-- ethnic group. >> that is why you don't think you could give too much weight to the ethnicity of the students in the class when deciding how the district had designed the curriculum. the statute prohibits courses or closes which are designed for students of one ethnic group while simultaneously recognizing that courses that include the history of an ethnic group are fine. it prohibits classes for an ethnic group, not classes about an ethnic group. this is consistent with the purpose of statute as stated in

15-111 -- >> the subsection you are referring to says classes that include the history of a subgroup. that would suggest a class in mexican-american history. that is not just including, but about that. and it is likely most of the students would sign up for that would be mexican-americans, and that seems to run afoul of subpart three. >> i don't think it runs afoul of subpart three unless it is designed for the purpose of separating out those students and teaching a separate history that is not applicable to all the students in that school or that district. >> i am not maybe not following you, and it may be my fault. what is an example of a course that would not violate one, two four, but would violate three and therefore would be prohibited? >> if you had a class that is designed for one ethnicity for the purpose of separating them

out, the irish, the germans, jews, asians, but is not about that group. >> i'm not quite sure what you mean by "purposes of separating them out" unless you are talking about number four, advocating ethnic solidarity. what the judge said was he couldn't see what was prohibited by three that wasn't prohibitted by the other provisioned, and therefore it had the very great danger it was prohibiting someday that constitutionally couldn't be proinlted, or it invited overbreadth or vagueness because it served no obvious purpose. i'm still not hearing an example from you of why that isn't true? >> i think you could have a class that was for an ethnic group that didn't necessarily

teach ethnic solidarity that would be in violation of the statute. but if the court is included to agree with the judge -- >> what is that? i am trying to imagine what it would be? your cross appeal argues that three should be reinstated. it shouldn't be struck down as overbroad. you want that to be in the statute. why? what would that accomplish? and how would it accomplish something that wouldn't suggest discriminatory animus? >> well, the discriminatory animus that is alleged here is against lit no, sir or mexican-americans. so if the class were for some other group the evidence that is offered here of course about would not be pertinent to that. you could perhaps have a class in japanese studies that would be designed solely for japanese students, perhaps not -- to not advocate ethnic solidarity, but

would nonetheless be for them and not about, and that by a violation of the statute. >> and what would would be the state's purpose in inacting that? >> the state is concerned that all of its students should receive the same foundational education, should be taught as individuals not divided on the basis of grooms such as class or race. >> so if you have a classroom of students, some of which has command of the english language because that is what their household has spoken their whole likes and some of which who don't, and the fact that differential is leichtly reflected in ethnic differential, the state of arizona want to make sure that people who need extra help in english don't get it? >> well, there is a specific provision that relates in terms

of english language learners. i am not sure i understand. >> try some other class. >> supposing you had a course in the public schools of san francisco in chinese history. it was theoretically open to everyone, but lo and behold in designing it, the designers said with the substantial chinese population in certain parts of san francisco, we think this will be especially effective in helping chinese students to understand their history. if that were in arizona, would that be forbidden by the statute? >> it could be, yes, your honor. >> and why? how does that not suggest discriminatory animus? we don't want minorities to develop any kind of ethnic pride? >> i'm not sure that the purpose -- that the public school's

purpose needs to be to develop ethnic pride. in some of the legislature hearings that the playoffs asked the court to take judicial notice of, some parents noted that it was the role of parents to incullcate those values. i don't know that there is a constitutional right to classes that would promote that ethnic pride. >> but then you've got a problem with the potential inference that the intent of the statute is to make sure that certain groups don't emerge. why couldn't that be in certain forms of discriminatory animus? >> we need to look at the purpose of this. the statements that were made by the legislators that were made at the time this statute was passed, concern about a program that was divisive, and separative, and took students away, that taught values that the ledge slaves believed were

antethetical of state values. >> i hear that as a justification for subparts two and four. i don't understand how that is a justification for subpart three unless there is a broader animus against the minority population. >> there is not sufficient evidence, as the judge found, of that broader animus towards the minority population. the concern that is stated by those who are in favor of this law is in regard to a program, not a people. if i may then address the question of whether or not it

was correct for the judge to grant summary judgment on the equal protection claim, in oral argument on the many motions and cross motions, plaintiffs counsel said the record is complete with respect to the differential treatment, the equal protection. i think with that and with the substantial evidence that had been presented by the playoffs on support of that claim and others, it was correct for the judge to grant summary judgment in favor of the state on the equal protection claim. >> wouldn't the normal course in a district court be -- if the judge was thinking of converting some other motion to summary judgment, to announce that to the parties, give them an opportunity to say whether there was additional evidence that they wanted to present on summary judgment and have them flesh out the record or not as the case may be? that is the normal course, yes? >> yes, that is the normal course. >> why -- what was the particular justification for not following that normal course

here? >> i think first of all, the judge could have predicated that the record was complete. >> was that said in the context of the entire case or just said in the context of the particular motion before the judge? >> they put a number of motions in front of the judge. >> all the more reason. it was not unambiguous. wasn't that statement ambiguous? >> no, i don't think so. >> did the judge say -- maybe he did, i don't know did he say, complete for all purposes in all motions now and forever this case? >> there was no comment by the judge. >> i have thought about future motions.

>> he was before the court on a motion for primary injunction. a very high standard of proof presented substantial evidence lengthy argument, 22 pages on the equal protection claim alone. you will find it in e.r. 3 911-33. it was appropriate for the judge to conclude that the issues had been fully ventilated. and frankly, i think you can look at the kind of evidence they believe that they would introduce and to further support the equal protection claim and conclude that that was not the conclusion that the judge would have claimed. they are reaching to earlier versions that were substantially different and even to statements that were made in connection with other bills. there is no way to tie those statements, those snippets those cherry picked little pieces, to the legislative intent that animated this bill and no reason you should look behind the purpose that is stated in 15-111 that represents the collective statement of the

arizona, the collective intent of the arizona legislature in passing this bill. if i may briefly address the first amendment right. students right to receive information was acknowledged by the supreme court. but the supreme court -- that was a plurality decision, not a majority. the supreme court there also said the petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. even more importantly, the supreme court noted that removal from the library of a book based

solely upon the educational suitability would be "perfectly permissible." that is why think this court should be guided by its decision in downs where it recognize that curriculum is government speech. and a fifth circuit decision from 2005 where they recognize that curriculum is government speech and the government need not share his podium with another speaker. the court is to be guided as well by epperson, the case involving the teaching and arkansas of evolution. the statue that prohibited that teaching. there, the supreme court found that the restriction on curricular speech constituted an independent constitutional violation of the free exercise in establishment clause and struck it down. here we have no independent violation of any students right

to receive information. are there anymore questions? >> if we were to conclude that the third prong is unlawful, is it severable or not? >> yes, it is. >> why? >> why? because -- as you noted, the statute is listed in the disjunctive. or, or, or. you do not need to find all of the prongs have been violated before the superintendent to consider bringing -- >> as you told me previously, we have to look at the whole statute. it was designed to be a single coordinated approach to what was

perceived as a problem. with each section taking meaning from the others and from the overall purpose. i thought that was your argument a few minutes ago? >> it was designed -- >> so, maybe that suggest the legislature did not view this as severable. they viewed it as a coordinated package. if it turns out one provision was unconstitutional, the sensible thing is to have them reconsider the entire statute rather than our cherry picking? >> i think the legislature could want the statute to be viewed in its entirety, but could write the statute in such a way that if one prong were struck down, it would still because attrition -- still be constitutional. it may not achieve every single purpose of the legislature but it still functions. for that reason, this court should agree that it is severable and the rest of the statute stands.

