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 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. we 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 guinea, 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 year we must crack ebola, also be the year we tackle extreme property -- poverty 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

kindred spirits 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 bind us across the atlantic and the values that are peoples hold so dear. we have stood together so often, not just because we faced common 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 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 veto 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. the 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 and 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. 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. 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.

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 steep in this stuff day in and day out. we don't 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 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 an iranian president. there is a very clear offer there 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 all but 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 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. we 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 partners 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 the 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 and 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, that has 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. it 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 in degrading their capabilities inside of syria even as we are working with partners to make sure the foreign fighters situation is resolved. i think 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 communities around the world. i do not consider an existential threat. we are stronger, we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in -- in tolerance and working together to build rather than to destroy. so this is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction. but it is one that ultimately we are going to defeat. we can't just defeat it through weapons. one 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 that counter narrative against this nihilism is put out there as aggressively and as 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 is going to 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 doing it. [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. so we must be doing something right. major garrett. >> 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. are you also sending a message to iran that if sanctions talks fail, that a war footing is the

next most likely alternative and 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, back doors 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 footing should negotiations with iran fail. if in fact 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 want 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 plus 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, 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. so the bottom line is this -- we may not get there, but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. and i should point out that even if we get a nuclear deal and we are assured 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.

so my main message to congress at this point is just hold your fire. nobody around the world doubts my ability to get additional sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. so 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 the 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 better. we learn from mistakes. each incident that occurs teaches our professionals how we

might be able to prevent these the next time. and 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 that europe has some particular challenges. and i said this to david. the united states has one big advantage in this whole process. and it is not that our law enforcement or our intelligence services, etc., are so much better, although ours are very very good, and i think europeans would recognize we have capabilities others don't have.

our biggest advantage, major, is that our muslim populations feel themselves to be americans, and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that is probably our greatest strength. it doesn't mean we aren't subject to the kinds of tragedies that we saw at the boston marathon. but that has been helpful. there are parts of europe in which that is not the case. and 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 is going to be as important, if not more important, over time in 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. obviously, it was amplified when mr. snowden did what he did. it has gone off the front pages

of the news, but we haven't stopped working on it. and 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 identified and my fbi director identified. social media and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. now, that is no different than anybody else, but they are good at it, and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process, rule of law, and presents oversight, then that is a capability that we have to preserve. and 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. and we can do better. and that is what we are doing. but 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. i think 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 what are technical issues. there is not so much difference in intent. how to square the circle on these issues is difficult. and 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 -- i make this point that 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, and 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 appalling way that our embassy and staff were treated in that country. we approach this with a huge amount of skepticism and concern, but the goal of iran without a nuclear weapon makes these talks worthwhile. you question, 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. so the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is

absolutely there across government, across parliament, and across the different political parties, in the police and intelligence services. 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, because 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 better 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 in munich, saying there had been a mistake in the past in some countries had treated different groups and different religious groups as separate blocs rather than try to build a strong common home together. that is what we should be doing. and that is what our policy is

directed to. and 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 you can 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 i think the really 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 help 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 -- and 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. the doctrine i approached this would -- [inaudible] i take a simple approach to this. ever since we have been sending letters or contacting each other on the internet, it has been

possible in both our 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, we believe in very clear front doors through legal processes that should help to keep our countries 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 because i am in no doubt, having been prime minister for 4 1/2 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 use to defend our people. i think the final question is

from robert moore from itv news. >> 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 a terrorist attack on british soil as almost inevitable? and, 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 maybe from privacy to counterterrorism and in this era of private, encrypted communications is a dangerous one? >> the 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

never done for any other motive than to look at the evidence about terrorist threat and to set the level accordingly. when the level set at severe the authorities leave an attack is -- believe an attack is highly likely. if we believe 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 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, and this is a bigger challenge. one of the most moving sights 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 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 deal with them every day.

our conterterrorism professionals deal 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 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 united states and in the u.k.

