right, a pillar of our nation, and a fundamental freedom. in subsequent speeches, i will explore the responsibility of government regarding an inalienable and preeminent right such as religious freernlings but i want to note two things at this point. first, as the declaration of independence asserts, government exists to secure inalienable rights. second, if a right is preeminent, it must be properly accommodated when government takes actions such as enacting legislation and issuing regulations. the status of religious freedom is that is inalienable and preeminent. let me turn now to exploring the substance of religious freedom in terms of both its depth or what religious freedom is and its breadth for those to whom religious freedom belongs. first, depth. starting in the early 17th

century, religious freedom in america has been understood to be grounded in the individual right of conscience. roger williams established a settlement in 1636 for those, he described, as the distressed of conscience. and subsequent town agreements and ordnances restricted government to civil things and protected the liberty of conscience. this liberty of conscience encompasses not only what an individual believes but also how an individual acts on that believe. the maryland toleration act of 1649, for example, provided that no person shall be troubled -- quote -- "in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." the virginia declaration of rights was the model for the bill of rights in the u.s. constitution. the free exercise of religion, in fact, is the first individual right listed in the first amendment.

that phrase, "the free exercise of religion," is very important, extremely important. the first amendment protects not simply certain exercises of religion or the exercise of religion by certain parties but the free exercise of religion itself. religious freedom is more than religious speech, which would be otherwise protected by the first amendment or attending a worship service on the sabbath. it is, as madison put it, the freely chosen matter of discharging the duty an individual believes he or she owes to god. this robust substance of religious freedom is described in universal declaration of human rights, which the united states signed in 1948. article 18 states -- and let's refer to this chart -- quote -- "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right

includes freedom to change his relij -- religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to man mandela fest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." that is the universal declaration of human rights. the united states signed the helsinki accords in 1975. section 7 declares that signatories -- quote -- "will recognize and respect the right of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of its his own conscience." such rights derive from -- quote -- "the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his full and free development." in 1992, the united states ratified the international covenant on civil and political

rights. article 18 echoes the same robust definition of religious freedom as the right individually, or in community with others, in public or in private, to believe and to practice one's religion. this robust description expresses the depth of religious freedom. the second dimension to the substance of religious freedom is its breadth or its application across society. earlier i mentioned the maryland toleration act of 1649 which protected the free exercise of religion. it did so, however, only for trinitarian christians. the puritans of match match bay colony outlawed the quakers and punished heriteks. in fact, roger williams came to what would become rhode island after being banished from massachusetts because of his religious beliefs. in those days, religious freedom had depth but not much breadth.

and yet seeds were being planted in 1657, residents of the community known today as flushing, new york, signed a petition called the flushing remonstrance. this was a ban that prevented the quakers from worshipping and the signers stated that they would let everyone decide for themselves how to worship. america's founders were the ones who asserted most directly that religious freedom is inalienable and, accordingly, established its breadth in the first amendment. rather than being limited to adherence of a particular faith, this protection applies to anyone acting according to the dictates of conscience. the status and substance of religious freedom became concretely reflected in supreme court decisions in the 20th century. in shepard v. verner, a woman

was fired from a state government job for refusing to work on saturday, as required by her seven-day adventist faith. the supreme court affirmed that the government regulation of religious belief was -- quote -- "tightly shut" and set a standard that only barely opened the door to government regulation of religious behavior the court said that government limitations on religiously motivated conduct could be justified only by -- quote -- "the gravest abuses endangering paramount interests." therefore, the court said government must have more than a mere rational reason for restricting religious practice. in 1981, the supreme court reaffirmed the shepard standard by holding the government may -- quote -- "justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some

compelling state interest." now, this holding was consistent with the path of american history regarding religious freedom. the protection of something, after all, goes hand in hand with the thing's value. if religious freedom is inalienable and preempt nent -- preeminent, then it must properly be protected by law. all of that changed in 1990 in a case entitled employment division v. smith. two oregon state employees were fired for using payote, a controlled substance in their native american religious ceremonies. the law did not single out religious use of this drug but its application to these individuals seriously inhibited the practice of their religion. the court should have aplayed the shepard standard -- applied the shepard standard and required the state to show a compelling justification for applying this law against religion adherence. instead, the court turned the