>> thank you. >> mr. chemerinsky. >> there is no doubt that state can set the curriculum, but this is a law that prohibits speech by looking at what the students each is. a-3 was properly found by the district court to be vague and overbroad. if there's even a class that is primarily designed for people of a particular ethnic group, it violates the law. if they taught a class to appeal

to them, that would violate the statute. you asked the question of severability. we believe each of depositions at unconstitutional and overbroad. there is no severability clause in the statue. the question of severability is one of arizona law. the arizona court said the -- severability clause is relevant. it is not determinative. would the legislature have adopted the position without the offending section? we believe they would not have adapted. >> is that so clear? what the judge found in effect was that the other provisions of the statute were lawful, served the legislative purpose. this one he found in effect was not only unlawful but specifically did not serve the legislative purpose in ways other than were accomplished by the other provisions. so, if he is right about that, does it severability make

perfect sense? >> no. a-3 was at the core of the statue. if you start with the earliest versions of the law, this is a law that would not have been adopted without a-3. if i may take one more moment to address the second issue? the second issue is that the statute is unconstitutional violating equal protection because the discriminatory animus and its adoption implantation. we made the point here that the judge erred under rule 56. the advisory committee -- adapted in 2010 say the judge want to do the summary judgment and invite the parties to make such a motion. that was not done here. there is a tremendous difference between briefing for motion for plenary junction and summary

judgment. in fact, the supreme court and university of texas in the second circuit made this point. i would conclude by saying there is so much evidence that indicates that there was a discriminatory animus, including eliminating a program that was proven to be successful. that was enough to prove that the should of gone -- summary judgment was wrongly granted. thank you so much. >> we thank both counsel for both arguments for the case is committed. the final case on the argument calendar is camp versus nevin. i suspect that we will have a lot of people moving around. we will sit in place as you reassemble.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are going to move the tv cameras. >> and i was ready for my close-up, too. >> british prime minister david cameron arrived in washington last night. he met with the president. among the issues, cyber security, the response to islamic terrorism, and more. the president and the prime minister will hold a joint news conference. that should get underway momentarily.

we will have live coverage. a look at the room. we will stay here live and have the news conference shortly from president obama and david cameron. i had next week -- the state of the union tuesday. we will have live coverage. a chief congressional correspondent says president obama is planning to pitch a 7% increase in federal 2016 spending, which is likely to be announced harder with a gop -- a nonstarter with a gop determined to reduce the budget. mitch mcconnell called for the president to cooperate with congress to enact a different and better reform agenda for the middle class. so, waiting here in the east room of the white house for president obama and david cameron. you can join the conversation online at facebook.com/c-span and we will look for some of your tweets at the #c-spanchat.

waiting at the sermon the white house for the joint news conference with president obama and british prime minister david cameron. they had been meeting this morning. they held talks last night. the president and the first lady will welcome the cast and crew of the new movie "soma," for a screening at the white house. john kerry has been in france today meeting with french president francois hollande. we will show you that meeting later in our program schedule. also news today that marilyn

tavener, the head for the centers of medicare and medicaid services is stepping down. bloomberg reports in an e-mail to staff she said she will step down at the end of next month. it looks like could be a moment or two. we will step back here, live, waiting for the president, here on c-span.

a joint news conference about to get underway with president obama and reddish prime minister david cap -- british prime minister david cameron. "the daily mail" writing that david cameron called on president obama to put pressure on companies like twitter and facebook to do more to capture terrorists online. they presented a united front, unveiling joint cyber security plans and a commitment to securing long-term economic growth but, says "the daily mail," they stay divided over the extent social network should have to open up their network to spy agencies on both sides of the atlantic. we will hear questions from both sides of the pond, as they say.

british and american reporters will get a chance to ask questions.

the joint news conference showed get underway shortly. real clear politics -- two media organizations per side will get to asked questions. she says cbs news is expected to be one. we will have live coverage. in the meantime, part of the conversation from this morning's washington journal. host: two former members of congress. they are co-authors.

either of us might have become speakers of the house, but parties moved away from us. how so? guest: we are both political moderates. tom was clearly a leader in the republican party, so much so that he -- when he wanted to run for senate from virginia, forces in his own party conspired to prevent him from getting the nomination. that speaks for himself. i was in congress for 28 years. i was a moderate democrat from a southern state, and then as now is. the parties have changed. democratic party has become a more liberal party. the republican party has become a much more conservative party and their is not much room for moderates. host: mr. davis. guest: it is demonstrated that there is no middle. conservatives are republican. democrats are liberal.

we make the point of how this came about. it is unprecedented, really, in america. i left politics undefeated, not indicted, something i am proud of. in virginia, i was seen as a threat in the primary, so they concocted a convention, and it is fine. i would along and did something else with my life. host: tom davis, you are part of the congressional committee. you guys were the partisan pardon me, political hacks. guest: we were the pitbulls. host: i do not mean to be cynical, but all of a sudden now congress is in crisis? guest: let me walk you through some of the things we talk about in this book. the parties in washington have lost control of this and it has been three macro factors that have taken place that have caused this. this did not come out of the blue.

we have good members out there. dedicated people. they really cannot act the way they would probably like to. first, is the advent of the single-party district. in the house, we have 80% of these districts -- we know which parties will hold those seats in november. it is just a constitution formality. what really counts is the primary. members are putting their votes toward the base, and they're are the ones to participate in the nomination process, either in primaries, or in states like virginia, the convention system, which is more narrowly based. single-party district are caused by redistricting gerrymandering, residential voting patterns were people who think alike tend to live a lie and the voting rights on -- live alike, and the voting rights enclave.

all you have in the house in the deep south is white republicans and black democrats and no need to talk to each other. guest: two other factors have come in with media models that cater to a certain thought group. they are successful business models. they work. it is on cable news, talk radio, internet websites. the information people are getting tend to be pretty one-sided. you have campaign-finance reform. it is out on the wings now. basically that is the story. >> tom and i are partisans. he was a partisan republican and i am a partisan democrat could

in the final analysis, we believed you could meet in the middle. you could be a strong republican. i could be a strong democrat. that did not mean we cannot ultimately talk to each other. what happened under the current system is because the threat is now in the primary, if the republican talks to a democrat, that person is subject to a primary challenge and could be defeated in the primary of his own party. he's not even willing to talk to the other side and certainly he's not willing to consider voting with the other side. the same thing could happen if a democrat says i would like to work with republicans on this issue. that person is subject to a challenge within his own party.

