saying is that there is a profound recognition in america that gays and lesbians and transgendered are our brothers and sisters and friends and co- workers and the need to be treated like every other american and i think that that principle will win out. it will not be perfectly smooth. it turns out that the president -- i have learned since i have been in this office -- cannot dictate precisely how this process moves. i think removing -- i think we are moving in a direction of greater equality and i think that is a good thing. julianna. >> thank you, mr. president. i only have a two-parter.

are you concerned that the current debate over debt and deficit is preventing you from taking the kind of decisive action and balance needed to create jobs in this country which is the number-one concern for americans? also, one of the impediments to job growth is the regulatory environment. do you think that the nlrb complaint against boeing is an example of the kinds of regulations that killed job growth and that you yourself have called just plain dumb? >> i think it is important to understand that deficit- reduction, debt reduction should be part of an overall package for job growth over the long term. it is not the only part of it. that is an important part of it. as i mentioned at the top, i

think it is important for us to look at rebuilding our transportation structure in this country. -- transportation infrastructure in this country. that could put people back to work right now, construction workers back to work right now. and it would get done work that america needs to get done. we used to have the best roads, the best of bridges, the best airports. we do not anymore. and that is not good for our long-term competitiveness. we can put people to work right now and make sure that we are in a good position in the future as well. i will get to it. i think it is important for us to look at the tax code and figure out are there ways that we can simplify it and also build on the work we have already done, for example, saying to small businesses or start up businesses that you do not have to pay capital gains

when you are in startup mode. we want you to get up there and start a business. that is important. making sure that espy is helping to get financing to small business -- making sure that sba is helping to get financing to small business. that is important. there is a whole range of things we could be doing that is important. south korea has a better deal when it comes to our trading relationship than we do. one of the reasons i want to pass this trade bill is that you see all these korean cars in america and you do not see any american cars. -- and you do not see any american cars in korea. i want to balance this trade relationship. deficit and debt reduction should be seen as part of that overall process. if businesses feel confident that we have our act together here in washington, not only will the government not the fault, we are also preparing for a future in which the population is getting older and we will have more expenses on the medicare side and social

security and businesses will feel more confident about investing here in the united states of america. i do not think their contradictory. -- i do not think they are contradictory. congress has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time so we can focus on jobs at the same time that we're focusing on debt and deficit reduction. one of the things that my administration has talked about is -- is there in fact a tangle of regulations out there that are preventing businesses from growing and expanding as quickly as they should? keep in mind that the business community is always complaining about regulations. they will be making record profits and they will complain about regulations because they want to do everything they can to maximize their profits.

i have an obligation to make sure that we're of holdings are regulation that protect our air and water and food. if you're flying on a plane, you want to make sure that there are regulations in place to ensure safety in air travel. so there are some corps -- core regulations we have to maintain. what i have done -- and this is unprecedented -- we have said that each agency not only look at future regulations, but look at regulations and are in the books and if they do not make sense, get rid of them. we are in the process of doing that and we have already identified changes that could potentially save billions of dollars for companies over the next several years. you asked specifically about one decision that was made by the national labor relations board. this relates to boeing.

essentially, it was a finding that boeing had not follow the law -- followed the law. it is an independent agency. it is going before a judge. i do not want to get into the details of the case. i do not know all the facts. blacks that is up for a judge to decide. as a proposition, they need to have the freedom to relocate. they have to follow the law. if they are choosing to relocate in the united states, that is a good thing.

what defies common sense would be the notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management cannot come to a sensible agreement. my hope is that, even as this thing is working its way through, everybody steps back for second and says, "look, jobs are being treated here in the united states. let's make sure we are encouraging that." we cannot afford to have labor and management fighting all the time when we're competing against germany and china and other countries that want to sell goods all around the world. obviously, the airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage. i want to make sure that we keep it.

mark lander. >> thank you very much, mr. president. yesterday, the admiral testified before congress that there was not a clear procedure to be followed if terrorists were captured alive abroad. the administration has been clear that it does not want to continue to send suspected terrorists to guantanamo. what message you have four american men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions like the very risky one to capture and kill osama bin laden about what they should do in the event that the capture someone alive? and does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the u.s. of the intelligence they could provide? >> first of all, my top priority in each and every one of these situations is to make sure we are apprehending those who would attack the united states, that we're giving all the intelligence -- that we're getting all the intelligence we can out of these individuals through due process of law, and that we try them, that we prosecute them in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. frankly, there will be different dispositions of a case

depending on the situation. there will be some times where a military commission will be appropriate. there will be some times where articles records are appropriate in terms of prosecution. we do have a process to work through all the agencies, the department of defense, the department of justice, fbi, anybody else who might be involved in these kinds of operations, to think through on a case-by-case basis how a particular individual should be dealt with. the mission is to make sure that they apprehend the individual

and do so safely with minimum risk to american lives. that will always be the priority, carrying out the mission. that message is sent consistently to our men and women in uniform any time they carry out these missions. but i think it is important to understand and the american people need to be reassured that anytime we initiate a mission like this, our top priorities are making sure that this person is not able to carry out attacks against the united states and that we're able to obtain actionable intelligence from those individuals.

that mitigates against the danger that you're suggesting that our main goal will be to kill these individuals instead of potentially capture them. michael daniels. >> thank you, mr. president. last may, when you gave your afghanistan drawdown speech, the word "victory" in terms of the overall war in afghanistan was not in your speech. could you define for the 100,000 troops you have in harm's way in afghanistan "victory" in a war? >> i did not use the word "victory" in my west point speech either. i said we could be successful in their mission which is narrowly drawn. that is to make sure that al qaeda cannot attack the united states of america or our allies

or our interests overseas and to make sure that we have an afghan government and an afghan people that can provide for their own security. we are being successful in those missions. the reason we are in the position to draw down 10,000 troops this year and a total of 33,000 troops by the end of next summer is precisely because of the turning work of our men and women in uniform. with have been able to do is severely cripple al qaeda's capacities. is it, osama bin laden that the most attention. but even before that operation, we had decimated the upper ranks of al qaeda. they're having a great deal of difficulty operating and communicating and financing themselves. it is because of the veterinary sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform in afghanistan. what we have also been able to do is ramp up the training of afghan forces. so we have an additional 100,000 afghan troops, both army and

police, who have been trained as a consequence of this surge. that will give the afghans a capacity to defend themselves. we need to make sure that we do not have a collapse of afghanistan where extremists could flood the zone again and where al qaeda maybe in position again to rebuild itself. when i laid out with a plan in which we will be drawing down our troops from afghanistan after 10 very long years an enormous sacrifice by our troops. but we will draw them down in a responsible way that will allow afghanistan to defend itself and will give us the of the cheap -- the operational capacity to continue to put pressure on a al qaeda. that -- on the al qaeda until that group is entirely defeated. >> high-profile targets in the nation's capital.

>> keep in mind that the drawdown has not begun. we understood that afghanistan is a dangerous place, that the taliban is still active, and that there shall be events like this on occasion. the question is, in terms of overall trend, if afghanistan is continually progressing. kabul has been largely pleased by it afghan forces for quite some time. -- largely policed by afghan forces for quite some time. they're much more capable than they were. that does not mean that there will not be events like this potentially taking place. that will probably go on for

some time. our work is not done. but, as i said in my speech, the tide of war is receding. we have shifted to a transition phase. much like we have seen in iraq where we have drawn down our troops, the remainder of our troops will be coming out of there at the end of this year. but iraq has been able to maintain a democratic government and to tamp down the violence there. we have a similar approach in afghanistan. but even in iraq, you still see the occasional attack.

these are still countries that are digging themselves out of a lot of war, a lot of conflict, and they are dangerous places. so they will not be perfectly safe, even if we were there. but we can improve the chances for the afghan people to defend themselves. >> thank you, mr. president. you are aware that senators kerry and mccain want to give you the leeway to continue operations in libya for another year. you said that this is an initiative limited in time and scope and you have said days, not weeks. is there any other definition of success than gaddafi being removed from power?

