and see what worked, what didn't, and try to expand it to the federal government. with the penny plan, one of the problems with sequester, which is an across-the-board cut. budgeting means setting priorities and making tough decisions. a cost cut of 1% is not setting priorities. it's a blunt instrument.

we can get independent people who know what they are doing and who know math. they can report on what's going on here. and they don't have -- let's say

they are immune to political pressure. we got to get reality. we are not going to get it from internal personnel. let's get around them and get the people who will tell us the truth. >> the br real estate cht commission is intended to be independent of government but i think the gao and the inspector general raldz are actually doing a very good job identifying areas for improvement ideaing ideas for manage yearlying improvement. the problem is those xwrochltsdz rarely get made. to the extent that congressional action is necessary to make some of these changes. there is very little glory in eliminating a program, especially if people face

lay-offs. there is less glory in that. to some extent, it's not that we don't know where to cut, that we don't know which programs work and which ones don't. we do have some good government reports that help guide those decisions, but it's from recognizing the problem, the next step is missing. where is the action to actually get rid of some of these programs. it was about relations, trust but verify. >> seems to work for a lot of issues we deal with in our life. when it comes to government spending, you can have the internal igs. they are xwentindependent. there should be verification with spot checking with where gao is asked by congress to spot check like a few random study them and report back to congress whether or not these stud wrishingz done properly and failure. it's right.

we know where a lot of the waste and abuse is coming from. the problem is the action trying to solve them one thing where i think a 1% solution type works. you are setting the framework. you have to figure out how to do it. we have the bench mark it's not i can't do it here. i don't understand where i do it here. you have 1%. figure out how to find it. >> that's what we are paying you for. >> that's the framework like a bracht commission. when you set a framework, someone has though figure out how to do it. >> congressional oversight is so hard to do because the federal government has grown so big. there are over 2,200 federal domestic assistance programs. it's very difficult to do proper oversight when government is just too big to do it. >> this goes back to looking at the '74 budget act. we budget every year. they are supposed to do oversight. budget is taking up some of their time where is the time for oversight? we might want to go to a two

year where it's set after the election and oversight is done during the election year give congress more time to look at reports, deliberate and talk about where spending is going. >>. >> he said the budget is not just numbers but it's a vision. i could take up that mantel for a second. how much do you think their cause may be hurt by focusing too much on the numbers and balancing the bucket rather than on what i 13 most people would agree is the core problem. government spending things inefficiently and these resources will be better spent in the private sector. do either of you think that we sort of sometimes miss the forest for the trees focusing on budgetary matters and not on spending at its core? >> i will take the first crack. i think we have to do both.

too often someone says balance the buvenlth. what are you going to spend it on? where do you want to cut? talking about just the programs itself, the overall picture, deficit and debt do matter. we are $18 trillion in debt. that's over 100% of our gross domestic product. everyone here in this entire country worked for a year but didn't spend any, paid it all in taxes, we would barrel pay off our debt. that's a whole year of work. >> gets worse. with each increasing deficit, we are not talking about paying down the debt. at most, about balancing the budget which means no more additional debt. am at some point, we have to pay it off. the u.k. is paying off debt from 200 years ago. serious will he they are trying to figure out if they should pay off the debt from 1812. they are rolling it over.

i think what has to happen. we have to have a discussion about what the drivers of our fiscal position are, the deficit and debt being interest and how we actually reform those programs. the idea is not just to reduce the sides of government but to spend what we do spend wisely. if you go out and talk to the american people about wanting to cut government they want to cut government. they also want the dollars we spend to be spent wise. we aren't doing that either. we are not having a holistic conversation about the budget process. >> the budget is often the starting point, and that's where the policies originate in the budget committee. >> that's why a lot of the rhetoric is around that. there are numbers associated with it. but i think when it comes to vision fundamentally, we have a vision where individuals have more control over their own lives and they are less dependent on government. and in healthcare, that means control rooming their own healthcare dollars and introducing more genuine market competition to control costs rather than the government

deciding what treatments and tests get covered and which don't. those are things that should be between doctors and patients and insurance companies. on retirement, too, these are the biggest programs that are driving the growth in spending. i think when we do reforms, we don't only make the physical condition better and help to control the debt and reduce the debt over time but we are giving people more control over their own livestha but greater ability to spend their own healthcare and their own retirement dollars and make those decisions as to when to retire and how long to work instead of being nudged and, oftentimes, pushed even more strongly by government to make a certain decision because of the way that the rules of the game are written. so, i think that's the vision is give individuals more control. they will be better off. we will have more market competition and it will make us better off fiscally and

hopefully, stave off higher taxes and make everyone worse off. >> keep in mind the bucket when it comes to priorities, it lid really is institution or person's statement what they think is the priorities. it's where campaign rhetoric meets reality, what's on paper, what we said we were going to do and committed to doing and this is it. this is the blueprint. you have to sort of lay out your vision in the budget because that's where you are specifying these are our priorities. no more campaign rhetoric. this is the reality. here it is on paper. >> i appreciate the question because it's exactly what we are trying to do here over these two days. i mean, there are a theme for all until fafrmism. there is an inverse relationship between how big the federal government gets and people's personnel freedom and we are making the argument here as an orth that big government breeds favoritism and cronyism because when there is all of this money at the trough, that's where you

are going to get that kind of deal-making that happens. we want to pare that back for people's individual freedom, for their opportunity. so putting that in that context, putting these reforms in that context, i think, is important because, yeah, i think the sub text of your question is that we can be a little bit, like, too focused on spread sheets and too into our numbers. and i think that's right. you have got to be -- you have to know the numbers. you've got to get it right. >> that's important. we have to balance. we have to do all of those things. we have to tell people why. i think that's important. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> your interest in the idea of a waste commission, something like that. could you comment on the political prospects for something like happening? are there model bills out there? are there potential responsors? is there bi-partisan sponsorship? >> i think there is interest but the momentum is slowly building. there is one bill in the house

right now by representative do you go collins that would go through the process, two appropriations bills at a time. there were bills in the past and i know there is more interest, and representative kevin mccarthy he did mention to politico that he too, had an interest in pursuing this with the newer congress. so, i am hopeful and optimistic that if not this year the then next year there will be more movement on that. >> jeff sessions was pushing this idea . we are working there with the new team over there in budget to see if senator lindsey will take it up too. it's out there. it's percolating. okay. thank you to the panelists [applause.] >> we appreciate everyone being here. again, let's take about a 25 minute break. we have senator cruz coming up congressman rocita jim jordan many others. we have a full afternoon.

feel free to take 25 minutes or so. if you need to run out of the building, there are plenty of sandwich shops. make yourselves at home on this floor. we will start back up at 25 minutes. the deadline for the student cam video competition istudes. get your entriesk entries completed now. produce a 5 to 7 minute document on the three branches and you for your chand to win the grand prize of $5,000. for a list of the rules, go to student cam.org. coming up this morning on c-span secretary of state, john kerry talking about the recent terror attacks in france and u.s./france relations at an event in paris. >> that's followed by president

obama and british prime minister david cameron discussing counter terrortism tests and global security threats. then remarks from 20s 12 presidential candidate mitt rom glory spoke last night at the republican national winter meeting san diego and life at 7:00 a.m. "washington journal ". >> secretary of state, john kerry, was in paris yesterday meeting with french president france swa hollande. his littlevisit comes a little more than a week after the taylor take over attack on a french in touch. secretary kerry reiterated america's solidarity with france. he spoke after a moment of silence and brief remarks from the mayor of paris. this is courtesy of france 241. it's half an hour.