they change their behavior to prevent a primary challenge from occurring. >> for readers were interested in what happened, this is in our chapter called politics is no longer local. host: congressman frost, let's go to the gerrymandering issue. there is a chart where you show the presidential election percentages, but then you sell -- show the congressional seats underneath and in pennsylvania michigan, ohio, the republicans hold the majority of the congressional seats -- and all three states won by the democratic nominee. guest: that is correct. what has happened is you have two types of gerrymandering. one is wrong, political gerrymandering that has happened in western states, northern states, what you are describing

in michigan, pennsylvania, and ohio, where republicans control the legislature and they use their political power to draw republican districts and minimize republican districts. the other gerrymandering happened in the south, and did not happen this way. republicans, shrewdly, in some states, were able to make deals with black leadership. blacks had been excluded from congress. the voting rights act sought to change that. blacks deserved representations, and what the republicans did in some states was say to the black community is let's get a fake district, give you a 75% -- let's get a faith district, give you 75% african-americans, and what it did was remove african-americans from surrounding districts so that democrats would have no chance -- that would be no coalitions possible.

you have to do we will different types of gerrymandering, one was racial gerrymandering, primarily in the south, which republicans play to their advantage, and the second was in the north and the midwest, which was raw political power to draw as many districts as we can. the problem is that can change. every 10 years there is a new senses, new redistricting, and who is to say the democrats cannot control posted the next time around and use gerrymandering against the republicans? what we suggested is let's have bipartisan commissions in every state where you get together. right now, there are five states where you do that and those states, those districts are more competitive. arizona, california, iowa, new jersey, washington, you have more competitive seats this both parties can draw a reasonable districts for a number of swing district and that makes the process move better. guest: the most creative districts are pennsylvania and

maryland. this is modern art when you take a look at this issue. very creative. when leaders look at this, it does not pass the sniff test in terms of what these districts look like. we have a long chapter on race in this book that people do not like to talk about. both of us are from southern districts. we discussed the history of this and what it means, and we do not agree, but we comment on each other's -- for readers that want to know the history and how it has occurred -- the one policy question, 50 years after the voting rights act that is supposed to bring the country together, it has had the unintended consequence of keeping things divided because black democrats not to talk to whites to get elected, and whites do not have to talk to blacks to get elected, so they tend to ignore them. instead of bringing us together, we continue these divisions. guest: the just the thing we

point out in this chapter is in the last 20 years the makeup of the voting population nationwide has changed rather dramatically. 20 years ago, 22 years ago now in 1992, the electorate was 87% white. in the last election, two years ago, the electorate was 72% white. republicans have been trying to run up the score against white voters, fishing in a diminishing pool. it will be very hard for them to win presidential elections if they do not successfully reach out to minority voters, and the problem is hispanics are the largest growing minority in the country, and republicans keep giving them the stiff arm saying we do not want to have immigration reform. if the republicans could figure this out they would still be competitive in a presidential race. if they do not figure it out, he -- >> this month marks a notable

anniversary, 200 years since the battle of new orleans. here in america we call the great victory over a mighty united kingdom. our british friends call it a technicality. the treaty ending the war was signed weeks before. either way, we have long since made up on this 200th anniversary of a great american victory. we count the united kingdom is one of our greatest friends and strongest allies. it's a great leisure to welcome prime minister david cameron back to the white house. david recently noted how comfortable the two of us are working together. this sent some commentators into a tizzy. some explored the linguistic origins of the word.

some analyzed how this has evolved over time. some seemed confused and asked what does obama mean. let me put the speculation to rest. david is a great friend. he is one of my closest and most trusted partners in the world on many of the most pressing challenges that we face. we see the world the same way. we recognize that, as i have said before. our nations are more secure and our people are more prosperous and the world is safer and more just. great britain is are indispensable partner. david has been personally an authentic partner. with both of our economies growing and unemployment falling, we used our working dinner last night to discuss how we can help create more jobs for our people.

we believe this needs to be the year when the united states and the european union make real progress toward the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and we share the view that boosting demand in europe can keep our economies going. as innovative economies in his information age, we're expanding our collaboration on digital technologies to improve our governments. given the urgent and growing danger of cyber threats, we decided to expand our cooperation on cyber security. as leaders in the global fight against climate change, we believe a strong commitment to reducing greenhouse gases will be an essential element of any ambitious climate agreement that we seek this year and that will help spur the creation of more clean energy jobs on both sides of the atlantic. with regard to security,

americans, british unity is enabling us to meet challenges in europe and beyond. we agree on the need to maintain strong sanctions against russia until it ends its aggression in ukraine, and on the need to support ukraine as it implements important economic and democratic reforms. we agree that the international community needs to remain united as we seek a comprehensive diplomatic solution to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. additional sanctions on iran at this time would undermine that international unity and set act our chances for a diplomatic solution. as a two leading contributors to the global response to ebola in west africa, we urge the world to continue stepping up with resources required so we don't simply stop this disease, we do more to prevent future epidemics. much of our discussion focused on the continuing threat of terrorism. in the wake of the vicious

attacks in paris as well as the new surfacing out of belgium today we continue to stand unequivocally not only with our french friends and allies, but was also all of our partners who are dealing with this scourge. i know david joins me when i say we will continue to do everything we can in our power to help france seek the justice that is needed, and all our countries are working together seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist networks heard with our combat mission in afghanistan over, we are focused with our nato allies on assisting and equipping afghan forces to secure their own country and deny al qaeda any safe haven there. and we will continue to count on great britain as one of our strongest counterterrorism earners -- partners.

we are systematically taking out isil fighters, we are putting them on the defensive and helping local forces in iraq push these terrorists back. david and i agree that we need to keep stepping up the training of iraqi forces. we will not relent until this terrorist organization is destroyed. the terrorist group underscored how terrorist groups are trying to support people in our own countries to engage in terrorism. i lead a special session of the un security council last fall to rally the world to meet the threat of foreign terrorist fighters, including coming from syria. david and the united kingdom continue to be strong partners in this work. at the same time we both recognize that intelligence and military force alone will not solve this problem. we will keep working together on

strategies to counter violent extremism that radicalizes recruits and mobilizes young people to engage in terrorism. local communities families, neighbors, faith leaders have a vital role to play in that effort. we also look forward to welcoming our british friends to the summit next month on countering violent terrorism. whether in europe or america, a critical weapon against terrorism is our adherence to our freedoms and values at home including the pluralism and respect and tolerance that defines us as diverse and democratic societies. finally, i want to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate david on last month's stormont house agreement. it is a tribute to the courage and determination of everyone involved, especially the leaders of northern ireland and the governments of ireland and the united kingdom. the u.s. was pleased to play a

small role in achieving this agreement. we will keep doing what we need to do to support the peace process and the better future for the people of northern ireland. let me turn it over to my good friend, david cameron. >> thank you very much, barack, and thank you again for welcoming me to the white house. you are a great friend to britain and to me personally. as leaders we share the same values. as you said, on so many issues we see the world in the same way. most of the time we speak the same language. [laughter] in the last six years since he became president and in the nearly five since i have been prime minister, we faced big issues on our watch. those challenges have boiled down to one word, security. economic security, the jobs and living standards of our citizens and national security the ability of our peoples to live safely and in peace.