>> just a slight correction. what i told the american people was that the initial phase where americans were in the league would take days, perhaps weeks. that is exactly what happened. after around two weeks, a little less than two weeks, we had transitioned where nato had taken full control of the operation. promise made, promises kept. second, i think when you have the former republican nominee for president john mccain and the former nominee for president on the democratic side john kerry coming together to support what we're doing in libya, that should tell the american people that this is important. and i very much appreciate their efforts in that regard. third, when it comes to our definitions of success, the un mandate has said that we are there to make sure that we do not see a massacre directed against libyan civilians by the libyan regime. the libyan regime's capacity has been greatly reduced as a consequence of our operation. that has already been successful. what we have seen in the east and in the west is opposition forces have been able to mobilize themselves and start getting organized and people are

starting to see the possibility of a more peaceful future on the horizon. what is also true is, as long as gaddafi is still presenting himself as the head of the libyan government and as long as he still controls large numbers of troops, the libyan people will be in danger. counteroffensives and her patrician -- and retribution. there's no doubt that gaddafi stepping down from power, from the international community's perspective, will be the primary way that we can make sure that the libyan people are protected. i want to point out something in know. the international criminal court identified gaddafi as having violated international law, having committed war crimes.

what we have seen as reports of troops in beijing in horrible acts, including potentially using -- of troops engaging in horrible acts, including potentially using rape as a weapon of war. it is hard for us to feel confident that the libyan people will be protected unless he steps down. what that means, whether there is the possibility of libyans are arriving at some sort of political settlement, of that, i think, is something that the libyan people will have to make a decision about. the international committee is there in service of that broader goal, a peaceful libya. >> is there a way that he can be involved in success from the american perspective? >> i would prefer that he would

step down so that he is not directing armed forces against the libyan people. he needs to step down. he needs to go. laura. >> thank you, mr. president. would you like to see some sort of tax breaks aimed at stimulating the economy even though that would add to the deficit? i would also like to follow up on one of your earlier answers on same-sex marriage. he said it is a positive step that some of these states are moving toward that. does that mean you support same-sex marriage? is that your personal view? >> i will not make news on that today. [laughter] good try though. with respect to the talks and where we need to go, i do think it is important, since we're looking at how to reduce the debt and deficit in a 10-year

window as well as beyond it 10- year window, to understand one of the most important things we can do for debt and deficit reduction is to grow the economy. so if there are steps in the short term that may reduce the amount of cash in the treasury but, in the long term, means we're growing at 3.5% instead of 2.5%, then those ideas are worth exploring. obviously, that is what we did in december during the lean back session -- during the lame- duck session. unemployment insurance makes sense in order to boost the economy. of that step with money in people's pockets when they are still struggling to dig

themselves out of this recession. so people have a thousand dollars on average in their pockets because of the tax cuts we initiated. that has helped cushion some of the tough stuff that happened in the first six months of this year, including the fx on all oil prices as a consequence of what happened in the middle east and what happened in japan. i think that it makes perfect sense for us to look at extending the payroll tax, for example, an additional year. and other tax breaks for business investments that could make a big difference in creating more jobs right now.

what we need to do is restore business confidence and the confidence of the american people that we are on track. we will market the right way. but this is a tough slog. but we're still moving forward. i think it makes sense, as we look at the overall package, to see some other things that we can do to sustain the recovery so long as the overall package to achieve our goals, the goals that i set out, which is $4 trillion within a 10-12-year window and make sure we are amending the cost of health care over the long term. >> what you said you for -- what you said before -- >> i think this has been asked and answered. i will keep on giving you the same answer until i give you a different one. all right? that will not be today. [laughter] exactly. i thought you would like that one.

antionetta cadiz. there you are. >> first, if you received a mandate with that legalization, would you broker the deal? also, members of congress and the government of mexico are still waiting for an answer. are you planning to replace atf leadership and when can we expect the result of the investigation? >> on the second question, as you know, my attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gunrunning to be able to pass through into mexico. the investigation is still pending. i will not comment on a current investigation. i have made very clear my view

is that that would not be inappropriate step by the atf and we have to find out how that happened. as soon as the investigation is completed, i think appropriate actions will be taken. with respect to e-verify, we need comprehensive immigration reform. i have said before. i will say again. i will sit next week. and i will say it six months from now. we have a system that makes sure that we uphold our tradition of a nation of laws and also upholds our tradition of a nation of immigrants.

that means tough for security and going after employers who are illegally hiring at exploiting workers, making sure that we also have a pathway for legal status for those who are living in the shuttle's right now. we may not be able to get -- living in the shadows right now. women might be able to get everything i want in the package, -- we may not be able to get everything i want in the package. the-verify maybe enforceable tool -- e-verify maybe enforcible. i do not want employers to set up a system that cannot work. i do not want employers rejecting a candidate for a job because it is suspected that person is an illegal immigrant and a person is not an illegal emigrant. the boat -- an illegal immigrant. right now, let's make sure we have safeguards in place to prevent the kinds of scenarios i talked about. but let's not lose sight of some of the interval immigration reform.

kids who have grown up here in the united states think of themselves as americans who are not legal through no fault of their own and you are ready to invest and give back to our country, going to school and fighting in a military band starting businesses here. let's make sure those kids can stay. we need to have a more balanced approach then just our verification system. ok? i do not have an answer as to whether the investigation is completed yet. it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the

investigation if it has not yet been completed. ok. jessica young, congratulations. your first question here. >> thank you mr. president. >> no pressure. you will be great. [laughter] >> yes, thank you. your administration has laid out four different dates by which you said the debt ceiling must be raised or the u.s. will face dire consequences. three of those dates have come and gone and we have not faced financial calamity. some of your critics have argued that these are scare tactics to force a deal. so why should the american people believe that the august 2nd deadline is the final deadline by which a deal must be raised? and we do also spell out for us what you believe will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised by that date? >> let's be clear. we have not given out four different dates. we have given up dates that are

markers for us getting into trouble. it is the equivalent of driving down the street and the light starts flashing. the yellow light is flashing. it has not been a red light yet. but what timothy geithner has said is that, technically speaking, we are in a position now where we're having to do a whole bunch of different things to make sure that our bills are paid. by august 2nd, we run out of tools to make sure that all our bills are paid. so that is a hard deadline. i want everybody to understand that this is a jobs issue. this is not an abstraction. if the united states government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the u.s. economy will be significant. and unpredictable.

that is not a good thing. we do not know how capital markets will react. but if capital markets suddenly decide, if you know what? the u.s. government does not pay its bills. so we will start pulling our money out. and the u.s. treasury will have to start to raise interest rates in order to attract more money to pay off our bills. then in -- that means higher interest rates for businesses, for consumers. so all the headlines we are already facing in recovery will get worse. that is not my opinion. a think that is the consensus of opinion. that means job growth will be further stymie. it will be further hammered as a consequence of that decision. that is point number one drink

what number two, one to address what have been hearing from some quarters -- that is point number one. point number two, i want to address what has been -- when i have been hearing from some quarters. this is the equivalent of me saying, you know what? i will choose to pay my mortgage, but i will not pay my car note. or i will pay my car note, but i will not in my student loans. a lot of people in really tough situations are having to make those tough decisions. but for the u.s. government to start picking and choosing what that will not inspire a lot of confidence.

moreover, which bills will we decide to pay? these guys have said well, maybe we will just pay the interest for bondholders. will we really start paying interest to chinese to hold treasuries and not pay folks their social security checks? or we will not pay to veterans for their disability checks? which bills, which obligations will we say that we do not have to pay? and the last point on to make about this, these are bills that congress ran up. the money has been spent. the obligations have been made. this is not a situation -- i think the american people have to understand this -- this is not a situation where congress will say, ok, we will not buy this car or we will not take his vacation.

they took the vacation. they bought the car. and now they're saying maybe we do not have to pay or we do not have to pay as fast as we said we were going to. that is not how responsible families act. and we're the greatest nation on earth and we cannot act that way. so this is urgent and it needs to get settled. i am the president of the united states and i want to make sure that i am not engaging in scare tactics. i tried to be responsible and somewhat restrained so people do not get spooked. august 2nd is a very important date. and there is no reason why we can i get this done now. we know what the options are out there. this is not a technical problem

any longer. this is a matter of congress going ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions because we know what the decisions are. we have identified what spending cuts are possible. we have identified what defense cuts are possible. we have identified what health care cuts are possible. we have identified what loopholes in the tax code could be close that would also raise revenue. we have identified with the options are. the question now is will we step up and get this done? malia and sasha generally finished their work a day ahead of time. [laughter] malia is 13 and sasha is 10. it is incredible. they do not wait until the night before. they are not pulling all lighters -- they are not pulling all-nighters. [laughter]

congress can do the same thing. if you know you have to do it, just to do it. i have to say that i am very amused when i hear comments that the president has to show more leadership on this. but lately something. right after we finished dealing with the government shut down, averting a government shutdown, i called leaders here together. as if we have to get this done. i put vice-president biden in charge of a process that has made real progress, but these guys have met, worked through all the issues. i met with every single caucus for an hour to an hour-and-a- half each. republican senators democratic senators. republican house, democratic house.

they need to do their job. and so, this thing which is not on the level, where we have meetings and discussions and we are working through process and when they decide they're not happy with the fact that, at some point, you have to make a choice, they'll step back and say that the president needs to get this done. they need to do their job. now is the time to make the tough choices. that is why they're called leaders. i have already shown that i am willing to make decisions that are very tough and will give my base of voters for the reason to give me a hard time. it has got to be done. there is no point in procrastinating. no point in putting it off. we have got to get this done.

if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress, i think members of congress need to understand we're going to start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done. out're in one week, they're one week. and they're saying, obama has got to step in. you need to be here. i have been here. i have been doing it -- afghanistan and bin laden and the greek crisis. you stay here. let's get it done. all right. i think you know my feelings about that. [applause] [laughter] caren bohan. >> thank you, mr. president. you talked about a payroll tax holiday and possibly extending

that. are you worried so that by adding a discussion of short- term measures on the economy into these discussions about long-term deficit reductions that that may complicate the conversation and make it harder to pass a debt limit? >> i will -- let me put it this way. if we have got a good deal on debt and deficit reduction that focuses not just on the 10-year window but also the long term, we will get it done and we can argue about other things because i think that is important. i will say that precisely because tough votes in congress are often avoided, that it may make sense to also deal with something like a payroll tax cut at the same time.