[speaking french.] >> representatives of the civil authorities, regional precinct ladies and gentlemen parisiens,

i am particularly moved towell welcome today with you here in this historic building the city hall, the secretary of state of the united states, john kerry, a friend who has come with a message of afebruary, support, solidarity, and i am very grateful to him very grateful. i wanted this short meeting to reflect paris, to reflect what we are, and i want men and women who are working every day on a day-to-day basis who have responsibilities in the voluntary sector, political sect orders who look after our children or in our schools, is living in line with our values. i would drivewayinglike to thank and

pay tribute to all of the families the families of the victims of the assassinations of these terrorist acts which really shook us, have shaken our city and our country and, i think, the world as a whole. i would also like to pay tribute to the heroes among them police law enforcement organizations which attacked and which have carried out these difficult operations with great skill. and i would also like to pay tribute to the heroes notably the young fellow citizen. he will soon be given french nationality, the citizen from mali who made it possible to save the lives of many people who were in the kosher supermarket and the manager of the grocery supermarket is here

today, and this young person saved a lot of lives. we have experienced a very difficult period, a very intense period with drama, tragedy and the people of paris, the people of france have risen to the occasion to say no. no to barbarity, no to the objectives of the terrorists as described by -- by them. and they, the traced, wanted to attack freedom of expression freedom of speech by attacking "charlie hebdo," freedom of expression, of speech and secularism, which is one of the factors which allows this freedom of speech and some of us this morning accompanied the family and friends of charles and the funerals are currently taking place. freedom of expression

secularism, but, also, the terrorists also wanted to attack the authorities authority of the republic by attacking police officers and the terrorists also wanted to attack unfundamental limit of our history with the presence of jews in france and in paris by attacking this kosher supermarket. we renaled against this and we said we don't accept it. we will never accept these values of the republic to be attacked and in paris, these values are particularly important because paris is the city where many of these values were designed developed, and it's where the deck collaration of the rights of man was

published and many members of the jewish community settled in paris in the 18th century because they were flee from other parts of europe and paris was rec niced as the city where the jewish community could hold its meetings and house it's institutions. this city has a special history with the values of the republic not the only guarantors of these values but we want to defend them. and in this city hall of paris, mr. sectary of state, the city hall of paris has witnessedretary of state, the city hall of paris has witnessed. the communes of paris in this city hall dramatic events revolutionaries also were fighting for secularism and

equality between men and women and equality among all of our fellow citizens. i would like -- i wanted to remind you all of this because this is what unites us. this is what interviews us together, even though we may each of us have different views and the duty of democracy is to accept controversy. so this city as you have come to visit us here and this morning, you pay tribute to the victims by visiting the places where these attacks took place i wish to say this city is a friend of the united states of america. as soon as the world heard that these terrorists attacks had occurred, i received the telephone call from bill di di blasio, the mayor of new york. he immediately called me to express his solidarity his

affection, and the fact that he supported us and that he showed his friendship and compassion. dib i also -- i have also received many messages from the mayors of other american cities, new orleans, washington philadelphia, chicago, and between us there is a great mystery of friendship. today, we are part of a network of french-speaking american cities and they are part of the international organization i preside over. i chair an organization of french-speaking mayors and in lafayette in the u.s. next year, we will hold a meeting of french-speaking cities. this is very significant. i would like to conclude this speech by saying that our friendship goes back a long way goes back to lafayette and more

recently we have had the honor of hosting ceremonies memorial ceremonies which were very moving and moved a lot of us. i am referring to the commemoration of the liberation of france and in this liberation, in this commemoration, there was something of fundamental importance: the liberation of paris in 1944, which was the result of after parisian incertain rection by the internal resistance that also with the support of our allied forces and notably the americans i wanted to remind you of this these are historical events which we have not forgotten and although we are here today because of our friendship, it's because of the history which the we have been developing step by

step. it's a hugest story, and thank you, mr. john kerry for visiting united states. it's a great honor. it's an immense honor for us to welcome you here as the mayor of paris, the mayor of all parisians. [applause.] madam mayor action thank you for that very very generous welcome, and thank you for reminding us of the extraordinary history that does tie us together. what an honor for me to be here in this historic building which the mayor just talked about and

shared some of the history. the mayor showed moo an historic photograph defendant resistance members sitting there in here? in august of 1944, a reminder of the cross, hist topic, inescapable history. i appreciate you your comments about our mayors. i know you have a warm relationship with them. and not only am i in an historic building, but i am with an historic mayor because she is the first woman to serve in this. ? >> thank you. >> that is no small thing. >> thank you. >> it's a privilege to be here with you. i am particularly honored to be with members of the law enforcement community those who were so directly engaged and affected by theents, and you

honor us. you honor me and my country by being here today. we thank you so much for that. on the day of the living nightmare that began at "charlie hebdo," i had a chance to share a few thoughts with you from back home in washington. today, i just really wanted to come here and share a hug with all of paris and all of france. i wanted to express to you personally the shear horror and revulsion that all americans felt for the cowardly and despicable act, the all salt on innocent lives and on fundamental values. i want to thank president hollande, president fabous and the mayor, not only for their always-generous welcome but for

the grit and the grace that they have shown that this moment of testing for france. i also want to thank our embassy personnel, our ambassador jane heartley for their hard work and the support to the french people this past week. to share a vision of the future. >> after this nightmare, which began in the offices of "charlie hebdo," i shared with you some thoughts when i was still at home in washington. today, i wanted to be here with you in order to share with the paris of the whole of france our deep feelings. i wanted to tell you personally

the horror and the revulsion felt by all americans faced with these cowardly and ignoble and terrible attacks against innocent victims and against the fundamental values. i wish not only to thank president francois holland, anne hidalgo for their always warm welcome. but also i would like to congratulate the kurnlingzcourage that they have shown during this terrible ordeal which france has experienced. i would also line to pay tribute to the team of the us embassy in paris, our ambassador, jane heartley and the support that she has given to the french

