do that, we have to reach more kids. we have to do it fast. because in my experience there is no child that we should let slip simply because of politics or because of -- because adults can get their act together. so here's where we should start. research shows that high quality early education is one of the best investments we can make in a child's life. we know that. and it's not only good for the child, it's a smart investment. every dollar you put in early childhood education, the government, taxpayers take $7 because you have fewer dropouts, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer

incarcerations -- thank you. life 4r6 folks can get better jobs. pay more taxes. it's a win-win for everybody. last year i asked congress help states make high-quality prekindergarten available to every 4-year-old in america. [applause] now, the good news is 30 states decided to raise some pre-k funding on their own and school districts like this one have plans to open dedicated pre-k centers with space for hundreds of young kids. and we did get a little help from congress earlier this month. but while we got a little help, we need more help. because even with the efforts of your superintendent and folks working hard in this school direct, there's still going to be some kids who could use the help that aren't getting it. so congress, i would like to see

them act more boldly than they are. but while congress decides if it's willing to give every child that opportunity, i'm not waiting. so -- [applause] we're going to bring business leaders from all across the country and philanthropists from all across the country who are willing to help work with school districts, mayors, governors, to make sure more young people every single year are getting access to the high-quality pre-k that they need. that's going to be a project over the next three years. technology is not the sole answer for a child's education. having a good teacher is what is most important than having great parent -- and having great parents is even more important

than that. but in this modern 21st century economy, technology helps. it can be a powerful tool to leverage good teaching. so last year i pledge to connect 99% of our students to high-speed broadband over five years. and with the help of the federal communications commission, f.c.c., we're making a down payment on that goal by connecting more than 15,000 schools, 20 million students over the next 2 years so that there's wireless in every classroom and we're going to hit that goal of -- they're not going to be a child in a school in america that does not have the kind of wireless connection that allows them to stream in the information they need that can power their education. that's going to be a priority. we have got -- and by the way, we have companies like apple, microsoft, sprint, verizon,

they're going to help students and teachers use the latest tools to accelerate learning. now, we also need to encourage more schools to rethink not just what they teach but how they teach it. [applause] and that's where -- that's where what you're doing here is so important. if you're a student here, you're experience is a little different from students at other high schools. starting in 10th grade, you get to choose from one of four academies that allow you to focus on a specific subject area. local businesses are doing their part by giving students opportunities to connect the lessons you learned in the classroom with jobs that are actually out there to be filled. so students in the academy of business and finance, they're operating their own credit union here at the school and doing some work in a real one over the summer.

if you choose digital design and communication -- [applause] you get to spend time in a tv studio designed by local business partner. if you choose the aviation and transportation academy -- [applause] -- you get to learn how to operate a 3d printer and work on your very own airplane. that's pretty cool. i did not get my own plane until was 47 years old. ut -- that's a nice plane. [laughter] but -- but the idea is simple but powerful. young people are going to do better when they're excited

about learning and they're going to be more excited if they see a connection between what they're doing in the classroom and how it is applied. if they see a connection between the math that i'm doing here, this connects to the business that is going on out there. the graphic design i'm doing here, i am learning now what that means in terms of marketing or working for a company that actually get paid to do this. which means i might get paid to do it. and i'm seeing people who may open up for me entire new career options that i didn't even realize. so that makes words on a page exciting and real and tangible. and then schools like this one teach you everything you need to succeed in college but because of that hands-on experience,

you're able to create pathways to make sure that folks also are able if they choose not to go to a four-year institution potentially get a job sooner and it's working. over the past nine years, graduation rate here has gone up 22%. 22%. well, last year tenants across the district, which includes 12 academy high schools was higher than ever. thousands of students are getting a head start on their futures years before many of their peers do and it's great for businesses because they're developing a pool of workers who already have the skill that's they're looking for. every community is different. with different needs, different approaches. but if nashville can bring schools and teachers and businesses and parents together for the sake of our young people, than other places can.

[applause] that's why my administration is already running a competition to redesign high schools through employer partnerships that combine a quality education with real world skills and hands-on learning. i want to encourage more high schools to do what you are doing. that's why -- [applause] that's why we're also in the process of shaking up our system of higher education so when you graduate from high school, ready to succeed in college, it's easier to afford college. we're also working to help more students pay off their student loan debt once they graduate. [applause] quality education shouldn't be something that those other kids get. it's something that all kids get. absolutely. the other day i heard the story

f a recent graduate here named sarah santiago. where is sarah? [applause] i want to -- i hope i'm not embarrassing sarah. i'm going to tell her story. sarah's parents came to america from guatemala and she struggled her freshman year. i think she will admit, in her own words she was one of the bad kids. she doesn't look that bad. i was bad. [laughter] you might not have been that bad. but probably you weren't taking your studies that serious. and then she took a broadcasting ass with a teacher named barclay randle. [applause] there is mr. randle right there. go ahead and wave, mr. randle. [applause]

and mr. randle's over there with the press now because some of his students are covering this event. they're doing some reporting. but -- [applause] but when sarah was in mr. randle's class, helped her discover the passion for film making. and pretty soon sarah's grades started to improve. so she won school's best editing award. then she got an internship with country music television, one of our business partners. [applause] and then she was accepted to the prestigious savannah college of art and design. and she gives credit to mr. randle for this. she says, mr. randle gave me a second chance. he saw things i never saw in myself. he's the person who helped me change. [applause]