it does have budget implications and the american people need to know that we're focused on jobs and not just on deficit reduction, even though, as i said, that is a reduction helps to serve the job in debt -- job agenda. i think they want to have some confidence we have a plan that is helping right now. but i do not think it should be a complicating factor because if ms. mcconnell and john boehner came to me and said, all right, we're mad -- ready to make a deal, here is a balanced approach to debt and deficit reduction but we want to argue about payroll tax later, they're not set to expire until the end of this year. if this with the situation they presented -- was the situation they presented we would have a serious conversation. i would not discount that completely. i do think that the steps i talked about to do with job growth and economic growth right now are vitally important to

deficit reduction. just as dead as a reduction is important to grow the economy and to create jobs, creating jobs and growing the economy helps reduce the deficit. if we just increase the growth rate by one percentage point, that would drastically bring down the long-term projections of the deficit, because people are paying more into the coffers and fewer people are drawing unemployment insurance. it makes a huge difference. and this may be sort of a good place to wrap up. you know, every day i get letters from folks all around the country who show incredible resilience, incredible determination, but they are having a very tough time. they are losing their homes. some have lost their businesses. some have lost work and have not been able to find jobs for

months, maybe a year, maybe a year and a half. and they feel some desperation. and some fokls who are working just are having a tough time paying the bills because they have not seen their wages or incomes go up in 10 years, and the costs of everything else have gone up. and every day that weighs on me. every minute of every day that weighs on me. because i ran for president precisely to make sure that we righted the ship and and we start once again creating a situation where middle-class families and people who aspire to be in the middle class, they're working hard and they're living a better life. these structural changes in our economy have been going on for

decades, in some cases longer. they're not going to be solved overnight. but we know what to do. we know that if we are educating our kids well, there will be more competitive. we know that if we are investing in things like infrastructure, it pays off. i was in alcoa, in iowa, one of our most successful companies. they took a big hit during the recession, but they invested $90 million in new equipment in a plant that makes airplane wings and parts for automobiles. and they have bounced back. they have hired back all their people and our increasing market share because they made those investments. well, just like a company like akko, america has to make some investments. -- alcoa, america has to make some investments.

we have to get control of our investment -- our dess odeficit. there are some things that are not going to solve all problems but can make possible -- progress right now. the question is whether or not democrats and republicans are willing to put aside the experience of short-term politics in order to get it done. these folks are counting on us. they desperately want to believe that their leadership is thinking about them. and not playing games. and i think that if all the leadership in washington has the faces and the stories of those families in mind, then we will solve this debt limit issue, we will put in place steps like a payroll tax cut and infrastructure development, we will continue to fund education, we will hold true to our commitments to our seniors.

these are solvable problems. it does require us just getting out of the short-term and frankly, a selfish approach that sometimes politics breeds. we have got to think a bit long term. thank you very much, everybody. >> next on c-span. news conferences with seven republican and democratic leaders. then presidential adviser john brennan presents the administration's new counterterrorism strategy. tune in to c-span this independence day. panelists discuss if the u.s. can remain united. >> at the political level we are

more divided. if you look at partisan polarization than at any point. >> the dalai lama and sister helen prejean talk about violence and the death penalty. and foreign policy. this monday july 4, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> it used to be we did not release transcripts of arguments. we release them within half an hour. it used to be the audio recordings were released at the end of the term. now they are released at the end of every week. we're moving in a particular direction. cameras present challenges that these other areas do not. >> right now on the youtube channel, watched chief justice john robert's, cameras in the

courtroom. -- john robert's comments on cameras in the court room. >> senate republicans held a news conference to announce their support for amendment to the u.s. constitution. it would require the president to submit and congress to pass a balanced budget each year and cap spending at 18% of gross domestic product. it would also require a two- thirds vote in congress to raise taxes. they also talked about the state of the negotiations on the federal debt limit. from the capitol, this is 25 minutes. >> some kind of deficit reduction package. our view is a good first step is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. all 47 republicans are in favor of that. we call on 20 colleagues to join us. speaker john boehner has

indicated to me and you that they will be dealing with this issue of the balanced budget constitutional amendment the week of july 25. in the house of representatives. so we think it is clear regardless of what we are ultimately able to negotiate in the short term that we put the federal government and this kind of fiscal straitjacket for the future so we cannot get into this position again. with that, let me turn to our leader on this subject over the years who was here the last time we came close to approving this amendment. the ranking member of the finance committee, senator hatch. >> thank you, leader. we have had three straight years of deficits. we are $62 trillion of debt. we know that we found out by 2035, if we continue on the same path, our debt to gdp ratio will

be 190 to gdp. greece is 150. if that does not give you an idea, i do not know what we can do. we will have to pass this balanced budget amendment. the 49 states are required to balance their budget. individuals are required to balance their budget. why should they federal government -- the federal government not? we came within one vote in 1997 of passing this and sending it to the states. we intend to pass of this year and get this under control. >> the balanced budget amendment is the best way to cut out the smoke and mirrors when it comes to federal budgets. we know that we're spending about 40 cents out of every dollar on borrowed money in the -- and the primary purchaser of debt is china which owns one- third of national debt. $1.10 trillion.

we do not want to subject ourselves economically or from a national security perspective to the tender mercies of countries that may not have our best interests at heart. this is as admiral mullen said, a number one threat to our national security. we know it is to our economy. if interest rates were to go up to historic norms, imagine what that would mean in terms of the burden on taxpayers. this is the single most important thing we can do and i commend the leader and senator hatch who has been a fighter for this for many years for leading us through this effort. >> our country is in grave danger. it is the number-one threat to our country is the national debt. 14 percent of the public agree that congress is doing a good job. congress has been a good steward of the taxpayer money. 75% of the public, republicans, democrats, and independents

believes we should have a balanced budget amendment. i believe we will not ever surmount our fiscal problems until we amend the constitution. we must have a balanced budget amendment and i hope the democrats will join us. >> $1.50 trillion annual deficits, $14.30 trillion accumulated debt. trillions of dollars of liabilities in tens of trillions of dollars of underfunded entitlement programs. this is unsustainable. in fact if we do not change the path we're on, it can only lead to a financial crisis that could be absolutely devastating. the mountain of debt and deficits we're running is already having a chilling effect on job creation because small businesses and entrepreneurs are unwilling to make an investment and not willing to hire a worker with the threat of inflation and high taxes that these deficits

and that implies. we need to act now. a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is the best way to bring this under control, to put us on a sustainable path and help encourage the kind of job creation and economic growth that we badly need. >> although congress has a lot of power, wilkes to much power as many of us feel, congress lacks the power to find any future congress. we can pass laws that affect us right now but we in this congress have no guarantee that the next congress or the one after that will repeal in the lobby and that today. we cannot find a future congress. that is where we have a constitution. there are some things we want to stand the test of time. we want some things to be beyond the reach of future -- future congresses. that is what we need a balanced budget amendment rather than the statutory spending limitation. we have got to find future congress's ability to have money -- it is killing job

creation in this country and killing our economy. it is eroding individual liberty. it has to stop and that is through balanced budget amendment. when we promise to cut even if it is trillions, if that $1 trillion of cuts or trillions of dollars a stretched over a decade or more, we can actually commit to that. it might be a promise but it is a promise we cannot keep if we are purporting to find future congresses. the only way to do that is through an amendment of the constitution. >> in a series of town hall meetings across my state, i would display a chart and the chart illustrated the growth in federal deficit. it occurred to me one day that in 1971 i was a young man, our eight - nation owed $83 billion.

in -- at age 65 is projected and these are optimistic projections, our nation will 0 $20 trillion. that is a crisis. that has been going on year after year, administration after administration. that is why the balanced budget amendment makes so much sense. it brings reality to the budgeting process. one last thought. i have governed under a balanced budget amendment. as a governor. not only that, in the state where i come from, we do not borrow money. we have no indebtedness and that is the state of nebraska. it has worked great every year. why, because it forces us to make real decisions about where we want to our state to go. during this economic time, our unemployment rate never exceeded

5%. our unemployment rate is 4.1% and i believe strongly that reason for that is because we are responsible not only with our money today but with the money of our children and grandchildren which is something that does not exist here in washington. >> i want to thank our leadership and senator hatch's leadership on this issue. we have to live within our means. what this comes down to me, i am the mother of two children. i do not want them say to me, what did you do about it? i think we should be asking that question when we look at the amount of national debt. it is not only going to impact everyone here but it will impact our children and grandchildren. we have always made a promise in this country that we would leave our -- to lead our

country the same if not better for the next generation. we are breaching that promise. all we're saying is let's live within our means. i do not understand why we should not get full support for a balanced budget amendment in the u.s. senate when almost every state in the nation has the same requirement and every family has the same requirement at home. not spending money we do not have. we need those restrictions on congress because we have proven time and again that without these types of restrictions on the spending addiction here, we will continue to spend money we do not have. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and pass this common- sense measure to get us on a path of fiscal sustainability for our children and for all of us. >> after years of trying, the time is right for a balanced

budget amendment. it is time for the federal government to adhere to the same fiscal discipline that families and businesses in 49 states follow. it is important because the crisis is at our doorstep. it is important because we're not getting this economy growing the way we would like to see without more fiscal discipline and the budget would send that message. if private investors are looking to jobs to get our economy back on track. >> the citizens are talking to me about how irresponsible we are in washington and i tell them not -- no matter how irresponsible they think we are, i promised them that it is worse. think about where we are today. we have not had a budget in the senate with 700 -- 4791 days. we are spending and we do not have a budget. we have not had one for 791

days. the oxygen is out of this building because everyone is focused on the debt ceiling talks. think about that. the only way that congress ever acts today is there is a crisis. i have offered something called the kappa mendon. it takes us where we are relative to our economy which is an all-time high. we have not been at this level since 1945. even close to this level and takes us down to the 40 year average. a nominal thing. the problem is that statutory caps come out over time, people fall off the wagon and a figure out ways of getting around it. the reason we need a balanced budget amendment or some type of amendment to look -- limit spending is congress will fall off the wagon. if the american people quit paying attention, we will resort to our old ways.