people during these events. i rep spreevent a nation which is very proud of the fact that france is its oldest ally and in the same way as lafayette crossed the atlantic ocean to support america and in the same way as general pershing and his men came to france a century ago, shouting the same slogans as lafayette. here we are. back again. and as we have to rise to the terrible challenges together, the united states and france will always be side-by-side and will persevere side-by-side,

will win will vanquish the days that have passed since january the 5th. some people said that it was one of the most painful hours' experienced by france but we must the mustn't forget the history of the people overt decades, over the centuries, have become as another american who loved france and who knew france who knew the price of conflict. the french became stronger have become stronger. my mother is the source of special affection for france and the source of my knowledge of its history. she participated in the historical events of world war

ii and an american lady born in paris. she became a nurse and she cared for the wounded. on the eve of occupation of paris by the nazis, she fled with her sister on a bicycle, and they cycled across france a and they fled under the bullets of the occupiers and they ended up in portugal where they managed to get onto a ship which took them to the united states one of the most vivid memories i have of my youth was my -- that of my first visit to france my parents. it was the first time that my mother returned to france since she had fled from france during world war ii and i remember the

noise. she -- we were -- we saw the ruins of the paris that had been bombed and the home in which she lived was completely destroyed, only the stone staircase with a few chimneys stood, but it was only years later that i if you wouldly understood the incredible price paid by the generations in the resistance, the price they paid for freedom. the soldiers left the factories to save the world from tierny. no nation knows better than france that freedom has a price because france was at the origin many revolutions

including our own american revolution, our commitment in favor of freedom of speech and expression is an inspiration for the world to behold and words are often pourl to describe the deep emotions that i felt when i saw so many people from all over, from near and far to parade, to march together and those who wanted to divide us in fact, ended up by bringing us closer together to each other and what the ex treenlists feared the most precisely was that nobody must get this wrong. what's the extremists and the terrorists don't understand what they cannot understand is

that distance and courage will never give way to intimidation and to terror. never. and this reminds us of something else: the fact that in the deepest, darkest moment did we can bring light and for a long time the fathers will be able to say to their children and grandchildren that during these nine last days, following the infamousents of the 7th of january, ordinary men and women suddenly became heroes. and i am sure that you will talk to them about a muslim from mali who risked his life to save jewish customers in the kosher

supermarket. when he heard the attacker entering the supermarket he didn't think of his own security, his safety. he helped over a dozen customers to take refuge in the reserve of the supermarket. he warned the police. he alerted the police and his actions saved lives. when they asked him why he did that why he had done that he simply answered we are brothers. it's not a question of being jewish or christian or muslim. we are all in the same boat and we must get out of this crisis. we must come out of the crisis together. i am sure you will talk about mayor abi who was a pillar of his community, dedicated to his

family, and passionately interested in his job as a policeman. he entered the offices of "charlie hebdo" and was face to face with the terrorists before being shot down savagely by them and gratuitously. and when his brother paid tribute to him, he said my brother was a muslim but he was shot down by -- he was killed by two false muslims. they are terrorists and nothing else. and i am sure that you will talk, also, about the young man with the great future who tried to neutralize a brutal terrorist and lost his life because of this courageous act. we will never forget these

heroes. and we will never forget the victims of this tragedy, the world is facing cowardly assasins who are hiding behind weapons of war. the difference between ignorance and knowledge, between lies and truth, between cruelty and generosity, between death and life. >> i know that even as we speak, there are passionate debates over the complex issues that this tragedy has raised. but what should be beyond debate beyond the scope of politics religion satire or culture, is the common aspiration to create a world rich in love and short on hate: so today at the hotel de vil. let e i join with you in

honoring those no longer with us and share with the loved ones the sadnets of their loss, deprived of their lives. we will not defend into despair. we will turn this moment of profound loss into lasting commitment. we accept the responsibility that falls to each of us the values our sooirts societies cherish and extremists fear the most and tolerance, freedom, truth. in the end our engagement all of us in the struggle is not a choice. it a mandate. >> this very moment when i am speaking to you debates are taking plex takingplation on complex issues raised by this tragedy. but what should trans send this

debate beyondling issues and relimbous issues or satire is our joint aspiration to create a word based on love and not hate. today, here in the city hall of paris, i join you in paying trib ite to those who have lost loss and share the pain of the lots and the pride of their lives. we will not fall into despair. we will there. this tragic moment in to a commitment a sustainable, durable commitment. we accept with humility the responsibility that is that of each of us to defend the values which our societies are very

much attached to tolerance, freedom, truth. finally, in the last analysis our commitment of the commitment of all of us in this fight isn't a choice. it's a mandate. it's our duty today, i am with one of my old friends from massachusetts who was a source of inspiration for several yenrations. he is respected because of his integrity and because of the beauty of music he has come posed which is listened to all over the world. he wanted to be here today with me to express his feelings his smokes, and we are going to offer you a song, ladies and

gentlemen. james taylor [applause.] scomplarn secretary john kerry speaking alongside the paris mayor at the city hall. >> on "newsmakers" john hovin of north dakota, the sponsor of a bill being worked on that wol authorize construction of the keystone xl pipeline. he talks about the legislation which president obama has threatened to veto and other injury issues. you can watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. at a joint news conference yesterday, president obama and british prime minister david cameron spoke about efforts to

counter national and global security threats. after recent terror attacks in france. they also talked about negotiations over iran's nuclear program and the possibility of additional sanctions being imposed by congress. this is an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, president of the united states and at a time prime minister of the united kingdom 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 the great victory over a mighty united kingdom. our british friends call it a technicality the treaty ending the war was signed weeks before.

either way we have long since made up on this 200th anniversary of a great american victory, we count the united kingdom as one of our greatest friends and strongest amlies. it's a great privilege to welcome 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 broke. others debated its definition. several analyzed how this term has evolved over time. some seem confused and asked: what does "obama mean"? and so let me put the speculation to rest. put simply david is a great friend. it's one of my closest and most trusted partners in the world. on many of the most pressing challenges we face we see the

world the same way we recognize that as i have said before when the united states and the united kingdom stand together, our nations are more secure. our people are more prosperous and the world is safer, more just. great brittain is our indispensable partner and david has been personally an outstanding partner. i thank you for your friendship. with both economies growing and unemployment falling, we used our working scientistser last night to discuss how we can create more jobs for our people. we know that thisny needs to be the year when the united states and the european union make real progress toward the trans at atlantic trade and we share the idea boochting europe can keep our sxez going. we are expanding information on dictal technologies given the

urgent and growing danger of cyber threats, we decided to expand our cooperation on cyber security to protect our critical infrastructure, businesses and the privacy of our people. and as leaders in the global fight against climate change we believe that a strong commitment to routing greenhouse gasses will be an essential element of any ambitious climate agreement that we seek in paris this year and this actually will hip spur the creation of more clean injury johns. with regard to security. americans, british unity is enabling us to meet challenges in europe and beyond. we embree on the need to maintain strong sarnlingsz against russia until it ends, it's aggression in john boehner and on need to support ukraine as is it i am mrets democratic reforms. agree that the international community needs to remain united as we seek a compromising

