thank you for being here. we are grateful to open our home for an event like this. house parties are an important tradition of the primary here in new hampshire. candidates come and meet with owners one-on-one -- they answer questions and rise or fall on their own merits. it has served our system well over the last many decades. we are honored to host governor bush his first visit to new hampshire since he announced he is thinking about maybe possibly running and he wanted to do a house party as part of his visit sends a message about the kind of campaign he might run in new hampshire if he becomes the candidate here. i have a couple of people i want to recognize and i ask you to hold your applause until later. the mayor of dover is here.

a couple of our city counselors, john o'connor are here. here is our mayor. hello. i want to point out doris grady, in her eighth decade as an educator in the city of dover. her 20th year -- 22nd year on the school board here. she is a true marvel. [applause] i need to thank my wife jenny. [laughter] [applause] when we talked about hosting a house party, and she agreed, she may have had something smaller in mind. i want to recognize my mother and father, the good ridges, who [indiscernible]

they helped us pull this off. i am lucky in my in-laws. my mom and dad, who are over here. . we both have strong, tough mothers. if you haven't had a chance to meet my mom and dad i hope you'll make that opportunity tonight. four years ago and the last primary season we had a lot of candidates running for president but we didn't have enough serious, credible candidates. if governor bush were to become a candidate he is the one person antidote for that problem. his family has distinguished itself in service to our nation. governor bush was a successful, fiscally conservative two-term governor of a big and diverse state. education reform and innovation was a signature issue while governor. i appreciate governor bush has

been a leading voice on fixing and modernizing our broken inner ration -- broken immigration system. join me in welcoming governor jeb bush. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you for doing this. this is my inaugural voyage at a house party that looks like this at least. [laughter] i am happy to be here. thank you for coming. you could be doing other things. it is friday night. im humbled you would come to hear me talk and to ask me questions and let me have it. before i start i want to talk about myself. people do know me as george and barbara's boy. and george w's brother pre-all of that i am proud of. when i was born in midland,

texas, my eyes open and there i was crying for oxygen, and barbara bush was there. i didn't know at the time but i won the lottery. [laughter] i am blessed and so many ways. if i'm going to go beyond the consideration of running i have to share my heart and tell my life story and give people the sense that i have ideas to help people rise up. my life experience has been driven by my wife of 41 years breed i met her in mexico when i was 17 years old and in exchange program. i fell madly in love with her. head over here heels in love. it allowed me to -- i wanted to marry her. i had to figure a way to make a living. it is hard to make the pitch without having wherewithal to do it. i got out of school in two years and started working, i worked all of my adult life without

missing more than a week off. that experience has been part of my life. i signed the front side of a paycheck. i think we need more people with practical experience in that endeavor, the heartbeat of our country, in washington dc . we see this oppressive rules on top of older rules that create complexity that makes it harder and harder for people to have a chance to have rising income. i was governor of the state of florida, which i recommend highly, for any young people. two pieces of advice for young people who are interested in politics, run for governor, don't settle for something not nearly as interesting, and run against a bad candidate if you can. it is easier. [laughter] or don't run against a guy who never lost. better to have a chance to win. i had a chance to serve.

when i was a candidate in 1998 i have these views about education. i think this has to do with how we start fixing problems in washington. my views didn't change much when i ran between 1994 and 1998. i wanted to take these deeply held views of turning the system upside down and shaking it so it could become more student centered. i went to visit 250 schools. it was a spectacular experience. people saw me for who i was. i showed my heart. i stood my ground. i learned a lot. i learned to share the need to reform our schools and a human contacts. it gave me the chance to do it. in florida we have led the nation in many categories in terms of rising student achievement, particularly kids and poverty that are always left behind.

there is always another excuse. we can't afford that anymore. our country is 56 percent majority minority. 57% free and reduced lunch qualified. we had a growing number of people that are poor which is fine because they have every chance to rise up if we get it right. changing these big things, i had a chance to do as governor, we created the first statewide voucher program, the increase in charter schools, we eliminated social promotion in third grade. we advanced literacy to make sure children, the gaps didn't start early. we hit it on all cylinders. florida did see big gains. we also build a better business climates. i cut taxes to $19 billion. we reduce the state government workforce by 13,000 we could on the interests in our state, the trial bar, or the folks making a

lot of money off of the worker's comp. system. we had 1.3 million net new jobs during my eight years. i didn't do it. i was part of the 13,000 decreased in jobs. i was state governor. the private sector did a lot better. we were the only state who went to aaa. we were frugal. government didn't grow faster than people's income. they called meet vito corleone. maybe i called myself that. [laughter] we've vetoed something like 2500 separate line items in the budget to create discipline and focus on how the budget works. the legislature ultimately responded. my point is, you can be a conservative, you can do it with joy in your hearts, you don't have to be angry about this. do it in a way that draws people towards our cause and you can

win in a purple state. in this country if you are going to solve problems we have to win . we have to go out and reach out to people of every walk of life not with a divisive message one that is unified. everyone should have a chance to rise up. everybody should have the god-given bills to achieve our own success. if i get beyond the consideration of this, i believe this country is on a precipice of the greatest time to be alive. if we had a stratus they -- strategy of high economic growth were income begins to rise nothing is going to stop this country. we should reflect on our greatness, not just our history, but our innovative spirit and ability to do things that the five imagination of the rest of the world. we should be optimistic and begin to govern to solve these problems so everybody gets optimistic. this is going to be a great time to be young. i would rather be your age than mine. [laughter]

i appreciate you being here. i am happy to answer any questions. this is up close and personal. yes? >> i appreciate your principled stance on common core. who do you -- what is the biggest misconception of common core? >> this is a federal takeover of education. i oppose that. the best way to disprove that is for the reauthorization of the no child left behind act in congress now. in that act in the reauthorization, there is a provision that says the federal government should have nothing to do with standards. the federal government should have nothing to do with content directly or indirectly. the federal government should have nothing to do with curriculum. common core standards -- [applause] common core standards are higher standards than the standards of many states.

as they have been embraced, some states don't want to have them, fine. they should just have higher standards. call them sunshine state standards. call them what you want. the fact is we have dumbed down everything over a long time. this is not a new thing. as we have dumbed it down and have the politically -- politically correct curriculum we have 80% graduation rate in high school. that is pretty good. it has gotten better. a third of our kids are college and career ready. who is fooling whom? we are giving people a piece of paper that says you are a high school graduate. then they go to the community college and find out sorry, you have to retake high school reading and high school math. who is fooling whom? are we going to be a great nation that has higher aspirations for people are we going to say it is someone else's fault, kids in poverty can't learn.

