>> thank you. humans of a whole of government approached several times. please describe to us the relationship between the defense the element and the diplomacy communities in counter- terrorism. >> the defense development and diplomacy come together when you look at two particular countries -- yemen and somalia. i reside over interagency groups that look at those two countries in -- killer because of the counter-terrorism challenge there. but i also recognize that our ability to progress is dependent on these countries being able to deal with their very, very serious problems. they have social economic problems. yemen, with this water resources that is being depleted and its oil that is being depleted, and

employment probably a 40% or 50%. there are so many issues there. what we are doing is look at what we need to do on the counter terrorism front cared whether we doing any engagement with the yemeni, the saudis, and others on how to address the issues right now that are at stake in yemen could. -- in yemen. we're trying to make sure they're integrated. one of the challenges we have now and one of the debates that is ongoing is that, in light of the instability in yemen, should we not stop this assistance that is going to them because it could get to the wrong hands? to me, i think it is important -- president saleh is now in saudi arabia some are criticizing us for being only

interested in counterterrorism. it is not true. the people of yemen have been terrorized by the many problems they face. we are concerned with al qaeda, but this is the time we make sure we do not abandon the yemeni people, whether government is under siege -- when their government is under siege. we need to make sure that we bring together that diplomacy, the development assistance, and the counter-terrorism efforts. the same is true in somalia. looking in all the refugees and the people who are miller stands start, we need to find ways for the non-criminal organizations to get in there and bring relief supplies. a lot of the means we have, we say, okay, we want to make sure that these ngo's have the

licensing approvals to operate their. re.to operate thei i have said that i do not want the counter terrorism tail to wag the dog. we should not be doing things in yemen or somalia solely because we have a counter terrorism agenda there. one of the things about president obama and president bush before him is making sure that we do things that will benefit in the long term these people in these areas. because these groups strive off of the instability. there are very legitimate grievances. we need to be able to work with local communities that are out there, governments and interest groups to deal with those issues. >> front row here. >> do you worry that public support for the war on terrorism

will wane over time with the domestic problems we have, the economy, the debt, and the sense that killing osama bin laden as turned the page on war? >> we intensely do not use the term "war on terrorism." we are at war with al qaeda. i think there is a concern that there are some folks out there who believe that, because we have not suffered a spectacular attack at the hands of al qaeda in the past decade that the threat is not as serious and grave. they keep talking about our successes and that we're taking a lot of these leaders of the battlefield. that may be a perception that some folks in the american public have. if you were to bolster the counter-terrorism community

throughout the government and other areas, they see real threats still out there. coming up on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 -- we want to make sure we are as vigilant and poised to detect and force these attacks. working with congress, do nothing there's any illusion within those folks that this is an effort that we need to maintain. i would like to think that, over time, we would be more efficient on how we apply our resources, knowing more about the threat. and maybe automate more of these activities. we have come such a long way as a result of technology and integrating the different databases and systems, we have been able to do things with less people who actually have to manually put things in. i want to make sure we are able to maintain the appropriate

amount of resources so we continue to prosecute these suffers who help us to detect these threats and beat brazil and can but also maintain our ability -- maintain our pride to posture. point,e relend to this we want al qaeda to regenerate in certain areas. that core group is still out there. >> second row here. >> i was wondering how you think the drawdown in afghanistan will shift from a counter resume -- a counter-terrorism posture? >> we have a long-term bull in that area, which is to make sure

we are able to maintain very deep, strong, and brought counter-terrorism ties with pakistan and afghanistan. when we talk about it, we talk fear.the afghan-pack the that architecture involves sources of that we have, both technical and human. it involves partnership with the pakistanis and the afghans. it is having the ability to make sure that there will be dialogue and cooperation between pakistan and a afghanistan. that border area leverage for the purposes into the borders of pakistan and afghanistan. drawing down 10,000 troops this year and drawing down the full

surge by next summer, that will not affect our ability to continue our counter-terrorism efforts. what the president looks to me and others to do is to ensure that, as we look out over the next several years, hopefully before 2014, that we can ensure that we keep in place the capabilities, the architecture, the resources, the platforms that will allow us to ensure that that area it will never again be used as a launching pad for attacks against the homeland. there is no alternative to us or to the pakistanis to ensure that we continue engagement. it is frustrating. but at the same time, no other country have we taken as many terrorists of the battlefield then in pakistan. no other country has lost more security and intelligence officers then pakistan. yes, we have frustrations with them, but, at the same time,

they are on the front lines. they give their lives everyday. i am very appreciative of the efforts that they have made. >> our media colleagues have been very patient. let me go to the third broker >> -- the third row. >> i appreciate your last statement. if you read pakistani media, you get a very different picture. it says that there was not a single suicide attack before we got involved with the part of the world cared after that, -- the reason [unintelligible] people are so angry and we think that somehow pakistani lives are not important. but -- >> do you have a question?

>> how can you really address these issues without addressing the common pakistanis concerns ?ack but my concern is that there is a real cancer within pakistan among terrorist organizations. there is a general recognition in the united states as well as throughout the world that pakistan has a real challenge ahead of it to uproot and eradicate the forces of militancy within pakistan. i think the pakistani people have to be very honest with the challenges that they faced domestically. if is an area that has served as a training ground, as a launching pad to carry out attacks. but not just against other

countries and the united states, but against pakistanis. men, women and children on a daily basis are being horribly murdered by these attacks, by these suicide attacks. these are homicide attacks. they killed and scores. a really do hope that the pakistani government and all these institutions will become even more aggressive in taking the battle to these forces of militancy and terrorism. >> i am looking at the big picture in the decade since 9/11. what do you see the top factors in denying al qaeda success in attacking the homeland over the past 10 years? >> one is that i think we have made the united states a much less hospitable environment for al qaeda. it is much more difficult for them to move operatives here

appeared the fbi, homeland security, the local law enforcement have done a great job at the ticket activities within our 50 states. they really have done a tremendous job. secondly, taking the war terrell qaeda, not just sitting back here and trying to protect ourselves -- taking the war to al qaeda, not just sitting back here and try to protect ourselves. trying to dismantle and destroy the organization. it is clear from the material recovered from the compound of osama bin laden that he was aware that they were in trouble. he was frustrated that the commanders were not carrying out attacks. commanders were saying, we would love to do it, but we cannot. your aspirations outpaced our capabilities. the fact that we have degraded the threat, we have addressed the bomber bill is.

we have improved the capabilities of the foreign governments. it is a combination of things that have contributed to making this country safer. looking out the next 10 years, we will continue to strengthen our capabilities and to brave the threats and improve our defenses and reduce our vulnerability. >> we have time for one more question. james man. >> u.s. heard an excellent question before about iran's interest in the arab spring. that begs the follow-up question about saudi arabia. its reactions to the air spring and whether this agreements have come up north things like mubarak and if it has affected

the field of counter-terrorism. >> i have spent about six years in saudi arabia. i was there in the late 1990's. in many respects, it was frustrating for me, not just because the saudis were unwilling to be more aggressive. but it was because our government was unwilling to be more forthcoming with the saudis. the saudis went through time in 2003 when there was basically a campaign by al qaeda to carry out attacks against the saudis from within. it became very personalized for the saudis. a lot of their intelligence security officers were brutally killed by al qaeda. they took it very much to heart.

since then, saudi arabia has developed capabilities and it is one of the best counter- terrorism partners that the united states has. they recognized that there was a cancer within their house and they recognized and when i talk to them, they said they were too late in coming to this game. when i think about the question on pakistan, i am hoping that the pakistani people and services will realize that this really is a war. the saudis had to fight that war for several years. right now, i think it really is a testament to how far we have come since 9/11. when it concealed the ied's and the printers on the cargo craft, they would have taken down those airplanes if we did not have the information from the saudis. i was giving a speech here in washington and i got a call from the assistant deputy minister of interior in saudi

arabia. he needed to speak to me urgently. a call them back. sure enough, he give me the information that had been passed through other channels as well that provided the details about where those ied's were, what package, and we were able to locate them before they were timed to go off. that save lives, without a doubt. if the saudis did not provide us that information, we would have aircraft coming down out of the air, possibly over the united states. the investment we have made with our counter-terrorism partners, saudi arabia is a good example. collected think that, over the next 10 years, we will have other stories but what has happened with saudi arabia, that things will really turn around, that the situation of terrorism in these countries and within pakistan that we will sort of get ahead of the curve. but it will still be a long and sometimes difficult battle.

