he 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 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. publicans 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 will have divided government for a long time in most normal situations. guest: the system favors democrats for president, the governments for congress, so you have divided government. guest: we spend a chapter on that called the new normal divided government. host: and this is your chance to talk to italy will former longtime --two former longtime congressman. martin frost, tom davis, who have written a book, "the partisan divide." here are the blurbs at the end of the book to give you a sense of the bipartisanship.

those are some of the people that endorsed the book. we have barely scratched the surface in what is in here. charlotte. tallahassee. democrats line. you are on. caller: good morning gentlemen c-span, and happy new year to brian lamb and c-span. i wanted to speak about the state of the voting rights act. mr. davis there was sharing that the voting rights act, in his commentary, was the reason for the partisan divide and the gerrymandering that we now have.

guest: i disagree with that. guest: it is an unintended consequence, not the reason. caller: without the voting rights act black citizens would not have -- that is not the reason for the gerrymandering. gerrymandering is because a legislatures have created the value of partisan divide because of their preference of party politics. i wanted to say if i could, 15 states in 2014 were the first directive states to create new restrictions on voting rights, and those states were primarily states that created them were republicans. host: all right, charlotte. guest: she is raising a question

and tom and i have strong views. guest: it is a good question. guest: what she is talking about is the voter id laws where you have to show a photo id and a discriminate against minorities, old people, because in some states say you have to show a driver's license to a lot of people in this country -- drivers license. a lot of people in this country do not have a drivers license. in texas, you can use a hunting license, but not a school id here in -- id. they were designed to limit the rights to vote and limit people sympathetic to the democratic party. they are being challenged in court. it is going to the supreme court, and hopefully we will get clarity. guest: i will give a different perspective. guest: this is one we disagree on. guest: you want to be reasonable. you do not want to stop anyone from voting, but you ought to be

able to show an id. it stops fraud. a survey shows there are over 10 million voters illegally registered in this country. it protects my vote for someone to show some kind of identification. you do not need to make a burdensome. political regimes will always pass rules that help them, not help the other side. when democrats get in, the first thing they do is say let's let felons vote. guest: people that have served their time. guest: you can have good policy arguments on both, but i'm just saying there is wrong politics on both sides. guest: efforts to restrict the electorate are not good for the country. the country does best when the largest number of people vote. guest: vote legally. host: in the chapter "the way forward," "two suggestions --

bring back your marks and accommodate more bipartisan fraternization." guest: for the first 150 years of the republic, earmarks were the way projects were funded. this was a huge transfer of legislative power to the executive branch when congress walked away from earmarks. it is ironic that republicans are suing the president for getting to their areas and is serving power when they have given him the power to have earmarks for solyndras of the world. earmarks give everyone skin in the game. members can designate project it gives them a reason to vote

thanks. since they took as a, you're not had freestanding appropriation bills. everything is an omnibus, or a c romnibus. members have a reason to vote for something, and that brings people together. if that is them with appropriate transparency appropriate metrics, i think it is a healthy thing, and it will help bring congress together. on the fraternization thing, we meet every week, martin the chairman of the democratic caucus, the chairman of the republican caucus, we would be up there and it is important to get people together to talk about why we are really here. we used to do that. lisa have bipartisan enclaves, but our own rules -- we used to have bipartisan enclaves, but our own ethic rules make it difficult. guest: it is not an either/or

proposition. it is not either you have earmarks earmark -- or all kind of earmarks. you had to have your name attached so we knew where it came from. secondly limit earmarks to your own congressional district if you are a congressman, to your own state. you had abuses. my former college classmate, who i did not know in college, duke cunningham, both went to the university of missouri the same year, did not know him, was a congressman from san diego. he used earmarks and took bribes from defense contractors to earmark projects. of course that is wrong. there is a constructive way to do earmarks. the business community in texas came to me in texas -- they were not all democrats, but i had a way of getting things done.

