comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> coming up tonight, british prime minister david cameron in front of the british liaison committee. an interview with jeb bush and brad and dallas woodhouse. the washington post headline, jeb bush jump starts the 2016 election. they say he became the first they'd name potential gop presidential candidate to make a major 2016-related comment saying he will actively explore a run. this kind of announcement will be followed with an exploratory committee which is legally and practically the same thing as launching a campaign. says he's not going that far.

he will launch a leadership pac in january. we have an interview from earlier this month at 9:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, to british politics. david cameron appearing today before the british liaison committee answering questions on climate change priorities and combating extremism. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome, prime minister. we have two things to ask you about today. the first is on climate change and the second is radicalization. >> before we start, i think it might be right after the events of yesterday and today -- i just want to say it's right to pitcher be to those who were murdered in australia. today this appalling outrage in

pakistan. i'm sure the thoughts will be with the families and loved ones of those who parish. in australia, there are tales of extraordinary bravery and sacrifice now being told about what happened in that half fan that is what we would expect from people from that remarkable and great country. the scale of what has happened simply defies belief. it is a dark day when something on this scale happens with no justification. there is no belief system in the world that can justify this kind of appalling act. i think when this shows is the worldwide threat that is posed by this poisonous ideology of extremism islamist terrorism. it has nothing to do with one of the world's great religious, islam, a religion of peace. this is a perversion. we have to recognize what we face in this country, but also as we see around the world. we must with our allies use everything we have in our we must, with their allies do everything we can to defeat it. the values of freedom, democracy

-- i say to the committee as i have before, i think this will be the struggle of our generation. we will have to show every bit of resilience. i'm sure, members of the committee would agree. >> we very much endorse what you have just said. i think it is appropriate to say, the second part of this will be talk about how to tackle radicalism. the all too familiarity of the hostage event of sydney. to turn now to climate change. >> another issue of her

generation, which relates to the conditions of climate stability, the preconditions of the success of the human species for the last several hundred years. i personally believe -- this is the greenest government, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. without introducing an inappropriately partisan note, it will prove to the next parliament, to make a decision about the budget that covers the period of 2028 to 2032. another reason is success was giving the eu the challenging target of reducing greenhouse emissions. and also, avoiding adding

unnecessary targets for renewals. do you think that if we continue to playing an important role, we have to continue along the same path, would you be able to resist the call -- that comes really from the whole political spectrum -- to flow down on progress of the carbon as in our economy? part of their investment is needing does add to cost. >> i think we will. i think we're put this legislation in place and followed. as a result, we have seen

further reductions in emissions. britain is the first new renewable plant. a lot of good things are being done. to answer your question directly, yes, i think we will continue. we have to make the decision in 2016. my only hesitation is, we have to see carbon reduced at the lowest cost. on carbon capture and storage, which is absolutely crucial, we're put a lot of money into carbon capturing storage experience, but we haven't yet gotten the ion understanding a workable system. i think before we commit to the next stage, we need to know more

about whether gaskin played a role in a carbonizing system. so, i think it is yes, but before we say yes, we must have a better understanding. >> is it possible to get people to switch off the electricity for financial reward? this is an adopted quite widely in the u.s. we need to make sure that we had the lead in europe -- in this which is very cost effective. >> it has changed completely, the national electricity market. used to be one big grid -- it was a one-way system -- now there is a two-way system.

it is not just a small grade, it is opportunity for businesses and public services to be able to effectively reduce their demand, without any effect on the services they provide, and be financially rewarded. i think the technology is changing so fast, what you think may be the right way to do it today may be replaced by some other technology. the technology is moving very fast. >> moving on to emissions trading. many of us see this market instrument as a very effective -- in fact, the most effective way to get a good value for

money. china has reached -- it looks as though china has reached the same conclusion. will you continue to make sure that britain leads the pressure for performing the eu system? secondly, do you recognize an opportunity now that we are moving towards different amounts, for what would potentially be a very large revenue stream -- decide invested in climate change -- but the remainder of that could be used to cut taxes since businesses will pay for a large portion of the offset. that money could effectively be

recycled for lower taxes for businesses and individuals. >> first of all, the question whether we should continue to read this reform -- yes, absolutely. not only is the essential for europe, if we do not see improvement in europe, we could be disadvantaged in britain. it makes a big difference in our common carbon price here and have carbon price in europe. this is also great for europe, and essential for britain. what we have to stop is this -- inappropriate use of climate. on the issue what do we do with

the revenues -- obviously, we still have a large deficit. that is the primary use of these sorts of resources. i do agree with that thinking that says -- if we want to be, we should be very pro-business government. the more we can help businesses by reducing taxes, we should. >> finally, emissions trading has been a success, and will spread across the globe -what -- do you think we can reduce our emissions? do you think there's an opportunity for us, a market for these concepts invented here in britain?

>> my understanding is that there is some other countries that have accurately copied our legislation, like denmark. some other countries our have accurately copied legislation, like denmark. i think the only thing if we do it again, the thing i would change is -- a u do not want underneath specific concepts -- we want to reduce carbon at the lowest cost, i think other targets can get in the way. the eu 2030 ating

package. naturally have binding targets, as has happened in the past. lowest cost t the -- i think we have a good system, something we can recommend to others. helpful uld be really that ow what is the issue government -- in terms of the new package on air quality, and also on resource efficiency. it seems to me, if we will be with ssful in dealing energy issues, that our government actually report those proposals? national pport the the maximum amount

of -- i think what your question to es from is the proposal withdraw -- i may want to look more closely at what is being back to you. come we tried to support sensible measures where pollution is crossing boundaries. see excessive to regulation. >> i think the issue is that being made as is we speak. justin levine, about the issue of energy subsidies, clearly sums up to energy fossil fuels -- eu is ct that the ambitions cuts

targets, there's also the prospect of the eu climate deal paris, i ear in do you fare the such climate deal can't make the majority of our carbon reserves. why are n't burn oil, you encouraging more oil extraction? is the things -- oone issue of subsidies, and carbon subsidies. i would argue that we do not in this e carbon country. countries to other

reduce carbon. i do not accept that. i believe that hydrocarbons have a role to international energy system. that carbon capturing them will come about. for many years to come, and gas will still play a role in our energy supply. i think it should. lets decarbonize comes less of where that

from -- you would need a very large amount of subsidize energy. you would have a very expensive energy bill for consumers, i do not want to see that. i think it is great to care for the oil industry. it is vital for our country, us energy security. i think carbon caption for the future will in ble gas to play a part the industry. i think we should use tax what is -- do environmentally sensible, as well as economically sensible. it makes sense that we encourage the industry to decommission oil and gas platforms in an environmentally sensible way.