solution. i would add additional sanctions on iran would undermine that international unity and set back our chances for a diplomatic solution. as the two leading contribute orders to the response to ebola in west africa we urge the world to continues stepping usp with resources that are required so that we don't simply stop this disease we do more to prevent future epdemmics. much of our discussion obviously focused on the continuing threat of terrorism and in the wake of the vicious attacks in paris as well as the news surfacing out of belgium. today, we 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 to help france seek

the justice that is needed, that all of our countries are working together seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist networks. with our comment mission in afghanistan over, we are focussed with our nato allies on advising, e quite a bitting afghan forces to security their country and deny al-qaeda any safe haven there. we will continue to count on our british allies as one of our strongest with countyier terrorism partners whether it's helping fight al-qaeda afilliants or boko haram. we reviewed our process against isil. we are taking out their fighters. we are destroying their infrastructure. we are pitting them on the defenseniv helping local forces in iraq push these terrorists back. david and i agree we need to keep stepping up the training of iraqi forces and that we are not going to relent until this terrorist organization is destroyed.

the paris attacks under scored again hour terrorist groups like al-qaeda and isil are trying to support people within our own cun trees to engage in terrorism. i led a special session of the united nations security council last fall to rally the world to meet the threat of foreign terrorist fighters. david and the united kingdom share intelligence and strengthening border security. taichlt, we both recognize that intelligence and military force is not going to solve this problem. we are going to work together on strategies to counter violent extremism that will radical ideses and mobile ideses people young people to engage in terrorism and local communities, families, neighbors, faith leaders have a rights volley to play in that overt. we look forward to welcome our

british friends because whether in europe or in america a critical weapon against tearvism our add hooerns to our freedom and values at home including the pluralalism andrets expect and tolerance that defines us as diverse and democratic societies. i want to the congratulate david on last month's agreement. it's a tribute to the courage and determination of everyone involved especially the leaders of northern ireland as well as the governments of ireland and the united kingdom. the united states was pleased to play a small roll in achieving this agreement and we are going to keep doing what we need to do to support the peace process an the better future for the people of northern ireland. >> thank you barack. thank you for welcoming me again to the white house you are a great friend to britain and me

terriblely. 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. in the last six years since you became president and in the nearly five isn't i have been prime minister, we faced some big issues on our watch. those challenges have boiled down to one word: security. economic security, the jobs and the living standards of our citizens and national security the ability of our peoples to live savely and in pizza. at the heart of both issues are the values that our countries cher inc.: freedom of expression, the 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 w strong leadership welcome through to safer, to calmer and to brighter

days. during your presidency you have had to deal with the aftermath of a massive banking crisis and a deep recession. when i became prime minister britain had the highest budget deficit in peacetime history. our economy was in grave peril. five years ago, we had 110,000 troops serving together in afghanistan 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 gloeshl economy. weak goethe in the euro zone a slow down in emerging markets. that's why it is vital for our shared processing parity we stick to the long-term economic plans we set out. we agreed that 2015 should be a pivotal year for an ambitious and comprehensive eu/u.s. trade deal that could bit the average household in britain by 400

pounds a year. the u.k. is now a top detonation for american investment. knife 00 projects providing 32,000 jobs. america is the u.k.'s biggest trade partner with exports worth nearly 90 billion pounds. we want to about on this. our mention on the economy today is simple: we are going to stick to the course because seeing through tower economic plans is the only dis stainable ways to create jobs to raise living standards and to 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 peshwara and nigeria. the world is sickened by this terrorism. we will the 2 be standing alone in this fight. we know what we are up against and we know how we will win.

we face a points nus and fanatical ideology that wants to promote islam and promote terror and death. we will confront it where it appears?. in iraq the u.k. is theraf aircraft have conducted over 100 strikes and will continue to play a leading role. we will deploy deploy intell sequence and surveillance assets to help iraqis on the ground. >> we will ensure they are better trained and equipped to counter explosive devices. we must oppose this ideology starting at home. in the >> we are passing a law so every public body must combat extremism. we have agreed to establish a joint group to identify what more we can do to counter the rights of domestic violent extremism and to learn from one another. in europe russia has chosen to

tear up the international rubric and sample over the affairs of a solid state. this threatens our statementy and processing parity. it is important that every country understands that and no you know one in europe forgets our history. we cannot walk on by so we will put pressure on russia to resolve this diplomatically and support ukrainian on the path of reform including financial assistance. we reaffirmed our nato partners and will be contributing an additional thousand troops for exercises in eastern europe this year onrage we remain committed that iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. the best way to awheef that now is to create the 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 cruel to our aproceedings. we also have to keep pace with new threats such as cyber attacks. we have discuss that in the last two days. and we have today agreed to deepen our cyber security corporation to better project ourselves finally we face the entire world faces a growing threat from diseases. today, our fight is against ebola. in the future t could be against a global flu pandemic. through our action in sierra leone, the us action in linebiera, france and guinea, we are beginning to turn the corner. but we must get better at responding to these global health ence sees and make sure we can master them. reforming the w.h.o. attacking a team of experts to be on standby to deploy anywhere in the world, a new international platform to stimulate the design and development of new drugs, all of these things are needed.

and let 2015, the year we must crack ebola, also be the year we tackle extreme poverty and climate change. on poverty, we must set new clear goals to eradicate extreme poverty to fight corruption and build strong institutions. on climated change we want an outcome in paris that keeps our goal ofliment global warming to 2 degrees within reach. these two things and they go together 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 add add vantszing 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 forebearers could join us here in the white house today, they might find the challenges that we are face from isil to ebola, from cyber terrorism to banking crisis they might find those hard to expression but they would surely recognize the ties that bind us across the atlantic and the values our people hold so dear. we have stool together so often not just because we have faced demonthreats but because we fundamentally believe in the same thins. >> that's as true today as it has always been and it hugely benefits our countries and the people that we are here to serve. thank you very much. >> thank you david. we are going to take a few questions. we are going to start with jonathan call of agbc. >> you mentioned your -- wrong mic. you mentioned your opposition to the sanctions bill on iran. this is oh, my goodness a

beneficial bi-partisan bill supported by members of your top party. why do you oppose a bill that would only impose sanctions if you failed 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 of democrats in congress on this issue? and 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 actually lobbying the us congress on this? if i may mr. president, i would really like to hear your reaction to the news that mitt romney is thinking about running for president gem. >> on your last question i have no comment.