the republican represented north dallas and his constituents to not believe in the use of federal funds for mass transit. a democratic, snap-on other part of the county did not want mass transit -- congressman from another part of the county did not want mass transit. not in my backyard. i was the only one that favored mass transit for the city of dallas, and i was able to get an earmark and we now have one of the finest light rail systems in the country and it was with the support of the business community because dallas was the largest city in the country that did not have mass transit. it was a constructive use of earmarks. host: has the lack of order on capitol hill hurt the congressional committees? guest: it killed the committees in general because you have separate offices. guest: you ought to be able to have a full committee process were people vote in committee,

and you ought to be able to offer amendments on the floor. that is what we are talking about in regular order, rather than something been cooked up in the office of the speaker. that has occurred with both democratic and republican speakers. that is not the province of one party. hopefully we will move away from that. host: dave. annandale, virginia, republican line, a district that tom davis used to represent. caller: yes i am at the corner of tom davis drive at the post office. guest: my wife wanted me to ask about that and she sighed and wanted to know if that was named for -- saw it and wanted to know if it was named for tom? caller: what mr. mcdonald did was wrong i want his grades --

host: we will have to condense that. virginia politics. guest: on the mcdonald deal, everyone knows taking gifts was illegal. if the recipient thought he was getting something in return, and this went to a jury, and they made that assumption -- it will be on appeal at this point. it was not the gift, but the conspiracy behind i am going to take this and deliver something. it is not clear to a lot of us that mr. williams got anything in return. it went to a jury, and the jury made his decision. guest: i will not get into what happened in that case. i now live in northern virginia. i live in alexandria virginia, and virginia, in recent years has had good state government. what happened with the most recent governor was an aberration. host: do you think virginia

should continue to restrict the governor to one term? guest: that is a good question. my wife in the state senate chaired a committee to look at that, and some of them recommended a six-year term. i do not believe in term limits. iran my first time, and we are the only state in the country. it used to be the south in general, many states had one limit. once in a while, a populous government would come in and four years, and they were out. guest: my state of texas might have some problems, but we never went along with this before missed stuff we do not have term limits, and we seem to have gotten along fine. guest: i am glad you said that. the theory of a term -- four

years, full-time attention to doing the right thing, but if you go back to georgetown, doug wilder, they were all running for president. i think maccoll was the one that was not running for president. guest: you never know. do not say never. host: do either of ucl at oral offices in your future? -- do either of you see elected office in your future guest: i do not see it. guest: i am purposely content where i am. i've started teaching a course at night. i know tom to use a course at george mason. i am chairman of the board for the national endowment for democracy, very important organization. i found there are plenty of things to do. guest: i am the chairman of the

board of trustees at george mason university, the largest university in the state. we have had two nobel prize winners and one final four basketball team. guest: i do hope that good people continue to run for office because our system needs bright capable, younger people running for all of us on the local level, and ultimately the federal level, if the system will survive. host: tyler, binghamton, new york. thanks for holding. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have been listening for a little while now, and my question is -- i think it is pretty apparent in the media and among the american citizens that this hyper polarization of the government and of congress is causing a lot of problems, so my question for you gentlemen, is what you think is still feeling the? i think people in congress

representatives, they understand this. they know the american people can see this divide and that it is doing harm. what is the incentive? host: i want to make sure we are kind of equal here. mr. frost, if you could start this time. guest: have talked about some of these things. one of the problems -- you have to understand how significant this is, and what a problem this is for the way congress operates. with these one-party districts -- safe, one-party districts people do not have to work across party lines anymore. there is no incentive to cooperate, because if a republican member talks about cooperating with a democrat or working on a bipartisan basis, the republican member is subject to a very serious challenge in his or her own primary sometimes fueled by outside money that is not even reported. the dark money the c4's will

attack a member because that ember suggest they should be bipartisan -- that member even suggest they should be bipartisan. that should change because the democracy does not function well when a member of congress is afraid to cast a tough vote, afraid to talk to the other side, because in the next election they will have a couple million dollar spent against them in a low-turnout primary, and they could lose. guest: even in the senate, you had four states where the presidential election was within five percentage points. that is a huge seachange from 25 years ago. single-party constituencies -- as we said before, it is not just gerrymandering. it is residential patterns and we spent a lot of time talking about this in the book -- all members, they have to pay attention to their primary voters, and primary voters are a narrow, ideological slice of the total electorate.

they tend to punish compromise. i would just say our subchapter on eric cantor's election illustrates this. guest: we have made specific suggestions, not just having bipartisan commissions draw districts, but also requiring full disclosure, money spent in campaigns. right now, we are suggesting that congress has a law that says that anyone or only organization, any entity that mentions a candidate by name has to disclose all its contributors. congress can do that tomorrow. congress has not done that. we have also suggested having a national primary day. one of the problems as you have low turnouts in primaries now. so eight well organized local organization can control the primary.