now, giving every student that chance, that's our goal. it's what america's all about. we work and study heart and chase our individual success but we are also pulling for each other and we've got each other's backs and as a nation, we make the investment in every child as if they are our children because we're saying to ourselves, if every child successful, the world my child grows up in will be more successful. the america my child grows up in will be more successful. [applause] so there are lessons that we have to absorb as a nation. where we can, we have to start early. get the kids when they are 3, 4 years old because not every

parents got the same resources and we have to help them get the good start for that child. we've got to make sure that we are supporting our teachers because they are the most critical ingredient in a school. [applause] and we've got to -- [applause] we've got to show them how important they are. which means giving them the professionalism they need, giving them the support that they need, and giving them the pay that they need. [applause] we've got to make sure that our high schools engage our children and not every child is going to go on the same path at the same speed. but we can restructure how our

high high schools operate to make make sure every child is engaged. the more we can link them to real hands-on experience, the more likely they are to be engaged. and we've got to make college affordable for every young person in america. but we can do all of that, we ill still be missing something if we don't capture the spirit mr. randle showed with sarah. that investment in our children, nothing is more important. and it doesn't cost any money. the initial spirit, the spirit then can express itself by putting more resources into schools that need it. but that spirit that every child matters, that is something we can all embrace. we help each other along in good times and bad and if america pulls together now around our young people, if we do our part

to make sure every single child can go as far as their passions and hard work will take them, then we will keep the american dream alive not just for jury renration but -- your generation but for generations to come. that's my goal. i hope it is yours too. thank you, nashville. great job! thank you!

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪ >> as president obama wraps up a two-day road trip, a headline in "the washington post" -- republicans make overtures to middle class and encounter obama democrats. as president obama traveled the country, republicans were racing to prove they, too, have a plan to ee leaveate middle class anxiety. in the past few days alone, the new senior g.o.p. senators unveiling alternatives to obama's health care law that offers a conservative vision for covering uninsured. house budget committee chairman paul ryan summoned experts to capitol hill to discuss new ways to help the poor and senator marco rubio proposed making childless adults eligible for a lucrative tax credit. and the story in "the washington post" says the change for republicans is convincing voters their newfound concern is sincere. house republicans at a yearly

retreat in maryland, this afternoon releasing principles for immigration reform. starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, a group of g.o.p. members under the age of 40 take part in a press conference at the retreat. then on c-span2, the seventh energy committee holds a hearing on restrictions of crude oil experts. and c-span 3, american indians give its annual state of the nation address. british prime minister david cameron testified today before a joint parliamentary committee on several issues. he spoke about the government's response to syria, the british defense budget and new decision to focus on the asia-pacific region. this is 1:15. >> welcome people to this afternoon session and say at once we hope and anticipate there may be a vision before

4:00. if there is, i will adjourn the committee for a few minutes. but hopefully there will not be. welcome, prime minister. >> thank you. we have been looking forward to seeing on a quiet thursday. turns out not so quy the but you're most welcome nevertheless. as i hope you are very committed and supported against the national security strategies and national security council and we want to see if we can contribute constructively to its work. taken evidence from the members of the committee and adviser and now am very anxious to hear from you. will you tell us first what you hope to gain by having the ational security strategy? >> what we thope gain is make sure we analyze the threats to britain, analyze the

opportunities for our country better and we plan across government better and we make better decisions. and i think that i would say sort of 3 1/2 years in, i think it's been a real success because you're bringing together the relevant departments, considering national security from a domestic perspective as well as overseas perspective. you're making sure that the great systems of defense and foreign officers play together rather than play separately. and i think it's proven itself across a number of subjects. i'm hugely enthusiastic about this reform. i think it works very well. i think it joins up prime minister, foreign secretary, chancellor secretary and others in a way perhaps they have not been joined up in the past and i hope it's a reform that will endure. >> you said it enables you to look at domestic and other matters. our impression is it's been very foreign policy oriented so far. >> i would argue it's been a reasonable mixture.

i've got the figures with me. if we take say 2011, you have 36 n.s.c.'s. we covered 50 foreign policy topics, 9 domestic policy issues, 14 security-related issues like counterterrorism and defense. i think there's an argument to say it could do more domestic subjects and hope sect it always keen we discuss more. but the point i would make, when you're discussing the foreign policy subjects, you have got the minister responsible for security around the table as well as the head of mi-5 and other relevant officials. i think that's hugely helpful. in two different ways. if you're talking about syria as a foreign policy issue, you obviously want the home secretary there and our counterterrorism experts to worry about the blowback from syria and radicalization and

terrorism that's being fostered there. that's important. and also if you think about our relations with china and how improved our relations with china, it's very good you have gotten a trade minister, the chance of the foreign secretary and expertise of the foreign office but also have the home secretary to think about things like visas and border access and all of those things, which are an important part of our relationship. so i think we could shift to do some more domestic subjects but i think the balance is pretty good and when we're dealing with foreign policy subjects, we take domestic aspect seriously. >> at the outset you did, with the new government you did national security strategy, spending review and defense review sort of alongside each other. was the intention that the national security strategy set the context for the other reviews? >> yes. we d. as you say, the new government, did all three things