we are getting better at it. i think we're striking the balance better. i think companies here in the united states 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 -- a particular terrorist event from happening. it is useful to have civil

libertarians and others tapping 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, or despite having a social media address 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 to have with these companies. part of it is a legal issue, part of it is a technical question, but overall, i am confident that we can balance these imperatives and we should not feel as if 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 are serious about our responsibilities there. thank you very much, everybody.

appreciate it. thank you. [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] >> we will show this again at 8:00 tonight on c-span. tomorrow morning, michael warren . after that, a look at annual student assessments and the recent request to congress for an additional $2.7 billion. live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00, bret sptephens. sunday night at 10:00, steve israel on his recent novel. on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 8:00 p.m., john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion any american west. sunday afternoon at 4:00, nine from little rock, the film about the fourth desegregation of

little rock, arkansas's, all-white high school. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> tuesday night president obama delivers his state of the union address. coverage begins at 8:00, including the speech, the gop response delivered by senator ernst, and your reaction to open phones. on c-span2, watch congressional reaction from statuary hall in the u.s. capito the state of the union addressl,. live on c-span, c-span2 c-span radio, and www.c-span.org.

>> earlier today, john kirby briefed reporters. he spoke for about 50 minutes. >> the training program for syrian rebels in terms of which country they would go to. >> basically, everything. i can tell you is the general continues to work this very hard. i think what you can expect is several hundred u.s. troops being sent over there any training capacity to the various sites that are still being established and prepared. i think you will start to see orders for some of those troops over the next four to six weeks. some could be given orders very soon, perhaps as soon as within the next week.

but they will flow in over the next four to six weeks. i'm hesitant to give a number because some of the solutions are being worked out, but several hundred is the right range. they will be spread out apportioned to the different sites. it is important there will be contributions from other nations as well. in addition to some countries hosting the training, we expect there will be countries that will also contribute trainers to this effort and to complement ours. will not just be a u.s. effort. there will also be, back to the u.s. side, in addition to the several hundred traders we think we will need to provide, you can expect to see there will be additional u.s. service members

going in a support capacity, what we call traditionally enablers. i do not know. some of these sourcing solutions are still being worked. no workers have been cut as we sit here today. i cannot get into specifics just now, but as we always do, as orders are cut, we will make the appropriate announcements at the right time. but the main point to your question is that the progress continues on this. you know we read out the meeting that the general it is stable with some of the leaders with the syrian opposition. his takeaway from those meeting was they were positive, optimistic. he felt he learned a lot about them out their interest in this, was clear to ihim that they

had an interest in contributing trainees to this program, so there is interest on their part, got the message things are moving in the right direction. >> how far does the settingvetting go? >> they are working with that motor opposition leadership to identify potential syrian moderate groups from which recruiting could occur, but no recruiting has actually started. no trainees have been identified and enrolled in this program. he feels optimistic that every stays on track, and that is a big if, that he believes training could begin as early as this spring. >> different subject. you will see what has unfolded in france and belgium. what concerns does it raise now that by all accounts we have now seen isis loyalists who have

gone to syria and in fact and able to make their way back into europe, have gone to work with aqap, have made their way back into your --what concerns is there that this reality has taken place, and both with isis and aqap, is anything that you could do anything different that could keep up on that threat? >> without getting into the specifics of that two incidents which are either under investigation or pursued by belgian authorities, i do not have direct knowledge about the specific links between the perpetrators in those two incidents are alleged perpetrators with aqap or isil. i cannot speak to the degree to which they did or did not get finance resources directly.

