-- this young lady right here. >> happy birthday. >> she looks like she's about 29. >> well, i had heard that can then falls has some of the smartest, best looking kids are round. you have confirmed about the outstanding children. thank you very much everybody. god bless you.

pat pat nefand in a few moments, more reaction to the reaction of the riots in england. president obama at town hall meeting in at minnesota. gop presidential candidate, former governor of louisiana, criticizes other republicans in the president for taking contributions from political action committees. now, the national security.

>> we will jump right into this because there is a lot to cover. i think all of us know who we have up here. it is a stellar cast. >> you could not ask for a better panel. i want to start right here with

you to ask the most obvious questions -- some of these will be obvious and some will not. we will start here and go down. it is almost 10 years since 911. >> i want to talk about four things to help get the conversation going. number one, we came after their home sanctuary and set them on the run. what this does, it degraded their operational capability. for instance, and 911 was the third intercontinental operation. there was inter-continental operations in 1998 in east africa, in 2000, the operation

against uss coal, and then nine/11. there operational capabilities have been degraded, so they rely on local, regional networks of people in europe and asia who then may get some training and advice from pakistan or yemen that launched primarily regional operations on a lesser scale. no. 1, broke up the sanctuary in afghanistan in the allied governments and cobol. no. 2, the sheer quality of attention being given to law enforcement intelligence and defense officials. if you simply did the numbers and calculated amounts of money spent on counter-terrorism, not just in the united states but all western european governments, in the governments of asia, japan, australia, and even pakistan, jordan, egypt --

the number of people devoted to this task in mission, you would see an off the charts number of mena to changes and bewildering variety of international connections have an effect. third, the united states became a -- one reason why no attacks in the united states, the attack in fort hood is actually the deadliest attack carried out inside the united states -- that carried out by a deranged fanatic -- 9 cents 11. notice, the nine \ 11 attacks was a good place to stage. they chose to states and it train inside the united states.

the united states was actually a highly hospitable place to state and train at leisure. the united states actually became a very difficult place in which to state and trying -- especially with foreign operatives. one aspect of that problem not only the work of vhs and the fbi and many local law-enforcement agencies, but another important aspect of that is travel. it is become much harder for terrorists to travel -- there is a lot of attention that is very important. i do not think there is usually enough attention given to terrorist travel. terrorists are like submarines. they need to pass undetected. travel is where they have to go to international airports and present international documents are those rare times the summary really has to surface under the

guns of law-enforcement officers. if you read the terrorist literature, they devote enormous and even obsessive attention to their travel problems. that is why they want people who have western passports, who look westar, other things. from their point of view, if you have a one in three chance of being caught -- and being caught means you spend the rest of your life in jail or guantanamo, one in three chances to high. you can deter people from moving first intercontinental the if you may travel much riskier or they perceive it is much riskier. those three things is where i would start off answering your question. with one little thing at the end. the basic al qaeda narrative has fragmented and become more discredited within the muslim world. it became fragmented because before 9/11, you had a supreme is the agenda that was local --

primarily local against the local regimes they hated. there was hatred of the egyptian regime, the saudi regime and so on. it was pre-empted for a time by a global risk islamic agenda. it has turned back to the local agenda were they are focused more on regime is closer to home. pakistani regime they hate, the yemen resumed want to overthrow and so on. the global list agenda has lost a lot of credibility in part because the largest majority of people that have killed since 9/11 have been fellow muslims. >> that is a very positive and uplifting presentation you just made. it begs the question -- is it time to stop worrying quite so much? >> first of all, i want to clarify. i am not just's favorite person. sidney harman was jeff ' favorite person. >> it is not time to stop

worrying. "i am misinterpreting to provoke you. >> to revoke can? >> to provoke you. >> that is not want to provoke him. i think it is much harder to mount here now. michael can go through the range of things we have done to make airplanes more secure including heartening cockpits, u.s. visits, screening, and so forth. i think everybody gets that. he trained by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, but try by pakistan, almost got through. that was christmas day, 2009.

i believe that specific kind of attack is less likely to happen. however, i think that al qaeda, as i said on other panels, is more into a different organization. it is no longer a top-down, led by folks in afghanistan and now in pakistan. it is now a loose affiliation of horizontal -- a horizontal organization with loose affiliations. our very successful efforts to degrade the top leadership in pakistan do not mean that there is not potent leadership and other places. in that connection, i just learned that yesterday, there was a significant speech at john hopkins announcing that the administration's focus is shifting worldwide to a

counterterrorism strategy focused on loose affiliation of al qaeda cells and the intent is to block them from attacking us here in the homeland. that i think is the right focus in something we should have done. let me add one more thing. i think an airplane attack is less likely, but i think there are other ways that we could see a significant attack in this country. we need to be prepared. one of them is a dirty bomb attack. when we get back to this, i will explain why i think there's a real risk of something like that which will be far more lethal overtime than a conventional attack which i think we are also likely to see. >> i want to do routes and a little bit on what you fear the most. let me turn to you for a couple of things. i will get to tsa, believe me. i want to go to something.

we were talking about this before, he'd been laid in a moment. -- that osama bin laden moment. are we safer because osama bin laden is dead or are we less safe because osama bin laden is dead? or is it irrelevant? >> i would not say it is irrelevant. a positive development. justice is done, it demonstrates to the world that we are capable and willing to take a very aggressive and successful kinetic actions to kill people that are trying to kill us. that is an important lesson that needs to be driven home. here is what we do not know. we do not know what the next round of leadership is going to be. my own view is he is a transitional figure. you bet a younger generation of faults. you have two guys that -- he is

a radical preacher. both live a long time in the united states. he has been on the wanted list forever. these are younger folks, they are operational, and they understand the united states and the west. maybe less significantly, they are not bound up in repeating 11. success of 9/;11 there is a tendency to want to repeat something again and again when there is a success. they would not benefit from that. the focus on high end a tax, which are difficult to execute. now, you have a generation who are liberated from that. they say we might go for a lot of small attacks. we are going to do mumbai and

do it five, six, eight times. no attack is catastrophic, but the net affect is very troubling and problematic. we are going to need to retool our strategy and not get complacent about what works. start to look down at what is going down on the ground level including the united states where we have seen times were bombing effort -- he is our american -- these are attacks from inside the united states and people who are allowed to be here. we need to collect and analyze evidence. >> let me ask you -- the strategy that he was just praising had some problematic features. it is focused on al qaeda as an organization and its affiliates. it does not really -- brendan

speech really does not get into very much the idea that it is too late or semi irrelevant to deal with al qaeda central because you have self radicalization of lots of cells. i am wondering -- >> i do not think that is right. i do not think in terms of travel and international operatives coming in, i do not think it matters of people are formally al qaeda or not al qaeda. i think it makes it very difficult. that is why what you are seeing is the emphasis on trying to radicalize and train people in place. >> but the strategy does not grow with ideologies very much. it deals with knocking out an organization, but it does not grapple with the underpinnings of this movement. >> i think some of that as well. that is an idea -- that is an area where we are not well situated to be out front.

people who are listening to the narrative of radical islam and islamist extremism are not interested in working with the united states interpretation. that is where the community has to get involved. they have to rescue their own youth from the people who are trying to come in and convert them to suicide bombers. >> can you grapple with the new obama strategy for a minute and grapple with something that is very interesting that has developed in three or four years. of was during a session this morning, he talked about how we have two combat forces now. in the real world, we have special forces during operations with any number of countries. online, we have other fighters who are battling al qaeda in the internet space. i wonder if you can talk about that a little bit. talk about the thing that you are known as the world wide expert on, cyber terrorism and

whether talking about terrestrial attacks -- bombs, we are talking about the wrong thing at this point. >> let me start by saying it that i did not think the new strategy was a very much different from the old strategy. it is basically find those who wish us harm and hold them accountable. i was given a speech in detroit the moment after it was announced that osama bin laden was dead. i chose to start my speech by lighting a cigar. ipod, cigar and said to my group, how about them seals? i got a roaring crowd of applause. a reporter came up and said, are you celebrating the death of a human being? >> i said no, i am celebrating the death -- celebrating a victory of america.

we set our mind to doing all of the things that were commented on the speakers. i do not see strategy as particularly different. what i do worry about is those who wish us harm at an extremist level. we want to change -- who want to change the world order. those who can -- what i have spoken about most and focused on most, we can go back and visit that if you like. but there are lots of potential attack sectors -- what would be biological. you will see them start to focus on this issue because it is relatively simple to do. recall right after 9/11 we had anthrax levels. imagine if you had three counts of anthrax and they were put in

parcels in the united states postal system and mailed to 10,000 addresses in the country. that would shut this country down. there are lots of ways we can be attacked. we have to be ever vigilant. the big change in my view of how the law was changed post9/11 was it forced us to address foreign and domestic threats in a more comprehensive way. be divided those things after the nixon years of watergate to make -- might committee cannot focus on anything domestic. the fbi had much larger standards to do surveillance or tap the phone or what ever was the cause. we change that a bit so there is less of a wall between foreign and domestic. i think that is important for us to consider as we go forward. >> you say something very

interesting, i think, about this particular moment in a way the danger of success. you are talking about the possibility of biological attacks. a lot of people for very human reasons say, well, phil just said we had all of these mechanisms in place to stop a lot of these kinds of attacks. we have not had an attack. we are very good at this now. i want to talk about what you might call the paradox of counter-terrorism success. a lot of people out here might think, there is a level of scaremongering by government officials -- even by the obama administration -- and about terrorism. talk about the consequences of not having a tax and how that could lead to more attacks. >> a big change from 9/11 until now is before then, you had a paradox prevention. a paradox prevention it is it is difficult to rally mass of action against a perceived

threat. at the time the perceived threat is most trouble for destruction. until it has manifested itself at which point it is too late to prevent it. that is the paradox prevention. we have that that the 9/11 commission spent a lot of time describing. right now we have a paradox of adjustment. the threat is diminished but not on a way. you need to right side the threat. you need to normalize the threat. the united states has a lot of purposes and breeze in the world besides islamic extremism. i am really reminded of the fact that when lehman brothers went down, hank paulson turned to his aid in 2008 and said "this is an economic 9/11." the net shock may not, from an attack from islamic extremists against a specific target, it

may be another flaw. the president cannot say, at that terrorist thing is done. it is over. the paradox is, how do you right size and normalize something for the long haul without dulling the edge of alertness and inducing complacency in the sense that this has now become routine? how do you keep people on alert against a threat that has been right size and reduced? it is hard for a politician to answer it -- to say anything that implies the threat is going down for fear the next day something will happen. >> this is a fascinating question for michael. i have written a bit about the tsa. the broad question is this -- once the bureaucracy of government puts in place a security countermeasure, will lead ever be able to remove that

security countermeasure? i have in mind, there are a lot of stories from airports these days. i have a mind a store from a few weeks ago that a woman in a wheelchair who was taken home to die, the tsa agents at the airport made her remove her adult diaper as part of this search because she was and a wheelchair. you hear these things every week. is there a point where we can simply to get down a notch which some of these -- >> i think you will see modification overtime based on a couple of factors grew what will be development of technology. one will be, perhaps, congress continues to forbid the use of a lot of the data that is out there commercially to adjust the risk of certain people. if that changes or if work around, that may also alter this. you raise a point i think it is important to address.

you probably see this with a lot of other walks. where one person messes up for the story does not seem right and refuse to argue the system does not work. i will give you two important thing to bear in mind when you look at tsa. one is, your conception of what a terrorist looks like is wrong. people who have been home grow in this country,jihad jane, these people do not look like what you think a terrorist looks like. what was the age of the man who walked through the holocaust museum of? 92 years old. children, infants, how many

children in different parts of the world who had bombs struck to them and sent out against american troops to blow them up? >>what about the couple who thought they were going to get on a plane in 2006 and blow the plane up. the second point i would like to make is this, i often hear the argument sometimes made by check -- tsa does not work because you have never caught a terrorist. it is not meant to catch terrorists. it is meant to deter them. fort knox has never caught a bank robber. part of what you have to do when you talk about security is have a realistic understanding of what security delivers. it is not a perfect system, but a system of systems that end to end the gives you a much better chance of averting a risk.

>> i have never argued that point, i have argued there could be more intelligent operations put in place. two quick points -- the aardvark of fact, what is that? >> you know, the weird looking beast icahn budget goal, i thought it was an acronym. the second point is, you are right. when i walked to an airport -- i once saw a wheelchair. i said, that would be a great disguise. i am talking about an invasion of privacy that is humiliating. this woman was put to a terrible process of having to undress. there has to be a better way to do this. >> unfortunately, one of the things we've learned -- i think

it was revealed in beach or a bomber, is the adversary understands we are uncomfortable looking or touching certain places. therefore, if that is where you put the components of a bomb, you have increased the chances he will get by. you have to decide how much -- what makes no sense is only to look at half the body and think you have done the job. you either look at all, or you do what you need to do to be reasonably thorough. >> a couple of things, the new screening machines that seem to be in many airports were you put your hands like this are getting increasing acceptance. i think everybody understands you will not be radiated beyond any -- in fact, the radiation bounces off of the. i am not sure there was not one in the airport with a woman with a diaper or what, but there are better technologies coming. the other two points out what to make is, one, we have cleared

security. we should not at the farm on one thing. i know we do not. if you go to an airport, there are things you will not see. they protect both the airport and identify a passenger very quickly who could be a problem. we have laird security and the other thing we have is unpredictability. we do not want to -- these folks have very involved trade crap. if they know that we will only do these three things and that is our boundaries, they will game against that. they will attack us iran that. if they now believe, and they should, that it is not the case that we will only do three things but we have been visible layers, they cannot game around it. that will deter them. that is our goal. i do not want to end this

without talking about other forms of attack. i have to put the dirty bomb back there. a dirty bomb can be made by taking radioisotopes out of machines in every hospital and sitting in a window and blowing those isotopes like cobalt 30. it is highly dispensable and has a shelf life of 30 years and it sticks to concrete. you can take this stuff, said in a window with to dub sticks of dynamite and kill yourself and five other -- he will make a two mile radius uninhabitable for 30 years. this is not a brand-new idea. we have not done enough yet to hardin these machines. yes, the stuff is deeply embedded and of that, but i saw

which scared the heck out of me how easy it is for kids to get this stuff out and dismantle things. we have cases a around it, but it can still be blown up. we need to get the nuclear regulatory commission which is focused on this hopefully over a short period of time to find a substitute to put in these machines that will not have these consequences. i put out there that we are very good against the lab for. we need to start thinking about the next war and folks in these countries who can self radicalize and bring more route -- and learn how to build a bomb in the kitchen. >> let us do two more think before we open it up for questions. the first is to continue jane' catalog. to ask you what is the one

thing that really scares you as a possible sort of attack. the second thing is, it is interesting we have been very technical about things. we are talking about law enforcement and military applications designed to stop terrorism. i want to move this to an ideological lovell and talk about what their policy can effect what we do. i will take a wild guess that you will talk about cyber security. we have done this before. without scaremongering, talking about what a small organization -- one presumably broken up, a small organization can do. >> i will be happy to address that. let me put it into context that everybody will understand -- money. our economy was 14 trillion dollars last year. two banks in new york city cleared seven trillion dollars

to eight trillion dollars a day. what backs up those transactions? economics 101 will tell you we went off the gold standard quite some time ago. how about dollar bills? if you add up is maybe 2%. what is it? it is an accounting process. the world cannot function without banking. we depend on it. in a relatively small group that is sophisticated could contaminate the clearing process for reconciling exchanges. what do i mean? tokyo, new york, i have a $10 billion transaction. new york -- tokyo this is new york, send your transaction. new york, this is tokyo, i sent. there reconcile, done.

less than a second. that is what it takes to run global banking. that process could be attacked by a small group for relatively small amount of money. that is one example of things we depend on to run our lives. when the framers did the constitution, the vast majority of us were farmers. think about today how we depend on electric lights, money, the grocery store, delivery of goods and services. if you can interfere with that, it can have a devastating impact on the country. >> we had an anthrax attack as mike pointed out in 2001. the ingredients for a biological weapon or chemical weapon are available pretty much in the kitchen or in the form. if you have enough, you can

fabricated. this is a good news and bad news story. the good news is we have a pretty good way of reducing the risk on bio. it is not that we will catch everybody who fabricate said, but we have countermeasures. most of them are legal types of attacks. we have stockpiled a lot of this. we are in the process for think it is underfunded to put out detection capability. there is one big problem that we have that would be very difficult if we had an attack. that is getting the countermeasures into the hands of people. this is a great example of how we can i get out of our own way sometimes. we are still in pre 9.11 thinking. the solution in 2006 was how about getting important the most common countermeasures and distribute them and around the country or let people buy that. you can have it in your medicine cabinet, in your school house, the fire station. when the war goes up that people have to take this, we can get to

people within a couple of hours. so we said, let us run a pilot and see whether people will lose these if we give it to them. we ran a pilot. after one year, 97% of the people kept the metal "kit. they had not lost it. we said, great. let us watch. we can do it. fda's model says you do not distribute things you need to have a prescription at less a doctor has seen yet said there is a need. if there is an anthrax attack and new york, there are not enough doctors in the world to see the people that need to be seen. that is a great example of something. we could fix this and what we can start the process of putting that out. that would be a great deterrent. it would tell the terrorists that if i weapon as anthrax and distributed, the united states will be able to react and

mitigate the harm instantly. >> apart from the fda, what is the most dangerous threat to the united states? but it is not just cold lard. -- could not jeff goldberg. >> some people could just go out and start shooting. it is not require sophisticated, it just requires people killing to kill a bunch of other people. then do a lot of that. all you have to do is get people in the country -- the arms are readily available. and then what you do is you rely on our culture to produce the terror. what is remarkable, when you hear the -- you say, how come this has not happened yet?

