amendment, which was unnecessary. that is why they have to go around chopping for those who would approve of this subpoena. >> as i indicated we focus on we, the fbi, we are focused on this and that is who we want to identify with and ultimately prosecute. to do that, we have to show that the information went from this person to the person who published it. part of the investigation you gather facts about the individual who had security. >> you tell the judge that you are intending this and you have reasonable suspicion to believe that this person has violated the law. how often have you as a law-enforcement officer submitted a subpoena to a judge

saying that somebody is suspected to have violated the law and you have no intention to ever prosecute that person and you didn't think this was going to leak. >> i have to think about that. >> i would ask if you would allow me to ask this question. >> if we violate the espionage act, saying that there was probable cause to find that he was not -- he was at least an eight and a better later said that he was a risk includes 18 months and if those were the facts, but those were the case, why would you not prosecute the individual. >> due to competing interest.

>> that goes back to the question asked by the gentleman. the first amendment, which i think is of paramount importance is indeed that consideration. why would it be appropriate to go before the court and the judge and say that all of the things about the individuals -- going through these e-mail records without his knowledge. >> is not what i said. >> i'm not that familiar and first of all the level of united states attorney in the department of justice i think the gentleman for yielding. i yield him an additional minute. >> mr. chairman, i think you for being here. >> this concludes the hearing today. i thank you, you have given us

three hours. you have answered many difficult questions. i will join all of my colleagues and virtually every one of them, i thank you for your service. you have a remarkable record is the director of the fbi. if there are questions that were not answered, we will submit them to you in writing. we would find this very important to have these additionaadditiona l pieces of information. without objection, all members have five days to submit questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. the hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the house passed today a

defense bill setting department programs and policies within the next year. despite the veto threat due to another of him other positions they voted 315 to 108, which would block president obama from closing the u.s. detention facility at one time a bay, cuba. the ranking democrat, adam smith, tried to convince the house to remove that provision. here is a look. >> it was established as a facility to hold combatants captured during the war on terror. any decision must address remaining prisoners detained there. many including those responsible for the 9/11 mass murders of many americans, there are three primary options. a traitor to the united states were to stay put.

this comes with a substantial risk of re-engaging in american threat. the current re-engagement rate of detainees is nearly 20%. i served for one year at one of the largest detention facilities there. often after prison release deals made by interested decision-makers, we saw the same people return for new offenses and additionally there were multiple escaped an attempted escapes as well as attacks trying to free the detainees. this includes a safe and secure location away from the soldiers on the battlefield. i don't think that there are many people in cuba that are trying to free the people that are held at guantánamo. this was not the case and it may not be the case should they be transferred to the united states. i believe the prisoners at guantánamo are being treated appropriately the way we can be proud of. this is held as access to

caregivers in this part of the troops and those detained. transfer would be very expensive these detainees pose a very real danger to our security in america. the president has the ability but he has yet to do so. i firmly believe that keeping guantánamo open is our best option safest option, and most logical option. >> the gentleman from california reserves and the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> first, let me say that i think we all agree i think that

we thank all of you and i also believe that there is unanimity here that if someone is a credible threat to the united states, they should be detained. they should be tried and brought to justice. the question is where to do that. do the defendants have greater rights if they are transferred to the united states. the supreme court has said no, they do not. so there is no tactical advantage. are they more likely to escape if they are transferred to the united states? history says no. is it lust expensive to hold them at guantánamo bay? most certainly not. the average cost of incarcerating someone in a federal super max prison is $34,000 per year.

the cost of incarcerating someone is over $1.6 million a year. is there a strategic advantage globally to holding these detainees at bonomo? general petraeus, admiral mullen other leaders have said that guantánamo bay is the best device against the united states and around the world for those trying to sell that the united states isn't in just place. they are is simply no rationale for an extension of the problem at one time. for reasons of security and reasons of law for reasons of cost and strategic advantage, we should close on time of day. that is why i support the men and.

>> the amendment was rejected by adam smith and the measure also limits the president's efforts to reduce nuclear weapons and imposes new punishments on those found guilty of rape or sexual assault. the bill passed for the house goes to the senate. >> the committees are speaking but what they might do on tax reform. you can see this tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> he was born in charleston in 1898. his father was a slave. she started her teaching career in 1916 in a rural school. she continued her career in

urban schools in south carolina. in 1956 state employees belong to subversive organizations and then she developed a citizenship education program to be used during the civil rights movement. >> this weekend booktv in american history tv look at history and literary life in north carolina on c-span2's booktv. this includes american history tv on sunday at 5:00 p.m. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. watch key public policy events and the latest nonfiction

authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our websites. >> wednesday we heard from general martin dempsey and chuck hagel on the 2014 budget request. during questioning, general dempsey told the senators that special ops were never told to stand down after the attack and benghazi libya. senators also questioned the witnesses on sequestration cuts. patty murray chairs the committee and this is about an hour. >> secretary, let me begin with you. you asked for more time when cuts take place. the senate budget we passed here

provides both. it starts by eliminating sequestration and replacing it with spending including defense and ensures that those savings do not begin until 2015, which will give the department we have asked for to plan appropriately. it reduced defense spending and that is about half of the 500 billion in sequestration. it provides certainty on the levels for dod for the next 10 years. unfortunately, as i mentioned in my opening remark because we have not been able to go to conference, that is actually ensuring that we will have another round of sequestration on this very quickly, which will again be across the board with cuts from the dod funding in fiscal year 2014. i see that frankly is a plan for

failure. the most important thing we can do right now for the long-term good of our military is to follow order go to the conference and pass a budget that replaces sequestration. i would really like to do that if you have the ability to do it. i would like to ask you today if you could comment on the long-term budget and the need for that that replaces the sequester and how that will effect your ability to execute the national security strategy. >> thank you for the general and broad question. it does frame everything. this includes her ability to respond to the responsibilities that we have for national security well into the future.