together. strategic strategy, defense review and, of course, comprehensive spending review and we did them all together. the national security strategy helped set the context for what you want to do in terms of defense. i know we have seen some of the work on your committee. people are very keen the strategies and defense and then and only then do you consider resources issues. i think in the difficult times in which we live, i think that will be difficult. i think you do have to consider what is affordable alongside what is desirable. i think that's just realistic. but as you say strategy should inform the defense decisions that we make. >> i take the point that you're making but you must know it has been subjected -- suggested, the defense review particular, was written holy by budgetarry and not strategic consideration. >> i would reject that completely. the defense review was about how

we should configure our defense forces given britain's place in the world, given our foreign policy and security policy, objectives. most important decisions we took in the defense review to radically reduce the number of backward tanks in europe and look at increasing the maneuverability, flexibility, of our forces. we made big decisions about investment in cyber security, spending more money. we made important decisions about bringing on stream two new aircraft carriers. so this was not driven by spending. of course, it was informed by what we believed was affordable but proper strategic defense review that took proper strategic decisions. >> one other issue that particularly wanted to raise with you at the outset, because we refer to it in our first report. in the national security strategy itself, against the background of describing the rise of new global powers, shifts in the centers of

economic activity, the strategy still says there should be no reduction of influence for the u.k. and then in your most recent report which does in your recent report you talk about enhancing the influence, expanding the influence of the u.k. outset concerned at the that no reduction in influence was unrealistic. when you say expanding now, do you mean spreading us dinner across the world? >> i don't. first of all, if you look across our projection oh -- of power and in for an -- influence. the foreign office, defense, trade, you definitely see britainis doing more -- is doing more. we are opening embassies, expanding in india and china. one of the only european

countries with an embassy in every asean nation. there is no doubt that we want to link up with the fastest-growing parts of the world, want to be an open and engaged power. we are using what we have to do that. i would argue even in the area of defense, where of course the defense budget has come down in real terms, not by a huge amount but by a small amount, even in defense. because we have made choices, fewer battle tanks in europe, investment in things like drones and cyber and flexibility, i would argue there has been no reduction in, no long-term reduction in britain's defense capabilities and our ability to stand up for our selves in important ways around the world. i also reject the idea that you can only measure how engaged you are and how successful you are in projecting influence by how much money you spend.

no business goes about like that. we have to make sure we get as much into the teeth and is little into the tail of our def ense. i would argue our leadership has been successful with that. i don't accept the idea that because we are spending less on the fence that we can have as significant of a defense plan. >> mr. arbuthnot wants to come in briefly. we aret it embarrassing spending more on the winter fuel allowance than the foreign office? >> we are spending the right amount on the foreign office to seed an expanding global network. i am a great user of our foreign office. i travel all over the world, flying the flag of the british business. investment.courage i see in our foreign office an amazing asset. i think we have brilliant

diplomats, fantastic teams around the world. wasforeign office relatively well-treated by the comprehensive spending review. i don't see the foreign office in retreat at all. i see it in advance, opening new posts. a bigger presence in india than any other european power. expanding in china. the fuel allowance is necessary to help keep people warm. will talkinister, you a lot about security and strategy today. talk about strategy, what do you mean by strategy? >> to me, strategy is about setting up a clear series of goals you want to meet, and making sure you've got sensivl

ble means for achieving the goals. i don't need to look at paper to tell you what i strategy is. strength, britain's refresh and enhance the great alliances we have got, to tackle threats that could threaten our country, and to make sure we do it right across government, not just the foreign office. every bit of government working together. that is the strategy. maybe i am too much of a practical chap. having set the strategy, you want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. strategy, but i want us to determine policy. i want us to agree on action and check that we have done what we said we were going to do. to me, that is not misusing the nsc. it is the right use. i don't know what you found.

often the is too problem that people love sitting around talking about strategy. it is completing on the strategy that is often the challenge. >> thank you. next word, security. -- you didcurity practically everything. good democracy, good social cohesion, everything. how do youo work -- use security? >> security, you have to take a wide definition. on nation's security relies having strong defenses so we can protect ourselves, but it, also

means considering every risk to our security from floods, pandemic diseases, new threats like fall category up to and's, eruptions. what we try to do is bring together one place in the cabinet office the teams. security is the ability to protect your country, your people, your interests, so they can grow and prosper. in delivering with security you have to deal with every threat, from the biggest to the most unlikely. the point of having the big army in whitehall is to make sure we cover all the threats. >> a pretty wide definition. example, is tax avoidance by multinational companies -- atif we couldn't -- look,

the heart of our national security strategy is restoring britain's economic strength. economicain in strength, things fall into place. if you lose economic strength you are in a much more difficult situation. . of national security is our economy. if we can't properly raise taxes because technology has changed and they are not paying by the rules, that would be, i suppose, a threat to security. >> i'm trying to find what isn't. >> you have to have a hierarchy. we have a terrible list of acronyms in the national risk assessment and national resilience planning assumptions. the attempt is to try and ity,neate risks to secur have them all. within one part of whitehall.