tax system has a use for making sure that we achieve those two goals. if the argument is the should not do anything by changing the tax system, i do not accept that. less turn to nuclear. shouldn't you -- i accept that nuclear is being subsidized by the government. >> i do not accept that. i will tell you what we are make -- we are trying to sure -- you have to stand back and ask what are we trying to do? you always want to have the the ction in carbon in lowest cost, at the same time we want to secure energy supplies to power our economy.

diverse energy supplies means we do not rely on any one fuel, or any one part of the world. a nuclear supporting industry, supporting renewable energies as they come, and supporting gas. that is our policy. as part of that, i think it is great to have the regeneration of the british nuclear industry. if we do not have that, and if oil and gas, we of a be in a bit difficulty. we would only have renewable do not think that would work. if the subsidies coming from the fact that we are giving a per kilowatt ice the future -- it is a subsidy into the price offered

in the nuclear power station practice -- that subsidies actually lower -- the price is we offer to hat offshore wind. so i do not think that we are treating nuclear unfairly as compared to renewable energy. >> i think the government is actually providing greater subsidies to nuclear because of the timeframe involved -- to interrupt you, but it is a very long-term project, and enormous. >> but the government is actually being less helpful as onshore wind energy is

concerned. dclg has actually intervene in has farm applications as actually intervene in wind farm applications as recently as june 2013. >> i think there's a very joint approach. i think -- i think. billy for what we are saying about onshore wind. as with other renewable technologies, there was a subsidy in the early days. heading for around 10% of our electricity to come from onshore wind. in my view, that is enough as far as the balance energy supply. the planning t system, we could get past 10%. that is enough as far

as balancing is applied. away the take subsidy, and then see if they want to see anymore. deciding, y're not are they? respect of fracking, i'm is sure why the government subsidizing fracking, because it is not a new technology, is it? i do not accept that. are not subsidizing fracking -- as we stand today, there are gas wells ntional britain. yet, some shell reserves have to provide gas for this country.

again, it is a nascent energy a we are not giving it subsidy -- we are just saying there should be a tax regime on it get dustry to help going. 1% of the revenues can go to as local community, as much 10,000,000 pounds. your if this happened in area -- the same at 100% of the business rate can be retained by the local authority. this could be 1,000,000 pounds to 2,000,000 pounds. a means a community benefits from the development of a resource. i think that is very important see this industry grow.

i would argue that those are big and unfair subsidies. this industry will have to make a profit in order to succeed -- let's move on. thank you. prime minister, in its annual in 2013 2014, it was described as a key partner in to u.k. -- then he goes on say that the current projected in the f investment u.k.'s green economy is less than half of the required rate. there has been report which shows that the 1,000,000,000 pounds that the investment bank was expected to make available this a new loans, r

been taken llion had out. in the projections of march, we are well down, about 20% of that rate. to t do you think you can do improve that? >> i think there are two questions. one is, are we attracting enough investment into our energy industry at a time when massive investments -- investment in renewables, investments in nuclear. we need a smart grid. on that question, i would argue an enormous as been uplift in this government -- i investment has been four years then

previous parliaments. there any her day, is other country in the world has such a long-term and open plan for future investment? they basically said no. if you're an energy investor, britain is a great place to invest. on that part we are doing great. on the green investment date, we gave it 3.8 billion of capital and has not spent that money yet. right start s the -- it should be a seed investment, levering in money the private sector. right now it has money, and has seed investment to do. >> i agree. the problem is, it cannot seem

spend the money. its think it spent 1.6 of 3.8 million. i'm sure we will see it ramp up. there are plenty of opportunities. look to try y and and answer your question, but i get from banks, pension funds, there's usually positive about investing in britain. largest energy and market than anywhere else in the world. would the surface it appear that if only a portion has been used, there is a blockage somewhere.

borrowing ed to start when we could see our deficit and debt situation. i do not sense that there is a problem. again, i will look and see if there's a better answer to what you're saying. >> if you can pursue that a bit further -- it may be premature to advocate increasing the capacity of the allowing it d, but, market row on the open to invest as a conventional bank does -- but if we are to reach the environment some at some states, unless we are to plan more money in, that will be necessary. the moment, borrowing powers would not be given until the debt has fallen

means the time has been postponed because of the public sector finances, which if it sidered an in court became appropriate to do so. >> i do not think it is necessary. if a third of the capital is gone, and it keeps doing that over the next three years, we will get to where we need to be. the two things should miraculously come together. [indiscernible] there are plenty of lending institutions out there.

there are plenty of pension to ds that are desperate invest in energy. remember, with our system, people can see how much money support out there to renewable investments. renewable energy enterprise because of the way obligations were -- you know what you will get as far as returns. >> moving on. recognize that -- an we are given -- interesting point. the want to talk about climate fund. of climate change,

cause of climate change has been the industrialization of the modern world. you would be a great champion 2015 sustainable framework, how do you see climate change is part of that framework? >> it absolutely must be part of it. goal is that -- it will get to defuse -- i good ban ki-moon did a job recently to narrow down the dozens of people, climate, prosperity. climate change has to absolutely be a part of it. the n that context, use litigation -- do you think there's any particular u.k. interest?