on your first question, when i came in to office i made a commitment that iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon that we would do everything we believedcould to do that. >> that's important for our security and it's import for the world security. if iran obtained a nuclear we hope, then it would trigger an arms race in the middle east make our job in terms of preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials more difficult. given their missile capabilities t would threaten directly our closest allies including israel. and ultimately could threaten us. and 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 in to office the world was divided around this issue and iran was united. and through some very strong dmroomentic work we united the world and isolated iran. it's because of that work that we brought them to the negotiating table not for posturing, not for meet that is lead nowhere but to a very hard-nose nuts and bolts discussion of their nuclear program. now, the interim deal that we entered into also froze progress on their nuclear program, rolled back in some cases the stockpiles of material that they had already accumulated and provided united states insight into their program that was unprecedented. we have people on the ground who

are able to verify and inspect and tell united states what exactlied is going on. >> that's not just our assessment. >> that's the assessment of intelligence services around the world including the israelis. so, the agreement is held and the negotionations have been serious. we have not lost ground. iran has not accelerated during the time the negotiations have taken place. in fact, iran's program has not only been in abayance but we have actually made gains in rolling back some of the stock piles that they have. now, we have on the table currently a series of negotiations over the next several months to determine whether or not iran can get to yes. what's been remarkable is the unity we have obtained in its lathing with iran and 40sing them to negotiate in a serious

way. the p 5 plus 1 includes not only china but includes russia and they have continue today cooperate with us in sitting forth positions that the iran was not developing nuclear weapon. i have always said that the chances that we can actually get a diplomatic deal are probably less than 50/50. iran is a recommend e-mail that you know, is deeply suspicious of the west, deeply suspicious of us. in the past they have surrepticiously 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 assurance that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, that is the best possible outcome that we can arrive at right now. the question i had 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 now, you recall here 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 would enter let it or our

partners would interpret it. so, the likely of the entire negotiations collapses is very high. and if that happens, there is no constraint on iran at that point going back and doing exactly what hadit had been doing before they came to the table, developing a heavy water reactor that once built is extra extraordinarily difficult to sdmajdz and very difficult to hit militarily going back at underground facilities that are very hard to reach militarily accelerating advanced centrifuges that shorten the timespan in which they can achieve breakout capacity and they would be able to maintain that the reason that they ended negotiations was because the intluns was operating in bad faith and blew up the deal.

and there would be some sympathy to that view around the world, which means that sanctions that we have in place now would potentially fray because imposing these sanctions are a hardship on a number of countries around the world. they would love to buy iranian oil. the reason they have hug in there, despite it being against their economic interests is because we have shown that we are which he hadbly trying to solve this problem and avert some sort of military showdown. now, that context, there is no good argument for us to try to under " undermine the negotiations until they have played themselves out." if iran ends up ultimately not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurance that would lead to myself and david ramron and others to conclude that they are

not obtaining a nuclear weapon we will have to explore other occasions. i will be the first to come to congress and say we need to tighten the screws. and by the way, that's not the only options that are going to be available. i said we leave all options on the table. congress should be aware if this dprom diplomatic solution fails the hinged and likely that this ends up being at some point a military con frontation is heightened. and congress will have to own that, as well. that will have to be debated by the american people. and we may not be able to rye build the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes that we were not serious about negotiations. so, i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful, but it's my team that's at the table. we are steeped in this stuff day in, day out. we don't make these judgments

blindly. we have been working on this for five, six, seven years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making these assessmentses, and i am asking congress to hold off because our negotiators, our partners, those who are most intimately involved in this assess that it will jeopardize the possibility resolving -- providing diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems we have faced in a very long time and congress needs to show patience. so, i with respect to the veto i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk. and i will make this argument to

the american people as to why i am doing so. and 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's worth doing. we will see how persuasive i am. if i am not persuadeing congress i promise i will take my case to the american people on this. >> i think the big picture is very clear: the sanctions that america and the european union put in place have had an effect. >> has led to pressure. >> pressure has led to talks and those talks at least have a prospect of success. i would argument with the president. how much better is that than the other potential outcomes? >> what we should focus on. to answer you directly, yes i have contacted a couple of senators this morning, and i may speak to one or two more this an. not in any way as british prime

minister to tell the american senate what it should or shouldn't do. >> wouldn't be right. but simply to make the point as a country that stands alongside america in these vital negotiations that it's the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and they could fracture the international unity that there has been which has been so valuable in presenting united fronts to iran. i say this as someone who played quite, i think, a strong role in getting europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions, including oil sanctions, in the first place. i would just simply make this point. >> those sarnlingsz have had an effect. to shows who said, if you do an interim deal if you even start discussing with the iranians any of these things, the sanctions will paul apart. the pressure will dissipate.

>> has demonstrably been shown not to be true. the pressure is still there. as the president said if the reinians say no and there is no deal let's work out what extra sanctions to put in place. we are absolutely united in a simply thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon or military action to present it. in the end, it comes down to the simple question. so will i do what i can as one of the current trees negotiating? sure i will. >> i think the way the putresident put it i wouldn't sglooet with its hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i am at a time first british prime minister in 35 years to meet with an iranian president. it's hard to know what the thinking is. there is a very clear offer there which is to take iran away

from a nuclear weapon and an agreement that would be beneficial that's what happened. nick robinson with the bbc. >> nick robinson bbc news. prime minister with extra security being put in place today for the jewish community and also for police officers would people be right to conclude that the threat of an attack on the streets of britain is now all but imminent? mr. president, you have spoken of the threatposed by fighters coming back from syria. do you ever worry that this is a legacy of the decision of the united states and the united kingdom to in effect stand on the sidelines during syria's bloody civil war? if i may breivik, if you will forgive me on the economy, you said you agree. is he right? is it time to stick to the plan? >> we face a very serious islamist terrorism threat in america, across the world.

we have to be incredibly viglant. we have to strengthen police and security. we have to make sure we do everything we can to keep our country safe. and that involves an inyesterdaybly hard, you know long-term, patient disciplined approach. there is no single simple thing that needs to be do be. it means closing down the ungoverned spaces that the terrorists operate in, working against isil in iraq and syria. it means countering this poisonous fanatical death cult promoting the religion of islam. it means working together with our oldest achld best partners so we share intelligence and security and try to the prevent atrocity bevels taking plates. it means all of these things, and it is going to be a long, patient, and hard struggle. ism quite convinced welcome through it and overcome it. in the end, the values wihold to of freedom of democracy, having open and tolerant societies,

these are the strongest values they can be. in the end, welcome through. but like some of the challenges our countries have faced together in the past it will take great disciplin, patience hard work. you asked specifically the question about imminence. we have a system in the united kingdom where threat levels are set by the joint terrorism assessment center. they are not set by politicians. they have judged the threat we face is severe. >> 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's their decision not mine. my responsibility is to make sure we marshal everything we have as a country in order to defeat the threat. on the jewish community, i think it's good that the metropolitan police have announced they will step up patrols. i met with the jure issue leadership council earlier this week. we already provide through their security organization the community trust. ordered by government money to help protect jewish schools.