schubert standard on its head. the court did exactly what it had rejected in schubert less than 30 years earlier, holding that the government needs nothing more than a rational reason for a general law or regulation that restricts the practice of religion. in other words, so long as the government is not explicitly targeting religion, the first amendment provides no protection at all for the free exercise of religion, as that case held. the court effectively demoted religious freedom from a fundamental right to little more than an optional fringe benefit. in my opening statement at the senate judiciary committee's hearing on september 1992 on a legislative response to this decision, i said that the smith standard is -- quote -- "the lowest level of protection the court could have afforded religious conduct." in smith, the court made it sound as if the schubert

decision had spawned an epidemic of people using religious objections to avoid obeying laws the truth is that courts had not applied the schubert standard strictly at all. but with what the congressional research service has described as a light hand. in the years between the court's decision in schubert establishing the compelling interest standard and its decision in smith abandoning that standard, federal courts rejected more than 85% of religious exercise claims. government today compromises, burdens and even prohibits the exercise of religion not by overt assault but by covert impact. zoning ordnances can restrict where churches may meet, whether they may expand their meeting places and what services they may offer. religious institutions may be forced to hire individuals who

do not share their faith and regulations may prohibit individuals for wearing items required by their faith or require employees to work on their sabbath. if government exists to secure inalienable rights such as religious freedom, it must properly respect and accommodate that right even as it becomes more and more intrusive. in fact, it is the increasing reach of government that makes vigilance about protecting religious freedom more, not less, important. requiring a compelling reason to restrict religious -- restrict religious practice identifies religious practice as important. requiring only a rational reason to restrict religious practice identifies it as worth very little. it is hard to overstate the impact of the smith decision. it stopped dead in its tracks the long and steady progress toward real protection for religious freedom.

government has its greatest impact on religion today not by direct suppression but by indirect restriction. if the status of religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent compels its protection, then reducing that status, as the court did in smith, opens religious freedom to restriction and prohibition. congress responded to the smith decision by enacting the religious freedom restoration act, or rfra. we were motivated by the very understanding of religious freedom and the supreme court -- that the supreme court had abandoned; namely, that religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent. rfra does by statute what the first amendment is supposed to do. under rfra, government may substantially burden the exercise of religion only if doing so is the least

restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental purpose. congress enacted riff -- rfra for one simple reason. while the supreme court protected what the first amendment means, the supreme court in smith put the free exercise of religion itself at risk. the court made every exercise of religion by everyone vulnerable to governmental restriction, interference and even prohibition. rfra restored religious freedom by setting a standard of protection that reflects the true value of what it protects and applies that standard across the board. now, this principle is so powerful that rfra not only passed congress almost unanimously, but it was supported by a coalition of unprecedented ideological breadth. that consensus existed because

we rejected numerous requests to go beyond setting the standard and dictate how it should be applied in certain cases. we refused to do that in rfra because the first amendment does not do that. we set the right standard and left its application to the courts in individual cases. in a 1994 religious exercise case, justice david souter urged the court to reconsider its decision in smith and described what is truly at stake. he wrote -- quote -- "the extent to which the free exercise clause requires government to refrain from impeding religious exercise defines nothing less than the respect of relationship s and the constitutional democracy of the individual, to government and to god." properly understanding the status and substance of religious freedom naturally puts

those relationships in order. misunderstanding or distorting or distorting those principles interferes with these relationships and imperils this fundamental human right. in 1997, the supreme court held that rfra applies only to the federal government because the congress did not have authority to extend its protection to state and local government. as smith has done, this decision made every religious practice by everyone vulnerable to government restriction. by these two decisions, the supreme court ensured that no one in america had either constitutional or statutory protection to practice their faith. i introduced the religious liberty protection act in june 1998 to reestablish the religious freedom that the supreme court had again taken away. having been an author of the religious freedom restoration act. like rfra did, this legislation