it is so easy. the moment is there. this is an indicator of how degraded their sophistication is. therefore, they are probably going to start surmounting this to some degree because there are too many people in the world. a handful of zealots are going to try to attack our systems and culture. we need to harden our systems and hard in our culture. we need to develop a culture of resilience. interestingly, the departments of defense has not reoriented the itself. in some ways, the department of homeland security could become as important in some ways and maybe more important than the department of defense as the locus for defending our critical systems. think about that. think about the value of a culture -- by that, i've been the most useful thing the

national transportation safety board has done is culture. every so often, hundreds of people die in their plant accidents. it is catastrophic. we know that a board will go out. it will look hard at what happened. "analyze it very professionally. it will come up with conclusions crude we will tweak the system, reduce chances a little more, millions of people will get on an airplane. that is the culture of resilience. >> one final thing so we can go to questions. we have not talked on a political plan pure the common perception is that pakistan poses the biggest threat -- the most dangerous country in the world because of what is going on inside pakistan and our inability to understand how

their army operates. what would you fix? how would you fix this problem if you could? if you were the president of the united states, what would you do to mitigate the damage that can be done to us by people in pakistan? >> first of all, i would say we have to maintain our relationship with the state of pakistan. there corruption is something we have to face up to and deal with. there court concern is india -- they fought several wars and lost them. today they are worried that india is surrounding them by going into afghanistan. with their economic problems, there corruption, and focus on india, it is pretty bleak. with that said, it is in the interests of the united states to sustain the relationship the best way we can and have this collaborative arrangement.

for the last 10 years, it has been very effective. comments were made about degrading al qaeda's leadership. in large part, it was a successful partnership. just recently, the defense minister of pakistan has ordered us out. we are going to have to adjust to that. that is where the threat is. >> mike, when you were secretary, how many threats came out of pakistan? >> probably a majority came out of pakistan. >> what do you do about it? >> i agree with matt. if that story is true, it is infuriating. i think mike is right. we've lost about one decade with pakistan. we cut off dealing with them. there were a group of folks who

would have come to the united states and trained that did not come. as tempting as it is to get angry and lash out, i think we have to offer some firmness but remain engaged in them. >> two thanks, i agree with john brennan who said in the speech we are talking about that the largest threat to our homeland from a foreign places from yemen at this point. it has a failing government, and it has very active al qaeda and related cells hiding where there are basically no police function. they are preparing to attack our homeland. that is the place. that is where these internet materials are developed. i would put that as number one. they do not have nuclear weapons like pakistan, but i think there are more dangers. on pakistan, the group that just attacked the hotel was the connie network.

they have taking credit for that. the heat on a network is protected by the pakistani government. they are located just at the afghan border and a very lethal operatives from this network go across the border and killed our troops. i am pessimistic with our relationship with pakistan at the moment. i agree we have to work on it, but i think -- i know we are doing this. we have to take counterterrorism measures to protect our country even if they are inside the border as we did with osama bin laden when we see that there are groups their that attempt to attack us. that is why i applaud the reset of the afghanistan policy by obama last week. and gives us more resources for pakistan. two, this refocus by brennan mr. de that our goal is to protect our homeland from groups

wherever they may be -- mostly al qaeda affiliate's. it is not a war on terror, it is a war on al qaeda affiliate's who are intending to attack as. we are going to put the right resources against that tree >> i agree with plan 8. i think you need a portfolio strategy. let us keep working with the pakistani is the best we can. long story, complicated -- you read all about at all the time. the interesting thing is not to think -- nobody knows enough about the technical details. but what is planned be? what is the hedging strategy? since no one has high confidence and planned a, if the times square attack had succeeded and the truck bomb had went off last year and killed 500 people in times square, my estimate is

there is a better than 5050 chance the united states would have launched a major military operation into pakistan within one week or two. by the way, the president through his aides told the pakistani government this. you really do not want us to have to invade your country at scale. please try to manage this the best way necessary. to're hedging strategy has be, what if pakistan becomes a failed state? weedy to plan now for what we do if the pakistani situation is not manageable internally. it is not manageable internally with respect to the security of the nuclear stockpile, it becoming a sanctuary for extremist groups that are attacking but the pakistani government and our interests and india in different ways including the provocation of the

india pakistan war. that may be a strategy of isolation with the capability to conduct long-range strike at selected targets into hostile and denied areas, also imported international cooperation with the people pakistan still rely on as their key friends -- mainly china and saudi arabia who will take an interest if pakistan goes that route. do think about what the hedging strategy should be a plant eight fails. >> thank you. questions? --if plan a fails. >> can we reverse, what is the greatest threat to al qaeda at this point in time? is it the government's global threat? is it the government's of pakistan and afghanistan where they are currently -- what is the greatest threat to al qaeda? >> let me start with that. i think there are two threats to

al qaeda right now. first, is the arab spring get what is happening. i think the trend is going in the right direction. it will be a long time before it plays out. the unifying effect that existed some time ago i think has been destroyed. secondly, the leadership of the united states and going after and holding accountable the leadership in a very determined way. it has taken a long time, it has cost a lot of money, we had to change laws, we had to develop operating procedures that were different. that operation -- let me use the death of osama bin laden as an example. it was united states navy seals, trained and equipped under title 10 as an element of the department of defense, carried out that operation under title 50 -- that took us a long time to work through that culturally come up missouri chronically. i think the determination of the

united states and the persistence to see justice 10 years after the fact has been the greatest threat in addition to this trend that we see. >> if i could just add to that. phil mentioned that al qaeda has killed more muslims than non muslims. i think the muslim world is aware of that. the care of spring had nothing to do with al qaeda. the change is a bottom-up change from people who want freedom. they do not want to go back to the seventh century. that is one thing. the second thing is, the united states finally -- other countries to, but i do not want to give obama -- is developed a narrative. we are not in a war against muslims. it is not that george bush did not make that clear or zero obama did not make that clear, but just as the bombing in five

different countries can be distorted to make that point. we are clarifying this point that we are in a war against al qaeda and its affiliates. and we are clarify what we stand for. what we stand for is something very appealing to younger people who are rising up and taking huge risks continues at and syria and a number of other countries. >> it is very clear that we have become more sophisticated over the last decade. how has al qaeda become more sophisticated? are we fighting last year's war? >> we have mentioned others in that next generation. i think were you see the sophisticated is in a couple of respects. one is the deliberate recruiting of westerners or people who

have western experience and appear to have clean record as the operatives. secondly, using the internet and providing what appeared to be a subset of a population and appealing propaganda about what is going on with visuals and the modern tools of technology and exploiting that. as the generation changes -- i think the elimination of the osama bin laden may accelerate this process. we will see a much more sophisticated and nimble organization. >> clearly, domestic and global airport screenings and homeland's security measures have been very successful in preventing another major attack. could the span all -- could the panel speak to what seems to be an open border with mexico. while the majority of the population is here for work and

an improved quality of life, there has to be some% or a fraction of a percent of people coming through have intense with this country. what are we doing to secure terrorist activities from the southern border? >> let me give you two facts that are interesting. almost all of the terrorist threats have come from over canada, not mexico. over a period of years, some folks emigrated to canada that created pools for terrorists. it is a very difficult challenge. if you look at the southern border, it is 2,000 miles. we built 600 miles of fence, we doubled the border patrol, but unless we are prepared to in best huge amounts of money, it will take a considerable amount

of time. i used to argue, and i still believe it to be true, that was helpful thing would be comprehensive emigration reforms with a temporary worker program so a lot of the pressure would be funneled into a system that was regulated. that would actually give us a better ability to manage the remaining physical border. no country in the world has ever really sealed its border. even if there totalitarian countries, they did not do a particularly good job. >> i do not think sealing our borders is the right answer. letting students come here to study and permitting foreign tourists to come here, obviously streaming them makes sense, but if we close off our country, we lose the ability to create foreign ambassadors for the values that we stand for. i think that is a mistake.

the second point is, i think our near term threats are not from foreigners coming in here. i think it is from homegrown terrorists who are here and have clean records and are eager radicalized on the internet or through their own troubles go somewhere else and seek out training. they are not invited to do this. they generate their own interest in this. >> before we go over there, go to follow up on something you said. there is one flaw in something you said. there is a general motion, all right thinking people that we should give visas to students, they should learn to like american samoa, etc. -- they should learn to like us, etc. we could all name a dozen people who came here as students who were somehow i knew to the charms of the united states.

but we could all in dozens of people who have come here and who have not fallen and love or have fallen out of love with the american idea. could you talk about that from a security problem? >> there was a fellow who became radicalized by living in rural colorado in the late 1940's. when he returned to his native egypt, he developed an ideology or the west was the source of all evil. is definitely true that somebody can go to an american college campus and conclude that the united states is a cesspool of sen and wipe it from the face of the earth. that is not the experience you have at the university of virginia. i will tell you that right now.

i am sorry people have these experiences in places like north carolina and colorado. >> i had a friend who was the budweiser distributor and he was very busy. let us not oversell this. >> it is a very inclusive community. the phenomenon and what happens here -- this is what it is interesting to think about the problem sociology. the whole motion that this is a problem of west versus islam, of course that is wrong. this is a war within is lot about different people who are trying to figure out how to cope with islam. there is a fairly radical friends. the radical fringes focused on local conditions they dislike. a minority of that develops the global agenda that attaches all of these evils to the united states. that agenda became powerful in the 1990's. a useful way of thinking about

this from a historical point of comparison is the last phenomenon that reminds me of a lot of this was a large-scale growth of european centered anarchism which reached its peak between 1880 and 1920. this was the source of a lot of fear in the western world iran that time. they killed six heads of state including a president of the united states, self radicalizing people inspired by living in exile in london, mainly from germany, france, spain, russia. immigrants from those countries coming to the united states going bonds in chicago and believing in the physiology they believe. what were these people? they were profoundly alienated by the turmoil of modernization and urbanization in their harshly repressed society is at home who externalized this as of

somehow trying to bring down the system and create a u t zero. -- a utopia that could never be. there is no chance that this could ever be traded and like. it is a hopelessly utopian agenda. what does this alienation represent? rage and dreams. what will eventually happen between that small group of people, or the guy that north carolina and greensboro who feels alienated because he cannot feel -- fit into that societe there, what happens to these people is they get channeled into other forms of alienation. at all ports and to much more

dangerous movements who are going to tap into that rage and much more powerful ways or movements begins doing in the 10's and 20's. >> for someone who is becoming increasingly terrified, sort of listening to this discussion on policy terms is fascinating and very energy projects energizing, my question is on an individual basis and without being made to sound silly, it sometimes feels like the only way me or him or her -- the only way we can protect ourselves is to never leave the bathroom. if you never leave your bathroom, you will be fine. you have to, and you have to go outside. how can one address the concerns that we are feeling? a first of all, the bathroom is

one of the most dangerous places in the world. >> you do not turn the water on. >> then there is the kitchen. the thing to do is to move where it is safe. >> that is a serious question. it speaks to a certain familiar among the political class. i will include me in an even though i am a recovering politician. it is easy to play the fear card. it there is a lot of traction and that. if we have not done a good enough job of saying -- kill just put this whole thing into perspective. that is the last complement i will ever give you. we have to do a better job of helping the public understand what it can do. phil used the word resilient.

you and your family are resilient. i do not know where your bathroom is. i am sure it is big and you could hide out there. but you could also -- you could have a little kid at home. you could have your own budget we talk about this five or six years ago about how you get in touch with your family members. we do not have an international communications effort which is the government tell you. you can get that to happen. then you can think about this stuff and put it into perspective. the israelis have attacked all the time. they have fewer now because they have taken measures. the people of israel understand that there are terrorist threats against their country, more than against our country. the best way to defeat them is not to be terrorized. it is a state of mind. that is what terrorized, this ia

state of mind. if we have a way to respond and a way to prevent, and the way we figured out the time square plot, they were the ones that called law-enforcement. and they were spectacular in finding them quickly. i am just saying to you, you are stronger, and unfortunately, the former government member, i have not given you enough encouragement. >> i want to frame this just for a moment. this is a very good point, and this is something we will move to a in september. this is a massive overreaction on our part. this is in response to the 9/11 attacks.

>> this is part of what we talk about with these issues. almost uniformly, things have gotten considerably better. we have done quite a bit to make ourselves more secure. there is either panicked or hysteria or the hope is overgrown. those are the choices and we are in the middle. we are good about managing and dealing with them, but there will be some failure. the public is more reserved than we give them credit for. this country has experienced a tax with guns before, including colorado. at the same time, we underserved

ourselves by not doing what james has said by not spending an hour to put together a plan with it reasonable supplies in case there is a disruption of food or water. i think that the message here is that things -- there are real problems out there. we have a lot of capacity, to manage the risks, by expanding what we do in emergencies. and the capabilities in case we have to rely on ourselves for a short amount of time. >> the message i can hear consistently from this group is that resiliency is the key. there are core of professionals

out there that worry about these things, with homeland security or whatever, and some level of resources need to be dedicated to that kind of thinking and the potential reactions. as an intelligence professional, my job is to predict what may be coming. we will tend to think about that a lot, and what level of resources we will commit, and what the attack may be. we are thinking about the last war were the last problem. we can be safer and we can go on with our lives. >> we will do one last question and then i will have a final, larger question. >> thank you for finally

mentioning the intelligence, the first line of defense. each of you have had critical roles in this country with intelligence structure, with an enormous level of activity, with the departments in the new agencies. some say this time to put this in order. a lot of different stovepipes exist. i wonder if you could give us a brief talk about where intelligence needs to go. >> a great notion to piggyback onto, we're practically 10 years away and there is an excellent report that we all should read, and there are recommendations in that report that have to do with what we spoke about.

with intelligence reform and where we have come, the recommendations in that report, they have not been filled and what would you do right now to enact those recommendations. >> i will say a couple of things because i think they can dive more deeply into a couple of these things but i want to leave a couple of important issues up to them. some philosophical principles to keep in mind. the counter-terrorism adviser to the president said the first job is to safeguard the safety of the american people. when he raised his right hand, he said that his duty is to preserve and protect the

constitution of the united states. the reason that security is important is because the greatest danger to the constitution is massive panic and insecurity. this is when the constitution will be in the greatest jeopardy. the greatest victory insofar of intelligence is what director mccall talked about not too long ago, the domestic and foreign advisers. this is without significant threat to our constitutional liberties, this has this -- this has been managed. the last observation i will make is this. there are a number of controversies, but people have preconceptions about how they should manage the intelligence

community. they have always been stating their preconceptions. what they should do is analyze how well this is managed by such objective criteria. can you move large amounts of money to adapt to important priorities. admiral mcconnell did better than anyone else in maximizing the management possibilities. he is well qualified to talk about whether or not we should go further. all of these issues have been relatively easy. when we have the huge national security reforms, why is there so much terminal? this is because the defense budget was radically cut under intense pressure.

for the last 10 years, the costs have been going up. it is much easier to manage something that is constantly getting larger. the real pressure on reform begins now because this is about to start shrinking. >> first, i think the takedown of osama bin laden is a credit to the navy seals but most of the credit should go to the new intelligence system, which was massively revised in 2004. and it defines the careers -- if found the careers and the safe house, to be certain that he would be there. and to enable the navy seals and understand in specific terms

what they may have. they surrounded and landed in the compound. this was a mass of intelligence success. it would not have happened without a legislative reforms recommended by the commission. the big failure of those reforms is that the biggest reform that was not implemented is the organization of congress to revive committee structure and be able to do the right kind of oversight to protect the constitution. to protect the constitution. i don't see any chance that that will be corrected. i was there in washington meeting with the director of

intelligence, and i just was not aware of this. the house appropriations committee supports a bill that requires a specific authorization from congress every time that they try to move money. this undermines the command structure that we set up in 2004. and we will try to make certain that congress never enacts that provision. and now they're trying to micromanage the system -- >> we have to let jane go to work. >> i will not talk about intelligence because she has covered that. this was partly implemented but not completely. the key recommendations enable people to track this and with

the comprehensive reforms, we did a couple of things that were passed into law. the first was across the land board and the second strength and the robustness of the security. you would not believe the problems we had moving these recommendations forward. this was 90% done with the last 10% and i was in a constant struggle with members of congress representing districts along the canadian border of the negative economic impact. if someone comes in from canada, and it's off a bomb in new york city, that may not be a

problem for your constituents but this is a problem in new york city. not in my backyard were my term of office. if we don't get this finished, we will bitterly regret this. >> they're telling me that you should leave the room. we are in evolutionary process. >> let me use this as an example, the department of defense. we established how we would operate in 1947. the bill was passed, and this was streamlined. this forced joined us, join judy and a lot of these things to

unify this. we had a debate on this. she has her finger prints on this lot and she will defend this. my response is that if this is all it took as a leader of congress, -- this is 50% law and 50% leadership. >> and here is where we are. the community is 16 agencies, and the first prerogative of the staff -- the first focus of any debate on the executive orders -- the one recommendation is the cia. the law says the director of the cia will report through. you can drive a train through

this. we're at a place where this is working better, but are we safe, no, but are we safer, absolutely. i don't think this was the right way to set this up. we're at a place where we are evolving, and this question will come up. do we want have a more streamlined intelligence community that is controlled by an authority, and jane just mentioned, there is a draft to say that they can move money from one program to another. we will have this debate until we have another crisis, and then we will adjust. >> thank you so much for coming, and thank you for the panel.

