>> thank you, general. and also i would ask that you provide that policy to the committee and i would also ask that you provide us with the action implementation plan so we can follow up on this issue. thank you for being here. appreciate it. >> senator mccaskill. >> after meeting with many of you and many of your colleagues, i've gotten much more familiar with the ucmj. with the advice of an army jacket i downloaded it and now have it as an. i keep coming back to the

structure that is very strange the more i think about it. i've tried every criminal case there is from a low-level shoplifting are very to a capital murder case. in the criminal justice system, we build a fence around the factfinders and we make of the evidence they hear is relevant and judges are in charge of making sure the evidence is relevant and the rules are followed. generally in our system, the only people that can overturn the factfinders are the witnesses. unless there is a legal problem with how it's connected. your system is not different. in your system a defendant can reuse to take the stand, which is certainly their right and their carrot or does that come

into evidence because the only reason this character comes into evidence as if they place it in evidence. the factfinders don't get to hear what a great guy someone is. they are listening to the facts of the case. nowadays bizarre to me that when that is over he began a clemency process. i am going to read the quote from that it cannot be on know about the clemency process. the clemency process is a travesty. the vast majority were personal attacks on the judge, prosecutors than me. if you are clemency letters stating a relationship with wilkerson. please think of his family, et cetera. many of them, especially from the pilot community and their wives her caustic pitcher alec letters alleging the judicial system as corrupt and the trial not legitimate. they claim prosecutors were bullied and unethical.

the panel was biased because they were pilots. the judge made bad decisions. i am a slut, liar, unprofessional. this information goes to the general and he is to look at that contemporaneously was supplanting his judgment to the fact trainers. there is no good reason for that. i can't go blind and i would love it if one of you at tommy wai and our system after the appeal is finished then there's an opportunity for clemency by an executive authority to commute a sentence, to pardon someone, but not prior to a decision on whether the case was in fact conducted legally. how can someone's judgment about the factual determination in a

case be clear if they are being bombarded with evidence of character of the defendant who hadn't taken a stand for an opportunity to a factfinders for his testimony to be cross examined. i would like some explanation as to how the good and discipline of order is enhanced by the ability of a good mixing of those two very different deliberations. >> senator, a day to try first on the question. we have two distinct aspects. the convenient authorities on findings and those on sentence. i can see the clemency of course extends also to sentence revision in some cases, for example, a convening authority may delay the implementation of forfeiture is part of the

sentence to provide continued support financially to the accused family and the spouse and children. that is one aspect for clemency would be appropriate from the outset. in some cases comments he might be appropriate to address illegal air identified either by the judge during the course of the trial, but the staff judge advocate on his or her review that we know would be taken care of by the appellate court, but why not go ahead and clean the air up with action by the convening authority. >> i understand the point you make, but i think there will have to be a stronger argument than that for me not to come down on the side that clemency biko on 50 and at the legal determination, not the middle of it. i am not somebody who believes somebody who hasn't heard the evidence presented should be making a determination on who is telling the truth.

a transcript never tells the full story yesterday was telling the truth. that's why we have trial. to supplant that judgment for the people who heard the testimony, particularly in these cases because these are he said she said. these cases are all about believability of the witnesses and juries are very good at sniffing out who is telling the truth. i'm not sure a general with no legal training looking on a staff of clemency contemporaneously with a dry transcript is given the right information to make the decision good for the discipline of the hole. so that is one issue. another issue i have is that if this power, this amazing power given this one individual is about the good of the whole, and

we talked about this in my office of general welsh. it appears to mean the abby on our general has really failed because if this decision is because you want them to have the ability of looking up the good of the whole, i think anybody will argue this decision has been terrible for the whole. this decision has turned the military on a scare as it relates to the justice system contained therein. he was not looking at the good of the hole. he was looking at individual case. the irony is the very power he had is because of the good of the whole, the yeti is narrowly looking at facts and evidence in a sack of clemency in this case and making a decision that we may be all the way back to tailhook in terms of all the work you try to do to move the for sort.