set a tough legal standard, reflecting the true status and substance of religious freedom, and left it to the courts to apply this standard in individual cases. unfortunately, though -- unfortunately, they would have bipartisan support, consideration of this bill stalled in the 105th congress. i next introduced a religious land use and institutionized persons act in july 2000 as another attempt to protect religious freedom for apples and as completely as possible. it set the same rigorous standard for government interference in the practice of religion requiring that such actions be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental purpose. within two weeks both the senateaged the house had passed this legislation without objection. as he had done with rfra, president bill clinton signed this legislation into law. it is shocking how little it took just two supreme court decisions to stall america's

century-long journey of religious freedom. as a result, the law today does not adequately protect religious freedom. you and i can claim the first amendment's protection only if the federal government explicitly targets our religious practice. the first amendment is not available at all when state and local governments restrict or even prohibit religious practice altogether. even the legislation passed unanimously by congress is unavailable when state and local governments restrict religious freedom. mr. president, we live in troubled times and many things we once took for granted are being challenged and even attacked. today the rhetoric about religious freedom does not match the reality. in his 1810 state of the union address, president james madison said that a well-instructed people can alone be a free people. the more we understand how religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent, how it is deep

in substance and broad in application, the better-equipped we are to promote and defend it. only then will government not only pay lip service to the fundamental right to religious freedom but will provide for a proper -- and properly accommodate it so that it will be a reality for all of us. these remarks are very important because a lot of people don't realize that religious freedom is not as free as the original founding fathers expected it to be. and even though we've had some very interesting cases -- not the least of which was the religious freedom restoration act case -- we are not there as far as true and noble protection of religious freedoms throughout this country. fortunately, most states do

respect this, and fortunately hopefully most governmental people respect this as well. but that's not enough. we need to change these things and get religious freedom, the preeminent position that it really holds as the first clause of the first amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i don't believe we're in a quorum call is that correct? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. inhofe: we're a little more than a month away, mr. president, from the united nations climate conference in paris. the countries continue to roll out their international pledges to reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to control global warming. i can't believe it, but this is the 21st year that they've

done this. i wrote a book once about this and the last chapter is the longest chavment it ilonglonges. it is about the motivation of the united nations. what is in it for them? i think we all know that every time the united nations does something that's contrary to the interest of us in the united states, we write a letter and norm rally threaten to withhold -- normally threaten to withhold funding. that really gets them upset. what they really want is to have something there that they can draw on so that they don't have to be obligated to any of the countries that are participating. anyway, it is to - there is not time to get into that. i am just say this is the 21st year. the same thing happens every year. they come out and the countries get in there and they follow lead of the united states and say that we're going to be real estate ducing our e-- reducing our emissions. of course it doesn't happen. i remember -- what year was it

-- 2009. copenhagen hosted such a meeting. i remember going over there because all of the people at that time -- it was barack obama, hillary clinton -- she was in the senate at that time. so was john kerry, barbara boxer, nancy pelosi. they all went over to assure them in copien hague than the united states was going to pass cap-and-trade legislation and we were going to -- and so i waited until they all got through with their thing and i went over. it was the shortest trip to europe i've every taken. i was threw three hours. i was the one-man truth squad and said, you've been hearing from all these leaders, and it is not going to havment we're not going to pass t and of course we didn't. so we're going through the same thing now, and while the verbal commitments are created -- creating a positive press coverage for a the love people in the press who want to believe this stuff, the president is seeking to solidify his legacy.

most of these pledges are manity and only place the united states in a position of economic hardship while other countries continue on their current trajectory on co2 emissions. let's start with looking at india. on friday, we received a report from india. we actually didn't see it -- i didn't see it personally until two days ago. it was the most recent country to submit its domestic global warming plan. now, india's plan costs -- this is their word, their -- that they have presented with their plan. it costs $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years. now, do your math. that's approximately $160 billion a year cost in order for them to do what is expected of them as a developing country. their pledge is based on the premise that developed countries -- that's us, the united states, always picking up the bills -- will pick up these costs by financing the green climate

fund. the prerksthe president, our pr, president obama has pledged th 3 billion to go to the green climate fund but the senate and house appropriators have pledged zero, nothing. no money. and you know even if $3 billion were there you stop and look at just one country, $2.5 trillion. it is such a minuscule fraction. it is not even measurable. so that isn't going to happen. and so the president cannot deliver on that promise. india's approach is to addressing -- to addressing its carbon emissions is the continue of the rich-poor country divide that's plagued united nations from the very start. this is what prompted the bird-hagel regulation of 1997. i remember so well sit being in this country -- sitting in this country. i had only been here for three years at that time. and i remember that we -- and we all agreed, it passed 95-0.