there would be more media attention focused on what is going on. you have to do something to break the string hold of a very small, well organized groups that can threaten an incumbent in a primary with money that is not disclosed. our system is a good system. unfortunately, we have had some things happen in recent years that have made it more difficult for our system to function. guest: we have straight ticket voting. we have a chapter called all politics is no longer local where we point out that now in congressional races, it is no longer people voting for the person people -- people basically vote for the party. it is not in the book, what it happened after he wrote the book but the maryland republican chairman wins a packed primary and goes on to win the general election. with virtually no roots in the district against every who had been there a long time. host: from fall 2008 th one vignettes from the back room was

a discussion from a conservative district who said i hope you guys pass this bill. great, we are glad to have your vote. this is close. he replied, oh, i can vote for this -- can't vote for this. i just hope it passes. i could never explain us back home. guest: tom's vignette. host: yes, it is. is this frequent for both of you? guest: yes, it is more frequent today than it used to be. in the old days, the people who casted the tough votes were from a safe district, and if you're from a marginal seat, you are given a pass. they don't consider them safe. but they are not safe and they're worried about the primaries. we call it the hope but no cost. and it is a pre-consistent group up there on capitol hill right now. guest: and i have talked about -

in terms of talking- and going back. guest: i statement on texas is 2 to 1. some of the republican congressman that i know personally are very fine individuals that would like to work on a bipartisan basis. they would like to meet somewhere in the middle, but they won't do it, can't do it because they are afraid of being defeated in the primary. we somehow have to find a way where we can go back to a time when members would like to work across the aisle feel comfortable in doing it and they don't feel threatened every day of their lives that they even suggest that they might do that. host: the book is called "the partisan divide: congress in crisis". go ahead the democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. when i think of this, i think

you guys are right on. there is a definite partisan divide. my parents were both moderate republicans, but they later turned both democrat and remained that way until they died. and i had always been a kind of moderate democrat. ok, they changed after nixon but after george w. bush, i -- i flew really far to the left. you know, to the left side. and, i mean, i think after george w. bush 's -- he would have one, and it showed that the congress and the white house were all democrat. i think that it is just a cautionary tale that -- that if we remain, you know, if the white house, whoever is

president, remains moderate, this partisan divide will subside. host: ok, joy. i think we got a lot there. let's talk to tom davis about that. guest: joy, i appreciate your comments. a couple things. we have a chapter in the book called to the new normal. 80% of the time since 1980 we have had a divided government. three times, we have had midterm elections where one party controlled the presidency, the house, and the senate. each ensuing midterm election, the voters threw them out. voters really don't trust either party. the irony is that about for a percent of americans are self-described independents. the problem is they don't participate in the primaries. and they are drawn out of the safe districts. so, you know, when you put it together. you have a narrow slice of the electric controlling the

majority of these districts. i think i will stop right there but that is the difficulty for somebody who wants to be a moderate, they are not allowed to act that way because the primary voters will not reward that behavior. guest: and assisting experiment going on in california right now. california change their electoral system so that now everybody can run in a primary regardless of party. you can have 10 candidates in the primary, and it is the top two who make the runoff and are then in the general election. so that permits moderate candidates to have a chance. maybe one of those moderates makes it through the system and gets to the final two. whereas under the current system, and many states, the moderates are screened out in the primary process. in california, sometimes you run up with two democrats having to run against each other, or to republicans running against each other. it remains to be seen how the system will work, but at least they are experimenting.

at least they tried in california to make it more possible to have a broader range of people competing for office. let's see how that goes. guest: louisiana has that suit tradition -- situation, as well. to republicans ended in a runoff. one republican when over to the african-american vote in the district. so the democrats, if you will, the lack voters in the district went behind him and ended up winning the special. with democratic votes in a republican runoff. so democrats mattered in that district. independents mattered. he ended up kissing his girlfriend on camera. [laughter] but what happened was the special indicative of the dynamic. guest: we the oldest continuous democracy in the world.

our system has somehow managed to survive, and we have survived by making changes. by renewing ourselves. by being willing to consider new things. we had some very bad practices in the past we had a bowl tax in the south, even some states had an all-white primary. we have eliminated those. we are now at a point where we need to consider making some more changes so that we will continue to be a vibrant democracy. host: farmingdale, new jersey. independent line. good morning. caller: hello. host: where listening, sir. caller: hours wondering whether either of you two gentlemen have discussed increasing the number of members of the house of representatives? there hasn't been an increase since 1910. up to that time, it had been increased every -- host: do think that is what happened?