i support something that would anchor us in to make sure congress acts responsible. it is only things like that that make us do that. thank you. >> i strongly commend our leader, mitch mcconnell, and my colleague, orrin hatch. especially for bringing us together on the situation which the american people want confidence that we are going to bring about a solution this year and have a lasting value. the value and the procedures to adopt it require work. they require votes in legislatures and debate and citizens. this initiates an important cause. initiates' it at a time when moment. it initiates a discussion in

which all of us around the country will participate. it is an honor to be with my colleagues at this moment and i think you for paying attention to our concerns. >> i have the opportunity to speak on the floor this morning in favor of the balanced budget amendment and i am pleased to be part of 47 senators that are sponsoring this and we want to reach out to our fellow senators across the aisle and ask them to join us in this endeavor. this is not just about the federal government stepping in and making sure that we get spending under control and we live within our means but it is something we will send out to the states for their ratification as well. we get the whole country involved in this endeavor. i served the last 10 years as a governor. the state's balance their budget. we need to do the same period to review where we are for just a minute, today, we borrowed 40

cents of every dollar then we spend in -- and the debt is $4 billion a day. we need to take action. we need to take action now. that is what this balanced budget amendment is all about. we have 47 republican senators on board. we invite our colleagues to join us in this endeavor so we can pass this balanced budget amendment, get it passed and sent it to the states. we need to do it. our debt is 14.5 trillion dollars and a deficit continues to grow. 1.6 trillion dollars a year. we are joining together and the time for action is now. wi-fi everyone to step up and we will get this to the floor by the middle of july.

it is important to our country. thank you. >> this is about stepping up and solving the spending problem. this is about living within our means. this is getting everybody involved not only at the federal level but the states as well. we need to do it now. from what we have seen, this would send a tremendous signal to the markets that would deal with private investment that we need to get our economy going, that we need to -- for job creation. this is important because this provides the certainty we need to get economic growth going. the uncertainty with spending and the debt ceiling issue is part of what is holding private investment back. we need that private investment to get our economy going, to get a job creation going and that, combined with controlling spending, is what will get us out of the deficit and debt

problem we face. thank you. >> i do believe that the that we are carrying at this moment is pulling down the economy. the experts have told us when you have debt to gdp reach 90%, you lose 1% of growth and 1% is equal to the loss of 1 million jobs. this is not an academic matter. we came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget when i came to the senate. i do believe that it would be a positive step for the future. it is another example of republican leadership stepping forward with real proposals that would change the course we're

on and it is unsustainable. i am pleased to support the amendment. >> we have averaged between 18% and 18.5%. spending has been around close to 20%. this act -- the fact is we're at an all-time spending risk of 25.3%. the last time we hit that spending was in 1945 at the height of the second world war. we have got to do something here. we plan cannot do it. i have been part of every balanced budget amendment since i have been here. can you imagine if we had that one more vote in 1997?

we have 67 votes when i opened the debate. when i opened the debate before the final vote and one of our people clipped off and we lost the vote. -- we lost the vote. we would not be in this colossal mess we are in today and we would have to live within our means and have to make things work and rely on state governments and leadership. i do not think anybody can deny that. >> he thinks republicans would come to their senses. what is their reaction? >> they have an answer to everything in this administration. on the other side of the floor, a large measure is to increase taxes for everything. we have learned where at an all- time tax increase rate. we have three straight years with trillion dollar deficits.

the lowest that are projected a $600 billion. if that does not tell you something, i do not know what does. we're at 100% of gdp. or we will be in a short time. when you get there you will lose 1% of jobs and everything else. it is a proven fact. we are headed there. if we get to 190%, we're talking about a country that will be worse off than grace is right now. with much more complexity. he wants to know if i'm willing to close tax expenditures. we need to change this tax code. make it fair, more simpler, and get rid of all the mass is in. if we are going to do that, we ought to reserve discussions on tax expenditures so that we can utilize those tax expenditures

in the overall resolution of our problems. by the way, tax expenditures are not loopholes. they have been put in their for a good reason. we have to be very careful in what we do there. the democrats want to do away with oil and gas tax expenditure. those are put in place to help independents who are doing the drilling development. if you do you do it across the board and you do it by reducing tax rates, not by giving them more money to spend. this group will spend every dime they get. there is no question. i am talking about congress on both sides of the hill. we would have to reconcile. if we passed it in the senate the house would take it. if they pass there's would consider taking theirs. the fact is we think this is an

amendment that puts the proper restraints on government. we think it is the one that will pass. we need 50 democrats. to step up and say you are right. we're tired of it. we have to do something about it. if they would, we will pass this. for those who do not like the balanced budget amendment, it is not over for them. with a two-thirds vote. all the have to do is get 13 states. why are they not willing to battle this out in the states? the reason is they know that what lose and the states would ratify this so fast our heads would spend. it is not over even if we pass it. that is where we have to pass it. if these people believe they can win the debate, let's pass it and let's have them try.

i will be up and down this clan like you have never seen and we will win that, i think. >> [inaudible] >> there is nothing easy and it should not. we're talking about amending the most important document in history. we have only had 28 amendments of the constitution and there is good reason. whatever we do is going to be difficult and that is why i do not see why democrats are not willing to vote and ticket to the people. i believe they are afraid we would pass it. >> [inaudible] >> if you pass that that does not do the job. we put language on here that would get the chief to doing the

job. that is why this amendment will work. it brought all 47 republicans and i have been on every balanced budget amendment and this is the terse -- the first time i recall we have had all republicans on board. can we get 20 and i think we can? they're going to have to stand up and face the voters at home and realize they will be mad because they know we're not getting things under control. this president, i like him personally. there is no personal animosity but he is just not doing the job. there is good reason. he has got to satisfy a bunch of special interest groups that live off the federal government. and we have to end that. i am going to have to go. thanks so much. >> senate democrats also held a

news conference today where they called on republicans to include the repeal of ethanol subsidies as part of a final deal on the federal debt limit. they noted 34 republicans voted on the senate floor to repeal the subsidies. speakers included chuck schumer and new jersey senator bob menendez. this is 25 minutes. >> this is a simple question. to the republican leaders and to -- [inaudible] all subsidies be included in a debt limit agreement. in any measure, the answer to that should be obvious. senator mcconnell voted to repeal ethanol subsidies this month as did 33 of his republican colleagues and 38 of democratic colleagues, that is an overwhelming majority in the u.s. senate for peeling ethanol

subsidies. at the time of huge deficits it seems this is a bipartisan steps that we can all paid to save money. and to meet our challenges as a country. senger mcconnell has gone out on a limb and come out in favor of opposing read the use of any kind -- revenues of any kind even if that means closing tax breaks. the ethanol one is a huge example of that. we subsidize it. we subsidize the growth of corn and we have tariffs as it relates to potential competition. that would drive down costs for consumers. it is a huge potential saving and i would add to that reality one that i have been calling for for some time. a majority of the senate voted for it, a majority which is $21 billion in oil subsidies to the

big five that they do not need with record profits. if you begin to look at ethanol, if you look at oil subsidies, you can see a way in which she began to ultimately end the talk -- tax breaks that americans should not bear any more. and we can put towards deficit reduction and ultimately meet the challenges that this country has and insure this economy does not take a body blow by failing to meet to the nation's credit responsibilities. that is what this is all about. the question is, are you going to join with us on the revenue side for which there have been votes in the senate by paul -- in the senate, bipartisan votes, it is time to close subsidies and time to close loopholes, time to set up for the people's interest in some of the special interests. -- instead of the special

interests. >> president obama delivered a talk to the nation where he made it clear that congress has the responsibility to send a responsible plan to raise the debt ceiling and he mentioned in order for this to be credible, we need to eliminate the wasteful tax loopholes and provide the revenues necessary to pay our bills. what is concerning to us is that the republican leader has said he will not consider any revenues. even those that eliminate loopholes, the breaks that are no longer needed. we understand that we need to move forward with responsible plans to bring down government spending and to bring our budget closer to balance. in order that we can create jobs. that is the most important thing. the ethanol subsidy should be an easy one. we already had the vote and we

