several member states have, in the past, undertaken investigations into cia agents involved in the abduction, rendition, illegal detention, torture, and ill-treatment of suspects under the cia detention and interrogation program. on the same day that the senate committee study was released, we learned, in the press, that the u.s. military center in afghanistan have been closed. two of the prisoners who have been turned over to authorities were under u.s. custody since 2002, including 70 years under cia detention, without a trial -- seven years under cia detention, without a trial. 100 detainees remain in the , includingfacility

people that will not be brought to trial or be cleared for release. the european union will keep monitoring the situation and keep raising the human rights -related aspect of the fight against terrorism with the united states. thank you. >> commissioner, thank you very much. we will now hear from the speakers on behalf of political groups. but first i want take the floor for two minutes, monica -- but first, to take the form for two minutes, monica. >> president, commissioner. i will like to welcome the council presidency and colleagues. report, which was published by the senate committee from the united states, is a terribly shocking report. the u.s. president said that it showed shocking behavior from the cia, and the images of the

u.s. worldwide was tarnished, and i can only agree with that statement. the core issue here is how can we support ideals if we come on them at the same time -- apple on them at the same time -- trample on them at the same time. from my viewpoint, i can only say that no, we cannot trample on these core beliefs and ideals . the fundamental rights of people are sacred and cannot be violated. security is one of those rights. all methods, including torture and brutal interrogation techniques, in order to guarantee security, is not something that can be defended. -- well, john mccain said publicly that he

walkedat u.s. citizens away criminals for waterboarding people. when it comes to these crimes, , alsocan be condemned applied to the cia when they use the same techniques. we welcome the fact that the report was made public at all. i am sure that, as the minister said, this would not have been possible and noah holdings would have exposed themselves to this level of criticism and scrutiny -- not all would have exposed themselves to this level of criticism and scrutiny. beope the united states will strong and democratic enough to see this process through to the conclusion. thank you very much. >> thank you, president. i hope that the stage that we

are going to have will serve its purpose. i beg your pardon for being very direct, i believe it is necessary. what do these cases remind you of? >a detainee was placed in a tiny cage which was left hanging there in the detainee died because of cold. andher detainee was hung up released over a poll which penetrated his aim is or her vagina. -- anus or her vagina. if this remind you of the middle ages, you are right. but what do the other cases remind you of? during torture, the detainee died because of hypothermia because he was chained naked to a concrete floor. about a little bit for the colleagues in your interpreters. slow down a little bit for your colleagues and your interpreters. >> if this also reminds you of

the middle ages, you are wrong. these are the enhanced interrogation methods used by the cia. there is another difference. in the last century, many conventions were written down and signed in addition to conventions and charters, the legal basis on constitutions on human rights in practically all countries around the world. the united states has signed a convention against order which -- torture which exquisitely prohibits torture -- explicitly prohibits torture. we are also to blame. the european parliament adopted a report on cia activities in europe, more than seven years have gone by. still the european union countries are hiding the. frankly, -- the. frankly, nothing has happened.

the war against terrorism and a respect for human rights are not mutually excluding notions. victims of the war against terror also deserve justice. is illegal and immoral and unacceptable, and anyicipation of europe in illegal activities used by the cia is shameful and unworthy of democracy. it is unworthy of the values on which the european union was built. we demand that a full investigation take place and demand clear replies from the member states. it is unacceptable to pretend that nothing has happened and we are not involved. we demand that measures are to provide supervision. we demand that protective measures are taken to ensure that nothing like this happens in europe ever again. your colleagues -- dear colleagues, sometimes it is difficult to accept the truth

but we deserve to know what. and we are obliged to make a note for citizens. we have -- make it known to our citizens. because weface it, may be the ones on torture devices tomorrow. thank you very much. thank you very much. -- >> thank you very much. president, colleagues, as you will be aware, the parliament has always been a place of great importance into looking into questions of the cia policies and also the transport by the cia of prisoners. last legislative period, we had six measures voted on. the american congress has also said that certain eu member

states were involved as well. poland, for example. and the americans and their .ractices have been questioned now, clearly, i think that we need to have a look at what the european union has been doing. it european union says defends the values of human rights. they should also be defended in third countries as well. we mentioned our history on several occasions. i think that if these principles are important to us and our allies as well. clearly we need to strike a balance between protecting society and limiting personal .reedoms we have to strike the correct balance as a combat terrorism -- as we combat terrorism. in pakistan and iraq,

terrorists have come together in committing increasingly bloody acts and the rest of europe the effect it is huge. huge.ng affected is we must respect human rights because we need to retain the trust of our citizens in the eu democratic system. the eu has lost much of that confidence because of its uncritical involvement in cooperation with the cia program. we clearly have to put men to these practices, which while it devalues -- put an end to these practices, which violate our principles. >> i would like this opportunity to thank senator feinstein for her perseverance to see the report through before the change in the senate. because i think this reminds us, and she said it very rightly,

that was such a democracy apart from a dictatorship is accountability and moral authority. none of us are immune to these tendencies. we all have this kind of violence in us. is thates us different we have accountability and there is no impunity in a democracy. all colleagues and all political groups should insist on accountability and the need for europe to come forward with its role in the cia program. because we can point at the americans, but europe has helped the cia antiterrorist program. i am glad that poland has admitted it, but there are many other countries. there are a number of member states that are close allies with united states. and i think that this argument has exposed itself several times.

therefore -- expressed itself several times. so i am shocked to hear. italy is the one country that has actually prosecuted cia agents. they have convicted cia agents to.will italy insist on next edition -- extradition by the united states to bring those people to file like everybody else is responsible -- who was responsible for torture ought to be put to trial? ride barred under this until those responsible have a broader justice. draw a line under this until those responsible have been brought to justice. another question that i have here is a statement in the press are the head of the intelligence , which is a kind of vague, unclear, kind of embryonic european union secret service. he says there is no way of knowing whether intelligence was

obtained through torture. excuse me? this isn't your body, paid for body, money -- is an e.u. before by eu money, processing information that may have been obtained by torture? we should know. we should finally get answers as to the nature and activities. enters we have asked for many times. we should have proper oversight. >> thank you very much. [applause] regard -- do they you accept a blue card? >> i am obliged to my colleague sophie for accepting my question. would you agree with me that the work that we have heard from counsel, while they sound very sweet, are too little too late?

back in 2005, i stood in the -- in this very chamber and i raised with the council presidency this day the fact that illegal detention centers were operating in europe. we did not receive any word that they were being investigated and were sidestepped by the minister of the british government who was present on the day. you agree with me that further inquiries to be conducted as to whether it is appropriate for any government minister who has knowledge simply to hide behind the facade of -- >> thank you, i asked you to come to an end. >> information with this parliament. >> yes, i very much agree with you. it is not enough for the council -- and that is that the italian minister, that is all the member states -- make statements about the role of all -- rule of law.