it was unanimous. everyone who was in the chamber at that time voted for it. and it said, we're not going to come back -- and they're addressing it to clinton and gore. gore had gone down to his friends in south america -- central america, i guess it was. i'm not sure. anyway, that's why they put this thing together. he had said, we're going to join in. we're going to join you in this commitment to reduce co2 emissions. well, that sounded good until they came back and they had the kyoto convention. they never submitted it to this body because nothing -- no treaty can be ratified unless it is ratified by the senate. so -- and we never even saw it. what's the reason for that? the reason is they knew it wasn't pass. because the byrd-hagel amendment with several others of us who were cosponsors of that said that we won't agree and ratify any convention that comes to us that doesn't treat the developing countries like the developed countries.

if it does one of two things, we'll reject it. one, if it hurts us economically -- of course they all do -- and second-degreelysecondly, if chie to do the same thing we have to do. none of these things have passed. the president is trying to do with regulations what he failed to be able to do through legislation. and we're seeing that every day. and certainly on the committee that i'm fortunate enough to chair, the environment and public works committee, all these rules are coming before us, and these rules are a result of thanks they try to do legislative and they couldn't do. if you talk to the farmers and ranchers of america, they'll say, of all the regulations that come from the e.p.a. that are the most damning -- damaging to farmers and ranchers, it's the waters of the united states. certainly the chair is familiar with this. that means that while we have had state jurisdiction of our

water for many years, it still is -- it had one exception. that is, for navigable waters. i think all of us who are conservatives would agree. the federal government should have a jurisdiction there on navigable waters because that affects a lot more than just states. and so they tried to do that with legislation. that legislation was offered by -- six years ago by senator feingold of the senate -- he is from wisconsin -- and congressman oberstar from minnesota. and not only did we defeat overwhelmingly their legislation, we defeated them at the polls the next election. so it gives you an idea of the unpopularity of this. and so what the president is trying to do there is what he was not able to do with legislation, do with regulation. well, that's the way it is with co2 emissions. so india had sent this thing over.

it's the third-largest co2 emit,only behind china and the united states and it's demand for coal is expected to surpass the united states consumption by the end of a decade unless the united states helps front kindi- front india with the cash for its plan. it is not happening. as a member of this body, we're going to do everything we can to stop it. we'll be successful. we know for a fact that that's not what america wants to do. that's india. then we have china who has pledged to peak its carbon emissions around 2030. they've changed that date. it's still 2030? around 2030 and increase its renewables to 20% of the primary energy use. subsequent to this -- its commitment, china also announced a nationwide cap-and-trade system alongside a newfound partnership with -- between the

united states cities. and while all of these commitments -- that is, they have partnership cities that say, all right, we'll do it in our state if you'll do it over there -- they sound good to the media, but the facts don't pan out because nothing more than just business as usual. at the end of the day, the country gets to increase its emissions for the next 15 years. so here's what they call an agreement that's in the best interest of reducing co2 worldwide and yet they are -- they're committing not to reduce but to increase their emissions for the next 15 years. until 2030. now, when they first made its commitment, i called it a nonbinding charade because china's economy grows and so does deed manned for electricity. comien is thchina is the largesr and importer of coal in the

world. accounting for 50% of the global consumption of goal is in one country, in china. well, over the next decade, china is expected to bring a new coal-fired power plant online every ten days to give it its -- the electricity that it demand. now, unlike the united states, china does not have other inexpensive energy sources, where we in the united states are benefiting from cheap natural gas, china doesn't have the technology and the resources to do it. so they can't do that. even though we have this huge revolution, shale revolution in this country where we're producing oil and natural gas which brings us up to the other thing we need to do, and that is do away with the export ban on natural gas and oil. but china doesn't have the technology to do that. so they -- all they can do is coal. and to continue to support the world's largest economy, which