>> this really focuses on. we have the inability to plan and has with no certainty from month to month and year to year as to what the possibilities are for technologies and research and technological advantage that we have in the superiority that we had at sea the training and readiness, all of these are affected by the lack of certainty for planning. i have spent a lot of time over the last three months going through the review. if you can give me any clarity on what kind of resources i have, i can build you an army

with some degree of certainty. and i can build you a structure that will match the strategic interest and strategic guidance as to not only enhance a mess but preserving our national security interest around the world. when i cannot give them that we have to continually go back and adjust and adapt and enforce some of the things we have noted as the center today, as i did in my ideas, furloughs are a good example. you are not building a skill set in this employment. when the threat of employment is there, not only to be furloughed , but this gets into contractors. i suspect that it will come up

here. mainly why is because there is a specific skill set that you may not have in-house and that is more expensive. so you are building nothing for the future because you are essentially using your readiness not only employment in the military and planning for the future. just to protect the immediacy of our force structure and the priorities of our readiness. i know that that is a long answer. but everything that i have said, it folds into your overall question and that is why time and flexibility are key here. if we have the flexibility and time to bring this down, we can do that. that is manageable. these are things we should be

doing to protect the interest of this country. when you are talking about the kind of abrupt cuts there are without slowing the growth in which your bottom line saying is that you're going to cut their combat down, combat power and the readiness and everything that fits into that is the one core asset that you must preserve for the future. >> let me ask you specifically. obviously you hoped that we would not have the sequester in effect for 2014. that is not including the budget request. i know you mentioned strategic choices that you expect to have in the future weeks. is there anything that you are finding right now you could share with us if we don't move

forward and replaces sequestration, what will you be taking? >> the reason i directed this three months ago was as i said in my comment of opening statement. this includes preparing what may be a continued uncertainty of resources. so we ask all of leadership to be involved we have our ninth combatant commanders coming in. but the point is that we have done this in order to project out what kind of limitations and planning the we will have to do to protect our defense capabilities based upon, as your original question said these

budget issues as to the review. as i said in my statement. i am looking at those. general dempsey is looking at those. we are reviewing those. this is not intended to be a set of recommendations but based on these different possibilities and scenario. >> you would not want us to have this -- we will see what that is going to be in a few short weeks. my goal is to get us to conference and solve this so we can replace sequestration. i think that is important. i think we will have to be eyes open. >> if i could add senator, senator sessions mentioned that when we get our defense plan, it was to defend the $590 billion. if you count this, it goes to

574. the way to think about sequestration is not that it is the deepest cut but we have had deeper cuts than it is by far the steepest. we limit these places because a lot of these places are unavailable in the short time. we can make long-term institutional reform. but you cannot sweep it up. that is the problem. >> okay, we very much appreciate it. >> general, i believe that that is correct. it is pretty obvious when you look at this that is too rapid of a reduction. i guess what you are saying is there may be more savings but doing it on a short-term basis includes decisions to be made.

>> briefly this 9.6 billion reprogram -- as i understand it we came out under funding by about $9.6 billion. i have been surprised to find out and i understand you're having to take that out of the defense budget. we all need to know that the funding sources here of the sequester in the budget control act, they don't have anything to do with this, but they are coming down in an independent way. you are being asked to fund this out of the base defense budget in addition to the other cuts with the defense department. >> let me make a general comment and i will ask the comptroller

to answer specifically the numbers of questions. we have to budget and different reasons that you accurately noted were 10 billion below last year's 2013 request and those numbers will continue to come down and will eventually be able to phase out that process. when i was in the senate and actually on this committee for up to 40 years we financed the two wars out of an emergency supplemental appropriations. that is where a lot of this started. as has been noted in my statement, the additional costs as we reset and transition from

afghanistan have been significantly more in costs a lot of money to get more people out, to do it responsibly, which we will have an astounding amount of people in afghanistan. it is a dangerous area it is much more complicated than moving down through the desert. it is different. that is another part of this funding. i just wanted to give you that general consensus and ask the comptroller comptroller to go into more detail. >> heartedness is by moving money around this includes equipment damaged in afghanistan and out of our base budget and we have this coming out of the base budget. i do not have the exact split. but a substantial part of coming out of this base budget. >> to that extent the

$1.4 trillion over the last 10 years that we have used on this has been an emergency standing and this has been paid for under the accounts of the united states. have you considered asking for a supplement with whatever the figure is that you are talking about. that figure it seems to me those savings would have been used next year to pay for other cuts and now they have normal funding for supplementals. >> i would be interested in discussing that.

but as far as what we have with the sequester it is part and parcel on the budget control act. we have raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. we promised to reduce spending over 10 years. we do have an agreement that they could consider our entitlements and the committee could have proposed tax increases if they chose. but the law that passed was to reduce spending by $2.1 billion and unwisely as it turns out, we were too much on defense and that is what past. now, we have to be very corrosive about public integrity

and to walk in and say less than two years later we are just going to raise -- we are going to give up and forget what we say we were going to do when the going gets tough. what should happen is we should look at this government and see how much more the defense department can handle over time in reducing spending and look for ways to find other savings to stay on track. we just had a 600 billion-dollar increase of taxes in january. now, secretary hagel you stand behind this proposal and the budget 20 levels that a company that proposal. >> yes, as i said in my opening statement, senator.

that budget is a budget that sustains all of our national security interests and protects those interests and keeps a viable funding source and continues to make reductions that we need over the next 10 years. >> okay, so the plan of 130 billion, will still allow you to meet the strategic requirements that we must meet? >> i think that we can manage with that additional on top of the 150 billion. as i have said and the chairman said and the chairman should respond to this. make no mistake. when you take those as part of the budget. there will be adjustments to the

budget. that means adjustments to the strategic interests in how we implement those programs to protect our interests. general, you may want to respond. >> this allows us to see the impact the senate's plan and sequestration as well. it does pose a series of choices which becomes fairly difficult. when you add up what we were tasked to reduce by the budget control act and then we add the 500 to it it comes out to about a trillion or more. ..

going for 2014. >> thank you very much. i know our witnesses have to leave at 12:15 to go to the house so we are going to try to keep everybody on track toward.

i want to highlight questions. first let me thank you madame chair and kelly for your work on the sexual assault issue. this has gone on and on. the eskridge has been debated for what seems like a longer running debate than the trojan war. i appreciate your leadership in this regard to get this sorted out finally. point number two senator murray has stressed how important it is to have a bipartisan conference on the budget. this is a view that i very much spare and what is striking is that outside of the senate, outside of the senate, security and economic thinkers are leading thinkers of both political parties saying this is exactly the time for a long-term strategy. that is what a budget conference would provide the ability to do is to look at that in your window to tackle these issues.

senator sessions makes the point with respect to health costs. i'm laying out a medicare proposal and other colleagues as well. we should have the kind of bipartisan conference on the budget that senator murray talks about and senator portman and others making the case of how important it is we tackle fees in the long term and i commend them. let me ask you general dempsey and hagel we work together on the committee and the first question about the contractor's what is striking is the inability to really hone in on the numbers so that we can get a sense of how to tackle this issue. comptroller, last february you estimated that in terms of contractors, your calculation was that we had about 300,000. according to the gao analysis that was published last month there were over 7000 full-time contractors working for the

department. so let's start with you general dempsey on this point. how do you explain the discrepancy in the numbers tell you and your colleagues get us the accurate figures so we can get on top of this issue. we have right now -- >> i think that you're 7,000 number is accurate. >> so what the comptroller said last february when he estimated when he said was 300,000, that was not accurate. >> i was referring to the contractors that we have better data funding and the operation maintenance for the service contractors about 700000 that number is to the gao. it is the difference between the type of contract.