again, i want to say thank you to everybody here for being so polite and patient. the questions were rather -- i don't to save saw walls, but -- [laughter] i was ready for something to come out that would be more challenging. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and the strategy that this president has put out. i will say again that people like john mclaughlin and the students that you have taught, the people that are working within the intelligence community really have done just a spectacular job and a lot of credit goes to you, john, and others who have helped the next generation of intelligence professionals and national security experts to contribute to this nation's security current so thank you very much. >> please think john brennan. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> >> tonight, president obama's what else press conference is next. lettuce continued with press conferences with senate democratic and republican leaders. >> tomorrow, the senate homeland security committee holds a

hearing on afghanistan reconstruction contracts. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c- span.org. tune into c-span this independence day. panelists discuss its united states can remain united. >> at the political level, we are more divided. you look at partisan polarization. >> then the dali lama talks about the violence, religion, and the death penalty. this monday, july 4th, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. for the complete schedule of programs and times, go to c- span.org. >> after four and a half years and two presidents, defense secretary robert gates is set to retire this week. he will be replaced by outgoing cia director leon panetta. you can watch his retirement

ceremony later this week on c- span, c-span.org, and online at d.c.'s ban video library print search, what, clip, and share -- it is washington your way. >> president obama held his first press conference in three months taken he urges congress to raise the federal debt ceiling before an august 2 deadline. he also answered reporters' questions about the economy and military operations in libya. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. have a seat. 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 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 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 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 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. littlejust have to pay 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 compromise their kids' safety so 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. chuck. >> 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. -- law professor hat 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. and if you look substantively at 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. 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 power'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 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, 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 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 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 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. that would be up to a judge to decide. what i do know is that companies need to have the freedom to relocate. they have to follow the law. that is part of our system. if they're choosing to relocate here in 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. when it comes to our men and women in uniform who might be carrying out these missions, the instructions will not be based on whether or not the lawyers can sort out how we detain them or how we prosecute them. 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. 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.

third when it comes to our definitions of success, the u.n. mandate has said that we are there to make sure that you do not see a massacre directed against libyan civilians by the libyan regime. the libyan regime's capacity has been greatly reduced as a quebs of -- consequence of our operation. that's already been successful. what we've seen in the east and west is opposition forces have been able to mobilize themselves and help get 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 are going to be in danger.

of counteroffenses and of retributions. so there's no doubt that gaddafi stepping down from power is from the international community's perspective going to be the primary way that we can assure that the overall mission of libya's people being protected is accomplished. 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 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. gloo would you is political settlement with him involved as success from the american per spectacular snve >> i would accept him stepping 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. 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 lame duck session. when democrats and republicans came together and we said, a payroll tax cut makes sense in order to boost the economy. unemployment insurance makes sense in order to boost the economy. all of that stuff puts money in people's pockets at a time when they're still struggling to dig themselves out of this recession. so the american people have an extra $1,000 on average in their pockets because of the tax cuts that we initiated. that has helped cushion some of the tough stuff that happened in the first six months of this year, including the effects on oil prices as a consequence of what happened in the middle east as well as 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. that we're not going to get there right away. this is a tough slog but that we still are 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 achieves 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.

[inaudible] >> what you said before really led me to believe that in your personal mind -- [inaudible]. >> 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. exactly. i thought you would like that one. antionetta cadiz. there you are. >> thank you very much, mr. president. first, if you receive a mandatory bill about legalization, are you planning to veto that deal? and second, on fast and furious, members of congress and the government of mexico are still waiting for answers.

are you planning to replace a.t.f. leadership and when can we expect the results of the current 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 appropriate step by the a.t.f. 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 it before. i will say again.

i will say it next week and i will say it six months from now. we've got to have a system that makes sure that we uphold our tradition as a nation of laws and also upholds our tradition of a nation of immigrants. that means tough border securitiers going after employers that are illegally hiring and exploiting workers, making sure that we also have a pathway for legal status for those who are living in the shadows right now. we may not be able to get everything that i would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package. e-verify can be an important enforcement tool if it's not riddled with errors, if u.s. citizens are protected because what i don't want is a situation in which employers

are forced to set up a system that they can't be certain works. and we don't want to expose employers to the risk where they end up rejecting a qualified candidate for a job because the list says that that person'sen illegal immigrant and it turns out that that person isn't an illegal immigrant. that wouldn't be fair for the employee and would probably get the employer in trouble as well. so i think the goal right now is to, let's continue to see if we can perfect the e-verify system, let's make sure that we have safeguards in place to prevent the kind of scenarios that i talked about but let's also not lose sight of some of the other components to immigration reform. for example, making sure that dream act kids, 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 who are ready to invest and give back to our country and go to school and fight in our military and start businesses

here, let's make sure that those kids can stay. we need to have a more balanced approach than just a verification system. ok? >> [inaudible]. >> i don't have an answer as to whether the investigation is completed yet and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation if i don't -- if it's not yet completed. ok. jessica. congratulations. your first question here. >> thank you, mr. president. >> no pressure, you're going to do great. >> yes. thank you. your administration has laid out four different dates by which you said that the debt ceiling must be raised or the u.s. would face potential dire

consequences. three of those dates have come and gone and some of your critics have argued that these are then scare tactics to force a deal. so, why should the american people believe that the august 2 deadline is the final deadline by which a deal must be raised and would you also sell out for us what you believe will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised by that date? >> let's be clear, we haven't given out four different dates. we have given out dates that are markers for us getting into trouble. it's the equivalent of you're driving down the street and the yellow light starts flashing. the yellow light is flashing. now, it hasn't been a red light yet so what tim geithner has said is, technically speaking, know, we're in a position now wroo where we're having to do a whole bunch of things to make

sure that our bills are paid. by august 2 we run out of tools to make sure that all our bills are paid. so that is a hard deadline. and 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 and that is not a good thing. we don't know how capital markets will react. but if capital markets suddenly decide, you know what? the u.s. government doesn't pay its bills, so we're going to start pulling our money out,

and the u.s. treasury has to start to raise interest rates in order to attract more money to pay off our bills, this means higher interest rates for businesses, that means higher interest rates for consumers. so all the head winds that we're already experiencing in terms of the recovery will get worse. that's not my opinion. i think that's a consensus opinion. and that means that job growth will be further sometime idea. it will be further hampered as a consequence of that decision. so that's point number one. point number two, i want to address what i've been hearing from some quarters which is, well maybe this debt limit thing is not that serious. we can just pay interest on the debt. this idea has been floating around in some republican circles. this is the equivalent of me saying, you know what? i will choose to pay my mortgage but i'm not going to

pay my car note. or i'm going it pay my car note but i'm not going to pay my student loan. now, 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 like that is not going to inspire a lot of confidence. moreover which bills are we going to decide to pay? these guys have said, well maybe we just pay the interest on -- for bonds holders. are we really going to start paying interest to chinese who hold treasuries? and we're not going to pay folks their social security checks? or we're not going to pay veterans for their disability checks? i mean, which bills -- which obligations are we going to say

we don't have to pay? and last point i want to make about this, these are bills that congress ran up. the money's been spent. the obligations have been made. so this isn't a situation i think the american people have to understand this, this is not a situation where congress is going to say, ok, we won't buy this car or we won't take this vacation. they took the vacation, they bought the car and now they're saying, maybe we don't have to pay or we don't have to pay as fast as we said we were going to or -- that's not how responsible families act. and we're the greatest nation on earth. and we can't act that way. so, this is urgent. and it needs to get settled.