too much bureaucracy. we should put away the excuses and recognize kids have the talent to do this. they have the talent. we have the teachers to do this. an element that is important as high standards. high standards matters a lot. i hate the poisonous environment that common core has brought because the we ought to be focusing on is higher standards, accurate it says it's, robust accountability, school choice, advancing the cause of rising student achievements, and that is my passion. i am all in on that. am not backing down because i have seen what happens when you do this, when you implement this. i have tire marks doing this. [laughter] they can tell you the stories of what it was like. it wasn't easy. the unions, i tried to find common ground. we couldn't. i was their poster child in the reelection. the campaign was about these

bigger ideas. i won reelection but it is hard to get through these things. you have to stay the course and make it work. florida gains are real. no one can deny them. thank you for asking that. >> you talk about iowa leading innovation and technology. which states are lacking? [inaudible] >> i have been on a lot of business to aurizon mines real-life -- tours in my real life. agriculture in general doesn't do the recognition of how innovative and how technologically driven it is whether it is the biotechnology that allows for having crops grow in drought resistant way

or the yield increase, farmers and increase their productivity tenfold in's 19 the. it is an amazing story. technology normally means this area around here, so the new >> technology is across the board in every sector. there are great companies in florida. i feel compelled as a former governor to to to my important -- to toot my own horn. there is incredible stuff happening. i went to see the guys that when google. -- that run google. he pulled up his computer intermediate -- and showed me the uber cars running and it

showed me the people violating law at miami international airport. we have a closet that prohibit these type of activities. eventually those will go away. we are living in a world of opportunity and innovation. the question is -- are our children going to be overwhelmed by it? our system of government needs to be fixed so that we start building for what the future looks like. it is a benefit, rather than our detriment. yes ma'am. are you a reporter? >> i am, sir. >> later. [laughter] >> sir, i'm not reporter -- >> citizen of new hampshire. >> we will speak with you guys later. >> how would you address

ensuring our economic and climate security? >>jeb>> the question is how would you balance the answers to both? the role of the federal government needs to be narrowed to one specific field only the federal government can do, which is basic research. the federal government cannot have a venture-capital arm picking winners and losers. we thought about it was. -- we saw how bad it was. to disrupt the advances of it technology and -- the advances of technology and energy,. beyond that, we need to encourage the marketplace.

it works far better/ the best example is the obvious one. a decade ago, 12 years ago natural gas prices were double-digit. the end was near. we had less than 10 years of supply. you may remember your there was an airport facility being built for billions of dollars to bring expensive liquefied natural gas to supply our natural gas need in this country. those are abandoned. the three or four that were built or gone. a guy name george mitchell and a private company, through trial and error, took two existing technologies -- hydraulic fracking and drilling, and created a revolution. we've gone from 10 years of supply to over 100 years of supply.

the price has gone from double digits down to $2, $3. significantly lower than the price for oil. that is america at its best, where people pursue their dreams, some of them succeed some of them don't, and it creates opportunities for all of us. the oil and gas sector has created enormous economic opportunity for this country. and it will continue to do so. it also has another benefit which is not only has carbon reductions been reduced because of this, which it has -- many countries in europe are flat lighting in terms of their production. we have seen a significant decrease because it has less c02 in missions. it has also created a opportunity for us. we could be energy secure within five years if we are serious about it. we would have the lowest cost of

energy. the benefit of that is that we could really industrialize the country to create middle-class jobs. it would always allow us to not have a heavy footprint around the world. that our foreign policy be based on our values and national security interests. it would also allow us to use natural gas and oil as a tool. to deal as a tool to deal with the instability in the world. i don't think we need industrial planners telling us what to do. i would rather have thousand george mitchells creating the kind of innovation that allows us to continue forward. limit government's power, and to let the market place work is probably the best approach. yes ma'am?

>> to america, it was a wake-up call to the danger of islamic terrorism. my limited understanding is that right now, because of obama, our border is far more wider than it has ever been. my question is, what would you do if elected president, but beyond that, 2 years is a long time to have that porter opened -- that border open. what can we do? >> congress needs to prioritize spending on the border. and prescribing through the budget a strategy to be effective on that. secondly, there needs to be more money and a strategy on the part

that should give you concern which is that 40% of illegal immigrants come with a visa and then don't leave. there needs to be a much better mechanism of when the visa expires to either have it the renewed, or for the person to leave. that needs to be the first priority. there is no trust, especially with the obama and his station to do anything else until we are serious about that. whether it is public health representatives, not as national as security threats, and the basic concept of the rule of law, this has to be a high priority for sure. than it you can get to the broken immigration system, which makes it more economically driven. we have a system today where 80% of all legal immigrants, through family petition. it is a noble thing,, don't get me wrong. but we have the broadest

definition of what family is. like every country, we have adult siblings and adult parents. we put quotas by country. that result is, we don't have an immigration system that is strategic as it relates to possibilities of economic growth. we have a noble integration system that is legal, that is fine. but i think we should narrow it down to what other countries have. we should create the first 500,000 first round draft picks if you will. the people that will create economic opportunity for less. we will not get there until we are confident that the borders are enforced and that the rule of law is applied consistently. >> governor, i am a veteran and work at the va in a venture. last year, we heard about veterans not getting proper care. what is your mission to ensure that veterans get better care? jebv bush: do you have the same

issue in manchester? >> we have never had a secret waitlist or anything. i'm not saying it is a perfect facility, but we get positive remarks. >>jeb bush: know, it has been a serious problem. you know you have bipartisan support when you have john mccain and bernie sanders agreeing on a bill. [laughter] one of the few laws and bills that connect return to a lot in the last 4-5 years. it was an effort to begin the process of reforming, i don't think it is the full comprehensive reform that is necessary. one of the things that they did and you may not agree with us since you are working at the va hospital but i think it is essential given the uniqueness of people to customize the health care service for veterans.

you have health challenges long-term disability issues, you have issues of iraq and afghanistan where they are different from vietnam. all of that leads me to believe that we should empower veterans to make these decisions. where they have the chance to pick the place and the health care provider that they want. in this law that passed last year, it allows for -- i have to call it a doctor, i don't know what else to call it. -- clall it a voucher. i am all into the doctor thing. -- the voucher thing. say that you don't want to go to manchester, why would you have to travel to manchester to get medical care? you are getting someone at the choice to go themselves. they can go to the veterans

hospital, no one is suggesting we shut down the pa system. -- down the va system. the number of people taking advantage of this is very low. i think there should be much more outreach to give people a chance to go to private hospitals if necessary if they want to see their own dr.. this has to be a long-term commitment, for sure. there is no argument in terms of budget. there have been a dramatic increases in the budget. it has probably flatlined now given the sequester. but i totally agree that this needs to be a high priority. >> for the record, whoever can get the most efficient and timely treatment, regardless of where they can go.

>> any ideas about how to reduce costs ionn obamacare? jeb bush: the obvious way to reduce utilization is to have people be healthy. the system we have pre-obamacare is not a health care system, it is a sick care system, in effec t. ultimately, i think we need to move to a plan that has hhas high deductible premium coverage where coverage is on catechol -- is on catastrophic coverage. sometimes you haven't services that are prevented it, and sometimes you don't.

if you added the economic incentive to this, which is keeping the money that rolls over tax-free so that you are building up an ethic to deal with harder, more costly health care needs, you are going to bend the cost curve of the system. i think we need to have tort reform. in florida, we fought hard for this. i don't know how it is here. it is obviously a driver, the uncertainty of lawsuits create a lot of defensive medicine that we don't need. there is a whole range of things. but the insurance part needs to be focused on moving back to a high deductible, lower premium hsa attached plan.

i have this, this is prehistoric -- this is a pebble. [laughter] i can do my strides, my pulls, i can know how long i am sleeping, i take it on after i wake up. but these devices -- apple just announced their device this week -- these devices and many others much more sophisticated than this thing, will allow us to monitor our own health care. we will be able to wirelessly send messages to your health care provider because you didn't ingest a pill at the right time. 40% of all research and drugs are taken in the wrong way. -- of all prescription drugs are taken into runway. we need to recognize that the best system is where everyone is engaged in their own health care decisions. that is the american way.

as we move away from that, our health care costs have gone up and health care outcomes have been worse. technology gives us a chance to move back where we are engaged in all this. mayor? >> ina small business owner with my two brothers. i pooled my employees to see what they wanted me to ask q. -- to ask you. >> one question with two parts. >> the first one will be on the affordable care act. we want to know where you stand -- are you on a full repeal, or do you want to take it with parts? the second question, where do you stand on minimum wage? jeb bush: is the question is minimum wage, i don't think we need to wage the minimum wage at the federal level. as it relates to the affordable care act i would like to repeal

and replace. it may end up in the same place where some of your employees would walk, where you would have pretenses -- have pre-existing conditions of any plan. is a small number, but for young people to stay on their parents plans until their 26, i don't have an argument against that. i am not passionate one way or the other. there are things you can have in a new plan. the idea that the federal government, through these massive subsidies is going to be -- and exchanges where there are all sorts of employer mandated services that increase the cost of insurance if it is going to work over the long haul, i find it flawed to the core. what i describe is a better plan is the replacement plan. >> thank you.