all that aside, we have been very clear, since the beginning of this schema that the threat of foreign fighters, that threat that foreign fighters could close to the homeland and to the homelands of our partners and allies in western countries remains potent and real. this ideology, particularly the ideology espoused by isil, is coded and very attractive to a body of young men, in particular and we have been very clear-eyed about that threat. it remains a serious concern. as you might imagine, we work every day this conflict aside we continue to work, and one of the lessons of 9/11 is due to work with interagency partners, particularly the department of homeland security, to share information and to collaborate as much as possible. the threat of foreign fighters

is not a threat that will be solved purely by military means. there are military components to it. there are things we can do, such as fighting this enemy and helping our iraqi partners fight this enemy over there that it is something we are mindful of all the time. >> is there a potential hacked tweet out there? >> are you talking about the one about george washington? again a short you that george -- i can assure you that george washington is getting needed maintenance done. she has not been attacked by anyone. >> i will follow up on that question french president france will hold on said to the crew of the french aircraft carrier deployment saying that the attacks in paris are links to the work they are going to do. i wonder if this building agrees

with that logic and whether there is any sense among american forces as well that the ongoing campaign in iraq and syria is somehow linked what happened in paris? >> plate what happened -- linked to what happened to the specific attack in paris and the conviction back to the campaign? look, we do not know the degree to which those individuals were directed specifically resourced. i have seen that isil has claimed credit for this. i have not seen anything that indicates a direct link in that regard. but i think to some degree that discussion is fairly academic and not completely relevant. the fact is that, or at least the evidence so far indicates,

that at the very least they were inspired by the ideology of isil. and we know that al qaeda in particular, and i know that al qaeda considered a separate entity here, but we know that al qaeda and other radical islamists groups desire to inspire and incite violence. so whether it was directed and tangibly resourced whether it was simply an inspirational attack you could argue that al qaeda achieve the goal right because they got that at the very least it motivated them to do this. i can also assure you that over the last 13 years nobody in uniform anywhere in the world has ever forgotten what happened on 9/11 and the violence perpetrated by terrorists since then, and delete kitsch -- lin

to what theyk are doinga around work, particularlyge in the middle east. of course, they see the connections between what happened in paris and potentially could have happened in belgium to what they are doing in iraq and syria when it comes to fighting violent extremism, which we have been engaged in with, again, for more than a decade. >> you have any detail about what the french aircraft carrier contribution is going to be? >> you grateful they are contributing to the effort. i cannot speak to what they are doing every day, but an aircraft carrier can provide a great agility, but civility, and firepower from the sea, operating with our allies. i think that points to the french in the french navy to speak specifically to the ship will be doing.

and aircraft carrying is a potent military instrument. >> on the trainers given your also going to have enabling trips as well, is it realistic to expect close to a thousand u.s. personnel in the end in the training effort? >> i am hesitant that reticent to give you an exact -- i am reticent to give you an exact number. it could be about a like number of enablers and personnel. all told, total for this mission could approach a thousand. it might exceed that. i cannot rule that out. again, what we need to be a careful about numbers here, because they will change, and the sourcing solutions are still being worked out. as we get better fidelity on this and as units get orders to go, we will make sure we will let you know. >> how soon will those moderate

syrian revels the underground fighting? >> how soon? we said all along that the training could take at least several months before they would be in a position to head back into the fight. it is hard to say. if the training is able to start in march, we could be looking at some oppositions getting back into syria and into the fight before the end of the year. i think that is certainly a possibility, that we have got a lot of work to do before we are there. >> achilles update -- could you please update about the general in afghanistan. there is a different report published about the isis. some authorities say that isis has shown up in afghanistan. the general sentiment known, is not seen -- the general has

said, no, he has not seen any evidence. what is your reaction, because it is a big concern for afghan? >> i do not think he said there are not any. it is something we are watching and mindful of. our assessment is -- and i have seen no evidence here that there is any significant isil presence in afghanistan or a strong recruiting effort. we cannot rollu and that is what the generalle th was talking about. at out, not only does it espouse a brutal ideology, but they are somewhat conventional listing about it, and they want to grow, increase, inspire others, so we could roll it out to a might -- the they would try to inspire her to attract recruits from

afghanistan or from the telegram. kitchen-- the taliban. that the taliban and their ideology is different from isil. is a completely different strain. and they see themselves a part of the future of afghanistan. you have wanted to govern afghanistan since they lost power in the early 2000's. it is a different mindsett, organization. you cannot rule that out. >> you give us an update. there were 1500 troops to coin to the jordanians. are many troops are still there and what are they doing? >> have a great relationship