>> [inaudible]. >> i think people should think of -- look, i'm the president of the united states and i want to make sure that i am not engaging in scare tactics. and i've tried to be responsible and somewhat restrained so that folks don't get spooked. august 2 is a very important date. and there's no reason why we can't 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've identified what spending cuts are possible, we've identified what defense cuts are possible, we've identified what health care cuts are possible, we've identified what loopholes in the tax code can be closed that would also raise revenue. we've identified what the

options are. and the question now is, are we going to step up and get this done? and, you know, malia and sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. malia's 13, sasha's 10. it is impressive. they don't wait until the night before, they're not pulling all-nighters. [laughter] they're 13 and 10. you know, congress can do the same thing. if you know you've got to do something, just do it. and i've got to say, i'm very amused when i start hearing comments about, well, the president needs to show more leadership on this. let me tell you something. right after we finished dealing with the government shutdown,

averting a government shutdown, i called the leaders here together, i said, we've got to get this done. i put vice president bidenen in charge of a process -- biden in charge of a process that by the way 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. i've met with the leaders multiple times. at a certain point they need to do their job. and so this thing which is just not on the level where we have meetings and discussions and we're working through process and when they decide they're not happy with the fact that at some point you've got to make a choice, they just all step back and say, well, you know, the president needs to get this done. they need to do their job.

now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. that's why they're called leaders. and i've already shown that i'm willing to make some decisions that are very tough and will give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time. but it's got to be done. and so there's no point in procrastinating, there's no point in putting it off. we've got to get this done. and if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress then i think members of congress need to understand we are going to start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done. they're in one week, they're out one week and then they're saying, obama's got to step in.

you need to be here. i've been here. i've been doing 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. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. president. you talked about the payroll tax holiday and possibly extending that. are you worried, though, 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've 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 then we can argue about some other things because i think that's very 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. because 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's a reduction that helps to serve the job agenda. i think they want to have some confidence that we have a plan that's helping right now. but i don't think it should be a complicating factor because

if mitch mcconnell and john boehner came to me and said, we're ready to make a deal, here's a balanced approach to debt and deficit reduction, but we want to argue about payroll tax cuts later, they're not set to expire until the end of this year, if that was a situation that they presented, then i think we would have a serious conversation about that. i would not discount that completely. i do think that the steps that i talked about to deal with job growth and economic growth right now are vitally important to deficit reduction. just as deficit reduction is important to grow the economy and to create jobs, well, creating jobs and growing the economy also 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 and it makes a huge difference. and this maybe 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, very tough time. they're 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 folks who are working just are having a tough time paying the bills because they haven't seen their wages or incomes go up in 10 years. and the cost of everything else

has gone up. and every day that weighs on you. every minute of every day that weighs on me. because i ran for president precisely to make sure that we righted this ship and we start once again creating a situation where middle class families and people who aspire to be in the middle class, if they're working hard then they're living -- living a better life. these structural changes in our economy that have been going on for a decade, 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 then they're going to 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 still invested $90 million in new equipment in a plant that makes airplane wings and parts for automobiles and they've bounced back, they've hired back all their people. and are increasing market share because they made those investments. well, just like a company like alcoa, america's got to make some investments. we know that we've got to get control of our deficit. there are some things that aren't going to solve all our problems but can make progress right now. and the question is whether or not democrats and republicans are willing to put aside the expedience of short-term politics in order to get it done. and 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 here 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'll continue to fund education, we'll hold true to our commitment to our seniors. these are solvable problems. but it does require us just getting out of the short-term and frankly selfish approach that sometimes politics breeds. we've got to think a bit long-term. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up next on c-span, today's news conversations with senate republican and democratic leaders. and then presidential advisor john brennan presents the administration's new counterterrorism strategy. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we'll look at negotiations over the debt limit with senators charles grassley and bernie sanders. also a discussion about juvenile diabetes research with richard insel of the juvenile diabetes research foundation and scott whitaker. "washington journal" begins live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> every saturday in july hear historic supreme court oral arguments on c-span radio, about 14th amendment cases on equal protection, including sexual orientation and gender and race discrimination. this saturday single sex

admissions policy in the 1982 case, mississippi university for women vs. hogan. tune into c-span radio at 90.8 f.m. on washington, d.c. and online at c-spanradio.org. >> it used to be we didn't release transcripts of arguments. now we release them i think within a half hour. used to be the audio recordings of the court's arguments were released at the end of the term and now they're released at the end of every week. so we are moving in a particular direction. cameras present all sorts of challenges that these other areas don't. >> right now on c-span's youtube channel, watch chief justice john roberts' latest comments on cameras in the courtroom. also american history tv and book tv from our local content vehicles online at youtube.com/c-span.

>> senate republicans today held a news conference to announce their support for balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution. their proposal 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 2/3 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. our view is a good first step is a balanced budget to the constitution. all 47 republicans are in favor of that. we call on at least 20 of our democratic colleagues in the senate to join us. speaker boehner has indicated to me and maybe to you as well that they will be dealing with this issue, the balanced budget constitutional amendment, the week of july 25.

in the house of representatives. so we think it's pretty clear, regardless of what we are ultimately able to negotiate here in the short-term, that we put the federal government and this -- in this kind of fiscal straitjacket for the future so that we cannot get into this position again. with that let me turn to our leader on this subject over the years, he was here the last time we came very close to approvinging this constitutional amendment, the ranking member of the finance committee, senator hatch. >> thank you, leader. we've had three straight years of trillion-dollar deficits. we're $62 trillion in debt in this country. we know that we just found out that by 2035 if we continue on the same path our debt to g.d.p. ratio will be 190. if that doesn't give you some idea of what we've got to do, i

don't know what i can do. the fact is that since we're going to have to pass this balanced budget amendment, that 49 states have, 49 states are required to balance their budgets, individuals are required to balance their budgets, why shouldn't the federal government? and i'm convinced we've got to have a straitjacket that will get congress to do what it really should do. we came within one vote in 1997 and passing this and sending it to the states, we intend to pass it this year and get this mess under control. >> balanced budget amendment is simply the best way to cut out the smoke and mirrors when it comes to federal budgeting. we all know that we're spending about 40 cents out of every dollar in borrowed money and the primary purchaser of our debt is china which owns about 1/3 of our national debt, about $1.1 trillion. obviously we don't want to subject ourselves either economically or from a national security perspective to the tender mercies of countries that may not have our best

interests at heart. so this is, as admirable mullen said, a number one threat to our national security, our debt is, and we know it is to our economy. if interest rates were to go up to historic norms, just imagine what that would mean in terms of the burden on taxpayers. so this is a single most important thing we can do and i commend the leader and senator hatch in particular 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, the national debt. 14% of the public agree that congress is doing a good job, that congress has been a good steward of the taxpayers' money. 75% of the public, republicans, democrats and independents, believe we should have a balanced budget amendment. i firmly 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. >> $1.5 trillion annual deficits, $14.3 trillion in accumulated debt, trillions of dollars in contingent liabilities and tens of trillions of dollars of underfunded entitlement programs. this is completely unsustainable. and in fact if we don't change the path that we're on, it can only lead to a financial crisis that could be absolutely devastating. the mountain of debt and the deficits we're running is already having a chilling effect on job creation because small businesses and entrepreneurs are unwilling to make an investment, unwilling to hire a worker with the threat of inflation, high interest rates and high taxes that these deficits and this debt 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 fiscal path and

help encourage the kind of job creation and economic growth that we badly need. >> although congress has a lot of power, wields too much power as many of us feel, congress lacks the power to bind any future congress. in other words, 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 won't repeal any law that we enact today. we can't bind the future congresses. that's why we have a constitution. there are some things that we want to stand the test of time. we want some things to be beyond the reach of future congresses. that's the reason why we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. rather than just a statutory spending limitation. we've got to bind future congresses' ability to spend money that we don't have, to continue to bury our posterity underneath a mountain of debt. if killing job creation in this country is killing our economy and it's eroding individual

liberty, it has to stop, the way to stop it is through a balanced budget amendment. when we promise only to cut, even if it's trillions of dollars, if that trillion dollar of cuts or trillions of dollars of cuts is stretched over a decade or more, we can't truly commit to that. it might be a promise, but it's a promise we can't keep. if we're reporting to bind future congresses. the only way to do is thank is through an amendment to the constitution. >> in a series of town hall meetings across my state, i would display a chart and the chart illustrated the growth in the federal deficit. and it occurred to me one day that in 1970 when i was a 20-year-old young man, our nation owed $380 billion. and that at age 65 it is projected, and i think these are optimistic projections, our