>> i will do that. it's not as easy as it sounds. when you do the fixed-price contract they have no obligation to tell you how many people do it the job they just do it and if they do it right to get paid. we are modifying all of the contract and cost the government i might add, and requiring the data. you may have more accurate information that at some cost. meanwhile we do the best estimates we can and i think 700,000 as close for service contractors. there are people working on weapons that would add to that number. >> the difference between the various contractors. let me ask another question of you, general dempsey. on the c23 aircraft -- these are the big planes, the big cargo planes used in sandy for delivering individuals, cargo. the message from the congress has been don't get rid of them don't divest them. the response has been to order them flown to oklahoma to be boxed up and then i guess they

will be divested. it's almost like the army is saying if you want us to divest them wheat won't let the guard fly them. we have a lot of us here in the congress both political parties who strongly support the role of the guard, and these planes are used in hurricanes and the and our state and we are looking in the west particularly at horrendous fires this upcoming summer. this would be the chance to help the guards of the critical domestic missions. i don't know how we are going to help those critical domestic missions by parking the planes in a hangar. so what is your take on this and what ought to be done? >> well, senator it is a c27 and this has been a subject of a great deal of analysis in terms of its costs operating costs and its utility. and the army air force cooperation was actually quite encouraging in the sense that the gap if you will, as you've

described with the retirement or the divestiture of the c27 can be covered by the c-130. now there are some who disagree with that analysis. but if it hasn't been laid out for you we can certainly -- that may be. let me wrap up why are they in hangars? here we have what all sides have said is a significant number of aircraft. they are in the hangars. we want the guard whose work we support and that fire to have the tools. why are they setting in the hangars? >> the guard will have the tools to the estimate the question is why are they in a hangar? >> it costs money to operate them. >> it's not as good a value as we can get. thank you madame chair. >> senator johnson? >> thank you madame chair. speaking of the hangar general dempsey, i would like to talk about commanders and extremist forces. it's my understanding that these are units of 40 special ops from

individuals there for rapid response, rapid deployment; is that correct? >> it's one of several key buildings like that. >> and we have the c110 it is called the you com sif. >> each combat and commander has one. >> there was a report on april 30th filed by adam howsley that they were in europe and deployed on a training operation, is that correct? >> are you talking about last september? >> yes during benghazi. >> it was on a training mission in bosnia. >> on the night of the terrorist attack in benghazi; connect? >> that's correct. >> what is the time of the planet of the us forces? what is their standing order? >> the response times are ratcheted up and down based on the threat. they can be anywhere from m plus one come notification plus one which means they are sitting on the tarmac up through about n plus 6 depending on the threat. >> according to adam howsley

through a whistled well aware that individual stated that the force could have been in benghazi three and half hours four to six hours somewhere in that timeframe, is that correct, what they have that readiness? >> i wouldn't agree to that time line. the travel time alone would have been more than that. and that is if they were sitting on the tarmac. >> was the command of the yukon transferred during the benghazi attack from the european command to the africom? >> there was a point at which the siff was transition over africom, yes, sir. >> at what point was that transferred? >> it occurred -- as i recall -- september 11th. >> can you give a timeframe do you know exactly? >> knott for memory. i can take that -- >> i would like to find that out. was that you never deployed anywhere? >> um, anywhere after the benghazi attacked -- >> during that ten 24-hour period. did they leave croatia?

>> they were told to begin to prepare to leave croatia and return to their normal operating base. >> okay, so have you checked in to produce the specifically with the time was at the moment? >> not only for that particular element of the fleet anti-terrorism support teams, for the various response forces we do have the time line available. >> so again, what i want to know is was there standing order time of deployment at the moment of the benghazi attack? was set t plus one or t plus two? what was the standing? >> given that they were in a training event was n+6 but let me take it for the record. >> during the foreign relations committee in benghazi, a number of people made the comment that this department simply didn't have the funds to provide the security. is it true the defense department was providing support in benghazi? >> there were six individuals under the department of defense

authority in benghazi. >> and the state department doesn't pay for that correct? >> that's correct. >> did the state department and the country clinton ever contact the department of defence asking for additional security because she was getting requests for the individuals in libya for additional security? >> i don't know if she contacted the department. i wasn't contacted you >> can you check that for me for the record? had secretary clinton or somebody from the secretary -- the department of state contact the defense department? what you have provided security in benghazi? >> we routinely respond to the department of state request for support. >> and what they were really requesting -- the people on the ground there -- wasn't particularly a large deployment, connect? you talking about 16 individuals? >> at one time we had 16 individuals, that's correct. >> in your opinion had we had a minimal force, armed force of trained defense military individuals in the compound in

benghazi, would that have ever occurred? >> i have -- i can't speculate about that hypothetically because it literally is hypothetical. i mean -- >> it is true the minimum number of special operations individuals repel the attack when they came from the amex to the consulate, they basically repeled the attack correct? >> it was to be annex -- >> it was from the annex to the consulate? >> it first occurred at the consulate. >> and then we had a special office contractors come from the annex to the conflict through the attack. >> to recover the individuals who had been attacked. >> so the assumption would be maybe if we had four times -- 16, which means for people, for time cards of the consulate probably that attack never would have occurred. >> well if you're asking me what additional security forces have made a difference in any number

of ways the answer is yes, of course. >> thank you. thank you, madame chair. >> senator kaine. >> i would like to have a couple seconds of the start for senator wyden to finish an inquiry. >> thank you congenital dempsey the guard says it is in fact the c23's better in the hangars now and they have been ordered to move the seat 23. so that is still the question. and if you could get back to me i would appreciate it. thank you madame chair. [inaudible] >> thank you madame chair. and welcome to the witnesses. thanks to the services in a time of danger. i was thinking this morning you have been up-tempo and war for 12 years. you, the military and the united states. that's longer than the revolutionary war the viet nam war, in a period of up-tempo war fighting in the history of the country. i'm going to start with a thank you. and then i'm going to 63 per serving in a time of uncertainty both in written testimony and oral testimony.

secretary hagel, today the department of defense faces a significant challenge of conducting a long-term planning and budgeting at a time of considerable uncertainty. the general dempsey, the testimony comes in the context of extraordinary uncertainty to it and when i read the testimony it kind of struck me you are good diplomats. mengin uncertainty as if it were a hurricane or something. it's congress. it's not a hurricane. it's not uncertainty like we don't know what's going to happen. you are dealing with the congress will not give you a budget. that will not give you a member. you might like the number. you might not like the number. but you are dealing with a congress, the first of the three coequal branches will not give you a budget of around which you can plan the defense of the nation. so i appreciate the euphemisms and the testimony, and i think that is why is to do if you are sitting on that side of the committee room.