>> governor, i find the most telling parts of the united states is our indebtedness. do you have a plan to control that indebtedness? jeb bush: the debt is not a problem in the here and now of washington dc. don't take out of context. [laughter] that is a comma. because we have lowered interest rates to zero and we have insured majority of the doubling of debt. under the president, we have doubled the debt and shrunk the maturity so that something like 60% of all that comes due in 3 years. as you shrink the maturities, there is no interest. the debt service today is lower than it was 12 years ago.

is like passing the bottle of bourbon and getting the keys to the maserati to a 14-year-old. [laughter] it is no real efforts to change this. what happens if interest rates go up after historic levels? you have to renew the debt if you can interest rates will grow exponentially. it will crowd out all of the things -- national security, veterans affairs infrastructure. everything else will be squeezed out. first of all, we should restructure our debt to bake it long-term rather than short-term. secondly, we ought to create a high-growth strategy above all else. the idea that we will grow at 2% per year over the next decade will make it harder and harder for us to truly service the debt. if we grew at 4%, which is historically where america has grown, and there are discrete,

important things to make that work. more importantly, our regulatory system needs to be brought into the 21st century. our tax code is creating investment -- incentive for investment overseas. embracing the energy revolution. all of those ends will help us grow at 4%. if you workout the 2% difference , i wasn't a big math guy but take 1.02 times 18, in the 10th year, we would create an additional germany of additional activity. and additional germany grades $1 trillion of revenue at the state, local, and federal level based on the current level of taxation. that is a far better idea than any exotic form of taxation

barack obama would like to impose on us. high growth is the first step to dealing this fiscal, structural problem. and it is structural. secondly, we have to go to sound budgeting practices. the federal reserve, because of the legislative environment, it provides the treasury something about $70 billion rockets -- $70 billion of profits. that is not revenue that will stick around. there will be losses, and when those losses take place, it becomes part of the deficit. whether it is freddie and fannie, the load processes, all of these things related to the federal reserve and accounting problems we have, it all benefits the government. let us be real about it. you will begin to see pressure for people to soendpend less, which

is ultimately we need to do. spending less will be a huge problem if we don't fix our entitlement problems. you can talk about how efficient government is -- it's not -- but the entitlement challenge will overwhelm everything else. the deficits we have today will pale by comparison at one we get to the baby boomers are being retired receiving social security and receiving medicare. the expansion of our medicaid population is explosive for our debt. we have to do with that issue while creating a high-growth strategy. thank you. >> governor, our foreign policy -- well, i don't think we have a foreign policy. jeb bush: we do. >>our foreign policies one of retrenchment disengagement, one

of the things america's presence and powers in the world is not a force for good. i love reading books about history particularly. if you take a pause at our own history, we have been a force for good consistently. she idea that we are not is quite dangerous. the two things that matter in foreign policy is that our friends know that we have their back. and that our enemies fear us a little bit -- not a lot but just enough to know that the consequence, if they behave in a way that is dangerous for the region or the world that will be consequences. our consistent friends don't believe america is reliable. this is a test i am do this all the time. you're going to go first.

[laughter] name a country where the american relationship is better today than when barack obama came into office. >> can't do it. >> cuba. jeb bush: congratulations. i don't know about north korea. mirror mark perhaps. but not canada, absolutely not. not latin america. not israel. not egypt. not jordan, not turkey, not saudi arabia, not the entire middle east, not the african countries either. the simple thing is that the this engagement create so much uncertainty and doubt -- the disengagement creates so much uncertainty and doubt that people do not know where we stand. creating a presence in the world would be a powerful first step to be creating more security in

the world. we have to reengage in a way to deal with the threats that are amongst us, isis being one of those. russia now moving with great authority into eastern europe, and perhaps the baltics. challenging whether article five of nato is a viable treaty. people began to have doubts about that. the emergence of china aggressively pursuing their agenda in asia. all of these things are serious threats. then instead of negotiating with iran to legitimize the regime we should have kept the sanctions on them. they would have come to the table. $35 a barrel for oil over a year in iran would have changed the dynamic. instead of negotiating downward

to a deal that will create permanency for the regime, we could have created a policy that would have weakened iran in their support of surrogates in the region and prohibited them from gaining power. yes sir? >> i would like your opinion on whether the house and senate should have only funded homeland security without dealing with the presidents, i believe illegal order dealing with immigration. jeb bush: i think you are correct, the president have authority in either case. he used this concept of prosecutoriawhich i read in tradition, by and large as saying that you take these case-by-case. there are a lot of unique cases and immigration. he used it for 3 million people. i don't think he has the authority, nor does the federal judge.

my guess is that this will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. my hope, to be honest and clear i think congress needs to pass a budget. put the priorities, conservative priorities on the table. get consensus among republicans first, if you need to do that, get the 50 votes to pass the budget, use the power of the budget, pass a budget for crying aloud. this is the fifth year we haven't had one. there are a lot of things in language and things that shouldn't be done that continue because of the resolution approach. that budget, there are ways show the opposition the use of executive orders. i would fully fund the homeland security.

further to your points -- how are we going to secure the border? this is the only way we can do it. there is a time for making a principled opposition to the president. then there is a time to govern and lead. republicans need to start showing that we can't govern and lead. i'm totally convinced that we can. democrats have control of the congress. and no budget passed, a stimulus passed, beyond that no budget. it happened through the sequester rather than a normal way of putting priorities on the table. we need to increase spending on defense and homeland security and reduce costs in other areas. any other members have a different view. let the process work again, that is was missing. every state government, sometimes ugly, sometimes clean

has a balance budget requirement. as crazy as it is, at the end of the day, those states pass a balanced budget. washington it needs to do the same thing. >> i think you will have 20 of more opportunities to take questions. i certainly hope that will be the case. think you for being here tonight. we did a great job. [applause] [indiscernible]

[chatter]

jeb bush: where are we looking at? this guy?

jeb bush: thank you for what you

do. keep teaching. jeb bush: you look just like someone i know in fort meyers. we should take this picture and i'll send it to her. it is striking how you look just like her. that is a good thing, by the way, just for the record. thank you, i'll send that to her. you have him taking the picture.

>> hello governor. >> did you get it? thank you so much governor. >> do you think people understand what you are saying now? jeb bush: yes, i think it just takes time. >> people understand where you're coming from, but they don't understand common core. jeb bush: i think it should be a combination of both. but with common core -- >> you're breaking it down and giving people a different way to look at. jeb bush: reauthorization of the k01-12 would take the federal government's role off the table

which i think would be good. what did you think? >> we loved it. jeb bush: this is how you get your nourishment. i get a lot of energy learning from people.