nation will owe $20 trillion. and that's a crisis. and that has been going on year after year, administration after administration. that's 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 don't borrow money. we have no indebtedness whatsoever. that's the state of nebraska. and how has it worked? it's worked great every year. why? because it forces us to make real decisions about where we want our state to head. during this economic time, our unemployment rate never exceeded 5%. our unemployment rate today is 4.1%. and i believe very, very strongly that a reason for that

is because we are responsible, not only with our money today but with the money of our children and our 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 for me, i'm the mother of two children, i don't want my children saying to me, mom, what did you do about it? and i think we should all be asking that question when we look at the amount of national debt. thank we are bearing right now as a nation. it's not only going to impact everyone here but it is going to impact our children and our grandchildren and we have always made a promise in this country that we would leave our country at least the same if not better for the next generation and we are breaching that promise and all we're saying is, let's live within

our means. i don't understand why we shouldn't get full support for a balanced budget amendment in the united states senate. when almost every state in the nation has the same requirement and every family has the same requirement at home. to not spend money that we don't have. we need those restrictions on congress because we've proven time and time and again that without these times of -- types of restrictions on the spending addiction here in washington we'll just continue to spend money that we don't have. so i urge my colleagues in the senate, on both sides of the aisle, to come together and to pass this commonsense 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 ripe for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it's time for the federal government to adhere to the same fiscal discipline that america's families and businesses and 49 states

follow. it's important because the fiscal crisis is at our doorstep. it's also important because we're not going to get this economy growing the way we'd all like to see without more fiscal discipline and the balanced budget would send that message of certainty and predictability. that private investers are looking for to bring back the jobs and get our economy back on track. >> my citizens back home constantly are talking to me about how irresponsible we are here in washington and i tell them that no matter how irresponsible they think that we are, i promise them that it's even worse. think about where we are today. we haven't had a budget in the senate for 791 days. think about that. we're spending $3.7 trillion and we don't have a budget, we haven't had one for 791 days. the oxygen is out of this building because everybody's focused on these debt ceiling talks. think about that. the only way that congress ever

acts today is if there's a crisis or some wall that they have to bump up against. i know that most of you know i've offered something called the cap amendment. it takes us from where we are today, spending relative to our economy from 24.5%, which is an all-time high, we haven't been at this level since 1945, even close to this level, and takes us down to the 40-year average, a very nominal thing, you would expect, of 20.6%. the problem is that statutory caps over time people fall off the wagon and they figure out ways of getting around it. so the reason that we need a balanced budget amendment or some type of constitutional amendment to limit spending is that congress will fall off the wagon. i mean, when the american people quit paying attention to what we're doing here, we will resort to our old ways. so i strongly support something that would anchor us in to make sure that congress again acts responsible because

unfortunately in this day and age it's only things like that that make us do that. thank you. >> i strongly commend our leader, mitch mcconnell, and my colleague, or inhatch, especially for bringing us together on a situation in which the american people want confidence that we are going to bring about a solution this year and one that will have laughter value. the value also is the balanced budget amendment and the procedures to adopt it finally require work on the huftings back home, require votes in legislatures, debates of citizens all over our country. this initiates a very, very important cause. and it initiates it at a very timely moment. and it initiates a discussion in which all of us, all around the country, will participate. so it's an honor to be with my colleagues at this particular moment and we thank you very

much for paying attention to our concerns. >> i had the opportunity to speak on the floor this morning in favor of the balanced budget amendment. i'm pleased to be part of 47 senators that are sponsoring this balanced budget amendment 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 that we live within our means but it's also been something we'll send out to the states, obviously, for their ratification as well. so we get the whole country involved in this endeavor. i served for the last 10 years as a governor and as you know the states balance their budget. we need to do the same. to review where we are for just a minute, today we borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend and our debt grows $4

billion a day. we need to take action, we need to take action now. that's what this balanced budget amendment is all about. and so again, we have 47 republican senators onboard, we invite our colleagues across the aisle to join us in this endeavor so that we can pass this balanced budget amendment, get it passed in the house and send it to the states. we need to do it. our debt is $14.5 trillion almost and a deficit that continues to grow. $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion a year. so we're joining together, the time for action is now and we invite everyone to step up and we hope to get this balanced budget amendment to the floor for a vote by middle of july. it's important that we do it, it's important for our country. thank you very much. >> well, this is about stepping

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

>> [inaudible]. >> well, i do believe that the debt we are carrying at this moment is pulling down the economy. the experts have told us when you have debt to g.d.p. reach 90%, you lose 1% of growth and 1% of growth is equal to the loss of a million jobs. so this is not an academic matter. we came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget when i first came to the senate , one vote. and i do believe that it would be a pricey step for the future. i think it's another example of the republican leadership stepping forward with real proposals that would change the course that we're now on, an unsustainable course. i'm pleased to support the amendment.

>> [inaudible]. >> for the last 40 years we've averaged revenues of 18%, 18.5%. we've also -- spending has been around a little bit close to 20%. the fact of the matter is we're at an all-time spending risk of 25.3% the last time i heard and the last time we hit that spending limit was in 1945 at the height of the second world war. so we've got to do something here. we just plain can't do it. i've been part of every balanced budget amendment since i've been here in 35 years. you can imagine if we had had that one more vote back in 1997? we actually had 67 votes when i opened the debate, when i opened the debate right before

the final vote and one of our people flipped off and we lost by one vote. but had we passed that balanced budget amendment back in 1997 we wouldn't be in this colossal mess we're in today. and we would have to live within our means. we'd have to make things work. we'd have to rely more on state governments and state leadership and frankly i don't think anybody can deny that. >> the president said in his press conference that he thinks republicans -- [inaudible]. >> the president does want -- their answer to everything in this administration and on the other side of the floor, a large number of them, is to increase taxes for everything. we've learned -- learned that by increasing taxes, we're at an all-time tax increase rate, we've got, like i say, three straight years with trillion-dollar deficits, the lowest the deficits are projected over the next 10 years is $600 billion. if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does. we also note that we're at 100%

of g.d.p. or we're going to be at 100% of g.d.p. in a short time. when you get there you're going to least lose 1% of jobs and everything else at that point. it's just a proven fact. and we're headed right there. and if we.net to 190% like it's projected, you're talking about a country that will be worse than -- worse off that greece vite now with much more complexity. >> [inaudible]. >> no. he wants to know if i'm willing to close tax expenditures. the fact of the matter is we need to completely change this tax code, make it fair, more simpler and get rid of all of the mess that it's in and if we're 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've been put in there in many respects for very good reasons and we have to be very, very careful about what we do there. now the democrats want to do away with, for instance, oil and gas tax expenditures. those are put in place to help independents who are doing most of the drilling and development in our country today. if you're going to do it, you don't selectively do it, you do it across the board and do you it by reducing tax rates, not by giving them more money to spend. i guarantee you this group will spend every dime they get. there's no question about it. and i'm talking about the congress, both sides, both sides of the hill. >> [inaudible]. of course we'd have to reconcile. if we passed it in the senate i think the house would take it. if they passed theirs, we'll certainly consider taking theirs. the fact of the matter is that we think this is the amendment that puts the proper restraints on government and we think that it's the one that will pass.

we need 50 democrats, 50 democrats to step up and say, you're right, we're tired of it too, we've got to do something about it and if they would, we'll pass this. now, look, for those who don't like the balanced budget amendment, it's not over for them. if we pass it through both houses of the congress by a 2/3 vote, all they have to do is get 13 states. why aren't they willing to embattle this out in the states? i think the reason is they know they'd lose and frankly i think the states would ratify this so fast our heads would be spinning. but it's going to take a year. if then. so it isn't over even if we pass it. so that's why we've got to pass it. and if these people really believe that they can win the debate out there, then let's pass it and let's have them try and win the debate. i'll tell you one thing, i'll be up and down this like you've never seen before and we'll win that, i think.