caller: yes, i do. guest: when i was first elected, i think i had hundred and 34,000 people in my district. the district kept getting larger. the problem with this the district kept getting larger. the problem with this -- people may have trouble understanding this, it is a crazy problem -- you have to build a new office building. if you wanted to make the house larger, you could clearly do that. you could have smaller constituencies. guest: well, i ask again a bill passed in the house that increased the house. it allowed district of columbia to have a vote. it would've have been a democratic and republican seat coming in. in 1958, they increase the house to allow alaska and hawaii to come in. so, there is presence for that. it is within the power of the house. i don't think either party right now thinks it is to their advantage.

when that happens, it changes. >> host: so, tom davis, people are going to see your maneuver and say, ok, again protecting your own. you're going to protect your republican seats. you are going to guarantee a democratic seat in washington , dc. is that just politics? guest: well, it is politics, but it is also the nation's capital -- i thought the capital of the free world to have the ruling congress. we are spending billions of dollars to bring democracy to baghdad and afghanistan, and we don't allow the nations capital to have a vote in thehouse? the only way i can get votes is to add a votes that would balance that. that is why alaska and hawaii were brought in. one republican state, one democratic state. they used to do one slave state and one non-.

it is politics 101, but it is how you get things done. guest: the issue of puerto rico. if puerto rico were to become a state, puerto rico would be entitled to five or six congressman because of itspopulation. so you would have to expand the house. you're not going to take congressional districts away from other states. the problem with that -- if they elect all democrats, republicans are not going to -- guest: i don't think that is right. you know, they have a series of republican members down there. host: can democrats be competitive in texas again? and can republicans be competitive in california again? guest: in texas, it is going to take a while. but time is on our side. the question is how long is that? the hispanic population in texas keeps growing republicans keep , giving hispanics the stiff arm, saying we don't want you. turnout among hispanics in texas

has not been as high as among other groups. it is not good happen overnight. eventually, texas will be a purple state. the question is when. we thought we had a pretty good candidate for governor last time with wendy davis. she didn't end up getting a wide percentage of the vote. texas is still a very tough state for democrats, but time is on our side. we will see what happens. guest: i mean, can they stay competitive? it has been difficult for them to win the state wide races in the california. what killed the republicans in california is not just the rising minority vote, which they are getting no share at all to speak of, except of in the valley where we have some candidate to have made those adjustments, but the cultural issues. cultural issues along the coast. there is only one republican in california who has a pacific ocean seat. every other district -- everything else, even the orange county seat, they are inlets now.

the wavy lines are drawn. but these to be solidly republican. but because of some of the cultural views -- whether it is drugs, gay rights, some of these other issues -- people who -- abortion -- these issues have hurt the republican constituencies in california. it has had the opposite effect in some other areas. guest: my guess about texas is that when we have a really attractive, really articulate experienced hispanic run , statewide is a democrat, it could get very interesting. we have some younger hispanics. we have the castro twins, one of whom is in congress. the other is in the cabinet now. we have others that i know could be very, very good statewide candidates. that may be the thing that finally pushes the democrats -- the state into being democratic.

host: this tweet -- is it to -- thrrue that of the vote for speaker were secret, boehner would not have one? -- won? guest: i think he probably would have done better. the reality is, you had a lot of interest groups out there that were scoring this. voters that were scoring this on the right. and i think for that reason, you know, -- guest: i don't think that people -- that nancy pelosi would have gotten any more votes if it had gotten close. host: is there a divide between the leadership and the rank-and-file, as it were, in each caucus? guest: there is a bigger divide on the republican side. guest: there is a bigger divide on our side. when you have a president come you can of bring people together. what happens today is when the president party in congress follows the party. -- follows the president. it is no longer a separation of

powers. it becomes almost parliamentary in its behavior. on the other hand, the minority party considers themselves the opposition party. instead of mitigating adverse effects and offers members of your districts know on everything -- a secret vote for speaker and --there is a prize devoting against the speaker. i talked to a member that got 1000 calls in his office saying dump boehner. so you had this huge push -- we talked about the polarized media and the like and the growth of the internet and electronic communications -- that have