can you comment on whether these are being decided on an individual basis or whether this is considered because senator gillibrand's point is a good one. if it is the good of the whole, i don't know are doing a very good job with this problem is as pervasive and getting worse and not necessarily better. >> senator, i think you have a very good point. it is entirely possible that there is a disconnect between the rationale for this authority, which is the good of the whole and how it has come to be utilized. that is one of the things i will need to consider in making my preliminary assessment, but it is a serious issue.

and it requires a very serious response and hard thinking and i commit to you i will think hard about that. i think it's a very good point. >> mai tai missile. the me first make sure, has everyone seen on the panel? i would certainly like from you later what if any action for the good indiscipline of the whole unit happened to any command that the military barracks in washington as a result of the incident. you don't have to tell me now, but i am dying to know kukla released, what was dismissed. clearly the facts around the case has serious implications beyond the sexual assault as alleged. i will never look at friday

night ceremonies the same again after seeing that movie and on behalf of emirates, i would think there'd be a deep desire to clean not a ensure that it is a new day at the washington barracks. >> yes, ma'am. we will get you that response. other lots of others about investigators in specialized training. okay great. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. we are going to take effect around at this disinterest by senators here. mr. taylor, we typed about how other nations have addressed previous practices of britain, canada, australia. have you a chance to study those jurisdictions and whether it had beneficial effect on increasing amount of reporting, prosecutions, any effect on unit cohesion,, did they see a loss in discipline and order by removing canadian authorities?

>> i've done a little reading on the topic, but as i understand it, the rationales for the action taken in canada and great britain in some other countries has been focused really on protecting the accused and it's to provide a further layer of insulation for the benefit of the accused. and whether it has had any impact at all on the sexual assault cases, i don't know. i planned to be talking with counterpart and try to gather some of that information over

time. not for the 27th. >> i want to talk with the sheep you about this challenge is underreporting. and it totally listening to the testimony this morning, each of the victim said if i had an advocate early on to tommy what my rights were coming to stand by me, to have some authority, if i knew i could be transferred immediately or the perpetrator could be transferred immediately, that may give me the courage to understand that 30, 6090 days to have a case reviewed. if any of the allegations of the taken seriously and i had a chance the perpetrator could be convicted and held accountable, i might have been willing report. i'd like each of the services to tell me their view of why you think there's so little underreporting. more than half our sexual assault against men. if only 2400 are unreported,

that is a terrible reporting way. what do you think the reasons are? are the things implemented now, will they begin to address it? what is the most important reforms in your mind to increase the number of reports made for the sexual assault. we'll go across. >> that is one of the reasons that we structured the special vic and his counsel program. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. that's one of the recently counseled the sbc special vic dems program council. the lisa's story tells us our sexual reports are not reporting. we believe if it comes believe there is somebody on their side as they go through this complicated process it can be very exhausting. we will see more of them come forward is our hope and power. also whether the dead fy 11, the

last batch of statistics we gave you, we noticed in the unrestricted reporting side we had 29% of our vic dems who said i want to cooperate with law enforcement walk away and refuse to cooperate. that was 96 vic dems in the air force 96 vic dems. that encouraged and emboldened them to get through that process and to feel less free victimized by that process and they've got care to explain why things are happening the way they are. so, i believe there's multiple reasons our surveys have shown why people do not report. we know that one of them is the belief this is a difficult process to get through. that's not the only reason. i think i would turn it over to major general patton to let you know what the survey revealed and told us among the various reasons people don't report.

>> lieutenant general chipman. >> senator, to follow on what general harding said, these are the most difficult kinds of allegations to share with anyone. these are the intimate details of personal lives, bodily integrity. this masher over that thayer, a great desire for privacy on the part of the terms to avoid general knowledge among unit members, the community of the kinds of things inflicted upon them. finally, what is different about military service is the idea you take on this member of the team cohesion, good order, discipline and were shown very well and the documentary you asked us if we'd seen. one of the biggest crimes as the assault is secondly the attitude of the military and the lack of support these victims received and that violation of the fundamental believe they are