at the heart of both issues are the values that are countries cherish. freedom of expression, rule of law, and our democratic institutions. those are the things that make both our countries strong and which give us confidence that even in the midst of the most violent storms, with strong leadership we will come through to safer, calmer and brighter days. during your presidency you have had to deal with the aftermath of a massive banking crisis and the recession. when i became prime minister britain had the highest budget deficit in its peacetime history. our economy was in grave peril. five years ago we had 110,000 troops serving together in afghanistan. thanks to their efforts, today it is afghan forces taking responsibility for security in their country. but we continue to face difficult times for the world. we have to deal with the warning lights flashing in the global

economy. weak growth in the eurozone, slowdown in emerging markets that is why it is vital for our shared prosperity that we both stick to the long-term economic plans that we set out. we agreed that 2015 should be a pivotal year for an ambitious and comprehensive eu-u.s. trade deal that could benefit the average household and britain by 400 pounds a year. the uk is now the top destination for american and foreign investment, with 500 projects last year providing 32,000 jobs. america is the u.k.'s biggest trade partner. our message on the economy today is simple. we are going to stick to the course. seeing through our economic plans is the only sustainable way to create jobs, raise living standards, and secure a better future for hard-working people. britain and america both face threats to our national security

from people who hate what our countries stand for and who are determined to do us harm. in recent weeks we have seen appalling attacks in paris, in nigeria. the world is sickened by this terrorism. we will not be standing alone in this fight. we know what we're up against. we know how we will win. we face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions, islam and create conflict, terror, and death. with our allies we are confronted whenever it appears. the uk is the second-largest contributor to the anti-isil coalition. antiaircraft have conducted over 100 strikes and will continue to play a leading role. we will deploy additional intelligence and surveillance assets to help iraqi forces on the ground.

most important of all, we must also fight this poisonous ideology starting at home. in the uk we are passing a law so that every public audit must combat extremism. -- body must combat extremism. in europe, russia has chosen to tear up the international rulebook and trample over the affairs of a sovereign state. this threatens our stability and prosperity. it is important that every country understands that, and that no one in europe forgets our history. we cannot walk on by. we will continue to put pressure on russia to resolve this crisis diplomatically. at the same time we will continue our efforts to support ukraine on the path of reform, including with financial assistance. the reaffirm our obligations as nato partners to stand by our allies. we will be to beating an

additional thousand troops for exercises in eastern europe. we are committed to ensuring that iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. the best way to achieve that now is to create a space for negotiations to succeed. we should not impose further sanctions now. that would be counterproductive and it could put at risk the valuable international unity that has been so crucial to our approach. we also have to keep pace with new threats such as cyberattacks. we have today agreed to deepen our cyber security cooperation to better protect ourselves. finally, we face -- the entire world faces a growing threat from diseases. today our fight is against ebola. in the future it could be against a global flu pandemic. through our action in sierra leone, the u.s. action in liberia, france, and ginny, we are beginning to turn the corner.

but we must get better at are spawning to these global health emergencies and make sure we can master them before they master -- responding to these global health emergencies and make sure we can master them before they master us. a new international platform to stimulate the design and development of new drugs -- all of these things are needed. let 2015, the gear we must crack ebola, also be the year we tackle extreme property -- pove rty and climate change. we must set goals to eradicate extreme poverty. on climate change, we want an outcome in paris that keeps our goal of limiting global warming by 2050 by 2 degrees in reach. those two things have the potential to give security to future generations to come. for almost two centuries after

those difficulties we were discussing earlier, america and britain have stood as candidates. in defending our freedoms and advancing our shared prosperity. today as we survey a world in flux our alliance stands strong rooted in its long history, and reinvigorated by the challenges we face today. if our forebears could join us in the white house today they might find the challenges we are facing from isil to ebola cyber terrorism to banking crisis -- they might find those hard to comprehend, but they would surely recognize the ties that i does across the atlantic and the values that are peoples hold so dear. we have stood together so often not just because we faced, and threats, but because we fundamentally believe in the same things. that is as true today as it has always been. it usually benefits are countries and the people we are here to serve -- hugely benefits

our countries and the people we are here to serve. >> we will take a few countries -- questions. jonathan of abc. >> you mentioned your opposition to the sanctions bill on iran. this is a bipartisan bill supported by some very senior top members of your own party and congress. why do you oppose a bill that would only impose sanctions if you fail to reach an agreement and if the iranians failed to agree to take steps to curtail their nuclear program. would you go so far as to detail a bill supported by top democrats in congress on this issue? >>to mr. prime minister, i understand you have been making phone calls to senators on this issue of the iran sanctions bill. is that correct? are you lobbying the u.s. congress on this?

mr. president, i would like to hear your reaction to the news that mitt romney is running for president again. >> on your last question -- [laughter] i have no comment. [laughter] on your first question, when i came into office i made a commitment that iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon, that we could do everything we could to prevent that. that is important for our security and important for the world's security. if iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it would trigger an arms race in the middle east, make our job in terms of preventing proliferation of nuclear materials much more difficult.

given their missile capabilities, it would threaten directly our closest allies, including israel, and ultimately could threaten us. what we did was systematically with the help of congress, construct the most forceful, most effective sanctions regime in modern history. what was remarkable was that when i came into office, the world was divided around this issue. iran was united. through some very strong diplomatic work, we united the world and isolated iran. it is because of that work that we brought them to the negotiating table not for posturing, not for meetings that lead nowhere, but to a very hard-nosed nuts and bolts

discussion of their nuclear program. their interim deal we entered into also froze progress on their nuclear program rolled back in some cases the stockpiles of material they had already accumulated, and provided us insight into their program that was unprecedented. we have people on the ground who are able to verify and inspect and tell us what exactly is going on. that's not just our assessment. that is the assessment of intelligence services around the world, including the israelis. the agreement is held and negotiations have been serious. we have not lost ground. iran has not accelerated its program during the time these negotiations have taken place. iran's program has not only been in abeyance, but we have actually made gains in rolling back some of the stockpiles they had.

we have on the table currently a series of negotiations over the next several months to determine whether or not iran can get the yes. what has been remarkable is the unity we have maintained with the world in isolating iran and forcing them to negotiate in a serious way. the p5+1 not only includes china , but russia. they have continued to cooperate with us and setting forth positions that would give us assurances that iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. i have always said that the chances that we can actually get a diplomatic deal of probably less than 50/50. iran is a regime that is deeply suspicious of the west, deeply suspicious of us.

in the past they have surreptitiously as secretly advanced aspects of this program. we have huge differences with them on a whole range of issues. but, if in fact we still have an opportunity to get a diplomatic deal that provides us verifiable assurances that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, that is the best possible outcome that we can arrive at right now. the question i have for members of congress, including those folks in my own party, is why is it that we would have to take actions that might jeopardize the possibility of getting a deal over the next 60 to 90 days? what is it precisely that is going to be accomplished? i can tell you what the risks are. i think david shares my assessment here.

