the minimum wage is $11.20 per hour. they are trying to treat their task as well by directing them and getting good deals on health insurance and cell phones and tools they might use in the tasks. i think with companies that are working through this. i know uber faced protests by the drivers and seattle. because they are -- they don't think their pay is high enough. i am optimistic that there will be a good outcome. i would not want to get into an uber if i felt the driver was losing money and is really unhappy. my driver said we are alive, it is wonderful. [laughter] but anyway.

i think that businesses are not dealing with labor so much. it's really renting out properties. >> we appreciate you bringing it up. >> there will be -- every driver has been genuinely happy. that i have had. i worked that the car before--at zipcar before. i'm interested in mobility and their happiness. i think i am optimistic that these new companies will be able to find an outcome that is good for workers and consumers, good for the economy. >> leonard or matthew? >> i have

--i am with the harvard innovation lab. i wanted to make a comment and combine seth and david's point. you talked about infrastructure and david, the dichotomy between those making the decisions and the people, the consumer. what i see as a pattern here is how can we decrease the social distance between the decision-makers and where those policies impact. you're looking at the city of san francisco has an introduced a platform that is similar with a crowd sourced people living in the city to solve problems and decide what to use. new york is growing in their participatory budgeting. i see great opportunities for tech companies to help decision-makers decrease that social distance.

>> my name is chris, from reddit. i'm interested in the disconnect between congress and companies and how quickly we are moving. and users expecting things instantly. adam said he used to have to look into the basement of the municipal building for a record but now you can get it immediately. in 2030, what are people expecting of congress in the time it takes to make decisions? that is what i'm really interested in. i don't know the answer either but with the instant gratification we have and over -- uber, there was a mistake and they refunded my money in 20 minutes. that is amazing. i wonder how can congress adapt to making that change. >> there are a few things that i have learned. i was often confused. there is a big difference between policy deliberation and delivery of service and

resources. when people think about technology and government they lump them together. when you look at being able to see glass on the sidewalk and take a picture that speaks to , the expectation that people should be able to do anything, anywhere, anytime. having a deliberative body that rabbit is probably a bad idea. -- rapid is probably a bad idea. it would be different because we are doing things which is preferable for the current situation. you need better deliberation. this does bring up one of the scariest things about the internet on policy. this notion that you have a lot of companies that deliver information to users based on what they think users want. as we see it develop year after year you see things like the , filter bubble and these behaviors where people are connecting with people who share their worldview. you're seeing a similar thing happen in politics as people race to more extreme positions

literally move to new geographies. it is affecting our debate. i wonder how we stop that. if the model for an internet company and we try to make our robots work to deliver that instantly, that does not force them to think differently about stuff and it reinforces their worldview. i do not know how that stops but it reminds me that what is best for our users is not what is best for our citizens. we have to make sure that we are cognizant of that. >> i am from monster.com. i wanted to circle back to the startups and what they should be thinking about. if they are entering a regulated industry they have to keep in mind going back to my days as a civil servant. the risk reward ratio is for a civil servant is entirely different and is for an entrepreneur. the first time that there is a

fatal accident due to a ridesharing service, everyone will look to that official that let that service operate. the risk is extreme but there is no reward. whereas you are starting up that , service, your reward is a potential million or billion dollar enterprise. you have motivation to get it done quickly whereas the civil servant will be thinking do no harm, don't take the wits -- risk until i am certain it will work out. there is no good way around that except the cooperative efforts we have heard about and educating officials about why your service will not do any harm. i am encouraged by the what people said about the collaborative efforts that are occurring. i think sometimes the entrepreneurs go charging into the room and do not realize the person they are meeting with, if they are not protecting vested interest, they are risk avoidance for reason.

probably because they are thinking do no harm. and there is so little reward for them. >> this is a stimulating interesting discussion, covered a wide range of ground beginning with our initial discussion of use of the first amendment around data online and in between talking about some of the challenges facing governments and startups and navigating unfamiliar terrain. the challenges all in the midst of different kinds of change and on that note, i will let our cohost give us some closing thoughts. >> i wanted to thank maggie williams and the staff for making this symposium happen. and the harvard staff.

i think it was a productive conversation. i wanted to thank our moderators. these are important issues. as the policy landscape changes and companies if we have the -- involve -- evolve, and if we have the next -- the same thing next year, there are new topics and that will be exciting. this conversation helps move the ball forward. thank you very much. [applause] >> president obama said that the u.s. is not at war with islam. but at war with the people who have perverted the religion. his remarks are next. then we will hear from former florida governor jeb bush. and later, former defense secretary: -- william cowan. we look at president obama's executive order on immigration. the decision by a texas court

judge to temporarily block the order. and then, the center for immigration studies. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. click this sunday on q&a, jan russell on the only family interment camp at crystal city, texas. and she says the real reasons for this camp. >> the government comes to the fathers and says we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your

families in the crystal city interment camp. if you will agree or to go voluntarily. i discover the real secret. you also had to agree to voluntarily repatriate to germany and japan if the government decided they needed to be repatriated. the truth is that the crystal city camp was humanely administered by the ins. the special or divisions at the department of state used this as roosevelt's primary prisoner exchange program. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> now president obama talks about combating violent extremism. his remarks at a white house summit about their

radicalization and extremist groups. [applause] >> good afternoon everyone. i know that i am the only person standing between you and the main event so i will be brief. i do want to thank everyone for being here today. law enforcement officer is community leaders, elected officials, foreign ministers and of course entrepreneurs, thank you for taking part today and spending your time here in these discussions with us. this summit focuses on domestic and international efforts to prevent terrorist attacks like those that we have seen most recently in copenhagen, paris, boston, sydney, and which sadly occurred daily in places like nigeria, iraq and beyond. in the u.s., thanks to the tireless efforts and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, to our diplomats, intelligence

personnel, and law enforcement officers, since 9/11, our defenses have been hardened, plots have been disrupted, and alliances have been strength in. -- strengthened. countering extremism in its forms is not just an american problem or a western problem, it is an international problem. every community touched by violence faces the same questions, whether it is boston or parents or baghdad. how can we stop people before they turn to violence? how can we replace the dark world view of extremists in the muslim world or elsewhere with an alternate vision for a brighter future? how can we work together more effectively within our own government, with international partners and local communities. this summit is a place where we are looking to find answers to those questions and develop action plans that hold all of us