that is why we are dealing with is a congress the will not give you certain key and will not do its job. it's only the congress that can appropriate money. and the congress is doing the job. it's outrageous. and we have sat through so many hearings whether it is in this committee with the armed services committee and we have the same conversations from the last number of months and we have wanted to beat up on people on this side of the aisle with its us, the congress that isn't doing what needs to be done. i'm going to go to the floor and make the 13th notion madam chair to put a budget that we passed in this committee and then passed on the senate floor into the conference with the house. we pass it on the 23rd of march after a full committee process where we had numerous amendments and then a full process on the senate floor where we had numerous amendments. we passed it after hearing over and over again that the senate wouldn't pass a budget and we passed one and yet we are not allowed because of procedural rules in the senate and frankly

the desire i think by the house we are not allowed to initiate a budget conference to try to give you the certainty the certainty that you need and that the nation needs. i start really my sense of gratitude for the service in a time of 12 years of war but also where you are facing an uncertainty that is completely under the control of the people that sit in this room. the fact that we are not getting it to you and that you can come here with a spirit of the equanimity i applaud you for that. to a couple of questions, furloughs are of great concern to me. so many civilians have been furloughed. furloughs to me or a short-term strategy. if you have to a steep cut in the way that you used it the furlough isn't a long-term strategy if we finally get a budget number and it is a tight budget number, then everything

is and with everything else to across-the-board furloughs. i know that july 1st is the day for sharing with congress but talk about the furloughs as a long-term strategy to use them as you would probably set that aside and then i have one last question. >> senator, thank you. furlough is not a strategy as you noted. it's a reaction and it's triage. that is exactly as i noted in my statement why i was forced to make a decision after many weeks of review by the comptroller and all of our senior uniform were involved in this. no one wanted to do this

senator. i had the choice to go further into our readiness in the world, and i couldn't do that. it is in the worst way to respond to anything. we all came to the same conclusion. the last 1i would make, uncertainty. these kind of issues, furloughs and all that go with that for the work force are going to be something we are going to continue to live with. to be put in that kind of situation and then still ask these people to make the contributions they are and the sacrifices.

>> we have a hard stop. >> i will take off the record. thank you, senator. >> let me just thank the chairman. very pleased that the bill that we have offered providing special victims counsel to the victims of military sexual assault. i want to thank churn and ansi and hagel for supporting our efforts and right now it's in the market and i will make sure that it continues. >> thank you for the leadership. i've enjoyed working with you. this is such an important issue for the military. i wanted to ask chairman dempsey in the fall a lot to what senator johnson asked about the attack on the consulate in benghazi something that i've wanted to know an answer to which is that on february 7th you testified before the senate armed services committee and were asked a question by senator

gramm, and he asked you whether the general ham had issued a stand down order to the military personnel in tripoli or elsewhere who were preparing to go to assist those in benghazi. then we heard before the house oversight committee that mr. hicks who was the former deputy chief of mission said colonel gibson, who was on the ground in tripoli, did receive a stand down order. and so, general dempsey, i've not had an opportunity to follow-up with you based on the february 7th testimony. mr. hakes testified that he believed the stand down order came from africom or special operations command in africa. general dempsey, can you help me understand who issued the stand down quarter and what happened and why the special forces that want to go as i understand under colonel gadson interpol we were told not to go and who gave

them that order? from there they wanted to go and held in benghazi on the night? >> yes, thanks senator. based on that testimony, i went back and -- >> i have a feeling that you would. >> there were two different groups two of them are working with the joint special operations command colin located with another agency of the government in tripoli. and number four, we were working under the direct line of authority of the special operations command in europe or africa -- fsoc. the letter to went and the other four, by the time they contacted the command center, they were told that the individuals in benghazi one on their way back and that they would be better used at the feet tripoli airport because one of them was a medic that they would be better used to receive the casualties coming back from benghazi, and that if

they had gone it would simply have passed each other in the air and that is the answer that i received. >> stand down means don't do anything. they were told the mission they were asked to perform wasn't in benghazi that was at the tripoli airport. >> can i ask you general committee had requested to go. they asked to go to support what was happening in benghazi from aaa, correct? >> that is correct. >> and they were told from one you are saying not to go because of the timing -- >> because the timing and they would contribute more by going to the tripoli airport to meet the casualties upon return. >> i don't know if you know the answer to this today but if you don't, can you get back to me on it? can you tell me when they made the request and with the timing was of the request? and when they were told to stay in tripoli i would appreciate a follow-up on matt. thank you very much.

i wanted to ask both secretary hagel as well as you, general dempsey, about the situation with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. i saw the may 2013 letter from general holder talking about the aqap being the most dangerous regional affiliate al qaeda and a group that has committed numerous terrorist attacks overseas. would you tell me how dangerous is this group? >> i think that that characterization is factually accurate. they are dangerous for two reasons. one is their aspiration to attack the homeland in europe which puts them -- which makes them unique and the affiliate's. many of the other al qaeda affiliates are regional and this one has global aspirations. >> where are they located? >> they are located in southeast yemen. >> what is the security situation right now?

>> better than it's been in a very long time, but still relatively unstable. the president has partnered with us in helping build up of the security forces. >> but it does he have full control of the country? >> no, he does not. >> and what about the prison break situation? there have been multiple prison breaks even going -- there were like six of them the last one in 2011. does he have more security in the situation? >> as i said, senator, the situation has improved since he became the head of state. he has changed leaders and some of the republican guard units but it wouldn't be possible for me to declare that it's a stable environment. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate all of you being here. thank you. >> senator nelson. >> thank you, madame chair. later today in the armed

services committee we are going to consider a sense of congress that i assume most people will agree with mr. secretary the sense of the congress that commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command line at -- climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault without fear of retaliation including ostracisms and group pressure from other members of the command. mr. secretary, i am given to believe that a survey was conducted among victims come and 50% of the victim's say if they

report the assault, they don't think it does any good. are you aware of that survey? general dempsey is shaking his head yes, is that correct, general? >> it is. >> okay. then my question to you mr. secretary, is do you think that by removing the chain of command in order to prosecute sexual assault in the military, will that give the incentive for the victim, will that give more incentive for the victims to come forward. the point about the resolution will be appointed in the markup. >> i'm sure that will be unanimous. >> as to the question i have

sent first we need to look at every option, every possibility which we are, as you know there are 26 pieces of legislation and we are listening to people, the chiefs and the things we started doing the last three months, not enough to have to do more but some things have got to change. i think we all accept that. now to the specific question i also said anything we do anything the congress does it needs to be done very thoughtfully because there will be consequences to anything that comes out of this as to how we handled this in the future. i don't personally believe you can eliminate the command structure in the military from this process it's the people within the institution that have to fix the problem and that is