i i think we have to recognize in fighting terrorism as we pounds in britain before, you cannot sale rely on policing and security. this is a job for everyone. >> this is a role we will have to play in the vigilance and in making sure that we keep our community safe. >> with respect to syria and the connection to foreign fighters there is no doubt that in the chaos and the vacuum that's been created in big chunks of syria that that's given an opportunity for foreign fighters to both come in and come back out. and i chaired a u.n. security counsel meeting and we are now busy working with our partners to implement a series of to identify who may be travel to go syria in order to get trained to fight or to hatch plots that

would be antvated upon return to their home countries. so, it's a very serious problem. the notion that this is o'falloning because the united states or graduate britain or other countries stood on the sidelines, i think, is first of all, mischaracterizes our position. we haven't been standing on the sidelines. it's true we did not invade syria the assertion is that had we invited syria we would be let's prone to terrorist attacks. i will leave it to you to play out that scenario on whether that sounds accurate. we have been very active in trying to resolve a tragition situation in syria diplomatically, through humanitarian efforts, through the removal of chemical weapons

from syria that had been so deadly a and now as isil has moved forward, we have been very active in degrading their capabilities inside syria even as we are working to make sure the foreign fighter situation is resolved. i think david's point is the key one. this phenomenon of violent occasion tremism, the ideology the networks the capacity to recruit young people, this has metastasized, and it is wide-spread, and it is penetrated in communities around the world. i do not consider it an existential threat. as david said this is one that

we will solve. we are stronger we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in, in tolerance and in working together to build rather than to destroy. and so, you know, this is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction but it is one that ultimately, we are going to defeat, but 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 nihlism is put out there as agetsively and as any morebly as the messages coming out from these fanatics.

how do we make sure that 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 innoc lathing ourselves ourselves against this can ideology. >> that's going to be slow plotting systematic work. but it's it's work that i am confident we are going to be able to accomplish especially when we have strong partners like the united kingdom doing it. >> the economy? >> on the economy, i had note that great brittain 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? >>. >> thank you, mr. president. good afternoon, mr. prime minister. questions for both of you: i want to make sure we heard what you were trying to stay, clearly directing a message to context in the context of negotiations. you are sending a message both of you to iran that if the sanctions, talks, fail that war footing is the most next likely alternative and atrocat this in paris, raids and threats in belgium and netherlands, do you believe europe is at a turning point now in its recognition of what its threats are and its own mobilization in terms of new laws, security footing larger budgets? we talked about cyber security. there is a crucial issue for both countries. back doors and encryption to

protect people and privates. i would like your comments on that. thank you. >> i am not repeat not, suggesting that we are in immediate war footing should negotiations with iran fail but as david put it simply: if in fact our view is we have to present 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 negotations with iran are pointless and since these claims are seen by iran as a mortal threat and want as badly as we do to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon the question becomes what other alternatives exactly are available? that is part of what we have to consider as to why it's so important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. it has to be a good deal not a bad deal. i have already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal. and the people at p 5 plus 1

walked away with you want. nobody is interested in some document that undermines our sanctions and gives iran the possibility of whether covertly or are gladly building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we are not going to allow that and anything that we do any deal we arrive at if we were to arrive at one action 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 perhaps programs can advance. and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous way possim that the terms of the deal are being met. so, the bryan is this: we may not get there, but we have a

chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. i should point out if we get a nuclear deal and we are assured that iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons, we have a bunch of problems with iran on state-sponsored terrorism, their rhetoric towards israel their finance can of hezbollah. we've got differences with respect to syria. it's not as if suddenly, you know, we've got a great relationship with iran. it solves one particular problem that is urgent, and it sochlz 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 least of all the iranians doubt my ability to get some additional

sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. >> that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. so, the noels we need to have additional sanctions or even the pots i wanty 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 courts of my presidency we have worked collaboration collaboratively and with recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe but that given large

immigrant possession it's importance to reach out to and work with local communities and to have a very effective intelligence and counter terrorism cooperation between countries, the sglunts and europe. there is no doubt that the most recent event has amplified those kurnz. i think one of the things that i have learned over the last six years is that there is always more that we can do. we can always do it better. we learn from mistakes. each incidents that occurs teachers our professionals how we might be able to prevent these the next time and i am confident that the very strong separation that already exists with europe will get that much

better in the months and years to come. [question posed away from the mic.] >> here is where i actually think that europe had some particular challenges, and i said this to david: the united states has one big advantage in this whole process. and it's not that our lauren forcement or intelligence services, et cetera, 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 s that our muslim populations, they feel themselves to be americans. and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our

tradition that is appropriately our greatest strength. it doesn't mean we aren't subject to the kind of tragedies we saw at thebot marathon but that, i think, has been helpful. there are parts of europe where that's not the case. >> that's 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 imports for europe not to simply respond with a harmer and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems, but there has to be a recognition that the stronger the ties of a north african or a frenchman of north african dissent to a sense of

opportunity, that's going to be as important if not more important in over time solving this problem. i think there is a recognition of that crosses europe. it's important we don't lose that. the last point i will make and then i will turn it over to david is with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering, signal intelligence indescriptions 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's gone off of the pages, 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 bi also meet the very real concerns

david identified and my fbi director, jim comby identified. social media and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. now, that's 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 con forms with due process, rule of law and presents oversight, then that's a capability that we have to preserve. the biggest damage that was done as a consequence of the snowden disclose yours was, i think, in some cases a completely under mining of trust. some would say that was justified. i would arrange that all though

there are some legitimate concerns there, overall, the united states government and from what i have seen the british government have operated in a excuse me lus and lawful way to try to balance the security and privacy concerns and we can do better. that's 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 brittain or in the united states that we can try to prevent real tragedy. it 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 many cases what are technical issues. so, it's not so much that there is a difference in intend. but how to square the circle on these issues is difficult.

and we are working with partners like great brittain 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 would add to what the president said. i would say at this point i don't think you can characterize it as if there is a deal, then the february is off iran and if there isn't a deal, new pressure has to be applied to iran. even if there is a deal the key to that deal be will be transparency and verification and making sure that this cut tree isn't developing nuclear weapon. >> will mean repeated pressure after a deal is done. i think that's imports. i would absolutely back up what barack says about recognizing that in so many other ways we have some major disagreements with what the iranians have been doing. britain has suffered particularly from the way our em beattys and staff were treated in their country. we approach this with a huge

amount of skepticism and concern, but the goal of an iran without a nuclear weapon makes these talks worthwhile. on the issue of your question is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism. i would argue we turned some time ago. maybe britain in particular bays of the appalling attack that took place in five, 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, or quite a significant nature that we have managed to intercept, stop and, you know, prevent the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is there across government across parliament against the differently political parties.

there is a push to make sure we share knowledge and skills. the turning point is making sure your legislation is up to date, your security services have the capabilities you need, making sure you have programs that can channel extremists. making sure you are better integrating your communities. he is doing all of those things. i agree with what barack says about the importance of building strong and i integrated societies. i made a speech in munich saying it had been a mistake when some countries had treated different groups as separate blocks rather than trying to build a strong common home together. >> that's what we should be doing. >> that's what our policy is directed to. of course, you need to have, as i believe we are a multi-racial multi-ethnic society of huge opportunity wherein one generation or two generations, you can i don't mean to our country and be in the cabinet. you can serve at the highest level in the armed forces.