china is, china will have no choice but to break its promise of hitting its emissions peak by 2030. so that isn't going to happen. the next we have russia. russia has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions between 25% to 30% by 2030. but hiroshima' here's the stick. they made this based on the carbon emissions baseline of 1990 by playing with numbers, russia's commitment will actually allow it to increase emissions between 700 and 900 tons in 2030. then there's mexico, and then there's south korea and south africa. all of them will have made pledges not to cutting emissions but to sploa slow the grog. not to cut emissions, slow the growth. these countries are committing to increasing emissions through 2030. in t meantime, president obama is committing the united states to cut, not slow the growth but cut its emissions by 26% to 28%

by 02035. nobody knows how they came to those years. there's no plan that we have seen that would do that. but this promise is also just as hollow as what we've been hearing from these other countries that i previously mentioned. not only does the president not have the backing of the united states senate and the american people, but outside groups are finding that the president's methods to achieve these reductions through climate regulations primarily the clean power plan is faulty, and according to a recent analysis by the u.s. chamber, the president's intended nationally determined contribution is about 33% short of meeting its target. so that's not going to work. on july 8, david bookbinder, he's a former sierra club chief climate counsel, testified before the committee that i

chair about his own analysis that found an even greater gaffe. it was in the same hearing where it was stated that to close the gap to the president's climate commitment, the united states would likely have to consider regulating other industrial sectors, including agriculture. not just oil and gas and some of these emitters. it's everybody, and it's not going to happen because it can't happen and it doesn't work out. after this committee hearing, i let a letter with ten senators to the president requesting a detailed response for just how the united states intends to meet the pledges of 26% to 28% remissions ee duckses by 2025. it's been three months, and we still haven't received a response. so they have been saying this. we are saying all right, how are you going to do it, and three months have gone by and we don't know how he plans to do it. but you know, when you go to these other countries, they assume that those countries and

americans like they are, the president says this, he means it and he's going to try to make this happen. with his pledge to the international community, the president is setting up the american economy to suffer great pain for no gain. now, his clean power plan lacks credibility. the e.p.a. does not even bother to assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with it, and with the costs of the plan, we're talking about something that would be upwards of $400 billion a year. you know, that's very similar to when they tried to do this with cap-and-trade legislation. the -- i had the occasion to -- and i do this, every time i hear a big number, i go back to my state of oklahoma and i do a calculation. i find out how many families in my state of oklahoma filed a federal tax return, and i do the math. as it turned out, that would cost about $3,000 a family. now, to some people who believe the world is coming to an end

and global warming is causing it, that might sound like, well, $3,000 a family is not that big a deal, but let's remember -- and i remind the chair that it was just a short while ago when lisa jackson, who was the president's nominee and eventually became the director of the e.p.a., was asked by me live on tv in our committee that if we do pass any of these things, either by regulation or by legislation, would that have the effect of reducing co2 emissions worldwide? she said no, because this isn't where the problem is. it's in china, it's in india, it's in these countries that i mentioned before. so we would be doing that, even if you were a believer in the doom philosophy, we would be doing it in a way that is not going to work. so despite the -- all the costs that they have, the president's climate regulation would only reduce co2 concentrations by

0.2%, global average temperature rise would be -- would be, i say, not will be, reduced by only .0016-degrees fahrenheit, would not even be measurable, and the sea level rise would be reduced by .2 millimeters, which is the thickness of two human hairs. so it's no wonder the president is working so hard to circumvent congress' role in committing the united states to the agreement. i only say this because we're now getting close to december, and we have been through this so many times before, and this isn't going to be any different. there is one difference, and that is they are not going to attempt to do it by passing legislation that would circumvent congress because they know what congress reports to the people and the people don't want this. i can remember when global warming -- when they had their annual gallup poll every march, it used to be when they would ask one of the critical concerns about america, global warming