accountable as we move forward. before we hear from president obama, allow me to make 2 brief observations from the last day and a half of discussion. the first is the government cannot meet this challenge alone. as you have heard from vice president biden another's, local communities, teachers, coaches family, friends, those are the people that our best to provide an alternate path before someone is radicalized to violence. while governments can help ultimately the solutions will have to be rooted and found in local communities. the second point i want to emphasize is that countering violent extremism is constantly evolving. we have got to keep refining our approach that we can respond to new threats. we can't just rely on traditional tools when we are dealing with internet savvy

terrorists who reach across oceans with the click of a mouse. we need to be creative, to think outside the box. we need to leverage our vast intellectual talents, our creativity, our innovative efforts and spirit, our technical know-how to take on extremist, bankrupt ideologies. i recently sat down with some of silicon valley's most creative and innovative minds, some of whom i am thankful have joined us today to discuss just this challenge. our conversation included tech entrepreneurs, content creators, authors, ngo leaders, all of whom have an important voice in countering extreme as propaganda online. we discussed ways to apply integrated network solutions to drown out the hate of groups like al qaeda and isil. one anecdote to the hatred

spewed is to lift up the voice of freedom and tolerance. we are seeing people step up to do their part, and looking ahead i challenge tech and social media communities to expand these efforts, to give young people more opportunities to raise their voices above the noise of extremism. there is plenty of work to do and i hope the past two days have done enough to inspire you as it has me. we will count on each one of you for your good ideas and leadership going forward. now, i have the distinct honor of introducing someone who has been laser focused on making countering extremism a central part of our strategy from his first days in office, including by developing the first government wide strategy to prevent violent extremism at home. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the president of the united states barack obama.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. everyone, please have a seat. thank you for the introduction. lisa is an example of the countless dedicated public servants across our government a number of whom are here today working tirelessly every single day on behalf of the security and safety of the american people. we very much appreciate her. thanks to all of you for your attendance and participation. for more than 238 years, united states of america has not just endured, but we have thrived and surmounted challenges that might have broken a lesser nation. after terrible civil war we repaired our union.

we weathered a great depression. we became the world's most dynamic economy. we liberated europe, face down communism and won. american communities have been destroyed by tornadoes and floods, and each time we rebuilt. the bombing that killed 168 people could not break oklahoma city. on 9/11, terrorists tried to bring us to our knees. today, a new tower soars above new york city. america continues to lead throughout the world. after americans were killed at fort hood, the boston marathon it did not divide us. we came together as one american family. in the face of horrific acts of

violence, at a sikh temple in milwaukee, or a jewish community center outside of kansas city. we've reaffirm their commitment -- our commitment to freedom. repulsed by the notion that anyone should ever be targeted because of who they are what they look like, or how they worship. most recently with the brutal murders in chapel hill of three young muslim americans, any -- many muslim americans are worried and afraid. i want to be as clear as i can be. as americans, all faiths and backgrounds, we stand with you in your grief and we offer our love port. -- and support. my point is this. as americans, we are strong and resilient. when tragedy strikes, when we take a hit, we pull together. we draw on what is best in our character. our optimism, our commitment to each other, our commitment to

our values, our respect for one another. we stand up and we rebuilt, and we recover. we emerge stronger than before. that is who we are. [applause] and, i say this because we face genuine challenges to our security today. just as we have throughout our history. challenges to our security are not new. it did not happen yesterday. or a week ago, or a year ago. we've always faced challenges. one of those challenges is the terrorist threat from groups like al qaeda and isil. this is not our challenge alone. it is a challenge for the world. isil is terrorizing the people of syria and iraq.

beheading and burning human beings, unfathomable acts of cruelty. we seen deadly attacks. in ottawa, sydni, pears, and now copenhagen. -- carries, and now copenhagen. in the face of this challenge we have marshaled the full or subunit is government and we are working with allies and partners to dismantle terrorist organizations and protect the american people. given the complexities of the challenge, and the nature of the enemy, which is not a traditional army, this work takes time and will require vigilance and resilience. in perspective. i am confident that just as we have for more than two centuries, we will ultimately prevail. part of what gives me that confidence is the overwhelming response of the world community to the savagery of these terrorists.

not just repulsion, but a concrete commitment to work together to vanquish these organizations. at the united nations in september i called on the international community to come together and eradicate the scourge of violent extremism. i want to thank all of you across america and around the world for answering this call. tomorrow, the state department governments and civil societies for more than 60 countries will focus on the steps that can take as governments. i will speak about how her own -- our nations have to remain relentless in our counterterrorism efforts against groups that are plotting against our countries. but we're here because we have a specific challenge. that is countering violence and extremism. something that is not just a matter of military affairs. by violent extremism, we don't just mean the terrorist killing

innocent people. we mean the ideologies, the infrastructure of extremists. the propagandists, the fundamentalist to recruit, or incite people to violence. we all know there is no one profile of a violent extremist or terrorist. there is no way to predict who will become radicalized. around the world, and in the united states, inexcusable acts of violence have been committed against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths which is of course , betrayal of all of our faith. it is not unique to one group. or to one geography, or one period of time.

we are here at this summit because of the urgent threat of isil and we are focused on prevention, preventing these groups from recruiting or inspiring others to violence in the first place. i have called upon governments to come to the united nations is fall with steps that we can take together. today, what i want to do is suggest several areas for i believe we can concentrate our efforts. first, we have to confront squarely and honestly the twisted ideology these terrorist groups used to incite people to violence. leading up to the summit has been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge. i want to be very clear about how i do it. -- see it. al qaeda and isil, and groups like it, are desperate for legitimacy.

they tried to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of islam. that is why i sold -- isil presumes to declare itself the islamic state. they propagate the notion that america, and the west generally, is at war with islam. that is how they recruit. that is how they try to radicalized young people. we must never accept the premise that they put forward. it is a lie. nor should we grant these terrorists the legitimacy they seek. they are not religious leaders terrorists -- they are terrorists. [applause] we are not at war with islam. [applause]

we are at war with people who have perverted islam. just as those of us outside muslim communities need to reject the terrorist narrative that the west and islam is in conflict, i believe muslim communities have a responsibility as well. al qaeda and isil do draw selectively from the islamic texts. they do depend upon the misperception around the world that they speak in some fashion for people of the muslim faith. that islam is somehow inherently -- filingviolent.