know the support is there. senator mcconnell said we cannot consider the repeal of the tunnel. this is a subsidy that is not needed. that is hurting our economy. it is hurting our economy directly and senator mikulski and i represent maryland, we can tell you what impact it has on the poultry industry. it will help us preserve jobs in agriculture in this region because of the cost of corn associated with corn ethanol. not only will the repeal of the subsidy help us to bring forward a credible plan to deal with our deficit, ethanol is one example. there are many examples of the polls. not necessarily tax breaks in the code that we could agree upon. we're moving forward with a response will plan to reduce our

national deficit. we need to increase our debt ceiling and make sure that our nation is not put at risk. the president's call was the right. -- the right one. we urge senator mcconnell to be responsible and allow us to consider in this package tax breaks that should not be there. locals that we can close so we can move our nation four. let me turn it over. >> thank you. i am delighted to join my colleagues in asking the republican leadership the question why it is that ethanol subsidies are off the table in the budget discussion when we have had so many of them vote for them. ofis is not a question to b being before it -- of being for before you're against it. if we can resolve the discrepancy on ethanol, there is no reason why we should not go

forward on oil and gas subsidies at a time when the oil and gas companies are making the biggest profit in history and there is no reason we cannot start going through the tax code for special interest corporate tax deductions. these are nothing more than in the tax code. when they are earmarks, the republicans are vehemently opposed. when there are earmarks in the tax code that helped their supporters, it is a different story. while the physical security of our nation hangs in the balance, this is the wrong time to be forcing those wrong priorities on the american people. more frugalve government, i supported the ban on your marks. in january i voted for $41 million worth of cuts in the

continuing resolution. in march i voted for $10 million cuts to avoid a government shutdown and again to move toward a more balanced, from government. i stood on the senate floor and voted to get rid of lavish subsidies, subsidies that do not grow our economy but simply grow our deficit. i voted to end the ethanol loophole and now, i want, along with my colleagues, i want this to be part of the deficit reduction deal as we move into reducing the debt ceiling. and what the republicans to put their vote where their mouth is. -- i want the republicans to put their vote where their mouth is. if they want to reduce the deficit and debt, they have to look at where we can cut. they want to close social security offices, i want to close loopholes. they want to get rid of

teachers. i want to get rid of sacred cows. this is why i want the ethanol tax subsidy eliminated and the debt revenue savings go in the budget. it is costing us jobs, ethanol is costing us jobs on the eastern shore. corn is $7 a bushel. chicken processing businesses that have been around for almost 100 years are filing bankruptcy. this is unacceptable to me. i want to make sure i have jobs that make maryland great and i want to get rid of these subsidies to add to the deficit. i want to say this to my republican colleagues. what happened to the party of lincoln? what happens to the party of teddy roosevelt? what happened to the party of ronald reagan? when people could come together and find a sensible way to solve

the nation's problems. i am finding that each day, their rigidity, their doctrinaire approach, there clinging not to iin philosophy, we are not a third world country. going to some kind of banana republic regime. if they want to act like a banana republic, i want to tell them they can slip on their own appeal. not fool around here. >> i learned the first lesson of my senate career. never followed barbara mikulski to the podium. the american people get it. for them, the ethanol subsidy

epitomizes what is wrong with washington. the subsidy special giveaways and loopholes, ethanol, is the poster child for what is wrong with washington. ending the subsidy will not solve the budget problem alone. it is a start and unnecessary beginning toward ending the special breaks for special interests that riddle the tax code and the budget. which is why there is overwhelming support among republicans, overwhelming support among democrats, overwhelming support among the american people for ending the ethanol subsidy. i believe that we can reach a bipartisan solution to both revenue and fiscal responsibility by taking this step on bipartisan basis to end

the ethanol subsidies, a gain revenue and at the same time, began the steps to fiscal responsibility that are necessary. this $2 billion is a solid start. real money. more importantly, it is the symbolic and the message step that it will embody. i am proud to introduce chuck schumer. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. you heard the passion and mystery for mass -- straightforwardness. we're hitting crunch time in the debt ceiling talks. neither can cling to its ideological positions any longer. the republican leadership is struggling to let go of it sacred cows in the momentum is not on their side.

garver norquist took a purist position against any revenues whatsoever. he said not only do tax breaks for millionaires need to be protected, it was wrong for any republican to roll back any loophole in the tax code. no matter how wasteful. this approach was so extreme that 34 senate republicans rejected it. earlier this month, 34 senate republicans voted to get rid of ethanol subsidies. this was an outright rejection of the grover norquist approach to revenues. even after that vote, mitch mcconnell is tried to resurrect this approach. he decided to walk out on the same limb as a broker norquist. he is being added that we should

figure out a way to achieve $4 trillion in debt reduction without including any revenue. it seems leader mcconnell is willing to take the economy for the sake of protecting tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets. in addition to being unfair and wrong, leader mcconnell's proposal is a mathematical impossibility. the bipartisan commission recognized they needed to include revenues. the gang of six look at revenues. so must the final deal but the president will negotiate with speaker john boehner and harry reid. many in his own party are abandoning his rigid stance against any and all revenues. there is a lot of money being used in expenditures per we need to see which ones make sense. his words, not any of ours. senator alexander, another member of the leadership. it is a good time to take a hard

look at unwarranted tax breaks. again, not one of us. another member of the republican leadership. yesterday, fox news reported that senator coburn is putting together his own debt reduction plan. it seeks to cut $9 trillion islarand one trillion dollars from revenue raisers. the plan is being contradicted from many in his party. he has ventured out on a limb and many in his caucus are selling it off. he seems to be contradicting himself. he was one of the 34 republicans to end subsidies. he is for and against it at the same time. it makes no sense for leader mcconnell to say on the one hand he agrees that subsidies are wasteful but say to stick to an ideological way out there

principle that we cannot eliminate the subsidy in the debt limit deal. so leader mcconnell, which is it? are you for eliminating the ethanol subsidy or not? if you are ok with including it in the debt ceiling, why not other revenues to ensure the sacrifice is shared. that is the question we're asking today. no matter what the answer is, it is clear that certain republicans are twisting themselves into knots. >> [inaudible] >> whenever the money is significant, it could be $3 billion. if senator feinstein comes to a compromise, it will be $2

billion. a significant amount. hopefully it will break this logjam that no revenues can be included that senator mcconnell has created that many of his colleagues have abandoned. let me turn to my other colleagues. people on our side could say we are not making any cuts. you cannot stay in your ideological corner and keep the united states of america solvent in terms of paying its debt. and so we could get up and make that comment also. there are no votes unless you do it our way. only our way. that is a formula for disaster. the kind of crisis that america will face after august 2 if we do not raise the debt ceiling.

that could create trauma and send this back into recession. the kind of comment is not productive for helpful. if every negotiator and later, every senator and house member said my way or no way, we're not going to get anything done. >> the voters gave us the congress. we have a democratic president and a democratically controlled senate and we have a republican controlled house. we have different views. we have a different responsibility and the american people expect we will work together. we do not have to compromise our principles. it is that important to our nation. the democrats are prepared to do it. we have said that. we're prepared to work with our republican colleagues to bring about a plan to control our

deficit. we worked hard and brought the balance. we're prepared to do this. we're prepared to have a responsible partner. speaker john boehner says the republicans are not prepared to be serious about a credible plan to do with the deficit. we will not accept that because the issues are too important. we will continue to work for a bipartisan agreement on the deficit. it will not be everything we want but we will stand up and defend the principles we think are critically important for america to be able to create jobs and move forward. >> are any of you willing to vote [inaudible] if it does not include revenue measures? >> we are not prejudging what is brought forward. we're hopeful that we're

certainly -- we want to have a credible plan to deal with the federal deficit. we think it is important for this country and we're holding out our negotiations. they're aimed at a plan to deal with the deficit. we understand the debt ceiling. many of us understand the seriousness of this. i am confident that we will raise the debt ceiling. if we're going to do with the deficit and get it manageable, it cannot do without a balanced approach and you need to eliminate the loopholes. >> let me join you in that. first of all when john boehner says there are no votes in the house to pass an agreement that has revenues, he is basically telling americans in this

country, middle-class america, you are struggling trying to figure out how you keep your mortgage paid, how you pay your kid's tuition, how you take care of a loved one, we will ask you to make enormous sacrifices on behalf of the country. we are going to tell the top five oil companies, they will make $144 billion in profits. we will tell this limited ethanol industry, not 1 cent out of your pocket. we're going to tell working americans the sacrifice is on you but the special interests are free from any of that sacrifice. that is in essence what he is telling us. secondly, there will be some of us who find it extremely difficult. we want to be responsible. we believe the nation has to

meet its obligations. the consequences of its not meeting its obligations are enormous to our economy. an economy that is in recovery that -- but could take a body blow that could send it back. that is what the speaker is telling people but to suggest it is either their way, driven by the tea party in the house or nothing is to create in my mind a train wreck. there are those of us who would have a difficulty in supporting a debt ceiling increase without revenue and when i talk about revenue, ending the tax loopholes and tax breaks that companies in america are getting at the expense of the american taxpayer. i do not know how america would accept that. every poll i've read say they want to see the tax breaks closed especially when they are sacrificing making tough

choices around the kitchen table. >> [inaudible] >> speaker john boehner should realize what a different world we were even a few months ago. he needs democrats to pass a bill because there are enough of his republican caucus members who will not vote for any debt ceiling increase. a number have said he cannot do without democrats. for the speaker to say as was mentioned before that he does not have the votes for it, he does not have the votes if he does not have revenue. he is not going to get democratic votes without revenue and he does not have enough republican votes on his own. that is a major difference between this and the cr. the house cannot just lob things over.