we had lost back then but they were not respected. it is not good enough. who break the law, even if they are governments, should be brought to justice. so yes, i very much agree with you. >> thank you very much. >> on behalf of the united group on the left, for one and a half minutes. thank you very much. of terrible techniques , the executions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, rectal feeding, amongst other horrifying techniques. ofs evokes the practices dictatorial regimes.

we are seeing this picture released in an official report and i welcome it. but let's remember that there is a united nations convention against torture that the u.s. and if there to, are these practices that violate the convention, then what you are talking about is a terrible on publicuation morals in the united states. there must be consequences. torture is denying human dignity and must condemned. criticism is not enough. there needs to be a legal ban on torture worldwide. and i welcome the fact that they have made it official. the accusations against the u.s. state and authorities. we want to be a full

condemnation and conviction of these acts of torture. guantanamo to because once and for all. it is enough -- to be closed once and for all. this needs to complement. >> 2.5 minutes on behalf of the greens. >> thank you, president had mr. secretary of state, commissioner. commissioner, when you attended your hearing, i was very surprised you say that you did not really know the subject. now, i see that the situation is quite different. there is nothing really new in this 600 pages, just confirmation. confirmations of collaboration on the part of european governments and the existence of prisoners on european soil.

confirmation of the uselessness of torture besides its ignoble character. confirmation that the action has to be scrupulously controlled and prosecuted. confirmation that fundamental rights of citizens must not be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism. the publication of this report calls for a new stage in mobilization to establish real international justice. makesope of these crimes it necessary for us to be judiciously courageous. now, in the european union, certain leaders have directly collaborated with these programs. let's promote transparency of action. -- and action.

the european union has to assume responsibilities and facilitate prosecution. the european parliament has to continue its work of investigation and transparency so that the holders will be known. -- whole will be known. will be known. now that we have confirmed that fundamental rights have been infringed, do you not see that articles six and seven of the european union are to be applied? sanctions should be limited? thing -- is about one the destruction of systems of values represented in democracies. methodsg them by illegal. if we accept this, we will be complicit with terrorist logic. shedding light on all of these

programs, revealing truth, wondering justice, will not help the terrorists read. on the contrary, this is a comment for our values. democracy.hening >> on behalf of the european minutes, group, 1.5 laura. >> thank you, president. there are two aspects to the report from the senate on the cia torture which we have to think about. firstly, a major point is self-criticism and severe judgment by the u.s. democratic institutions, particularly on sensitive issues which could be seen as matters of national security. usa, oftypical of the its institutions and citizens. ignorecannot allow us to

and stop is seeking out and seeking out and condemning any form of violations of human rights. it is completely unacceptable and that is the second point i put to you. the words of those who try to justify torture say that it is a useful -- nothing in peacetime or wartime american justify torture. -- that can justify torture. it does not only violate integrity nor can it be deemed in any case in instrument in search of truth. the report from the u.s. senate lies andseries of abuses. an those sorts of ambiguity without being expressed by the u.s. because in the report, where we have detailed

descriptions, there are no initiatives or recommendations for incriminating those people who are responsible, whose names we know. about the said little involvement of its member states insider activities on you -- in cia activities on eu soil. each member state should have a transparent investigation, there should be no impunity. >> i am sorry, but you had one and a half minutes speaking time and you have far overshot that. now, christina, for one and a half minutes. >> thank you, chairman. colleagues, i am very happy that this european parliament is so taken aback by the breach of

human rights by the united states. this time it is torture and the arbitrary detention without trial. a few months ago it was edward the secret service scandal. -- secret surveillance scandal that was causing problems for you. and then there were problems with killings of drones, we were troubled by that. civilians killed by wars brand tell me one thing. angry at the united states, or do you want to be friends with this country so hy to be you wa friends with this country so badly? because we are working hand-in-hand with united states.

union is reacting to the invitation of the united states to take europe and when war with-- into a cold russia. if you do not like the breaches of human rights -- and i am glad you do not like them -- should we pick a better friend instead of the united states? for example, hungry, my country, and the best and protect hungry, my country, and the rest of europe from the cold war and hungry, -- and protect my country, and the rest of europe from the cold war and real war. >> i will be stricter on time, we have a lengthy list. the first speaker, two minutes. torture carried out by the

cia is a subject of public opinion in the united states for many years. the publication of the senate select committee report last week confirms this. in the political class in the united states, the democrats and the republicans are deeply divided concerning various questions. for example, does this report really reflect what happened? secondly, the procedure, was it for the reportn have been published, rushed to the report have been published, -- should the report have been published, even the implications to security? these questions have been raised and there is no clear answer in the united states. .o single approach and i would also like to i feel very close

expressed byon john mccain, who asked for the publication of the report. he thinks that the cellular has damaged american interests. -- cia has damaged american interests. he says that we have committed errors and we need to repair those errors and undertake to never repeat them. now, nobody can say any longer today that these practices continue. this is an episode that belongs to the past. president obama put an end to these programs. and there is a clear desire in the united states to shed light on the situation. and i think that is the main lesson that we have to draw from this. it is healthy when a political entity analyzes its own conduct.

>> for three minutes, david. if you listen to the words of if you listen >> to the words of the council, he would get the impression that everything is fine, but that is far off. the torture that was carried out was a shameful practice that the eu was partly responsible for .articipating in and all kinds of international law against it, the cia used torture. and also within the eu. this was all within the name of toaining vital information continue the fight against terrorism, but again, this is far from the truth. torture is not a way to fight criminal at, it is a critical act.

it undermines our values. it is human dignity which hangs in the balance. we must, when it comes to the termstion and coming to with what the place, find a different discourse, a different language, otherwise we will spread nothing but hatred and violence in reaction. this is a matter of international humanitarian law. worker can never be allowed to happen -- torture can never be allowed to happen in must be prosecuted. it is a shame on europe that we close our eyes to illegal rendition of prisoners or illegal prisons operated even back in 2007. the parliament called for clarification and nothing has

come of this request. beingthorized people taken away and transferred to facilities in secret to be tortured elsewhere? this is something that only became public knowledge last had, when we representatives from poland and romania on the subject. clearly, there is no real ability to face up to what happened. because we were so deeply involved. and i think that when it comes violations ofd european values, something needs to be done. happenede what has when these values are not guaranteed and we are not protecting anyone's interests.

it is democracy itself that is being threatened by this. legislators to stand up to tyhihis. >> thank you very much, and thank you for respecting your time so precisely. for one minute, or colleague. colleague. that's the very fact that it was the territory of poland that e could have been conducted is a condemnation. even though some are trying to justify those practices, and eld inhough people h detention centers were suspected of murdering thousands of people. will be published signed by hundreds of speakers condemning those practices.