>> jeb bush hosted this evening at the home of the former chair of the gop. senator ted cruz when not be welcome in new hampshire because he " represents everything that is wrong with the republican party and not interested in

appealing to all americans, only the french, -- theo the fringe." we will air jeb bush's comments again. >> on saturday, just before noon, life on c-span, governor scott walker at eight republican grassroots workshop. senator tim crews at the annual -- ted cruz at the lincoln-reagan dinner. here are some of our featured programs for this evening on the c-span network. saturday at 1 p.m. eastern c-span 2's book tv is live at the university of arizona for the festival of books. featuring discussions on a and politics, the civil war and

callings with authors throughout the day. saturday morning at 9:00 eastern, on american history tv on c-span3, we are live from longwood university for the civil would -- civil war seminar, talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. we continue our live coverage on the seminar on sunday at 9 a.m. find our complete schedule on cspan.org analytics know what you think about the programs you are watching us. call us, email us, or send us a tweet. joined the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> taking you live outside the

home where jeb bush was making remarks tonight in dover, new hampshire. former governor expected to speak to the news media outside of the home of the former state gop. >> stay right where we are. [laughter] >> and if anybody needs to hold the microphone, do so from a distance so it is not blocking his face. >> no, he has been elected president of the gaggle. [laughter] >> okay, here he comes.

jeb bush: i'm in the process of considering these things.

point was, you can repeal obamacare and take elements of it that are appropriate with bipartisan support for the new one. for those that are concerned if you kill obamacare, you can just put parts that you like and a new law. i think that is something that makes sense if you are trying to create a robust exchange for insurance market. the definition of pre-existing condition needs to be looked at. these are obtuse conversations for a friday night. >> where are you in your decision-making process? jeb bush: just wandering around learning a lot and having fun doing it. >> how did your visit here help you? jeb bush: i got a sense, if i was to go forward, how would this be for the next year?

>> people are skeptical of political dynasties -- how will you separate yourself from your mother? -- from your brother? >> you said you do not support the minimum wage? >>jeb bush: it makes it harder for businesses to automate and harder for people to find jobs. we want more social economic mobility, not less. >> something democrats are arguing that you decided -- jeb bush: i didn't decide. the governor's office, the general counsel was part of that.

this was based on the law itself. we complied with the law. altering this time, we have complied with the law, even in my post of ownership. >>-- post governorship. >> do you think house republicans should push forward with the reauthorization? jeb bush: i think so yeah. any chance on a policy initiative where the house can pass their version and the senate can get 60 votes and go to conference and presented to the president as many items as possible to show that democracy works. what the president decide if he wants to participate or veto it. >> but this has been delayed partly because of conservative members of the house. jeb bush: what i suggested is the proper thing to do. if you are concerned about the proverbial districts, then put in a law on what the federal

government can do. >> an interest group in washington this week says that -- with that cause you to take a second look at the rff? they said this week they would like congress to take a look at it. jeb bush: how would they reform it? > the president said that they would like a legislative thing. jeb bush: if the epa doesn't do with the law requires them to do, then congress should change it? i have no clue. >> governor, on the affordable care --

>> how do we get things done? jeb bush: leadership. we had a pretty good run here. we have had more difficult time in our country's history than wars, the great depression. consensus seems to be forged during difficult times. we can do it again. it does not to be a perpetual food fight. if i'm going beyond the possibility of running, this is a campaign issue to say that i understand why people are angry. i think going forward we have to understand why they're angry. with to forge consensus to solve these problems so people aren't as angry. that has been missing in the political discourse. it may be beginning in a campaign. certainly this president doesn't consider it his priority. the next dozen whoever he or

she is, needs to make it that. >> it was a running mate? -- who is your running mate? >> that they's a wrap, we have to get out of here. >> former florida governor and potential 2060 candidate jeb bush visiting with supporters talking with reporters briefly. we will show you his remarks inside the home later tonight from the former state gop chair. he took questions from residents here on c-span. kentucky senator rand paul spoke earlier today at the we state university at maryland -- bowie state university at maryland to keep nonviolent offenders out of prison. another person considering a

2016 gop candidate. his remarks to students and political leaders ran about 40 minutes. >> please give a warm bowie state welcome to senator rand paul. [applause] rand paul: thank you. sometimes people ask, can one people make any difference at all? one of the reasons i'm here is because of eugene, who just introduced me. i was scanning online and found a article he had written that covers what we are trying to do. i had my staff: and see if we -- staff call him up and see if we could be a bowie state.

this was the same month that i was born -- 1963. the reason clyde went to prison is that his crime was kind to at that time, it was very difficult for a black man or woman to enroll. the second time he tried to they planted liquor on him and gave him a $600 fine. one thing led to another and he declared bankruptcy. he tried to unroll a third time, but was bullied by the police. when he tried the third time, he declared bankruptcy and went to his farm to pick up chicken feed. $25 of chicken feed. you know what happened to him? he was arrested. seven years in prison for $25 of chicken feed.

which really was his. it was on his land that the bank was repossessing. people's lives can spiral out of control for $600 fine. thomas wolfe talks about this in his book. a young guy goes in and has to pay $100 to get his car out, and they close the door, he is fifth in line. his life spirals out of control when he tries to get his car back. those of us who have jobs and fairly privileged lives do not know what it is like to have to pay fines, penalties on top of fines, and how someone's life can spiral out of control because of this. even though this was 1963, and a lot of things have improved since then, we have gotten rid of segregation by law, but we still have a problem in this country that is somewhat like segregation, but also somewhat like there are two systems. as martin luther king junior

said, there are two americas. there is one america that believes in life, liberty, and pursue of happiness, but there is another america is witness to a daily disgrace, a lack of hope and despair. like clyde, there are still people in the society were hounded. several cities in missouri, a third of their budget is gotten by fines. in ferguson, 21,000 people. 31,000 arrests. it isn't just about what happens this year. it is about this building out. it is about this gradual increase. i call it an undercurrent of unease. there are still two americas. most people here are part of the america that does believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. those who get an education, no matter the color of your skin,

you're part of america and can live the american dream. many are not. it's the lack of education, but also the criminal justice system. as i have learn more about the criminal justice system, i have come to believe that it is something that will keep these two americas separate. there are so many things, one after the other, they are unjust. if you look at new york city $500 million of fines. about the third of the budget is funded by fines. what reason do we have to take someone down for selling cigarettes on tax. couldn't we have given him a ticket? are there a lot of other ways than -- and i don't blame the police. i blame the politicians. we can change the rules at any minute.

i've said i want to be part of changing some of those rules. i was at the white house and met with the president. he and i don't agree on a lot of status but on stuff but on criminal justice we do. one of the laws that bothers me the most is called civil forfeiture. civil forfeiture is when the government can take your stuff whether they have convicted you of a crime or not. i think this turns justice on its head. most of our judicial system is you are innocent until proven guilty. [applause] civil forfeiture is the opposite. if there's one thing that i can change, i want to reinforce that in the judicial system, you are innocent until proven guilty. the problem is civil forfeiture is the opposite.

i will give you a couple of examples. a family in philadelphia, their teenage son sold $40 worth of a legal drugs off the back porch. the government took their house. how are we making anything better when we take the house? maybe it is grandma's house. why would we take grandma's house? why would we take the family's house based on -- not even a conviction -- an accusation of a child to does not own the house? it is way out of control. is happening in various venues here if you look at it, the washington post has done a great series over the last six or so. it is predominantly african-american, and hispanic or one common denominator, predominantly people who live in poverty. it's got to stop. i think we can stop it.

this is something that the president and i completely agree on. we have legislation that changes the presumption that you will be innocent until proven guilty and they cannot take your stuff until you are proving guilty. giving you some examples of things we have had a problem with. in civil forfeiture they took a $1.5 million motel in new jersey. why? about 10 people had stayed there over about 14 years that have been caught selling drugs. 10 people out of 200,000 people, and they took the hotel. when they look at it, there's a program where those who take your stuff get to keep it. they get to keep the proceeds. it is a perverse incentive for the government to want to take your stuff. for other hotels in the area they did not take them. they had liens against them. this hotel happen to be paid

for. the government looks for things they can confiscate that are already paid for. >> can they increase your volume? governor paul: i think i lost my volume. we will have someone look into it. other than civil forfeiture -- it's coming back. other than civil forfeiture, there are a lot of things that we need to fix in our society. one of them is something called mandatory minimums. mandatory minimums say that if you committed an infraction, you have to serve a minimum sentence. a 24-year-old kid sold $300 worth of marijuana, he got a sentence of 50 years. that's outrageous.