>> in a few moments, the latest on the riots in england. in one hour, barack obama has a town hall meeting in minnesota. and then the former governor of louisiana, criticizing other republicans and the present for taking contributions from political action committees. then we will reairs the committee after the 10 years -- after 10 years of the 9/11 attacks. nude gingrich will be at the heritage foundation. he will discuss cutting the federal deficit. this is 9:00 eastern.

hillary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta will be at the national defense university to look at the international challenges facing the united states. >> every weekend, american history television on c-span 3. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal movies on historical events. revisit the key figures and the battles during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. and visit college classrooms across the country. the behind-the-scenes at -- with museums and historic sites. and look at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. sign up to receive an e-mail by pressing the alert button.

>> david cameron was in his constituency today, talking about the riots in london and other british cities. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning, and a very warm welcome to everyone here today. on behalf of the young people and the staff is good to see you. --re very glad to see you and on such a beautiful, sunny morning, you all received a phone call to make certain that you were awake. thank you so much for turning out. it is my pleasure and privilege to ask you to welcome the prime minister, david cameron.

>> thank you very much for that. i can see that it is not in the cooler since i last made a speech here. it is reviewed to come. i do believe it is time to take stock. we saw some of the most sickening acts on our streets. i will never forget talking to more is reeves, whose family had run a store in -- for generations. his family had built to rebut this business for generations and this was burned to the ground. hundreds of years of hard work burned to the ground. but we also saw the best of people, who went down to the hardware stores to start the

cleanup. the people listed together to defend their homes, the fire officers who worked long and hard before going out again to get their lives on the line. the manchester and birmingham -- the people of every background and color and religion show their moral outrage for the country. this is a great country of good people and what we saw last week does not represent us or the young people in our country and they will not drag us down. the question hangs in the air, how did this happen in our country. there were different things going on in different parts of the country.

some of the outrage was directed at the police. and there was a calculated attack on the forces of law and order. as we begin the necessary process of investigation and listening and learning, these rights were not about race, the victims were white, black, and asian. they were directed at high speed stores and this was not about poverty. that would insults the millions who would never let anyone else suffer like this. people showed indifference to right and wrong. people with a complete absence of self restraint.

why talk about behavior and morals, people will say, what gives politicians the right to talk about this to us? politicians shy away from speaking about morality and behavior. this is the cause of the problems we see around us. we have been waiting too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong. for marriage to welfare. toetimes we don't want insult or hurt people. or we may not think it is the job of the state to talk about personal behavior. and we are not perfect beings ourselves. you cannot let this alienate you.

you cannot do this because you want to be -- you want to avoid signifiant -- stigmatizing them. unless your child is not getting this. there are no bad choices, just different lifestyles. live and let live becomes do what you please. this is relativism, the one of the biggest lessons of these rights is we have to talk about behavior, because bad behavior literally a arrived on people's doorsteps. this may be a wake-up call for the country. social problems exploded in our face.

they want to see the social problems taken on and defeated. we must fight back against the assumptions that brought society to the state. do we have the determination to do what is right? can we confront the slow-motion moral collapse of these generations? selfishness and behaving as if your choices have no consequences. crime without punishment and rights without responsibilities. some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated by state agencies that have literally become demoralized.

but we can turn this around. the responsible majority of people are crying out for their government to act on this. in my very first act as a leader of the party, i showed my passion and this is stronger than ever. and we are not out of the woods yet. but i will speak today about how which to build a bigger and stronger society. that is what i came into politics to do. over the next few weeks, myself

and ministers across the government will look into every aspect of our work, and the cultural and legal and bureaucratic issues of our society, and the obsession with health and safety that has affected the willingness to act according to common sense. it is wrong to think that the state is a byproduct. people's behavior is affected by the rules that government sets. and how this is delivered. and the signals the government will send about behavior. the growth of society is back at the part of my agenda. we have to reclaim the streets,

and we have to fix the things that have been making people's lives miserable for years. nothing in this job is more important to me than keeping people safe. you have to be tough and robust, with a clear line between right and wrong. we start with a strong police presence, ready to regroup and crack down at the first sign of trouble. we must be able to scale up our deployment in the way we saw last week. the point is what matters in the fight. for years, we have had a police force suffocated by

bureaucracy, stuck behind desks. and we're keeping things basically as they have been. this can be fixed by changing the way that the police work. scrapping the paperwork that holds them back, and the reforms mean that they will answer directly to the people. you want to make certain that the police spend more time hunting problems in the neighborhoods, and you want them to patrol the streets instead of sitting behind their desks. they will provide the direct accountability. the point of the police reforms is not to save money but to fight crime. and we have measures like dispersal orders, and we give

them the ability to confiscate offenders property. there is the concerted, all-out war on gang culture. this is a major criminal disease that is across the country. i sat across the government programs, and on the radio last week, we interviewed one of the young man who had been looting in manchester. this would be my first arrest. he could live with this. they wanted to show everyone liked him that the party is

over. sometimes people roll their eyes. there was the unprecedented challenge, to dispense west and firm justice. this was the law of the -- swift and firm justice. this was the law -- and i understand the outrage today. and i vowed to sort this out and restore people's faith. we believe that society will punish them for this. we need to have big changes and let me start with the question that people ask. the question people ask is, where are the parents? tragically, this was followed by the judge's wondering why the

parents did not turn up when their children were in court. they had no idea why the children were behaving so badly. they did not much care. i do not doubt that many of the people who were riding -- rioting looking to the streets for their father figures. built up with rage and anger. family and parenting is where we have to start. before i was leader of the conservative party, i have been saying this. i think this applies to all domestic policy. if it travels over the values that keep people together or stops families from being together, we should not do it.

we have to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work. the way people bring up children and we have to be less sensitive to the charge that this is about interfering. we're working and ways to help improve parenting. i want the work accelerated, expanded, and implemented as quickly as possible and we need urgent action. the ones everyone in their neighborhood knows and often avoid. last december i ask, harrison to get these families on track. became clear to me as can happen, the croats were being held back. i asked for an explanation. i am sure -- will make sure we clear way the red tape. i have a clear impression that within the lifetime of this

parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in this country. the next part of the social buyback is what happens in our schools. we need an educational system that sends the message that if you do the wrong think you will be disciplined and if you play by the rules you will succeed. this is not -- it is always -- already happening. many schools. they expect high standards from every person. they foster pride. a provide alternatives to street culture. by showing how anyone can get out and got -- get on. we need more of them which is why we are creating an academy and why the people behind the success stories are opening schools. and why we pledge to turn around

the 200 week as secondary schools and the 200 fleet is primaries in the next year. with the failure in our education so deep we cannot just say here are the plans, we believe in them. but setback will they take effect. i want us to push further and faster. are we doing enough to insure these schools are being set up in schools where children need them the most? if young people left school without being able to read or write, why should that school not be held accountable? as we want schools available, we want everyone to feel proud of their community. we need a sense of social responsibility at the heart of every community. the truth is the bureaucratic state has helped drain that responsibility away. it has frustrated local

organizers. it has denied local people any real say about what goes on where they live. is it any wonder that people do not feel they have a stake in their community? this has that to change and we're taking steps to change it. we're training in -- community organizers to work in our most deprived areas. we're serious about giving people a chance to improve the community where they live. getting people the right to take over local assets. the question i want to ask now is this. are these changes enough to foster the sense of belonging we need to see? that is what we're looking at over the coming weeks. one of the biggest parts of the social aspect is fixing our welfare system. we have a system that encourages the worst. andses' bad behavior discourages hard work. above all, it drains responsibility away from people. we talk about moral hazard in

our financial system. the state will build amount. people thinking they can beat the system because the state will build amount. i am not satisfied we are doing what we can. i want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits and speeding up our efforts for those who can work in to work. work is at the heart of a responsible society. getting more for our young people into jobs is a critical part of how we strengthen responsibility in our society. local authorities and charitable agencies working together to provide the best possible help. this leaves no one behind. it includes people and i have seen this myself who have been

on welfare for years. now getting the chance to work. as we consider these questions of attitude and behavior, incentives it creates, you come to the question of the human rights and the culture. let me be clear. in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights at home and abroad. it is part of the british tradition. what is alien to our tradition and exerting a corrosive -- on behavior and morality is the twisting and representing human rights in a way that undermines personal responsibility. we are attacking this problem from both sides. developing a way through this by creating our own british bill of rights and using our current challenging to seek important changes. all this is frustratingly slow. the truth is the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on

public sector organization, leading us to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense and defend our sense of right and wrong and undermine responsibility. regulations have often been twisted and -- into a culture where there is hope and safety. i want to make something very clear. this stuff matters. as we urgently review the work we're doing, there will be no holds barred and that includes the human rights and health and safety cultures. many people have -- the answer to these questions is to bring back a national service. i agree with that sentiment and that is why i'm introducing something similar, national sisson service.

and non-military program that captures the spirit of national service. it takes 16-year-old and gets them to work together. the work on their communities and coaching and her children to play football or visiting old people at the hospital. doing good can feel good. the real thrill is for building things up, not tearing them down. teamwork, of decency, these words might sound old-fashioned but they are part of the solution to this modern problem of alienated and angry young people. restoring those values is what national citizen service is about. i believe passionately in this idea. it is something we have been developing for years before it came from that -- became prime minister. teen-agers are taking part this summer. in response, it should become a great national effort. let's make national citizen service available to all 16 year

olds as a rite of passage. we can do that if we work together. i am putting renewed effort into making that happen. let me be clear. the social buyback is not the job or government. government does not make the video games or print magazines are produced a music that tells young people what is important in their lives. government cannot be on every street. this is a problem that has deep roots in our society. it is a job for our society to fix it. in the pushes board rooms, the most influential jobs, we are -- we need to think about the example we are setting.

in the banking crisis with mp expenses and the phone hacking scandal we have seen some of the worst cases of greed, irresponsibility, and entitlement. the restoration of responsibility has to cut across our country. what ever the arguments, we belong to the same society and we have a stake in making a better. there is no them and us. there is only yes. think you for coming. thank you for listening. [applause] thank you. now some time for questions if anyone wants to kick off? say who you are and where you are from. there is a microphone coming to you. >> thank you. on the specifics, you sort out

two specific things. one is intervention in a gang leaders lives, knocking on their doors and taking benefits away from those in the riots. you agree with those ideas when you see them put into place? you made a very big pledge to turn around the lives of everyone of the most troubled families. how can you hope to achieve that and how will we know if you achieve your field? >> the fact is if you look at the facts on the ground and the figures there are 120,000 of dysfunctional and troubled families in our country. they cost a huge amount of money and intervened with a huge amount of different ways. they're the ones that get visits from social services, from the police, probation. they are in touch with many organizations of the state.

no one is -- they're not working with those families. some areas have gotten people and to those homes and tried to turn those families around. we should be doing those reports on all the 120,000 families. wind gusts -- must not be put off by allegations that this is interfering. these families cause trouble for the rest of society. we should not stand by and except that they will have the odd intervention and the odd bit of help they are. we can help to turn some of them around. one of the reasons i asked him to sit with the home secretary on this task force on gangs is before he came back into the front line in politics he spent

time with the social justice commitment -- commission. and we -- with gangs. it is important that we bring expertise around the country and around the world. it has been getting worse. some parts of the country dealt with it. quite a tough police action. i want us to learn the lesson. i think there is some good work on that. >> prime minister, can you tell me how much of a constraint the lowest social spending will be in conducting this social buyback.

when looking for that u.s. for a client -- advice on policing, with more representation from ethnic minority communities. >> the idea that the way you solve problems is throwing a wall of money at them. we have proved that is not the case. there were not about money. there were about the haven. there were about people without proper boundaries. i am convinced we can get more out of what we have by cutting the paperwork and getting them on the streets.

we're looking at non-money solutions. these are not money problems in the first place. time for some different answers. i think we should recognize that different countries have done different things. be prepared to look around. where is good examples of practice and can we learn from that? if you look at the u.s., there are huge challenges of crime and terrible situations in cities and gangs but they have been living with this. if you look at the inspirational police chiefs, it is right to learn from them. and to see what pete they have to offer. >> my question is do the young

people here have any questions? >> that is a good question. let's have a lady here. >> you said about families. whacks that is the setting. every family has mass of challenges in dealing with each other's behavior. we have some at breakfast time in my family today. this is the first line of defense for trying to get people to behave better and to understand your behavior has consequences. lots of people do not have a supportive family.

it is important we have other ways of helping people which is why school needs to do better dealing with behavior. it is where we have youth clubs like this if you are not getting what you have a home, you have another setting with adults working here with you to talk about behavior. of course family is not the whole answer. that is why you need other steps to take as well. it is not good enough for politicians to just say, families, let them get on with that, we will just talk about the other things we do in parliament about foreign affairs and defense whatever. we have to get involved in these arguments because otherwise too many people fall through the nets in our society. let's have the next. >> the more they will feel they will act trouble.

-- troubled. >[unintelligible] not we're trying to do is break them up and criticize them. we're trying to get in there and work out the problems. let me give you one example. one of the things she says is in some families there is no tradition of sitting around and talking about problems. everything is on the go in front of the television. in never talk about the problems and difficulties. -- you never talk about problems and difficulties. we give -- want to give people a chance to do with their problems. you cannot expect the hard- pressed social worker who has masses of problems about children that might need to be taken into care because of child abuse, it is difficult for social workers to have the time

to spend with a family and work out how can you do with things better. how can you help spend time together and deal with their problems together. these families have masses of contact. there's lots of contact but no one is spending time trying to help rearrange things so they can do with their problems. this is a different way to think about it. it is what old fashioned social workers used to do more. they could spend more time with families. we have to do that and that is what i have heard about in sweden and elsewhere. reenforcing success, get every family in every community. where there is things happening. applying what works there elsewhere.

it has got to be done if we do with these problems. >> you are talking about top schools, how can you go to the top schools if you cannot afford it? >> absolutely right. we have not had good enough schools in the state sector. one of the things this government is changing, building on something the last government did. just because it is a poor community, it should not have a great state school. they can be even better. that should not be the case. our free -- preschool program, you have a great idea for running at school, you should be able to set that up in the state

sector. if you can attract the people to get the money. what i have seen is in inner- city areas the get better results than some of the school's right here in relatively well-off areas. it can be done but it needs rocket boosters to make sure we are getting good schools and to every part of our country and it should not depend on being able to go private and spend the money to get better education for our children. there should be good education within the state sector that is as good or competitive and -- as the private sector. let's have one more question. >> [inaudible] part of these -- up front, one the problem seems the

police did not go about the job i had one of them to do to nip it in the bud. >> this was discussed in the house of commons. i think when it started, there was enough police on the streets and the police tactics did not work initially. that is what police officers from the top of the -- what other officers told me. i think that is right. we have to be fair to the police. they are confronting and they do not know what the mob is doing. as an apolitical or is it criminality? it is easy for everyone else to say it is obvious what you have to do. the police are on the front line and having to adopt and change

their tactics as it is happening. that is what they did and they did it successfully and did it with political support. there will be lessons to learn and i am determined we're going to learn them. we have to be careful not to be unfair. we do -- they do a good job on our behalf. i have met many in the last week. they showed extraordinary bravery. they put themselves between us and problems and to risk their lives. please understand that and -- ken i think you for coming? it is lovely to be back with you.