part of a team that would take care of them and not allow this to happen. that still pays 70 underreporting. >> vice admiral. >> yes, ma'am. i agree with general chipman and general harding as well. it comes down to the terms knowing they will be responded to come is supported, cared for through the process. we are in the press is the time full-time advocate, which is different than have the nuclear stairs. we are striving to form the core relationship between prosecutors, investigators and the victim advocate to work with those who come forward in the construct it, cohesive way. but then tracy r. for pilot on what a special vic and his counsel role could be within a system where we don't have one very well defined that they would not supplant a bit of

advocate. we have fought instituted expedited transfer. faster than navy approved 79. none were disapproved within 72 hours. if a command declines, the request goes to the next in the chain. i think the training we devise form in large part or the experience a powerfully in the invisible war are hoping people to understand the resources available, what actually happens when an allegation is made. commanders don't investigate these allegations. that's immediately to ntis. commanders support the victims. they need to be mindful of the process to be accused. the training has gone to great lengths to dispel net's about

the crime and ensure people understand it is a crime that involves men as well as women to ensure we protect the most vulnerable among us, that we have the proper training for investigators, lawyers, first responders. we have hot lines reached her tax, some come e-mail. restrict your reporting is something i know is difficult for people to completely understand. i think the truth is we are trying to give people options to come forward. ideally we want people to come forward and make an unrestricted report so we can pursue accountability progressively. but not everyone as we heard this morning is so difficult to come forward. the court should come forward, tries to come forward. until we do and until an

individual's designs that are supported by the people around them, the ability to make the restrict report which allows them to get medical care, counseling and victim support without going through the accountability process. it is our hope that with the support they will find the courage to change into an underserved report. >> and time is expired so i will turn now to senator graham. >> thank you. this is an emotional topic so i will be pushing back to some of the things that here but having said that, please do not mistake the pushback for an understanding that sexual thistles in the military need to be addressed and improve upon the current system because what we have today is not working. in terms of whether we have a good order disciplined military could see the answer is yes because you see it in the way they conduct themselves in

battle. the enemies of this nation have never faced a finer military force than exists today and we have problems. these human beings evolved in our military and there's no justification. i want people to know the best is in the flag of the military balloon color. we are the best in the world. the idea that fighter pilots take care of fighter pilots, we don't talk about that a little bit. general harding, do you know the convening authority? is there any suggestion that he set down the findings because of the career field he was then her personal relationship with the accused quick >> absolutely not. he does not have the accused.

>> i want to set this straight. you may not agree with what the general did, but i actually know these people. they take this job very seriously, offending people into combat. they take their job very seriously at the convening authority to make sure in their view for the units in question, justice is rendered. we are talking about a handful of convening authority action given thousands of cases. please don't over in make the system. mr. taylor, i want you if you credit to the people in your office to review every convening authority in the military in terms of special court-martial, general court-martial convening authority and see if you can find somebody who's not up to the task. because i believe, ladies and gentlemen, that our commanders to get to this rank have been chosen for a reason.

now, the problem of reporting sexual assault. is assault. is any greater problem in the military and the civilian community? >> i believe you see they are on par with those sectors. >> what happens in the civilian community in this area is probably duplicated in the military on par may be the right word. but i promise you this. there is no cd, no state, no county that is going to take it more serious than the men and women before you. when it comes to defending somebody in the military, i have been a defense of and i have been a prosecutor. in the civilian world and military world. the one thing i never had to worry about defending a military member is cost.

i got every witness i ever wanted. i didn't have any overhead to pay and i didn't have hundreds of cases. as a military prosecutor is banned and your net amount of time that are civilian colleagues within the period either district attorneys that they're not bringing cases they should? absolutely. sometimes the system fails, but i want people to understand the military justice arena, it is a focused effort to get this right, that the defense counsels aren't independent chain. i was on 60 minutes trying to take the drug labs down at the air force had created today that was producing false positives and mcgourty 60,000 results because the system works. i thought that meant back in the military judge is a real hero. the only thing i can say is the purpose of this hearing is a good purpose. people are not feeling