i would like to draw your attention to double standards and the question of mutual trust amongst allies. cia did not conduct such interrogations on behalf of the united states. it did not have such respect for the polish law and those in power in poland did not respect polish sovereignty. , the image of the u.s. is no longer positive. >> thank you, colleague. for 1.5 minutes now. >> thank you. the word is appalling to describe these little, inhuman torture methods that were used by the cia against the prisoners. that best is the word

describes the cia leaders, sweeping away the accusations. what has been discovered is a reminder of the existing impunity for the many terrible crimes against human rights which they are justified in the name of the international community. just like so many times four, when the effects of the torture have been investigated, it shows that the methods are useless. whatever the security or results, we have to say it once again -- torture, under no circumstances, is acceptable and on torturetional ban is absolute. it covers everyone, everywhere. the u.k. and romania have cooperated with the cia through

rendition of prisoners to the usa without any guarantees. in sweden, they have allowed the cia to float five people out under income conditions. the truth can make us free. we have to find the truth. the perpetrators have to be judged. accountability has to be demanded. >> thank you very much. do you accept a blue card from mr. arnold? >> yes. >> i know you agree with me that torture is immoral, illegal, and must always be condemned. military expediency requires the possibility of proper interrogation. the words of tim collins, "since i was serving, interrogations have been tightened up because of lawyers. we are no longer able to carry out tactical west wing.

the effect is that we have gotten the point where we have lost operational capacity." speakdoes not help if you so quickly because the translators cannot translate your text. can i remind all of you to please speak at a speed that makes what you are saying intelligible to everyone else. did you get the question? you did not get it. so we move on. , you have the opportunity to answer. >> i would be happy to answer. the brutality of the methods used and how they have been justified is simply unacceptable and the european member states must all come together to disclose the truth, what happened in your country as well as in my country. this is the truth and we need to see it now. it is time for impunity to come to an end, even in europe.

[applause] >> thank you very much. the next speaker for 1.5 minutes -- >> thank you. ciarecent report into interrogation techniques exposes administrations' torture. techniques were used by the british government to torture and irish men over 40 years ago. as a result, the irish government of the british government to the european board theuman rights, which was first time a member state took another to that board. that happened in 1978 in a landmark ireland versus u.k. case. the court ruled that the five techniques amounted to a humane and degrading treatment, not torture. the bush administration justify the use of these torture

techniques in iraq, afghanistan, by quotingamo bay the ruling by the court of man. the british government lied to the european court of human rights on the effect of these techniques and that the 14 hood of man were indeed tortured. these torture techniques work sanctioned at the highest level by the british minister of defense, lord carrington. only last week, the irish government confirmed the case of the hood of man back to the court of european rights to revise its judgment, britain is guilty of torture. the british government must apologize for the techniques in ireland just like it recently apologized for their use in kenya and the american government must do likewise. thank you. colleagues that

we have a topic to the agenda and that colleagues who are speaking should speak to the topic on the agenda please. our next speaker. >> thank you. i shall speak to the topic. cia, torture. the feinstein report. this is a wake-up call for the european union. thatvery happy about because we have tried, repeatedly, over the last few toths, tried to bring this some kind of public discussion. and there are not member states who were involved when it comes to the transfer of detainees. this was not on u.s. sovereign territory. for some reason, it was just sort of lost over and swept ssed over carpet -- glo

and swept under the carpet. i really see this as a new beginning, a new opportunity for us to have an investigative committee to see to what extent the eu was involved. >> the next speaker for one minute. >> secret services in the united oftes have a long history violent torture and cold-blooded murder. up as the defender of human rights. these law enforcement allies of the eu are the united states. he member states of the eu are cooperating in many sectors,

coming down on the working classes, tapping telephones, surveilling and conducting these inhuman tortures. with theot in line claims of capitalism, but it's true face, the exploitation of week people. the dictatorship of the monopoly, where people cannot take things in their own hands. but we can overthrow this situation. we have the strength enough to do. --thank you very much indy indeed. >> resident, commissioners -- president, commissioners, i think the u.s. has done a remarkable thing by releasing the feinstein report publication. it is really remarkable and it shows that, unlike china, when

there are mistakes made, there that they put to action when it comes to fixing things. i think that is what defines -- differentiates a dictatorship from a democracy. forget that this not legally acceptable and the practices are inhumane and must be criticized. that is absolutely clear. i myself visited guantánamo and i said very clearly that the practices used were not acceptable and not in line with international humanitarian law. get -- let's not let this blow out of proportion. the u.s. was the largest country

breaching human rights. terriblee response to acts of terrorism carried out in the united states. let's not forget that. it has to be said as well. balancenot allow this between freedom and security to be skewed to such an extent that human rights can be damaged and i think this balance is now being reestablished in the united states. but let us keep things in proportion. once again, i would like to congratulate dianne feinstein for having the courage to make this report public. i think this really distinguishes united states of america from many other dictatorships around the world. i think we should take a leaf out of the book of the united states and follow their example.

>> will you accept the blue card? >> you have the floor. >> thank you. i share the views of mr. brock but i have a question. what does mr. brock see as the risks in the fight against terror? can you see any negative consequence to the fight against terrorism from this report? for example, yesterday, we saw horrific events in pakistan. what do you think? >> what i was saying, we must terrore to fight against and that human rights cannot be violated by invoking the fight on terrorism. we condemn the practices, but we

have to see everything in context. brock, your speech has triggered something. i have two more blue cards. can you accept them as well and take them one after the other? you can answer both questions within one minute. >> i am glad that colleague brock condemns the use of terror under any circumstance. in a way, you said it was understandable, the circumstances, etc. isn't it true that even if that were understandable, that so many years have passed where people should have been brought to justice, where there should have been accountability. every single opportunity was missed. when it comes to justice, the americans did manage to lock up the people who actually disclosed that scandals -- the scandals.

former cia staff spent time in prison rather than the people responsible for terror. don't you agree that there was plenty of time to repair this -- the mistakes that were made? >> mr. brock, thank you for your contribution. as a close friend of the u.s., should we now not be asking them to close guantanamo bay? >> thank you very much indy. -- indeed. >> let's take an extra question. i fully agree with you on certain points, mr. brock. also needyou think we legal measures? we have to draw legal conclusions so people who are responsible for these infringements of human rights can be brought to justice.