55 years in prison for selling $300 worth of marijuana. you can kill someone in kentucky and be eligible for parole and 12 years. something is wrong here. to compound this, there is a racial outcome to this. i don't think there is a racial intention, i tell people, i think they are looking if they don't think that incarceration problem in our country is not skewed towards one race. i don't think it's purposeful but it is actual and real and we must do something about it. 55 years in prison for selling marijuana. timothy tyler was a guy, 23 years ago, he was 23 years old. he was a dead head, doing lsd, things you shouldn't do. the thing is for that crime of sending some lsd through the mail and using lsd, he got life in prison. he is now 46 years old. he has been in jail for 23

years. this is out of control and insane. jill lockwood is 31 years old. she was writing a false prescription for herself for lortab. it is 95% of tylenol. they put her in jail based on the weight of the entire drug. she is in jail for 15 years. she was an addict. let her have treatment, punish her, but don't put people in jail for 15 years. this is all done through mandatory minimums. i think judges should get more discretion. democrats and republicans are saying keyless discussion, -- give us discretion, another means to incarceration. in 1980, there were 300,000 kids in our america who did not have a father because her father was in prison.

there are now 2 million kids with no father because the father was in prison. we need to be fixing the criminal justice system. if we look at mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture, and other problems we have in our society, one of the problems his employment. republicans, we're big on saying we don't want people permanently on welfare. we want people to transition from welfare to a job. they look to as an say, how am i supposed to find a job, i am a convicted felon. there has to be a way to figure out how to get people back to work. [applause] a friend of mine's brother grew marijuana plants of the worst the mercy of kentucky 30 years ago.

he is a convicted felon. he also check the box every time he goes to look for a job. and, he can't vote. if we really want to get people back integrated into society not permanently unable to work and permanently on welfare, we have to figure out how to expunge their records. booker and i put together a bill called the redeem act. it takes these minor felonies, mostly drug possessions, and says, if you have been punished, out of jail, paid your debts to society, in a certain amount of time, you should be able to get rid of your records. we are talking about nonviolent crimes in the bill also that i have with cory booker, and it gets rid of solitary confinement for teenagers. why we're putting teenagers in solitary confinement, i don't know. i can tell you one story that horrified me, in "the new york times," a couple months ago.

a black man, teenager from the bronx, he was picked up for doing a crime. i don't know if you did the crime or not, but it was a crime, and he was sent to rikers for three years, solitary confinement. three years in prison and he was never tried. have these people not heard about the sixth amendment? a speedy trial. he tried to commit suicide three times. i don't know what happened to him at rikers, but it certainly wasn't good, fair. it certainly wasn't fair to have a man cooped up for three years. we ought to change it. [applause] in the bill that i have with cory booker, we take some of the records and let them be expunged.

they won't show up when you go to get work. we also get rid of solitary confinement for juveniles. i also think that part of the problem with losing your ability to get employment and to vote is that we have a lot of felonies that we can make misdemeanors. i have another bill called the reset bill. we take minor felonies nonviolent crimes, and we make them misdemeanors. we're not saying they are ok, but they are a misdemeanor, and you will never lose your right to vote or your opportunity to work. these are things that if we do them we can radically transform our country. we have something on civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums expungement, and resetting your record. all of these things i think will help with criminal justice and will help for people who live in the two americas and people who think they aren't open to life

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that undercurrent of unease out there. maybe those people will start to feel part of the american dream and will be ambitious and try to succeed like the rest of us. one of the final things is we have had a lot of discussion in our country about voting rights, whether people are excluded or not excluded and what we need to do to make it better. i think the good thing is more minorities voted at a higher percentage in mississippi and other states last time around. we have come a long way. the number one thing precluding people from voting is the felony conviction. i have a bill with harry reid to restore federal voting rights back. i think it's hard for people to feel part of america if they cannot vote. we want people to go to work. we want people to be able to

vote. how do we protect all these things and make it a better, more united america? i think we need to pay more attention to the bill of rights. the bill of rights is there to protect all of us. it is not necessarily for the prom queen. it's not necessarily for the high school quarterback, the college quarterback. those who are popular among you will always do fine. it's for the least popular among you. it's for those with unorthodox ideas. it is precisely for minorities. you can be a minority because of the shade of your skin or a minority because of the shade of your ideology. you can be a minority because you are african or hispanic. but you can also be a minority because you are an evangelical christian. there are all kinds of reasons that you can have a minority of opinion that should be protected. we have instances in the last

year or two where we have let down our guard. i will give you a couple of examples. we have something now in america called indefinite detention. this means someone can be sent to guantanamo bay prison forever. this begs the question who gets to decide who is dangerous and who is not dangerous? who should be afraid of this? anybody think that you may want to be afraid if you are jewish? have people ever seen animus towards jewish people? anybody ever think there's been animus towards african-americans in our country? everybody should be concerned about incarceration without a trial. the answer is, even from this

president, i don't think this president will round up people based on their race. i don't think he will do that. that's what he said when he signed the legislation. he said, i'm a good man, and i will never do this. i'm not questioning whether or not the president is a good man, but the law's on the books. there have been times in our history when we have let down our guard. madison said that if government were comprised of angels, we would not need these laws. if government were comprised of angels, it would not matter if there was the potential for bias. but remember the times you did not get due process. remember the times that groups in our country, like japanese-americans during world war ii that did not get due process and were incarcerated without trial. that's why we have these rules. it's not because of this president, but the next president, or the president

thereafter. we are also doing something that i think goes against justice and the ideas of justice. we are collecting all of your phone records. every one of your phone records is being collected and stored. they won't tell us, but in all likelihood, the vast majority of phone records are being collected. if you look at the warrant, it does not have your name on it. the fourth amendment says it must specify your name, what you did, and they have to go to a judge to ask for probable cause. you look at your phone records and it says verizon on it. i do not know anybody name to mr. verizon. i don't think you can write one single warrant and get 1500 records. it is supposed to be individualized. we fought the revolution over this. you had to specify the person, specify the crime, probable cause. you should be worried about this. what does the government say? trust us.

we are good people. we will never look at your records. there has already been a couple of intelligence folks looking at their wife's boyfriend's records. people are tempted to look at your records. people are not perfect. can we still get terrorists and we do not collect records? yes. get a warrant. if there is a rapist in d.c. and you do not see him running to a house, the police do not break the door down. it is 3:00 in the morning, they call the judge and they get a warrant. we need these constitutional protections. think about the 1960's. think about how martin luther king's phone was tapped. think about how the hundreds of people in the civil rights movement phones were tapped. think about many people who protested the war who

had their phones tapped. you have to have these protections. not because there's one particular bad person in government, but there is potential. criminal justice, or the lack of criminal justice, it is not a black or white problem. it is not a black or brown problem. what it is is a poverty problem. we have to be careful to make sure the bill of rights applies to every individual. if there is one thing that i want to get across it is that we have to defend the bill of rights. i think there are two other areas in which there are two americas, still and where we need to find out how to unite the two americas. the other is in education. if you're here at bowie state or you're visiting and you went to school or college and working, you succeeded.