poorest hink given the countries have less subsidies, on poor t be targeted countries, or should all developed countries be able to access it? >> they're not hard and fast answers to these. there are some countries, small states for example that are feeling the effects of climate change already. we should do both. should try -- the poorest countries are the ones to do olice capacity things, they need the most help. a world ays goes on in favor the tend to the poorest le in countries, because they do not have the capacity to take action. developed countries

access financing -- we should not rule out using this funding to help other countries. i think we should try and get the maximum value of the money when we do this. but, we have made good and generous offers of supporting -- i cannot give you a percentage. i think it is both. i think is where the biggest return can be found. in my view -- think generally speaking, say with aid spending, we should focus on those dates that have the least capacity to help themselves. traditionally that means conflict hit states, and the poorest states that cannot generate revenues. >> the green climate fund is to pprovide new

funding -- you said that 720 word count towards oda. of y simply taking it out other projects. >> i do not really accept that. we have an aid budget. we have sent some of that can be used for climate science. some of that money is going to the green climate fund. you can argue whether that is but is money not, that was not in the green fund and now it is. under our gue, umbrella, that is money that is going to purpose. the hat is not to all partners -- what is to stop the oney that we put in the

fund from being used for winter lysate in turkey, or being used for schools in somalia, or somewhere else. are arguing -- do we use money that is in the eu? i would agree. if -- obviously any fun we give money to, we should work as as we can to make sure that it does not waste that the y and they spent in right way. i think the contribution we climate fund n will do that. we literally target screen one with 16 million, it's been reduced to 10.

do we need other countries to sit back and say, in the u.k. does the heavy lifting? would it be easier for us to work with other countries to say why don't you match us? >> i was criticized for holding back on the green climate fund. exactly that -- i went to ban ki-moon's conference in i would r and said that deliver, trying to deliver an eu deal on climate change. but, i held back on making a contribution to the green fund. i said i wanted to see other people's money before we put our money and. i think it is a mixture likely. i think sometimes it is worth other times worth holding back.

it can work to leave earned money to say we were only given will be matched by others. i think we should do all those methods. >> i welcome that. we know that the new australian of ernment is in denial climate change -- do you think are doing enough? >> i think they are doing more. look, it is a sovereign country. it has to make his own decisions. there has also been a very big carbon prices -- that they recognize, they do not want to be on the back burner. it is a great country, and clearly affected by climate change.

i think they will do more. we should recognize, europe has what is necessary to show real leadership. >> but, the only reason they won't -- think o not think -- i they will fill pressure and want to do more. we should try and encourage their own way, n rather than saying there's a preordained group that they have to follow. america has proved to reduce their carbon emissions. the president ed to make some interesting on climate change, delivered through executive motions rather than congress. is t we are doing there standing back -- we want to get

a global deal. every country has its own politics. of my constituents have jobs where energy is used at extremely high levels. and yet, we are trying to need e the public that we to lower energy use. messages to fficult communicate. just yesterday -- clearly the application that will affect futures of jobs. are he one hand, there the shell to agreement, on the other hand who e are certainly people need them prices to go down.

does the prime minister agreed that the signs is not finished until it is -- >> definitely. of time saying t -- i value the work that scientists did. i think there's some myths that to get over. the method nuclear power is inherently unstable. there myths that we need to a nfront if we will be stable, science-based, successful country. say, the scientists -- out and them to get communicate it. constant need a message -- a consistent message

from government on climate change. you are one of the members of government that has been a little off pace, to say the least. >> i think the government has a very clear policy -- be a very green government. we are the greenest government ever. i strongly believe that cutting carbon at the lowest cost -- i think that sometimes in disagreements. the ink cutting carbon at lowest cost. i think that wind farms that are being built will not be necessary. do not need more the subsidized onshore -- get rid of the subsidy, and put it back into the system. a case, they will make the case. i do not think they will.

enough is enough. of going back to the role aand scientists i've asked before, what is the need for them to take a it independent role and advise others honestly. it becomes viable to the government comes out with a consistent message. >> i agree. i think the government has a consistent message. i think the fact that we now very scientists is a strong thing. urge them to speak robustly to their ministers.

we do not just one policy driven by science, we want sites to be included. they have that role to play. things that down the line is important. we have had things that have happened about which i do not we have had significant enough scientistific warning. >> one of the reason that we consistent message -- there are different agendas of some of the media. some real problems in scientific ld stories. it makes it so easy for back and ts to fall

a says this, minister b says that. you would not do it in party politics in the media -- i think -- it is a debate. often -- >> i want the government to stay consistent based on evidence. >> yes. >> two concerns. well, fracking is a new industry. place it e ever to went disastrously wrong. you put regulations on

fracking companies? know that -- should we be looking to precautionary measures? >> i think we have got a good regime in place. >> are you aware of any self-monitoring of any fracking company? >> anything above a shock of -- would result in an operators shut down. again, i think it is good that a debate about fracking

-- a sensible debate. sometimes we look at the emails and et from constituents lobbying groups -- when i've some of the f at mythbusting, i hope we can encourage the media to bust and look hese myths, rationally. have the uld actually environment agency going in and test after each frack. light t we have a traffic system -- that is what we have. in place after. is what i'm worried about the self-monitoring.

does tthe environmental agency you the concern -- can give us a commitment that this impact monitoring of fracking? >> i do not see that it would. from everything i've heard about this, there is a large of regulatory hurdles. too complicated -- you have licensing processes, etc. in the end this debate will only be won or lost when there are some wells in britain carrying out unconventional gas recovery, be people can see this can without anly, environmental problems, with benefits for us. benefits for industry

and the potential to have more secure gas, but also maybe environmental benefits -- think of using gas in our homes for cooking and eating, a fact that has been produced here, that is good for the environment. >> you are asking the environment to take an awful does the -- why -- will you vary social impact t -- >> i'm very happy to look at that. justin comment on self-monitoring activity -- companies do lose their permits. spot checks are done.

i'm happy doing all these details. i see -- i do not believe that this is an industry in danger of regulation. >> this is not coming to whitney anytime soon -- >> i would be happy very happy if it did. i visited the oil rounds -- i went to see the conventional and gas recovery. small they kable how are. that would actually be smaller than those. >> but it would be one-mile in the ground and horizontal -- and no one has executed this before. onshore gas and

not say ite, iit does be t people have to consulted -- is it just an expectation, or the in obligation? i think this compelling we can rely -- >> everyone is consulted. >> it does not say that. >> in planning, everyone is able to put the point -- read surprised when i this, fracking uses less water than a golf course in one month. >> no one knows at what point of chemicals are taken out when the , and groundwater is transported to -- e sort of well to restore 20 miles aways.