>> thank you very much. one minute, mr. brock. , these were mistakes that were made in the past and something needs to be done about it. yes, legal measures need to be taken if there can be verifiable cases. this does not change anything i said earlier the fact that legal measures must be taken and guantánamo should be closed down i said no more than eight years ago. ignore theot conflict. which countries were willing to welcome detainees from guantánamo? just a handful of countries would allow these people to come to their country. absolutely, there needs to be legal action.

but we cannot simply allow this to linger on. there needs to be political and legal consequences. minutes, claude. >> thank you. one thing mr. brock says accurately is dianne feinstein was brave on this subject. she faced huge pressure on the question of making this report happen and we should be very aware that we are now vindicated andur 2006 cia inquiry their report happening in a very different context, in a very different time. in 2006, when we investigated the secondary sources, not the primary sources that the u.s.

senate had, but the secondary sources, all of the horrific, brutal torture methods in this parliament, it was under severe .ressure but we were vindicated because many of the same conclusions happened in this parliament. that was a very difficult thing for us to do. what conclusions did we come up with? we came up with what john mccain said, a republican, a man who had been tortured. we noted the difference between interrogation and brutal torture. what he said is it is legal and morally wrong. he also said that it brought no new information in the fight against terrorism. these are people who are not soft on terrorism. these are people who understand the difference between , having noon information, and having that information.

so let's understand that we were vindicated in our inquiry. this is not the end of the road. we have people languishing in guantanamo bay today who should be free, people whose governments are requesting they be freed, who have been tortured, who have families, who are actually languishing in prison. this story has not finished. it has only begun. we have eu citizens there languishing in prison. they have been tortured repeatedly. we want them back and we should be representing them. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. will you accept a blue card? you have the floor. >> michael. >> thank you.

if i could ask all the members who were not here in 2006, you mentioned two things. you said that we were vindicated and that it was difficult. why do you say that? >> thank you for the brevity of the question and thank you for that. andme just say to the house the chair of the committee of memberuiry, the italian of the italian parliament, these were members who were put to a very difficult task. my assessment is that the inquiries into mass surveillance and now the inquiry into cia renditions all said the same thing, which is that we have very inadequate parliamentary strategy of these kind of actions. these inadequate parliamentary

scrutinies allow inadequate scrutiny of the kind of actions we now see which allow these andeme kinds of torture ends up with the kind of senate report we saw today. we must correct this and that is why the new members of this parliament should take an interest in what is happening today. >> thank you very much. card.e another blue president, thank you. may i think him for the work he has done on this issue for a number of years. -- i ask you -- one of the biggest challenges we have is getting information from our own governments. we -- are you satisfied that have full disclosure from our member state governments and if

not, how can any of us be satisfied that any of our citizens cannot face such a thing ever again? >> of course we do not have full disclosure. i met and we were aware that we were in front of a brave senator. we are parliamentarians. when we were doing the cia inquiry and the european parliament and people were denigrating that inquiry, we were aware that we were dealing with our own governments. we were members of parliament with our own government in office, investigating them. is not fullere disclosure. we have to be brave in those situations and try to get as much information as possible. sometimes that will be secondhand, but we have to do it. --hout that accountability finally, we still have european prisoners in prison today who are innocent and should be free.

that is why this is such a vital and important issue and our parliament should be representing them if nothing else. >> thank you. >> one minute. member,long-standing like all of us here, i am appalled and disgusted about what has happened -- what has been admitted by the united states. i would like to remind you that it was the americans themselves who actually brought this to light. here, there are critical discussions about what was done by previous u.s. governments. now, we are taking this up with the americans once again and i would be delighted to be able to discuss what the russian secret

services are up to. that has been lacking. as co-author of the report on the human rights situation over the last year, it struck me that we do not look at these kinds of things, most of which tend to be done by the americans. i think it would be very good if we look at the infringements of human rights just as intensively in other countries as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. we are not talking about something you. the cia started torturing people in 2001 and in 2006, we agency wasthat the also responsible for the illegal detention and transfer of prisoners in europe.

besides being terrible human rights violations, this created a vicious circle, giving the terrorists one more reason to continue to fight and their propaganda. now that the u.s. senate has come out with a report, it is we ought to discuss things that happened in the european union. european union member states are .ot innocent many eu member states were aware of the cia practices. some tolerated, if not supported, then. -- them. poland has still admitted it and others are denying the claims. i think the eu should investigate the level of our heart is a patient. practices like the ones we just heard of, i call on the member states to set up parliamentary

theiries to learn of involvement or knowledge of cia torture. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. you have one minute. practices used by the cia under the bush administration to interrogate the detainees is proof of lack of respect for human rights, which we see employed by most of the political powers in the united states. they asked for reports on questions of human rights situation in third countries, while they, at the same time, are infringing the convention against torture.

apparently, we are not particularly interested in this in the european union. we stand up to protect fundamental rights. in practice, we have been systematically trusting them underfoot, specifically to austerity problems. long-term unemployment, the long-term pharmaceutical support , the lack of heating in housing in winter, this is economic torture. promisedments have paradise and they have served up hell, destroying europe. >> one minute. >> thank you. like others, i welcome the senate report but regret that oath of the main political parties did not participate in the full process. that mental and physical

.tars -- scars are left we know that from members of parliament who suffered torture in their lives and can testify to the effects. also raised is the case of those still in guantánamo. held prisoner, tortured in bagra clearedin for transferm, in 2007. the british government have said they will have him back to rejoin his british wife and children. i think we fail to understand how he could still be in democraticwent two governments have agreed he should be returned. i think that the use of torture leans our demands regarding human rights from others elsewhere in the world. whenn only be rescued

those perpetrators are brought to justice. >> now, gianluca for one minute. >> thank you, president. i would say that the cia was right in doing what it did because we have to remember the 11th, 2001.tember there is too much epoxy here -- hypocrisy here. recently decapitating people, just the other day in pakistan as they did in australia. we need to ensure that people can be calm in europe as well. who commit such acts are beasts. we have to combat them.

if they were to decapitate one yourur children, relations, would you still say the same thing? it is an eye for an eye, a two for a tooth. israel --c religion is riled. europe is hypocritical on certain things. 6 million dead in europe and we are talking about palestine? >> next, the former acting cia director under george w. bush talks about their enhanced interrogation program. this is 35 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with john mclaughlin, former director of the cia, and now resident at don

hopkins school of international studies. i want to begin with the news at the white house yesterday, what the president had to say about .his reopening of ties to cuba it really: he this exchange of prisoners. with really culminated this exchange of prisoners. what can you tell us about this other prisoner that the united states exchanged for, this u.s. that was a long time asset to the united states? guest: not a lot, i cannot tame a lot about it, but what i can say is that in the history of spy craft, spy exchanges are quite common. we saw this a lot in the cold war. this was an individual who helped actually to put behind bars the three prisoners that have now been released by the united states back to cuba. this was an individual who monitor their activities, who brought their activities to the attention of the united states, and was also instrumental in

detecting the number of people -- a number of people, including a former employee of the defense intelligence agency who is now still in prison, not released. and actually, a former colleague of mine at johns hopkins who was working for the cubans. that is how counterintelligence works. you have someone who infiltrates the movement who reports to you on what is going on with an intelligence service in your country, and that allows you to set up a surveillance operation. and in some cases, what is popularly called a sting operation, in which you detect these people. host: this cuban born u.s. by has been serving 20 years in prison in cuba. guest: yes. or she and asked that before they went to prison, during prison? how was this information gleaned? all i canwas -- about say on that is that he was an

asset before he went to prison. in other words, he was caught by someone who was basically ratting out their agents here. that is how it works. host: remind the viewers of the cuban five. guest: you are talking that the aircraft that went down? host: the people that we did this exchange for, the prisoners. guest: right, they were part of a network in florida that was monitoring, in our judgment, military installations there. headquarters with southern command, and of course, central command, and other military installations in florida. evidence is that they were monitoring those and reporting back to the cubans. you havee things that to realize about cuban intelligence, is very effective, but they also, an agent for