>> you can sit on the bench as a judge, you know, i've got in my cabinet someone just like that who is, you know in two generations his family has gone from arriving in britain do sitting. it's vitally as important as is combatic unemployment. here is i think really the determining point. you can have tragically people who have had all of the advantages of integration, all of the economic opportunities that our countries can offer who still get seduced by this poise points pois onus. you have had every advantage in life in terms of en teggration. let's let's never lose sight of the real enemy here, the pointsnus narrative that's perverting islam. >> that's what we have to focus on recognizing we help ourselves in this struggle if we create societies of genuine

opportunity, if we eighty genuine en tellgration, but let's never lose sight of the heart of the matter. as for the issue on techniques to help keep us safe. the president and i had a good discussion about this earlier. i don't think either of us are trying to enous ate some new doctor doctorine t i'm sorry to disappoint you but i take a simple approach to this even since we have been sending letters or telephone calls or contacting each other on the internet, it has been possible in both our cult trees, in extremeits by a signed warrant by the home secretary to listen to a call 2010 two terrorists in your country, a judicial process. we have had our own. we are not asking for back doors. we believe in very clear front doors, through legal processes

that should help to keep our country safe. my only argument is as technology develops as the world moves on we should try to avoid the safe haynes that could otherwise be created for terrorists to talk to each other. that's the goal that i thing is so important because i am in no doubt having been prime primary for four and a half years, having seen how our intelligence services work i know that some of these that get presented, lives that get saved there is a very real 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 itn. >> thank you, yes. robert moore with the british network, itv news. prime minister is there a security alert underway among the british community in britain? is that based upon 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? mr. president, you say there was a dialogue underway were tech companies. do you share the prime ministerts view that the current threat environment is so severe that there does need to be a swing of the pendulum a little bit maybe from privacy toward counter terrorism and that this era is a very dangerous one in terms of dialogue between terrorist groups? >> the issue is the threat we face. as i said, the level has been set at severe. that is set by independent occasion pert organizations so people can have full confidence these things are done for any other moepz than literally to look at the evidence that is there about terrorist threats and to set the level accordingly. the level, as it is at the moment is set at severe that means that the authorities believe an attack is highlylikely.

if we believed it was imminent you would move to the next level, which is critical. and, you know, we clearly do face a very real threat in our country. i mean in recent months as i was discussing with the president, we have had a number of potential attacks averted, for instance, on british police officers. so that is the threat picture. it's regularly reviewed regularly updated, but it shouldn't be moved unless there is real evidence to do so. in terms of the protection to the jewish community and indeed, other communities and indeed to police officers themselves, this is based upon what has happened in france on the whole picture we see and it is sensible precautionary measures to make sure we do what we can to reassure those communities. communities who are all too aware of the threat that they face. this is a bigger challenge for us. i think one of the most moving sites in paris was to see so many people holding up signs

saying "je sui cop, and je suis. and one community that had been singed out. i think it's important we speak up and stand up for those communities and give them the protection they deserve >> omsz in the wake of paris our attention is heightened. but the last six years, threat streams are fairly constant. david deals with them every day. i deal with them every day. our ct our counter terrorism professionals deal with them every day. so i don't think there is a situation in which because things are so much more dangerous, the pendulum needs to swing. i think what we have to find is a consistent framework whereby

our politics have confidence you our governments can both protect them but not abuse our capacity to in cyberspace. because this is a whole new world: as david says laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. how we do that needs to be debated both here in the united states and in the u.k. we are striking the balance better. i think that the companies here in the united states at least recognize that they have a responsibility. but also want to make sure that they are meeting their

responsibilities for their customers making sure that all of us feel confident 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 for the going afternoon fishing into whatever texts you might be sending on your smartphone. and i think that's something that can be achieved. they are going -- there are going to be situations where there are cases. but most most part those who are worried about big brother

sometimes obscure or directly ignore all of the legal safeguards that have been put in place too assure people's privacy and make sure government is not abuseing these powers and on the other hand there are times where law enforcement and those of us whose job it is to protect the public aren't thinking about those problems because we are trying to track and prevent a particular terrorist event from happening. it's useful to have civil libertarians and others tabbing us on the shoulder in the midst of this process and reminding us that there are values at stake as well. i think david and i welcome that kind of debate. the technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. if we get into a situation in

which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we are con of the he want 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 and 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 e-mail address that we -- we can't penetrate that? >> a problem. and so that's the kind of dialogue we are having to have with these companies. part of it is a legal issue. part is a technical question

but over all i am actually confident that we can balance these impairtives and we shouldn't feel as if because we have just seen such a horrific attack in paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. we have unfortunately, this has been a could be stand backdrop. i think will could not to be for any prime minister or president for is that i am to come. we have to make sure we don't overreact but that we remain vig lavent and are serious about our responsibility did there. all right? >> [applause.]

next week president obama delivers his state of the union address before a joint session of congress. we will have his speech and the republican response plus reaction from you and members of congress. our live coverage gives tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> former presidential candidate mitt romney spoke at the iran national committeei in the san diego. he said et cetera considering a third presidential run. he spoke about the republicans' victories in the 2014 mid-term looeningsz and his hopes for what the republican party can achieve in 2016. >> gosh. it is good to be back with so many friends. it is like coming back to a high

school reunion to see all of my friends here y'all look so young. everybody has lost weight and grown more hair. i mean as i get older, my eyes get a little weaker but it is sure wonderful to see you. what a generous welcome. we have been able to say hi to so many of you and get some selfie did taken and some other pictures. it really touches my heart. congratulations in a historic election of ranz prebius. he came in at a difficult time. we had a financial deficit at the rnc. we had a technology deficit. he helped erase that. now, he is leading the effort to make sure that we have a financial advantage and a technological advantage. this is an extraordinary man, and he and the entire team that's been elected today and over the last few years deserve the extraordinary support you have given him. just a wonderful look forward as

we think about his continued leadership. i want to congratulation you as ann did on the 6 did in 2014. that was -- i mean i know you hear that time and time again but i had the chance to visit with a number of the people running for office and you know this: it's a very impressive group of men and women who you have held elect to the senate the depressed, the governors' offices and state offices and national offices across the country. it's -- i mean, i was -- i can't possibly think of all of the names to name but some of these folks, i meet them and it's like wow. this is an amazing person. tom cotton yeah, background in the military, tom 'til is dan sullivan, do you go doucy, mia love in my state of utah. my governor of massachusetts, a republican governor in massachusetts, charlie baker. gosh.