as for amounts, they should be negotiated. everyone of us could come up with a budget plan in the senate and we would have 100 budget plans each with one vote. everyone could come up with his or her budget plan and would have 435 budget plans with one vote. that is paralysis. we'll have to come together, swallows some things and -- that each of us does not like. that is what the american people have told us to do. we're swallowing things we do not like. you have heard what barbara mikulski said. she disliked doing lots of the things that she had to do but she was willing to do it for the good of the country. leader mcconnell, speaker john boehner have to face that lesson or we will face disaster. [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] >> we need revenues, we need revenues to contribute to deficit reduction. grover norquist does not want to contribute one nickel to deficit reduction. >> [inaudible] there would be money [inaudible] >> we're hoping that senators feinstein and others could come together for an agreement. whether they do or do not and i will not get into the details, that is between them. i am for research into cellulosic methanol.

we will have to billion dollars for deficit reduction and probably a greater amount without a. let's hope they can come to an agreement. >> let me make one final point. the speaker has used the word, tax increases. they're trying to convince the ordinary american with an ordinary income that there is something intentional to increase the taxes. you have responsibility to make clear that that is not true. there is an agreement. people making less than $250,000 are not in this equation. we're talking about high end income. we're talking about subsidies and special interests and you should not allow the tax increase shorthand to confuse the point. thank you. >> thank you, everybody.

>> john brennan presents the new counterterrorism strategy. then press botox reporters about the budgets. -- tim president obama talks to reporters about the budget. >> tomorrow, we will look at negotiations over the debt limit with senators charles grassley and bernie sanders. then a discussion about juvenile diabetes research with the foundation. and scott would occur of the organization.

this begins live every day on c- span. >> every saturday in july, hear oral arguments on c-span radio and out 14th amendment cases on amendments and gender and race discrimination. this saturday single-sex admission policy in the 1980 case. tune into c-span radio and 90.1 a.m. in washington, d.c. nationwide and online at cspa nradio.org. >> president obama's homeland security adviser john brennan unveiled the administration's new counter-terrorism strategy today. it focuses on the ability to attack the u.s. and the role of pakistan in destructive terrorist networks. the john hopkins school of studies of this event. it is one hour and 15 minutes.

>> i have never heard it so quiet. i think this is the sense of our anticipation and excitement about programs today. welcome. welcome. we are pleased and honored to host john brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security. to introduce errors. -- speaker, -- to introduce our speaker, it is right here in our community.

he had a highly distinguished career beginning in 1982 and raising to the ranks of acting director in 2004. no could ever show the appreciation for the challenges facing our speaker every day. he prepared for his career as a student where he earned his graduate degree and where he is now. he is devoted to students, alumni and institutions. >> >> thank you. in this last decade, nothing has affected the policies of the united states in the daily lives of americans more than the threat of a possible terrorist attack.

the impact has been clear in our form policies. many aspects of domestic policy and how we have employed military forces and how we have built coalitions and used alliances. even before this decade was very old, many people were calling this the long war. by any president in american history, this has turned out to be true. u.s. counter-terrorism policy has evolved as progress has occurred and as new threats have appeared. the adversary thinking mainly about cayenne has also changed, showing signs of vulnerability will also experimenting with new tactics and becoming more elusive. with the death of osama bin laden two months ago, the united

states has reached a milestone. minear asking what this means. how do we assess the threat now? what work remains to be done? was strategy is must important? here to discuss this is someone i know to be one of the nation's most dedicated public servants, john brennan and counter- terrorism. it is hard to imagine anyone better prepared for these responsibilities than john brennan. prior to joining in 2009, he had a lengthy career in government. counter-terrorism has been a threat. a graduate of the university of texas at austin, he served for

25 years at the cia beginning in 1980. during that time he held major responsibilities and analysis, overseas operations, and leadership at cia headquarters. foreshadowing his current responsibilities, he designed and built the nation's first national counter-terrorism center. mr. brennan, there is something greater than the sum of these

parts. the nation does not have a more tireless public servants, a person of absolute integrity dedicated to keeping this country safe. it is my pleasure to present to you john brennan. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. thank you for your service. it is a special pleasure for me to be introduced by john, and a friend and colleague of many years and one of our nation's greatest intelligence professionals. he was referred to as the world's smartest man. here is frequently introduced that way. he is also the world's nicest man. is also the world's greatest

magician. if you have not seen his magic, you are missing out. it is a pleasure for me to be here. this institution has instilled generations of public servants. this is essential for conduct of foreign policy. so what to thank them for their emphasis on national security. they will introduce students to the intelligence community and inspiring the next generation of intelligence professionals. it is wonderful to see so many friends and colleagues that i've had the privilege to work with. we are devoting your lives to helping protect this nation for many threats. this is the continued threat. we are releasing his national

area for counter-terrorism. we have been adapting this for the past 2.5 the years. it is also to ensure al qaeda is demise. i am pleased we are joined by dedicated professionals who helped to shape our strategy and to work tirelessly every day to keep our country safe. thank you for being here. thank you for your dedicated service. this is being posted to the white house website. there will be copies of this made public. in the time that i had with the today, i would like to put this in context. how would like to outline the key goals and principles and describe how we are putting it into practice to protect the american people.

i want to begin with the larger strategic environment. the start to the recognition that this strategy is only one part of president obama's larger national security strategy. this is very important. this is not define our entire public area. since taking office, he has worked to restore a positive vision of american leadership. it is proposed by the opportunity and dignity that they advance. at the same time, many of the broader foreign-policy initiatives also help to

achieve a more focused counter- terrorism goals. they adjust the political, economic, and social conditions that can feel violent extremism and punish certain arms into the area of al qaeda. when i trade and economic policy generates growth. when they support good governance that addresses people's basic needs. we stand up for universal human rights. this can also undermine violent extremism. this undermines the claim that the only way to achieve changes through violence. it can be a powerful and to do to the disillusionment and sense of powerlessness that can make some individuals susceptible to violent ideologies. i shouted to is recce mes

clearly benefit from this. they focus more narrowly on preventing terrorist attacks. this is the last strategy to reflect extraordinary political changes that are sweeping the middle east and north africa. it is true that they may bring uncertainty in the short term as we are seeing in the yen. -- in yemen. they can capitalize on the instability that change can bring. that is why we are working closely with partners to make sure that these actors and not succeed in hiking this moment of hope. as president obama has said, these dramatic changes also mark a historic moment of

opportunity. so too for our counter-terrorism efforts. for decades, terrorist organizations have preached the only way to affect changes through violence. now their claim has been repudiated by ordinary citizens in tunisia and beyond. they are challenging their governments to peaceful protests even as they are sometimes met with perfect brutality. it is the most profound change in modern history of the modern world. they have placed the united states on the right side of history.

there are universal rights that people are demanding. this has profounds locations. against the backdrop, as strategy is very precise. the once observed that one of the most dangerous areas is forgetting what one has trying to achieve. let me start by saying that our strategy is not designed to combat directly every single terrorist organization in every corner of the world. many had knighted the intent of the capability to ever attack the united states for our citizens. -reggie recognizes there are numerous -- our strategy recognizes there are numerous opportunities. hamas and hezbollah threaten

peace in the middle east. we will continue to use the full range of our tools to prevent these regimes and organizations from endanger national security. president obama has made it clear that the night states is determined to prevent them from using nuclear weapons. we will work closely with allies and partners including acting upon intelligence to prevent the flow of weapons and funds to hamas and hezbollah. the principal focus of this strategy and our efforts as the network that poses the most direct and significant state. that is al qaeda, the affiliates, and appearance. we use these terms deliberately. it is al qaeda that has murdered our citizens and the bombings to

the attacks in the u.s. this is held citizens of more than 90 countries. these are groups that are part of the network. they have also attempted to attack our homeland. it was outside. they attempted to bring down the airliner. it put explosives on cargo planes bound for the united states. it comes to tazewell ideology. this is for the united states. these individuals are spurred on by the likes of others.

they speak english and preach violence over the internet. we have seen the tragic results. there are attacks on our servicemen and women. this is the first added jeep that focuses on the ability of al qaeda and the networks to inspire people in the united states to attack us from within. this is the first counter- terrorism strategy that designates the homeland as a primary area of emphasis in our efforts. our strategy is also shaped by a deeper understanding about clyde is goals and tactics that we have gained for the last decade. this vision is absurd. we are not want to organize our policies against a delusion that is never going to happen. we are not like to elevate this

and the murders aspirations into something larger than they are. president obama is determined that our policies not play into the strategy would be warped ideology. president obama has made it a priority to renew american leadership. president obama has made it clear the united states is not and never will be at war with islam. al qaeda 6 to plead as financially by drawing as into long and costly wars that inflame anti-american sentiment. under president obama, we are working to end the wars irresponsibly. -- responsibly.