>> [inaudible]. >> there's nothing about any amendment and it shouldn't be easy. we're talking about amending our most important document in history and keep in mind we've only had 28 amendments to the constitution. and there's good reason for that. and so whatever we do is going to be difficult and that's why i don't see why democrats aren't willing to vote for it and take it to the people. after all, people are the ones that have to make this determination. i just believe they're afraid that we'd pass it. >> [inaudible]. >> well, because if you just pass that, that doesn't do the job. we've put language in here that really would give the teeth to doing the job. and that's why this amendment i think is going to work. plus it brought all 47 republicans. i've been on every balanced

budget amendment since i've been here and i've got to tell you, this is the first time i recall where we've had all republicans onboard. we know we're going to get democrats onboard. the question is can we get 20? i think we can. but they're going to have to stand up and face their voters at home and realize that they're all going to be mad about it because they know that we're not getting things under control the way things are going. and this president, look, i like him personally, there's no personal animosity there, but he's just not doing the job. and frankly there's good reason because he's got to satisfy a whole bunch of special interest groups that live off the federal government. and frankly we've got to end that. i'm going to have to get off. thanks so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senate democrats also held a news conference today where they called on republicans to include a repeal of ethanol subsidies as part of a final deal on the federal debt limit. the senators noted that 34

republicans recently voted on the senate floor to repeal the subsidies. speakers include democratic caucus vice chairman chuck schumer and new jersey senator bob menendez. this is 25 minutes. >> we're here to ask a very simple question to the republican leaders and to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, should a repeal of ethanol subsidies be included in a debt limit agreement? and any measure, the answer to that should be an obvious one. senator mcconnell himself voted to repeal ethanol subsidies this month as did 33 of his republican colleagues and 38 of our democratic colleagues, that is an overwhelming majority in the united states senate. for repealing ethanol subsidies. and at the time of huge deficits it seems to me that that is a bipartisan step that we can all take to save money.

and to meet our challenges as a country. however, since that vote, senator mcconnell has gone out on a limb and cut out in favor of opposing revenues of any kind, even if that means closing wasteful and unnecessary tax breaks and certainly the ethanol one is a huge example of that. we subsidize it, we subsidize the growth of corn, we have tariffs as it relates to potential competition that would drive down the cost for consumers. so it is a huge potential saving and i would continue to add to that reality, one that i've been calling for for some time that a majority of the senate voted for, a majority of the senate voted for, which is the $21 billion in oil subsidies to the big five, that they certainly don't need with record profits. so if you begin to look at ethanol, if you begin to look at oil subsidies, you can see a way in which you begin to

ultimately end the tax breaks that americans shouldn't bear anymore and that we can put towards deficit reduction and ultimately meet the challenges that this country has and ensure that this economy doesn't take a body blow by failing to meet to the nation's, you know, credit responsibilities. that's what this is all about. and the question is, are you going to join with us on the revenue side for which there have been votes in the senate, bipartisan votes in the senate, that make the compelling case that it's time to close the subsidies, time to close the loopholes, time to stand up for the peoples' interests instead of the special interests? >> thank you very much. president obama just delivered a talk to the nation where he made it clear that congress has the responsibility to send a

responsible plan to deal with our deficit and to raise the debt ceiling. and he mentioned that in order for this to be credible we need to eliminate the wasteful tax loopholes and provide the revenues necessary to pay our bills. and what is concerning to us is that the republican leader in the senate has said that he would not consider any revenues, even those that eliminate wasteful tax ex pecks tendture d expenditure loopholes, breaks that are that longer needed. we all understand that we need to move forward with a responsible plan to bring down government spending and to bring our budget closer to balance. nord that we can create jobs -- in order that we can create jobs. that's the most important thing for us to do. the ethanol subsidies should be an easy one for us to agree on. we already had the vote in the united states senate, we know the support's there. senator mcconnell appears to be saying that we can't even consider the repeal of ethanol. that will bring in at least $2

billion. this is a subsidy that's not needed, that is hurting our economy, it's hurting our economy directly and we represent maryland and we can tell you the impact it has on the poultry industry. eliminating the subsidy will help us preserve jobs in agriculture in this region. because of the cost of corn associated with corn ethanol. so not only will the repeal of this subsidy help us to bring forward a credible plan to deal with our deficit, and ethanol's just one example, there are many other examples of loopholes and unnecessary tax breaks in the tax code that we could agree upon. to start us moving forward with a responsible plan to reduce our national deficit, we need to increase our debt ceiling, we need to make sure that our nation's not put at risk. i think the president's call was the right call, we urge

senator mcconnell to be responsible and allow us to consider in this package tax breaks that shouldn't be there, loopholes that we can close so that we can move our nation forward. and with that let me turn it over to senator whitehouse. >> thank you, ben. 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 just vote for them? this is not a question of being for it before you were against it, this is a question of being for it and against it at the same time. and if we can resolve that discrepancy on ethanol, there's no reason that we shouldn't go forward on oil and gas subsidies, at a time when the oil and gas companies are making the biggest profits in history and there's no reason we can't start going through

the tax code for special interest corporate tax deductions. these are nothing more than earmarks in the tax code. when there are earmarks, the republicans when there are earmarks in the tax code that help their corporate supporters, then suddenly it's a different story. and while the fiscal security of our nation hangs in the balance, this is the wrong time to be forcing those wrong priorities on the american people. >> for more frugal government. i have been willing since january the 11th to vote for cuts. i supported the ban on earmarks . in january i voted for $41 million -- $41 billion of cuts in the continuing resolution. in march i once again voted for $10 billion cuts in the c.r. to avoid a government shut-down

and again to move to a more balanced frugal government. i also stood on the senate floor and voted to get rid of lavish subsidies that do not grow our economy but simply grow our deficit. and i voted to end the ethanol loophole, and now i want, along with my colleagues, this to be part of the deficit reduction deal as we move into lifting the debt ceiling. i want the republicans to put their votes where their mouth is. i want them to say if they want to reduce the deficit and the 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 that that revenue saving go in the budget. ethanol is costing us jobs on the eastern shore. corn is now $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 we have jobs that made maryland great, and i want to get rid of the subsidies that add to our deficit. and i want to say this then to my republican colleagues. hey, what happened to the party of lincoln? hey, what happened to the party of teddy roosevelt? hey, what happened to the party of ronald reagan? when people could come together and find the sensible center to solve the nation's problems? i am finding that each day their rigidity, their doctrine

approach, clinging not to philosophy and principle, but rigid ideology, is bringing our country to the brink of disaster. we are not some third world country going to something like a banana republic regime. if they want to, i would tell them they could slip on their own peel. let's eliminate the subsidy in the deficit reduction, and let's not fool around here. >> i have just learned the first lesson of my short senate career, never follow barbara to the podium. the american people get it. for them, the ethanol subsidy epitomizes what is wrong with warrant. the loopholes, giveaways,

ethanol is the poster child for what's wrong with washington. ending this subsidy will not solve the budget problem alone, but it is a start and a necessary 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 a bipartisan basis to end the ethanol subsidy, gain revenue and at the same time begin the steps toward fiscal

responsibility that are so absolutely necessary. this $2 billion is a solid start, real money. but more important is the symbolic and the message step that it will embody. i'm proud to introduce chuck schumer. >> well, thank you, and i want to thank my colleagues. you heard the passion and the straight forwardness with which they have spoken. that is because this issue is such an obvious one. we are hitting crunch time in these debt ceiling talks. if we are going to reach a grand bargain, neither side can cling to its ideological positions any longer. the republican leadership is struggling to let go of its sacred cows even though momentum is not on their side. earlier this month, grover norquist took a purist position against any revenues whatsoever. he said not only do tax breaks

for millionaires need to be protected, it was also wrong for any republican to roll back any loophole in the tax code no matter how waistful. 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. for some reason, even after that vote, leader mcconnell is trying to resurrects this approach. leader mcconnell has decided to walk out on the same limb as grover norquist. he is being adamant that we should figure out a way to achieve $4 trillion in debt reduction without including any revenues at all. it seems leader mcconnell is willing to tang the economy for the sake of protecting tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets. in addition to being wrong on

the substance, leader mcconnell proposal is pretty much a mathematical impossible. the gang of six looked at revenues. so much the final deal that the president will negotiate with speaker boehner and leader reed. now many in senator mcconnell's own part are abandonning his rigid stance against revenues. one leader said, i think the president's own fiscal commission pointed out that there is a lot of money used in tax expenditures. i think we ought to get them all out on the table and see which ones make sense. his wors, now ours. senator alexandria." it is a good time to ache a hard look at unwarranted tax breaks." again, not one of us. another member of the republican leadership.