the culture so i don't know how you disconnect that from the accountability of the command. now, as i said, we need to change some things. we can do some things much better. we have to. but i think we have to be very careful when we talk about taking the command structure out of the process. >> certainly it has been pointed out that the cultural changes such as integration in the military such as "don't ask, don't tell" was absolutely essential. in this case we are talking about the reporting of a crime. you see the distinction there as to why the command structure should still be in place? >> well, first we all accept that it is a crime and that it

needs to be treated as a crime. the things that senator murray and others have been doing on the victims' rights and special counsel and all the things going forward need to be done or should have done. we haven't. we well. all that has to be done. come now to the question i don't think we can fix the problem senator, will have accountability within the structure of the military without the command involved in that pit and i believe like everything in life the accountability matters. you're accountable, and accountable, the generals are accountable, and that's where i think we have had a disconnect its cultural and there are a lot of things involved here. but if you don't hold people accountable your not krin to fix the problem.

that would be my response. >> madame chair since you want to move along i will submit for the record an additional question on a different subject having to do with as we leave afghanistan is their equipment that we can leave that will help afghanistan society more readily to be able to support themselves >> senator whitehouse. >> secretary hagel welcome back. it's a delight to have you here. i wanted to on the same subject senator nelson was asking about, i am a believer that it is at some point you should bring in the fbi and the department of justice and treat a rape like rape and throw people in prison. but short of that, the department of justice has an office on violence against women, and it has an office on

victims of crime both of which have incredible experience. .. international emergencies. tsunamis earthquakes, famines,

floods so forth. how significant do you see that being in the future of the military budget see that we should be expecting different increases in the area, and from a strategic policy point of view, how would you evaluate that use of our american military in term of building international good will and projecting american values? >> it's a i think critically important part of our foreign policy. clearly in our national interest. we need as you suggest, have had over the years a significant capacity to help countries during these disasters, and we have very recent examples certainly within our own country, the national guard the reserves the national guard in

particular have the resources do that. we should respond we'll continue to respond as to the budget yes those kinds of programs will continue. they need to continue. it's clearly in our interest around the world and it's humanitarian. where we can help we'll continue to help. beyond the humanitarian value, you see it's part of the strategic value that the military provides america and the relationship with foreign nations? first, but that unfolding in to many areas how we do that. when you're making friends around the world when you are developing partners and allies, you develop a next-gen -- next generation of global citizens

helping them. that cuts directly to the national interest and security to our country. we do it better probably than anybody in the military. >> it certainly, i think is a point of pride we can take as americans how well he can resources in the wake of a catastrophe. almost anywhere in the planet there's knob nobody -- lastly on cybersecurity. we are continuing to find a way forward to develop a bipartisan bill here in the senate in the wake of the president's executive order, i think which is a necessary and a correct step, but not a sufficient step because of the inherit limitations that attend an executive order as to full blown congressional legislation. could you comment for a moment on where you see that theater of

operations for the military and for the country. i would note general alexander, who i have the highest regard for, has asserted this he believes that the united states is on the losing end of the transfer of health in the history of human kind intrult of cyber intrusions, where do you see going forward on that? >> first, i recall our dais together on the intelligence committee when we worked on the issue. and it hasn't gotten any less complicated to your point. as to our role, you may have noted we have suggested a significant increase in the cyber capacity in the budget. we have continued to do that for the obvious reasons. i have said many times, senator when i was in the senate cyber

representative -- represents a big threat. for the reasons you know and anybody who knows anything about this understand why i say that. so this is an area that we have obviously cybercommand responsibility for general al saturday, i think, is on the hill today this afternoon, and as you know he's dual hatted in his capacity as nsa director as well as cybercommand. the defense department has essentially most of the assets here, as you know. this is an intraagency issue as everyone knows. homeland security has a significant amount of authority. how do you not only interagency which i think is going along pretty well, but the bigger issues, the privacy issues, the business issues and what i understand lead to the break down in your oarcht the hill --

on the hill trying to find comprise that last december. that needs to be bolted together. we have a significant part of this, but what we have jurisdictional limitations to as to what we can do and what we can't do. our main responsibility is to protect our national security as defined by defense establishment, government and so interest. but again, as you know, when you veer out in the private sector, and how far you can go what legal authorities you have what laws govern that are i think are the large area of some contested debate. >> i thank you. >> i appreciate that. with respect of your time you asked to be ability to have a moment before you head to the house. i appreciate all of you and your testimony today. i apologize to any senators, senator cain for not getting the final question in senators can

submit additional statements or questions by 6:00 p.m. today. we would ask that all of you get them back as quickly as possible. thank you for your service and appearing before the committee today. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] spoke to reports earlier today about efforts to change the tax system. we'll show you that event hosted by the christian science monitor in the entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion networking c-span. here is a brief look at some of their remarks. >> 1986 by now we're going think about history on the experience over the last major tax reform. i wonder what lessons you draw from that. what changed and remained the same? what is different now and what is the same? [inaudible]

>> well basically what is different what is the same is as then today there's, you know the barnacle, there are 15000 changes to the code since 1986 15,000. add more provisions, exemptions and correlations as the years go by and different groups it's all built up. that's the same -- in addition the public back then was quite a lot upset with lot of sheltering of income and today they are upset with something else. a lot has lost income from overseas operations especially the low tax jurisdictions and

tax haven. legitimate american concern is starting to build up. what is different? president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on the reluctant congress -- tax reform but the administration is the most. it's a willing participate -- participant as we move along.

american companies compete better and have less red tape and less -- so they can focus more on jobs. it's a combination of substance and psychologist which helps for the economy. >> i would say the tax code is broken in '86 and the tax code is broken now. actually i reference the hearing. the three witnesses we have the tax code is broken. i would agree on everything they said. i would all day the world has changed since '86. the toobility invest around the world a click of a mouse is so much easier. so we have to look at what other countries have done as well. they have modernize their tax systems. we haven't. certainly in the international business side.