comfortable with telling what's going on but that unit regarding sexual assault. the idea that convening authorities are the problem is not what i see here. i see the system broken and i believe you're going to give a man or woman power to censor went to battle and literally go and die that we should trust their judgment when it comes to that unit. bash is my personal bias. having said that, there's a tremendous amount to build on here and mr. taylor, i look forward to working with you in the administration to find ways to make the system work better. mine chairman, this is a difficult issue, but let's please -- i want you to read if you can a summary of the ivy on the case. they may not come out with what the convening authority did, but they just don't believe he did

it in a cavalier fashion. i just don't believe that. finally mr. taylor, as we go forward, what can we do in terms of sequestration? i mean, we are talking essays that the mouse is going on out there. everybody is doing more with less. thermos lawyers, more responsibility. so please tell us what you need in terms of budget to enhance these programs and i think everybody on this committee and senator mccaskill, you've been terrific about focusing on this. let's find what they need to resource that's not being resource and make this a priority. i would have with this thought. if women in the military and manner but teams do, but if you really believe there is no place for you to go and you're being abused, that's got to be the worst possible feeling in the world. i would not want one member of

my family to have to live those conditions. so the command climate is beginning to change? nobody wanted to talk about it. nobody wanted to embarrass the command. they wanted to shove this under the rug. there's no other answer for it to get this out of hand. i believe the new day is here and now i ask is when we find this new way forward that we still preserve the ability of the system to judge every individual case based on the individual facts that we don't pay with a broad brush. everybody is guilty. thank you very much. >> well first i certainly agree with senator graham, especially the first part of this statement. i am compelled to be passionate because i agree we are the best in the world and my comments about the overall health in good

order and discipline of vienna is based on what i believe is a military that is grappling with a problem that the military knows you don't have under control. i don't think i am saying anything that most of you don't agree with. i think you know we need to do better. i think you know there are women out there that feel like because of the particular facts and circumstances of their military service, their ability to get justice is limited. i know you all want them to. so i don't think there is a significant disagreement between senator graham about that. i just think some of the convening authority is powered does not appear to be rational to me that way it's currently

set up in terms of the order of things and the ability, which i think most of you are comfortable with the notion that google will say this can be done for no reason at all. as general walsh said to me, we are not in a time where you are dragging people out of prison to put them on the front lines because we need a warm body. some of these rules state from that time when he didn't have to give any reason at all. you explain to me why set no reason at all. it came from the mouth of general eisenhower in a hearing like this were something to that effect. let me talk about a couple things i want to get to. it is my understanding is a member of the military needs to update security clearance, they must self-report counseling around thayer sexual assault and do not have to report counseling

for combat related issues, grieve for family matters. is that true, mr. taylor? >> it generally is true. a squishing 21. there are different interpretations, but generally that's accurate. i think there are serious issues with what question 21 and i would just like to say that the issues are not limited to those who are receiving the care that we want them to receive. that's true whether the need for curiouser result of sexual assault or something else. i'm concerned about question 21 and would like to see some action on it. >> i think we need to take a look at that. if you're looking at someone's

mental health, what you are saying is if your mental health issues come from combat for a problem in your family, that doesn't impact security clearance. but if he's bad is rape the government does. i can't imagine any of you agree with that outcome. does anybody think that is right or fair? okay, so be sure among us know if you have a problem with us looking at that. i want to get that changed right away. if i was a woman in the military and i had a security clearance, that sure would impact my willingness to come forward. it sure would impact my willingness in terms of giving up my career. what about the suggestion if we have probable cause based on a sound criminal investigation and the jags are recommending to the convening authority that we go to a general court-martial proceeding, why are we so focused about that in the back

of? why are we perpetrator at that point? >> senator, we do have the authority to move the perpetrator to another command or installation or other unit within discussion of the chain of command so that's an available option. would make it more tedious in the proceedings of the article xxxii investigation, motions hearings so you might have to move back and forth to the installation holding the court-martial. certain money is the chain of command authority. >> ftd as it would be for the vague to the terms of potentially having, although i guess you say defense lawyers could go to her wherever she is for interviews. >> that's correct, senator. >> to me once across the line of probable cause after criminal investigation, the least disruption should occur to the vet tom, not the alleged perpetrator.