under the interim deal that brought iran to the table, we were not supposed to initiate new sanctions. you will hear our arguments. these technically aren't new sanctions, they are simply laws putting in place the possibility of additional sanctions. asher you that is not how -- i assure you that is not how iran or our partners would interpret it. the likelihood of the entire negotiations collapse is very high. if that happens, there is no constraints on iran going back and doing what they came to do before they came to the table, developing a heavy water reactor that once built it extraordinarily difficult to dismantle, and very difficult to hit militarily.

going back at underground facilities that are very hard to reach militarily, accelerating advanced centrifuges that shorten the time span in which they can achieve breakout capacity. and they would be able to maintain the reason they ended negotiations was because the united states was operating in bad faith and blew up the deal. there would be some sympathy to that view around the world which means the sanctions we have in place now would potentially fray, because imposing those sanctions are a hardship on a number of countries around the world trade -- world. they would love to be able to buy iranian oil. the reason they have hung in there is because we have shown that we are credibly trying to solve this problem and avert a military showdown. on that context, there is no

good argument for us to try to undercut undermine the negotiations until they have played themselves out. he if -- if iran and sub not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances -- ends up not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances to conclude they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon, we will have to explore other options. i will be the first one to come to congress and say we need to tighten the screws. that's not the only options that will be available. i have consistently said we leave all options on the table. congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails the risks and likelihood that this ends up being a military confrontation is heightened. congress will have to own that as well. that will have to be debated by the american people. we may not be able to rebuild

the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes we were not serious about negotiations. i take this very seriously. i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful. it is my team that is at the table. we are deep in this stuff day in and day out. we all make judgments blindly. we have been working on this for 5, 6 7 years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom and making those assessments. i'm asking congress to hold off because our negotiators, our partners, those who arm most -- are are most intimately involved in this, suggest it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving -- providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long lasting national security problems that we have faced in a

very long time. congress needs to show patience. with respect to the veto, i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk. i will make this argument to the american people. i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. i think that is worth doing. we will see how persuasive i am. if i'm not persuaded in congress, i will be taking my case to the american people on this. >> the big picture is very clear. the sanctions that america and the european union put in place have had an effect.

that has led to pressure. that pressure has led to talks. i would argue with the president, how much better is that than the other potential outcomes. that is what we should be focusing on. i have contacted a couple of senators this morning. i may speak to one or two more this afternoon. simply to make the point as a country that stands alongside america in these vital negotiations that is the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion, and they could fracture the international unity there has been, which has been so valuable in presenting a united front to iran. i say this as someone who played quite a strong role in getting

europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions. i would make the point that those sanctions have had an effect. to those who said if you do an interim deal, if you even start discussing any of these things, the sanctions will fall apart. the pressure will dissipate. no one will be able to stick at it. that has been shown not to be true. the pressure is still there. as the president says, if the iranians say no and there is no deal, let's sit down and work out whatever sanctions to put in place. we are absolutely united in a simple thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon or action to prevent it. it comes down to that simple choice. >> i think the way the president

put it, i would not disagree with. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british minister in 35 years to meet with and iranian president. there is a very clear offer their, which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and to conclude an agreement with them which would be mutually beneficial. a question from nick robinson of the bbc. >> a prime minister with extra security being put in place today for the jewish community, and also police officers. would people be right to conclude that the threats of an attack on the streets of britain is almost imminent? mr. president, you have spoken of the threat posed by fighters coming back from syria. do you ever worry that this is a legacy of the decision of the united kingdom to stand on the

sidelines during syria's civil war? if i may briefly on the economy, you say he -- you agree -- is it time to stick to the plan? >> we do face a very serious islamist extremist threat in europe, america, across the world. it have to be incredibly vigilant in terms of that threat. we've got to strengthen police and security. we've got to do everything we can to keep our country safe. that involves long-term patient, disciplined approach. there is no single simple thing that needs to be done. it means closing down the ungoverned spaces that terrorists operate in. it means working against isil in iraq and syria, countering this death cult of a narrative that is perverting the religion of islam. it means working together with

our oldest and best earners so that we share intelligence and security and try to prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place. it is going to be a long, patient, and hard struggle. i'm convinced we will overcome it. in the end, the values we hold to our freedom of democracy, of having open and tolerant societies. these are the strongest values there can be. in the end we will come through. like some of the challenges our countries have faced together in the past, it will take great discipline and patience and hard work. you ask a question about immanence. we have a system in the united kingdom where set levels -- levels are set by the center. they judge the threat we faced is severe. that means in their words, an attack is highly likely. if ever there is an imminent threat of attack, it goes to the next level up, which is critical but it is their decision, not mine.

my responsibility is to make sure we marshal everything we have as a country to defeat the threat. on the jewish communities, it is good that they metro police have announced they will step up patrols. i met with the jewish leadership council earlier this week. we already provide through their security organization the community security trust to help protect jewish schools. you cannot simply rely on policing security. this is a job for everyone. this is a role we will all have to play in the vigilance and making sure that we keep our communities safe. >> with respect to syria and the connection to foreign fighters, there is no doubt that in the chaos, in the vacuum created in big chunks of syria, the that is given an opportunity for foreign fighters to both come in and

come back out. i chaired a u.n. security council meeting, and we are now busy working with our partners to implement a series of actions , to identify who may be traveling to syria in order to get trained to fight for to hatch plots that would be activated upon return to their home countries. is a serious problem. the notion that this is occurring because the u.s. or great britain or other countries stood on the sidelines is -- it mischaracterizes our position. we haven't been standing on the sidelines. it is true we did not invade syria. had we invaded syria we would

be less prone to terrorist attacks. i will leave it to you to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate. we have been very active in trying to resolve a tragic situation in syria. diplomatically, to humanitarian efforts, through the removal of chemical weapons from syria that had been so deadly. and now, as isil has moved forward -- we have been very active integrating their capabilities inside of syria even as we are working with partners to make sure the foreign fighters situation is resolved. david's point is the key one. this phenomenon of violent extremism -- the ideology, the networks, the capacity to

recruit young people -- this has metastasized, and it is widespread, and it has penetrated committees around the world. i do not consider it a nexus to show threat -- it an existential threat. we are stronger, we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in intolerance

great heartache and tragedy and destruction. it is one that ultimately we are going to defeat. we can't just defeat it through weapons. what of the things we spoke about is how do we lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the muslim world so that counter narrative against this nihilism is put out there as aggressively and nimbly as the messages coming out from these fanatics. how do we make sure we are working with local communities and faith leaders and families, whether in a neighborhood in london or a neighborhood in detroit, michigan so that we are inoculating ourselves against this kind of ideology? that will be slow, plodding, systematic work. but it's work that i'm confident we are going to be able to