there also is a potential dangers. but, it's too late when the license has been granted. >> as far as any the action to your describing -- these would likely be a legal, and companies will lose their license. i wannt to be clear, my view is that if shell gas can do it safely and local commuter should do it. problem part of the again -- then back to the big groups t -- some green are anti-gas just for the fact that it is a carbon-based fuel. they are posing it with this sort of religiosity. i think that is frankly wrong. my view is -- if we can recover

gas onshore in a safe way, let's do it. you were minister, published -- >> i have not seen it. give you my copy. >> i will look at it. you have asked me a lot of points. any already -- frack site will have a full environmentally assessment. will be published? >> tthat's the way our planning system works. [indiscernible]

tell me -- there's not a danger that we may overpromise the number of jobs, especially local jobs, that will be created? >> you are absolutely right. for figure has been given the 64,000 jobs, i do not think anyone can be certain what will happen. happened in t has america -- many more jobs. examining should be this industry, aand seeing what it can do for british jobs, and british communities, british energy. my objection to the green groups, they do not want to any of this -- they cannot bear another carbon-based energy source. i danger of -- can

just ask, again on the employment issue. clearly the number just depends on the amount of gas that is recovered. we do -- what can you do to speed up the process of exploration? >> we try to do that in a of ways -- by trying to make sure that the number of and planning commissions the company needs is not too onerous. what i was talking about in chemicals, and planning. need to ink, we also try and make sure the industry skills it requires. you can do all these things, but i think it is only when the

first few wells are up and running, and people can go and visit it -- only at that point will the industry really get going. that might you think be? >> i'm hoping that the first first wells be be dug next year. >> and then the gas will be coming out the year after that? this industry -- wells are the first will go quite quickly. >> could you say anything about under what circumstances you

might support fracking in national parks? >> we have said only in exceptional circumstances. there's certainly a higher threshold to be crossed. i think again, this will come back to -- i was very struck when i went and saw the conventional feeds. they have said now this is been here for 10 or 20 years, and now we know what there is a forest road movements, we can see the scale. it is when that happens that i think the industry will be viewed in a different light. they will see that there's much less to worry about than i thought. >> taking facking to national park something a very big challenge.

your answer -- the on golf courses -- >> i was making the point. >> my committee made its first report urging -- four years heard efore many had even of it. just to put the concern of her tremors t -- were not strong enough to feel on the surface, i do not think are all that series of an anxiety. gas could -- you

agree that one way to kickstart the process and achieve what wells out - get a few there, do you think one way would be extending incentives a little further for a limited period? so, anyone who agrees to allow in the community, the gas to to be exploited, would get extra incentives? number of d quite a demonstrations of operations up running quite soon. that might allow the large-scale rollout. >> i'm open to suggestions. came up with 100,000 pounds, the chance of factored in a sovereign fund for north of england. i do not think the problem the communities cal

saying -- if only there was another 1%, we would go for this. i think the problem is, people are worried about this and concerned. only when they see and are happy with what has will go for.tthey >> let's turn to radicalization. you set up and shared the extremism task force. what has it been doing since november? again, reminding ourselves what this was all about. the government has a clear policy on tackling extremism. light of the n

murder of -- it was right to bring people together. and thing, i would actually the process of tackling extremism -- prisons, schools, unive some of which have been put into force in front of the house. the there will be subsequent meetings to see if there are more things that we need to do or check up on. it is the way i work. i bring together ministers. it's working like that. >> how much priority if you compare your agenda on the day you started as prime minister.

where is it in your list of ?riorities twin priorities -- and national rity security. you go back, if you read one my speeches -- if you go back in opposition, i made a lot of speeches about the of islamic extremists, beneath it ideology -- i think it is still very relevant today.

generational struggle. in the three beaten with all in the toolbox. regrettably, i'm spending more i'm holds -- the problem we're facing is a series. despite

>> people who are self radicalized -- that is harder to prevent. -- billionsillions stillspent, there are more people being radicalized.

what has gone wrong with the agenda? we using authority figures? we don't seem to be able to get into the dna of the community to identify the lone wolves. how do we get to them? that is the issue, isn't it? >> it is. we have to do everything. i would argue that the buildup of the intelligence services has made a difference. modern policing practices have helped. if you are saying we are not doing enough to challenge the underlying narrative that has been the starting point for some people to be seduced from a

thatate islam to something accepts the narrative of the -- emist >> we seem to be getting to that tipping point. >> i agree. a lot of work is being done with leaders in that muzzle and communities and with social media in order to do that. i thought the australian social media response is incredibly powerful. people can move very quickly.

this is a total perversion of islam. sometimes people can feel like they are being targeted. we have got to drive these people out of our communities, national life. this is the difficult bit. sometimes people say we are against the extremist terrorists, but we also need to oppose the world view that says victims.ms are sometimes people except that narrative. that is not good enough. >> we do. i represent moslems. the point of

representing a multi-cultural country. mother who say to a tries to help? and then says i feel betrayed by the police. don't you think that since the wrong message to parents? how do we tell them that they and not see their children again? >> i did not hear the argument. we have to trust our policing and justice system to deliver results. --you are saying should we

when young people are at danger of radicalization -- should we pull them away from that side using persuasion and different programs, as well as the harder end arrest and prosecution? yes, of course we should. , theeverything i have seen police intelligence services do that a lot. people beingop radicalized? >> if you spent time with the police and intelligence services, they can give you come as examples of people who are pulled away from radicalization. we need to triage people in the right way. at the end of the day, we have to allow the police and the

prosecuting system to work to tackle those who are threatening. >> you talked about the darknet in relation to child abuse. fact, the darknet in relation to terrorism is much darker and deeper. it is used to finance terrorism. the internet companies who came to your seminar promise to do various things. should we be doing so much more as far as these efforts are concerned? have you looked at the possibility of setting up an internet watch foundation for those who want to report? isn't this all happening far too late? think -- we are doing all of those things. interesting, last week the