the other thing is similar somewhat, you have to be very persistent. that reform would not have happened without, you know a continual persistence in effort. as max said the economy isn't as strong offered and debate

the. the majority leader reid plans to finish the immigration bill by the july fourth recess. the house gavels in at noon eastern for speeches with legislative words starting at 2:00. air among the issue, the house is expected to work on next week, a bill banning aborings after twenty weeks and the farm bill, which also includes programs. watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. and reminder that the 2013 congressional directly is out now can the current congress with updated listing with each member of the house and senate. also there contact information, district maps and committee assignments, and information about cabinet members, supreme

court justices, and the nation's government. the directly is $12.ate for shipping and handle. go onlined at c-span.org/shop. what we're doing does present american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is today we have not been able to explain it because it's -- [inaudible] but that is something we wrestling with. how do we explain it? and still keep the nation secure? that's the issue that we have in front of us. so you know that this is a something that was debated vigorously in congress both the house and the senate within the administration and the -- so when you look at this this is not us doing something under the government. this is what we're doing on behalf of all of us with the good of this country. now what we need to do is, i

think, is to bring as much factors as we can up to the american people. i agree with you. we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we're not. this weekend on c-span the senate appropriations -- secret data election programs. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also this weekend on c-span2 booktv from the publishly industry. book expo america saturday at 1:30 and c-span 3 american history tv. from the end of slavery to separate but equal sunday at 1:00. with reports surfacing that the asad regime has uses chemical weapons in the syrian civil war the fighting in the nation became a much discussed topic in the hall of congress this week. next remarking from arizona senator john mccain a member of the armed services committee.

he gave the twenty minute speech yesterday. >> in just a couple of minutes the president of the united that it i states will bes announcing that it is now conclusive that bashar al-assad and at syrian butchers have used chemical weaponshe unite st which is as we all know a redline, which the president of assad canno the united states announced that ats bashar al-assad cannot cross.e are not he's been clever in using small amounts rather tha n large amounts, the fact is now we areude that not the first country to conclude thatweap the asad regime has used chemical weapons in e their attacks on the population of syria. the president also will announce rebel

that we will be assisting the by syrian rebels in syria by t providing them with weapons and deci other assistance. later i have -- [inaudible] the spreading of the conflict inaudi to to scare a regional conflict they are all major plans we see the -- [inaudible] overwhelming refugee lebanoners experiencing sectarian violence, chaos iraq is unralphing and the entire region is bordering on i chaos not to mention, thelaudhe massacre and genocide that is taking place in syria.he unite

i applaud the president's j decision. i a wppreciate it. going to the president of the united states better understand thatalance just supplying weapons is not going to change the exequation on the ground for the balance of weapons power. these pe ople for the syrian army. ey n need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircrafte m risk a single americaner and airplane. we can p do it -- moving the missiles closer to the border and protecting a safe disown -- zone where they can organize work, and coordinate with the civilian side of the syrian national army and they can have a chance for success. bashi .. assad thanks to iranians, thanks to russia thanks to hezbollah pouring in by the thousands thanks to people flowing in from

all over the middle east, including from iraq back into syria, they are losing and they're being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy casualties. it's terrible. so i applaud the president's decision. i applaud the fact that he has now acknowledged what the french and others and all the rest of us knew, that bashir assad is using nuclear weapons. but just providing arms is not enough. we've got to change the equation on the battleground. and if i might say, i have seen and been in conflicts where there was gradual escalation. they don't win. if all we're going to do is supply weapons then there will be a commensurate resupply by the iranians and the russians and others. so i thank the president for acknowledging that the syrians are using chemical weapons and massacring their own people and i applaud his decision to

provide additional weapons. i do not every ounce -- every bone in my body knows that simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation and we must change the battlefield equation. to every bone in myse body knows that simply providing weapons willg time. not have good consequences.nk a we will see regional conflict and i yield to my colctleague for i souths carolina. that w >> i thinek that this is required. what doesn't matter to the average american that we contain this war in syria and that iteople, ends sooner rather m than later. >> my goal is to make sure that they are not used against us.mber in the if we don't stop this chemical weapons

cachet that number andll t hundreds of thousands of weaponsthat are that could be used could be deployed that could killlly, the thousands of americans that are the u allowing this. really the president's decision to intervene comes from anhe threa to o escalation of the use of from a chemical weapons. region al senator mccain has indicated the threats to our country are not just from the chemical weapons but from a regional deterioratthion. the sitting president of the syrn senate today indicated that we were in jordan. the jordanian government has to jor accommodate over 560000 refugees, 60,000 of them are war attending jordanian schools. it is about to collapse. radi we have lost one of the moderate voices in the middle east. this has a ripple effect that is elements that affecting iraq.as gone

a lot of them are flowing in. iic there is al qaeda and elements because the war has gone on so long. confli. we have an islamic shiite group. this is turning into a regional onl conflict. g to so the decision to get involved as welcome news. is but as a senator said e mr. president, the goal is to the end the war. the only way this will end quickly is to neutralize thean shoot advantage that he has over the witho rebels that we can cater this t and we a can stop them from flying. as to senator mccain's pointiggest fea the more damage we have to ourpons fall allies and chemical weapons can be a spirit not just against syrians but against us than others. my biggest fear about the war but that the chemical weapons don't

fo are more closer today thanll they've ever been in the achieving of that goal. you made the right call today.he re having abe no-fly zone so the rebels can reorganize. we will look long and hard we crater give the honest here. but here's the good twa news. using o we don't need to give them a neutr bunch of antiaircraft capabilities if we cater this a bun through the international community using our assets.if we'll provi we blow up the runway, you don'triot missi have to this includes -- senator mccain have been writing about this for a couple of years. this is the big day. bashar al-assad is winning. the reason that the russians are he i providing him more weapons and

hezbollah is in syria thenationalnterest reasons that the iranians are so bold is that he is clearly assad winning and it is not in our be national interest for him toto be esen win.tt because the israelis cannot this allow this by the russians. turn. and it will hurt their national security. i hope by the intervention today to get involved after the so m weapons venues. wise today t we hope that it will turn thep the tide. mr. president, you chose re wisely today to get involved and we support you. but the goal is not to help their e rebels but to end this before chemical weapons can be used against us and entire mideast goes up in flames.f >> could i askof my colleague a co question. do yoummite remember one the secretary of defense and the said chairman of the joint chiefs ofssad

will staff said unsolicited that it. graham: is inevitable that bashar h al-assad will fall. do you remember that? tim this is from our highest-ranking how military officer. in our highest the french the official this includes equipment and arms that they are getting. fal the fall is inevitable latest is whi 93,000 people who have been my u nd massacred.