other -- they also are an agent for other intelligence services. they might have been doing this for russia, for venezuela, with whom they are very close. they do not collect all of this information just for themselves. they pass it on to others. these spies themselves claim they were not doing that. they claim they were looking for on behalf of cuba, for people that cuba judges to be terrorists in florida, who are the judgment of cuba causing trouble for cuba by sending in their own agents and so forth. but i think the prevailing view in the united states, and i'm sure there was strong evidence for this, is that these folks were here monitoring our military for these. what thet do you think president announced yesterday means for the cia? well, it means a lot of things. among other things, the cia will be one of the agencies responsible for telling the

president and future presidents how this is going. in other words, from monitoring the situation in you -- in cuba, in terms of the kind of things the president is seeking to achieve here. he is seeking to achieve a more open cuba. he is seeking to achieve greater attention to human rights. he is seeking to achieve all of those things we would like to see in cuba, and the cia will be one of those institutions that looks carefully at cuba under a microscope and says, how are we doing? in my own view, there is a lot of political controversy about it and i stay out of that. but my point is, when you look at the history of opening up authoritarian regimes, we don't have a great track record in terms of changing the nature of those regimes. china would be one example. vietnam would be another. russia, in a sense, would be another. but cuba is a little closer to us, obviously geographically, culturally.

a longer, more intimate relationship prior to castro. we may see some change here. i think we need to be guardedly optimistic about what the president is trying to achieve. host: what about those that say specifically the outgoing chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator menendez, who says this is setting a dangerous precedent? he writes in the pages of "usa today" that it invites dictatorial and rogue regimes serving overseas as bargaining chips. host: well, that is the risk you take. in some respect, one of the thoughts that i have had frequent me during my career is that a precedent is only a precedent when you declare it one. in other words, you look at it on its merits. you do not have to do something to from just because the situation has worked this way. i think he has pointed to a legitimate risk that the united states has to think about.

think there are a lot of things that the president has done that i would personally disagree with. in this case, i think it is important to keep an open mind. i can understand how someone could be cynical about what he has done here, and how you could oppose it on various grounds. i would look at this as an extremity of sorts. -- an experiment of sorts. one of the things we have to think about cuba is, what do we want them to do in response to this? and we have to have a checklist of those things, and we have to be careful not to give them additional concessions unless they worked their way down that checklist. and right at the top of that checklist, i think, would be freedom of the press and freedom of access to information for their people, particularly through the internet. if that begins to change, there is a potential for broader change. but we will have to monitor that. it as one of those things where you keep your eye on it

and you make a judgment as you go along. and maybe you have to reverse policy at some point. host: i also want you to weigh in on another news item, and that is the threat -- what the papers are saying is coming from north korea over this sony movie, "the interview," and sony deciding to plug -- pull the plug on the movie and president obama saying it is a serious threat. host: i'm sure it was a serious threat. i doubt the north koreans themselves could carry out any major way terrorist operations here, but they could come -- subcontract those to someone else, inspire someone else to do it, hire some else to do it. and they could probably infiltrate some people to carry something out. but by and large, north korea is one of the great bluffer states of history. in other words, they rattle their sables -- the rattle their sabers a lot and make a lot of noise. that said, if you are the president, or the cia, or in

some responsibility position charged with protecting united states and guaranteeing it security, you do not take chances. let's assume the odds of them carrying out something was somewhere in the range of 1% to 5%, you still have to take it seriously. i think back over my history of the cia. we had lots and lots of things that would come in, russian nuclear weapons are loose, lots of things on terrorism that on the surface seemed unlikely. but you've got to run them all down and take it seriously, because the one you don't i -- might be the one that goes off. i'm sure that's the way they are approaching this. it's doubtful that they can do it, but on the other hand, you don't want to take the chance. host: we are talking with john mclaughlin, who served as cia director in 2004 and the .irector deputy we invited you want to talk about this report that the senate put out last week, senate

democrats, before this news happens. i want to get to that with you. remind viewers when you served and what your role was with this guest: well, i was the deputy the number two -- from 2000 to 2004, retiring in 2005. so i was there during the period of 9/11, and during the beginning of this program, enter part of its history. host: what did you make of the senate report? by senator ts, led dianne feinstein, saying that the techniques for brutal and that the cia deceived congress and the white house. guest: well, the first thing that i would say is that you have asked me more about this report than anyone in the senate did. no one who had anything to do with this program was

interviewed by the staff that read this report. so do i make of it? well, i think it is fundamentally about job. it is wrong. it uses information selectively. it incorrectly says that the cia lied and misled. this is a program that was authorized by the attorney general, by the white house. it was carefully monitored by the inspector general. on many occasions, i think about twenty of occasions, we investigated someone who cross the lines. twenty times we reported that to the department of justice. during the obama administration, a veteran at every r looked an officer between said there was no pprosecution necessary.

the case cannot be made that lied, or is ed, doing something here that was not fully authorized by our government. host: you and other former cia directors were recently in the that street journal" these interrogations saved lives. why do believe that? guest: i believe that's because our daily lives -- we met every day at 5:00 am. couple hours and reviewed the situation with terrorism. i saw, day after day, information from this program helping us to capture terrorists. remember, we captured essentially the 9/11 leadership of al qaeda. a big capture of lately? i don't think so. think, through this program to help us find -- i was not there then, but i was by officers involved -- that this program was instrumental in isolating and read to the top of everyone's attention the courier who

letters to osama bin laden. this program helped us to capture the architect of 9/11. once he was with us, we were get information he provided, and capture any number of other terrorists. including seventeen people who are preparing to carry out a second wave of attack on a west coast. this day after day. people to hing for understand here is that you don't have a lot of hollywood moments. -- names, ttle things phone number, and address -- which you linked up with a lot of other things. many things i could say, but let me stop there. host: tthe senate democrats on the intelligence committee, and senator mccain, himself, said torture produced misleading information more than actionable intelligence. and that some of this information that you got could have been gleaned in other ways.

guest: well, look, everyone has to have great respect for senator mccain. authority with moral on this issue. comes to this program, i would disagree with him about this program. i would not disagree that torture, as he is thinking it is commonly defined, is not something we do. but i kind of recoil when people call this torture because torture is a legal concept. we were told by the attorney general, the white house legal advisors that we were not torturing people. in fact, this program was designed not to torture people. to many people, it will strike them is pretty brutal. what this program did, though, was not to torture information when they ple, but were not -- by the way, we are here about 100

detainees. a third of them receive these techniques, oonly when they fail to reveal what they know through just a conversation. that is something that some of them did, but not many of them did. host: okay. i'm going to get our viewers involved. good morning, philip. caller: ggood morning, thank you for taking my call. my question is -- it is purely a question -- is there any the timing between cuba and xchange with decline in russia's economy, enabling cuba -- which has been an ally of russia for years in the past? i was just wondering, is there any link there with that phenomena that is happening?