that certainly is the way it is in the civil system. we arrest them and they have to bail out and report to an authority, pretrial or they are held in jail. to stay away from the town. the notion that an alleged perpetrator are working shoulder to shoulder during this period of time is going to impact the quality of cases in your ability to give some prosecution. how soon in the process for each branch of the military to your criminal investigators have contact with prosecutors responsible for trying the case quite that he would go down the line and some if you don't say that come between us within 30 days or week or two semiprivate but the check immediately or maybe neither. i would like some sense from each branch how closely

dovetails are the investigative efforts with the advice and counsel of a prosecutor who is going to direct the evidence in trial. >> thanks, senator. that contact is almost immediate because of the way supporters will, the same chain of the major oil spill. those communication networks and cgi ads as well as associate offices or area big offices are notified immediately. >> it's about the same for the air force. it's pretty quick. we know a report within 24 hours. the latch up at the investigators is immediate. we provide them a perfect analysis, a list of elements they need.

we walked hand-in-hand to report back to us as the investigation is ongoing. later we hold in one of our senior trial counsel's, our most experienced dedicated to prosecuting a sexual assault cases. blackjack is immediate and constant. >> senator, we call our capability that the prosecutor and assault investigator a best practice for us to have a special victim prosecutor located in the offices said they respect his coordination so critical to protecting cases from the outset. >> yes, ma'am. >> inserts a day one and a complex trial team seven investigators that continue to wreck the liaison and the evidence. >> thank you for your patience. one must question is if any do you have a good reason why there should be a different period of

time he would keep a restricted report versus a non-restricted report. i would like all of you, for the record, to let us know what attempts are made formally when you get a new report on the alleged perpetrator, what attempts fondly are made to look at reports and we contract victims and reports with good news there's been a system. you don't need to do that now, but i want that for the record because i know from experience when a woman knows there has been someone else did it tonight after her, she changes her perspective about the importance of stepping forward. i want to make sure we have a system in place that is accessing those records quickly and getting back to visit comes as quickly as possible in securing cooperation and moving

vote against defendants. i know you all are trying hard and i know even the general who made the decision, i absolutely do not think he did that maliciously or cavalierly, but i think it's time to take a hard f road can be adjusted to get the unique aspect of military justice it desires. it should noke the criminal system, but some things make absolute sense. other than push back we look at your support in making those changes. thank you, none of chairman. >> thank you for your testimony today. i'm grateful for your determination to solve this problem. there's no problem the military can't solve when it puts its mind to it. thank you for your commitment today and for working with this

committee going forward. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> you know, actually found a hidden history by accident because there is a downspout that says alexandria d.c. read on the train and a friend of mine pointed this out to me several years ago when i first moved here is that alexander was the original district of columbia. i thought that was an treating an ipod since that time i've been kicking it around my head that would be a good project to look at the 50 year time period that it salinger a or part of the district of columbia. >> when i was doing research i found three places i would take you to get a sense of what it was like to live in alexandria, d.c.

one is john's point park where you'll find the original boundary marker for the southern us tip of the district of columbia. the other is the dueling ground, were a famous tool to raise between secretary of state henry clay and virginia senator, john randolph. the other place is interested in taking you with the infamous slave pen at this slave deals. the union army invaded alexandria. the first place they came within infamous bond and slavery featured in all of the abolitionist newspapers and so when the union soldiers came here, they came down to the basement where we are standing and found slaves shackled to the wall.

>> former florida governor, jeb bush will speak at cpac tonight. he is the keynote speaker. see live coverage on c-span. earlier today, house budget committee paul ryan spoke. here's what he said. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> hey, good morning. good morning, everybody. good to see you. just ♪ hey, folks. hello. thanks, everybody. [cheers and applause] >> appreciated. hey michelle, how are you doing?