how about joni ernst. isn't she an amaidsing person and a great leader you know, it's -- there are some people that not only impress me but also i am expire me. i mean martha mcsally, i imagine you know arizona. you know her story. i mean this is a young woman who fighter pilot, air force fighter pilot, in combat. she comes back and runs for congress and believes she wins. they send her to meet the other members only to find out by recount she didn't win. she has to go home having thought she had been elected, and she decides to go at it again and gets elected and comes. she is an extraordinary person a rising star and some of the people who served in the military who have gone out and fought for our nation despite having extraordinary academic credentials, they went to the military and that have come back and are serving in congress and the senate.

it's quite a story. now, i want to congratulate you also on the work you have done to improve the primary process, to change the date of the convention to limit the debates and rein them in. i think these are things you have considered at great leapt. i have i think you ought to be proud of doing that kind of work but a particular thank you to you for your help to me in 2012. you were hard working, dedicating, you went all over the country for me. you should know that from our perspective and i mean the romney family and also from the perspective of our campaign, everything worked seamlessly between the rnc and campaign. >> that's the way it should be. the nominee want those to work hand in glove as we did and your leadership and this group deserves great credit. we pulled for different people but came together once i became the nominee. it was an extraordinary blessing for me.

there is no greater honor bestowed upon me than to become the nominee of the republican party for the president of the united states, and i owe you a great debt of gratitude. thank you [applause.] now, there is some speculation about whether i am about to embark upon a political endeavor in which i have been previously unsuccessful. let me state unequivocally that i have no intention of running for u.s. senator of massachusetts. seriously, for our party and for the nation, 2016 is not going to be about the obama years. it's going to be about the post-obama era. the post-alabama era, conservative principles are needed as perhaps never before during our lifetime. i realize this isn't the right venue tonight for me to go out and lay out all of the policies that might be appropriate for our party and for people who

represent our party. i do want to mention three principles that i think should form part of the foundation of what we take to the american people: first we have to make the world safer. second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. and, finally we have to lift people out of poverty. if we communicate those three things eventively, the american people are going to be with us and with our no, ma'am meminee and candidates across the country. let me take a moment and elaborate on those. first, making the world safer. the world is not safer six years after barack obama has been in. there is no question about that and i used tojoy joke during campaign that president obama didn't have a foreign policy. and of course that was a joke because he did have a foreign policy and the foreign policy was one that was crafted by he and his secretary of state, hillary clinton and their foreign policy was based in part on the preparation if we are

friendly enough to other people and if we smile broadly enough and press the reset button peace will break out around the world. this is a foreign policy that said we should walk back from red lines a foreign policy that said we should lead from behind a foreign policy sdhfs characterized by speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. it was, was a foreign policy that somehow felt that america and our friends like israel were the problem rather than the solution. and the results of the hillary clinton/barack obama foreign policy have been devastating. you know that. terrorism is not on the run. as a matter of fact, the radical violent geejihadists are terrorizing people all over the world in the last several days. tragic events in paris and nigeria and in yemen. hundreds of lives, possibly

thousands of lives taken needlessly. it's extraordinary. and of course we also see in the middle east and north africa turmoil, the syrian tragedy, liberia is in disarray. libya, excuse me i meant is in disarray. iraq is under siege. iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. this is a difficult time for the world. then, of course you have russia invade ukraine, certain. you have china saying that they own the south china sea effectively. you have the bol i have a rian alliance in south america, continue to expand and receive support there. this is not a good time for american foreign policy. so in my view to make the world safer for americans and good people all over the world and to make the world safe for freedom, our party must stand for making the world safer and our principles will do that. and we have to make that point

loud and clear [applause.] so in the post obama era, i think we have to use our strength to anticipate events, to shapents rather than just react to them. when i say strength, i mean economic strength and diplomatic strength primarily. those will be the sources we will be able to rely upon to provide a safer world. so number 1, safety for the american people and for freedom and for freedom-loving people all over the world. no. 2, i believe we have to communicate to the american people our principles are principles that will bring opportunity to every way american. this is the land of opportunity. regardless of where you live in this land, you ought to know that your future can be brighter and your kids' future will be brighter. we have the principles and vision to do that for the american people. it's a tragedy, a human tragedy that the middle cloos in this country didn't -- middle class

doesn't believe the kids will have a brighter future than their own. we vicinity seen rising encloses in over decades. the american people are struggling to make ends meet. so our policies in this regard are designed to help create economic growth and put people back to work and to get riding wages people want to see rising wages. they deserve them. they are working hard. they are using technology. they face competition from around the world and the kind of policies we are going to be talking about, i am sure, in republican campaigns all over the country will be education dealing with legal reform job training, tax and regulatory reform, energy policy immigration policies. it also means if we want to see real growth, we are going to have to limit the sides of government, bal ants the budget and repeel and replace obama care so that we can get some real growth again [applause.] so number 1, safety, and number 2, opportunity for all americans. and then number 3, we have to

lift people out of poverty. we are an abundant nation. we have the resources and the capacitiesty intellectually financially to lift peep people out of poverty. it was how many years ago? 50 years ago lyndon baines johnson declared the war on poverty. his heart was in the right plates. his policies don't work. under president obama, the rich got richer income inequality got worse and more people in poverty in america than ever before under this president. his policies have not worked. their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign but they don't get the job done. the only policies that will reach no to the hearts of american people and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle are republican principles conservative principles family formation on education, good jobs and we are going to bring them to the american people and end the scourge of poverty in this great land

[applause.] >> so i believe the post obama era, we need to stand for safety and for opportunity for all people regardless of the neighborhood they come from and we have to stand for helping lift people out of poverty. now, i should tell you that in the last few days the most frequently asked question i get is: what does ann think about all of this? and she loaves that people get better with experience. and heaven knows i have experience running for president. and by the way, she knows my heart in a way that few people do. she has seen me not just as a business guy and a political guy, but for over 10 years, as you know i served as a pastor

for a congregation and groups of congregations. she has seen me work with people who are very poor to get them help and sub cystens and look for folks, for better work and providing care for the sick and elderly. she knows where my heart is. i love her and appreciate her support. she is my strongest advocate in every every 6 thing i can imagine. me, i am giving some serious consideration to the future. this i am. we can win in 2016 as a party in the house, the senate and the white house. if we communicate a clear vision of what we believe in those principles i have described are among those we are going to be fighting for and we are going to win. >> i can tell you this as well: regardless of what happens in the primaries and the political process that goes on, an turtleneck romney and i are going to be fighting for our nominee and make sure we win back the white bhouts.

we are going do make it happen. thank you, guys. great to be with you. thank you so much [applause.] ...