i've tried to enter as many questions as i can. thank you. [applause] >> the british opposition leader also spoke about the riots. he was in a north london. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you and can i say what a privilege it is and a pleasure

to be back? i want to pay tribute to all the young people, the fantastic young people and also fantastic teachers, some of whom taught me. it brings back great memories to be here. i am delighted. it gave me a great education. i grew up with people from all walks of life. there is no substitute for that education. i would not be standing here leader of the labour party. everyone here will have a personal story about last week's riots. and the feelings we have about what happened. mine is one week ago. near the route that i walked to

school for seven years. there was ranting and windows were smashed and stuff was taken. no major city seemed immune. this week i did what politicians did. i went out on the streets. people talk to me about their experiences. people told me their story. their personal, powerful stories. i want to bear witness to them today. it is only with the voices of people that we can begin to understand to solve the problems we face. and tuesday i was in beckham -- peckham. i heard from a young woman who

made it to university who feared for her safety. something has got to be done about this. i also heard from an old man who said the problem is government and politicians have deserted our young people. i saw the spirit of 1000 people who had come out because of twitter that morning to show this spirit that manchester was something else and they cleaned up after the rioting and looting. on friday i went through a whole range of emotions. that is a community that has done so much to build its reputation. and people were saying to me our worry is the world will turn its

back on us after what happened. what will happen to their reputations? i met people like alan moore and i went to see what was left of his shop. he spent 35 years building up his business and all that was left was a safety deposit box standing against the wall. at the same time i visited a center in tottenham. it was about people, volunteers coming out to say, we will help people who need to rebuild. young people who represent the vast majority of young people up and down this country. law-abiding people and politicians need to say that because we do not say it enough. on saturday i heard from people in hackney. shopkeepers who had seen their business is attacked and people searching for answers. i have seen and heard of and you

have had done. anger and grief and fear. also hope, break free, and determination. from almost all, i have heard nothing but condemnation for what happened. no excuses or justification. there is nothing to justify. i have heard and you must have heard as well something else. a deep desire to understand. a deep need to explain what happened. we need to be tough on crime and tough on the forces of crime, that is what people have been saying to me on the streets and everywhere i have been people are discussing the same. why did this happen? what does this say? what can be done to prevent it from happening again?

this is the task of politicians. it might be the more popular part. people demand it on the streets. it stops there. it says it to explain -- to explain is to excuse. if others was to tread this path is a matter for them. >> is an absolute abdication of responsibility. we run the risk of disturbances happening again. the former l.a. police commissioner said, you cannot arrest your way out of this problem. there is another path. simply to blame others. blame the parents. blame the so-called underclass. blame the police. we have certainly seen a lot of that in the last few days, haven't we?

our police force already being undermined by cuts of officers, undermined further, and unseemly attempts by government to take credit for decisions that went right and blame the police for those that did not work out. so wrong. and the approach of blaming others, so simplistic. simple judgements in response to the sort of events bring bad solutions. of course the public says we want quick action, but a new policy day, knee-jerk gimmicks, not opera, they will not solve the problems. let's be obvious -- let's be honest about the politician's instinct in this. it will not meet the public's demand for real and lasting solutions. we have heard it all in the last few days. water cannons, super cops, a daily not at the door for banks, and today's gimmick, prime

minister used to say -- now says the answer is to reform our health and safety laws. a crisis like this tells something of our political leaders. day by day, the prime minister has revealed himself to reaching for shallow and superficial and answers, not a lasting solutions the country needs, based on the wisdom and insight of our community. we have to answer the most basic questions. why are there people who think it is ok to loot and vandalized in their own neighborhoods? they perceive no loyalty to their own communities. they think that everything to gain and nothing to lose from doing things like this. the small minority who did this or not one race, when hate group, one community. they are british people.

to answer what has happened, i say this. people are responsible for their actions, but we all bear a share of responsibility for the society we create. government, labor, conservatives, powerful elites in politics, business, and the media, and all of us, me and you as well, only by starting with this truth can get the honest answers our country deserves. i am here today because the national conversation we need must start with the communities affected. every place i have been too, there is the knowledge to solve these problems and the overwhelming desire to be heard. but i have also heard the suspicion, perhaps legitimate suspicion, that this will be another example of politicians

are arriving at the scene of trouble and then melting away when the world moves on. people have seen the way my profession works before and are understandably cynical. can we be different this time? that is the challenge for political leaders. only if we give people who have been affected by this is the chance for their boys and used to be heard. after every major disturbances in our history, we have had a commission to look at the causes. we must have won this time as well. a genuine national conversation, not a group of mt's focus on policing in criminal justice, as the government proposes. not a review of government policy conducted by civil service. not a standard judicial inquiry is made up by elites, such as what happened with the phone hacking. we need an answer that comes from the people themselves, that listens to the victims and build on their own experiences.

the prime minister should come to these communities and have the humility to listen. he should have nothing to fear from the truth. the people leading this commission of inquiry must include those young people that we talked about, those with the experience of being in gangs. people from across the community. it should not happen in whitehall or westminster. what are the issues of this national conversation? let me put some issues on the table. let's start back asking the question of what value we saw from the looters and up riders. greed, selfishness, and immorality, above all, irresponsibility. the irresponsibility is not just confined to those who took part in the riots. we know there are issues of personal responsibility, too.

i was surprised to hear about the parents who did not turn up to court when their 14-year-old was charged with looting. when the riots began, i made sure my kids were at home. why were the parents not doing that? the reality is, the truth behind it, is not simple. some people say it is all about family breakdown. but there are single parents across this country and the vast majority of them are doing a brilliant job. there are some two-parent families not doing a good job. there are rich families unable to control their kids, and the vast majority of poor kids -- poor families to control their kids. we must avoid really now the old stereotypes and prejudices in this debate that suit one party or another. we need to ask people questions about what causes this

irresponsibility, about why some parents are not teaching their children the difference between right and wrong, not setting boundaries. people say to me, you cannot tell your children off anymore. who is telling parents the cannot tell of their children anymore? certainly not me. we have to ask why the gun people do not have the role models to put them on the right path in life, and we need to understand something else as well, the link between the problems in our society and the economy we have in britain. we need to ask what we can do about an economy where children do not see enough of their parents because they are working 50, 60, 70 hours a week, do not just one job but two or three jobs, and not there when their kids get home, not there in the evening. the los -- the solutions will not be simple, either. one of the most important things government can do to back

families up, proper one-to-one support to help parents do their duty. as we talk about what happened in the riots, we have to be honest with ourselves. children's ideas of right and wrong do not just come from their parents. we cannot honestly say that the selfishness and irresponsibility we saw is combined to the louvers or even to their parents. it is not the first time we have seen this kind of the first, take what you can culture. the bankers to took millions of destroying people's savings, greedy, selfish, and immoral. the mt's to send their expensive expenses. reid, selfish, and immoral. people would talk about the sick behavior of those without power should stop talking about the

sick behavior of those with -- start talking about this the behavior of those with power as well. it is not an bought -- confined to a minority only at the bottom. the morality of millions of hard-working people are under siege from the top as well. let's talk about what that does to our culture. too often we have sent a message from the top to the bottom of britain's society that says anything goes. you are in it for yourself, as long as you can get away with it, who cares? we have heard a lot of talk about role models for communities, but what role model has really been provided by the elites in britain in the last few decades? the values crisis is not confined to the so-called underclass in britain. our whole country is held back by irresponsibility, wherever it is found. it can only be solved by addressing the issue writer cross our society from bonuses to benefits. so the culture of our society

does matter. just as there are those on the left to dismiss arguments about culture, or those on the right to dismiss the importance of opportunity and hope. it is true that some people say that people from comfortable backgrounds to part in the riots. the lack of opportunity cannot explain all of what happened. just because it cannot explain everything does not mean it cannot explain anything. that is why a leader from the opposition needs to speak frankly. not everyone who grows up in a deprived neighborhood turned to crime, just as not everyone who grows up in a rich neighborhood stays on the straight and narrow. individuals are responsible for their actions, and every individual has the choice between doing right and doing wrong, but there are connections between circumstances and behavior. these are not actually my words. they are the words of david cameron in a speech five years

ago. five years ago, he thought of culture and deprivation matter, but what thursday he set in the house of commons, this is not about poverty, this is about culture. i have to say, i don't understand why he has changed his mind. why he has accepted a false choice between culture and opportunity. maybe his views of the world have changed, but the views of what make him popular have changed. i am clear, both cultural opportunities matter. to explain is not to excuse. if we reduced to explain what happened, we will condemn ourselves to repeat it. opportunity matters because there are far too many people in our country who do not have the hope of a better future, who don't feel that proper chances in life and in society. of course the vast majority of young people were not writing and do the right thing, but their decision to do the right thing does not assault us of our responsibility to do the right

thing by them and give them the hope of a better future. in the battle to give hope to young people, we have to be honest. we are losing to the gangs in the inner cities. we have to understand the deep nature of this towards that young people are faced with. i heard it everywhere i have been in the last week. some kids see the joists and say wrongly, the gang offers them money, protection, and status, and some people -- some young people believe it is not actually available to them from another route. just as we need tough action against gangs, we need to show young people there is another way, and that is harder when support is being taken away. i am more interested in defending one government. i am proud of what a labor government did to advance young people's chances.

rebuilding our schools, the minimum wage. these advances the cause of young people. high school standards, getting more people into universities. we did not do everything right, and we did not reach everyone we should have, but in the aftermath of what happened, how we build that better future for yana people, because it is part of the answer. issues like education and skills, youth services and jobs, are important to keep people away from gangs and choosing the wrong path. does matter if young people think there is a grave risk to what i call the promise of britain, that each generation can be better than last. that is what the prime minister used to say, too, and i hope he will say it again. if i am wrong, and hope and opportunity are irrelevant, then let us have a commission of inquiry reach that conclusion.

that's not be scared to seek an explanation and hear the answer. let's be brave enough to find the truth. it is not simply that young people find it hard to get on. it is about something else as well, something the government did not talk about enough, and that is the unequal society that we live in. it is about the gap between what young people can expect and what seems available to others. they see a society glorifying those who make millions, while they struggle to keep up. they be the cult of celebrity, replacing the at the of hard work. these are the parallel lives that we have in britain today, the parallel lives of those who have so much and those who feel they have no stake in our society. we all want the chance to get on, but what is the chance -- what if the chance to do that seems small, and the rewards for success seemed distance. if the wrong collateral so far

apart that you feel you cannot possibly aspire to climb up -- if the rungs on the ladder are so far apart that you feel you cannot possibly aspire to climb up. a stake in society requires a ladder that you can climb. it demands that value be within reach. i hope a part of the national conversation that we need, we look at these issues of inequality which scar our country. what i know is this. the most important thing for now is that we do not let these seven days in august which shook our nation and then our nation forgot. that is why a national conversation is so important. reaching across the gaps in our society between the parallel lives i talked about. i urge the prime minister to establish a commission of

inquiry without delay. if he will not do it in the coming days, i will do it myself. it is right for the victims. is right for the country, and it is right to build a society we need. in recent years, we have seen three great crises in our national institutions, braque began banking, parliament, and the press. in each case, and irresponsible minority let down the minority the majority of good, responsible people. each crisis showed the country in need of deep rooted change. but this crisis showed something else. our strength as a country to come together and respond. the people who came together to sweep our streets showed how a country can unite. the people who reclaim our streets show the true character of britain. it is that spirit, that spirit of young people, that spirit of

great teaching that can help us build a future together. it is that spirit which our national conversation must build for the future, and is that spirit that gives me hope for the future. thank you very much. [applause] >> in just a few moments, president obama's town hall meeting in minnesota. in a little more than an hour, gop presidentia candidate buddy roemer, the former governor of louisiana, criticizes other republicans and the president for taking contributions from political action committees. after that, a forum on national security in the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks. later, we will we are the comments of britishme minister david cameron and opposition leader ed miliband on the london riots. and "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will

discuss the housing market with paul bishop. john gage will take your questions about how the debt ceiling deal and the so-called super committee may affect federal workers. and former f.b.i. investigator david williams will discuss the fbi's role in combating terrorism. washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c- span's website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with facebook updates from the campaign, candidate bios, and the latest polling data. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama began his

midwestern bus tour today in minnesota, saying the u.s. does not have a financial crisis, but a political crisis. this is about an hour. ♪ [applause] >> hello, minnesota. what a spectacular setting.

let's get the grill going. it is wonderful to see all of you here today. thank you for showing up. what an incredible setting. feel free to have a seat, we're going to be your for a while. a couple the introductions. the outstanding governor of minnesota is in the house. two of the finest senators in the country are here. from your congressional delegation. we have the secretary of the department of agriculture.

i am very pleased to be out of washington. [applause] it is great to be here. i am going to say a few things at the top. what i want to do is open it up to questions. i want to hear from you guys. that is the reason we are on

this bus tour. obviously, america has gone through extraordinary challenges. we have gone through the worst recession since the great depression. dating all the way back to 2007 and 2008. here is the interesting thing. if you ask people around the world, people would still tell you that america has the best universities, the best scientists, we have so much going for us. they would gladly trade places with us. [applause] around the world, people still understand the extraordinary power and the extraordinary hope that america represents. there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed. what is broken is our politics. [applause] think about it. over the last six months, we

have had a string of bad luck. there are some things cannot control. you had an arab spring in the middle east. it drove up gas prices, the tougher the economy, a lot of uncertainty. then you had the situation in europe. that washes up on our shores. you had a tsunami in japan. that broke supply chains and created difficulties for the economy all across the globe. there were a bunch of things taking place over the last six months that were not within our control. here is the thing, the question is how do we handle these challenges? do we rise to the occasion? do we pull together? do we make smart decisions? what has been happening over the last six months and a little bit longer than that is that we have a political culture that

does not seem willing to make the tough choices to move america forward. we have a willingness to play partisan games and to engage and brinkmanship that not only costs us in terms of the economy now, but is going to place the burden on future generations. the question is, can we break out of that pattern? can we break out of that pattern? we just went through the battle with the debt ceiling. an entirely self-inflicted wound. it was not something that was necessary, we had put forward a plan that would have stabilized our debt and deficit for years

to come. because we have a politics in which some folks in congress, not the folks who are here, but some in congress would rather see their opponents lose event america win, we created more uncertainty to an economy that was already weak. we cannot have patience with that kind of behavior anymore. i know you are frustrated. i am frustrated, too. we have got to focus on growing this economy, putting people back to work, and making sure that the american dream is there for the next generation. [applause] another way of putting this is, we expect our political representatives to show the same level of responsibility that all of you show.

i do not know most of you. i can guess about you are working hard, you are managing your budgets, you are putting something away for your kids' college education, maybe for your retirement. you are at a local church, working at a food pantry or doing something to help out your community, coaching little league. you are following through on your responsibilities and that is true all across the country. people are doing the right thing. if you can do the right thing, so can washington. [applause] if we do that, there is not a problem that we face that we cannot solve. think about it. our biggest challenge right now

is putting people to work. the biggest challenge is getting the economy growing as rapidly as it needs to grow. it has been growing, we have been able to reverse the recession, we have added over 2 million jobs in the private sector over the last 17 months. [applause] but we are not growing as fast as we need to drive down the unemployment rate. here are some things that we can do right now. i have been talking about it now for months. we could renew the payroll tax cuts that we gave you in december to put $1,000 in the pockets of the typical family so that you get more money to spend to meet your obligations. it means businesses have more customers. it means they might hire a few more folks. all we need to do is renew it. it is already in place.

that is going to help businesses make decisions to hire people and open up and make investments. that is something that we could do right now. congress can do that right now. [applause] congress, right now, can start putting folks back to work rebuilding america. one of the biggest things that caused this recession was the housing bubble. and all those subprime loans that were going on. the whole thing came crashing down. no one has been hit harder than construction workers. at a time when interest rates are low and contractors are begging for work, construction workers are lining up to find jobs, let's rebuild america. we could be rebuilding roads and bridges and schools all across america right now. [applause]

it could put hundreds of thousands of folks to work right now. there is a bill sitting in congress right now that would set up an infrastructure bank to get that moving, attracting private sector dollars, not just public dollars. congress needs to move. right now, we have our veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan. we have taken their place among the greatest generations. i need these young people. 23, 24 years old. they are in charge of platoons, making life or death decisions, tens of millions of equipment. they come home and they cannot find work. let's put them back to work and

use their skills to get this country moving again. congress could do that right now. trade deals, they have not always been good for america. there have been times when we have not gotten a fair deal, or trade deals. but we put together a package that is going to allow us to start selling some fords to korea. we want some made in america staff in other countries. that is something that congress could do right now. patent reform. if we could reform how that system works, we could have gone to print your is creating businesses like google and microsoft right now. all across the country.

we have to make this investment. there is no shortage of ideas to put people to work right now. what is needed is action on the part of congress. a willingness to but the partisan games aside and say, we're going to do what is right for the country. not what is going to score some political points in the next election. [applause] we also need to do this in a way that allows government to live within its means. everybody here, you make responsible choices. about what you can afford and what he cannot afford. america needs to do the exact same thing. there are some programs that do not work and we should stop funding them.

solving our debt and deficit problem simply requires all of us to share in a little bit of sacrifice, to be willing to do a little bit more to get this country back on track. that is not too much to ask. what we need to do is cut about $4 trillion over the next 10 years. that sounds like a big number. it is a big number. if we were able to cut about $2 trillion in spending, if folks who could most afford its were willing to eliminate some of the loopholes that they take advantage of and the tax code, and do a little bit more, and if we were willing to take on

some of the long-term cost that we have on health care. if we do those things, we could solve this problem tomorrow. i put a deal before the speaker of the house, john boehner, that would have solved this problem. he walked away because his belief was, we cannot ask anyone -- in order to close our deficit. warren buffett had an op-ed that he wrote today. we have to stop coddling billionaires like me. that is what warren buffett said. he pointed out he pays a lower tax rates than anybody in his office, including his secretary. he figured out that his tax

bill, he paid about 17%. most of his wealth comes from capital gains. you do not get those tax breaks. you are paying more than that. i may be wrong, but i think you are a little less wealthy than warren buffett. that is just a guess. willingt is, if we're to do something in a balanced way, making some tough choices in terms of spending cuts, the ratings and revenues for folks to have done very well even in a tough economy, we could get control of our debt and deficit and we could invest in things like education and basic research and infrastructure. [applause] it is not that complicated. it does require everybody being willing to make some

compromises. i was in michigan the other day. i do not know about how things work in your house, but in my house, if i said, we have to cut back. we're going to have you stopped shopping completely. you cannot buy shoes, dresses. i am going to keep my golf clubs. that would not go over so well. somehow compromise has become a dirty word. that has to change. that has to stop. with the market's going up and down last week, and this

downgrade, some folks worried that we might be slipping back into a recession, i want all of you to understand. there is nothing that we are facing that we cannot solve would some spirit of america first. we're going to choose country over party, the next generation of the next election. if we're willing to do that, i have absolutely no doubt that we can get this economy going again. small businesses can start growing again. but i'm going to need your help to make happen. you are going to have to send a message to washington that it is time for the games to stop.

it is time to put country first. [applause] it is time for the games to stop. some folks are asking me, why don't you call congress back? i said, i do not think it is going to make people encouraged if we have congress come back and all they're doing is arguing again. what they need to do is go back to their districts, talk to ordinary folks, find out how frustrated they are, and hopefully, when they get back in september, they will have a new attitude. i want everybody to understand that i am here to enlist you in a fight. we're fighting for the future of

our country. that is a fight that we're going to win. that is a promise that i make. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] thank you. all right, everybody had a seat. here is how we're going to do it. i am just going to call on folks and we're going to go girl-boy-girl-boy. picture it is fair. make sure that it is fair. right here, go ahead. introduce yourself. >> president obama, i want to say, as a young voter, thank you for helping me believe that it will be good someday.