with jordan as you know that doesn't call corporation exercises and operation -- cooperation with exercises and operations. i am not at liberty to discuss the specific number of u.s. troops in jordan. we will respect the host nation sensitivity in that regard. >> are they training of iraqis?are iraqis being brought to train with jordanian trainers there? >> iraqi training program in jordan, but i will not detail the specific numbers of u.s. troops in jordan or detail specifically what they are doing. i want to respect the host nation's sensitivities there. >> what is the number of the syrian fighters who would be trained at the beginning? you have any idea? >> we have not even begun

recruiting that. the program has been established, and the general is pursuing it to achieve about a capacity of about 5400 trainees over the course of the first year. we testified to congress about that. nothing has changed about that being the goal. >> is in context, we heard many times in this building that turkey is cooperating in the united states confronting that flow of fighters into syria and catherine countering isil's influence. today the turkish prime minister -- [indiscernible] i would like to hear from you, what is the pentagon's position with regard to those comments? he said that publishing has the

thing to do with the freedom of expression. that they agree with what they said today? >> first of all, is that habit of the pentagon to speak to state to state relations here. that said, nobody works harder, nobody sacrifices more, than the men and women in uniform leiter for the right of free speech and expression. the standard people of paris and france on this, and we will continue to do so. no we would not associate ourselves with an opinion that anyone -- by anyone that would blame the publishers of "cha rl;ieie hebdo" for what happened

to them. we would find that blame to be completely inappropriate, and not just downright wrong. that said, everything you noted in the first part of your question about a relationship with turkey is accurate. we are grateful for turkey's federation's and the contributions they intend to continue to make the help us in this anti-isil campaign. they have agreed to contribute trainers to that effort at their site and there is lots of other ways in which we are working with turkey against this very real threat. while we would not associate ourselves at all with the sentiment, it does not change the fact that turkey is still a need to outline and a close friend in the region and a

reliable partner in this effort. >> how would you characterize the relationship between the united states and nigeria's military, and is there a rift and if so,, how does that affect the effort to rein in boko haram? >> i would not say there is a rift. we continue to work with the military to counter the threat posed by boko haram. so many counterterrorism efforts are, and it fluctuates over time , intelligence changes over time, your ability to assist one another and is and flows based on other requirements -- ebbs and flows based on other permits, so we will continue to work with the nigerian forces against threat. >> [indiscernible] >> we said we regretted that.

if it's back to joe's questions. even friends disagree. as we regretted that training got canceled because it would be useful, it does not mean you cast aside the relationship. >> and the refe effort to rein in bok do we get enougho cooperation with nigeria? >> we are him the good go better. the training that did not occur would have been helpful to have had occurred. is a relationship and we have to continue to work on it, and we are committed to doing that. >> what is the assessment of the massacre, the number of 2000, in a general threat now for the

last week or so? questions about what is the u.s. response. [indiscernible] >> i have not seen anything that would challenge the assessment of the scope of the massacre. i do not get be appropriate to get we think that number is right or not. and the violence on a perfect scale, which we condemn. it is a grim reminder, but a serious reminder of how important this relationship is. >> this group can conduct that kind of a level of massacre -- www.c-span.org [indiscernible] it occurs because we were negligent in some ways. this is a relationship that is important. we had a counterterrorism presence there. you want to do as much as you can taste them this kind of

violence -- you can to stem this kind of violence. >> has changed, what is the mood? >> i do not have any details these events to offer you in terms of anything that has changed, and i would not want to speak for them in this regard. i would point you to africom. >> what steps are the trip you are preparing to send will take against insider attacks, because they are bringing people off the street to fight? i know you cannot tell us how many troops can go, but what kind of tricks are going to go? green berets, from across the force? will the force look like? >> i want to challenge your assessment that will take people off the streets. is going to be a significant vetting program in place,