how about it for janesville, wisconsin. i appreciate it. that's great. we all need a break from the mess in washington and i just got to say, it is nice to be in her room full of conservatives for a change. [cheers and applause] thank you. it's time she takes up to catch up with friends and a plan for the future. so i'm grateful for the chance to speak with you and thanks for this opportunity. this has been a really big week. we got white smoke from the vatican and a budget from the senate. [cheers and applause] the senate call their budget a foundation for growth, restoring the promise of american opportunity. well, i feel like saluting

already. but when you read it, you find the vatican has not the only place blowing smoke this week. [laughter] you see the democrats call their budget a balanced approach. the thing is they never balance the budget over. in fact, they call for another chilling dollars tax hike on top of even more spending. if we did not think him and many not pass their budget, the government would save money. look, we take the opposite approach. i am proud of our budget because it's changed the conversation. today we are not talking about cliffs or ceilings are sequesters. we are talking about solutions and that's how it should be. our budget expands opportunity by growing the economy.

it strengthens the safety net are retooling government and restores fairness by ending cronyism. [applause] and by setting priorities and choosing wisely, we have a plan to pay off our debt. in fact, we balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes. [applause] how do we do this? it's really pretty simple. we stop spending money we don't have. go figure. you know, historically we've paid a little less than one fifth of our income in taxes to the federal government each year. but the government has spent a lot more, so our budget matches spending with income. we say to washington but we are

willing to pay is what you're able to spend. washington should do the same thing. the crucial question isn't how we balance the budget. it's why we balanced the budget. the budget as a means to an end. we are not balancing the budget as an accounting exercise. for not just trying to make the numbers out of. we are trying to improve people's lives. our debt is a threat to this country. we have to tackle this problem before it tackles us. today i want to make the case for balance. that case in a nutshell is that a balanced budget will promote a healthier economy. it will create jobs and nothing is more urgent than that. [applause] just look at where we are and

where we are going. last quarter the economy grew by a hair. unemployment is 7.7%. 46 million people are living in poverty today in america. the president says we are in a recovery. i say we are in critical care. look at where we are going. further down the road things that are worse. by the end of 2023, the economy will be at a crawl. we will have $8 trillion in our debt. the devil way down the the country like an anchor. in short, we are on the verge of a debt crisis. our obligations are growing faster than our ability to pay them. our debt is already bigger than our economy. at some point, lenders will lose confidence and demand higher interest rates. when they do, interest rates across the country will sky rocket mortgages, car loans and

then pressed for cash, the government will take the easy way out. it will crank up the printing presses. the dollar is sinking finances collapse. the safety that would unravel. the most vulnerable would suffer the most. the debt crisis would be more than an economic event. it would be a moral failure. you see by cheapening our currency, government would cheat us of her just reward. even now we are hurting american working families. they living beyond our means, the government is sending us a message. any sane if you plan ahead, if you make sacrifices for your kid, if you save, you are a. it is brazenly stealing from our children and young adults. it has to stop.

[cheers and applause] we know what the problem is. our economy needs grows. our entitlements need repair. your creaking under the pressure of an aging population. in just 10 years, spending on medicare and social security will double. spending on interest will quadruple. no amount of taxes can prop us up, even with chris minow promised tax hikes the deficit will be nearly trillion dollars in 2023. the answer is very clear. we have to fix entitlements and grow the economy. our budget takes the steps but also confronts a better challenge. our debt is a sign of overreach. it's a sign the federal government is doing too much. when government estimates, it

doesn't do anything well. we need to make this point more often. we don't see the debt as an excuse to cut, to shirk obligations. we see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it leaner and more effective. that's what conservatives stand for. that's who we are. [applause] a balanced budget is a reasonable goal because the returns government to proper limits and focus. the government overreaches, it doesn't just her paychecks. it hurts our quality of life. we need to make room for communities, for the vast middle ground between the government and individual. we need to remember that people don't find happiness in grim isolation or by government fiat. they find it through friendship, true for a patent exchange of

people around them. they find it through achievement. they find it in their families, in their neighborhoods, churches, youth groups. they find it in a healthy mix of self-fulfillment and of belonging. we belong to one country, but we also belong to thousands of communities. each of them rich in tradition. these communities don't obstruct our personal growth. they encourage it. they are where live our lives. civic duty of government isn't to displace these communities, but to support them. it isn't to put their differences or threatened character or mash them into some dull conformity. it is to secure individual rights and protect that diversity. that is the duty of government. but back our vision, our budget

makes room for communities to grow to the people in them have room to thrive. we can't just talk about these communities. we have to talk with them. we have to engage them because leaders don't just speak a. they listened, too. and if we listen more closely to the people, we will find the answers to our problems lay a whole lot closer to home, in a whole lot closer than washington d.c. let me tell you a story. last month i went to milwaukee. i met a guy named the red macklin. but many rows for today's outcome he was convicted of a feeble felony and abandoned by his family. now he's 27. he's got a job at this incredible organization, a nonprofit started by a suburban church that sells donated goods on amazon.