>> is going to be good. >> my question is, how are you going to use renewable energy to create jobs in the future? >> this is a great question. the former governor of iowa knows a little bit about agriculture. when i put tom in as the head of the department of agriculture, one of the first things we talked about was, how can we mobilize the resourcefulness of rural communities across the country? we have put billions of dollars into energy research and help move in a direction of greater reliance on fuels that are home grown.

let me give you a couple of examples. one is biofuels. a lot of folks are familiar with corn based ethanol. the fact of the matter is, the technology is moving where we need to start taking advantage of a whole range of biofuels. using refuse, using stuff that we do not use for food to create energy. we are seeing incredible progress on that front. it is key to make sure that we continue to make research and that we use the incredible purchasing power of the federal government to encourage it. we're working with the department of defense to start saying, let's run some of these -- the department of defense uses a lot of fuel. can we get trucks and jeeps and

fighter jets running on alternative fuels? that it's important for national security and it could provide an incredible boost to communities all across minnesota, all across the country. the other thing that we have to do is look at things like wind power and solar power. the next generation of electric vehicles. you'll recall when i came into office, they were talking about the liquidation of general motors and chrysler. a lot of folks said, you cannot help them. it is a waste of the government money to help them. what i said was, we cannot afford to lose up to a million jobs in this country and we cannot afford to lose leadership in terms of building an auto industry that we used to own. we turned around those odd

companies. they are now making a profit for the first time in decades. they are gaining market share for the first time in years. if we're going to help you, you have to change your ways. you cannot just make money on suvs and trucks. as gas prices keep on going up, you have to understand the market. people are going to be saving money. what we have now seen is an investment in electric vehicles. we put investment in something called advanced battery manufacturing because those electric cars, how well they run it depends on how good the batteries are. how long they can run before they get recharged. we only had 2% of the advanced battery manufacturing market when i came into office. we are on track now to have 30,

40, 50% of that market. we are making batteries here in the united states of america that go into electric cars made here in the united states of america. it creates jobs and it creates energy independence. it also improves our environment. that is the kind of approach that we have to take using the private sector, understanding that the private sector is going to be creating jobs. the government can be an effective partner in the process. nowhere is that more true than in rural america. >> mr. president, i am gary evans. i run a broad band company. i have a couple of messages that i hope that you'll take back your colleagues in d.c. we are making the investments

in this country. help the job creators do what it takes. secondly, it was already apparent as the debts debate went on that the mood in america had shifted again to skepticism. i am hoping that you and your colleagues will do everything possible to make certain that confidence is restored to the country and that we have a bright future. i think broadband is a key and i appreciate what you did for a during the stimulus package. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] we were talking earlier about rural america. a disadvantage is that it is a

little more spread out. the population density is not as great. as a consequence, we have seen all these investments in wireless, a broad band, all these new technologies. a lot of times rural is left out. when we came into office, one of the big investments recently begun to make was in broadband technologies so that we can connect every town in america. what that means is if there is a small business in canon falls, you do not have to confine your market. you can start selling in rochester, new york, paris. there are incredible opportunities in terms of

business growth and requires a connection to all of these markets. the days are gone work in the business is going to succeed just by selling right where they are located. that is why we make such a big investment in this. i am pleased to see that it is working. in terms of boosting the folks' confidence, i think it would if they felt like their leaders were working together. that is my belief. i also think they are looking for some practical common sense. i know it is not election season yet. the debates the other party candidate for having the other day, when they were asked to

reduce our deficit, our debt, would you be willing to take a deal where there was $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of increased revenues? everybody said no. how about 10 to 1? none of you would take it. none of them would take it. think about that. that is not common sense. ronald reagan, george h. w. bush, bill clinton, all of them understood that you have to take a balanced approach to solving our deficit and debt problems. the same way a family would. if you had to cut down on your budget, you would not stop

funding the college fund for your kids. you would not say, sorry, johnny, things are tight. we're going to keep on taking our annual vacation and i'm going to buy a new car, but you are not going to college. that is not how you balance your budget. the american people are expecting that same kind of common sense reflected. if it was there, i guarantee you confidence would go up. i speak to ceos of companies all across america. we are willing to do a little bit more when it comes to our personal taxes. they know they have done very

well. the single most important thing we want is making sure that middle-class families and small businesses are successful because if they are successful, we will be successful. that is what we're waiting for. that can be achieved, but it is going to require all of us working together. who is next? >> thank you. welcome, president obama. my husband and son and his wife are dairy farmers. for years, we have never had very much money, but we have been creating wealth for this country. i would just like to say that with your rural committee, i just want you to keep that in mind.

we always create wealth for this country. >> you bet. one thing that i think is worth noting, up from the department of agriculture, we have provided $5 billion in assistance in terms of loans, to small and medium-sized farmers all across the country. that creates a lot of jobs. one of our great strength as a country is agriculture. one of the pledges that i made and i came into office was, we're going to double our exports. a big component of fact is that agricultural exports. so far, we have seen exports rise to over $100 billion. that means over 800,000 jobs all across america.

the fact of the matter is that an lot of family farmers are still struggling. one of the things that we will be talking about during this tour, how we can make sure we can get more capital to small farmers, how we can help young farmers who want to go into farming be able to buy land, how we can make sure they are able to market their products effectively because right now, if you are not somatoform, you get squeezed. there are a lot of things that we can be doing to help the farm economy. if you help entire states, and that is good for the country as a whole. thank you for what you do. >> thank you, president obama

for coming to the great state of minnesota. my name is will morrison. i live in rochester, minnesota. i do not think we should solve the debt crisis on the backs of the middle class and the poor. they do not have special interests. they do not have lobbyists. if we are serious about this data, we need to ask the millionaires and billionaires to give up their tax breaks. >> i completely agree with you. >> i want to say thank you so much for a great job that you were doing. i support you 100%.

you got my vote in 2008 and i will vote for you in 2012. good luck. >> thank you. i do want to say one thing. when i came into office, we had $1 trillion in deficit already. the debt is the accumulation of the annual deficits year after year. we had a balanced budget in 2000. we then launched two wars that we did not pay for. we put on the credit card. we added a prescription drug plan for seniors which was important to do, but we did not pay for it.

we had tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for. that added a huge amount of debt. with the recession, that added more debt. you get less tax revenue, and you are sending more money out. because of things like unemployment insurance, helping farm state afloat, making sure that we were putting spokes to work. the debt problem is real and the deficit problem is real. it is a manageable problem. if you do not believe me, think about it. even after the downgrade, the next day, when the stock markets were going haywire, what did they invest in? they invested in treasuries. the market said, america is

still one of our best bets. they are betting on us. that is why you have to recognize that this is not a financial crisis. although it could turn into one if we do not do anything about it. this is a political crisis. this is manageable. i do not want to lie to you. that does not mean that we do not have to make some tough choices. in this? deal, we cut about $1 trillion spending over 10 years. we protected programs for student loans. we protected programs for hungry kids. we protected health care for seniors. we protected people who were the most vulnerable and need the most help from government. that solves about one-fourth of the problem.

we have more work to do. i want everybody to pay attention to this as the debate unfolds. the key is not to cut more out of programs for poor folks seniors, the key is to get a long-term plan for fiscal stability. in the short term, we should make more investment that would put people to work and get the economy moving. if you combine those two things, we can solve this problem and grow the economy at the same time. the one area where we are going to have to take a look at how we can improve the system, is our health care program,

medicare and medicaid. my grandmother, even though she worked hard for whole life, had a decent income most for life, she was usually reliant on medicare and for life. i know what medicare means to seniors. what is also true is our health care costs have been skyrocketing and more seniors are joining up because the population is getting older. part of what i recommended when we were in these negotiations, although we did not get a commitment from the other side, is to say, can we reduce the overall cost of medicare so that it strengthens the for future generations? books on the other side are proposing to turn medicare into a voucher program. instead of fixing the system, they would completely overhaul it.

you would get a voucher that says, you are a lot to get x amount on health care. if your health care costs keep going about that, you are out of luck. under their plan, the average senior would pay about $6,000 more a year for their medicare. i think that is a bad idea. i think there are better ways for us to manage the medicare problem than to put a burden on seniors. one example is if i were paying my fair share of taxes, we do not have to put that kind of burden on seniors. we do not have to. i do not want a tax break that requires 33 seniors or 40 seniors to pay thousands of dollars more on their health

care. i do not need it. it is not the right thing to do. all right. >> welcome to minnesota. >> thank you. >> mr. president, i am recovering from lung cancer. i tried to get social security disability and they turned me down. we can talk about social security a little bit. >> social security, here is my commitment. i do not know about the other folks. social security will not only be there for you, but it will also be there for the next generation and generation after that. it is one of the most important social insurance programs that we have.

by the way, you pay into social security. they called it an entitlement, but it is not an entitlement, you are paying for it. it has been taken out of your paycheck. it is true that as thebut the sm is not the cause of our debt and deficit. so don't let folks fool you by saying that in order to get a handle on our debt we've got to slash social security. there are some modest adjustments that can be made that will make it solvent for 75 years -- and that's about as long as you can think ahead as a country. and the way to do it is similar to the way that ronald reagan and tip o'neill fixed social security back in 1983. they said, okay, we'll make some modest adjustments that are phased in over a very long period of time.

most folks don't notice them. but if we do that, and all the money goes back into social security -- it doesn't go anywhere else -- then there's no reason why social security won't be there for future generations. but, again, this is an example of where everybody gets so dug in on their positions. and i have to say, in fairness -- because i've commented on the other side not always being flexible -- there have been times where our side -- when democrats aren't always as flexible as we need to be. i mean, sometimes i do get frustrated when i hear folks say, you can't make any changes to any government programs. well, that can't be right. i mean, most companies every year, they're kind of thinking, what can we do better? are there some changes we could make in order to have the operation go a little smoother? the government should have to do the same thing. but that doesn't mean we have to make radical changes that dismantle what is the most important social insurance

program that we have. but, again, the problem is not the program, the problem is our politics. you'll hear a lot of folks, by the way, say that government is broken. well, government and politics are two different things. government is our troops who are fighting on our behalf in afghanistan and iraq. that's government. government are also those fema folks when there's a flood or a drought or some emergency who come out and are helping people out. that's government. government is social security. government are teachers in the classroom. [applause] government are our firefighters and our police officers, and the folks who keep our water clean and our air clean to breathe, and our agricultural workers. and when you go to a national park, and those folks in the

hats -- that's government. so don't be confused -- as frustrated as you are about politics, don't buy into this notion that somehow government is what's holding us back. now, too much government -- if it's oppressive and bureaucratic and it's not listening to people and it's not responsive to the needs of people and isn't customer friendly -- that's a problem. and if you stand in line at some government office and nobody seems to be paying any attention to you, well, that needs to be fixed. and if somebody is trying to regulate a small business and they're not paying attention to the realities of the small business, that's a problem. but don't buy into this whole notion that somehow government doesn't do us any good, government is what protects us. the government is what built the interstate highway system. government is what sent a man to the moon. it's what invested in the

research and development that created innovations all across this country. all right. [applause] i think it's a gentleman's turn, isn't it? right back there. yes, sir. right there. our mic guys are doing a great job, aren't they? give them a round of applause. >> thank you. [applause] are we on? first of all, welcome to cannon falls, president obama. we're really pleased to have you here. >> thrilled to be here. >> you just did a little lead- in to my question a couple of minutes ago when you said that the government is a lot of things. and as we look around us right now and we see that we are ringed by school buses all the way around this way, that's kind of where i'm headed here. pfftit's because we can't improve the economy unless we improve its foundations, and education is at the foundation of this economy. [applause]

i would like to know what it is that your administration is planning on doing to bolster education in the face of state cuts, federal cuts -- 45 students to a classroom, cutting teachers and so forth. thank you. >> well, let me tell you first of all what we did when i came into office. the recovery act, about a third of it was support to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and firefighters and police officers. and thanks to the work that amy and al and keith and tim and others did, even after the first round of the recovery act, we then gave states some additional assistance to prevent layoffs of teachers. now, at a certain point, the money ran out. and states are still going through a tough time. i personally believe that one of the most effective ways that we could help the economy is making sure that we're not seeing more teacher layoffs.

and i'm going to be working with congress and state governments all across the country to prevent that from happening, because you're exactly right -- we can't eat our seed corn. we can't shortchange investments in the future, and no investment is more important than education. now, the challenge we have in education is not just money, though. we've also got to make it work better. and that's why what my administration has done is to say, we're going to put more money into education, but we're also going to look for high standards and reform at the state levels. and what we've tried to do is collaborate with governors and say, look, instead of a no child left behind law that labels schools failures but doesn't give them help that they need --

what we think you should do is we'll work with you to come up with what are the things that work. how do we help train young teachers more effectively? how do we make sure that there's good data, so instead of just teaching to the test, teachers are able to get results from a test to use to actually improve teaching in the classroom while it's taking place right then? and the steps we've taken, including something called race to the top that creates competition and says, you know what, if you're doing a really great job and you're coming up with innovative new ideas, we'll give you a little extra money to implement those reforms and those good ideas -- we're actually starting to see improvement across the country. the problem is, if the improvement is undermined because teachers are getting laid off and kids are ending up having to go to school four days a week in some states instead of five, or if suddenly

things like music and art and pe that used to be critical to any school experience, suddenly that stuff is going away, then that's undermining the reforms that we're making. so my argument to every governor and every local school district is, figure out what you can do without, but don't shortchange education. and ultimately the most important thing in education are our teachers, and we've got to give them support and buck them up. in fact, we should be paying them more than they're getting paid. if we're doing that, then we'll be in pretty good shape. all right. gentleman in the yellow -- oh, i'm sorry, it's a lady's turn. right there, in the sunglasses -- in the blue blouse, right there. there we go. >> hi, mr. president.

my name is teresa morel, and i just want to say that i'm really excited that you're here in cannon falls. and my question is, is there something we can do about the rising cost of prescription drugs? and number two, if you can't legalize marijuana, why can't we just legalize medical marijuana to help the people that need it? >> well, a lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana. as a controlled substance, the issue, then, is, is it being prescribed by a doctor as opposed to -- well, i'll leave it at that. [laughter] with respect to prescription drugs, the prescription drug program that now is part of medicare obviously has been very helpful, but the costs had been going up and up and up. so part of the affordable care act health care reform, also

known as "obamacare" -- by the way, you know what? let me tell you, i have no problem with folks saying "obama cares." i do care. if the other side wants to be the folks who don't care, that's fine with me. but, yes, i do care about families who have been struggling because of crushing health care costs. i met a young man here who -- right here -- who, as a consequence of health care reform -- he's got a blood disorder that, if it weren't for the health care reform act, his family would have been capped out and he wouldn't have the help that he needs. [applause] so -- and you can tell he's an outstanding young man and he's going to do great things, and his family is not going bankrupt as a consequence of it. now, the same thing is true on

prescription drugs. what we did as part of the affordable care act was we said, first of all, we're going to give a $250 rebate to every senior out there who's using the prescription drug plan to help lower their costs a little bit, and what we've done is we're starting to close what's called the "doughnut hole." and for those of you who aren't familiar with the doughnut hole, the way the original prescription drug plan was structured, you would get some coverage up to a certain point -- a couple thousand dollars -- once you spent a few thousand dollars, suddenly it just went away and you were on your own, out of pocket, until you got on the other side where you'd spent many more thousands of dollars, and then you would get a prescription drug plan again. well, we said, that doesn't make any sense. let's close that hole. and as part of the affordable care act, we will be closing that hole, and we're also making it cheaper for generics to get onto market as well as brand-name drugs.