accomplish particularly when we have strong partners like the united kingdom. [inaudible] on the economy, i would note that great britain and the united states are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. we must be doing something right. >> good afternoon. questions for both of you. i want to make sure we heard what you were trying to say clearly directing a message to congress. you are also sending a message to iran that if sanctions talks fail that's more putting is the next most likely alternative -- that war-putting is the next

most likely alternative. do you believe europe is at a turning point now in its recognition of what it's threats are at its own mobilization in terms of new laws, security footing, larger budgets? we talk about cyber security. there is a crucial issue for both countries. backdoors and encryption to protect people, and also privacy. i would like your comments on that. thank you. >> i am not suggesting that we are immediate war putting should negotiations fail. if our view is we have to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then we have to recognize the possibility that should diplomacy fail, we have

to look at other options to achieve that goal. and if you listen sometimes to the rhetoric surrounding this issue, i think there is sometimes the view that this regime cannot be trusted, that effectively negotiations with iran are pointless, and since these claims are being made by individuals who see iran as a mortal threat and one as badly as we do to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, the question becomes what other alternatives exactly are available. that is part of what we have to consider as to why it is so

important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. it has got to be a good deal, not a bad deal. i have already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal. the p5+1 walked away with us. nobody is interested in some document that undermines our sanctions and gives iran the possibility of whether covertly or gradually is building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we are not going to allow that, and anything that we do, any deal that we arrive at if we arrive at one would be subject to scrutiny across the board. not just by members of congress, but more importantly, by people who actually know how the

technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance. and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous way possible that the terms of the deal are being met. the bottom line is this -- we may not get there, but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. i should point out that even if we get a nuclear deal -- and we are sure that iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons -- we still have a whole bunch of problems with iran on state-sponsored terrorisms, their rhetoric towards israel, their financing of hezbollah, we have differences with respect to syria -- it's not as if suddenly we have a great relationship with iran. it solves one particular problem that is urgent, and it solves it

better than the other alternatives that might present themselves. my main message to congress at this point is just told your -- hold your fire. nobody around the world's doubt my ability to get additional sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. the notion that we need to have additional sanctions or even the possibility of sanctions hanging over their head to force them to a better deal --i think the iranians know that that is certainly in our back pocket if negotiations fail. with respect to violent extremism, my impression is that europe has consistently taken

this seriously during the course of my presidency. we have worked collaboratively and with great urgency, and the recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe, but that given large immigrant populations, it's important to reach out to and work with local communities, and to have a very effective intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation between countries and between the u.s. and europe. there's no doubt that the most recent events has amplified those concerns. one of the things i have learned over the last six years is that there's always more that we can do. we can always do it at her. -- better.

we learn from mistakes. each incident teaches our professionals how we might be able to prevent these next time. i'm confident that the very strong cooperation that already exists with europe will get that much better in the months and years to come. [inaudible] here is where i actually think europe has some particular challenges. i said this to david. the united states has one big advantage in this whole process. it is not that our law enforcement or our intelligence services are so much better although ours are very very good, and i think europeans

would recognize we have capabilities others don't have. it's advantage is that our muslim populations feel themselves to be americans. there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that is probably our greatest strengths. it doesn't mean we aren't subject to the kinds of tragedies we saw at the boston marathon. that has been helpful. there are parts of europe in which that is not the case. that is probably the greatest danger that europe faces, which is why as they respond, as they work with us to respond to these circumstances, it's important for europe not to simply respond with a hammer and law

enforcement and military approaches to these problems, but there also has to be a recognition that the stronger the ties of a frenchman of north african descent to french values, the french republic, that will be as important, if not more important in overtime solving this problem. there's a recognition of that across europe. it's important we don't lose sight of that. with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering, signal intelligence encryptions this is a challenge that we have been working on since i have been president. it was amplified when mr. snowden did what he did.

it has gone off the pages -- the front pages of the news, but we haven't stopped working on it. we have been in dialogue with companies and have systematically worked through ways in which we can meet legitimate privacy concerns, but also meet the very real concerns that david wright identified and my fbi director identified. social media and the internet is a primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. that is no different than anybody else, but they are good at it. when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal and forms with due process, rule of law, and presents oversight that is a

capability that we have to preserve. the biggest damage that was done as a consequence of the snowden disclosures was in some cases a complete undermining of trust. some would say that was justified. i would argue that although there are some legitimate concerns there, overall the united states government and from what i have seen, the british government, have operated in a scrupulous and lawful way to try to balance the security and privacy concerns. we can do better. that is what we are doing. we are still going to have to find ways to make sure that if an al qaeda affiliate is operating in great britain or the united states, that we can try to prevent real tragedy.

the companies want to see that as well. they are patriots. they have families they want to see protected. we just have to work through in when -- in what in many cases are technical issues. there is not so much difference in intent. how to square the circle on these issues is difficult. we are working with partners like great britain and the united kingdom but we are also going to be in dialogue with companies to try to make that work. >> on the iranian issue i think at this point that you -- i don't think you can characterize it if there is a deal, new pressure has to be applied to iran. even if there is a deal, a key to that deal will be transparency and making sure this country isn't developing a nuclear weapon. that would mean repeated pressure.

i would absolutely back up what barack says about recognizing that in so many other ways, we have some major disagreements with what the iranians have been doing. britain has suffered particularly from the way that our embassy and staff were treated in that country. we approached this with a huge amount of skepticism and concern , but the goal of iran without a nuclear weapon makes these talks worthwhile. is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism? i would argue that we turned some time ago. maybe britain in particular, because of the appalling attacks that took place in 2005, but there have been attacks elsewhere in europe. since i have been prime minister, there has probably been at least one major plot every year of quite a significant nature that we have managed to intercept, stop, and

prevent. the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is absolutely their across government, across parliament, and across the different political parties. there is an opportunity for countries in europe who perhaps up to now have been less affected, to work with them and make sure that we share knowledge and skills. when you say the turning point is making sure your legislation is up to date, making sure your police and security services have the capabilities they need, making sure you've got programs that can channel extremists away and making sure you are best integrating your communities -- it means doing all of those things. i agree with what barack says about the importance of building strong and integrated societies. i made a speech about this, saying there had been a mistake in the past in some countries had treated different groups and different religious groups as separate blocks rather than try

to build a strong, common home together. that is what we should be doing. that is what our policy is directed to. of course, you need to have a multiracial, multiethnic society of huge opportunity wherein one generation or two generations you can come to our country and be in the cabinets, you can serve the highest level in the armed forces, you can sit on the bench as a judge. i've got in my cabinet someone just like that, who in two generations his family has gone from arriving in britain to sitting at the -- that is vitally important, as is combating unemployment and poverty. here is the determining point. you can have people who have had all the advantages of integration, who had all the economic opportunities our countries can offer, who still get seduced by this poisonous radical death cult of a narrative we have seen in recent