you are part of the america that will go after the american dream, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. but if you did not go to school or you went to a crummy high school, you are living in one of the other americas. the statistics are startling. if you look at graph after graph, those who went to school, those who waited and had kids and got married after going to school, it is night and day. there are two different americas. how do we equalize education? education is the great equalizer. there is still a lack of equality in the schools is the best way to put it. i went to public schools, they had calculus, physics, biology anatomy, and physiology, i had a great school. my kids have gone to public schools. all schools are not created equal. there is still a problem. a lot of the problem can be fixed if we allowed for more

competition. allow kids to choose what school they go to. if there's a better school in the suburbs, allow them to drive to that school. schools choice will allow them to be equal. right now the concern is that those making decisions are the educational establishment and not be parents. parents are doing anything they can to win a lottery to get their kid to go to a good school. we have to figure out how to make education equal across the board. finally, what we have to do is get economic equality. i'm not talking about some kind of equality of outcome. i'm talking about equality of opportunity. i think that we have to do something new. we've tried passing money out.

look in my state. appalachia has gotten money for 60 years. we tax everybody in the country and send it to appalachia. appalachia is still as poor as it ever was. the problem is if you give me the money and ask me to give it someone, people in government don't know who to give it to. we give it to john smith and say, open a business. we don't know if john smith or mary smith are good at opening a business. the market does, though. every day you are going out and spending money, you are voting on which businesses will succeed. i think we should stimulate detroit. detroit has 20% unemployment and thousands of acres of abandoned factories. if we want to do something for detroit, why don't we cut the taxes for detroit? [laughter] [applause]

jack kemp was the first person to talk about this. he called them enterprise zones. i call them economic opportunity zones. we take tax cuts to areas of high incidence of poverty, and we dramatically cut the taxes. not a little bit. we almost completely wipe out federal taxes so they can have more money. in detroit, it would be a $1.3 billion tax cut. for baltimore, about $90 million tax cut per year. why does this work better than a government stimulus? we tried a government stimulus. we did about four or five years ago. we gave a bunch of money, about $800 billion we gave out. we did not know who to give it to you. when they divided it up, it was about $400,000 per job. if you give it back to the people -- think about baltimore, there are pockets of poverty but there are businesses that are succeeding.

you don't want to give it to the brand-new person, give it to the old business. they will hire new people. give them back more of their money but in a dramatic fashion to stimulate the cities and get the cities growing again. what i'm saying is think outside of the box. what we have been doing has not been working. i think there are ways we can of criminal justice in our country, ways of having equality of education, and also ways of having economic opportunity. if we do things over and over again, that is the definition of insanity is you expect a different result. i truly think that the two americas that martin luther king talked about can come back together. i think it is imperative for us to do it. i have seen and felt this undercurrent of unease.

i have been to ferguson, chicago, detroit. some of this is government. government has done the wrong thing sometimes. politicians. police are trying to do their job for the most part. politicians have done our bad job of dealing with criminal justice. but we can't just think that things will change. finally, we have to have the debate about who best spends money. are the politicians smart enough to know how to spend it, or should we send it back to baltimore? should we have it if we want baltimore to be richer? leave more money and baltimore. can we make more jobs by not sending it to washington in the first place? i am a big believer in freedom in human ingenuity. i say if we give our back to the people, we will see success like we haven't in a long time. thank you. [applause]

>> i would like to introduce our moderator for the q&a. >> thank you. thank you for having me. hello, bowie state. we are going to go ahead and do the q&a with senator rand paul. i thought was refreshing to hear and talk on so many different topics obviously that's surrounding our life here and elsewhere. first question, senator paul could the federal government provide incentives for businesses to hire ex-offenders? senator paul: the best way to have an incentive is to get rid of the record. expunging the record is one of the best way to get ex-offenders back to work.

i think, particularly, we are talking about millions of people, as many as 5 million people who have lost the right to vote, but they're also people who are having difficulty getting employment. there has to be some exceptions, obviously. if you are a sex offender, child molester, things like that don't go away. >> please explain your federal medical marijuana bill and the role of federal government in drug policy. senator paul: this is another bill that we introduced this week.

what we do and that is we try to say the federal government will interfere with aids who want to have a medical marijuana. -- with states who have medical marijuana. one of the things we have done is there are schedules for drugs. schedule 1, 2, 3. three is just about everything. two is a little more restrictive. schedule one is most restrictive. marijuana is schedule one. so we cannot research it. most doctors cannot prescribe it. a couple examples of people who use marijuana for medical benefit. my political director's father used to use drugs. when he was in arizona, he would try narcotics. he did not like the feel from it, but he has a lot of pain. then he tried medical marijuana and he thought it helped him with his appetite, dealing with his disease, and now he is in

virginia and he can't use it. i think we should allow doctors to prescribe it more easily. there are also kids. some kids have so many seizures, it's uncontrollable. 100 or 200 seizures per day. their brain does not develop and they remain stunted. they are now talking about cannabis oil without the thc. they take the thc, the part that makes people get high. they take it out and they give it and there are showing benefits. it needs to be studied. i think parents ought to have a chance. i think there's a great deal of popularity in the public. i don't know if you're congress is ready to pass it. the public is ready. [applause] >> senator paul, if you were president, how would you support

u.s. gas and oil instead of importing it from other countries? senator paul: i like the supposition of the question. [applause] one way to be independent and have a growing energy industry in our country is we have to compete with everybody around the world. one of the ways we are not competing very well is that our taxes are higher and a regulatory burden is higher. for example, the corporate income tax in our country is 35%. and ireland, it's 12%. in england, it's 20%. most of europe has a lower business tax than we do. then you bring in the regulatory burden of what we have on our energy industry. we have greater regulatory burden. our tax burden is higher, our regulatory burden is higher. even with that, our energy production is doing pretty well.

we're at the point where we should say, should we get rid of the laws that say we cannot export. there was a lot of missing everything we were allowed to. >> thank you. what are your thoughts on the progress of african-americans in this country? what would you do as president to continue that progress? senator paul: sometimes we think we have not gone very far, when i think we have come along way. i say we, collectively obviously it is not me. we got rid of most of the legal problems of separation, in the 1960's. it's taken time to take effect and transmit to the schools. i think really, the problems are not legal separation. we have the fact of. there is de jure, of the law and de facto.

i think it is economic opportunity and criminal justice. the one thing the government can do is we need to make criminal justice more fair. one thing that i did not mention, which is also a problem -- many people cannot keep up with their child support payments. instead of working out a schedule, we send them to prison. we have debtors prisons. we have all these things that could be changed. >> could you make the correlation, obviously with criminal justice reform, and economic opportunity? you talked about, and if you could expand on our little more, the economic freedom zones that you have proposed. what will it take to make that a reality, if you will? if you could speak a little

clearer on the benefit for individuals, small businesses, and municipalities. senator paul: i think if you look at the practical politics of this and say, what is anyone offering detroit? zero. you might meet some democrats that say let's just give them a billion dollars. we would have to borrow from china. we borrow $1 million per minute. i do not think there is a democrat legislative proposal for detroit, but i have a proposal for detroit, baltimore, louisville, all of our big cities. you don't affect the infrastructure. your police, fire, roads, all that you pay for with local taxes. if you live outside detroit in your president of a bank, and i say, i will give you a 5% income tax versus at 39% income tax if

you move to detroit, my guess is that you might consider doing it. we also have hiring incentives in that to get those tax breaks, you have to hire -- i think 25% of your people have to live in the neighborhood. >> excellent. any other questions, follow-up questions? [indiscernible ] senator paul: it is true of everything on the margin. we don't have money for most things. yesterday, i had people coming in wanting more money for diabetes. there are a lot of good causes out there, but they want more money. i told them what you tell everyone else, if you have a cause that you believe in, you

have to figure out where the money comes from. you have to cut spending. i'm willing to do that also. i have said repeatedly, before i touch one penny for a safety net, i will cut every penny of corporate welfare. that is how you save money. >> i think, senator paul, when you first came to the senate you talked about looking at eliminating, cutting spending by $500 billion. could you speak a little more about that. senator paul: this is a good point. some people will think republicans are for no government. cutting everything, leaving nothing for the poor. that is not true. we are mostly for not spending money that does not come in. when people say you are not for any government, i say, i am for $3 trillion worth of government.