and yesterday, fox news reported that senator company burn is putting -- coburn it is putting together his own plan. it seeks to cut $9 trillion. senator mcconnell is being contradicted by many in his own party. it seems he has ventured out on a limb, and many in his own caucus are sawing it off. he seems to even be contradicting himself. he was among the 34 republicans who voted to end ethanol subsidies. he is for it and against it at the same time. it makes no sense for leader mcconnell to on one hand say he agrees that ethanol subsidies are wasteful but then to stick to an ideological, wait-out-there principle that we can't eliminate that subsidy in the debt limit deal. 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 that other sacrifices are shared? it is clear that certain republicans are twisting themselves into knots in their attempts to justify this idea that we cannot include revenues in this deal. [inaudible question] >> whatever the amount of money , is his significant. it could be $3 billion if senator feinstein and others come it a compromise, it will be at least $2 billion. it is a significant amount of money. and hopefully it will break this logjam that no revenues can be included that senator

mcconnell has created but many of his colleagues are abandoning. let me turn to some of my other colleagues to answer questions, too. [inaudible question] >> look, 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 debts. and so you know, we could get up and make that comment, too. 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 2nd if we don't raise the debt ceiling. it will be one that will create trauma for millions and millions and millions of innocent people and could send us back into recession. so that kind of comment is not productive or helpful. and if every negotiator, every

leader, every senator or house leader said my way or no way, we are not going to get anything done. >> we all have a responsibility to act here. the voters in the midterm gave us a congress that was divided. we have a democratic president. we have a democratically controlled senate, and we have a republican controlled house. we have different views. but we have a response, and the american people expect that we are going to work together. we don't have to compromise our principles, but we have to be able to bring a credible plan to deal with the federal deficit because it is that important to our nation. the democrats are prepared to do it. we have said that. we had that we are prepared to work with our republican colleagues to bring about a real plan to control our deficit. we have done this before. we had a deficit before in the 1990's, and we worked hard and brought the budget into

balance. we know how to do it, and we are prepared to do this. but you have to have a responsible partner. and when speaker boehner says there is not the votes for any revenues, he is telling you that the republicans are prepared to be serious about a plan for the deficit. we won't accept that because the issues are too important. we are going to continue to work for a bipartisan agreement on the budget deficit. we understand it won't be everything we want, but we will stand up and defend the christians pls we think -- the principles that we think are important for american jobs. >> are any of you prepared to vote against a package if it does not address revenues? >> we certainly want to have a credible plan to deal with the federal deficit. we think that is very important for this country, and we are

holding out. our negotiations are aimed at a credible 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. we will see what is brought forward as part of that. but i must tell you, if we are going to deal with this deficit and get it minkable, you can't -- manageable, you can't do it without a balanced approach. you need to eliminate the loopholes we cannot afford and need to help the deficit. >> first of all, when speaker 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 around the kitchen table trying to figure out how you keep your mortgage paid,

how you pay your kids' tuition, how you take care of a loved one who happens to be with you and your family, but we are going to ask you to make enormous sacrifices on behalf of the country. but we are going to tell the top five oil companies in the country who are going to make $144 billion in profits, not one cent out of your pocket. we are going to tell this very limited ethanol industry, not one cent out of your pocket. we are going to tell working americans the sacrifice is all 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 will find it extremely difficult. we want to be responsible. we believe the nation has to meet its obligations. the consequences of it not meeting its obligations are enormous to our economy, an economy that is in recovery but

that could take a body blow that would send it right back, that would put more people unemployed. that is what the speaker is telling people. but at the end of the day to suggest that 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 will have difficulty in supporting a debt ceiling increase without revenue. and when i talk about revenue, ending these tax loopholes and the tax breaks that that companies in america are getting at the expense of the american taxpayer. i don't know how america would accept that. i don't think they will. every poll i read says they want to see the tax breaks closed, especially when they are making tough choices.

>> he needs democrats to pass a built through the house. there are enough republican caucus members who will not vote for any debt ceiling increase. he can't do it without democrats. for speaker boehner to say, as was mentioned before, that he doesn't have the votes for it. well, he doesn't have the votes if he didn't have revenues, because he is not going to get democratic votes without revenues, and he doesn't have enough republican votes on his own to cast it. that, my friend, is major difference between this and the c.r. the house can't lob things over to us because they don't have the ability to do so in their caucus. as for amounts, those should be gornlted. every one of us could come up with a budget plan in the

senate, and we would have 100 budget plans with one vote. everyone in the house could come up with one, and they would have 435 plans with one vote. that is paralysis. we all have to come together, swallow some things that each of us doesn't like for the good of america. that is what the american people have told us to do. we are swallowing things we don't like. you heard what barbara mccull ski said. she disliked a lot of the things she had to do, but she was willing to do it for the country. the republican party, leader mcconnell and speaker boehner have to realize that lesson, or we will face staster. disaster. >> i can't hear you. i am sorry. [inaudible question] >> we need revenues to contribute to deficit

reduction. grover norquist doesn't want to contribute one nickel of revenues to deficit reduction. >> on the ongoing association, there would be money for the deficit reduction from the tax cuts. >> well, look, we are all hopeful that senators feinstein and others who are on opposite ends of this can come together for an agreement. i am all for research into cellulosic ethanol because that is the way to go. i am for helping that research. that's my view. but the point is we will have a minimum of $2 billion for

deficit reduction with an agreement and probably a greater amount without it. let's hope they can come to an agreement. >> let me make one final point before we go and ask all of you . the speaker has used the word tax increases. they use the words tax increases all the time. in doing so they are trying to convince the ordinary american with an ordinary income that there is an intention to increase that american's taxes. you all have a responsibility to make clear that that is not true. that there is an absolute agreement that people making less than $250,000 are not in this equation. we are talking about high end incomes, corporate tax loopholes and special interest stuff. you shouldn't allow the shorthand to confuse that stuff. thank you very much. >> thank you, everybody.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> up next on c-span, presidential advisor john brennan presents the administration's new counterterrorism strategy. then a security committee hearing on protecting u.s. diplomats working overseas. and a senate commerce committee hearing on rules protecting consumer data privacy. >> tomorrow on c-span, the senate homeland security committee holds a hearing on afghanistan reconstruction contracts. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org.

tune in to c-span this independence day. write michael lind and other panelists discuss if the united states can remain united. >> at the political level we are more divided than at any point since the civil war and reconstruction. >> then the dalai lama and others talk about religion, violence and the death penalty. later, nixon white house insiders discuss his foreign policy. this monday, july 4th, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. for the complete schedule of programs and times, go to c-span.org. >> every saturday in july, hear historic supreme court orally arguments on c-span radio about 14th amendment cases on equal protection, including sexual orientation, and gender and race discrimination. coming up, 1982 case, moip women versus hogan.

tune in on xm slight radio 119. >> president obama's counterterrorism and homeland security advisor john brennan unveiled the administration's new counterterrorism strategy today. it focuses on al qaeda's ability to attack the u.s. and the role of pakistan in disrupting terrorist networks. the johns-hopkins school of advanced studies held this event. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> well, i am jessica eimhorn, and i must say i have never heard it so quiet in a room before. i think that is a sense of our ants makes and excitement about the program today. welcome, everyone. many honored guests, dear students, faculty and others. we are pleased and honored to

host john brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. to introduce our speaker and moderate the program today, we have found the perfect person, and that is right here in our community. professor john mcgloucklin is a distinguished practitioner in residence. as many of you, he had a highly distinguished career at the c.i.a. beginning in 1972 and rising to the rank of deputy director and actsing director in 2004. no one could have a keener appreciation of the challenges facing our speaker every day. he prepared for his distinguished career as a student where he earned his graduate degree and where he is

now a most outstanding member of our community, devoted to students, alumni and institutional building. professor? >> nothing has affected the lives of americans more than the fact of a possible terrorist attack. in 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 precedent in american history, this has turned out to be true. in the process, u.s.