he has made a the decision that no- chemical weapons have been used. i think it is obvious that it the will be providing weapons and they need a no-fly zone.rve in t and i would say that there are and it' military officials in the pentagon who say you can't do it and you have to have total mobilization oonf every single a reserve in the world and the if united states and we spend tens by of billions of dollars a year onnd defense and if we can'te establish a no-fly zone, the am erican taxpayer dollars have been terribly wasted including aeople third rate country. the this includes the former head of our central command including others likee general keane.ld ask

you can go in and establish this and change this equation on thear battlefield. >> finally i would ask my colleague that we understand in that the american people are war weary. they are weary because of what happened and we remain ine -- and afghanistan. tha barrick hired of the casualty carol list we know that it will betance and counterproductive at times but we do know is to provide incredible assistance and change this battlefield. wis and because a lot of americans haven't paid as much attention as i was, i think it would be we

wise for the president of the united states go on nationale television.sery of th >> why did s we go to kosovo not wonde put boots on the ground? how are we going to helpr these people and alleviate the unspeakable misery of the syrian ast becau people. its ally >> i would recommend that the a clear president educate the american people with what is going on. teetering israel is becoming surrounded by the islamic nations. if we lose him, goodness knows what will happen in the middle th east. of explain to the american people what happens to us these

chemical weapons that bashar al-assad has used against hisss radic own people it's going to do more than take care of syria it our n means that they can't get the weapons to kill many of us. we are making sure that the war be in syria ends and finally, be senator mccain, you are right. ands you can do that without not mobilizing at. it can be done. it should be done and it is inand our interest to do it. of if we do not address the chemical weapons n compromise and

end this war before they flowons of mas out ofs the syria it is only a mohan matter of time until they come here. the next bomb that goes off us because the people who want you're these weapons in syria if you c don't think they are coming after us -- you don'teal. i w understand. i ho gpeo we are not too weary to these things go protect our children and our grandchildren and ourselves from a threat that israel. i wish it would go away. you do not make this go away by wishing. but you confront them. th e sooner this is realized, the better off you will be. war >> okay. one of my colleagues is waiting.efugee cp >> there is no experience that ips can have the terrible wages of syrn war explained.

this includes the turkish and see jordanian border.one to see thousands of people water living in terribly primitive conditions and to see if i did despe in onera camp as i visited, there had been a rainstorm and people have lived in water. if you want to see the desperation on the faces of thenk people and the children and havend that while visiting the camps, i think there is an aspect that we their understand and appreciate as americans.ugee they are angry and bitter senator because we would not come to you see a their assistance and i will never forget a woman who is allee school teacher a who was escortingdren runniround me around the said senator mccain, do you see all of these children here. this

there are long-term implications on the humanitarian side. i so it is not just a humanitarian issue.ea dmatically if bashar al-assad goes, has the law is disconnected thishreat of t includes dramatic changes. the if iran and bashar al-assadhts. succeeds, we will see a direct threat of the state of israel israel and heat coming from the golan heights. irani keeping him in power that willbility send a message throughout the middle eastab aboutil iranian power

and the rainy and ability to change governments throughout the middleon east.ponsith it is a lot at stake. i hope the president will go to a no-fly zone.r including iranian arms that are pouring into the country my friends, it is not a fair fight. this is the deciding factor. i think my colleague. mr. president, i appreciate the patience from the senator of texas and i yield the floor. >> the house and senate return for business on monday. the senate gavels and at 2:00 p.m. speeches with work turning to judicial nominations. votes are expected at 5:30 p.m.

this includes max baucus about efforts to change the tax system. we will show you.posted by the christian science monitor at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think i wonder what lesson to draw from now.

something is often changing. we have to ask what is different now. >> there are 15000 changes since 1986. the chair goes by, we have more provisions. the different groups want this and congress goes along with it. so that is the same in addition the public back then was quite upset with sheltering of income. today i believe the public is quite upset with something else.

a lot of it is lost income from overseas operations. so that is and president reagan is the primary force pushing tax reform we are starting the ball rolling on tax reform it is -- i suppose i will stop there. but essentially, the basic need

is to get the economy going it will help get jobs in the economy. in this world of ours, we have to do everything we possibly can to help american people and business and we were high in at balance they could focus more on their jobs. and it helps the economy. >> i just say that the tax code is broken it seems like all three of the tax code is broken. the other thing that i add to that is that the world has changed. the ability to invest around the world with the click of a mouse

is so much easier. we have to look at what other countries have done as well. they have modernized the tax system and we have not. the other thing that i think is somewhat similar is you have to be very persistent. that reform would not have happened without a continual persistence of effort. the economy is not as strong as it needs to be. we need to get the kind of growth and job creation and wage increases that we have not been seen. i think that that is making a case that has been layer upon layer of change and it is time to look at again. that is what we are trying to do. >> that is the portion of the leading tax writers in congress. that includes max office and detail. see their remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or

online any time. evan loesser on government security clearances at 740 5:00 a.m. tomorrow. and matt lewis on the faith and freedom coalition. "washington journal" is live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think that what we are doing projects american civil liberties. the issue is we have not been able to explain it because it is classified. so that issue is something that we are wrestling with. how do we explain this and still

keep this nation secure. that is the issue that we have in front of us. you know that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress. but the house and the senate within the administration. when you look at this this is not us doing something under the covers. this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us are the good of this country. i think we need to bring the facts out. i agree with you. but from the perspective, we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we are not. >> we look at the secret data collection programs on saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also this weekend on c-span2 and booktv, the annual trade

show. saturday at 1:30 p.m. and on american history tv lessons in history from the end of slavery to separate but equal on sunday at 1:00 p.m. >> it was was important. her father was a slave. she started her teaching career in 1916 which is a sea island off the coast of charleston. she continued her career in urban schools. in 1956 the state of south carolina purveyed state employees from belonging to subversive organizations such as the naacp. she lost her job and her retirement. then she developed an education program to be used during the civil rights movement.

>> this weekend as booktv in american history tv look at life in north carolina on c-span2's booktv. and sunday on american history tv. >> marco rubio of florida and rand paul of kentucky were among the speakers of the faith and freedom commission in washington dc on thursday. this includes ron thompson of wisconsin and the coalition is chaired by ralph reed, who opened the event. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> the fantasy surrounded by a sea of reality introduces some reality to washington dc today as many of the activists in this room head to capitol hill to

meet with their members and senators on irs reform which i think you will agree we are in desperate need of after these recent scandals. the institution of marriage and immigration reform as well. our first speaker at today's launch is a man who you do not need to lobby on your convictions because he already has them in his heart. there is nobody in washington today who stands more firmly with our principles in our next speaker. he is the third of five children. he grew up in lake jackson, texas. he attended baylor university where he received his bachelor of arts degree and his m.d. at duke medical school was earned. i believe he is the only ophthalmologists serving in the congress. certainly the only one serving in the u.s. senate. i do not know about you. but i look forward to the day when there are more doctors and

fewer lawyers serving in washington dc. the senator is the son of an ophthalmologist and i just want to say that i am glad you are here. no one had to explain to him why obamacare was a bad idea. as you know he risked his own ophthalmology practice to run for the u.s. senate in 2010 in a race that he was literally given no chance to win. the primary opponent was anointed by the party bosses. but he stood for what was right and what was conservative and our principles of faith and freedom show that he won not by a 20-point margin. he then went on to win the general election in 2010. and some of you, probably if you are not already following him,

when he stood on the floor of the u.s. senate in march of this year and engaged in a one-man ella buster that lasted nearly 13 hours in opposing the joint policy of this administration like me you are probably on facebook or twitter saying stand your ground. i want you to know that we at the faith and freedom not only stood with you during that fight and you are principle of support for the institution of marriage and the sanctity of innocent human lives but we will stand with you as long as you continue to stand for those values. please welcome the senator, rand paul of kentucky. >> thank you. >> thank you.