that there is some sort of clash of civilizations. of course, the terrorists do not speak for a billion muslims that reject their ideology. they don't represent that. no religion is responsible for terrorism. people are responsible for violence and terrorism. [applause] to their credit, there are respected muslim clerics and scholars around the world to -- who push back on this twisted interpretation of their faith. they want to make very clear what islam stands for. we joined by some of those leaders today. these religious leaders and scholars preach that islam calls for peace and justice, and tolerance towards others. terrorism is prohibited. the koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has

killed all mankind. those are the voices that represent over one billion people around the world. if we are going to effectively isolate terrorists, if we are going to address the challenge of their efforts to recruit our young people, if we are going to lift up the voices of tolerance and pluralism within the muslim community, we've got to acknowledge their job is made harder by a broader narrative that it does exist in many muslim communities around the world that suggests the west is , at odds with islam in some fashion. the reality, which many leaders have spoken to, there is a strain of thought that does not

embrace isil tactics, but does buy into the notion the muslim world has suffered historic grievances sometimes that is accurate. it buys into the notion and believe that islam has suffered from cannoli and -- colonialism. that it flows from the conspiracy, by the the idea that islam is incompatible, that it is polluted by western values. those beliefs exist. some communities around the world, they are widespread. it makes individuals, especially young people who may be disaffected or alienated more right--ripe for radicalization. we've got to be will to talk honestly about those issues. we've got to be much more clear about how we are rejecting

certain ideas. just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorist like isil genuinely represent islam, muslim leaders need to do more than just discredit the notion that we are determined to suppress islam. that there is an inherent clash of civilizations. everybody has to speak up very clearly that no matter what the grievance, violence against innocent damages islam and muslims. it damages islam and muslims. [applause] when all of us together are doing our part to reject the narratives of violent extremist, when all of us are doing our part to be very clear about the fact that there are certain universal precepts and values

that need to be respected, in this interconnected world, that is the beginning of a partnership. as we go forward we need to find ways to amplify the voices of peace and tolerance, and inclusion. we need to do it online. we also need to lift up the voices of those who know the hypocrisy of groups like isil firsthand, including former extremists. their words speak to us today. i know in some of the discussions, the voices have been raised. i witnessed horrible crimes committed by isis. it is not a revolution or jihad, it is a slaughter. i was shocked.

this is not what we came for, to kill other muslims. is this the only future i am able to imagine? that is the voice of so many who were temporarily radicalized. and then saw the truth. they have warned others not to make the same mistake they did. do not be deceived. do not give up your life. we need to lift up those voices. in all this work, the greatest resource our communities themselves. especially those like the young people here today. we are joined by talented young men and women pioneering new innovations. new ways to reach young people. we are joined by leaders from the private sector.

i want to challenge all of us to build new partnerships and unleash the talent and creativity of young people. young muslims. not just to expose the lies of extremists but to lift up people's lives here in america and around the world. that can be a calling for your generation. that is the first challenge. we have to discredit these ideologies and tackle them head on. we cannot shy away from the discussions. too often, folks are understandably sensitive about addressing these issues but we have to talk about them honestly and clearly. [applause] the reason i believe we have to do so is because i am so

confident that when the truth is out, we will be successful. the second challenges, we have to address the grievances terrorists exploit including economic grievances. poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist anymore that poverty alone causes, to become a criminal. there are millions of people billions who live in abject poverty and are focused on what they can do to build up their own lives, and never embrace violent ideology. conversely there are terrorists who come from extraordinarily wealthy backgrounds, like osama bin laden.

what is true is that when millions of people, especially you are impoverished and have no hope for the future, when corruption inflicts daily humiliation on people, when there are no outlets by which people can express their concerns, resentment festers. the risk of instability grows. where young people have no education they are more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and radical ideas. it is not tested against anything else. they have nothing to weigh. we have seen this across the middle east and north africa. terrorist groups are all too happy to step in to a void. they can support their families. they offer social services schools, health clinics to do what governments will not do. they try to justify their violence in the name of fighting the injustice of corruption that steals from the people, even

while those terrorist groups end up committing even worse abuses like kidnapping and human trafficking. if we are going to prevent people from being susceptible to the false promises of extremism, the international community has to offer something better. the united states intends to do its part. we will keep promoting development and growth that has broadly shared so more people can provide for their families. we will lead a global effort against corruption because the culture of the bribe has to be replaced. countries have to truly invest in the education and skill and job training are young people need. that is boys and girls, men and women. countries will not be successful if the half their populations are denied opportunities. [applause] america will continue to forge

new partnerships and entrepreneurship, and innovation, and science and technology. young people can start new businesses and create more prosperity just as we address economic grievances, we need to face a third challenge. addressing the political grievances that are exploited by terrorists. when governments oppress their people and deny human rights, or marginalize ethnic and religious groups, or favor certain religious groups over others, it sows the seeds of violence and makes those communities more vulnerable to recruitment. terrorist groups claim that change can only come through violence. if peaceful change is impossible

that plays into extremist propaganda. the essential ingredient to real and lasting stability is more democracy. [applause] it is institutions. institutions that uphold the rule of law and apply justice equally. it is security forces and police that respect human rights and treat people with dignity. it is free speech and strong civil societies where people can organize and assemble an advocate for peaceful change. it is freedom of religion where all people can practice their faith without fear and intimidation. [applause] all of this is part of countering violent extremism. fourth, we have to recognize our best partners in all of these efforts, the best people to protect individuals falling victim are their own communities, their own family members. we have be honest with ourselves. terrorist groups deliberately

target their propaganda in the hopes of reaching and brainwashing young muslims. especially those who may be disillusioned. that is the truth. the high-quality videos, online magazines, the use of social media, terrorist twitter accounts are designed to target today's young people online in cyberspace. by the way, the older people here, as wise and respected as you may be, your stuff is often boring. [laughter] compared to what they are doing. you are not connecting. as a consequence you are not connecting. these terrorists are a threat first and foremost to the communities they target. communities have to take the

lead in protecting themselves. that is true here in america as it is true anywhere else. when someone starts getting radicalized, family and friends are the first is the something has changed in their personality. teachers may notice a student becoming withdrawn or struggling with their identity. if they intervene, that may make a difference. faith leaders may notice someone is beginning to expels violent interpretations of religion. that is a moment for intervention. it allows them to think about their actions. and reflect on the meaning of their faith. in a way that is more consistent with peace and justice. families and friends, coworkers, neighbors. they want to reach out. they want to help save their loved ones and friends and prevent them from taking a wrong

turn. communities don't always know the signs to look or or have the tools to intervene, or know what works best. that is where government can play a role if government is serving as a trusted partner. that is where we need to be honest. i know some muslim americans have concerns about working with government, particularly law enforcement. the reluctance is rooted in the objection to certain practices where muslim americans feel they have been unfairly targeted. in our work, we have to make sure that abuses stop, are not repeated, we do not stigmatize entire communities. nobody should be profiled or put under a cloud of suspicion simply because of their faith. [applause] engagement with communities

can't be a cover for surveillance. you can't securitize our relationships with muslim americans dealing through the prism of law enforcement. when we do that only reinforces suspicions. it makes it harder for us to build trust we need to work together. as part of this summit we are announcing we are to increase our outreach to communities. we are went a step up our efforts to engage with partners and raise awareness some more communities understand how to protect their loved ones from becoming radicalized. we have to devote more resources to the efforts. [applause] as government does more, communities are going to have to step up. we need to build on the pilot programs that have been discussed already in los angeles and minneapolis.