counterterrorism policy has evolved as progress has occurred and has new threats have appeared. and the adversary, thinking mainly of al qaeda, has also changed. showing signs of vulnerability while also experimenting with new tactics and becoming in some ways more elusive. with the death of osama bin laden two months ago, the united states has arrived at a milestone of sorts. but many are asking what does this mean? how do we assess the threat now? what work remains to be done? what strategy is most appropriate for this new phase? here to discuss this with us today is someone i know to be one of the nation's most dedicated public senior advance. john brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

it's hard to imagine anyone better prepared for these responsibilities than john brennan. prior to joining the president in 2009, mr. brennan had a lengthy career in government and in the private sector. counterterrorism has been a thread running through his career since the early 1990's. a graduate of forward ham university and the -- fordham university and the university of texas at austin, he began serving in the c.i.a. in 1980. he held major responsibilities in analysis, overseas operations and leadership at c.i.a. headquarters. he served as the chief of the c.i.a. station in a major middle east earn country, then as chief of staff and then deputy director at the agency. foreshadowing his current responsibilities, mr. brennan add mid decade designed and

built the nation's first national counterterrorism center. following his c.i.a. career, and prior to joining the obama administration, mr. brennan in the private sector was the president and c.e.o. of the analysis corporation and the chairman of the intelligence and national security alliance, an association of public and private sector national security leaders. but for anyone who knows mr. brennan, there is something greater than than the sum of these parts. stated simply, the nation does not have a harder working, more tireless public servant. a person of absolute integrity dedicate to keeping this country safe. it is my pleasure now to present to you john brennan. [applause] >> thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here today. and thank you, dean, for your

warm welcome and for your decades of service in government, global institutions and here. it is a special pleasure for me to be introduced by john, a friend and colleague of many years and one of our nation's greatest intelligence professionals. while as c.i.a., john was referred to as the world's smartest man, and he was frequently introduced that way, and nobody ever debated the man. he is also the world's nicest man and greatest magician. if you haven't seen his magic, you are missing out on something. it sternl is a pleasure for me to be here -- certainly a pleasure for me to be here. an institution that has instilled a pragmatic approach to problem-solving that is essential for effective conduct of foreign policy. i want to thank the mayoral center for strategic studies for its emphasis on national security and for joining with the office of the director of

nationality intelligence to introduce students to our intelligence commupet and insmiring the next generation of intelligence professionals. it is wonderful to see so many friends and colleagues i have had the privilege of working with over the years. you have devoted your lives to helping protect this nation from many threats, including the one that brings me here today. that is the continued terrorist threat from al qaeda. today we are releasing president obama's national strategy for counterterrorism, which formalizes the approach we have been pursuing and adapting for the past two and a half years to prevent terrorist attacks, and to ensure al qaeda's demise. i am pleased that we are joined by dedicated professionals from across the government who helped to shape our strategy and who work tirelessly every day to keep our country safe. thank you for being here, and thank you for your dedicated

service over many years. i wanted to point out that an unclassified summary of our strategy is posted to our website, whose than gov, and copies will be made to the public in the coming days. in the time i have with you, i would like to put our strategy in con second. i would like to outline its key goals and principles and describe how we are putting these principles interest practice to protect the american people. i want to i want to begin with shaping the larger counterterrorism efforts. this starts with the recognition this counterterrorism strategy is only one part of president obama's larger national security strategy. this is very important. our counter-terrorism policy cannot define our entire foreign policies. they are designed to

reinforce our broader security interests. since taking office, president obama has worked to restore a positive vision of americans around the world. this provides the security, opportunity, and dignity that america advances in partnership with people all around the world. this has enhanced our national security in many areas against many threats. at the same time, many of the president's broader foreign policy and national security initiatives also help achieve the more focused counter- terrorism goals. the address the political, economic, and social conditions that can sometimes fuel violent extremism and pushed certain individuals into the arms of al qaeda. for instance, when our diplomats promote the peaceful resolution of political disputes and grievances, when our trade and economic policies generate growth to lift people out of poverty, when our development experts support good governance

that addresses people's basic needs, when we stand up for universal human rights, all of this can also undermine modern violent extremism and terrorism like calcutta. a peaceful, political, and economic social progress and the mind claim that the only way to achieve change is through violence -- undermine the claim that the only way to achieve change is through violence. our strategy recognizes our counter-terrorism efforts benefit from and at times it depend on broader foreign policy efforts. even as our strategy focuses more narrowly on preventing terrorist attacks against our interests at home and abroad. this, obviously, is also the first counterterrorism strategy to reflect the extraordinary political changes that are sweeping the middle east and north africa. it is true these changes may bring new challenges and uncertainty in the short term,

as we are seeing in yemen. it is also true terrorist organizations in nations that support them will seek to capitalize on the instability that change sometimes brings. that is why we are working closely with allies and partners to make sure that these malevolent actors did not succeed in hijacking this moment of hope for their violent ends. as president obama has said, these dramatic changes also marked a historic moment of opportunity. so, too, for our counter- terrorism efforts. for decades, terrorist organizations like al qaeda have preached that the and the way to effect change is through violence. now that claim has been thoroughly repudiated and has been repudiated by ordinary citizens in tunisia, egypt, and beyond, were changing and challenging their governments through peaceful protests even as they are sometimes met with horrific brutality.

moreover, the citizens have rejected the medieval ideology about cutting that divides people by state and gender, opting instead to work together, muslims and christians, men and women, secular and religious. it is the most profound change in the modern history of the arab world, and al qaeda and its ilk have been left on the sidelines watching history pass them by. meanwhile, president obama has placed the united states on the right side of history, pledging our support for the political and economic reforms and universal human rights people in the region are demanding. this also has profound implications for our counterterrorism efforts. against this backdrop, our strategy is precise about the threat that we face and the goals that we seek. it was once observed but one of the most dangerous forms of human error is forgetting what one is trying to achieve, and president obama is adamant we never forget who we are fighting for what we're trying to achieve.

but we start by saying our strategy is not designed to combat directly every single terrorist organization in every corner of the world. many of which have neither the intent nor the capability to ever attack the that the states for our citizens. our strategy recognizes there are numerous nations and groups that support terrorism in order to oppose u.s. interests. iran and syria remain leading state sponsors of terrorism. hezbollah and hamas are terrorist organizations that threaten israel and our interests in the middle east. we will therefore continue to use the full range of our foreign policy tools to prevent these regimes and terrorist organizations from endangering our national security. president obama has made it clear the united states is determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. we will continue to work closely with allies and partners, including sharing and acting upon intelligence to prevent the flow of weapons and funds to hezbollah and hamas to prevent

attacks against our allies, citizens, or our interests. the principal focus of this counterterrorism strategy and the focus of our efforts since president obama took office is the network that poses the most direct and significant threat to the united states, and that is al qaeda, its affiliates, and its adherents, and we use these terms deliberately. it is al qaeda, the core group founded by osama bin laden, that has murdered our citizens and the bombings of our embassies in kenya and be a tax on the uss coal and the attacks of september 11. it is the al qaeda affiliates, groups that are part of its network, will share its goals, that have also attempted to attack our homeland. it was al qaeda in the arabian peninsula based in yemen that attempted to bring down the airliner over detroit and which put explosives on cargo planes bound for the united states.

it was the pakistani taliban that sent the failed attempt to blow up an suv in times square, and it is al qaeda adherents, individuals sometimes with little or no direct physical contact with al qaeda, who have succumbed to the stifel ideology and who have engaged in or facilitated terrorist activities here in the united states. these misguided individuals are spurred on by the likes of al qaeda. they speak english and preach violence in videos of the internet. we have seen the tragic results, the murder of the military recruiter in arkansas two years ago and the attack on our service men and women in fort hood. this is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al qaeda and its network to inspire people in the united states to attack us from within. this is the first counterterrorism strategy that

designates the homeland as the primary area of emphasis in our counter-terrorism efforts. our strategy is also shaped by a deeper understanding of al qaeda's goals, strategies, and tactics we have gained over the last decade. i am not talking about their grandiose vision of global domination through violence. that vision is absurd, and we're not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a delusion that is never going to happen. we're not going to elevate these thugs and they're murderous aspirations and to something larger than they are. rather, president obama is determined that our foreign and national security policies not play and 2 al qaeda's strategy or work ideology. al qaeda 62 terrorize us into retreating from the world stage, -- al qaeda seeks to terrorize us into retreating from the world stage, but president obama is strengthening alliances and deepening partnerships.