no government agency built this company. no one forces people to help each other. they came together on their own. they saw a need and a net that need. [applause] look at the results of this one life. today the roy turned his life around. he's providing for his sons and he's an example for us all. you see, work is people more than a paycheck. it gives them a sense of purpose coming sense of pride. it makes a part of their community. it gives them the dignity we all deserve we can never forget this essential fact. [applause] work is good, work is dignified. would we help struggling families who should help people like the road because they remind us every life has potential for redemption.

they must reform our approach and government. government must work with them and not against them. before all else, the government must work. it must function. [applause] the government must function because chaos is fertile soil for liberalism. you see what politicians budget by crisis, would have been this? they make deals in the dead of night, far away from public view, lobbyists speak in their projects and government grows. cronyism spreads, crowds of communities as it lurches to crisis to crisis, we have an uncertainty tax on everyone in the nation. to make it impossible to plan for their future. our budget offers an end to the brinksmanship. it restores regular order. we trend the government back to its proper site. we balanced the budget.

[applause] we give our communities to they need to thrive and we do it all out in the open, just as our founders and vision. [applause] the other side can join us in this commonsense goal or they can choose the status quo. but they must choose. they can no longer hide behind inaction. the american people deserve an honest account of challenges and what is needed to confirm them. we don't hide behind our beliefs. we are for them to kiss the budget is more than a list of numbers. it's our philosophy. in our budget does a sharp contrast with the left. he says to the people in unmistakable terms, they are the

party of shared hardship. where the party of equal opportunity. [cheers and applause] to future is bright. it's right in front of us. we can do this. we need your help. we appreciate your support. thank you so much. go get them, all right, everybody? thank you so much. appreciate it. [cheers and applause] >> see all the speakers covered during the cpac conference on c-span.org. >> we have people that are well-meaning, but governors saying it is the party. i said what a horrible statement to make.

because that is the statement is going to come back and haunt you when the democrats start using it. and you have to change the thinking. when i have somebody can i watch somebody who spends $400 million on campaign with perhaps the worst ads i've ever seen. hype that it was being paid for by the obama campaign. it was so incredible. you remember the famous superhero out? people on a superhero. they made obama and it was great. i said wow, those done by the republicans. so when you spend $409 it's a failure and you don't have one victory, you know there's something seriously, seriously wrong. i've made over $8 billion. when i was thinking of renting, actually filed my financial

statement. people were surprised, but more than not, i've employ tens of thousands of people and yet i'm continually criticized by total lightwave all over the place. it's unbelievable. it really is unbelievable. [applause] a mean, you see these guys on television. they can't buy a clean shirt. under saint donald trump is not in. thousands and thousands of people. i'm proud of what i've done. i think his nickname would mistake and i like mitt romney a lot, but if he made one mistake, he said he didn't talk enough about his success. because honestly, people really want success. they want a leader who is successful. mitt has done a great job. i feel the republicans and made, and i told them this, didn't speak enough about the things he

did, the great things. they were on the defensive instead of taking the offensive. recently i bought a hundred acres in the middle of miami, an amazing place, but it was improperly run for years and years. tiger woods won the turner and seek, got record television ratings. it's an amazing place. i'm going to fix it. i'm went to make an incredible. so we have to do with this country. >> jeb bush will speak at cpac tonight. do you live coverage at a 45:00 eastern on c-span. mr. bush has written a book on immigration policy. the first comment saturday night at 8:15 eastern on booktv. ..

and in journalism is background noise in the background that comes pretty much from the mainstream media that people forming an opinion of romney and obama and so on. it has -- "fox news" doesn't reach most of those people. fox gets great ratings and it has a loyal audience but you know look at the shows. the bill o'reilly show is the