example.you give me an me an example of --re people are thinking that clashes with the strategy. , because it do that clashes with the strategy. >> these issues about visa discussions, you have to weigh the prosperity agenda with the security agenda and make sure you are making the right decision. visa decisions were made by the home office -- we now discuss around the table. very important economic

relations with this country. the visa restrictions are getting in the way. we reach a decision. thatrms of things proposed fall absolutely counter to the strategy, i'm struggling to think of one. example is not a bad one where you have a policy issue, which countries get visa preference, and you have a way of discussing it. >> thank you. >> mr. murphy. >> thank you. prime minister, we would like a --tle bit more about how the at the moment the committee has some ideas. syria,d be dealing with afghanistan.

it doesn't give any secrets away, how operational or long-term those discussions might be? the secretary gives a report to the committee, they talk about it, and that is the end of the committee? >> it is a lot more than that. what this national security -- it isoes, it normally the secretary of state. we don't really allow, if we can avoid it, junior ministers coming in. i think it's very important in my cabinet to oversee one of the most important meetings of the whole week. but it brings together foreign secretary chancellor, prime minister -- with the heads of the intelligence agencies with the chief of the defense staff. if necessary, the head of the metropolitan police dealing with counterterrorism and you have the experts in the room as well as the politicians. the format of the meetings is often a presentation rather than

just a massive paperwork and the presentation would be given by mr. kim or a leading foreign officer official to set out in front of the committee the choices we have to make. and sometimes it's very operational. we might have a -- on afghanistan, for instance, we want a proper look at the drawdown plans that the ministry of defense have. as a committee, we want to figure out, is that the right operational plan for britain? i think it is right that the government collected. sometimes it can be very strategic. we might have a discussion about our relations with the emerging powers, and it will be about how we best go about, who should we be seeking relations with and how do we improve them? sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion. for instance, we have brought

-- we have the conflict pool, ringing together money from defense and foreign affairs. i think it's good that we sit around the table. we got this money, how are we going to spend it? which conflict areas and unstable states should our investments be going into? we are about to have a conversation about the budget. obviously it is determined according to principles, but it is important to discuss this collectively so we can see the link between what we're doing in terms of, you know, fragile states that we're trying to help fix with a decision that we're making. what i'm trying to say sometimes very operational, sometimes very strategic but sometimes genuinely making operational decisions that have an impact across whitehall. >> that's very useful. in terms of perhaps the longer term or more strategic meetings that you could have, one thing we noticed is that the meetings dry up in july and they start again sometime in october.

what about having one or two meetings extra in that period to look more widely at things, if you like, and at the same time the committees concerned whether the n.s.c. has sufficient outside expertise to come in and give advice and knowledge to help you out? do you think the staff is enough? >> how many staff? >> two. >> oh, no, the n.s.c. is serviced by the national security secretary which is 200 people. you really feel that the n.s.c., it's not a committee that brings together whitehall. it has a proper team together behind it that will operationalize decisions and make them happen. in terms of outside advice, we have on occasion brought outsiders in. but we also occasionally had seminars that n.s.c. members

would attend in order to hear from outside experts. we had a particularly good session on pakistan and afghanistan when some experts came. we had a special n.s.c. in august last year on syria. for my g-8 agenda in terms of transparency and all of that we had a whole series of experts to address those issues. in terms of meeting over the summer, we have had meetings over the summer. i think if the criticism is that urgent operational meetings to discuss syria, afghanistan, libya, tends to crowd out more thematic discussions, i would plead guilty. i think that is inevitable when governments have to prioritize and choose and talk about the most urgent things. i think we have spent more time on the operational emergencies

than rather other things. -- rather blue-sky thinking. time,are tight for although we are doing reasonably well. >> prime minister, i support the innovation of the national security council. i think everything allows sharing of institutional knowledge within governments is a good thing. .s.c., ar to the n/s/ strategic decision was usually practiced, the foreign secretary or defense secretary would make the final decision. now we have the n.s.c. you're chairing that meeting. can you think of of anything where there was a defense decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state? >> i'm not sure mrs. thatcher or tony blair would say they just left defense and foreign policy decisions to their secretary of

state. and only occasionally intervened. i think the history -- history as a bilateralds thing between a prime minister and a foreign secretary or prime minister and a defense secretary. the good thing is that it's a more collective way of making decisions. of course, there are decisions made by ministers. you talk about the decisions -- for instance, how we went about our engagement in libya and the decisions we made about syria, they were genuinely discussed around the table with those ministers, with the expert advice and another point, i think a better institutionalization of the legal advice. the attorney general is there to give his opinion about these things. if you're asking, are there times when the n.s.c. comes to a

different decision what the defense secretary or prime minister walked into the room, yes, it has. that's what collective decisionmaking is all about. >> we'd like to ask a series of questions on how the system actually works in practice. and you mentioned syria. how did -- this is in the sense a repeat of the question that was asked. how did the national security strategy affect the way you made decisions and the decisions you took on syria? >> well, obviously when we drew up the strategy and the sdsr in 2010, we didn't have perfect foresight about what was going to happen in the events of the arab spring in syria. i'd like to think that the decisions we've made in all these have been relatively

consistent with the strategy set out in the national security strategy. but i don't -- you know, strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. i think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. you have to make sure you can adapt what you have. but i would say the strategy is about britain engaging in the world to protect its interest and promote british values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. i would argue what we did in libya and the approach in syria is consistent with that. >> what would you say your strategic goal was in syria? >> i think two-fold. first of all, we've taken a general view as a national security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring

has thrown up, we've taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the building blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems, is a good thing in the long term for security. there will always be bumps on the road but that's a good thing , so we should basically be encouraging those sorts of developments. what about the use of force in august? >> the use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. i think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasn't really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. fortuitously, there was a tough

global response. syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. but when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid, which is set out in the national security strategy. we continued our support for developments that are positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. but we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. i have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. >> but coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment, presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. what was it? was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or -- >> the strategic goal was not -- the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama

before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldn't allow assad to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. we judged -- i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. i said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as they're making real progress on giving up chemical weapons. that's what it was about. it was not about regime change.