these are partnerships that bring people together in the spirit of mutual respect and create more dialogue, more trust and cooperation. if we are going to solve these issues, the people who are most targeted and most affected have to have a seat at the table where they can help shape and strengthen these partnerships. [applause] finally, we need to do what terrorists hope we will not do. stay true to the values that define us as a diverse society. if extremists are peddling the notion that western countries are hostile to muslims, we need to show that we welcome people of all faiths.

in america, islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. generations. generations of immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers. and helped to lay railroads and build up america. the first islamic center in new york city was founded in the 1890's. america's first mosque was in north dakota. muslim americans protect our communities with police officers and firefighters, and first responders, and protect our nation by serving in uniform. in homeland security. in cemeteries across our country, including arlington. muslim american heroes rest in peace having given their lives in defense of all of us. [applause]

of course that is the story terrorists don't want the world to know. muslims succeeding and thriving in america. because when that truth is known it exposes their propaganda as the lie that it is. it is a story every american must never forget. it reminds us all that hatred and bigotry and prejudice have no place in our country. it is not just counterproductive. it doesn't just aid terrorists. it is wrong. it is contrary to who we are. i am thinking of a little girl named sabrina who last month sent me a valentine's day card. in the shape of a heart.

it wasn't the first valentine i got. [laughter] i got it from sabrina before michelle. she is 11 years old in the fifth grade. she is a young muslim american. she said in her valentine, i enjoy being an american. she wants to be an engineer or basketball player. [laughter] which are good choices. she wrote, i am worried about people hating muslims. if some muslims do bad things that doesn't mean all of them do. she asked please tell everyone that we are good people and we are like everyone else. [applause]

those are the words and the wisdom of a little girl growing up in america just like my daughters are growing up here in america. we are just like everybody else. everybody needs to remember that during the course of this debate. as we move forward with these challenges, we all have responsibilities. we all have hard work ahead of us on this issue. we can't paper over problems. we are not one to solve this is if we are always trying to be politically correct. we do have to remember that 11-year-old girl. that is our hope. that is our future. that is how we discredit violent ideology, by making sure her

voice is lifted up. making sure she is nurtured and she is supported. then recognizing little girls and boys like that are all around the world. and us helping to address economic and political grievances that can be exploited, and empowering communities, and staying true to our values with diverse and tolerant society even when we are threatened. there will be a military component to this. savage cruelty is going on out that has to stop. isil is killing muslims at a rate that is many multiples. everybody has a stake in

stopping them. there will be an element of us stopping them in their tracks with force. but to eliminate the soil out of which they grew, to make sure that we are getting a brighter future to everyone, and a lasting sense of security, we are going to have to make it clear to all of our children including that girl in fifth grade, that you have a place. you have a place here in america. you have a place in those countries where you live. you have a future. ultimately those are the antidotes to violent extremism. it will take time.

after 238 years that should be obvious, america has overcome bigger challenges. we will overcome the ones we face today. we will stay united and committed to the ideas that have shaped us for two centuries, including the opportunity and dignity of every single human being. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will have more on the summit. president obama will deliver more remarks tomorrow morning. our coverage starts on c-span two. with john kerry at 8:45 in the

morning. >> the c-span cities to her takes tv and american history tv on the road. traveling to cities to learn about their literary life. we partnered with time warner cable for a visit to greensboro north carolina. >> after months of cleaning the house, he was making one walk-through. he looked over and saw an envelope with a seal on it. he walked over. this was -- he sought a 1832 document. he discovered a trunk and books and portraits. this was this treasure. we have had the story available to the public, displaying

different items from time to time. trying to include her life story from her birth to her death in 1849. some of the items on display and ivory comb case with a card inside. a small cut glass perfume bottle. a pair of silk slippers. with tiny little ribbons that tire across the arch -- tie across the arch of her foot. candy red velvet -- and a red velvet down. -- gown.

there is also a legend that accompanies this dress. >> watch all of our events from greensboro. on american history tv on c-span3. >> potential presidential candidate jeb bush talks about combating isis. he spoke on -- at the chicago council on global affairs. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a joy to be here. i was expecting 100 people to come. it is a little intimidating. we are delighted to be here. thank you for the invite secretary paulson, it is always good to see you. both my wife and i have a commitment to illinois. when a floridian leaves florida.

i want to thank the members of the council who have served in the military. >> i want to share how america can play a leadership role. the u.s. has helped hundreds of people out of poverty. secured liberty for an equal number. has been a force for peace and security. only the exceptional country can make that claim. this has happened because the presidents, both republican and democrats, have accepted the responsibilities of american power with the belief that we

are a force for good. i have doubts whether this of menstruation believes american power is such a force. we are inconsistent and indecisive. we have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. we no longer inspire fear. the problem is perhaps best to iraq. -- best demonstrated by the approach to iran. we have had 35 years experience with the rulers. they have attacked troops directly and through surrogates. they have used terror as a tool of intimidation. four world capitals are influenced by them. baghdad, damascus, beirut, and -- they have been developing

long-range missile capabilities. during those years, america has opposed its efforts. but the administration has launched negotiations in which the goal has shifted. they no longer seek to prevent enrichment but to prevent it. this was once a unifying issue in american foreign-policy. leaders of both hardee's agreed to it. but president obama -- president obama says his goal is to negotiate. the goal is not to solve the problem, it is to manage it. the leaders have asked breast a call for the annihilation of israel. -- have expressed a call for the annihilation of israel. we could face issues in the

region if iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. the neighbors will want their own weapon. no wonder some have lost confidence. congress should pass bills to reinstate sanctions in advance if's negotiations fail. my hope is the administration is able to rise to meet the defining foreign-policy issue of our time. so far, it appears they are unequal to the task. everywhere you look, you see the world flipping out of control. we see the rise of nonstate terror organizations. al qaeda, still growing in certain parts of the world. the breakdown of states like iraq and syria. war for of unspeakable brutality.