multilayered, and one that is implemented over the course of the training to make sure we are dealing with individuals and with units that are trusted. to that completely eliminate the threat of insider attacks? absolutely not. regrettably, we have quite a bit of experience in dealing with that threat, and without getting into specific force protection rules of engagement with you, i can assure you that a component of the u.s. personnel will be applied to this mission will be applied in a forced reduction capacity. there will be trainers and it will be forced protection security personnel, that will accompany and be a long throughout. we have a hard way. -- we have learned the hard way. your second question, i know i was going to forget it. >> what kind of troops ongoing?

>> you can expect a mix. the source solutions are still being worked out, it is fair to say to trainers will be special operations forces. these are troops, is is a core mission for them, they are good at it, and it will be fully not to employ their skills. you can expect to see dimensional forces applied to the mission. >> how many training center been identified for this mission, and what is this vetting process taking this long? >> i do not know the exact number of sites. there are three countries that we talked about posting sites. it is possible in one or two bank of those countries there may more than one site. i do not have that level of fidelity. we are looking at other sites in other countries in the region as well that we are still working through. at the very least we of three

countries that we know, in a publicly talked about who are supporting district your second question, this is hard stuff. first of all, we need someb of these authorities from congress which now we have going into the year. that was a problem in terms of getting started. the general just met this week in is dental syrian -- week in istanbul with syrian opposition leaders. there are a lot of good people in syria that are doing lots of hard, dangerous work inside syria. this was an introductory meeting. was changed to better understand the challenges of the opposition leadership is facing itself in organizing groups and units. and a chance to wrap our arms

around the scope of the recruiting mission and how difficult it is going to be. as i said, the general came away optimistic that the syrian opposition leadership wants this program as badly as we do. they want to help us get the right groups and individuals into it. and he is confident that the dialogue can use as healthily as it has been, that we can do it this spring. i want to talk about vetting, and vetting is not just a single path and go. we are very good at this because we have had to learn how to vet when we have trained other foreign military forces in the past. week will also rely on information and intelligence that are provided by the intelligence community and by

partners in the region to include turkey, people who know these groups as well, and to provide good third-party assessments of some of these opposition groups and some of these -- sorry, some of these individuals that would participate. stitching together that network will take some time. we want to be careful. it is important we get it right rather than we get it fast. there are significant risks if you get it wrong. to second that point i would make is you can look at vetting as one and done, you're in, have a nice life. they are going to be continually vetted throughout the process. the training will not be unlike the training regimen that is being set up in iraq for iraqi forces for the building block approach. opposition members are not a uniformed army that they are

incorrect, so the baseline will start at a lower level of skills and development, but it will be a building block approach. as the units process through they will be vetted again before they are allowed to proceed to the next level of training. it will be organized. you know how to do this. what we have learned is it takes time and you have to be the thought. >> you have any idea how many foreign militaries are going to be also participating in this training? to numbers on that and how many troops -- do you have numbers on that and how many troops will be trained? >> i do not have numbers on that. that is being worked out. it could be in the hundreds from other countries. the nations who have agreed to sponsor sites have also agreed to contribute trainers to it. takehe exact numbers are

still being worked out. >> [indiscernible] how many other countries besides the u.s., 10,>> want to ask you about ukraine. the u.s. ambassador said today that hundreds of pieces of military equipment, including tanks and rockets, a flown from russia into the ukraine. he went on to say these events confirmed what we have seen since january 3. an increased push by russia to not only consolidate territory but the cease-fire line. is there anything you can tell us in this building that you have been singing? -- seeing? >> we would not disagree with the assessment. we have an increase of violence over the last week. we continue to see russia

ignoring the minsk agreement and continuing to flow supplies, equipment and material to separatists across the border. heavy equipment. that's been unabated. we have talked about this for months and it continues. i think it changes. ii could not give you a meter day-to-day. it is not like every day is the same but over time, it has continued unabated. >> the past few weeks, have you seen any change? >> i have not seen any -- i cannot speak to any measurable change one way or the other in the last several weeks. simply that it has just continued. >> the president spoke about the risks of military conflict with iran should negotiations fail. i want your thoughts on that and