it was not about broadening the conflict. it was purely and simply about that issue. >> we are all concerned about the implications of people in -- people who fought in syria. having honed their skills in combat, acquired new techniques and so on. was that discussed with the national security council? >> yes, in great detail. all through our discussion about syria. syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. but on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. that's been a massive challenge. but every discussion we had about syria we also discussed

the dangers of british people traveling to syria, the dangers of extremism, the dangers of terrorists returning home. i think the signs in syria are extremely worrying at that front of the moment. int is why we are downstairs the house of commons debating how we should be able to take away people's citizenship. we have a cross-government response. securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria. working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat. stopping people coming back, etc., etc. it's a very big focus for us right now. >> was that a decision of the national security council? >> that was something we have looked at in the national i ask -- in the security council. i don't recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. >> that's very helpful. this isn't just about foreign policy.

there is a domestic element. but there are other issues where people might say, hang on, defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. another two billion pounds on the single intelligence account. momenthave people at the having problems with floods, and our expenditure on flood defense was last year 560 million, rising next year. does the national security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion? >> it's a very good question. what we have is a national risk assessment as well as a national risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. we discuss that and agree and try to make sure we're dealing with risks in an appropriate way.

it's very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. i can't pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the national ariat, at least we have one partner government looking to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. >> so do you look at those resource choices? >> we, we do look at resource choices. specifically in terms of intelligence. the budget comes in front of the n.s.c. and we have to -- it's a good moment where the politicians can act as inquisitors to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage , between counterterrorism

policing and broader things. the question, do you measure up floods on the one hand and the chance of terrorism on the other , it is quite difficult to argue there is a science where you can work out where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. >> 600 million -- >> you're bringing it together. you're looking at your potential weaknesses and you are trying to make sure you correctly identify the gap. >> has the national security council discussed flooding? >> we have discussed flooding in the context of a national risk register, national risk assessment. we have a specific subcommittee that looks at resilient sense threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. i think it's a mistake to think that the n.s.c. is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need a -- it slightly

wider than the national security council and flooding is a good example of that. , as part of that process do you have a long-term , plan with the impact of climate change on the u.k.? have you considered which parts of the critical national infrastructure are most threatened by rising sea levels? >> we had discussions in the national security council about climate change. we need to have another one before the next meeting. we also have a piece of work that's been done on critical infrastructure and the potential threat to critical infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. i want to make sure i'm not misleading the committee in any way. the critical infrastructure is something that's coordinated by the n.s.s. and then get some -- put to ministers. >> thank you.

>> mr. prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. this committee's report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020, for example, will be joined the structure of the reserves has not been , something that's come before the national security council. do you think we were right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize it. my nephew has done a fantastic job. but i think it's actually true to say that the national security council did discuss the army structure before the announcement was made. so i don't want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside -- >> i think it was the secretary of state for defense. >> all right. i will blame him instead. [laughter] i think you have a fair point. it was done by the n.s.c.

a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. but i am right in saying the reserve work was committed -- commissioned by the n.s.c., and the results of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars was discussed by .s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in one go, sometimes these things take a few iterations to get absolutely right. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of -- and public perception. mention has been made of

flooding. if you ask lots of people they would say flooding. when we had incidents -- i'm wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem? and that when somebody challenges what the government is doing, you're actually able to extend. we are talking about syria. you said even debate in the house focused on iraq. so how do you deal with that? who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message about public perceptions of britain? >> i hope by having a national security council people can see these risks are being looked at as a whole and in the round. it falls to the prime minister trying to explain how we look at

risks and the steps we take and what we're trying to do to keep our country safe. i think our scientists can probably help by informing the debate about risks and probabilities. i think also your committee is helping because you're looking at our strategy and you're saying, well, have you had enough consideration of this and have you looked at those risks? i think in the end have a strategy, explain what it is. the prime minister has to front it up. the scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks and that's probably the best you can do. coming back to this flooding versus terrorism, i think people want to know we're doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and we have a forward investment program and all the rest of it. i think people understand there are severe weather events that can affect your country. you do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you can't mitigate against every single thing. whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such

huge risks, they want to know you're doing everything possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. >> do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining public confidence in our security agencies? and if so, who's responsible for defending the agencies, explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions? >> i think first of all, in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure we're confident that the governance procedures for the intelligence services are row bust, the intelligence -- robust, the intelligence commissioners.

i keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place? and i think we have. we're trying to improve it. in terms of, has it dented public confidence in the work of the security agencies? i haven't seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction as opposed to some of the media reaction, look, we have intelligence because it's a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these intelligence services and the work they do. i think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what people's reaction has been, has been pretty robust. who's responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do? i think i have a responsibility. i feel like i'm the minister for the intelligence service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they can't be thanked publicly as other emergency services are and try to explain what they do. i've done some of that.

i think they are often the best spokesmen -- spokespeople for themselves. i think their appearance in front of the parliamentary committee recently was excellent. i think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. i don't want them to make a speech every week. i think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. >> final question. don't you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldn't that be part of your planning when you're actually talking about your strategy, the strategy

should not be -- it should be about explaining it? >> i think it's a very fair point. i think if you're saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important? yes. i agree with that. i think we should do more. if you're worried about damage -- yes, i'm worried about what snowden did with respect to security. i would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. as i say -- but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. it's been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence

work. good. >> thank you. in hindsight, prime minister, is there anything that the n.s.c. has missed? >> i think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. i am not a scientist. so e.m.p.'s and space weather, i think that's actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered? i think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether it's the dfid budget, whether it's the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy? i think we should probably do more on that.

in terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of global affairs but that's why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original national security strategy, we're about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their -- it has enormous strategic consequences. that wasn't touched on at all in the security strategy. >> i think i'm right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech? was it 2010 or 2011? i say we are doing our own pivot. if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia, the asian countries, what we're doing in

china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. obviously we haven't mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history, strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. so i think we're doing our own pivoting. i think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away from the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. and i suppose i'd apply that to the foreign policy side as well. i think this prosperity, trade -- trade diplomacy agenda which

now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think it's going to be part of our future national success. if we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. if we can link up with the fastest-growing countries, that will be a big part of britain's future success story. you remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. we'll go on for the next national security strategy. >> thank you very much, chair. when peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. since then there's been a 25% -- the work on the next strategy hasn't started. was he wrong? can you tell us when it will start? >> the work is beginning on both

national security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. look, you can argue forever about how long these things take, but i'm so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. as i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you -- all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, they'll come off that and they'll start writing strategies again. >> will it be fundamentally >> will it be fundamentally different or folow the same one? am i right in assuming it won't be finished until the next government is in place? >> both? >> the n.s.c.? >> you're right. they'll get a span a period of the next election.

we should be starting now. i don't think -- and if you go back over the national security strategy, it needs to refresh. i don't think it will be a complete overhaul. i think i hinted to margaret if i'm responsible for its eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. i wouldn't expect a huge change. in either the national security strategy or the sdsr. the strategy we took in the sdsr, having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. we'll have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. >> with planes. >> with planes and people in it. >> can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things? in particular, we talked about

the pivot for america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy is that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications.

i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judgement is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis.

most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and how have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. as a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver

strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say, you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and ends with, changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is

reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians, police chiefs, the intelligence

services, we've got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. in most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as

you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible, but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very

well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirability of foreign investment and so on.

but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy, nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that

we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue, like huawei, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain is saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow.

i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the

other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and fulfilling our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you stated on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september.

>> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the hunter-killer submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the immense ability the royal marines. in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from,

you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as for what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more at 26 frigates to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships,

type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective. one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything.

>> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the

ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we've got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much.

>> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how reliant we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. and making this program work. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and

competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come?

>> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are

we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were

discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time.

i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. to staff it. he said the royal navy was close to its critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a

very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first- class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up.

>> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] going back to the earlier question, in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom

and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, anxious that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. we are keen to hear the views of others. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you.

thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] at our is a look primetime schedule, friday on c- span, a group of republicans under the age of 40 took part in a press conference in maryland. on c-span two, the senate energy committee on restrictions of crude oil exports and on c- gives userican indians the annual state of the nation's address. clinicd of the mayo attended the state of the union this week as a guest. on our next washington journal, he will share his thoughts on the u.s. health care system. and the state of the union, president obama announced the creation of a new retirement savings program called myra.

diane oakley will talk about the plan. the bureau of labor statistics put out a report on how the workforce will change in 10 years. christina barsh will join us to discuss the findings. we will take your calls and you can also join the question -- the conversation on facebook and twitter. live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. so many people are of the opinion that if the members of the super in court don't like something that is happening in andcountry, it reaches out court andt into the starts writing opinions, which is of course contrary to the as anything could be. >> friday, a series of oral

history interviews with former justices. this week, former chief justice earl warren at 4:00 eastern. fm,ashington at 90.1 online, and nationwide on xm radio. someone who grew in the office. he was badly burned by the bay of pigs experience. he had listened to the experts. the cia. the joint chiefs of staff. see charleswent to de gaulle in france, and de gau lle said to him you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people, listen to them. hear what they have to say. but at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind.