basically been polarizing the members. they were afraid to cast that vote. >> spam democrats basically are in agreement at this point on most major issues. the issues in the past were there has been some disagreement in the democratic party have been on trade and national defense. if you go to a system where you have a fair redistricting system, i think you would probably have more democrats which would be off the reservation on those kind of issues. host: all right. john, maryland. the independent line. caller: good morning, guys. my question is about gerrymandering and redistricting and if it feasible or even reasonable that you guys would maybe create a law or a mandate where you would mathematically kind of decide what the districts are? so if you had maybe the narrowest part of the district couldn't be more than, like, one half. guest: it is interesting. congress, a number of years ago,

did adopt some standards on what districts should look like. however, they let that law lapse. congress has the authority, the power, under the constitution to pass legislation requiring nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to create districts. they also have the power to require compact districts -- i don't know mathematically how this works -- but to not permit the strangely shaped districts. whether congress ever dues that -- does that is another matter. under the current congress, they are not going to pass a law that does any of these things and that is unfortunate. it has led to the current procedures. guest: the reasonable answer is yes. host: you are on with tom davis and martin frost.

caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about term limits. i know that tom mentioned he is against term limits; however our system was never meant to have full-time, college degree politicians. that is not what we are supposed to have. it is supposed be a government of the people, by the people. our population is growing and yet the number of politicians seems to be getting smaller and smaller and smaller. guest: could i start on that? it is a very interesting question. and the united states supreme court, whether you like them or not, has spoken on the subject. the supreme court said in a ruling some years ago that you could not have term limits for federal office. their reasoning was that the constitution has the qualifications for being a member of congress. you have to be 25 years old, a house number 30 years old, a resident of the state you're

running from, and those are the only requirements. and you cannot add to the requirement. the supreme court said you could not impose term limits on top of the existing requirements in the constitution. the only way to do it would be to amend the constitution. that requires a vote of two thirds of both houses -- it is conceivable there could be some grassroots movement for term limits, but the only way you cut a compass that on a federal -- you could accomplish that on a federal level is by amending the u.s. constitution. guest: the seminal case -- i voted for term limits in a constitutional amendment in my first term in congress. you go to the state council, then the state senate, then the board of supervisors. yes, it is a professional class. and you take the voters out of it. you lose a lot of institutional

knowledge when you limit that, and i think that is really important. i think one of the issues in congress now is that have so many new people. you don't have a lot of people who understand the way things ought to work. my thinking has evolved on that. i voted for the constitutional amendment change when i first came to congress, but i think now, probably the voters are the ones who should put term limits on, not some institutional bias. guest: and i am opposed to term limits because, one, it gives power to the bureaucracy. you have a bunch of congressmen coming in every few years, and the career bureaucrats would have even more power. and it cedes power to the lobbyists and the interest groups. the current system, where people can run for as many terms as

they want the only check being , that the public and decide whether to keep them or not keep them, i think that works better than having artificial term limits. california has been a cast because of term limits because the legislature continues to have an experienced -- an experienced inexpereinced people around. host: derailment, politically, could you have written this book while you're in congress? guest: no. it is much easier to make observations once you are out. guest: no. that too many groups being candid about these things. guest: also, it helps to be out for a while, step back, and look at all of this. i mean, i have been out for 10 years now. tom has not been out quite that long. but it has given me a perspective. and i continue to be interested in politics, i continue to work and help democrats get elected but i have a different view now that i no longer have to walk in

a cast votes every day. no longer have two brought in raise millions of dollars to be reelected. so i think this would have been a very difficult book to read while i was still in congress. guest: a number of members have read this book, and i think we have been pretty good reviews from members say, right on. host: in effect, you guys right, the president party in congress has simply become an appendage of the executive branch. the out party responds by reflexively opposing presidential initiatives. a couple of decades ago, the congressional wing would act like a minority partner and have a voice sometimes tamping down presidential initiatives. don in myrtle beach. the republican line. thank you for holding. please go ahead. caller: well, thank you. good morning, gentlemen.