the beheading of christians two days ago. the beheading of americans japanese, and europeans. all graphically displayed for us to watch on video. and the burning alive of a jordanian pilot. some of the worst is perpetrated against other muslims. we see the threats of cyber warfare terror tour real complex loom under the surface. the irony of the presidency is this. somebody who came to office promising engagement has left america less influential in the world. the work to restore our leadership will take a concerted effort. the commitment of new leaders

and a sense that america is often at his best -- it's best when it is tested. the u.s. has the building to build alliances. we can reject our and enforce peaceful stability. to do so, i believe we need to root our policy and a set of policies and principles. we must look to the challenges of specific challenges. we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. i want to outline those principles which will make that possible. i come to these issues with thought and experience. what are my most formative experiences when my guess was one my wife and i expected -- my wife and i accepted the

responsibility of opening an office. we went down there and caracas was a blooming -- booming place. we lived outside our country we learned how to use something our parents used, the diapers. we got water like three times a day. we had these personal challenges that were exciting be on believed and saw america from the outside. we saw venezuela moving away from united states as part of the so-called "nonaligned nations movement.” many of them were pulling away as well. i lived overseas in the carter era when we saw firsthand what it was like to see the united states, this incredible country, lose the respective countries because of a weak and fast living foreign-policy.

later on as governor, i have a chance to lead 15 trade missions and given florida's footprint and need western hemisphere, i was actively involved in trade and security and nutrition issues in the region. we let the largest delegations for example, of any state from the u.s. to mexico, where 500 people participated. i have visited israel five times. in those meetings, i have had the incredible joy of seeing the spirit of israel. on my highlight reel of life, i will have a trade agreement signed by the secretary of commerce of the state of florida and ariel sharon. it was one of the greatest joys of my life to do that. being able to create prosperity, turn israel into the first world country. if you go to israel, you see the incredible geography.

geography we take for granted here. big countries with oceans as our borders have a totally different mentality than a country literally 10 miles away from countries all around the region, most of whom have never accepted israel's right to exist. i have forced myself to visit asia four times a year to learn about the dynamic region. it is a dynamic region because it's modeled on our system and turned it into a uniquely asian experience. our allies watch with anticipation because of a lack of american engagement in the region and the rise of chinese ambition. i've seen firsthand the difference of power -- in power. as you might know, i have been fortunate to have a father and

brother who helped shape america's foreign policy from the oval office. my views will be held in comparison to theirs. this is a fascinating thing in the political world for some reason. for the record, i love my brother, i love my dad, i love my mother as well, hope that's ok. [laughter] and i admire their service to the nation. but i am my own man. each president learns from those who came before, their principles, their adjustments. one thing we know is this. every president inherits a changing world and changing circumstances. in the gulf war timeframe, heart of the anyone knew that the internet existed or who al qaeda was -- hardly anyone knew what the internet --

that the internet existed or who al qaeda was. i want to share with you the approaches i think are necessary today. these are the principles i believe are critical to put america back on the road for firm global leadership. we cannot be a force if our economy does not grow. our aspiration should be growth for as long as the eye can see. imagine a country growing at 4%. the middle would begin to see rising incomes. we would be significantly more optimistic about the future. americans would think there to learn would have more opportunities than they had -- their children would have more opportunities than they had. we are one of the only countries that can execute on a plan to make that happen.

we need to fix how we regulate tax, get our fiscal house in order, reforming a broken immigration system, how we transform our education system and how we make sure that we move our training programs into the 21st century. all of these things are important. fixing our retirement system which will overwhelm all of the long-term spending that is so important to sustain human growth, research and development, and infrastructure. we must fix our entitlement problems. we need to focus on trade. congress should give the president trade authority. the good news is, we are probably the only country that

can make this assertion, if we're serious about it, to become young and dynamic again. the united states would be in that category if we get that right. one other thing about our economic progress that directly ties to foreign-policy. in our midst today is an energy revolution that is perhaps the most exciting news that we have. it is possible for america to be energy secure with north american resources in relatively short order. if the create a strategy around this we would create economic activity and hundreds of billions of dollars. we would play significant role in dealing with countries that

use their oil for blackmail, for political purposes. as we go grow our ability to produce gas, we lessen the dependency of other countries and economic might, whether it is venezuela or russia. making sure that we do not stifle the energy revolution in our own country and coordinating all of this with our strongest trading partner canada will yield a economic powerhouse in this region that could compete with any region in the world. one final point about economic growth. free people, free markets, free ideas, implement it faithfully will set a powerful example of what is possible to the rest of the world.

as people lose confidence around the world in capitalism and democracy that underpins capitalism, they move in different directions. if they see america at its best, growing with a tremendous austerity, they will emulate that system and that will bring about a more peaceful world. the second and supply believe in us that our words and actions must match. so the entire world knows that we say what we mean and mean what we say. it should be no gap there. this administration talks, but the words fade. hashtags campaigns replace hashtags campaigns replace diplomacy. the examples keep piling up. president obama called isis the junior varsity.

when they comprised a fighting force of more than 200,000 battle ready men. his administration has lobbed insults at prime minister netanyahu and his cabinet with incredible regularity. we see a careless disregard to the long-term interests of america and the world. instead, we see an effort to win the political news cycle. i want to take a moment to talk about the controversy surrounding benjamin netanyahu's speech. i am interested in hearing what he has to say. i think it will be important for the american people to get that perspective of our closest ally in the region. i am surprised to hear the

administration is upset. if we want to build confidence and trust in the american position, we have to listen. we should strive to make it bipartisan again. a president needs to set a strategy to be clear about it, not overcommit or overpromise but always strive to deliver. the third principle is that the president's word needs to be backed up by the greatest military force in the world. i grew up in the 80's politically, where i watched ronald reagan and my dad, with incredible people serving by their side in a bipartisan fashion. the slogan that drove the foreign-policy of the 80's was peace through strength.