weeks. people have gone to fight in syria who had every opportunity and every advantage in life in terms of integration. let's never lose sight of the real enemy here, which is the poisonous narrative perverting islam. that is what we have to focus on, recognizing that we held ourselves in the struggle if we create societies a genuine opportunity, if we create genuine integration between our communities. let's never lose sight of the heart of the matter. as for the issue on the techniques necessary for intelligence services to help keep us safe, all i would say -- the president and i had a good discussion about this earlier -- i don't think either of us are trying to enunciate some new doctrine. i take a simple approach to this. ever since we have been sending level -- letters or contact each

other on the internet, it has been possible in both our companies -- countries by signed warrant, by the home secretary to potentially listen to a call between two terrorists to stuff them in activity. in your country, a judicial process, where -- we believe in very clear front doors through legal processes that should help to keep our country safe. as technology develops as the world moves on we should try to avoid the safe havens that could be created for terrorists to talk to each other. that is the goal that is so important. i am in no doubt having been prime minister for foreign half years, having seen how are our intelligence services work, and there is a connection between that and the capabilities that our intelligence services within the law used to defend our people. i think the final question is

from robert moore from my tv. >> there is a security alert all round the jewish community in britain. is that based on specific intelligence, should people be concerned about doing their daily activities this weekend and do you regard the terrorist attack on british soil as almost inevitable? mr. president, you say there's a dialogue underway with big american tech companies but do you share the prime minister's view that the current threat environment is so severe there does need to be a swing of the pendulum from privacy to counterterrorism and in this era avenue private, encrypted comedic and is a dangerous one. >> issue is a threat that we face. the level has been set at severe

. it has been sent by an independent expert organization so people can have full confidence that these things are not done for any other motive than to look at the evidence about terrorist threat and to set the level accordingly. when it is said at severe the authorities leave an attack is highly likely. if we believed it was imminent we would move to the next level which is critical. we clearly do face a very real threat in our country in recent months as i was discussing with the president. we have had a number of potential attacks averted from british -- by british police officers. that is the picture. it is regularly up dated and reviewed but it should not be moved unless there is real evidence to do so. this is based on what has happened in france on the whole

picture that we see and it is sensible, precautionary measures to make sure we do what we can to reassure those communities, communities who are aware of the threat they face in this is a bigger challenge. one of the most moving sites in paris was to see so many people holding up signs saying i am a cop, i am a jew. it was moving that people wanted to stand together with one community that had been singled out. not because of anything other than the fact that they were jewish and it is important that we state -- speak up and stand up for those communities and give them the protection they deserve. >> obviously in the wake of paris, our attention is heightened. but i have to tell you over the last six years threat streams

are fairly constant. david deals with them every day. i do with them every day. our hard terrorism do with them every day. i do not think there is a situation in which because things are so much more dangerous, the pendulum needs to swing. we need to find a consistent framework whereby our publics have confidence that their government can both protect them but not abuse our capacity to operate in cyberspace and because this is a whole new world, as david said, the loss that might have been -- the laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. how we do that needs to be debated both here and in the

u.s. and in the u.k. we are getting better at it. we're striking the balance better. i think companies here in the u.s. at least recognize that they have a responsibility to the public but also want to make sure that they are meeting their responsibilities to their customers that are using their products and so the dialogue that we are engaged in is designed to make sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement and our intelligence officers can identify that threat and track that threat. at the same time that our governments are not going around

fishing into whatever text you might be sending on your smart phone. and i think that is something that can be achieved. there are going to be situations where there are hard cases but for the most part, those who are worried about big brother sometimes obscure or deliberately ignore all the legal safeguards that have been put in place to assure people's privacy and to make sure that government is not abusing these powers and on the other hand there are times when law enforcement and those of us whose job it is to protect the public are not thinking about those problems because we are trying to track and prevent the particular terrorist event from happening. it is useful to have civil

libertarians and others having us on the shoulder in the midst of this process undermining us that there are values at stake as well and we welcome that kind of debate. the technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. if we get into a situation which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we are confident is a terrorist, if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the middle east that traces directly back to london or new york, we have specific information, we are confident that this individual or this network is about to activate a plot, and despite knowing that information despite having a phone number, despite having social media or

an e-mail address that we cannot penetrate that, that is a problem. and so that is the kind of dialogue that we're having with these companies. part of it is a legal issue part of it is a technical question, but overall i and confident that we can balance these imperatives and we should not feel because we just have seen a horrific attack in paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. we have, unfortunately, this has been a constant backdrop, and i think we will continue to be for any prime minister or president for some time to come and we have to make sure that we do not overreact but that we remain vigilant and we are serious

about our responsibilities. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it area thank you. -- appreciate it. thank you. >> president obama and david cameron wrapping up two days of meetings and winding up an hour-long news conference. we would like to get your thoughts about what you heard. where might do to make sure you turn down your television or

radio -- we remind you to make sure that you turn down your television or radio. we will look for tweets, # c-spanchats. this conference will reenter and looking ahead into next week the president will spend part of this holiday weekend preparing for the state of the union which is tuesday night. coverage of that beginning at 8 p.m. and the republican response from joni ernst after that. some of the early reporting on this news conference with president obama and british prime minister david cameron. --they talked about a couple of issues here, cyber security and

certainly iran with potential -- another round of sanctions looming from capitol hill. let's go to your comments. this is diane and our independent line. >> i was just watching the prime minister and the president. i thought it was fabulous. i have not paid much attention to the terrorism. going on in the world and now i feel like i am more educated about it so i thought it would speak on the behalf of the american people saying c-span is a great channel and it should be on prime time. other news programs are filler. maybe just trying to avoid the subject. i thought this was really educational. i am happy. >> we will have it in prime time and we will show you the news conference and prime time again on c-span. norcross, georgia next up. welcome, go ahead. >> i enjoy your program, i have

-- i think everyone is on board with what the president is saying and we need to be diligent in what we are doing. thank you. >> thank you, lois. a couple of tweets following the conference. this is paul singer. that's one of the issues. david cameron regarding muslims. stephen dennis who covers the white house for cq rollcall tweets -- quoting the words of the president. a little bit on the economy. british election set for next week. one of the issues that came up was the iran sanctions. the possibility of further sanctions on iran.

meeting with some -- senate democrats, and about some of that meeting. the president and his news conference reiterating a threat a veto threat over additional sanctions if they were to pass congress. eli, nevada. guy is next. what did you hear from the president? >> what i heard is a great deal of rhetoric. i no longer believe the man. he is isa master speaker but he

does not govern the way he speaks. i have no absolute confidence that iran will not ultimately get the nuclear weapons that he wants a desperately. i see no way this president is preventing it. >> are you surprised that that issue certainly dominated a good part of the news conference? >> yes, it did. it certainly did. >> does that surprise you at all? >> it is in imminent threat. i see it as president, one of the greatest allies we have in the least is israel, abandoned by this president. absolutely abandoned, and he gets up and he says, we have an

ally israel. i do not know why he has not been challenged more on this because every president in the past has been allies of israel. >> that is ely, nevada. bertha is next, welcome. >> i am 92 and i listened to this conference and i think it was one of the best ones i have heard. let's face it, you cannot be that biased and say everything is fine. we do have problems and right now, we have bigger problems than we ever had. we need to carefully talk to these people, give them a chance to change their lives but we cannot keep saying yes to everybody just because they want to be right. you cannot always be right.