what it might mean for u.s. activities in iraqw and syria. >> the effort to bring iran to the table is a diplomatic one not a military one. i wouldn't want to speak to anything here from the podium that would in any way but those discussions in jeopardy -- put those discussions in jeopardy. it is a nobody's interest to be a military conflict with iran nor doesn't have to be that way. -- does it have to be that way. we have been clear with our policies. the president has been very clear about that. i think i leave it at that. >> thank you. to follow up, what if any additional consequences is the u.s. and nato planning if russia

continues to go in the path they are going? on cyber security, with president obama talking about beefing up cyber security, is the pentagon planning any military wide changes? >> i don't speak on the hypotheticals of the commander-in-chief might speak. the president spoke about russia and the need to continue pressure diplomatic and economic on russia. >> is the pressure working? >> i think if you look at what happened at russia's economy, absolutely. russia's continued isolation in the world absolutely. what putin's actions of also done is strengthened and renewed emphasis to nato and to the alliance and to our ability our

willingness to continue to look to reassure our european partners. it is in russia's interest here to do the right thing not just for the neighborhood, but their own people. their economy continues to suffer. we have said from the very beginning, secretary hagel made clear there is no solution to this. >> on cyber security, what increased measures is the pentagon planning? is there any military white efforts? >-- wie de efforts? >> we'll talk about future operations. -- we don't talk about future operations. this is a domain we continue to pay a lot of attention to. you will see a lot of a concerted effort in the future as we've seen in the past. >> we have heard repeatedly that

focus remains on -- yet publicly available records show the number of strikes between 2012 and 2014 dropped by half. can you help us understand how that focus remains even though the number of strikes happening in yemen -- >> the question presupposes that the way you measure intensity is through airstrikes and that is a false metric. i don't have the math in front of me so let me just argue for the sake that you are right and increased. is it? >> [indiscernible] >> ok, let's assume you're right. it doesn't mean we have taken it off as a threat or don't continue to look for opportunities to stem their growth and development and th wart attacks they might be in the process of planning. i think if you go back over the last 10 years and you look at

everything that the u.s. military has done to contribute to counterterrorism and counterterrorism operations, you will see we have been very active and very effective at getting these guys where they are and trying to get ahead of attacks they might be planning. it does not mean it is perfect. it doesn't mean that every now and then one of them gets away. it doesn't mean you can stop every single attack, but we have a pretty strong track record of taking it seriously. nobody here will let their foot off the gas. >> i wanted to ask given the u.s. has been a leader in terms of striking and has claimed response ability for the attack, have there any been any military assistance requested from france on one of those targets?

>> we don't talk about future operations here. i would never get into hypothetical discussions about that. i can tell you there have been no specific requests from the military. secretary hagel spoke to the minister on friday. there was no specific request by the french military for u.s. military assistance with respect to this a ticket -- this particular attack. >> at the end of the proverbial day, who is going to be -- who are they going to fight? isis or the syrian government troops? how do you ensure that they will stay on the mark? >> we talked about this before. there will be three purposes. one, to get them prepared and able to defend their own communities and citizens and go

back to their own towns and helfp defend. two, to eventually go on the offensive against isil. three, to help work with political opposition leaders towards political solution in syria. that is what we are getting them ready to do. you talk about who is going to be watching them. part of what the purpose of this training is to develop leadership of their own. good competent military leadership of their own. if there is any range of good leaders inside the opposition and some not so good. part of the purpose of this basic military school -- basic military skills and small unit leadership skills that they will be trained to do. the idea is to train themselves