internet companies took massive steps forward. i said you have to stop people from using vulgar terms to search for images. they said, that is impossible. amount of searches on google are down by 80%. we need to encourage them to do that. one stepsmade bigger the child-abuse front than they have on the terrorism front. my argument is that they are similar. they are taking down images. -- there areing organizations that work to take down terrorist images and websites. we need to keep doing that. we've got a long way in the last

couple of years, but we have more to do. >> is there evidence of radicalization -- we know about the trojan war schools -- is that a worry to you? is that something being contained by people in education? >> it is a worry. i would say this is not purely confined to birmingham. we have had instances of schools and other parts of the country who have had backing from groups that have views on the extremism narrative that are inappropriate. we have had to act in some cases. do we have in place all the necessary powers? if we can get everyone to understand what it is we are fighting against, i think this new duty that we are passing is that all public bodies have a

duty to prevent radicalization and extremism -- i think that is a very harmful thing. countries or the institutions at high-risk. it is everybody. sometimes some of these organizations have been a bit too relaxed. thought it was free speech. what was the problem? in fact, it is a problem. [inaudible] sense is degrading and party?ing isil a i>> it is a priority. the problem is the extremist

narrative. we saw that with al qaeda in and instan, in mali, somalia. the current manifestation is isil. is not a terrorism body that is found a willing host. it is a terrorism body that runs a state, has land, has money, has revenue. we will not deal with the problem of the terrorist narrative unless we aggressively isil.eal with there is no short-term easy answer. multiyearlong-term, strategy to help the regional players to eradicate this organization.

sure ine going to make a big coalition that we don't is an iraqig, this lead, the united states are doing a great deal, the united we are just a small part of a coalition. >> if you look at the kinetic action, the bombing that has iraq, britain has taken the second-largest role. way.ld put it in a simple this alliance has a strategy, which is very str simple and government ind, a iraq and syria with a government that are capable of representing and not allow a terrorist to thrive.

they could take many years. it toestion is, what is make a strategy more likely? my test for the national security council is what in terms of military resources can help the strategy? to create ange iraqi government that does all the things that they want to do? what can we do to help put pressure on the syrian regime for a proper transition? that is the framework we should approach. we can do all of everything. we should work out where does britain have some expertise and some heft we can bring to that. that's why i'm sure your committee's work can be very helpful.

>> [inaudible] >> you get a lot of returnees from syria. we going to add to the problem of radicalization imprisons? is it a real problem question mark have we got evidence that people became radicalized in prison? >> the answer to that is, yes. several hundred people in prison who were not arrested or convicted of terrorist offenses, but who nonetheless have been radicalized with an extreme islamist narrative. it is a problem. it's not being invented. i think it would be wrong to say theyall over the country

islamic leaders are doing a terrible job. they're not. we need to work out which programs of the radicalization of working best and lloyd out in all our prisons. -- which programs of the deradicalization are working best and put it in all our prisons. >> there are enough imams this is to challenge -- not the narrative of general islam. it leaves a real challenge. are we able to recruit imams who are able to do that? >> my understanding is that yes we are. we are educating prisoners who

are new or inexperienced in the moslem faith. purposes ofof the the extremism tax force. ministersll the around the table with all the responsibilities, each one of priorityheir highest extremismuse of the extreme task force we are driving some activity. >> [inaudible] passports removed from the whole family. not just those involved directly, but also everyone else in the family, irrespective of

whether they should have the passport. >> i don't know the details of this particular case. she is meticulous at looking very carefully at the advice she doingen and what she is to carry that out. her responsibilities to keep the country safe. the powersse appropriately. >> in this bill going to parliament, are you also satisfied that you have the cooperation of those countries -- say somebody refuses to abide by the conditions and then once to stay. are you satisfied that foreign governments will say that you can keep them in knots and them back to britain? i'm hoping will get the

agreement we need. what we trying to do here? we need to get police and security services the powers necessary to keep us safe. sometimes that is taking passports away. sometimes it is at the border. on occasion, it it would be right to say to someone who is thinking of returning to britain , where you can't come back until we are satisfied that we have the measures in place. that puts pressure on foreign governments, but foreign governments often put pressure on us. there are a quiet a lot of them in our prisons. -- they would be in danger in pakistan. we are going to leave them in britain. would you be happy? >> are prisons are full of

people -- our prisons are full of people. don'tso to reasons, they want to take them. i would stay tough on this one. i think it is important that we would be robust in keeping our country safe. >> -- political surge being the key to addressing the root causes of extremism. are you confident that over the last four months we have put adequate resources into the intelligence offices, the diplomats, the military liaison office? to achieve that? to understand that? >> i was asking this question at the national security council today. -- the the answer is intelligence services are doing exactly this. this shiftingace

threat pattern and establish where they are most needed. we've had a very big focus on afghanistan and pakistan. now they need to readjust. i was say there is some good work being done, but more needs to be done. liaison with the kurdish regional government has been important. we have a lot of military intelligence liaison going on. i have met with the prime minister of iraq and listen to his requests. is aeal solution in iraq government that represents all the country, military personnel who will represent the country. all of this is about policy. i agree. whereuld ask ourselves,

is our expertise to add to a predominantly american effort? we should not overstate what we are good at? we can make a difference. -- although it's too early to say all lessons can be learned, some things have emerged. in june, when my committee was in sierra leone and liberia, we were told that they did not think the problem was out of control. of course, it has. they felt it was not under control. be commended. they were pleading for help from the who and were told not to ask to alarmist. you accept that? you accept that as a legacy we have to look at whether the who

fits the purpose? is a real question here. why was the world not faster in responding to obama? because it's not airborne. it is passed by touch. if you get hold of it quickly, you should be able to snuff out the disease much quicker. need -- i argued at the g20 in prison than -- in phonene, we need an extra into the country when there is a problem. -- we need inexpert flown into the country when there is a problem. there are regional organizations that are -- not the fastest moving.