that's how much comes in. there is this huge disparity of what comes in and what goes out. within the $3 trillion, you have to make some distinctions on what you do. i think the department of commerce is mostly going to rich corporations. there are $20 billion worth of rich welfare to corporations. on average, there are about $200 million to 40 or 50 big corporations. you can eliminate that. there's quite a bit of different departments that could go. i'm not sure you would notice the difference. we've had the department of education for -- i don't know -- 30, 40 years now, but the vast majority that can go back to the state level and not be done on washington.

[applause] >> i believe the import-export bank would be a part of that as well. senator paul: i would call the corporate welfare, too, and i would eliminate it. >> thank you very much, senator paul. it's an honor. [applause] >> this week c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white house. on saturday, live on c-span, wisconsin governor scott walker. sunday night senator ted cruz at the lincoln reagan dinner. this sunday, dr. adrian berman

on how pharmaceutical companies lobby congress and influence doctors. >> the promotion of a drug starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug he for it has been approved by the fda it is not a legal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the m origins of -- the importance of them and then blanketed medical journals and meetings, and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug. and to prepare the mind of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night on c-span q&a.

>> next, john brennan talking about his agency's efforts to strengthen information gathering. ashton carter speak to members of u.s. cyber command. former governor jeb bush making remarks at a house party in dover new hampshire -- dover, new hampshire. cia director john brennan spoke of the council on foreign relations about the agency's strategy. pbs host and cbs this morning coanchor charlie rose moderated the discussion. it is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much charlie. good afternoon. i want to thank the council of foreign relations and especially richard for inviting me to be here today. over the past many months, cia

has been in the news for a variety of reasons, most of them unrelated to the many challenges as well as the opportunities that lie ahead of us on the global stage. so i would like to begin with a snapshot of some of the international developments and trends that are of greatest concern to the cia and talk to you about how we are tackling these challenges. i thought i would take some time today to focus in particular on the importance of our work with foreign partners in enhancing global security. these relationships are founded on discretion, so we don't talk about them much, but they play an essential role in our efforts to collect relevant and impactful intelligence, to provide insightful analysis, and to conduct effective covert action as directed by the president. last month, an extremist gunned down a film director at a café in copenhagen, made his way across town, and then shot and killed a security guard at a synagogue. later the same day, the terrorist group isil released a video showing the horrific execution of coptic christians on a beach in libya.

the previous month, in a span of less than 24 hours, we saw a savage attack on the staff of the satirical newspaper charlie hebdo in france, we saw a car bomb kill dozens at a police academy in human, and we received reports that the extremist group boko haram had carried out yet another massacre in nigeria claiming an untold number of innocent lives. and in december, gunmen in pakistan opened fire on school children in an attack that, even by the appalling standards of the pakistani taliban, was shocking in its moral depravity. these attacks underscore a disturbing trend that we have been monitoring for some time. the emergence of a terrorist threat that is increasingly decentralized, difficult to track, and difficult to thwart. while it is true that the united states and its allies have had considerable success degrading the capabilities of core al

qaeda, various al qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations have surged in other countries. countries such as libya, egypt somalia, nigeria, and especially yemen, where al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has demonstrated a capability to plot attacks well beyond yemen's borders, including in our homeland. but no region has gained more of the world's attention than syria and iraq, where isil is waging a campaign of unspeakable brutality against the local population, and indeed against anyone who does not share its ideology. isil is well-armed and well-financed. its fighters are disciplined committed, and battle-hardened. left unchecked, the group would pose a serious danger not only to syria and iraq, but to the wider region and beyond, including the threat of attacks in the homelands of the united states and our partners. this will be a long-term struggle. isil will not be rolled back overnight. if there is one thing we have learned over the years, it is that success against terrorism requires patience and determination. clearly, our country will be dealing with terrorism in one form or another for many years to come.

what makes terrorism so difficult to fight is not just the ideology that fuels it, or the tactics that enable it. the power of modern communications also plays a role. new technologies can help groups like isil coordinate operations, attract new recruits disseminate propaganda, and inspire sympathizers across the globe to act in their name. the overall threat of terrorism is greatly amplified by today's interconnected world, where an incident in one corner of the globe can instantly spark a reaction thousands of miles away; and where a lone extremist can go online and learn how to carry out an attack without ever leaving home. indeed, for all its advantages the information age brings with it an array of new challenges that have profound implications for cia's mission -- implications that go beyond counterterrorism. the most obvious example, of course, is the tremendous growth of activities in the digital domain, which is full of tremendous opportunity for good

but also serious challenges and vulnerabilities that can be exploited to harm our national security. threats in the cyber realm are an urgent national-security priority, as america has no equivalent to the two wide oceans that have helped safeguard our country's physical, maritime, and aviation domains for centuries. every day, state actors, criminals, terrorist organizations, and hackers of all stripes try to penetrate our nation's digital networks. government institutions are under constant assault, and private companies are spending enormous sums of money to defend against hacking attempts, denial of service attacks, and other efforts to disrupt their networks. the attack on sony late last year was a reminder of just how serious the threat is and how quickly it can take place. cia is working with our partners across the federal government to strengthen cyber defenses, to share expertise, and to collaborate with the private sector to mitigate these threats.

together, we have advanced our understanding of threats in the cyber realm. but just as we have improved our knowledge as well as our capabilities, so too have our adversaries. they are skilled, agile, and determined, and matching them will require focus and imagination -- not just from government, but from private industry as well. in addition to counterterrorism and cyber security, developments in a host of countries across the globe are raising strategic and tactical challenges for policymakers and our agency. countries like iraq, syria yemen, libya, afghanistan, pakistan, ukraine, somalia nigeria, venezuela, and north korea. in addition to monitoring developments in these hotspots our analysts track overall trends in global stability. their findings for 2014 confirm the sense we all get from monitoring daily events that the current international environment is extraordinarily complex. developments last year continued a three-year trend of rising instability marked by severe

conflict and the erosion of state capacity worldwide. we saw more outbreaks of instability than at any point since just after the collapse of the soviet union, matching the rate we saw during the period of decolonization in the 1960s. the implications of this trend are well known to this audience. rising instability leads to a growth in ungoverned spaces; a spike in humanitarian crises; a surge of refugees, weapons, and fighters across borders and an , emphasis on security over democratic principles among conflict-weary publics. as cia tackles these challenges, we benefit greatly from the network of relationships we maintain with intelligence services throughout the world. this is a critically important and lesser-known aspect of our efforts. i cannot overstate the value of these relationships to the agency's mission and to national security -- indeed, to the collective security of america and its allies. by sharing intelligence,

analysis, and know-how with these partner services, we open windows on regions and issues that might otherwise be closed to us. and, when necessary, we act in concert to mitigate a common threat. by collaborating with our partners, we are much better able to close key intelligence gaps on our toughest targets, as well as fulfill cia's mission to provide global coverage and to prevent surprises for our nation's leaders. there is no way we could be successful in carrying out a mission of such scope and complexity on our own. naturally, these are sensitive relationships built on mutual trust and confidentiality. unauthorized disclosures in recent years by individuals who betrayed our country have created difficulties with liaison services that we have had to overcome. but it is testament to the strength and effectiveness of these relationships that our partners remain eager to work with us. with the stakes so high for our peoples' safety, these alliances are simply too crucial to be allowed to fail.