was always in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, it was between first and second place, the greatest concern. do you know what it is today? out of 15, it's number 15. so the people have caught on. they know that this would be the largest tax increase in history and it would not accomplish anything. now, what is our timing situation, i ask the president? the presiding officer: there are no time agreements. mr. inhofe: then i don't need to ask unanimous consent. i do want to make a comment because something very good happened in this that's not normally the case. we passed the defense authorization bill. here we are in the midst of over two decades of wars and we're being challenged on all fronts from national states to terrorist organizations, extremists to cyber and lone wolf attacks. our military is directly engaged in asia, africa, eastern europe, syria, afghanistan, iraq, and

the demands that this country is placing, this just continues to be -- to increase greater than anything i've ever seen in the years that i have been here and probably the greatest in history. in terms of the number of threats to america from different countries. yesterday we voted to pass the national defense authorization bill, the ndaa, for the 54th consecutive year. i have been worried, the last few years, we ended up passing it not this early but passing it in december. now, if we had gone to december 31 in those years or even in this year, all of a sudden our kids wouldn't get hazard pay, they wouldn't get re-enlistment bonuses, and we couldn't let that happen. i'm glad we did it earlier this year. i think that's the most important bill we pass every year. it's our constitutional duty to provide the nation's defense and exercise and overnight in the president's administration.

you know, there is an old wornout document that nobody reads anymore. it's called the constitution. if you read article 1, section 8 of the constitution, it tells us what we're supposed to be doing here. number one, defending america. and number two, roads and highways. i'm very glad that we passed the highway bill, and it's over and i just came from the house. i home that -- i'm optimistic that they will be able to pass it over there, too. but nonetheless, the most important thing is defending america. it's our constitutional duty to do it. the ndaa, that's the defense authorization act, contains provisions that take care of our military men and women, the pay, the benefits, the bonuses, the new starts, the agreements and bonuses, military construction, all of this stuff, and this bill addresses things like additional protections for victims of skull assault, and it's a good bill that most of the members of this committee have been to the floor today and have talked about it. i just want to mention a couple of things that are there that

may have been overlooked by some of the other speakers. you know, they should be focusing on accomplishing their missions instead of wondering if this bill to authorize spending priorities critical to our national security and supports the resources requirement of the department of defense. while this bill does not contain every provision that the senate wanted, that i wanted, the house wanted and that the president would like to have, the final language is overall good policy for our national defense and provides authorizations in a timely manner. this vital piece of legislation sets a course for our national security and provides for our nation's nearly 2.1 million all-volunteer force. you know, i have -- i was a product of the draft many years ago. i've often said that that's one of the things that this country probably ought to go back to. we wouldn't have a lot of the problems today if we had kids that had to go through the discipline and appreciation for our country. but nonetheless, this is all a volunteer force, and it's worked

beautifully. as i go over and i sit down, i make it a point when i go to afghanistan or iraq or africa, these places where we have troops stationed to sit down in the mess halls, go out in the field and eat with them and listen to the problems that they have, and try to give them -- boost them up a little bit because they know under this administration that i have called the disarming of america, that defending america is not the high priority that it should be. at a time when each service chief, the secretary, the combatant commanders has testified that no service will be able to meet the wartime requirements under sequestration, the president and many people in this body don't want sequestration to take place or want it to take place but only for domestic purposes as well as military, and we're saying this is where the problem is. let's look at secretary carter, our secretary of defense. he said just recently -- quote -- readiness remains at

troubling levels across the force. and even with the fiscal year 2016 budget, the army, navy, marine corps won't reach their readiness goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023, and at a time when secretary hagel says -- and listen to this, mr. president. i don't know why more people in america didn't hear this. this is secretary of defense, secretary hagel. he said -- quote -- "american dominance on the seas, in the skies, in space can no longer be taken for granted." this is america. and people are thinking that, you know, the president might even veto this bill. it's at a time when admiral win i field, admiral winnifield is vice chairman chief of staff. he says -- quote -- "there could be for the first time in my career -- this is an admiral -- instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis. we would have to say that we