the reason i am calling is i really getting a kick out of watching the show this morning. you're talking about how we can all get along together. well, you all getting along over the years has brought us $18 trillion in debt. medicare and medicaid will be stopped in the future years. all you really care about is the governing class in washington. you're not fooling anybody with this charade and this book. what you don't want is the boat be rocked by people like the tea party. and i forget the senator's name on the democratic side -- to run for president. guest: i understand what you -- caller: i'm sorry, what, sir? caller: those are the two that rocked the boat the most on the democratic side. caller: so all this conversation this morning -- all you care

about is to keep government growing and keeping your club intact, that is all you guys care about. host: don in myrtle beach. guest: well, thanks for the kind words. i just want to add that i supported a balanced budget. i did not want to be in washington on the music stops because sooner or later, we know where this game and. you cannot continue to borrow and spend away. but you know, getting up there and saying no doesn't solve anything at all. just doing sequestration and attacking pieces of the budget that is direct spending doesn't solve it. really, the growth of money that you are spending is an entitlement. i have supported raising the age for social security retirement. if he is more familiar with my record -- at the end of the day, you have to come to some agreement.

you cannot just sit there and stalemate everything. guest: i have family in south carolina --not in myrtle beach but in other parts of south carolina -- and i have heard this sentiment before. look, our interests in times of crisis -- and we do have some potential economic crisis facing this country -- that you'd be able to work across party lines. that doesn't mean you have to agree on everything, but right before world war ii, when -- the draft was extended by one vote. a single vote. that was a year before the year -- the war started. that was done on a bipartisan basis. when the civil rights acts were passed -- the 64 act and the 65 act, lyndon johnson was president, and he had a number of people from the south who were opposed and who were going to filibuster it in the senate. johnson went to the republican leader and said, you are from

the state of illinois, from the state of lincoln. we need your help on this important legislation. in fact, democrats and republicans joined together and passed landmark legislation that was clearly in the best interest of our country. so you do need the ability to work together. not on everything, there are going to be some strong differences. we are not suggesting that a party shouldn't stand for principles. but there should be the opportunity for them when there are serious options facing the question that they can come together and solve it. i was in congress in 1983 when a bipartisan commission by ronald reagan a republican, came up with a solution to solve social security for a long. of time -- period of time. that was done on a bipartisan basis. there is a need for the two parties to work together. not on everything and not to give up printable, but when

-- principal but when there are major problems facing the country, there needs to be bipartisanship. host: you were a congressman when medicare part d passed. was it open for several hours? guest: three hours. i picked up three democrats on that. i can walk you through the whole thing. again, democratic party upbringing is an opposition party. we don't want guys to get credit for this, a. and they wanted a more ambitious program. and become expanding, getting the government to do something on health care -- they were very nervous about that. what medicaid costs have done tuesday budgets for higher education --it is just sucking up every spare dollar into health care costs. but the realistic alternative is

if we did nothing, we had a discharge petition on the other side that would do a lot more. to me came up with something that were kind of split it to the practical side. and we got very little help from the democrats. and we had people regulating against it. there is a practical side that said it was not just a campaign issue, but if it goes out on the floor on a discharge petition, it will be worse. we see you get some bad results from this but the drumbeat was getting more prescription drug aid for seniors was very, very strong in the polls. over 70%. host: mike is in akron, ohio. independent line. mike, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. i happen to live in the 13th district. i congressman is from youngstown.i like youngstown but i live in nw akron.

i think it is ironic that the gop will have the jury bantering in cleveland, when the gerrymandering in cleveland is the worst in the nation. what i would like to say is my congressman from the 1970's and -- in the 1980's was john. he was able to speak truth to power. he told him, who in the hell do you think you are to try and move it from akron to someplace out of ohio? now we have people who tell the workers of tennessee, if you vote for a union, you are putting yourself out of a job. that is completely backwards from the good old days. we used to have congressman speak truth to power. guest: we have some interesting maps on gerrymandering in the book. i don't know if you can show it. clearly, the way districts are

drawn right now often, those ways make no sense at all. guest: the political center -- culture in tennessee --they were defending that tradition very strongly, but it talks about the differences in this country. in ohio, you know, a union town and akron. ayres was the congressman before siberling won the seat. guest: and you are showing those on the screen now. host: we are, but these are some of the wrong ones. we have some that are a little bit more solid in there. guest: a district in chicago.