military power must be rebuilt to provide for the common defense. it is a primary duty of the government under the constitution. due to budget cuts, we are on the path of only spending two and a half percent of gdp on defense by the end of this decade. this is really dangerous. the president should call on leaders of both parties to fix the budget and to address the shortfalls in our defense spending. he should show leadership and commitment to solving this problem. the next president should launch a strategic review of our military strategy so we meet needs with capability. our military is not a discretionary expense. it is essential. the use of military power is one of the most serious decisions a president has to make.

having a military equal to any threat is not only essential to the commander-in-chief, it makes it less likely we will have to put our men and women in uniform in harms way. i believe that weakness invites war. strength encourages peace. america needs to strengthen the alliances and relationships that foster peace. we relied on these alliances that have been understated perhaps for the american people, that they have been a huge part of the reason that people have had the chance to rise up. america needs to lead and we cannot do it alone. we need to strengthen nato. our relationship with japan and australia, and with our neighbors have to be rebuilt.

we will not be successful unless we invest in the much-needed coalitions and partnerships, and develop the personal relationships that make it possible to garner worldwide support for the great threats we face today, most to particularly islamic extremists. they should be no comfort, success, or future standing against the u.s. while certain nations will always seek to challenge our country, you must be prepared to address the new asymmetric non-state-sponsored threats that consume the news. these threats come nearly every

day, in the form of the most evil and horrific acts on innocent lives. passengers on an airplane or subway, office workers shoppers, children out of school, cartoonists at their drafting tables, or christians simply practicing their faith. al qaeda, taliban, and others set their sights on the softest of targets. you must be prepared for a long term commitment to fight these battles. it requires responses on many levels.

for the life of me, i do not understand the debate has gotten off track, where we're not understanding are protecting. this is a hugely important program to use the technologies keep us safe. it requires coordination with allies and a rigorous homeland effort, including border security. the threats of the 21st century will not be the same as the threats of the 20th and it is critical that we adapt. our foreign policy must be rooted in a critical principle let us call it liberty diplomacy. we declared the power in our country rested with the individual and not the other way around. that liberty was natural and self evident. free speech, free markets, free press, and religious freedom. america's experience affirms the power of human liberty, not just

because america has thrived, but because the world has thrived from it as well. i think of the example of dr. lee from korea. in the 1950's, he fled the north to fight alongside american troops for the south. when the war was concluded, he studied medicine. his work led him to identify and isolate a virus and develop a vaccine. america's defense of korea was not without sacrifice. the war, some historians say ended in a draw. but do not tell that to dr. lee. korea has gone from the most desolate country to a first

world country. it has world-class businesses that have embraced korean technologies. the stakes could not be clearer. for those who doubt me, consider the testimony of the very few people who escaped the modern concentration camps of north korea. our commitment to korea will bear fruit for generations. in europe, in africa, and asia tens of millions of people can tell their own story of american goodness, of a life saved, of the life liberated, of a life of freedom, because america chose to lead and sacrifice and chose to be freedom's greatest defender. we do this work for others and we also do it for ourselves. time and time again, we have learned that if we withdraw from

the defense of liberty elsewhere, the battle eventually comes to us anyway. in our cities and streets, and in our skies. the enemies of freedom will never be content to live in their own dark corner of the globe. they must eventually strike out at america and they often do. america does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world. we have no reason to apologize for our leadership, or our interest in serving the cause of global security and peace and human freedom. nothing and no one can replace strong american leadership. thank you all, i appreciate the chance of being here. [applause] [applause] thank you.

>> thank you. i know everyone in the room appreciates the depth of your remarks. you took us on a principled world tour. let's start a little closer to home. let's start with cuba. the rationale for the reset -- we have 50 years of failed policy, it is time for a fresh approach, because the previous policies have not worked. we are going to establish a relationship with the country that is still governed by the

castros. >> i would not call it a reset. i would call it bad negotiation. we got nothing in return. allen gross was held hostage and languishing in prison. his wife believed if he stayed much longer, he would have died. for spies convicted in our judicial system. education trips have been expanded. the president has the authority to do so. nothing in return. they get subsidized oil from venezuela and american tourists.

all of that goes to the coffers to support the regime. the notion that you're going to have freedom outbreak in cuba, i think it is false. i think it is incorrect. is it important to engage the cubans? sure, i think it is more than appropriate. but to do so secretly in that anything in return, we already are seeing the results. the first formal talks -- the cubans began to renegotiate what their expectations are and ask for more in return as they negate the ability to do anything that would create a trade-off. i think it is the wrong thing to

do. had they waited, where they serious about creating the climate for a free cuba, they would have seen significant financial strains that would've brought cuba to the table. if venezuela collapses, the first thing that happens is that they will have to pull back from the program they have which subsidizes significantly the cuban regime. cuba would probably have to pull back on the number of state security forces that are in venezuela to prop up the regime. >> let's stay in latin america, as a reference point for your principled address and the application of the principles of freedom and democracy, economic growth. and the extent to which success in the u.s. and also economic

success relative to our allies makes them strong, worthy allies. what is it that you think creates such difficulty for latin america? >> half of latin america has embraced freedom as it relates to consistency of the rule of law, allowing for a thriving civil society, of creating better economic conditions so people can rise up, commitments many of these countries may have seen. we have seen significant gains of people completely isolated for now -- who are now blooming out of abject poverty. you can see significant economic growth.

chile, peru, colombia, mexico, to a certain extent. these are countries in their ascendancy. the ones who have accepted state dominated socialism are the ones who have problems. it is a reminder of the obvious. free market capitalism provides opportunities for people. the u.s. has pulled back from the region. the voids are being filled by new actors, notably china. our withdrawal from the region is not appropriate. i think the focus ultimately needs to get back to a free trade agreement of the americas, where the u.s. would benefit.

if you go back home today and look at a map and look at where i live, it would be at the center of the universe of that trade agreement. there are huge opportunities. another example, where engagement has been a spectacular success. in colombia, this was a plan to deal with the social turmoil in colombia where the drug cartel and violence was significant. the previous administration made a significant effort to provide technical and military support economic support. the president made a real commitment to open up the economy, to allow people -- to

liberate the economy. it was a huge victory. we should apply that same type of approach right now. the president has actually proposed that for the northern triangle states, which have a similar situation, perhaps more grave. the drug cartels make it hard for people to consider investing there. the middle is getting squeezed and the poor feel disconnected. that has bipartisan support. during my brother's administration, it had support from both sides of congress. if the president is serious and goes to congress, he will get support. >> if we stay with your principles and move across the

atlantic and think in context of economic growth, robust allies. >> now we are getting in trouble. >> we would need them to be economically robust. we would need them to share our values and ideals. we would need a sense of cohesion. to confront circumstances such as russia and ukraine. had he think about the relative strengths of nato, reliance -- how do you think about the relative strength of nato, the alliance in confronting this threat?