it's not functioning very well. -- i suspectwe can the right thing we should do is a cracked team. then there are a certain number of countries that step up to the plate, we are one. it is taking longer than i would like. the assessment did not get done fast enough. >> in syria leon we have responded. recognize that we were in the process of building health systems -- ensure that there is a legacy of a stronger health system. i know we do not recruit from -- who would be much better deployed working in sierra leone.

working with the nhs, we can help strengthen those systems to mutual benefit. one of the interesting things that came out is that nhs has huge capacity that is beneficial to both the nhs in the country concerned. >> there will come a moment when we should be planning for -- once we have this under control -- what are the legacy things that we should try to leave behind that will help sierra leone have a better health care system in the future? the tragedy of this case -- if you get an outbreak, you can act quickly. that is the real learning as well as his other stuff. great job ofa training up a hundred 50 people of training aid hundred 50 people a week -- of

0 people a week. the risks here has been known for many years. i want to put that into context of the u.k. we allowed stories to run about entry checks, we most close down that is when in reality the battleground there are problems going to be addressed and lives saved. we change fundamentally the way in which government handles such advice in emergencies. he has developed that system. don't you think they're lessons to be learned here about a system that did not kick in fast

enough? we ended up as a reactive organization, when with the scientific knowledge we have, we should have been prepared in a much more alert to this developing risked. , we shouldestion look again at how we draw scientific information into the emergency team planning procedures so that we are proactive and not reactive. >> i will certainly do that. i may stand to be corrected, but -- i't think there was don't how to put this -- the -- everyone knew it was a problem. they assumed that the who handle these things. they don't necessarily. were there teams of scientists saying quicker wake up you need

to see work on a problem this is? you need this combination of political action and scientific advice. think that naïve to all we do is meet, listen to the scientists, and do it they say. advise about what works, what doesn't work, what is scientifically feasible. the politicians do have to make decisions. --'re not just dealing with sometimes problems of public deception, public panic. you need to understand the context in which are operating. work, in fukushima, ebola, or other scientific base problems, we listen to advice, -- to follow where we can but i reserve the right for the politician to say i'm going to

take it into account how the public will react, i we communicate this, how we explain this. the politician has a job. i'm certainly not criticizing , but the fact that the system does not proactively sucked in information from expert groups out there about risks around the world that have been known about for some time is a weakness of the system. issue is note sucking in the information. i think the issue was there was too long a delay between people seeing that ebola was taking off and sort of the big executive action that was required, -- ise to get out there

think obama was one of the first politicians to spot the scale of it, problem and address but when it happens, you cannot act too fast. a i wish you and your family very happy christmas. >> a very happy christmas to you. saved by the bell. c-span an interview bush of florida. brad and dallas woodhouse talk about their political documentary. later, bob kerrey and john danforth discuss congress, the federal budget, and the 2016 presidential elections. journal,xt washington

randi weingarten of the american federation of teachers discusses pushhite house's continued for early education. matt lewis talks about jeb bush's announcement that he is actively exploring a 2016 bid, and what he needs to do to get the republican primary. look at thewe prevalence of brain tumors and brain cancer in the united states. but your phone calls, facebook,'s, and tweet street washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. wednesday, a look at the obama administration's nuclear arms control efforts and the progress of the stark arms reduction treaty with russia. the under secretary of state for arms control and international security speaks at the brookings institution live at 10 a eastern on c-span.

-- live at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> here are some of the programs will find this weekend. latter-day night at 930 on c-span, seth rogen discussing politics and humor with daily show cocreator at the harvard institute of politics. sunday evening at it :00 on c-span's q&a, author and townhall.com editor on what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals on the war on women rhetoric. on c-span two, saturday night at 10:00, book tvs afterwards, we endure show its argues that the top universities are missing the mark in education and that students should learn lessons and have a think critically, be creative, and have a goal in life the on the material. sunday morning, book tv this its west lafayette, indiana two visits several of the cities authors and to her literary sites. on american history tv on c-span, saturday at 6:00 p.m. on eastern -- damien shields talks

about the life of irish american in thes and the role battle of franklin, tennessee. and on railamerica, a 1974 investigative piece by san kr oh in tv on the history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. find a complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at the following number. e-mail us at the following address. at c-span a tweet #comments per joined the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. bush was interviewed at the wall street genie -- journal ceo council. this is 45 minutes.

your only on the left, jerry. >> yes, governor bush is on the left. you are to their right. this is ok. you brought your coffee. you can get over caffeinated as we talk. that will be good for the optics. thank you for being with us. thank you for being with us. i appreciate it very much. a lot of familiar faces in the room. red some speeches you have been giving lately and discover that one of the significant developments of 2014 was that you became a grandfather for the third time. and you told me about to be a grandfather for the fourth time.

>> that was in my speeches. [laughter] >> when i tell people in my bureau that i'd cover the bush white house am a they think i mean your brother. , and igeorge h.w. bush had the privilege of going to kennebunkport with plenty of children. >> can i bring up a point of leverage and pride that relates to my dad and first granddaughter, jeb and sandra's granddaughter is now three years old. she is trilingual. her name is georgia alayna walker bush. her nickname is 41. georgia represents the new the wall street journal believes in. i'm impassioned about this as

well. thatew americas in america does not have hyphens, an america where your work and effort is your definition, not some identity political form of things. in political life today, georgia would be a canadian-iraqi-mexican-texas -american. she is a quadra hyphenated. >> texans are still americans aren't they? >> barely. [laughter] america that we should aspire to, not the one where we are dividing ourselves up to find where we are different, but the fact that you are from a different place or you have a different origin is totally irrelevant. georgia, when she fills out the

form, she will say not applicable. that will be good news for our country. enough of family life. [applause] in reading those speeches, i was struck by something you had said. you said, this nation is experiencing a crisis of opportunity. >> right. >> tell me what you meant by that. >> we are missing the opportunity to take advantage of our skill sets, of our strengths we focus on our weaknesses. we fight over those. there is massive gridlock, really unprecedented gridlock. yet, this is the most externa country in the world. this country is so much better when you hear the director general of the imf talk about the places in the world. be united states should not

in any category remotely close to a problem country. we have everything necessary, abundant natural resources, the most and renovate of, most thative, i work labor law is unique in the developed world, a big place full of historyto expand, the of productivity, all this stuff has been cast aside temporarily. we are moping around like we are france, with all due respect. [applause] the french have a lot of great things going on. i don't want to be disrespectful. they have a lot of interesting things, but we are not france for crying out loud. we are not seizing the moment. were not aspiring to be young and dynamic again. a few big substantive things, we could be american again.