our best defense will not always be deploying these abroad but delivering targeted surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us. al qaeda seeks to portray itself as a religious movement, defending the rights of muslims. the united states will continue to expose al qaeda as that the more than murderous. they are neither religious leaders or scholars. there is nothing islamic or holy about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. the vast majority of the victims are innocent muslim men, women, and children. it is no surprise that the overwhelming majority of muslims have rejected al qaeda. just as their strategy is precise about who our enemy is, it is clear about our posture as well as our goal. this is a war, an integrated and relentless campaign that

harnesses every element of american power. we seek nothing less than the destruction of this evil that calls itself al qaeda. we need to dismantle the core of al qaeda. they will prevent the ability to establish a safe haven inside the region. we aim to render the heart about high debt and capable of launching attacks. it prevents this group from inspiring with the -- and believe it. there is also a serious threat operating outside south asia. this is not require a global war. it requires a focus on specific regions including the periphery. this is another important distinction that characterizes the strategy.

this has weekend under are yielding pressure. it has looked increasingly to these other groups and individuals to take up the cause. to destroy al qaeda, we are pursuing counter terrorism objectives. we are protecting our homeland by reducing our vulnerability is and updating our defenses. they are disrupting the area. there is inherent around the world. we are denying al qaeda n/a save haven. they are adjusting the ideology. to justify the

violence. we are depriving them of their means including this. there online communications the sustained this network. we are working to prevent them from developing weapons of mass destruction. that is what president obama is leading the global effort to secure the world's materials and for years. in many respects, this is not new. they track closely with the girls the previous administration. in neither represents a wholesale overhaul nor hell salt retention. it is pragmatic. this is what our experience has been. it then -- it builds upon policies that have been refined over the past decade with a partnership in congress.

it reflects an evolution in our understanding of the threats and our capabilities of government and partners. what i believe distinguishes this strategy is the principles that our guiding our efforts to destroy al qaeda. no single agency or department has lower possibility of -- has the responsibility. this is a whole of government effort. this is like the president obama administration has strengthened. we expanded human intelligence and linguistics stills. we are working to improve our capabilities. following the attack at fort hood in the failed attack over detroit, we have improved the process. there is enhanced cooperation

including better information sharing. they have unique assets so they have a safe haven. they are sharing more information, increasing the capacity of our first responders and preparing for buyers terrorism. we are finally preparing key recommendations for the 9/11 commission. learning the lessons of recent attacks, we have increased aviation security and sharing information in real time. for the first time, we are ensuring 100% screening of all

passengers traveling in to and from the united states. we are constantly improving our defenses as we did with the old color-coded threat system with a more targeted approach that provides detailed information. in addition, we are using the full range of law enforcement tools as part of our effort to build a durable legal framework for the war against al qaeda. this includes a single most effective tools for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists. they also gather intelligence and prevent attacks. it also includes reform military commissions which at times offers unique advantages. this includes the recently renewed patriot act. we must have a legal framework that provide our counter- terrorism and law enforcement

professionals with all the tools they need to do their jobs and keep our country safe. we must not tie their hands. for all this to work properly, they must work cooperatively. they are working more closely together than ever before. this excess is not due to and the one single person or piece of the information. it was the result of many people working together closely. this is what we will continue to do. even as we use the toes, we are guided by a principal. we recognize that no one nation can bring about the demise. over the past decade we have made enormous progress in strengthening international architecture to confront this.

there are regional organizations. this increased our efforts. this is why a key element is growing afghan security forces. it is why we must continue our cooperation with pakistan. we are now are working with their partners to overcome differences and continue our efforts with their common enemy. and stretching as his relationship can be, pakistan has been absolutely critical.

despite recent tensions, i am confident that pakistan remains one of our most important counter-terrorism partners. this was provided by saudi arabia partners. this is trained by the united states. despite the ongoing clobber ability, this continues. i would argue that the recent gains only makes our partnership with yemen more important. around the world we will deepen our cooperation with partners were ever al qaeda it tends to take root. while al qaeda seems to the

picks this as one between the world's muslims in united states, it is the opposite. the international community including muslim communities are united against al qaeda. of this is the third principle. we recognize that different places to demand different tools. even as we use all the resources at our disposal, we will have the right tools and the right way with a laser focus. we will deliver precise and overwhelming force against al qaeda. we are in close cooperation with their partners. when necessary, we have information about the whereabouts. we will do what is required.

in some places, our efforts will focus on training foreign securities services. and others, they will thwart attacks. in the united states, it is our federal, state, and law enforcement security that take the lead. al qaeda offers nothing but death and destruction. related to our counterterrorism strategy, keep the carnation secure also depends on a strong partnerships between government and communities at home including muslims and arab americans, some of him join us here today. they have work to protect their communities from the violent ideology.

they have helped to prevent terrorist attacks in our country. later, they will unveil the approach for partner with communities to prevent violent extremists and in the united states. a key tenet of this approach is that when it comes to protecting our country, muslim americans and art are the problem but part of the solution. this relates to our fourth principle, building a culture of resilience at home. we are doing everything to prevent another terrorist attack on our solil. they recognize that no nation no matter how powerful, including a free and open society of 300 million americans, can prevent every single threat from every single individual who wishes to do us harm. it is simply not enough to be prepared for the attacks. we have to be resilience and recover quickly.

we are constantly improving our ability to withstand any attack, especially against our critical emperor structure and thereby denying al qaeda the damage and destruction that it seeks. we are strengthening of the partnerships that help them recover quickly. as a result of people, everyone of us can help deprive al qaeda of the success its seat. al qaeda wants to terrorize us. they want to change us. we must a true with who we are. this is the principle that guides all the others. in all actions, we will uphold the core values of the finest americans. is it more than 30 years working on this. i understand our communities. the most powerful weapon of all are the values and ideals that america represents to the world.

it plays into the hand about hide it. when we pulled these values, it sends a message to people around the world. in other words, our values helps keep us safe. we stand three human rights. that is why president obama made it clear that the united states does not torture. that is why he banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques which do not work. we will uphold the rule of law at home including privacy, a civil-rights, civil liberties of all americans. it is because of our commitment. i think this is ultimately close. we are committed to the world

what america wants. it undermines our twisted as theology -- our twisted ideology. we realize this is not a weakness but a strength and we showed that muslim americans are part of our american family, we expose al qaeda is alive that cultures must clash. islam is part of america. we remind you that america can never be at war with islam. did these are our core principles. this is a strategy that has enabled us to put al qaeda under more pressure. we have door to the attacks around the world. we have disrupted -- we have thwarted attacks around the world. we have disrupted plots. we have made it harder for them to transfer money. we have put their finances to their weakest point in years. along with our partners, we

have sean al qaeda that it will enjoy no safe haven. we have made it harder for them to train and plots. al qaeda is leader sheikh -- al qaeda is leadership has been affected. ranking leaderd killed. one of the most dangerous commanders, reportedly killed. several all killed. the leader of the pakistani taliban, killed. the leader of al qaeda in east africa and the master made of the bombings of our embassies in africa, killed. all told, over the past 2.5 years, virtually every al qaeda affiliate has lost its leader or operational commander. more than half of the leadership has been eliminated.

al qaeda is adapted and resilience. it has been forced to do so with less experienced individuals. that is why we have stepped up our efforts. if we hit al qaeda hard enough and often enough, there will come a time where they can no longer replenished their ranks. this is the direction in which you are headed to date. with the death of osama bin laden, we have struck our biggest blow against al qaeda get. we have taken up the founder who continues to direct his followers to attack the united states. most significantly, al qaeda's figure has inspired so many others to violence. in his place, the organization is left with an agent dr. -- and 18 it doctor who lacks osama bin laden's charisma.

this suggests possible divisions at the highest level. taking to get that the progress i have described allows us to envision the demise of al qaeda's core leadership in the coming years. it'll take time. al qaeda it is in its decline. this is by no means to suggest that the serious threats have passed. not at all. he may attempt to demonstrate his leadership. al qaeda may try to show the relevance. individuals may seek to avenge the death. more innocent people may tragically lose their lives. nor does this mean the destruction of the al qaeda network. this remains the most operationally active affiliate's in the network. it poses a serious threat to the united states. from the controls, they continue to call for strikes against the united states. we cannot and will not let our guard down.