guest: well, philip, that is a great question. i was actually driving in here this morning wondering the same thing myself. i do not think there is an overage connection here, but if at the two situations, interesting that russia's ruble is at an all-time low. putin is still popular, but coming under greater pressure. is a not think there direct connection; in fact, has visited cuba recently, and is seeking to closer political relationship there. are i do not think humans being driven -- cubans are being driven in this direction because of a lack of russian assistance. it is interesting that these two things are happening simultaneously. host: and the washington times does just that -- cuba moves

comes as russia tries to revive ties with havana. let's go to dan in pennsylvania, an independent. caller: hi. they give a taking my call. you had mentioned the cuban five. that the tanding is cuban five actually went to the to ted states government reports of them that there was going to be attack done in cuba by these radicals in florida. for than they were arrested we would people who consider terrorists, the world would consider terrorists. they arrested them and send them to prison for life. mostly in solitary confinement. if i could just ask another question, please.

host: sure, dan. caller: in sydney, australia, the self-described movement -- there was a request or a demand from iran in 2000 to extradite him back to iran. know anything about that, or if you know whether -- what they wanted him back into iran for. thank you. host: john mclaughlin. do not know enough about that, dan, to give you an answer. if i were to speculate, i would sought t this man had asylum in australia from iran. so it is clear that iran had some grievance with him. on your first question, again, i am unclear on the details

here. we are still digging this all out, but my hunch is -- and i simply don't know whether what my heard is true -- but hunch is that he may have -- they may have reported in that the u.s. government. we may not have taken action we if we didn't have equal information that these people were also spying on our military installations. i have to make that assumption without having the case here in front of me. i think it may have been a little of each. host: mickey, a republican. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i had a question regarding the statement of the interrogation and how they received terrorist calls. i understand that, most likely, cia and the other agencies

who were probably working on that very carefully to find out who started that -- you be just some could fifteen-year-old in north korea or whatever that might have started it. i felt bad about this, in a way, because it has taken away some of our freedoms that we, here, in the united states are so grateful to have. like we have always had this feeling that we don't work with terrorists. and in this kind of situation, are working with terrorists. meetings in senate whatever -- i mean, those same things -- they could all be watching a movie, when it comes right down to it. we could be doing the same thing, although i know there are movie theaters around the world.

host: okay, mickey. we'll take your points. sort of in the face of freedom of speech and that we don't react or negotiate to do with terrorists. guest: well, this is a tricky one. as i said earlier, i think what you're seeing the u.s. government to hear -- and perhaps sony pictures -- his act on prudence. in other words, we don't know whether to take this threat to say, but you cannot take the not a serious is threat. one could ask whether sony pictures thought to carefully the consequences in making a movie like this. you do not want to limit your freedom of speech, on the other hand it seems very provocative make a film that -- i am no expert on hollywood, but it to be very provocative to about a foreign leader, where that leader is

seen as kind of a deity. that is how many north koreans think of him. which is not to say that we should limit our freedom of speech, but maybe it was worth thinking about the consequences of such an action. host: a democratic caller: from texas. caller: yes, i would like to comment on the eit. the gentleman keep saying that information from those terrorists, but they contest because the terrorists didn't have anything to do with that. back in the 1980's -- and i am that was tness -- created by george herbert walker bush, george w. bush -- the all going to call the names -- but this was an inside job. thanks. you : john mclaughlin, do have any thoughts?

sure : i am not quite where are caller is going with that -- our caller is going with that. a they somehow think that 9/11 was somehow not an attack was a terrorist attack, then i have to disagree. that day was a terrorist attack that we partially saw coming, but do not understand fully enough to prevent. host: hi, glenn. on the air with former acting director, john mclaughlin. caller: good morning. i want everybody to remember that a communist country is a communist country. castro went against the united states and decided that cuba could it run itself. and he was going to do it all by himself. then throw weapons that is,

nuclear weapons. let us not forget that point. thank you very much. guest: i don't forget that point at all. was sitting in my college dormitory listening to a speech kennedy give about the missile crisis and challenge. and thinking to myself, as a young person, my lord, we might be on the verge of a war. on the other hand, i would say that communism is dying in the world. we're at the point now where there are only a few communist and most of ft, them no longer really believing communism. they are just hanging on to their regimes and power. i don't think the chinese, at deep level, believe in marxist leninism. of an turned into more authoritarian regime than a classic marxist regime. perhaps at the president is trying to do here -- and it is

and i am 50-50 on his moves here -- but what he may be trying to do is put a dagger into the heart of this old ideology that is just about power. what is the evidence that this regime is on its way out? the castro brothers. guest: well, they are on their way out for a number of reasons. one, they are old. other reason is that when you look at the economic reasons, they do not have a lot of money. they also have declining help of their principal sponsors -- venezuela. who is also on the ropes. so there isn't a lot propping this regime up. one of the critiques one could the present has done is that some of the things offer them l now could -- if not managed

carefully -- ggive them a bit of a crush to keep going. if it brings more economic prosperity to cuba. i think we need to monitor how what are they d doing in return for the concessions are getting. cannot get them anymore until we see progress on those things. host: alberto in miami, florida. a republican. caller: good morning. cuba in the 1970's, and i traveled in 2000 because i have family there. i am proud of being a united states of america citizen. friends, young people -- everybody loves america. it is something that is there for years and years. i am -- i am against obama on a of stuff, but now he is saying something that is going to be the future of my country. we need to sit down and talk. we cannot fight.

what happened to the church community? the catholic church sat down they the united states and took all the miss doings and hid it there. what we need to do? we have to start, you know, sit down and talk. before you go -- of pope you make francis's role in helping negotiate this deal? caller: i think it is a good deal. we human beings have to sit down and talk. we -- host: okay, we got your point.

guest: alberto, as we say in my own business, you have been there. i'm not going to challenge your understanding of this. just listening to you and realizing that what you're the view of cts someone of cuban ancestry, if i understood you correctly. has visited the island and has sent to family feelings about this. so let's pocket all of that and see how it goes. as i said earlier, i think one cautious optimism about this, provided we keep an eye on what the cubans are actually doing today people. that is the key thing. and i think you would agree with that. it is what happens to the cuban people that will determine just how far we should go here. i would hope a lot would improve. your i want to get was tion to this poll that

in the papers last week in the "washington post". majority of t a americans support harsh cia methods. when they asked americans -- do think did or did not pproduce important information obtained any e and r way, 331% in that fifty-three presented -- 33% did not, and 53% did. things people the don't understand when they talk about, you know, american of that is -- for the cia, the american value that mattered most here was to was in re that there another attack in which americans would die. i think, fundamentally, americans get that. i was thinking the other day, you know, theirs is perfect