and he, kennedy, remembered what harry truman had said, the buck stops here. after the bay of pigs, he was determined to make up his own mind and hear what the experts had to say, weigh what they were telling him, but he was going to make the judgment and he was the responsible party. and you see that, you see that, that was abundantly clear when you listen to all of those and read the transcripts of those tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man. he was the one making up his mind. he held the joint chiefs at arms length. they wanted to bomb, invade. he did not want to do it. >> a look at the kennedy administration, sunday night on c-span's q&a. week, senator john thune took part in the internet

education foundation that conference which focused on internet policy trends in 2014 and the future of the industry. this is 20 minutes. >> if i can have your attention, please. my name is roger, i am the and simple with the board of directors -- i am a principal with the board of directors, the ournsor of today's, this 10th annual state of the net conference. for those of you who were not around, to show you how long 10 years is in internet time, in the first conference, we sponsored, we had to have it in the back of the room, banks of computers, so that people could check their e-mail. a long time in internet time. during these 10 years, the state of the net conference has been

the premier conference on a global scale to examine internet policy issues. that is no coincidence. the ief board i would like to thank him, our executive director, for having organized what is one of the best conferences we have ever done. [applause] the state of the net conference, as the literature explains, is one of many projects the internet education foundation sponsors. wise,also include get net the congressional internet caucus, and the advisory committee. the state of the mobile net, the , and ourthe net west newest project, the congressional acts -- apps

challenge, there is literature there as well. since i am also the treasurer of the internet education foundation, i would be remiss if i did not mention to all of you if you have not visited our rg, i wouldted.o encourage you to do so and i will also draw your attention to the little yellow button that is prominently displayed on the website. it is the button that will permit you to make a tax- deductible contribution. if you have not been to our website, please visit it. it is my pleasure to introduce to you this morning senator john thune, the cochair of the congressional internet caucus. senator thune is well known in south dakota and outside of the state for his interest and knowledge of the internet, electronic commerce, internet policy matters, and the like. in addition to cochairing the congressional internet caucus,

he is the ranking member of the senate commerce committee and the chairman of the senate republican conference, the number three leadership position in the republican members of the senate. he cosponsored the digital trade act of 2013, only the most recent of internet policy initiatives he has been responsible for. i am sure his remarks will in line olive us. -- will enlighten all of us. he has to move on when he finishes but we appreciate his coming and thank him for his service as the cochair of the congressional internet caucus. senator thin. -- senator thune. [applause] >> thank you, roger. i appreciate the chance to be with you. as cochair, i am proud to be able to be here for the 10th annual state of the net

conference. a decade in internet time is a long time, it is an eternity and yet the state of the net has stayed relevant and thought- provoking and i want to organizes thisho event on an annual basis and leaves the net caucus. he deserves a lot of credit for the successful run this conference has had. in thes is a long time life of the internet and i would like to take everyone back further in time, the year in which i was first elected to congress. it was the year in which the na dominated- macare the music scene and the last year in which the nation's telecommunications laws were updated. back then you had to pay for the internet by the hour and going online and tying up your home telephone line. once you connected to the internet on your modem, there were not a lot of things to do

or places to visit. at that time there were only 100,000 websites. aol was the biggest, by far. contrast that to today where there are 860 million websites. google and wikipedia had not been created. blogging in text messages did not exist. back in 1996. in the mobile world, the biggest innovation was the introduction of the world's first flip phone. everybody remembers that. it initially sold for $1000. at that point, more people are carrying one-way pagers then went online. despite how much the world has changed, there are many people who repeatedly tried to constrain emerging business models and technologies with last century's structures. disruptive startups like uber an d lift do not fit neatly into regulatory boxes but that has

not stopped regulators from trying. the economy is real. it is growing and while i understand the need to ensure safety and transparency in the marketplace, i wish more officials shared my optimism about how successful the internet is at facilitating individual economic empowerment. in d c, there is a discussion about how to handle the from analog cell phone systems to digital ip networks. the old copper-based networks that were once monopolies remain regulated. while the internet is unregulated and competitive. many folks, nonetheless, want to apply archaic telephone regulations to the digital ecosystem and that is the crux of the policy debate we are having here in washington, d.c. i have to say i don't understand how anyone believes that laws l arened for ma bel appropriate today.

while there are fundamental goals that need to be preserved such as public safety, as policymakers we need to be open- minded about how to achieve those goals in the future without being bound by the strictures of the past. is anternet ecosystem world of entrepreneurship and innovation. the status quo is a four letter and disruption is the highest virtue. that is why i am amazed when so- called advocates for the internet want to constrain the marketplace with policy thinking from the last century. there are exceptions, of course, but too often when you hear somebody say, we need regulations to protect the internet, they are actually theng they do not trust internet entrepreneurs to create the economic growth and to increase public welfare. the private sector created things like the iphone, current funding, staff cap, -- snap chat, lolcats.

not every innovation is equal but the government has come up with things like internet kill switch, the itu, netting jollity, -- net neutrality, sopa. thenot suggesting government is always wrong. a few of these issues are black- and-white but the scale should be on the side of the job creators. do you really need government to step in and help you or would you really rather government get out of your way? i can guess how much of -- many of you would answer that question. there are three things that congress should be doing to get out of your way and to foster innovation. first, congress needs to strip away obsolete laws and regulations that are no longer needed. for instance, before superstorm andy, verizon was providing handful of customers in lower manhattan with telegraph services, for some reason. sandy wiped out miles of their

copper network. the telegraph customers are reportedly fine with moving to modern fiber-based services. yet verizon is required by the federal communications commission to ask for the agency's permission to discontinue its telegraph offering. another regulation requires telephone companies to label, track, and report the location, down to the specific room, of every single piece of equipment in their central offices. even a $10 circuit board. that $10 circuit board last two decades, the company has to keep a record of it and all of its movements, for those 20 years. along with records on every other piece of equipment in the network. thankfully, mark zuckerberg's dorm room was not burdened by such micromanagement. unnecessary laws like these have