we will continue to, al qaeda. we will remain vigilant at home. as we approach the 10th anniversary, as americans seek to understand where we are, we need to look no further than the compound or obama spends his days. there he was holed up for years behind prison walls, isolated from the world. even he understood the sorry state of his organization and the ideology. information's sees reveals that the concerns about the all -- the long-term viability. he calls for large scale attacks against americans but encountered resistance on his followers. he went for years without seeing any spectacular attacks. he saw a senior leaders being taken down one by one and worried about the ability to replace them effectively. most importantly, osama bin

laden sensed that al qaeda is losing the larger battle. he knew that al qaeda's murder some innocent civilians had deeply and permanently tarnished al qaeda's image in the world. he knew that he failed to perjury america as being at war with islam. he worried that a recent focus on al qaeda as an enemy prevented more of those. they have a final image around the world. there hunched over. the history is leaving it behind. this fight is not over. guided by the strategy we are releasing, we will never waver in our efforts to protect the american people. we will be clear and precise about our enemy. we will use every tool at our

disposal and showed them widely. we will forge strong partnerships. as americans, we will continue to uphold the core values that inspired the world and define this as a people. president obama said the best last week. rep read al qaeda here. we will not relent until the job is done. i want to thank you for allowing me to unveil president obama pose a national strategy. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. brennan has consented to take questions. since then the the media has frequent access, i will give priority of questions to our students, faculty, and invited

guests. there is a microphone here which will come to you when you raise your hands. then please state your name and get your question. confine it to one question. >> right here. >> how long do you have? >> 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. i'm a student at george mason university. have a question about the terrace detainees. he said that the president wants to close guantanamo bay. has there been a decision made yet as to what will happen with the detainee is that there currently held there? >> it is well recognized that congress has expressed concerns about the closure of guantanamo. we have released a number of

individuals from guantanamo since president obama has transfer them overseas. there has been an announcement. this will be prosecuted. with the president said is that he wants to close guantanamo responsibly. this is something that is still very much a policy of this demonstration. cannot do it in a man under --

do not do it in a manner that does not take into account many of the unique circumstances. this is the single most dangerous affiliate's about collided today. it is not even state failure. could you give us some more detail on how you see is proceeding forward in dealing with yemen and trying to get them more effective fighting al qaeda? >> al qaeda is the most of racially active. they've been able to use yemen as a trading area to launch

attacks. there is a fair amount of local turmoil right now in yemen with the president. he is still up in saudi of arabia undergoing medical treatment. he works with the yemenis. dislike and pakistan where thousands of pakistanis have fallen prey on -- just like the pakistani is where thousands have fallen prey. they are opposed to al qaeda expanding the capabilities as well as the control. they have various tribes.

one of the things we have insisted then is the support we surprise. the have a right to do it peacefully. we have been very vigilant. the counter-terrorism cooperation needs to continue to grow. there are obvious limitations based on the yemeni forces capabilities. president obama has committed to yemen that we will be strong partners. receive a direct threat to the homeland. that is a very dangerous individual. the potential for the comes to the homeland is something we will have to continue work on.

the framework for now we are using is to build up their counter-terrorism debilities, provide them the intelligence and information they need to prosecute their efforts, and to partner with them when it is something that we believe that we can do and it needs to be done to protect our interests. it will be a long haul. >> good afternoon. the recent killing of osama bin laden has led many to speculate about the relationship between al qaeda and the pakistani government. can you comment on that speculation? >> to my knowledge, the pakistani leadership, military, political intelligence was caught completely unawares to find that osama bin laden was

found next to its military academy and not too far from the nation's capital. they're trying to figure out why he was able to be there for six years. that is not to say that there are not elements within the pakistani establishment that were knowledgeable and provided assistance. but looking at that situation, osama bin laden and the people at that compound practiced absolutely phenomenal obtect. to our knowledge, he was there for six years and he never left the compound. there are a couple of folks who served as his interlocutors with the outside world. this is something that -- i do not know how many people in al qaeda, in the leadership ranks, knew where he was. but he is someone who knew that, if he let it be known his

whereabouts, his days would be numbered. he became then confident and relaxed in islamabad. he was taken by surprise by our brave seals. again, i have not seen anything. this is one big question we had right away. this is a question we raised to the level of the pakistani garment. what gives? but pakistan is a very large country. this is one of their lessons learned in terms of what they need to do to be aware of what is happening in places like islamabad. it does not mean that all of these miscreants are hiding in a cave somewhere. there have been individuals in the past from al qaeda but have used this, but as a transit point. >> in the front row.

thank you.k yo clearly, one of our preferred tools for dealing with al qaeda is targeted killings. i understand that is perfectly legal. but is it striking how much we rely on that to include targeting some people who are american citizens? is that problematic in a long run -- not from a legal point of view, but from a reputation point of view and what it may bring back to us from the way we imagine ourselves? >> without speaking to any particular operational activities or capabilities, let me address the question this way. first of all, from the standpoint of american citizens, when our brave u.s.

military forces in afghanistan and iraq are fighting and they see that it is the taliban or hui and others who are coming at them, they do not first check to see if any of them are u.s. citizens or u.s. persons. there have been those who have been fighting your u.s. persons or citizens or whatever. these u.s. persons and citizens have made the decision to join the enemy, to fight against the united states of america. and just what we work -- just what we're doing in places like iraq and against and, we are protecting our interests. the effort in counterterrorism is analogous. we did not pick this fight. one of the things that president obama has been insisted on is that we are exceptionally precise and surgical in terms of addressing the terrorist threat. by that i mean, if there are terrorists who are within an area where there are women and

children or others, we do not take such action that might put those innocent young men and women and children in danger. the u.s. -- i can tell you about the operations that the u.s. has been involved in in the past year, there has not been a single collateral death what we try to do -- collateral death. what we tried to do is use force against those individuals who are presenting a threat to us. if they happen to be afghan citizens or pakistan citizens or those of another country, including of our own, what we can do is allow them to hide behind their citizenship and their passports. there are certain requirements in the law, as far as if we know somebody is a citizen and we will take action against them, there are certain things we need to make sure we do, program and

consistent with our legal framework. we do that in all cases. but the president is a constitutional lawyer and wants to make sure that we are following the letter of belote in these cases. >> yes, right here in the second row. >> hello, my name is tiffany store. i appreciate your speech today. what you think the ice community has learned in the last 10 years? what are we doing with that learning experience? >> with the intelligence community has learned? >> yes. >> we were talking about where we were on 9/11 and with the enormous light. john and i were on the seventh floor of cia headquarters. at the time we get hit with those planes, we were still at a state of trying to figure out

how broad, how serious the threat from al qaeda was. there were so many reports about some any different operatives, cells, box plants. we were facing the anthrax problems here as well. one of the things we have learned most from 9/11 is that we have a better handle on the al qaeda organization, where it resides. our ability to successfully prosecute over the last decade are efforts against al qaeda is because of the tremendous efforts done by intense professionals, homeland security of officials. lives have been lost because we have been willing to take the fight to them. the cia boys were tragically killed last year, these are

brave american men and women who leave their families behind so they can in fact in more information and insight into where al qaeda is so we can, in fact, direct our efforts against them so we can protect our people here. this is the testament to the tremendous work of the intelligence committee. bringing together not just the intelligence we have been able to acquire, but then marrying it with the tremendous capabilities that we have been able to develop. on the technical front, the military front, and others. the lessons are that we know more about the nature of the threat. another thing that we have learned, the best operations i have seen in the counter- terrorism world are those involving the integration efforts of resources, of kevin willis and expertise among government agencies -- of

capabilities and expertise among government agencies. for many years, i think the u.s. was trying to make sure that cia and nsa deny get in each other's way. then it was coordinating -- i will tell you what i am doing if you tell me what you are doing. now we see the u.s. military and cia and all lan security working cheek to jowl -- and homeland security working cheek to jowl. it has been a tremendous evolution of our approach to our national security challenges. that integration is something that we need to continue to do. i am a strong believer in their departments and agencies said up in the 19th and 20th centuries which were designed for those types of problems. right now, we need to make sure that we're able to leverage the capabilities that exist throughout the government in a concerted fashion.

>> you mentioned iran as a sponsor of state terrorism. what does that mean for u.s. national security? >> i think, just like al qaeda was looking at what was happening with the arab spring, i think iran was in the same thing. i think they're trying to do a couple of things. number one, they're trying to exploit the instability in certain countries as a way to increase their contacts, their relationships, and that equities. we see that they are in fact trying to operate in different countries by establishing a relationship with groups that were out of favor six months ago

and are now coming into favor. also, i think what they're trying to do is see what they can do to try to give us a black eye in certain areas. to it is clear that we are in this tug-of-war with iran and it continues to refuse to live up to its obligations. they have been affected significantly by sanctions and other measures that have been taken care is no secret that iran is trying to undermine the interests, which is to promote the development of the democratic movements and making sure the people in these different countries are able to realize their aspirations. from my perspective, i think we need to be mindful that iran has a certain agenda. it does have certain inroads in countries that have shia populations. it tries to populate -- to operate within those communities.

iran has not yet experienced its spring. hopefully, i think the people will be able to realize a democratic ferment one of these days that can really fulfil their aspirations as well. >> in the front row. >> in helping the libyan operation, how are we helping al qaeda-affiliated groups? had we minimize that risk? >> we have been very cognizant of the fact that there have been portions within libya that have served as a base for a number of extremist organizations. there are -- we are concerned about the disarray and turmoil

in libya, particularly in weapons stockpiles of have come under siege by various groups. i think the u.s. position, as was the position of our allies is that we will work deliberately with the opposition elements that have developed in the east as well as in the west. we're mindful that al qaeda and other extremist organizations are trying to tell what the situation. that is why we have to be measured in the way we deal with the bombing situation inside libya. i have traveled out to algeria and other countries in the region to talk to them about the threat of al qaeda and what we need to do together. so we are partnering with the nations in the area, working with them, try to build up their capacity, trying to provide the intelligence they need to be able to identify these elements that are on the rise. >>