>> if you consider nato's long life, it has been a significant force for good in the world. people in most of europe now see the world, they see it deeply pessimistic. frankly, it is directly related to our own country. we have similar kinds of feelings, less so, perhaps, than europe. growth above all else must be the strategy of the next president. it will create optimism that allows for looking over the horizon and thinking longer-term. there has not been a country in

the post crash era that has made the adjustments to promote growth. japan has gotten close, massive stimulation by the central bank. adjusting their entitlement system or whatever they call it, the social contract, hasn't happened. europe has made some adjustments. i think we're going to see a hollowed core in europe or must we start to see strategies to create high sustained economic growth again. demography is one of the big challenges. it is why immigration reform for our country so hugely important. we are 34 different kinds of flavors. the u.s. has the potential of being young and dynamic again.

if europe embraced that approach, they could see economic growth as well. if it doesn't happen, i think you're going to see nato being a place where there might be a lot of conversation going on but not a force that will intimidate anyone. the treaty obligation of helping our fellow nato members will be hollow as well. the minute that happens, you create real uncertainty that could -- >> what is your sense of what we should be discussing, with

respect to our perspective of mr. putin and the germans, and other european democracies who do not have the benefit of the oceans you described. >> they have centuries of war. they have a different attitude about this, for sure. the first up for the u.s. is to recommit to rebuilding our own military and making a commitment that we are committed to doing this. we want to rebuild nato. it is hard for us to go electric europe about their declining commitment -- to go lecture europe about their declining commitment when we are doing the same. need to give the europeans the sense that you are not disengaging -- we are not disengaging.

we have to engage with the germans particularly, because they are the most important power in europe. and other countries as well, to say that we have their back and are going to be here for the long haul. i don't know what the effect is, it is hard to be on the road but the president did make a commitment. i think that is the appropriate thing to do. to show appropriate thing to do. to show commitment that we are serious about the nato alliance is important. the worst thing would be to announce it and not do it. i'm going to assume that it is being done. there is no price. there is no price in plutin's

world. there needs to be a price. there is a calculation on each of these actions. if the cost is too high for russia, it will create a deterrent effect.

rather than react, we ought to state what the sanctions are going to be. finally, i would suggest ukraine is not immediately in our national interests, it is not in our neighborhood, but it is important in a lot of ways and to ignore their request for military support and they are being invaded, because that is what is happening, just seems feckless. you create a better climate for pushing russia back. they have structure problems as well. these countries have economic problems that could play out if we were more patient. >> let's talk a bit about another tough neighborhood. let's move from europe to the middle east. >> is there a good neighborhood week ago two, temporarily -- we can go to, temporarily? >> you are in one. >> good point. >> it's hard to know where to start. let's take freedom and democracy and the arab spring, but has to be now seen as a mis-judgment about what would into following

the arab spring, from egypt to tunisia. >> tunisia has worked out. >> right. we would be remiss to celebrate tunisia and move on. whether or not the saudis become a western-style democracy anytime soon, in that neighborhood, it has historically been true that you take your friends and allies rather as they come and

understand that you have alignments of different sorts, strategically. we got away from that of it in egypt. it has resulted in a bit of a confused state as to who it is we would actually wish were there. we don't have the strong egypt we once had which created a significant buffer to iran. what is your sense of how we harmonize our ideological views and having a secure ally that thinks differently than we do? >> this is your best question so far. this is a question we need to think about a lot. foreign policy is not one thing. american values and american liberty is a force for good in the world. if we could create the freest

world, we would have less threats, less violence, less terrorism and many other things. but to get there, it is a long-term challenge and different in every country. i would say we got to truong in egypt. we got it wrong in egypt. and now we are pulling back support. i just know if you saw this a month ago, but he gave a speech about muslim extremism. he said it was their responsibility to fight against it. we have to be practical and balance our belief in liberty with the belief that security

and engagement will create the possibilities for the egyptians to create more freedom. if we pull back and are diffident, and say you are not on our team, we get the result you see. egypt welcoming putin to cairo which they did last week. 1973, henry kissinger and richard nixon, and a brilliant stroke of foreign policy, pulled sadat in. now we see russia invited back in because of our disengagement. there has to be a balance. i have been critical of the president a lot here. this is a problem of presidents past as well, if you have an election, you are democracy.

hamas had an election, hezbollah, these groups are not supportive of democracy, they use the election process to take away freedom from people. we consistently think in american foreign-policy that if you check the box, it is ok. we have to assess that as well. in the cases egypt, they can play a constructive role. we should be engaging with them. they could've brought about a more lasting peace. we are consistently disrespecting the allies that

make a huge difference in the region and i think we have to rearrange that again. >> bespoke in your speech to having been -- you spoke in your speech to having been in an extraordinary vantage point in your life. among your father and his close circle of advisers, your brother and his close circle of advisers, and the quality of service that so many of those people are few to have contributed to those years. there is a perception that the same quality, even if you sort of have a point of comparison, no longer exists. do think that is true?

or do we look at the rearview mirror with rose tinted glasses? >> we see things and always view it negatively. i feel like i should be the marine psychologist in the geico ad. he throws the kleenex at the guy. get over it. we should not be as pessimistic as we are. we are on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. the president has had counted people around him. he has not empowered them to do their jobs. he has taken away power from the departments that are responsible for defending the homeland and protecting -- creating the

military strategy and foreign-policy strategy. it has become more centralized in the white house. i think that was a mistake. but the talent is there. granted, if you think about of people that served in previous administrations. henry kissinger, schultz madeleine albright all testified last week. these are incredibly counted people. but we have those people. i'm not worried about that at all. >> so the new bush cabinet would have no difficulties? >> that is a 15 yard penalty. >> that wasn't my best question right? one could easily conclude that a discussion of sovereign states the way we have been proceeding,

is much easier than a discussion of the isis phenomenon. you mentioned it in your speech. what to make of this, a stateless entity, carving out territory to incorporate it into an image of what they perceive to be a caliphate. how do you -- what type of diplomacy do you apply here? >> no diplomacy. with them directly? the strategy needs to be restrain them, tighten the noose, and take them out. it has to be done in concert with folks in the region. look at jordan.

its population has grown with refugees from syria and iraq and previous wars with israel. this country is a powder keg. similarly, other countries in the region are seeing real challenges, whether it is turkey or the persian gulf states. these are big security threats in the region and we need to create a coalition led by the u.s., because only the u.s. could lead something like this but in total concert with the neighborhood. it is made more complicated by our pullback.

on top of that, the shiite-sunni issue gets complicated. the president has a huge challenge here. part of it is his own making. part of it are trends that have existed for a long while. but we have to be engaged. if we think this is going to be contained in a particular part of geography, which some americans believe, there will be a day with a big awakening. >> what do you think about tribalism? beyond that, what about the dissolution of sovereign states in the middle east and the return to tribalism?