so, overall, the health care act should be lowering prices for prescription drugs over the next few years. it's getting phased in, so it didn't all take into effect right away after i signed the bill. it's getting phased in over the next several years. but you should start seeing some relief if your family needs prescription drugs. that was part of the affordable care act. all right? gentleman in the yellow shirt right here. >> hello, mr. president. i'm pat tulo from cannon falls township. first, i want to echo the sentiments of those who have spoken before me in praising you and thanking you for all of your efforts and all the things that you've tried to do during probably one of the most difficult situations faced by any president in the face of unreasonable obstruction and opposition. so thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you. >> i'd like to follow up on

health care reform. as of two days ago, we now have a split in the 11th circuit and 6th circuit courts of appeals, where, inevitably, this is heading for the u.s. supreme court regardless of how the 4th circuit rules. i don't have a lot of confidence in the u.s. supreme court with its conservative wing. my concern is that they will drive this toward striking down the individual responsibility mandate, which i understand to be so critical to making the system work -- if everybody doesn't buy in, it really doesn't work. my question to you, sir, is, what do we do? this is a giant step backward if it happens. and i know i'm counting on -- i'm talking about things that haven't happened yet, but just in terms of contingency planning, you must be thinking about this. >> well, first of all, i think it's important for everybody to understand that the affordable care act won't have fully taken effect until 2013.

so on a big change like this where we're helping a lot of people, you want to phase it in and do it right. now, there are a lot of different component parts to it. i just mentioned prescription drugs, helping seniors be able to afford their prescription drugs. you've got the law that says that folks can stay on their parents' health insurance up until they're 26 years old. [applause] so a lot of young people, especially if they don't have a job yet or they don't have a job that gives health insurance, they've got some security as they're getting started off in life. all the patient -- essentially patient rights that were in the bill, all those things are going to be there. so no lifetime caps and no fine print that the insurance company gives you where you think you're covered and then when you're sick you go to try to get insurance and it turns out that they're not covering you for that -- all that stuff is going to be in place.

and what we're doing is each state is setting up what's called an exchange where, essentially, you can pool with your friends who also don't -- and neighbors who don't have health insurance, and now you've got a big purchasing unit, right, just like a big company does, and that means you can negotiate with the insurance companies and you can get a better deal. how many people here have tried to buy health insurance on their own without a company? and you know what happens, right? they will charge you an arm and a leg, because their attitude is you're not part of a big enough pool that we can spread the risk across. so we're setting up these exchanges. now, where the individual responsibility mandate comes in has to do with the part of the

law that says an insurance company can't reject you because you've got a preexisting condition. [applause] and -- which i think is the right thing to do. here's the problem -- if an insurance company has to take you, has to insure you, even if you're sick, but you don't have an individual mandate, then what would everybody do? they would wait until they get sick and then you'd buy health insurance, right? no point in you -- i mean, it's just like your car insurance. if you could buy -- if the car insurance companies had to give you insurance, you'd just wait until you had an accident and then you'd be dialing on the phone from the wreck, and you'd say, "state farm, i'd like to buy some car insurance please." [laughter] so that's why the individual mandate is important. because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can't be a free-rider on everybody else -- you can't not

have health insurance, then go to the emergency room and each of us who've done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. that's not fair. so if you can afford it, you should get health insurance just like you get car insurance. this should not be controversial, but it has become controversial partly because of people's view that -- well, let me just say this -- you've got a governor who's running for president right now who instituted the exact same thing in massachusetts -- this used to be a republican idea, by the way, this whole idea of the individual mandate, and suddenly some -- it's like they got amnesia. it's like, oh, this is terrible. this is going to take away freedom for americans all over the world, all over the country. so that's a little puzzling. one court has said -- actually,

the majority of courts that have looked at it, the lower courts, have said individual mandate is fine. medical care is different from everything else. there's nothing wrong with saying to people who can afford to get health insurance, you need to buy health insurance just like car insurance. you can't wait and then go to the emergency room, because we can't turn you away at the emergency room. and if you're broke, then we'll give you some help, but if you can afford it, you should buy it. that's what the majority of courts have said. there have been two appeals courts so far. one has said it's fine. the other one has taken sort of the conservative line that this restricts freedom and congress doesn't have the authority to do it. if the supreme court follows existing precedent, existing law, it should be upheld without a problem. if the supreme court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens. but i just want to make everybody understand that there

are a lot of components to the health care law that are good for you, even if you don't have health insurance -- or even if you have health insurance. it's true that we helped 30 million people get health insurance. but it was also the strongest patient bill of rights that has ever been passed to make sure that if you do have health insurance, the insurance companies don't jerk you around, that they treat you fairly. and that is going to stay in place. and that's the right thing to do. all right, i've got time for one more question. and i'm going to ask this young lady right here. i always want to end with the next generation. >> i'm vanessa pier and i'm from cannon falls. and i'm going to say, happy birthday to val. >> oh, happy birthday, val. val looks like she's about 29.

[laughter] >> and why cannon falls? >> why cannon falls? [laughter] [applause] well, i had heard that cannon falls has some of the smartest, best-looking kids around. [laughter] and you have confirmed the rumor about the outstanding children of cannon falls. so thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. ♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing]

>> present obama continues as midwestern bus tour tomorrow in iowa at what the white house is calling or rural economic forum. the event is in debut in the eastern part of the state. he will be joined by agricultural secretary tom ball vilsack. >> good morning, everyone. i want to thank you for joining the call. obviously with president obama embarking on this taxpayer funded campaign tour, we are here to launch a campaign of our own called obama's debt to are, to remind the people of this president's failure to create jobs and of his failed policies

that have only made things worse. but we are doing as we have had said, text messaging that we're launching, making calls to independent voters, we are holding press conferences, and in each state where president obama will visit, we will not stand idly by while this president perpetrates this fraud of a bus tour why using taxpayer dollars to spend it -- spin his failure to put america back to old word. a few days ago he said he would renew his focus on creating jobs. of course, he cannot help themselves because he is the campaigner in chief. he would rather be out campaigning than in washington leading our country out of the ditch that he put us in. he is out here today in minnesota talking about jobs. but the only job he is talking about lately is his own.

americans are craving action- oriented leadership. what happened this month was a few things. an embarrassing credit downgrade, a roller-coaster stock market, stagnating job growth, plummeting consumer confidence, and in ilo we had 21,000 jobs that have been lost since barack obama took office, and and i know what they also lost over 17,000 jobs since the so-called stimulus panacea passed over $850 billion two years ago. and we know that the numbers are more horrifying nationally during not -- unemployment, 9.1%. underemployment, 16%. the national debt, at that thing he said he would get under control, $3.9 trillion added to

the national debt. thankfully, islands in response to his failed policies elected governor branson, and a republican house to counter obama's lack of leadership at the national level. but job creators need stability and certainty. instead, from obama, what they got was a tax threats, owners regulations, a or in some an unconstitutional obamacare, and vindictive national labor relations board. if barack obama is policies our job killers. it is not just the economy that is the problem here that we're talking about. it is the policy that this president, barack obama, put into place that has made everything worse. the president likes to say that the bad economy is not his problem. instead, he would rather blame everyone but himself. he likes to say he inherited

these problems. one thing this president did not inherit was a rich thing is president inherited was a aaa credit rating. make no mistake, visit barack obama's economy. the only way to turn around is to make barack obama a one-term president. we will build as a party on a 2010 victory in iowa to make sure the state goes to read in 2012. that is why i am here today and that is why the republican party will be working hard in iowa. and because we are talking about iowa, i wanted to make sure that we opened up a call to the chairman of the iowa gop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it was a pleasure having you in iowa for the debate last week. thank you for your hard work for the cause and thank you for jumping on the call today. here in iowa, we know what the net -- we know a thing until about campaign swings and campaign buses.

and make no mistake -- this has all the trappings of a campaign tour. the only difference between the gop presidential campaign buses and the presidential bus is a that the taxpayers are funding the bill. has the president's bosnia roles and, he will realize quickly that it is not the iowa of 2007 and 2008. if we understand that he has failed to lead on providing certainty to private-sector job creators to create jobs in iowa. in fact, over 60% of independent voting in the state last week disapprove of the job he is doing in the coming year that manifesto we see on the ground politically. those of you who watch the proceedings and are straw poll this weekend's show of the energy, the excitement, the enthusiasm of republicans in iowa, the second highest turnout we have ever had aired july marked the 29th straight month that iowa republicans have

outpaced iowa democrats in voter registration. he knows that this is a state he must carry if he is to win a second term. make no mistake -- is this it has everything to do with politics and very little to do with policy. that is why he is here. with that, mr. chairman, it is time to take some questions. >> very good. it is star one if you want ask him questions. >> please ummute your name and record your name clearly when prompted. one moment for our first question. it comes from our third delaney. >> thank you for having this call. this question is for both. is it appropriate it so much political attention says the

economy here is a somewhat stronger than the rest of the country? >> there is no question in around theiowans state that there is questions about the economy. farmland values are high, and the fact we have even 60% of independent voters disapproving of his handling of the economy shows you that we care more about just the parochial interests. they care about what is happening to the country. if they see an uncontrollable spending coming out of washington. as the uncertainty which small bank that aren't certain to lend because of how lending requirements. people are not hiring are expanding because of vote, care. -- or expanding because of

obamacare. >> what you see across america in minnesota and wisconsin, people in this country are hurting everywhere. the problem is national up as point. if we do not get our debt and deficits under control, these are issues of national security at this point in. this president is making everything worse. people in the country are focused on the problem we are having in this country with spending, our debt, and jobs. i think it is becoming an nationalized issue and people understand across america that the government is making promises it cannot keep. we have to start making tough decisions and do something about it. but we have a president who would rather be on bus tours campaigning and giving speeches and tackling the issues in washington. i think it is important. >> thanks so much.

>> you bet. >> live roemer is criticizing his fellow gop candidates and president obama for their campaign fund raising practices, including accepting money for political action committees. a former louisiana governor was at the national press club for an hour. i believe that america is a great nation regardless of your starting point in life. america has always been a special land. formed with the declaration of independence and then i

constitution, we stand against tyranny of a florentine in a culture of elitism and class segregation in england. america has prospered into the world's act -- greatest economic power, the land of opportunity. i ran for president because america is a great nation and a great people. and america is in trouble. 20% of its work force, 25 million americans are out of work in this recovery. they have quit looking or are underemployed. we have 1 million fewer jobs than 12 years ago. and the jobs we have pay less. we have given away our manufacturing jobs. we do not make things any more. we distribute things. a bad trade.

made in america is an endangered species. we're not dependent on consumption and government. -- we are now all depended on consumption and government. we owe more than any nation ever. we have deficits averaging $1.1 trillion a year for the next decade. we haven't discipline spending. week or 42 cents out of every dollar spent. we have an unreadable tax code laced with loopholes. interestingly, the block of our debt comes from our competitors. that same vein, we are addicted to foreign oil. we refuse to seal our own borders and we have decided to rebuild other nations while paralyzed in the tips to help our own. it is unsustainable.

america. growth is the only solution in the 21st century. if we plan our nation better than we receive, if we plan to work our way free again -- growth is essential to the land of opportunity. we can do this. this can be done. i am positive on america. we can grow again. at least half a dozen strong initiatives must be employed. we must level the playing field against those nations to compete unfairly, choosing to steel our best jobs while the use child labor, forced labor, prison labor, no work safety or health or environmental standards.

it in barriers to the flow of trade, and even currency manipulation. will outline the specific set of remedies that will be featured in my next major speech in new york. the president must offend american jobs from unfair foreign competition. nd americane jobs from unfair foreign competition. for some it is too late but they will no longer be tolerated and i am president. i will call them out one by one. we must win the battle to control federal spending. at 25% of gdp, is excessive. unsustainable. it is confidence-destroying. for six months, i have detailed

of 1% permanent reduction in spending, my idea. i it would take us five years to do it. that is $140 billion a year. production begins with energy subsidies including ethanol, oil, and natural gas. the elimination of the department of energy and modifying entitlements. you're one. we must deregulate small business, beginning with regulations imposed since january 1, 2008. and extend that to regulation period floor for five additional years, from the president, while. two out of every three jobs in america are borne by small businesses, defined as 499 employees or fewer. 81,000 pages and the federal register last year alone are a new regulatory comments on small businesses. they do not have a lobby.

they do not have the checks. they just work for a living and they build america. to every three new jobs -- they are the key. regulations are the new taxes. we will deregulate them. health care costs must be lowered on the diabetics. for more than 40 years, i understand the business. we must eliminate costs. we will start with obamacare itself. we will institute for reform. if we will open insurance competition across state lines, so simple. we will expose pharmaceuticals to price competition. we will incentivize providers to reduce expenses by allowing them to keep 25% of what they say. -- save. we should be energy independence

in a decade. we will drill where there is oil and gas. we will put a million people were. we would use all domestic forms of energy. we will eliminate the department of energy. we walked jerez far and all except for canada and mexico. -- we will tariff all foreign oil except for canada and mexico. we will reduce the cost of gasoline by doing just that. we must completely revise our tax code for a record low marginal rates for individuals and companies with no loopholes and deductions. we will make u.s. a tax haven with lower marginal rates and minimum tax on investment and capital gains. simple as the key word. adequate for the job and not a penny more. finally, thinking must be reworked by having capital ratios rise as banks grow

larger. they are unsafe. we will eliminate two big to fail. we will restore of virgin of class -- >>. much needs to be -- we will restore a version of glass- steagal. special interests own this town. special interest on this capital. special interests alone the tax code. special interests come in the budget. they've bought and paid for. the tyranny of the big check, i call it. we need to make changes to grow. we need to take bold action, but special interests have never had it so good. why should they change? corporations that never made more money than they made in the

last 12 months, why should they change? our political system, our political systems are institutionally corrupt. i'm not putting my figures -- pointing my fingers and someone. i am pointing at the system. special interest write the tax code. you cannot read it. they can. every year the cost of elections rise, $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion, and the same 2 percent of americans give all the money. 98% did nothing. we are unknown to the top by special-interest money, wall street money, by the big check and is getting worse. let us look at the record.

health care reform did not include tort reform. i wonder why that was? lawyers give a lot of the parties. we did in louisiana. you thought i was the double itself, but we did it, and lower our costs. health care reform under president obama did not include the requirement and insurance companies had to compete across state lines. you cannot buy politics across state -- a policy across state lines right now. prohibited. it is in the law. big givers, those insurance companies, those rascals. it did not require pharmaceutical companies to compete on price. oh, now, big bucks, these guys have. big bucks.

i 2300 page bill was produced, on constitutional in its mandate to citizens, and it did not touch three of the biggest health care costs on earth. read jonathan alter's book, "the promise" about the pharmaceutical industry as an example. the special-interest money in the billions. did you know the washington, d.c. lobbyist gave more money in the last presidential campaign in 32 states combined? you did not know that, did you? i guess it is just an accident. and it is worse now than four years ago. we have the political action committees that can give twice as much as individuals. why is that? and there's no limit on the number of pacs.

they are the bond lawyers. there is a happy group. -- bundlers. there is a happy prepared they are designated to pick up checks. they raise moneybraiseundlers, they are called. they collect checks and give them to the candidate. $100,000, $500,000, $2 million in mitt romney case. he had 25 designated bundlers to raise $2 million each. i read of harvard law school student paper recently. he let me do it. he looked at the givers in presidential campaigns. the bundlers. just to see what happens to them. he called it checkbook diplomacy.

normally in a presidential term, about 30% of the ambassadorial appointments are political. 70% on not. obama is at 50 percent -- 57% political 323% of them were bundlers. polities some names. japan, $500,000 he gave. sussman, great britain, five and a thousand dollars. france, $800,000. belgium, $775,000. switzerland, $745,000. on and on, 24 of obama's nominees bundles over $11 million. the heart -- the number is hard to come out with because there is no full disclosure and just ranges of bids, the minimum ranges at 11 million. and that does not include money

to the inaugural committee, the leadership's pac, for the dnc. both sides to it, and i do not mean to pick on just the president. he is the worst. but both sides to it. his 30-70 ratio is 57% political. selling important jobs like the third world nation. it is not right, it is not healthy, it is not good for america. the tyranny of the big check, the lobbyist and fund-raiser. i know and i was a congressman, although i did not take pac money, i accepted a meeting with

a lobbyist to representative you buy. knowledge of an industry is critical. it is a valid job to be a lobbyist, but not when all you do is bring in check. i think are registered lobbyist s should not be allowed to lobby and fun race. that is very specific. the american bar association agreed with me just last week. the name jake eberts off -- jack abramoff comes to mind. i notice congressman the becerra just had to reveal a fund-raiser that came up. he was appointed to the special committee. he is going to have a fundraiser. $1,500 check for lobbyists.