>> so which things? >> you want them in order of importance? >> your choice. >> i will give you five. in energy policy based on american innovation and north american resources, all in. we should be energy secure with mexico, canada, and the united states within five years. if we aspire to that, we can do it. a regulatory system based on a 21st century economy, not they 19th or 20th century. we are putting old copper cables on top of all complicated rules, creating more complexity than perhaps any developed country in the world. we have lost our den amick nature because -- i've asked this question of a lot of people who have made it. could you do what you have done, particularly if you talk to entrepreneurs, starting over

now? a lot of people admit they couldn't because the barriers to be successful today are much more deeper and more complex. figuring out a way to transform how we create walls around every aspect of human endeavor in a 21st century way is one of the great challenges. if you want a world where left-handed albanian tax credits r.o.k., come to america. eliminating his many deductions is possible to let freedom ring. that would be the third thing. the fourth thing is immigration reform, because it is something

that is unique and special to this country. create and economically driven immigration system where we control our we moved away from family reunification being the people comeof how percent tontry -- 75 80% come to family petitioning -- and we dramatically expanded economic immigrants, which we have the capability of doing, and that's not necessarily an ideological partisan issue, we could create in america -- and a lot of other issues ago along with this -- we could create a country that would have the first 300,000 draft picks. aren't you an owner -- trying to be an owner of the football team? you could be the equivalent of fred smith being the owner of a

football team. you could pick could you want to come to this country. they would calm. they would create economic vitality the likes of which we have never seen. this is the extraordinary country. it is a missed opportunity to not do that. finally, we need radical transformation on how we educate the next generation. it is not working. important, but transformation should be the bigger argument. we are not even close. this is a place where i am completely frustrated. us tofive big things get a point where we started doing some of those, then we could actually do the other big hangs, which is not going to happen anytime soon, which is entitlement reform, which we desperately need as well. no developed country in the world has been able to achieve this. if we do it, we will be young, dynamic, and emerging again, be thethan -- we will

first country in the world that will be a brick. we will have to change the acronym. we will replace the letter are -- not like russia on its current path will be a brick country. time inld be the first history that that would happen. byhink it will be the means which we see whitening income for the middle class again. we will be much less pessimistic about what the future looks like. >> you talked about immigration in education, the reality is roadblocks to comp rancid immigration reform in this town for the last year has been your party in the house. where's the gap? >> you don't think when the president of the united states uses powers he may or may not have an clearly knows that it

will be more than provocative to use executive order powers to try to deal with immigration, that that's not provocative or a deterrent? theut the problem came from preceding year, not now. that there isue enough blame to go on both sides. we have missed opportunities on our side to shift the focus away from the argument on controlling the border to how do we shift an economically german immigration system. that is the missed opportunity for republicans. i think that there is no trust anymore that the executive will enforce the laws. we are stock. it is a shame. this is the easier thing of the five things i mentioned. it is the one that is least complex, whether it is less political discord -- and it's a

huge shame, because it's also the easiest way to get to sustained economic growth, which is what we desperately need. hopefully, the republicans rather than have their heads explode with the president's executive action, which i think , so i i'm not a lawyer can't say they're unconstitutional, let's call them extraconstitutional -- they are stretch way beyond what the executive authority by any other president has been used to the idea that reagan did it, my dad did it, they did it on a much smaller scale and with the consent of congress. there's a lot of differences. this lack of trust makes it harder for the happen. it is shame. the substance of what he is proposed to do or the way has proposed do it is your problem lies? >> is the way he wants to do it.

i don't know the exact details. frankly, to do something that she did not permanently change things because he does not have anywhere close to that authority to do it. he extended -- granted a deferral of the execution of the law for a couple of years. these people are still in limbo clear what we need to do is get to some certainty for people, 11 million people that are here, 5 million of which he dealt with. to giveto find a way them legal status and moved to a system that is more economically driven. the system we have today -- we are the only country in the world that has powell's, minor children, adult sibling, and adult parents as the definition of family. every other country has spouse and minor children, that i'm aware of. i think that's true. if you narrowed it, which is what cam do has -- and we could

.mulate the canada model 13-15% of their immigrants come through family petition. 75 percent come for economic purposes based on economic need. canada is sophisticated enough to know whether -- where there shortages of labor are. what a radical innovation to be able to know that. i imagine we could probably figure that out with people in this room alone in the united states. wewe had the same system, narrowed family petition and dramatically expanded, calling an aspirational westward people can come here and make an immediate impact on our economy, guess what? we would grow at a higher sustained rate. i don't know one i label, republican, democrat would be opposed to that. >> let's talk about education for a minute. room have raised education a lot as a barrier to economic growth.