a cat that wishes to terrorize -- al qaeda wishes to betray us as against islam, but president obama is showing we're not. they also hope to lead us into a long, costly war. under president obama, we're working to end the war is an abstract and afghanistan responsibly, even as we keep unrelenting pressure on al qaeda. going forward, we will be mindful that our nation is threatened, our best offense will not always be deploying large armies a broad but rather to live during targeted, surgical pressure it to the groups that threaten us. al qaeda seeks to portray itself as a religious movement defending the rights of muslims, but the u.s. will continue to expose al qaeda as nothing more than murders. they purport to be islamic, but they are neither religious leaders norsk others. there is nothing islamic or holy about slaughtering innocent

men, women, and children. the claim to protect muslims, but the vast majority of the victims are in fact innocent muslim men, women, and children, and it is no wonder that the overwhelming majority of the world's moslems have rejected al qaeda and their ranks of supporters continue to decline. just as our strategy is precise about war enemy is, it is clear about our posture as well as our goal. this is a war, a broad, sustained integrated campaign that harnesses every element of american power, and we seek nothing less than the other destruction of this evil that calls itself al qaeda. to achieve this goal, we need to dismantle the core of the cut, its leadership in the tribal regions of pakistan, and prevented from reestablishing in in the region. we came to render the heart of al qaeda in capable of launching attacks against our homeland, citizens, or allies, as well as

preventing them from inspiring affiliate's adherence to do so. this also means of addressing the serious threats they pose outside of asia. this does not require a global war but it requires a focus on specific regions, including the periphery, yemen, somalia, iraq. this is another important distinction that characterizes this strategy. it has looked increasingly to these other groups and individuals to take up its cause, including its goal of striking the united states. to destroy al qaeda, we're pursuing a specific counter- terrorism objectives. we're protecting our homeland by constantly reducing our vulnerabilities and adapting and updating our defenses. we're taking the fight to wherever the cancer of the al

qaeda manifests itself, degrading its capabilities and disrupting its operations. we are degrading the capabilities of their senior leadership to inspire, to medicate with, and direct operations of adherents around the world. we're denying them any safe haven, the physical sanctuary they need to train, plot, and launch attacks against us. we're confronting their ideology which attempts to exploit local and often legitimate grievances in an attempt to justify its violence. we're depriving them of their enabling means, including the illicit financing, logistical support, and on-line communications that sustain its network. we're working to prevent al qaeda from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction, which is why president obama is leading the global effort to secure the materials within four years. these goals are not new. in fact, they track closely with the goals of the previous

administration. this illustrates another important characteristic of this strategy. it need represents a wholesale overhaul bill or a wholesale retention of previous policies. president obama's approach to counter-terrorism is pragmatic, not ideological, based on what works and what our experience has then. it is built on policies and practices that have been instituted and refund of the past decades, in partnership with congress, a partnership we are determined to continue, and reflects an evolution in our understanding of the threat and our capabilities of the government's, the capacity of our partners, and the tools and technologies at our disposal. what is new and i believe distinguishes this strategy is the principles that are caught in our efforts to destroy al qaeda. first we are using every tool and a 40 available. no single agency or department has sole responsibility for this fight because no single department or agency possesses

all the capabilities needed for this fight. this is and must be a whole government effort, and that is why the obama administration has strengthened the tools that we need. we have strength and intelligence, expanding human intelligence and analyst of skills, and we're improving our capabilities and learning from our experiences. following the attack at fort hood and the failed attack over detroit, we have created new groups to track information and enhanced cooperation among our intelligence agencies, including better information sharing so all threats are acted upon quickly. we have strengthened our military capabilities, increased the size of our special forces, sped up the deployment of unique assets so i cut it enjoys no safe haven, and insured our military and intelligence professionals are working more closely than ever before. we have strengthened, as occurred with multilayered defense, bolstering security at the borders, ports, and reports, improving partnerships with

state and local governments, including sharing more information, increasing the capacity of first responders, and preparing for by a terrorism. we're finally fulfilling key recommendations of the 9/11 commission. learning the lessons of recent plots and attempted attacks, we've increased aviation security by strengthening our watch list procedures ensuring information real-time, enhancing screening of cargo, and for the first time ensuring total screening of all passengers traveling in, too, and from the u.s., which was another recommendation of the 9/11 commission, and we are constantly assessing and improving our defenses as we did in replacing the old color coded for a system with a more targeted approach that provides detailed information about specific credible threats and suggested protective measures. we're using the full range of law-enforcement tools to build an effective and durable legal framework for the war against al

qaeda, including arson of most effective tool for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists and a proven tool for gathering intelligence and preventing attacks, the article 3 courts. that also includes military commissions which at times offer unique advantages. this framework includes the recently renewed patriot act. we must have a legal framework that provides our extraordinary intelligence, comparison, and law-enforcement professionals with all the tools they need to do their job and keep our country safe. we must not and will not tie their hands. for all these tools to work properly, departments and agencies across the federal government must work cooperatively. today, personnel working more closely together than ever before. the success to kill osama bin laden was not because of one single piece of information or

one person, it was the result of many people working together closely over many years, and that is what will continue to do. even as we use every tool, we are guided by the second principle, the need for partnerships with countries and institutions around the world because no one nation can bring about a cut of's demise. we have made enormous progress building and strengthening the international architecture to confront the threat from al qaeda that includes credit corporation with multilateral institutions, nato allies, regional organizations, and the african union. over the past 2.5 years we have increased efforts to build the capacity of partners so they can take the fight to al qaeda in their own countries. that is why a key element of the president's strategy in afghanistan is growing afghan security forces. it is why we will soon begin the transition so afghans to take responsibility for their own

security and why we must continue our cooperation with pakistan. we have been reminded that our relationship with pakistan is not without tension or frustration. we are now working with our pakistani partners to overcome differences and continue efforts against our common enemies. it is essential we do so. as frustrating as this relationship can sometimes be, pakistan has been critical to many of our most significant successes against al qaeda. tens of thousands of pakistani military and civilians have given their lives to fight against militancy. despite recent tensions, i am confident pakistan will be one of our most important to terrorism partners. these kinds of security partnerships are absolutely vital. the critical intelligence that allowed us to discover the explosives that were being shipped to the u.s. in this part of plans was provided by our saudi arabian partners. al qaeda in iraq has suffered

major losses at the hands of iraqi security forces trained by the u.s. despite the ongoing instability, our counter- terrorism efforts with yemen continues, at a recent territorial gains made by militants only makes our partnership with yemen more important.

>> there are not part of the problem. they are part did the solution. we are building a culture of resilience.

>> at the same time, they recognize that no nation no matter how powerful, including a free and open society of 300 million americans can prevent every single threat of every single american. it is not enough to be prepared. and have to be results appear we can stand against the critical and pressured share thereby denying them the damage and destruction that it seeks. we are a strengthening the partnership. as a resilient people, we must remember that everyone of us can help 5 al qaeda of the success it seeks. al qaeda wants to terrorize.

we must not given to fear. we must a true to who we are. this is the principle that defies all the others. we will uphold the values. i have spent more than 30 years working with our nation's security. a understand the abilities of the communities. i understand the less powerful weapon of all that we must never forsake is to the world. we play right into the hands of al qaeda. it is living our values. it helps keep us safe. we stand for a human rights. that is why president obama made

it clear that the united states of america does not torture. we will oppose the rule of law at home including the civil liberties of all americans. it is because of our commitment of the rule of law that we will never waver in their conviction that the united states a more secure and that there ultimately close. communicating to the world what america represents also undermines our twisted ideology. we remember the diversity of faith and the ground is not a weakness but the strain. for may showed that muslim americans are part of our american family. remember that is long as part of america.

these are core principles. this is a strategy that has more pressure. we have door to the attackswe 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. al qaeda's third ranking leader 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.