host: yes, we have this district here. why is it shaped like that? guest: because it is connected to hispanic areas to keep it a hispanic district. host: you have it running along i-95. guest: you would kill half the people driving down the highway. host: we have this here, gentlemen, it is a little bit more solid here. i cannot see the name on it. and here is one in ohio. guest: yes, that is a district along the lake that put two democrats together. it runs along the lake, and puts as many democrats as they could in the area. that is republican gerrymander. illinois is a democratic gerrymander. host: you can look at it right here. they are both chicago. guest: yes, they're both chicago

districts. the maryland district and the pennsylvania district on the next page i even better, if you can get those. this is really modern art. i think picasso would be proud of these districts. host: they have a pretty solid district, but then some outliers. this is baltimore. this is a maryland district. and here's maryland's third. is one of these elijah cummings? guest: the second is -- i like the one below that to the left. the pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania, it looks like two dogs kicking each other. host: and this is district seven. guest: i think it is a new district. a new district designed by a republican legislature. i think these are pretty creative. if they give an academy award, i think that one would be right up there. guest: this district was drawn

to try and eliminate a liberal democrat from congress. if they ran his district down from austin to san antonio, than -- then they could get rid of him. well, he won anyway. he was able to survive, but they go to great lengths to try and target individual members of congress. host: what role did you two have while in congress with creating districts? guest: we were in the middle of it. we were in the middle of it. it was the rules we have to play by. it was part of the deal in california to preserve 20 republican seats. the legislators draw them, but the chairman of the campaign committee had huge savings in software. we were guilty parties in this. guest: we did the best we could do next match our party's advantage. what we are saying now is that we are no longer in congress, we don't have that responsibility. we were able to step back and

say that hasn't really served the country very well. guest: look, we are talking about the rules they gave us a that point. our job was to win seats. the result of that -- the end - guest: members do not feel free to vote their own conscious. what they think is in the best interest of the country. i have been away from this for 10 years, and i have now decided that the system that i operated under where we used to maximum political power within our states to maximize her own parties districts is not in the best interest of the country. i am now for bipartisan commissions. they ought to be used. guest: the proof is the appropriation bills. the fiscal year for the federal government starts on october 1. the last timely passed all of the appropriation bills on time and got the government the

funding and time to start was in 1996. there are always some agencies who don't know what their funding is for the year, which means there is no new starts, no innervation. in fact, it really makes it more expensive in the end. they just up the money at the end of the year because they don't want to lose it. it is a very inefficient manner. getting the budgets done is the least congress can do. guest: one of the things i worked on when i was doing redistricting in my home state of texas was to create as many marginal districts, marginally democratic, but not overwhelmingly democratic, where democrats had a chance to win. under those circumstances, they had to speak to all the workers. -- voters. they had to speak to minority voters, they had speak to conservative white voters. now you have a system where the members of congress do not have

speak to anybody other than a narrow group once they win the primary. then the general election is automatic. the results we had when i was working in redistricting in texas actually produced people who would listen to the other side. now the system doesn't produce those kind of people. host: we get this last caller, and then we can make final comments. kevin in staten island. a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for this conversation. mr. frost, come you have observed that our democracy has divided i renewing ourselves. one of the most promising changes i have seen in this country took place in 1998 when oregon voters approved requiring elected officials to mail ballots to all registered voters. the turnout rates in organ --

oregon are among the highest in the nation. it seems like this has a greater effect on the primaries, which is a point of your discussion. what is your to opinion -- your opinion of the or gone voting echog? guest: i think mail ballot makes a lot of sense. i would like to see it used more in a number of states. guest: look, you have your democracy. some states -- washington, new mexico -- over half the ballots are mailed in. i favor having an election day but let's understand how this really works. at the end of the day, parties and candidates are paying people bounties to go out and get people to bring their ballots in. guest: we're not talking about bringing ballots in, we're talking about getting them mailed in. guest: you don't cast the ballot, but if you -- these are straight up on account.

-- body counts. some permissive absentee efforts, for people who are otherwise -- guest: that is the strength of our country. some things make sense, some things were, some things don't. but we have to try keep making the system work better. we can't just say don't touch a hair on its head. that leaves do gridlock. -- leads to gridlock. host: congressman frost, one thing we haven't talk about -- talked about is the partisan divide. guest: there is a lot of things you can learn. host: we have time for one. guest: if you look at the chapter on the role of race in american politics, we just scratched the surface on that. i would ask people to read that very carefully. they're going to see how the racial composition of the electorate is changing, and the impact that that has on the two parties. and if the republican party is to remain viable, they are going

to have to adapt to this change. if they cannot adapt to it they're going to go the way of the whigs. guest: i would say that our system is not a self direct did system, but a collectible system. we have a parliamentary system both in behavior and behavior of party elected officials. it doesn't fit very well. we need to make some corrections. host: tom davis, martin frost. here is the cover of the book. "the partisan divide: congress in crisis". gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. >> michael warn of the weekly standard discusses a possible presidential run by mitt romney and it was main rivals might be. after that, the national education association looks at the annual did assessment and arne duncan's request to congress for an additional $2.7 billion.