-- four n afghanistan in pakistan, in which close to 200 children died. murderers brutal burnt their teacher in front of the kids. what if you have the information in your hands a before that attack occurred. that's all you knew. to get that ou do information, if they do not volunteer to you? would you put a little pressure on them? you just might do that. and if you didn't, and that would you rred, how feel then? that is kind of an analogy to the with the cia felt in 2001 after 9/11. we had, for example -- forgets the context -- we had absolutely clear information that we confirmed bin laden met with pakistani nuclear scientist.

a at he had in his possession crude nuclear design. that when a scientist said to him, look, the hard thing to is nuclear explosive material, he said -- how do you know we don't have it? that is what we're dealing with an, along with reports that into new ere coming york city. i think the average american citizen gets that. in the average american citizen is not supporting torture. this has been called the torture report, literally for months now. one could easily in quality report on interrogation. the serious public policy issue have what do do, when you in your possession, someone who has information that relates to and safety and security lives of americans? host: you call that putting a little pressure on these people. to call waterboarding and the other techniques that were revealed in this report a little pressure?

guest: yes. and there are varying degrees of pressure that range from -- at the low-end -- a simple grab to the high-end -- waterboarding. done on three individuals in that part of the program which ended in 2003. i don't think there is moral equivalence between slapping the architect of 9/11 and, support the and i drone program -- but let's say, is not moral equivalence between that and are drone program which kills people. it has taken out many terrorist leaders, but also sometimes creates what we call collateral damage. that is, civilians die. i don't think there's a moral equivalence there. host: okay. we will go to scranton,

pennsylvania. don, aa republican there. caller: good morning. i am in favor of interrogation. look around the world where they are chopping heads off and killing kids, like he just said. i think what we do is minor what they are doing. we should keep the good work up. host: don mentions pakistan. do think that this could be a the government r of pakistan in ridding the country of the taliban? guest: i actually think it might be. pakistan has had an inconsistent policy towards terrorism, particularly the pakistani military. a pretty e carried out serious campaign over the went t months, but if you back before that, they attacked some terrorists. others, like the group that sponsored the attack in mumbai

in 2008 -- they have left him alone. they have had an inconsistent policy towards terrorism. remember, pakistan is in the of an enormous transition -- midst of an enormous transition. are under enormous pressure, and are struggling to get into the world of -- that in terms miliar with, of governors running the country's. going on in ngs are pakistan, and i think this the way - somewhat in that beheadings focused us on the isis problems -- i think focus the k might pakistani government more intensely on the existence of people gime from these who fundamentally oppose civilian rule. served at mclaughlin

the cia. a long career at the cia. how many years total? president and c.e.o. discusses unmanned aircraft and safety regulations. and the bureau's recent report on the well being of children in the united states. and we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. > next a conversation with

economic director. and later the european parliament debates the cri's interrogation program. >> on friday the brookings institution host a discussion on the military healthcare system ve at 10:00 avepl eastern on c-span 2. >> this month is the 10th anniversary of our sunday primetime program q and a and featuring one q and a from peach ear from 2005. kenneth fineberg's interview. from 2006, lonnie bunch on the importance of the the african-american experience to u.s. history. from 2007, robert novak on his 50 years of reporting in

washington. from 2009 s.e. cub. a decade of compelling conversations december 22 through 26 at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> jeffrey director of the white house economic council outlined president obama's economic agenda in an interview thursday and talked about relations with cuba and the russian committee. this event was hosted by politico and the peterson foundation. it's about 50 minutes.

>> good morning everybody, thank you for coming out. i am ben white, "politico" chief correspondent. if many of you don't read it you should, and if you don't, i can instruct you on how to sign up for it later. we are pleased to have the white house national economic council director, jeffrey zients, with us. anyone who wants to comment can send us a hashtag at #morningmoney on twitter. and we want to thank the peter g. peterson foundation for their generous sponsorship of this event. here to say a few words to the foundation is loretta ucelli, vice president of the peter g. peterson foundation.

loretta? >> thanks, ben, as mentioned, i am loretta ucelli with the peter g. peterson foundation, and we want to raise awareness on the nation's long-term school challenges. we believe in a long-term fiscal foundation is an important ngredient in achieving and maintaining a prosperous and healthy economy. we are concerned that although short-term deficits are lower, our long-term fiscal path remains unsustainable. art of our mission is to bring folks together like we are doing ith ben this morning to have

serious and substantive discussions about these issues and policies. so i am delighted to be hearing from jeffrey zients, who is at the center of all of these issues. so thank you all for coming, and thank you, ben, for being such an engaging host and moderator. >> thank you, let's not waste any more time. >> good to be here. >> thank you so much for coming out on what is a very busy news day on the nation's capital, busy few days. when the president goes to hawaii for vacation, we can have the news dialed down a little it maybe, catch a break. thank you for joining us. we want to talk about the big news story of the day, and that is sony pulling the movie the interview after the north korean hackers has threatened from a cyberterrorism.

a couple of questions about state cyberterrorism issues. one, how will the government respond, how can the government respond to that in a way that will he tolerated going forward? and how big of an economic impact are we looking at in corporate america by tate-sponsored cyberterrorism? >> the president spoke to this last night, and clearly this is a serious situation. if i may go back, i was once part of the private sector, and as a ceo, there was a thought to

the risk of business, and depending on what industry you re in or what business you are running, you think about cyber, and what you have done to safeguard your network. making sure that you have safeguarded that network is top of a ceo's list. you are constantly looking at your risks and what you can do to protect your network, it is a top priority for any ceo in this environment. the president has lead this effort, we have a single point of contact in dhs now, which did not exist before, and working very carefully with the private sector on nuclear power plants and at the same time increasing nformation sharing between the

federal government and the private sector. that said, we do need legislation. the president proposed legislation in 2011. congress has not acted on cyber security legislation. we need legislation that safeguards filesharing, but at the same time encourages protection. >> something by the north korean government could not be ignore, it must be responded to by the government. in terms of this decision by sony to back down in cyberterrorism from the north koreans, in your experience as a ceo and in your role in government now, how big of a threat is this type of cyberterrorism, and are we likely to see more instances like this where state-sponsored cyberterrorists are able to achieve their goals through these type of -- >> i think the wrong focus is on the economic potential in the future, i think now the future as we said earlier, is what can we do to get ahead of this and to protect our networks? every company needs to be investing in cyber

protection. we need to do what we can across the federal government, and to work with the private sector, that in order to take this to the next level, we need legislation. >> let's talk about the cuba news a little bit. i am not quite clear how he would be able to move toward with these two countries without congress moving forward with the embargo. >> importantly, in the opening

of more broad access to the internet to cuba, which would be good for the citizens of cuba and potential entrepreneurs. this is a strategy that needed a revisit, and as you pointed out, there are some targeted economic opportunities. >> one place where i read it ost was in "the washington post" editorial page, and they said they cuba was on its last leg, and if these liberalizations will put more