to lead themselves. >> how do you actually get them to conduct operations against isis as opposed to syrian military facilities for example? >> you're thing about this the wrong way. it's not like we wouldd be directing them from inside the theater. >> their main enemy is assad. the only reason i can imagine they would agree to hosting training or even allow trainers would be because there has been some understanding that those forces somehow will not be necessarily directed primarily at isis. i may be wrong. >> the purpose of the training is to get them to defend their communities, go on the offensive against isil, and work towards a political solution. their training will be good

military leadership. their military leadership. we talked a lot about boots on the ground, indigenous boots on the ground of matter the most. we want syrian moderate opposition to be trained for those three purposes and lead themselves to those ends. >> i know you addressed the tweet. is there concerned that these kinds of incidents, these kinds of misrepresentations could lead to some kind of actual miscalculation involving operational assets? >> anytime there is bad information, you have to be mindful of the repercussions. that is why we double check, triple check. there is no overriding concern about a false tweet leading to some kind of armed conflict. no. obviously, we are going to check

and recheck information sources from all different sides. >> following up, u.s. and china were supposed to develop some kind of methodology to prevent this kind of thing -- miscalculations in the far east. how is that coming along? >> we do have avenues of communication with the chinese leadership. chairman dempsey has a way to communicate directly with his counterpart in beijing. we have other avenues through other agencies, particularly the state department. i can tell you nobody got ramped up about this tweet about the uss george washington. social media is a great level er in a terrific platform to share information. it is also regrettably a platform for foolish people to do fullest things. -- folisolish things. we are not going to overreact.

in this case, it was us simple thing to knock down. >> admiral you were talking about syrian rebels and political answers. we are going to be training them to help solve the issues politically. how can we prepare them? is a through an arms race? giving them more weapons and means that that would have more power or respect? how are we going to be training them politically? >> we are not training them politically. it is trained them to help them seek a political solution inside syria. >> how are we going to help them do that? >> helped him support political opposition as they continue to exert pressure on the assad regime. >> i will give you a question

from a different standpoint. >> he didn't like my first answer? >> it was not good enough. [laughter] >> you are here between 2009 and 2011 he and secretary gates were asked several times about the efficacy of striaaits. military could only setback iran one to three years. the president today gently resurrected the military option again. can you check to see if the pentagon still holds the view that military strikes would only at best delay iran's nuclear program by wantedone to three years? >> i think nothing will change about the belief that military action would simply delay. i would have to go back and look to see of our estimate is still one to three years.

nobody would challenge the presumption that military action would simply, would probably only delay the inevitable. >> at wegman air force base, the secretary gave an enthusiastic shout out to the air force's new long-range bomber program. the air force has classified most of the details. they put out incomplete cost information on the bombers. >> incomplete? >> incomplete. i don't want to give budget figures. they put out a $550 million bomber figure which is woefully incomplete. here is my question. what is secretary hagel's level of confidence that the air force is properly managed so the next secretary of defense and the next after him don't inherit an overprice of the program? >> i think the secretary

appreciates all the work the air force at the done in preparing this program. theyhe knows they have prices. out $550 million per copy. >> it is an incomplete figure but go ahead. >> he is comfortable they have done the homework. come up with that estimate. it is an estimate based on multiple reviews of the program. he is comfortable they are going to proceed to develop this in the most cost efficient manner possible. >> it would please a lot of the public if you get the air force to declassify some of this. it will be good to get more information about the program. >> i know many details of the program are classified as rightly so, but i will duly pass on your concern to the united states air force. [laughter]

>> the follow-up on the training again, the u.s. military trainers would then take over the smaller program the cia has been carrying out? will they merge? >> i will not speak for another agency. i can only talk about what we are doing. this is a new program that is being established. we want to get it right more than we wanted fast. it is being established, created from the ground up. the general is working very hard at this. i think he is optimistic. should everything continue to go well we will start to see this training commonplace early this spring -- go into place this spring. you are?