from the largest services with global reach to those of smaller nations focused more on local and regional issues, cia has developed a range of working relationships with our counterparts overseas. no issue highlights the importance of our international partnerships more right now than the challenge of foreign fighters entering and leaving the conflict in syria and iraq. we roughly estimate that at least 20,000 fighters from more than 90 countries have gone to fight -- several thousand of them from western nations, including the united states. blunting the danger these fighters pose upon their return is a top priority for the us intelligence community as well as our liaison partners. we exchange information with our counterparts around the world to identify and track down men and women believed to be violent extremists. and because we have the wherewithal to maintain ties with so many national services we act as a central repository of data and trends to advance the overall effort.

on this and innumerable other challenges, our cooperation with foreign liaison quietly achieves significant results. working together, we have disrupted terrorist attacks and rolled back groups that plot them, intercepted transfers of dangerous weapons and technology, brought international criminals to justice, and shared vital intelligence and expertise on everything from the use of chemical armaments in syria to the downing of a malaysian airliner over ukraine. these relationships are an essential adjunct to diplomacy. and by working with some of these services in building their capabilities, we have helped them become better prepared to tackle the challenges that threaten us all. cia's role in enhancing the capacity of our foreign partners is part of a team effort across our government. just as the defense department helps train foreign militaries and the justice department assists in developing criminal

justice systems, cia works with many of our liaison services to build their skills, tradecraft and technology. to be sure, if we are to work with a broad range of services around the globe, we must also focus on enhancing professionalism and commitment to the ethics of intelligence. we advocate core principles and practices that are indispensable to any intelligence agency, like shunning involvement in the political process, maintaining strict independence and objectivity, and adhering to international norms. with cia's support, i have seen counterparts develop into sophisticated and effective partners. over time, our engagement with partner services fosters a deeper, more candid give-and-take, a more robust exchange of information and assessments, and a better understanding of the world that often ultimately encourages better alignment on policy. another advantage of building and maintaining strong bilateral and multilateral intelligence relationships is that they can remain -- albeit not entirely -- insulated from the ups and downs

of diplomatic ties. these links can provide an important conduit for dispassionate dialogue during periods of tension, and for conveying the us perspective on contentious issues. in recognition of the importance of our liaison relationships, i recently reestablished a senior position at the agency dedicated to ensuring that we are managing relationships in an integrated fashion, to developing a strategic vision and corporate goals for our key partnerships and to helping me carry out my statutory responsibility to coordinate the intelligence community's foreign intelligence relationships. this position is one of a number of changes underway at cia designed to maximize our capabilities for the future. as you have read, last september i asked a group of very experienced officers from across cia to take a fresh look at our organization and to make recommendations on how we can ensure that our agency remains highly capable of carrying out our global mission in the years ahead. the result is the major

initiative we announced last week. that initiative stems from the two shifts in the national security landscape that i opened my remarks with today -- the marked increase in the range diversity, complexity, and immediacy of issues confronting policymakers, and the unprecedented pace and impact of technological developments. media attention has focused on our efforts to embrace and leverage the digital revolution by, among others things, creating a new directorate of digital innovation. this step does not, as some have suggested, signify a marked change in cia's core mission. rather, it an organizational response to the simple reality that, in today's interconnected world, we must place our activities and operations in the digital domain at the very center of all our longstanding mission endeavors. you also have read about the formation of mission centers. these are designed to better integrate our great strengths in

collection, analysis technology, and support, and apply them more efficiently and effectively to the nation's most pressing security issues and interests. and finally, we are pushing ahead on two other strategic goals: doing a better job of attracting and developing a diverse and highly talented workforce, and modernizing the way we do business. we seek to build a culture in which our people are intelligence officers first, regardless of whether they practice the discipline of analysis, collection, science and technology, digital innovation, or support. and we want a business model that improves our capacity to make the sound strategic decisions needed to build a better agency and run it efficiently, even as we respond to urgent external requirements. we are determined to push decision-making down deeper into the hierarchy, which is one reason we created the mission centers, the heads of which will hold considerable responsibility for taking initiative and further enhancing the agility

that has always been crucial to our agency's success. before we begin our conversation, i would like to once again thank the council for inviting me to speak here today. i look for to the questions today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. let me begin with one saying you emphasized more than once the relationship with others and agencies around the world. is that in any way a fallout from the snowden disclosures, or a sense that you want to assure us and the rest of the world that whatever damage had been repaired, and our relationship with other intelligence agencies was good and functioning. director brennan: two points.

it reflects mostly just how complex this world is and how we cia have to rely not only on our u.s. intelligence community partners, but we have to rely on these partners overseas. the world is a big place. we have to make sure we are able to work with those intelligence community services that have eyes and years on the ground and have the ability to stop terrorists. that is a critically important component of this new world, which is interconnected, we have to be able to rely on other partners and it reflects that despite the damage caused by the disclosures, i have found that over the past two years since i have been at the cia, i have a steady stream of foreign partners who emphasized how much they want to be will to continue and build upon the relationships with the cia. they see it as critical. we blink -- we bring to bear the

technology, the capabilities the approaches they need to be able to address the many challenges they face in their area. i do see the world being more interconnected for a variety of reasons, but also in terms of intelligence, law enforcement. charlie: i want to turn to threat assessment. when you look at the threat of terrorism today, what is it that scares you the most about it? the fact that there is a real effort to try to monitor the people who are going to syria who have passports back to europe, back to the united states. director brennan: i have worked terrorism for a good part of my career. i think we see an evolution from the terrorist phenomenon. dealing with palestinian terrorism over the years, a lot

of these organizations were discrete structures. they tried to migrate their philosophies and jettison others. they were contained organizations. we've made progress against them. isil demonstrates the worst and developments because it has basically been a phenomenon that has snowballed in terms of its appeal so they were able to make great strides within iraq and syria and then they established what they referred to as the -- they have had to give a fair amount of success using the technologies on the internet to present their narrative in ways that romanticize what is going on there. it is conflicting with reality. but this phenomenon now house generated a lot of appeal. we see bo boko haram pledging

allegiance to isil. we see different franchises, in libya or south asia. in egypt, they are trying to get on the bandwagon of this phenomenon. this worrisome, global movement that really requires us to work with this broad array of partner services throughout the world. charlie: is what is happening in tikrit the beginning of rolling back isil and iraq? director brennan: there have been a number of things that have helped to contain the rapid spread and growth of isil oath in iraq and syria. they were on march toward baghdad and the iraq support -- charlie: how close were they? director brennan: they were within a couple thousand miles. they had sent out the courses to see if they get toughen up the iraqi forces.

thankfully the iraqis were able to coalesce in the area and bring to bear the capability they needed. the pushes against trying to dislodge isil from the areas of iraq they have not been able to take over. including some sunni tribal elements. they have the resources to push isil out of the area. that will be a rather intense battle. also, they have hit in other areas. we have looked at kobani, where for several months isil was pounding that area along the syrian turkish border. they are not invincible. charlie: could this have