money into their pocket and not eally advance the cause of the cuban people, and that given time, they will advance on their own. >> the president believes that yesterday's actions will lead to a more open and free cuban society. as i talked about just a second ago, there are targeted economic opportunities for u.s. companies there. >> let's talk about the russian ruble collapse and the impact as you see it on the united states economy. and generally cover the destabilization of the russian economy and the impact it could have on the u.s. a lot of economists say that we will have minimal exposure to that. are we looking at a potential for a financial crisis to come

back? >> we monitor the situation carefully. there are direct impacts in terms of our relationship with russia, but that said, the russian economy is under a lot of pressure. ussia and the u.s. are working closely with our european allies to come up with solutions impact certain russian sectors, including defense and energy, and at the same time minimize the impact of our own economy and the economy of our european allies. those sanctions have had an ffect, and more importantly,

they are targeted at changes at the russian leadership and its policies, that is the goal here. not to impact the russian people. who drop in crude, which is unprecedented, which i will talk in a few minutes about the positives of that for the u.s. in the global economy, that has had a negative impact on russia because of it dependent on oil and oil exports. so we are watching that market closely and we are tracking any potential disruptions to global capital markets. so far we don't see any major disruptions, but we are watching the situation closely. >> in your view on the potential for economic growth in 2015, before we leave though, what is the nitty-gritty that has been going on in washington over the last couple of weeks, which we all know is the government ending bill that the president just signed to on the government through september without homeland security. the big question among the democratic left is, why sign that bill when it included the

rollback of the part of the derivatives push out of dodd-frank? a lot of outrage on the left about that, it is a bad deal, he did not get enough in return to that, why did the president signed a deal? >> i think the bill is a compromise. it funds 11 out of 12 pieces of the government for one full year. it is really important to have certainty in washington. if you go backwards a look at consumer confidence or business confidence over the last several years, we have had eight gradually upwards sloping line. however, we have had three or four dips. each of those dips is directly related to have occurred at the

same time as a fiscal crisis or a potential fiscal crisis in ashington. whether it was a shutdown or a fiscal cliff, each dip -- and if you look back over the last year or so, we have had none of those, and that is part of why we had good economic growth and we have had more job creation in the first 11 months of this year than we have had in any month since the 1990's. unemployed is down to low numbers and we are starting to see wage growth. importantly, we avoided a self-inflicted wound here. the deal is not perfect and it is a compromise, but there is good in this deal, fighting against ebola, fighting for early childhood education, fighting for manufacturing hubs

across the country, fighting to advance our position in manufacturing which create good paying jobs. there are parts of the bill that we don't like, and you mentioned that, the dodd-frank push out. but looking at the whole, we thought the compromise was that are than the alternative. one alternative would have been what i just described, another self-inflicted wound on this goal, which would have eventually led to economic ssues. the other alternative could have been to kick the can for several months on the whole of government. as we benchmark how we did at this compromise versus how we projected the other compromise would have looked like, we thought it was the right path. >> could you have said to the negotiators, this is unacceptable, take this out, and

that us that bill without that n there? it seems that republican's endgame was to get the majority. >> it was lifting up and looking at the whole situation and edge marking it, as i said, versus shutdown, which we can all agree would have been an awful outcome, but also benchmarking what would have become the default position, which would have a short-term cr for the whole of government, which meant that we would have had to have another negotiation. i mentioned there are several good things in the full year funding bill, and at the same time some things that we don't like, the overall evaluation here, is that this bill while a compromise, was better than the alternatives. >> let's talk about the otential for some of these

financial problems to reoccur next year. when you look at the dips in onfidence that occurred over the last few crises, obviously you had republicans in control of both houses soon, but there were as a couple of things they came up around same time in spring or summer, you will have the homeland security meeting to be funded, there are a number of issues that could come to a head

at the same time, how do we avoid this next year when republicans are going to demand some cuts in spending in return or an increase in the debt limit. should we expect that we are discrete have more fiscal crises next year? >> i hear from businesses across the country, small businesses, entrepreneurs, how important it has been the last year in terms of economic growth, and not to have these dark clouds. and i think, and i not on what is i say this, we have learned that lesson.

we are hopefully exiting a period of these self-inflicted wounds. we have learned that there are dips in confidence and we have learned that there is momentum in the economy, as i mentioned there is job growth, and we look at our position in the global economy and the leadership position that we have, and the list that we are experiencing rom lower oil prices, we are poised to have a good economic situation in 2015. .>> let's talk a little bit about your view on the economy more broadly in 2015. are we at a point finally where the president can take some credit for improving our economy that is going to be stable, and particularly in wages where we did see a faster pace of wage growth, which has been the thing that has really kept a pulse on the economy, there is a lack of

income increases, are we going to see that people feel better about the obama legacy? what is 2015 going to look at from the white house? >> in terms of the president's performance on the economy, if you look at our situation versus other advanced economies, we are now 8% above our pre-crisis peak n gdp, whereas europe is 10% below. we have a better economy than many european and asian countries combined. if you count the 325,000 jobs hat were added in october, and e look at the jobs that were added in the business sector and the manufacturing sector, and you look at the mix which is very encouraging, but again, this is a several decades old

problem of stale middle-class growth problems. we need to make appropriate investment in training, taking advantage of new training models hat can retrain people for high-paying jobs in a very short period of time. we need to invest in our infrastructure, and we also need to get set up for long-term competitiveness in this economy.

as i mentioned, in manufacturing, we are bringing together hubs in cities across america. these hubs are public-private combinations that work with universities, and we want to be the leaders in those echnologies, not only creating the technology, but also commercializing them and manufacturing them. they have great spillover effects in the community, and two thirds of developer jobs are in manufacturing. what we have here in the u.s. is important for our global competitors. the president started these a couple of years ago, piloted hem by executive action, and they have been very uccessful.

e have now launched eight of these hubs. in the four-year funding bill, they have been made into law. >> lets take a quick break, a lot of people here know you, and some people don't. tell us about yourself, that you are a washington area native, where you went to school, and how you got this job. >> i grew up right outside the beltway, i left to go to school at duke and then went to a company that i don't talk about very much, bain, which is in oston. >> no hisses from the crowd! [laughter]

>> i went back into consulting for a year or so, and then got a very lucky break, and went and joined the company that already had a business formula in place. it was a company called the advisory board. we turned into two companies, what one is called the advisory board, one is called the corporate executive board, and they essentially do the same thing on strategies and operations, both are located here in washington, d.c. i eventually walked into the office of management and budget and had never had experience with that before, so i took my

private sector experience into the public sector. i have had a very lucky and interesting run. >> you sell yourself short i not talking about the saving of healthcare.gov, which you spent a little time working on and fixing it. speaking of that, are you please with that? >> when the website was not working, particularly well due to a great team effort, many people from the private sector stepped up to the plate, some people dropped everything at oogle and came out and spent all day and all night on 60-90 days, stepping up to the plate o be the general contractor on

he effort. e came together and we ccomplish a lot on a short eriod of time. there has been a step functions in terms of the website, it mproves the website very well. lots of demand. 2.5 million people have already been through the site in the last 30 days or so, so that site