[laughter] >> can you say if there is any decision -- ican you say this is not been the idea to merge the programs? >> well, justin, what i can tell he was the general is working on this program. it is a dod program. i'm not -- what i will say and i alluded to this earlier is that in the vetting process, we are going to pull all resources that already exist and that already have information about some of these recruits to include information and experience provided by her own intelligence community. -- by our own intelligence community. i don't think i can characterize it anymore clearly and distinctly that i just did.

we are going to pull on the information and the knowledge that other agencies and other government have about these groups. this is a dod program. >> associated with any theoretical other programs that might have taken place? >> we are going to do our own recruiting and own vetting. the>> the third step of the program involves uniformed u.s. members training syrian militants on how to seek political solutions within their own government or within their own political environment. >> we would not classify them as militants. it is syrian moderate opposition members. one of the things that will be trained to do is to help support the political opposition against the assad regime. the primary goal of this training is to get incapable of defending their citizens, communities and go on the offense against isil.

that is the main goal. it has been a long time. got to go. you got one? >> can you talk about the developments in the letter case. what changes have been made to contracting so you are sure that kind of case is not going to happen again? >> it is an ongoing investigation. that is really more of a navy question. thanks everybody. collects earlier today president obama held a joint news conference with british prime minister david cameron. they talked about a range of issues and his hope that congress will hold off on the sanctions until negotiations play out with the country. here is more. >> i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful but it is my team that is at the table.

we are in this stuff day in and day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on these for 5, 6, 7 years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom's in making this as sessment. on asking congress to hold up because our negotiators, our partners those who are most integrally involved -- intimately involved assessing that it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems 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 as to why i am doing so. 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 im but i am not persuading congress, i will take my case to the american people on this. >> just a reminder, we will be showing the news conferences again tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. you can also watch anytime online at www.c-span.org. here are some of the featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 on both tv -- book tv,

bret stephens argues our competitors are seeking advantage of the situation abroad as it focuses on is the method concerns. sunday night, democratic representative from new york steve israel on his recent novel about the top-secret government surveillance program. on american history tv, saturday 8:00 eastern george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west during the 1830's. sunday afternoon on real america, the 1964 academy award-winning film about the forced desegregation of little rock, arkansas's all-white central high school. find our schedule at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us or send us a tweet.

joined the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern, including the president's speech, the gop response delivered by joni ernst and your reaction through open phones live on c-span and c-span radio, on c-span2, watch the president's speech and congressional reaction from the u.s. capitol. the state of the union address live on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, a new book on legislative gridlock which offers suggestions on how to make congress functional again. from washington journal, this is one hour. >> "washington journal of school continues. host: this morning, two

long-time members of congress -- tom davis, martin frost co-authors along with longtime political reporter rich cohen of this book, "the partisan divide -- congress in crisis." in your book gentlemen -- "either of us might have become speaker of the house, but our parties move away from us." how so? guest: well, we were both political moderates. tom was a leader in the republican party, so much so that when he wanted to run forces 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 what my party 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: esther davis. guest: it is the -- 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 thread 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 artisan 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: at 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. basically, the information people are getting, particularly the activists, tend to be pretty one-sided. finally, you have the campaign-finance reform that is

worse than ever. the money did not disappear. it is out on the wings. basically, that is a story. guest: i want to go to your original question because it is an interesting one. tom and i are both partisans. he was a partisan republican. i was a partisan democrat. in the final analysis, we believe you could cover my zen meet in the middle. he could be a strong republican, i could be a strong democrat, but that did not mean we could not ultimately talk to each other. what has happened in the current system because the threat is now in a primary, if harry public in talks to a democrat, suggests they might that if he, the republican talks to a democrat suggests that they might meet, it suggests he would consider

voting on their side and the same thing could happen on the democratic side. the democrats as i would like to work with republicans on the chichi, they are subject -- on this issue, they are subject to a challenge by their own party. the real election is in the primary. that does not mean many incumbents lose the primaries, but it means they change their behavior from -- to prevent a primary challenge from occurring and that is bad for the system. guest: we have a good subchapter on eric cantor's defeat in virginia. this is in the chapter called "all 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 to do we want 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 communit