>> i think that was be horrific. it would be a mistake to think that isis is not what it is. it is violent, extreme islamic terrorism. the more we try to ignore that reality, the less likely it is that we are going to develop the appropriate strategy to garner the support of the muslim world to do what i said, tighten the noose and take them out. it is important. people in our country, including the president, struggle with this. our strategy would be more

decisive if we accepted what it is. i have read articles about whatever the 1915 breakdown of the middle east and how that no longer is a viable deal. i would like to know what the options are. >> what i meant to say is that isis allows barbaric acts. boko haram and the others, throughout africa, seems less so. how do you establish a dialogue with such a phenomenon? >> let's go to iraq. there were mistakes, for sure. using information that turned out not to be accurate. not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of hussein was a mistake. iraqis wanted security more than anything else.

my brother's administration -- there was no support for this, it was hugely successful and created the stability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more secure situation. we created the void. when you have a failed state or a weak state and you leave, the first thing that happened, maliki turned to iran. iran's influence has replaced the united states's in a

significant way. if you're serious about protecting the status of nationstates, you have to protect the integrity. isis did not exist 3 or 4 years ago. the guy who is the leader was in a prison in southern iraq. >> with that, we have 15 minutes to go. i have no doubt that the governor's speech and answers to my questions have provoked -- >> great questions. >> except for the one. have provoked comments from the audience. raise your hand. you have to wait for the microphone.

how about this one right here. can we get a microphone? >> thank you, for this wonderful talk. my name is professor bernadette. i'm interested about the comments you have made about our recent engagement with cuba, that patients would have yielded a better result. that struck me as strange because we have been patient for over half a century. is sounded to me that you were saying the catalyst is going to be the oil prices. but we know the collapse of the soviet union did not do it. why do we have cause to think that the change of the oil prices and venezuela is going to do it? why not have the courage to say that this has been a failed policy for over half a century we need to do something fresh?

>> absolutely. first of all, the embargo cannot be lifted by the president. it has to be lifted by change in law, in congress. the president can only tinker around the margins. there is very little support for lifting the embargo among many of the leaders in the democratic party that are engaged in this subject. what i am saying is that if the objective is freedom in cuba, if that's was the objective of this negotiation, i hope it was because that is a legitimate goal, then it's prolonging the regime's existence.

it is similar to iran. there is a feeling that if we do not put too many conditions on our negotiations, they will end up being a democracy over time that repression will subside. but you have to create the environment for that happens. in the case of cuba, no one honestly believes that this is just going to happen by osmosis. lift the embargo, lift everything, very few people -- i do think it happens unless you negotiated in a way that creates the conditions for it to happen. the venezuelan point is this. venezuela replaced russia as the main provider of aid to cuba. cuba has lived on five or six

lives here. not opening up our piggy banks -- 95% of which will go to the regime, not the cuban people, i thought it was a mistake. >> bill, how about you? >> governor, first, thank you, for your comments. i want to focus on one of your principles with which i agree. that economic strength can lead to political strength. if we take that to asia, let's talk about china. second largest economy in the world and soon to be the largest. there is no question that they had taken the growing economy and have tried to project political strength.

the president talks about a pivot to asia but has done very little. what should we be doing differently? >> i think the term pivot was probably a mistake. pivots are in the eye of the beholder. people in the region say that you only talk about pivots in our region, not washington. if people do not think it is a serious move, it will not achieve the desired result. and second, the rest of the world wonders, am i the pivot-ee? it cannot just be talked about. it has to be real. engagement with china is equally important.

we have to create confidence with our traditional allies, japan, korea, australia. but we also have to have an ongoing, deep relationship with china. one point about the cuba deal. we got something in return. just from a negotiating point of view, this was poorly handled as it relates to cuba. china, we have to stay engaged. my experience, and it pales in comparison to many in the room is that it is easy to create misunderstanding. going forward, it is the most complex, important relationship that the u.s. has.

>> right here, please. coming your way, right behind you. >> governor, thank you, very much. we live in a city where two miles south of here babies born have a different life expectancy. what can we do differently in the new white house?

>> the question of poverty is a huge problem. that baby, he or she, is going to be really cold. but unless there is a change that baby will never have a job. the world that we are heading into creates exponential increases in automation. when a child grows up, -- living a life of purpose and meaning is going to be altered in many ways.

it is a huge challenge. our policies have not worked to lift people out of poverty. put aside who the president is this is not exclusively a white house or federal issue. as society, it goes beyond transfer payments. it goes to how do you love a child with your heart and soul and teach the habits that yield success. how do you teach people great and determination and give them the tools for a much better education, so they can dream bigger dreams and not feel so disengaged the they do not even try. the health issues are easier then the permanency of poverty. if you're born in america today you're more likely to stay poor than any time in modern history. if you're born rich, you and your family, it is the greatest

time to be alive. our policy is not focused on how to address these issues. that is a work in progress, for sure. a great question. >> the gentleman in front of me. right here. >> thank you. mr. bush, just to play devil's advocate, if iran wanted nuclear weapons, why couldn't they just go to one of the bad boys in the neighborhood like north korea or pakistan or russia? it is an argument that is also being used for proliferation.

if you bought a weapon made already, you don't have to hide it. >> it is a scary question. i don't know if you follow the story of the pakistani nuclear scientist who stole technologies from europe, brought it back. he is a national hero in pakistan. he lives in the open. he created the capacity to do just as you are describing in pakistan and was caught trying to export that technology to where?

iran and libya. what you are describing is not something -- they have tried. they have absolutely tried. we have to be real about this. they are trying. that is why engagement in the proliferation efforts that are ongoing are hugely important. look, the more i get into this stuff, there are some things were you just go, holy. as the rest of the world gets weak and more insular, we have to be more engaged because these things will occur. great question. >> it is and it is going to have to be the last one.