piled up over the decades. and while we talk about these things and it may sound trivial, the burden represents a significant economic drag that toerged limited resources regulators and away from providing new products and services to consumers. modernizeeeds to those laws we do not get rid of sewer statutes reflect the 21st century. theo our statutes reflect 20 first century. the 21sting member -- century. as a ranking member, i think we will revisit some of these laws this year. many of them were written before streaming video, cloud, even before satellite-tv became widespread. this is an area of two medication log that is ripe for an update. the commerce law has done work on cyber security. i am pleased our committee has advanced legislation that

resists a top-down regulatory approach and i am hopeful that this year may be the one when such legislation, which is supported by the tech community, is finally enacted. from the issues i hear technology sectors are electronic surveillance and immigration. as you know, there is a robust debate over how to appropriately balance security and privacy in the digital world. getting it right is a critical challenge facing policy makers around the world and i expect tension on this important matter in the months ahead. on immigration, the senate it had somel, problems associated with it, but it included some worthwhile provisions. particularly in high skilled immigration. i am a cosponsor of targeted legislation to increase the number of high skilled workers who can come to work in this country and i was glad to see the senate bill included meaningful positions to ensure the united states will continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest talents from

around the world. there is a fair amount of consensus around these provisions and i wish that more of my colleagues would welcome such victories where they can be onnd rather than insisting an all or nothing approach to legislating. third, the government should work to protect the internet from threats from abroad. this is an area i believe the u.s. government can and should play an active role in protecting the internet. many of you are familiar with overseas efforts to increase ever mental control of the internet with the international telecommunications unit. in 2012, the united states government supported a bipartisan consensus in congress, i should say supported by a bipartisan consensus, sent a delegation to divide to beat back proposals to have the itu regulate the internet. the victory was a narrow one. there is still a great deal of diplomatic work that needs to be

done to convince other countries that a light touch, multi- stakeholder model is what is best for them and their citizens and for the internet itself. avenues for the digital trade around the world is another area the united states government needs to focus its efforts. i have introduced a trade act with my democratic colleague senator ron wyden to make digital trade a top priority for american diplomats and future trade deals. countries like china and brazil, and even our friends in europe, are considering policies to , first-rate, and disfavor american digital services and goods. just as we have fought against protectionist barriers against exports, we now need to ensure that digital protection does not lead to the balkanization of the internet. we risk segregating parts of the

world from the global network and creating second-class netizens who might not benefit from the power of the internet. we must avoid letting legitimate privacy concerns and debate over electronic surveillance become a stalking horse for opportunistic restrictions on digital trade. by working toward these goals, eliminating unnecessary laws, modernizing the necessary ones, and protecting the internet, congress can help create an environment that allows people to innovate freely. the legal environment where entrepreneurs can concentrate on end users rather than on bureaucrats and government restrictions. policymakers in the private sector need to stay focused on making sure all segments of the population can enjoy the feuds -- the fruits of the digital revolution. old and young, urban and rural. while there is much the government can do with stewardship, i challenge the private sector to spend more

time thinking about the digital divide. not every technology user is a young person with a good job living in a big city on the coast. i was sharing with roger earlier today, my dad is 94 years old. mylives in my town -- hometown of myrdal, south dakota. the internet is his world -- his window to the world. i asked them to google himself. he played basketball back in the 1940's. there is, under the images section of his google website, there is a photo of him in the shower. [laughter] the waist up.rom something you probably would not see today. it was from a minneapolis newspaper at the time. it is an example of how much information is available to people, even like my father. 94 years old. that is what keeps them connected and keeps them going every day. for many folks, the internet is a four in -- is a foreign

language. can'tthe government alone bridge this digital divide and that is why encourage all of the smart people out there, people in this room and in silicon valley, silicon alley and silicon prairie to really think about the unique digital oldercy challenges facing americans, barack communities, minority populations, and others for whom the promise of the internet remains unfulfilled. the private sector is far better than the government in making the internet relevant to the public. after all, if it is the great onlinehe invaluable services, even the quirky forms of entertainment that truly drive internet adoption. as a representative of a state with many rural communities, i am committed to working on this issue and i want to call on you and the private sector to do similarly to that cause. from my position in leadership,

i see the rewards and challenges of living through the digital revolution. the world moves so fast it is hard for even the most technologically savvy and digitally connected person to keep up with everything. it should be no surprise that our laws have fallen woefully behind. many of the policies affecting our digital life were written in a world that is unrecognizable to today's digital natives and are just as outdated as a dial- up modem. i'm going to work with my colleagues in the senate to start a dialogue on modernizing america's digital policies because we need 21st century laws for a 21st century world. discard old technologies like pagers and floppy disks for newer and better technologies. government needs to be willing to do the same with america's antiquated laws. thank you very much. you all have a great conference. enjoy. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> has republicans holding a conference to talk about a variety of issues including immigration. president obama has been traveling the country discussing the agenda he laid out in this week's state of the union. the president was in wisconsin earlier today talking about jobs and the economy. the secretary of the air force talk to reporters about the culture of stress and fear with a nuclear missile corps to talk .bout proficiency exams they're holding the annual policy conference