and your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets all on washington journal. life, saturday on c-span. coming up, today's joint news conference at the white house with president obama and british prime minister david cameron. then, john kerry talking about the recent terror attacks in france and u.s.-french relations. later, martin frost and tom davis discussed them of the reasons there is gridlock in washington d.c. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] president obama and david cameron spoke about the effort to counter national and global security threats. at the recent terror attacks in france. they talk about negotiations over iran's nuclear program and the possibility of additional sanctions being opposed by

sanctions. this is one hour. >> the president of the united states and the prime minister of great britain and northern ireland. >> please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. this month marks a notable anniversary. 200 years since the battle of new orleans. here in america, we call a 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. we count the united kingdom as one of our greatest friends and

strongest allies. it is a great pleasure 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 "bro." some analyzed how this has evolved over time. some seemed confused and asked what does obama mean. let me put the speculation to rest. put simply, 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 our indispensable partner. david has been personally an authentic partner. -- outstanding partner and i thank you for your friendship. 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. -- growing. as innovative economies in his -- this information age, we're expanding our collaboration on digital technologies to improve how our governments serve our citizens and businesses. 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, american-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. i would add that additional sanctions on iran at this time would undermine that

international unity and set back 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 news 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 that 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. we will continue to count on great britain as one of our strongest counterterrorism partners. we reviewed our coalition's progress against isil. we are systematically taking out their 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 inspire and 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 and this work, including sharing intelligence and border security. 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. with that, 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. and 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 -- our 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. first and foremost 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 with exports worth

nearly 90 million pounds -- 19 billion pounds. 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

-- we will confront it 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. we will ensure they are better trained and equipped. 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 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 also reaffirm our obligations as nato partners to stand by our allies. we will be to beating an additional 1000 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 discussed that in the last few days and 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 -- at 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 poverty and climate change.

we must set goals to eradicate extreme poverty. to fight corruption and build strong institutions. 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, and -- we faced common threats, but because we fundamentally believe in the same things. that is as true today as it has always been. it 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 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. [laughter] >> um, 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

would 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. so what we did was systematically, with the help of congress, construct the most forceful, most effective sanctions regime in modern history. and what was remarkable was that when i came into office, the world was divided around this issue. iran was united.

and 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. now, 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. in fact, iran's program has not only been in abeyance, but we have actually made gains in rolling back some of the stockpiles they had. now, 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 not

only 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 negotiation's collapsing is very high. if that happens, there is no

constraint 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 is 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. if ron ends up not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances that would end 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 steeped in this stuff day in and day out. we all make judgments blindly. we have been working on this for 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 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 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 i am. if i am not persuading congress 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 and the talks have a prospect of success. i would argue, how much better is that in the other potential outcomes? that is what we should be focusing on. yes, i have contacted a couple of senators this morning and i may speak to one o'er two more this afternoon. i will not tell the american senate what they need to do. i simply make a point as a country that stands alongside america and these negotiations

that it is the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions are further threat of sanctions at this point will not actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and they could fracture the international unity which has been so valuable in presenting united fronts duron. i say this to someone who played a strong role in getting europe to sign up to be very tough sanctions. i would simply make this point that those sanctions had an effect. to those who say if you do an interim deal, if you start discussing with iranians any of these things, the sanctions will fall apart. no one will be able to -- that has been proved to not be true. the pressure is still there. as the president said, if the iranians say no and there is no deal, let's sit down and work out extra sanctions to put in

place. we are absolutely united in the simple thought which is a deal that takes a run away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon o'er military action to prevent it. it comes down to that. the way the president but it i would not is a great with. it is hard to know what the iranians are thinking about this. i am the first prime minister and 35 years to meet with an iranian president and it is hard to know what they're thinking. there is a very clear offer which is to take a run away from a nuclear -- airan away from a nuclear weapon. that is what should happen. a question from bbc. >> with extra security being put

in place today for the do community and for police officers, would people the right to conclude that the threat 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 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 -- in tolerance and working together to build

rather than destroy. this is a problem that causes 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. 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 set 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 updated 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 counterterrorism 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