[applause] >> i hope everyone has a countable sea. i can go on for a wild. i think it is like the old mcdonald farm of scandalous. here is a scandal there is a scandal, everywhere a scandal. >> to lead a country in the nation you need not only legal authority, but unique moral authority. i think this constellation of scandal shows that the president is losing his moral authority to lead this nation. >> last year in pakistan there was a 14-year-old girl, malia, she was shot for one to school. if you have not seen the youtube

videos of her, i suggest watching her because she is incredible. speaking out for the education of girls if you watch her you'll be amazed at her poise and grace. she never met the earlier poet who grew up in pakistan and women could actually be highly educated and become prime minister. this is from one of the poems i read that is about her in my mind. they insist upon evaluating this in the light. the children of her age have grown clever. why would anyone want to kill an innocent young girl. what kind of distortion of a religion that once you kill a young girl? >> in her young life, she insisted on exposing the fire lines of daylight and as seen by the taliban it was to believe in enlightenment and believe that out of darkness can grow and overcome ignorance. americans are seen by pakistanis.

we are seen as invaders and we will not in a thousand years bring enlightenment to pakistan. only pakistan can do that. when they began to police pakistan better, when girls who long for freedom and education are increased rather than gun down, then we will begin to make progress. my heart breaks for her and her family and all of those who suffered under violent oppression. it breaks for those who cannot grow up to be poets and teachers and those who cannot speak without being gunned down by extremists. i can only hope that the violence done to her will motivate those who believe in islam and peace and tolerance to stand up unanimously and proclaim that this violence does not represent them. it cannot represent a religion and that this reform has to come from islam itself. we have to acknowledge the

taliban and they need to acknowledge that the taliban does not represent them. it does not leave any god. the violence has also directed towards christians. it saddens me to see that in these countries, there are supposedly allies that continue to persecute christians. it angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put christians to death for blasphemy against islam. countries that put to death muslims who imprison anyone who marries outside of their religion. i say no more money to the countries that are doing not. [applause] >> there is a war on christianity. not just from the liberal elite here at home, but worldwide. you are being taxed to send

money to countries that are not only intolerant of christians but openly hostile. christians are imprisoned and threatened with death for their beliefs. in pakistan, a christian sits on death row. her crime is that she dared to drink from a class that belongs to a muslim coworker. she says that she insulted the profit. in our country we refer to this as gossip and it would get nowhere. but this christian is now sitting on death row. recently in pakistan, a 12-year-old girl was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the koran. she was released after stripping the pages of this book into the fire and trying to accuse this little girl. this individual is not a christian, but is in prison and 10 imprisoned by pakistan. and she was tortured and held

without charge for nearly a year. he was finally in prison likely for the rest of his life. i have met with the ambassador from pakistan to argue for his release and they will not touch it. you and i are forced to send billions of dollars to pakistan every year. 90% are off aid to pakistan. my bill said that libya and egypt and pakistan would get no more foreign aid for the u.s. perry must be turned over the assassins that killed our ambassador and pledged and verified that they will protect our embassy. overwhelmingly we were voted

down. is it any wonder that congress has a 10% approval rating? yet washington has not figured this out. in egypt and pakistan, they burn our flags. not one more penny should go to countries that are burning our american flag. even when we have tried through good intentions to make the world a better place, our actions have often backfired. over a quarter of a million iraqi christians fled iraq. make no mistake. he had a relatively safe place for christians. however they now fear the new government worse than hussein government. so the government that we have put into place has caused christians by the hundreds or thousands to flee iraq.

we are talking about arming islamic rebels. it makes no sense to me. i have a friend of mine who was in my wedding and i asked him to be in my wedding and i asked how long he had been a christian. and he said a lot longer than you have. we have been christian since the time of christ. there have been christians in the middle east for a long time. but what we have to figure out is what we are going to do. many of these individuals say that it is not so easy. they do this out of a misguided attempt to stop the violence in syria. i think that their actions will bring more violence and persecution for those who have long been protected in syria. before the arab spring

christianity florist and i would hope that this would bring freedom to those in the middle east. but i fear that the arab spring is becoming like a winner. those in egypt and syria are on the run or under fire and yet we continue to send aid to the people that are chasing them while they burn the american flag and one more of the money is sent to these individuals. even if all of the atrocities to christians were not occurring in these countries, we simply do not have the money to engage in the foolishness. american soldiers spent a decade and many of them have spent so much in aid. before the toppling, most of

them were dropped to 25,000. christian homes are set on fire. bombs are placed in cars. christian families are receiving threatening letters to be kidnapped or killed. american soldiers have also risked their lives for the sake of the country. our young men and women have fought for a noble cause with unintended consequences. these countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. i feel that one day our money is going to be used against israel. should we be sending f-16s when president hamed morrissey says that jews have this and they recognize this.

i say no more until they recognize the right of israel to exist. [applause] in the country of egypt christians and shop owners received threatening letters. the new leader of egypt hamed morrissey has been chanting and transient chanting amen to the destruction of israel. he did not just say that. he can't do that. i cannot imagine that we would want to send more money to egypt. the consensus has to do with this. the president close down the white house. but he found an extra 250 million to send to egypt. we had money to send their. it is clear that american taxpayer dollars are being used

in the middle east. pope john paul two spoke about the culture of death and he talked about a war of the powerful against the weak. we know that we must always stand together. i believe that no civilization that does not respect life to the last breath are not respectable. [applause] >> i am a sponsor of the life of conception act and i will stand by the unborn as long as i'm privileged to be in this offense. [applause] >> i began my descent along time ago. i remember standing up in my church as a kid and talking about how the church should be more active. i remember being a little bit nervous. but i am trying to get better.

these are unified or soon ese days, christians are unified or soon to be. i exhort you to remember the 19 year olds that were sent into battle. any politician who talks about this with lethal bravado should not be leaving any nation. our brave troops are risking their lives and they are enjoying harsh conditions and i pray for their safe return each day. i can recall no utterance in jesus in favor of any acts of aggression and his message to his disciples was one of nonresistance. i do not believe that that means that we shouldn't defend ourselves but individuals and countries should defend themselves. i cannot imagine any other way. we need to be aware of this is a preemptive war.

we should stand with our fellow christians. ..