you thought about this more than most people have. in your estimation, where did the u.s. education system go off the tracks? what's the way to get it back? we have evolved away from local school district's being the governing model. i'm not suggesting getting rid of them. i'm suggesting getting rid of the monopolistic nature of them. it puts the economic interest of -- forlts in the system those that don't live in washington or new york. if you go to tennessee or texas or florida, outside of the bigger urban areas, the number one employer is the school district. interestbig economic rather than focusing on how you customized learning experiences

so this diverse group of kids gain the power of knowledge. that is a problem. the problem is the governance model that is designed for the adults rather than the children. reforming it on the edges is not going to change that. i've lost my patience on this see the change necessary to get to the model. if we started from scratch, we would not have the system. we would not have unionized, politicized, government run monopolies as the means by which children learn. we would have something that would be child centered, customized for their needs. we would use technology, not just to sell to school districts, which is a great business, but have it be at the core of learning, where you learn at your own pace at your own time, where time is the variable and learning is the constant, rather than 180 days being the means by which the

school system is funded, whether your learner not. the constant is time. radical the parts are from where we are. there's no place in the country that has come close to achieving that. that is what we need to strive for, and yet now we have this weird coalition that is protecting the status quo for different reasons, an alliance that is quiet powerful politically that does not agree on anything other than we should not be able to germanic change how we educate kids. there is a path. it starts with high standards. it is not in there. it starts with that and empowers parents to make decision for their children. it argues for the learning experience to be completely customized, digital learning can occur, which requires a big change in how we collectively bid the because god for content is provided by someone

in seattle for a student in miami. there are all sorts of changes that require big-time fights politically, and there's not a lot of people on the front lines right now. >> speaking of big-time fights. you have been willing to engage into a those. one is the common core standards. the second involves testing. you continue to argue that boast of those things are part of the answer here. >> common core standards -- if the state wants to be honest and say that their standards are 10th grade level and they need to raise them -- here's the deal, we all know this because we are concerned about it. 40% at of our kids -- vassar college or career ready.

we spend more per students than any country except two or three. we have those results. those results in the -- sandisk her hand corporatio we spend more per student than any other country in the world other than two or three, maybe four at the best, and we have those results in the video beforehand, general dempsey talked about 25% pass rate. that is not just because of the tests. that is also because of obesity and too many tattoos, to be honest with you, on visible body parts for people that are trying to get into the military. but the pass rate for high school level tests to join the military is 35% or 40% at best and these are abysmal numbers. this is horrific numbers, yet there is no one marching in the streets and saying the end is near because of this. but the fact is the end is near if we can't fix this. if we just cast off large numbers of young people saying well, it is their family circumstances, it is poverty, we validate this, we encourage it. we actually, you know, make it more real that it is going to happen more often. and it is a tragedy that i think

we should not accept. so high standards is part of this. and how do you -- if you don't measure you really don't care. nonmeasurement is the great way to make sure that it doesn't matter that kids can be cast aside. and so, the unions oppose, you know, joe klein is a friend of mine, the former chancellor of the new york schools said republicans oppose national standards, i guess even though these aren't national standard, the common core standards and democrats -- actually republicans oppose national and democrats oppose standard. so there is a coalition that wants to keep what we have even though people cannot defend the results that we have. we have to figure out a way to create a new coalition. perhaps more radicalized and with a greater sense of urgency

to get to a better place. all of the other things that are doable aren't going to solve a problem of big social strains that will happen with the have and have nots coming because children haven't gained the power of knowledge. >> let me shift to the washington scene for a second here. we all gather here at a time of fairly significant change in the way that this capital is going to work. what do you advise the new republican majority in congress to make their agenda? what ought to be on their list of to-do's, and frankly, not to do's? >> not to do is to focus a lot of energy on things that are not -- that are just going to create, make a statement, make a point. i think the republicans have gained the majority and increased the majority in the house. we don't have to make a point anymore as republicans. we have to show that we can in an adult-like way govern, lead.

whether the president signs up for what the republicans in congress offer up is up to him. it shouldn't be too much of a worry for the republican leadership in congress. they should lead. they should take the things that are possible to achieve, they should try to forge consensus with democrats in the congress and they should start passing bills. there were 360 or 370 bills that passed the house that never got a hearing. not one hearing in the senate in this last or the soon to end congressional cycle. it is unprecedented. it never happened before that i'm aware of in american history where democracy was shut down in the senate. now, i think republicans need to go back to regular order way to allow for bills to be heard, to encourage amendments on the floor, to allow for the debate to take place, to get back to the point where we are starting to complain that the senate is a deliberative body again.

because right now, no one could claim that. i mean no one could literally -- i mean they do nothing. showing the adult centered kind of leadership where you start dealing with even if it is not the huge big things which require presidential action, but it could be the xl pipeline. accelerating on energy, accelerating the leasing of federal lands and waters for exploration. it could be consideration of the lifting of the ban on exports of crude at the appropriate time when we don't have the refining capacity to take on the light crude that is fast being produced in our country. it could be accelerating the permitting process for lng plants to use the tool to create a better balance of payment situation, more economic activity for the billions of dollars invested in the jobs

created in our own country and deal with the problem of russia as it relates to its blackmail potential over europe because of natural gas. there are a lot of things that republicans can do, and i don't think we should worry so much about how the president will react. my guess is he will engage. if he doesn't, fine, that is his prerogative. republicans need to show they are for a bunch of of things and there is a lot of tough to be done. whether it is on internet protocol or net neutrality or patent protection or tort reform. there is a lot of things that republicans i think have the ability to garner 60 votes in the senate on. healthcare reform. not just to repeal obama care, but replace it with something that fits the 21st century workforce that we now have. this should be a time of incredible possibility for republicans to be able to show what they believe in.

>> you were obviously a two-term governor. you were a chief executive and dealt with lots of different legislative combinations. what is your advice to each part of this dysfunctional relationship in washington? president, on one hand, and to the congress on the other, on how to get beyond what everybody agrees has been an unsatisfactory dynamic? >> i think the president has the upper hand here because the presidency is occupied by one person and the president could change the culture almost immediately if that was his wish. it would require sucking it up a little bit. i mean it would require, you know -- it is hard because the way i'm sure he views it is that everything that i propose, everything that i believe in the republicans oppose and so i will react to that. but he has the upper hand because it is one person that could do it.

and the presidency still matters in the country. so whether he does it or not, i'm certainly no expert. i think the leadership of the congress is on the right path based on my conversations with them to focus on things that can be done and do them. a budget. that sounds like a really radical idea, but i think they will pass a budget. they will actually go to committee. they will talk about priorities. and they will go through the regular order way during the next year, which will be quite hopeful that we get back to a place where people can have different views and they sort those things out through the process where a budget is created and hopefully with less deficit going forward and the president can respond to that. and if he engages i think it will help his legacy, to be honest with you, but if he doesn't it sets the stage for a