i really listened to obama this time and i got to give the guy credit. he has an awful lot of knowledge and he knows how to use psychology because he does it quite well. dave cameron, i have heard him a number of times. i see nothing wrong. what some of the bias is is they do not want to be conservative. we have to be conservative. you have to be conservative in your home. you have to be conservative in any political situation if you're going to try to deal with people because you cannot just say yes. one of the worst things we have done is to make it in our schools and homes to have no morality. why? as we stopped doing what we are supposed to be doing. we just want give me give me,

give me. >> thank you,b ertha. this did not, the george tweets -- -- but george tweets -- let's hear from louisville kentucky. >> thank you for taking my call. i had some question about the terrorist thing. i have not heard a lot of people ask this question. i'm wondering for homegrown terrorists, whenever they choose to go to these hotbed countries that are known for terrorism and training, isn't there a way that we can tighten up their trip to my cat we scrutinize the more can't we allow them to go to yemen if they want to but warned

them when they go that you're going to go through a mountain of scrutiny when you decide you want to come back to this country because we want to know what you been up to while you are there and what you are trained for and what your plans are. can we tighten our security for the return of those people? can we make adjustments to their bases? and we warn them when they go there might be trouble coming back area >> the issue of visas, expired visas was part of our conversation. let's go to st. paul, minnesota. you're on the republican line, welcome. >> i would like to say that our president obama today, our president did a good job --

>> a good job of what? >> being with the -- beating up on david cameron. >> we are doing a good job to have britain and france on our side like in the old days of winston churchill. >> here is andrew in harrisburg, pennsylvania. republicans wrapping up there it trade up there in hershey by harrisburg. >> thank you for having me. i was wondering, the fact that muslim violence i should say versus judeo-christian violence, i understand there is a conflict in the middle east with israel

and palestine. it almost seems like this is -- this muslim extremism is a more pressing issue for our times than is any other religious extremism. i wanted to comment on that to throw that in the hat. maybe we are having more of a problem with certain religious ideologies than we are others. and now i guess it is islam's time like the dark ages of christianity. i just wanted to comment on that. >> thank you for that. there is a tweet from the bbc on the news conference. u.k. and u.s. to work more closely to show expertise on violent extremism, says david cameron. the national journal tweeted as the conference was getting underway. a couple more calls here.

hello, on our others line. >> the thing i noted the most between the two statesmen is our president obama's lack of willingness to call this [indiscernible] what it is. it is a death cult. that characterizes -- [indiscernible] the response to this twenty-year campaign. it seems to be a very neutral -- based on assimilation which does not require anything of us except possibly long, drawnout, neutralized wars. i just wonder if that is what he is going to do, if that is the plan with iran as well. a similar -- assimilation into

the greater population. it does not seem to work on a small scale, it will not work on that scale either. >> thank you for your call. the president mentioning that britain will be part of we think it is later in the month, a white house conference on fighting islamic terrorism. what they term violent extremism. we can tell you the residence meant -- next major address coming up next tuesday night and we will have live coverage of that here beginning at 8 p.m. eastern and also following up with the republican response. joni ernst will be the first freshman to give the republican response to the state of the man. that will follow our live coverage getting underway at 8 p.m. eastern care on c-span and c-span radio as well. the entire news conference will air tonight here on c-span at 8

p.m. and we will show it to you next as well. it is over one hour. >> the president of the united states and the prime minister of the united kingdom and norm -- northern ireland. >> good afternoon. this month marks a notable anniversary. 200 years since the battle of nor lanes. here in america we called it a great victory over the mighty united kingdom. our british friends call it a technicality. the treaty ending the war was signed weeks before. either way, we have long since made up. on this 200 anniversary of a great american victory, we count their united kingdom is one of our greatest friends and strongest allies and today it is a great pleasure to welcome prime minister david cameron back to the white house. as many as at -- as many of you

know, david noted how comfortable the two of us are working together. this sent some commentators into a tizzy. others debated its definition. several analyzed how this term has evolved over time. some seemed confused and asked what does obama mean and so let me put the speculation to rest. david is a great friend and he is one of my closest and most trusted partners in the world. many of our most pressing challenges that we face, we see the world the same way. we recognize that as i have said before when the u.s. and the united kingdom stand together. our nations are more secure in their people are more prosperous and the world the safer and more just. great britain is our indispensable partner and david

has been personally an outstanding partner. with oath of our economies growing and unemployment falling, we used a working dinner to discuss how we can create more jobs for peace. we believe that this needs to be the year when the u.s. and the european union make real progress toward the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and we share the view that boosting demand in europe can also keep our economies growing. as innovative economies in this information age, we are expanding on technologies to prove how our government's server citizens and businesses given the urgent and growing danger of cyber threats we decided to expand to protect critical infrastructure in the privacy of our people. we believe that a strong commitment to reducing

greenhouse gases will be an essential element of any ambitious climate agreement that we seek in paris this year and this will spur the creation of more clean energy jobs on both sides of the atlantic. with regard to security, american-british unity is enabling us to meet challenges in europe and beyond. we agreed to maintain strong sanctions against russia until it ends its action in ukraine. we agree that the international community needs to remain united as we seek a comprehensive diplomatic solution to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i would add that additional sanctions on iran would undermine that international unity and set back our chances for a diplomatic solution. and as the leading contributors to the global response to a bowl a in west africa we urge the

world to continue stepping up with resources that are required so we simply do not stop this disease, we do more to prevent future epidemics. much of our discussion focused on the continuing threat of terrorism. in the wake of the vicious attacks in paris as well as the new surfacing out of belgium today we continue to stand unequivocally not only with our french friends and allies, but with also all of our partners who are dealing with this scourge. i know david joins me when i say we will continue to do everything we can in our power to help france seek the justice that is needed, and all our countries are working together seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist networks. with our combat mission in afghanistan over, we are focused with our nato allies on assisting and equipping afghan forces to secure their own country and deny al qaeda any safe haven there.

and we will continue to count on great britain as one of our strongest counterterrorism earners -- partners. we are systematically taking out isil fighters, we are putting them on the defensive and helping local forces in iraq push these terrorists back. david and i agree that we need to keep stepping up the training of iraqi forces. we will not relent until this terrorist organization is destroyed. the terrorist group underscored how terrorist groups are trying to support people in our own countries to engage in terrorism. i lead a special session of the un security council last fall to rally the world to meet the

threat of foreign terrorist fighters, including coming from syria. david and the united kingdom continue to be strong partners in this work. at the same time we both recognize that intelligence and military force alone will not solve this problem. we will keep working together on strategies to counter violent extremism that radicalizes recruits and mobilizes young people to engage in terrorism. local communities, families, neighbors, faith leaders have a vital role to play in that effort. we also look forward to welcoming our british friends to the summit next month on countering violent terrorism. whether in europe or america, a critical weapon against terrorism is our adherence to our freedoms and values at home, including the pluralism and respect and tolerance that