a week ago, i called on the members to not take lobbyist money, pac money. for the duration of their term. this is an important committee. i do not know if it is a good idea, but is now the law. they should be free, the members of this committee, to do what needs to be done. by the way, the congressman's answer, and i will quote it, i will continue to do what i have to do is a member of congress. so, yes, we will move forward with a fund-raiser. so what is his role as a member of congress? collect at special-interest checks from lobbyists and pacs so that he can get reelected? is that his job?

could it be that he should represent his district and rebuild america? we asked the leadership of the congress of to have no lobbyist and pac money for the term of these members. watch the money. i have challenged the leadership. why don't we let the people decide this with their coats, not the special interest with their big checks? now there is something new. it is called the super pac. the governor of texas has seven of them. they do not have to report or disclose who gives them the money. and the amount is unlimited. corporate or individual,

unlimited. these are supposed to be independent. independent of what? in mitt romney's case and in rick perry's case, one of these super pacs is run by their former chief of staff. now there is independence. employees of the campaign running others. it is bogus. it is funny. phony.e it is a way to get around limits. they pore over into the super pac, employees, business partners of one of the candidates it a million dollars last week. they did not want to reveal it. why not?

if it is legal, what are we fighting? -- hiding? these are hidden, on limited corporations and individuals, and the only candidates in my party who have an them are romney, perry, bachmann, and huntsman. why? don't do it. i challenge them, don't do it. join with me. ands restore some honesty hate and purpose in the system. do not do it. they are phony, and i promise the american public will learn every detail of everyone. special interest trying to buy influence, super packs to find

that canada. do you know that under an interpretation of the law, the candidate himself or herself can go to the fund-raising dinner of the super pac and speak? oh, there is no connection, is there? is a joke. except our country is on the line. look at banking reform, which got me into this campaign. my a banker, a small city, bank is not quite $1 billion. i built it with these hands. one could loan at that time. no penny of the bailout money, not a time. unlike the big boys on wall street, if we do not do the right thing, if we do not honor our commitments, we fail. read correction morgan send in the "york times" every sunday,

the best. she details the banking scams and the funny reforms that we just had -- phony reforms that we just had. we are still on the hook. goldman sachs is the largest financial giver. no one went to jail there. how about the homeowners? oh, by the way, obama, the first place that he went with his campaign kicked off, wall street. nice reform, mr. obama. job for sale. the president is a great fundraiser. that's just what i am looking for any president. how about you? in times of crisis, in times of peril, in times of uncertainty,

i believe that a president from whichever party must be free to vote lead a resurgent nations. i asked my republican colleagues to limit contributions to the individual amount, $2,500. except no pac money, no super pac, no lobbyists working of the fund raisers. you can do it. i have run for it got better and be the man who spent 10 times what i did. you can do it. like every elected to congress every time, not a penny from may pac. you can do it. let obama raise $1 billion from the special interests. we can beat him with web -- with less because we will be free to leave. to make the tough choices. and we can explain to the american people what is happening rather than some back

room. i want to pledge from my fellow candidates, since they have pledged everything else, i want to pledge did you will make reform of this institutionally corrupt system and must for your leadership skills. the debate has always been between disclosure and the limits. republicans generally on the side of disclosure, democrats generally for limits. interesting now in the 21st century, we have neither. we have neither. we have lost them both. our political system has been corrupted. the supreme court has ruled and i think correctly, although by a narrow margin, that money is speech. but it gives congress the latitude to legislate, broadly

based, carefully done, honoring the constitution. my suggestion would be full disclosure requirements. real time reporting of money, not quarterly. every 48 hours. that's how long you can hide it, 48 hours. no registered lobbyist kanpur dissipated and fund-raising. their choice. -- can participate in a fund- raising. their choice. right now there is a hand slap and nothing happens. accept no pac. individuals welcome. no pac money. eliminate the super pacs. eliminate them entirely. i challenge my fellow republican

candidates to stand with the people against the special interests, the new tyranny pulling america down, hiding in the shadows, if you're writing the legislation, never more prosperous while america suffers. special interests. i am the only person running and a congressman and the governor. i have fought corruption by insisting on full disclosure and reasonable limits all my life, no exceptions. ayman main street banker turning small business around, not one penny a bailout, as i said. i know the need in power of confidence in this uncertain world. we must have a president that we are confident they can. he cannot take the special interest money. i challenge the next president to restore the

confidence. the challenges that the next president, she are he faces, their indescribable. he must be free to leave. i challenge you to rely on individuals, open contributions. i challenge you to lead on institutional corruption. here i stand from day one, my rules. no pac money appeared $100 limits maximum, every nickel disclosed. this campaign for me will be about developing those points that i laid out. how to turn this country around. that is what i do. i took the state with 12% unemployment, wrote the lowest bond rating in america, less than guam, and i apologize to guam.

we had seven upgrades. unemployment was cut in half. it was tough. i was not popular. no was my first answer. but we scrub the budget. we had campaign disclosure. louisiana stood on its feet again. i was only the second republican governor record we've had two since then. we have turned this around. it can be done in america. i need 1 million people. invest $100 in me and these primaries, 1 million families. all you will give is a free to lead a president who will build a team of republicans, independents, t party years, and conservative democrats to cooperate and rebuilding america's future. i up to make the next debate. i announced 3.5 years ago -- 3.5 weeks ago that i was running.

we are spending our time in new hampshire, and when we make that debate, we will challenge the field, person by person, to stand free of the special interests and put americans back to work again. the race is wide open. you cannot pick a winner. but you can make one. thank you. >> the governor is happy to take questions. i would ask that you introduce yourself and identify your organization. governor, you describe the corrupting influence of corporations. do you think the interest of u.s. companies have diverged from the interest of the nation? if so, how would you propose to realign those interests? >> excellent question. i do not have an easy answer, but two parts.

have interests diverged in building a nation and a company? yes, and that is not abnormal. it is in a company's bylaws, their constitution, to enhance their profit for their shareholders. not to name the he, and goldman sachs, any other, but they have done just that. we find in the pursuit of money, that they sometimes take action that changes the budget for met that will -- format that will enhance their ability to eliminate jobs in america and open them up overseas because it is cheaper for them. that is not always in america's best interest. i think america needs more than 8% of its workers in

manufacturing. we need to make something. that is why nafta was a problem for me. we need fair trade. corporations will not profit. i think our interests can be aligned. if we have a tax code where ge cannot get off making $5.2 billion and pay no taxes in america. we can eliminate the foreign tax credit. why should we deduct taxes owed to us? we can lower the rate for corporations. it can be 15%, not 35%. we could be a tax haven. there are ways to align each other. one of the dysfunctional relationships, though, is the dependence that politicians make on the big checks. corporations are only too happy to make it. ge was the largest contributor

among corporations four years ago. they contributed $4.3 million. nice investment. they paid no taxes on $5.2 billion last year. guess who helped write the tax code? guess who goes around with the president as his economic advisor? i just hope he does not listen to him. a corporation has to make a decision. is it going to be an american corporation and enjoy the benefit of our marines, quality of life, the freedoms of life we have in america, and not paid its taxes? or are we going to have our interests converge? i think we can do it. i went to the harvard business school, with a lot of these characters.

they know me, i know them. we need their jobs. we do not need them to transport their jobs to other nations. they will have to do that sometimes when there is a competitive disadvantage, but generally, we have let our jobs be stolen by countries that protect their jobs. it has to be one way or another. we will be the protector hours -- ours or break down their barriers. >> politicians from both parties have stopped -- talk about outsourcing -- stopping outsourcing for years. they have been unsuccessful. working with both parties, what would it take to convince congress to pass significant trade reform? >> cut off the big checks. ge does not hold trade reform. they liked the system like it is.

goldman sachs does not want trade reform. they took a couple billion dollars from libya and invested it. well, they lost every penny of it. they like the system as it is. you figure it out? the guys with the money do not want change, they just want power. they are making a fortune the way the country is right now with families in south carolina, new hampshire, nebraska, indiana, ohio, without work. and no one seems to care. i listened to the debate with my colleagues the other night. i did not hear one specific jobs plan. i would do away with the deduction in the tax code. section 162, which allows one to make a call center, for example, overseas, and they deduct the expenses of that from their american taxes.

it ought to be changed. we ought to defend our jobs. corporations are free to do what is in their best interest, but it is in their best interest for america to be strong again. maybe i'm old-fashioned on that. and i in a global guide. i have been to china more times than there are people in this room. i have seen the child labor. i have seen the smoke there. the smoke is so heavy, that acid is so strong. there are no standards. and i'm not putting wal-mart down, they are a distributor. they have profited from that. that is fine, but we need to make something again. and we need a level playing field. there are ways to do it. i have mentioned two, the deduction of foreign tax

credits is one of them. there are others. it will be controversial, i it meant that. -- i admit that. but i think it is right for a president to stand up for our jobs. i think it is the right thing to do? anybody else? >> think progress. you talked a lot about corruption in the campaign finance system one thing that strikes me is, when a corporation was formed in march and then donated -- how is an example like that similar to what is happening with finances right now? >> i stayed up last night scribbling my speech. i left out hundreds of examples.

this mitt romney thing -- independent of him, they formed the this superpac, this corporation, gave him the money, and then immediately disbanded. and i do not mean to pick on any one candidate. they are all guilty. it is not right. and it is an example of the corruption of non-disclosure. it is an example of having a partner and not telling her or him things that affect them. this sort of hidden, shadow- kind of play will not serve candidates well. i do not know if i will ever be a major candidate. i have been out of politics for

16 years. but i could not stand by any longer. it is not that i know everything, or that i am a saint. but i have been in congress, i have been a governor. i have been at the highest levels. and i have watched it work. your freedom is corrupted by the big check. and it is part of a system of a wink and nod. just check out the members of the special committee. how many fund-raisers will they have in the next 60 days? how much pac money will they collect? and not everyone who gives a check is evil. but how do you distinguish between the two? they end up in the tax code and hurting america. it is in their interest to have disclosure, i think.

finally, let me say, in age of the internet, i have gotten donations from all 50 states. i have only been to four of them. there is a feeling out there that something is not right. people say, buddy, you ought to run as an independent i changed parties wants. -- once. that is enough. i struggled as a conservative democrat. i voted against tip o'neill in my first vote in congress. i love ronald reagan. he was crucified by the press. but he turned out to be a pretty darn good president, a man of honor. but the system has gotten a lot worse since then. i saw early when i got to

congress that pacs were deliberately secretive. the reason they did so is so that the checks would be bigger. so i decided not to accept that. and it has grown my feeling, as i have been in private enterprise the past 20 years, as i have been building banks, depending on the honor and word of my customers and myself. the big checks that get in between them honor are dishonorable. our system is institutionally corrupt. i do not know of another nation that sells ambassadorships like we do. >> gannett newspapers. you mentioned small business and oil. to talk about what that looks

like? [inaudible] >> we are talking about small companies, not the majors. i am really focused on where the jobs come from, and it is not from the oil companies. i think before you rely on small, independent companies to drill, there has to be safety standards and their need to be a reserve fund in case there is damage. i would do those things. i am talking about a more general approach. president obama is trying this in different ways. he is saying, let's look at the regulation and see what is bad. i want to throw out all the regulation and take what is good. that is a different approach. did that answer your question? ok. >> cnn. you have been talking about how money is a systemic problem [inaudible]

in the a toro process. -- electoral process. what are your views on the present system of redistricting? >> you can smell it. i do not have any -- an easy answer there. i went through redistricting when i was governor of our state. i think we did it without controversy. louisiana is a unique state. french in the south, and german, protestants like me from the north, with a wonderful mixture of african americans, about a third of our population. in that redistricting, we tried to mitscher that we did not -- make sure that we did not advantage any party. it was approved by the justice

department, and i was proud of that. there are abuses in redistricting. i have not taken the time -- and it has been 16 years since i have been involved -- to know how best to proceed, but let me answer you this way. i am suspicious of the current practice. i do not think redistricting should be used as an excuse to change the nature of a state. i will just leave it at that. >> governor, you talk about your concerns over the large trade deficit as part of our economic problem. why is it that no one talks about the need to rebalance our trade as part of our economic strength? >> it is like all these candidates have taken a pledge for free trade, as if it has worked so well in america. 12% of our gdp is in free trade. we sell to it -- 12%, we buy 90%.

that means we give away not quite $1 trillion a year. -- we by 19%. the exact number is $750 billion. about $70 billion of our wealth will be going overseas this year. i like trade. i have a fair trade adjustment that i will talk about in some time. i think trade is healthy, a potential growth in jobs in america. but it must be fair, or we will end up with the trade that we have had for the last 20 years where we give away our best jobs and take what is left. take a look at japan and germany. i have spent all my life looking at the world, traveling, trading, doing it as a banker. but the two protectionist

countries were japan, which was devastated by world war ii, eliminated 50 industries in america, and did not let us go there. nice move. the second largest nation on earth. the biggest nation economically in europe is germany. they have protectionist trade. they pare their workers as much as we pay hours. -- ours. i think we do not need to be protectionists, but to be fair traders, and that means protecting our workers with a fair playing field. i am getting into my speech now. we can do better. that is what i am saying. we can do better. we can maintain our trade relationships. it will not affect germany. it will not affect britain. it will not affect argentina. or brazil, generally.

but china will be affected. trade must be fair. the people of china are great and glorious. they work hard. i have been there many times, i honor them. but their government does not practice their trade. -- fair trade. they manipulate the currency and they use labor that would not be allowed in america. how can we compete against that? i will tell you in just a few days. but it includes a tax revision to not reward corporations to promote their going overseas, and a freer trade adjustments. >> why isn't that protectionism is a dirty word in america? >> it was not with george washington, with abraham

lincoln. for 160 years our country had terrorists. no income tax, did not need it. -- had tariffs. income tax passed in the early 1900's and did not have a hold on revenue until world war ii. it was after that that we adopted free trade. it did not work. here was our plan. we thought we would capture all of the refrigerator manufacturing in the world. i read about the plan. it was an opportunity for america. next, we have free trade where we can go to these other countries and manufacture their stuff. we are the best. we were greedy. well, guess what? china was smarter. they said, come on over. they took all prototypes, the

patented materials, and they built plants all over china. we are suckers. what did nafta do for mexico or the united states? i remember a guy running for president saying that sucking sound is the sound of our jobs going to mexico. he was right, but we discussed -- dismissed that. i will not be dismissed. they will come at me with everything they can because they have a vested interest in the status quo. yes, we have lost 20 million jobs. ok, they will get over it. remember bill clinton's argument? we will improve our education system and the workers that will lose their job will get better jobs. is that what happened? in my generation, 55 in boulder

-- i am 67 -- the number of our population that a graduate from high school ranked first in the world. from ages 25 to 40, we rank 11th. good job, department of education. well done. do you know who is first? south korea. not even close. look, it is a global world. i am not for to change that. you do not protect jobs by guaranteeing them. you have got to compete. you cannot have unions do wrong things. you cannot have management do wrong things. the way to compete is to cooperate. that is me. i am a reach across the aisle, region, reached across race,

religion, and put a team together that would rebuild america on strong economic principles. and it is not just a simple speech. it will require a dozen strong actions. i would tariff foreign oil. i would drill for one year and then start tariffs. when president obama took office, the price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.86. have you checked lately? it is because our currency was devalued, a policy of the federal reserve. ridiculous. the federal reserve is not in the jobs business. it is in the currency valuation business. i am getting into my stump speech now. i apologize for that. >> i think we do have another question.

>> you'll never newspaper in louisiana by the way. >> as you well know, campaign reform efforts are not new. what is it about now that you think would make a difference? >> good question. two things are different now. the obvious this this of the evidence -- obviousness of the evidence. the evidence has accumulated. it used to be one man, one vote. now it is one big check. number two, we are a nation at risk. i do not like to dwell on this, but it is a fact. if we continue the next 10 years the way that we have the last 10 years, we are in serious trouble. i am not saying that i am not worried about tomorrow, but i look 10 years down the road. and that is the way my dna

works. i want an america where our kids and grandkids have a choice of opportunity to get jobs, that they do not have to work for a distribution company. if they want to have a small business of their own. campaign reform, to me, -- and i saw this eight months ago when i first had this thought. i went to my wife and i said, we have been happy out of politics. i did not think i would get back in. and i may not have a chance, honey, but i would like to go to new hampshire and talk about the way america should be. could be. so that is what i have been doing. i was embarrassed, four months, about saying how was running for president. i have spent all my life studying and getting ready to

make a difference somewhere. but it is hard to say i am running for president. i decided there were two issues that were not going to be mentioned in any debate but are at the heart of who we are. one is special interest money, bundled money, pac money, superpa money, wall street money, tort money. i said, i bet no question in the debate will ask how do you raise your money and why, and do you think money has an influence over a legislative package and a nation's future? i said this issue will not be brought up unless i bring it up. number two, i did not think the unfair trade practices of our trade competitors would be

brought up. i thought other candidates would either not be knowledgeable about it, or afraid to bring it up. because it is so out of tune with the establishment. i have never been an establishment guy. i do not even called it courage. it is just too i am. i am willing to challenge the status quo because i believe we can do better. but i do not think scrubbing the budget alone will do it. i do not think revising the tax code alone will do it. we need to do those things, but we need to do more. instead of rebuilding other nations, we need to rebuild our nation. and i am not talking about the marine corps or the army. but i would let the small business people of america to be organized and stand up for

themselves and stand up for america. it might not be me. there might be better people running. i just have not heard them say a thing about these issues. what are they waiting for? america is dying, bleeding to death. and they bring a band-aid to the table. i am not impressed. and they are not impressed with me, they laugh at me. $100 limit. he can raise a couple thousand, maybe a million or two. i remember running against a corrupt the governor in the louisiana. just got out of jail. he had never been beaten, and he beat me four years later. he is tough. he spent $15 million, i spent $1.6 million. it can be done, but you have to

get right in the face of the tiger. you cannot link against corruption. you have to take it on. so my remedies are clear and can be done by anyone who has courage. i would challenge the mitt romney's of the world, the rick perry's, the michelle bachmann's, the ron paul's, jon huntsman, herman cain -- i do not want to leave anyone out -- gary johnson. whomever. i challenge them to accept this pledge. no pac money, no superpac formed. keep your limit at 25,000, i am fine with that. i think we will energize the campaign. no more wall street fund raisers.

they might hear something -- did not know that. anybody else? >> national journal. correct me if i'm wrong. i believe you said last weekend in new hampshire -- you were in new hampshire rather than i with your colleagues. do you see yourself concentrating your energies in new hampshire or traveling to other states? >> i will concentrate on new hampshire. south carolina -- it is one of the only places where i do not have a draw. i love iowa. my first speech three months ago -- all the other candidates were there. i got up in front of a big crowd and i said we are going to eliminate the ethanol subsidy. i thought there would be heart attacks. but the point is, we can do anything together.

if we eliminate subsidies,i thought tim pawlenty, newt gingrich, were going to die. buddy, you cannot win. you cannot lead without eliminating the ethanol subsidy. what are you or do? whack social security? that will not help. i will go across america as i have the chance. but with limited funds -- and i will not spend what i do not have. a big day for us is a couple thousand, from all over america. but i will husband my resources and spend them primarily in new hampshire. i do sting coffin to massachusetts and raise money.

>> thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i appreciate you doing this. >> my pleasure. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what reporters are saying and track the latest contributions with c-span's website. easy to use, it helps navigate the political landscape with facebook updates from the campaigns, biographies, and the latest polling data plus links to our media partners. all last season and -- all at c- span.org. >> in a few moments, national security since the 9/11 attacks.

more reaction from the british prime minister david cameron and the opposition leader. now the aspen institute on national security. to jump into this because there is a lot to cover. i think all of you know we have up here is a stellar cast. the director of national intelligence and director of the national security agency. michael, all of you know, a leading expert on terrorism. jane harman, everyone's favorite. you are my favorite, one of my going to do? now president of the woodrow wilson and scholars and one of the leading -- experts on intelligence and intelligence

reform. and the person who wrote the book on 9/11 as executive director of the 9/11 commission. you could not ask for a better panel. i'm going to start with you to ask the most obvious question. some of these will be obvious. the most obvious is this, it is almost 10 years since 9/11. can happen again? >> this degraded their operational capability. 9/11 was the third intercontinental operation were you have operatives who were trained on one continent and deployed to stage on another continent were they prepared and

launched an attack. they did in turn knocked -- intercontinental operations in 1998. in 2000, since 9/11 they have not really mounted another significant operation. the capability has been degraded. the basically rely on local networks of people in europe and asia who may get some training and advice from the base in pakistan and yemen but launch regional operations on a lesser scale. number two, the sheer quantity of effort given by law enforcement and defense officials. if you do the numbers in calculate the amount of money spent on counter-terrorism, not

just in the united states but all the western european governments, j.j., japan, australia, pakistan, and jordan, egypt. did the number of people that voted for this task -- you would seem off the charts order magnitude of changes. the sheer quantity of effort of international connections has had enough tax. third, the united states became -- one reason why no attack was in the united states so the attack for hood was the deadliest carried out inside the united states by a lone, deranged fanatic. the united states became a much more difficult area for the enemy to operate in. the 9/11 attacks, the united

states was a good place to stage. they chose to stage and the train inside the united states for years before the attack. the united states is a highly hospitable place to train. they became a difficult place in which to stage entrain, especially with foreign operatives. when aspect of that problem, not only the work of the fbi and many local law enforcement entities, another important aspect that was noted is a travel. it has become much harder for terrorists to travel. there is a lot of attention to terrorist finance. i do not think there is enough attention given to terrorists travel. you think they are like saddam -- submarines.

windy destroyers at different points. travel where they have to go through international airport some present documents to officials are those rare times the submarine hatch to surface under the guns of law enforcement officers. if you read the literature, they devote enormous -- enormous attention to their travel problems. that is why they want people who look western, other things. from their point of view, if you have a one in three chance of being caught and spending your rest of your life in jail, one in three chances to high. you can deter people from moving into continental lee if you make a traveled much riskier. those three things is where we start off answering your question. one at the end, the basic al qaeda and narrative has a

fragmented and become more discredited within the muslim world. before 9/11, you had an agenda that was local against the local regimes they hated. the hatred of the egyptian regime, bin laden -- bin laden hitting -- hating. it has turned more to the local or their focused on the regime's closer to home. the afghan regime they hate. and so on. the agenda has lost a lot of its credibility because of it is the largest majority of people they've killed. >> that is a positive and uplifting presentation he just made. it begs the question, is it time

to stop worrying? >> i want to clarify i am not his favorite person. sidney harman was his favorite person. [applause] >> that is very true. i wish she was here. >> it is not time to stop worrying. phil was not saying that. >> i was misinterpreting him so that it would provoke you. >> that act of 9/11 turning four airplanes into weapons of mass destruction, it is much harder to mount here now. i am sure my coke and go through the range of things we have done to make airplanes more secure including air cargo screenings and so forth which we could explain but i think everybody gets that.

he was trained by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, not central in pakistan. he almost got through on christmas day 2009. i believe that kind of attack is less likely to happen. but i think al qaeda has morphed into a different kind of organization. it is no longer top down led by the folks in afghanistan and pakistan. it is now a loose affiliation of a horizontal organization with loose affiliations. there are as efforts to degrade the people of pakistan but that does not mean there is leadership in other places, especially yemen. in that connection, i just

learned that yesterday there was a speech at johns hopkins announcing that the administration to focus is shifting to a counterterrorism strategy focused on this loose affiliation of a al qaeda. the intent is to block them from attacking us here in the homeland. that is the right focus. lemme add one more thing. an airplane at tak is less likely but there are other ways that we could see a significant attack in this country. we need to be prepared. one of them is a dirty bomb attack. i will explain why i think there is a risk for something like that which would be far more the full overtime than a conventional attack which we are likely to see. >> i want to do a round about what you fear the most. the lme turn to michael for a couple of things.

i will get to the tsa, believe me. bring along, bring it on. i want to go to something we were talking about before, this bin laden moment. are we safer because bin laden is dead or are we less safe because bin laden is dead or is it irrelevant to our posture? >> positive developments, justice is done. that demonstrates to the world that we are willing incapable to take aggressive and successful action to kill people that are trying to kill us. that is an important lesson that needs to be driven home time and again. here's what we do not know. we do not know what the next

round of leadership is going to be. i know he is identified as the heir to bin laden. my view is that he is a transitional figure. these are guys -- he is the radical preacher. he is an american citizen. the other live in the u.s. for a dozen years. he is a trained pilot. he has been on the wanted list forever. the spokes are operational. did understand the west. they're not bound up in repeating the success of 9/11. like anybody else when you have a guy like bin laden, there is a tendency to want to repeat it again and again. the way that we have benefited, they have focused on high and

attacks. those are difficult to execute. but now there is a generation where they may go for smaller tax. we're going to do mumbai and do it five, six times. no attack will be catastrophic but the net effect will be troubling and problematic. we're going to reach will our strategy and not to complaisant the start to look at what is going on on the ground level. including in the u.s. where we have seen the times square bombing effort. these are plots launched from within the united states from people who are entitled to be here. we need to collect and analyze intelligence. >> let me jump in and asked, the

strategy has somewhat problematic features. it is focused on al qaeda as an organization. it does not really get in very much to the idea is too late for -- to do with a al qaeda because we have self radicalization of lone wolves. >> i do not think that is right. in the terms of travel, i do not think it matters whether people are formerly al qaeda or not. this system makes it difficult. what you're seeing is an answer on trying to radicalize and train people. >> the strategy does not grapple with ideology. it deals with knocking out an organization. not the ideological underpinnings.

>> i think there is some of that as well. part of the challenge in tackling ideology, that is an area where we are not out front. people who are listening to the narrative of radical islam are not interested in what the united states interpretation of the koran is. at community house to get involved in rescue its own youth. >> can you grapple with the new obama strategy for imminent? and also grapple with something that is a very interesting that has developed. i was doing a session this morning and he talked about how we have two combatant forces. in the real world we have special forces doing operations. online, on the internet, we have

a whole other a cadre of fighters were battling in the internet space. can you talk about that little bit and talk about the things you are actually, you were known as the expert on. cyber terrorism. by talking about bombs or airplane projects, we're talking about the wrong thing. >> i did not think the new strategy was very different from the old strategy. it is to hold accountable those who wish to do us harm. i was giving a speech in detroit the morning after it was announced that bin laden was dead. i chose to start my speech by lighting a cigar. i coughed on my cigar and said to the group, how about them seals? i got a roaring round of applause. we enjoyed the moment. a reporter came up and said, are

you celebrating the death of a human being? i said no, i am celebrating the success of america. we were wrong thing killing almost 3000 people and we set our mind to doing what was commented on on the first speaker. i do not see our strategy is different. what i worry about as those who wishes harm at an extremist leval who want to change the world order. they can attack the united states in ways that have damaged. what has spoken about most is the cyber vulnerabilities. we can go back and visit the that if you would like. there are a lot of potential factors, one would be biological. you will see the administration

start to focus on this issue because it is so simple to do. after 9/11 we had the and >> letters. just imagine if you had 3 pounds of anthrax put in the parcels in the united states postal system and milk to 10,000 addresses. that would shut this country down. they're a lot of ways we can be attacked. the big change in my view of how all the law was changed post and 9/11 was a forced us to address foreign and domestic threats in a more comprehensive way. we divided those things after the nixon years of watergate to make it. my community could not focus on anything domestic. the fbi had much higher standards to do surveillance or tap a phone or whatever. we have changed that so there is

less of a wall between foreign and domestic. i think that is important for us to consider as we go forward. >> there is something interesting, i think, about this particular moment about the danger of success. you're talking about biological attack. -- tech. a lot of people said it feel sad we have all of these mechanisms to stop these kinds of attacks. we are very good at this now. i want phil to talk about the paradox of success. all lot of people might think there is a level of fear mongering by government officials about terrorism. talk about the consequences of not having a tax and how that could lead to more attacks.

>> a big change from 9/11 and is before you had a paradox of prevention. the paradox of prevention is that it is difficult to rally massive action against a perceived threat at the time the threat is most vulnerable. until the threat has manifested itself, it is too late to prevent it. that is the paradox of prevention. we had that. but we have now is a paradox of adjustment. the threat is diminished but not gone away. we need to normalize the threat. because the united states has a lot of purposes in the world pisa -- besides islam. i'm reminded of the fact that when lehmann brothers went down, hank paulson turned to his aides and said, this is an economic

9/11. there are other kind of the 9/11 sharks out there. the next one may not come from an attack by extremists against a particular system. it may be another flaw. that does not mean the president cannot go out and say, that terrorism thing, that is down. it is over. how you normalize something for the long haul without going over the edge of alertness and inducing complacency in the sense that this is now routine? how do you keep people on alert against a threat that has been reduced? it is hard for a politician to say anything that implies the threat is going down for the fear something will happen. >> this is a is a fascinating question. i have written a bit about the tsa.

the broader question is this, once the government, was the bureaucracy puts in place a security countermeasure, will it ever be able to remove that security measure? i have in mind, there are a lot of stories. i have in mind the story that a 95 year-old woman who was being taken home to die. the tsa agent made her remove her adult diaper as part of the search because she was in a wheelchair. is there a point where we can simply take down a notch some of these -- >> you will see modification based on a couple of factors. when will be technology. -- one will be technology. congress forbade a lot of the

risk on certain people. if that changes the, that may also alter this. you raise a point which i think is important to address. you see it in the tsa and a lot of other agencies in a different walks of life that have to deal with transactions. it is the aardvark effect. the one case where someone messes up or story does not seem right and is used to argue the system does not work. so there are some things to bear in mind. one is, your conception about what a terrorist looks like is wrong. the people who have been a home grown in this country like jihad jane, daniel who came from long island. these people do not look like what you think a terrorist looks

like. a 92 year-old person? what was the age of the man who shot a gun at people? 92-years old. how many children in different parts of the world have had bomb strapped to them and sent out against american troops? what about the couple that was going to get on an airplane in 2006 with their one-year-old baby and blow the plane up? it would be nice to say that certain people are out of bounds. we cannot say that. the second point is this, i often hear the argument that tsa does not work. they have never caught a terrorist. it is meant to deter terrorists. fort knox has never caught a bank robber. does that mean it is insecure? or does it deter bank robbers? you have to have a realistic

understanding of what security delivers. it is not a perfect system but a system that gives you a much better chance of averting a risk. >> i have never argued that point. i argue there could be more intelligent measures. the aardvark a fact? -- effect? >> a weird looking beast. >> you are absolutely right. i once saw an obese none in a wheelchair. i said that would be a great disguise. get somebody to dress up like a nun. but i'm talking about an invasion of privacy that is humiliating. this woman had to undress. there has to be a better way. >> there may be technological

fixes for this but unfortunately, one of the things we've learned, and i think the was revealed in detroit, is that the adversary understands we are uncomfortable looking in certain places. if that is where you put the bomb, you have increased the chances you're going to get by. you have to decide. what makes no sense is to look at half of the body. the stuff that is easy to look at and keen to have done the job. either do not mocha dollar d -- to what you need to do. >> the new screening machines or you put your hands up like this are getting increasing acceptance. i think everyone understands you're not going to be irradiated beyond any -- the radiation bounces off you. i am not sure whether there was

one in the woman with a diaper or what. but a better technology is comping. the other two points is, and i think he did say this but not this week, we have a layered the security. we should not bet the farm on one thing. if you go to an airport there are things you do not see. they protect the airport and identify a passenger very quickly who could be a problem, including taking that passenger off the airplane if the glycerol of the layers of security. the other thing we have an id is a big deal is unpredictability. these folks have an yuval to tradecraft. they know we will only do three things, they will game against

and then attack us. if they believe that it is not the case we will only do three things but we have these invisible layers, they cannot get around it. that will deter them. i want to talk about other forms of attacks. i have to put the dirty bomb back there. they can be made by taking radioisotopes out of machines and never hospital and sitting in the window and blowing those isotopes like cobalt 40. it has a half life of 30 years and sticks to concrete. you can take this stuff out of these machines and sit in the wind with two sticks of dynamite and kill yourself and five other people but you would make a to square kilometer radius and a habit -- uninhabitable for 30 years.

this is not a random idea. we have not done enough to harden these machines. yes, the stuff is deeply embedded and so forth but i saw a film which scared the heck out of me about how easy it is for kids to know how to dismantle things to get this stuff out. we have hardened cases but it could still be blown up. we need to get to the nuclear regulatory commission to find a substitute to put in these machines that will not have these consequences. i put out there that we are very good against the last war. we need to start thinking about the next war and think about people who can self-radicalize and read materials in colloquial english prepared by our friends in yemen and learn how to build

a bomb in the kitchen of your mom. that is the title of one of their articles. >> to continue jane's catalog of horrible, to ask you the one thing that really scares you as a possible attack. the second is, we have been very technical and specific about some things. but i want to move this to the political level and talk about whether policy can affect what we do. to take a wild guess and -- that you're going to talk about cyber security. without scaremongering, talk about what a small organization can do. >> i would be happy to address

that. let me put it in the context of money. two banks in new york city cleared seven trillion dollars a day. our economy is 14 trillion dollars in a year, seven trillion dollars in a day in a bank. economics one no one will tell you we went off the gold standard some time ago. dollar bills, it is a 3%. what is it? it's and accounting process. the world cannot function without banking. we depend on it. a relatively small group that is sophisticated could contaminate the clearing process for reconciling exchanges. tokyo calling new york with