cannot." at a time when general dempsey says we are putting our military on a path where the force is so degraded and so unready that it would be immoral to use it. of course, general dempsey labels it unlike any time in his lifetime. so the passage of this legislation is absolutely necessary, and we have passed it. we've done the responsible thing in the house, and i think we need to be sure that we use the full pressure to make sure that the president does not veto this bill because he is toying with the veto. you know, we've never seen anything like this in the history of this country. we have a level of threat to america and we're going to have to make sure that we pass this bill. i'm very proud it passed by the majority it passed in the united states senate. and with that, i know i'm the last speaker tonight. i would suggest the absence of a quorum, just to see if there is any last-minute speech that has to be given. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. mr. mcconnell: without

objection -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 232, s. 32. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 232, s. 32, a bill to provide the department of justice with additional tools to target extraterritorial trafficking activity and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 234, h.r. 623. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 234, h.r. 23 -- 623, an act to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to authorize the department of homeland security to establish a social media working group, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the matter? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2162. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. mcconnell: introduced earlier today. the clerk: s. 212, a bill to establish -- 2162, a bill to establish a so-year term for the service of the librarian of congress. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 275. the presiding officer: is there objection? the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 275, a resolution calling on congress, schools and state and local educational agencies to recognize the significant

educational implications of dyslexia and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 280, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 280 , recognizing the month of october 2015 as national women's small business month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to s. res. 281. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 281 , designating the week of october 5-9, 2015, as national

health information technology week and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the resolution the presiding officer: hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h. con. res. 81, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent 81, providing for corrections to the enrollment of the bill h.r. 1735. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now,

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 thursday, october 8. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:45 a.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. with senators permitted to speak there for up to 10 minutes each. that at 10:45 a.m., the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2028. that the time from 10:45 until 11:30 be controlled by the majority; the time between 11:30 and 12:15 to be controlled by the democrats and the time between 12:15 and 12:45 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2028 occur at 12:45 on

thursday, october 8. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. this

afternoon, i was glad to see the senate come together yesterday to advance the bipartisan national defense authorization act. this bipartisan defense bill will support our men and women in uniform in many, many ways. it will attack bureaucratic waste, authorize pay raises and improve quality-of-life programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. it will strengthen sexual assault prevention and response. it will help wounded warriors and heroes who struggle with mental health challenges. most importantly, it will equip the men and women who serve with what they need to defend our nation. the chairman of the armed services committee was unrelenting in his work across the aisle to craft a serious defense bill with input from both parties. senator mccain can and should take pride in yesterday's 73-26 vote to advance this bill. he should take heart in today's

vote to send it to the president as well. that's where this legislative process should end with the president's signature, with a win for our forces and win for our country at a time of seemingly uncalucable crisis. but the white house has signaled the president may veto this bill. that would be more than outrageous, it would be another grave foreign policy miscalculation from this administration, something our country can no longer afford. just a year ago the president announced a strategy to degrade and destroy isil. today the threat remains as versatile and resilient as ever. isil has consolidated its gains within iraq and within syria. russia is now deploying troops and attacking the moderate

opposition forces in syria. iran is reportedly sending additional forces to the battlefield. civilians are dying and refugees are fleeing. john kerry calls the situation a catastrophe, a human catastrophe really unparalleled in modern times. he's right. according to news reports, this is all forcing the president to reconsider his strategy in that region and craft a new one. regardless of what he decides, it's going to be protracted area of struggle. it's been profoundly challenging already. that's to say nothing of the countless other mounting global threats from chinese expansion in the south china sea to taliban resurgence in afghanistan. now many americans would say this is the worst possible time for an american president to be threatening to veto their national defense bill, and especially to do so for

arbitrary partisan reasons. i wish i could say it surprised me that president obama might, for the sake of unrelated partisan gains actually contemplate vetoing a bipartisan defense bill that contains a level of funding authorization that he actually asked for. let me say that again. this bill contains the funding authorization that the president asked for. i'm calling on him not to, especially in times like these. but if he does, it will be the latest sorry chapter in a failed foreign policy based on campaign promises rather than realistically meeting the threat before us. the president's approach to foreign policy has been nothing, if not consistent over the past seven years. i've described this in many details times before. from repeatedly seeking to declare some arbitrary end to the war on terror to discarding the tools we have to wage it to placing unhealthy levels of trust and unaccountable

international organizations, the president's foreign policy has been as predictable as it has been ineffectual. take, for instance, his heavy reliance on economy of force train and assist missions. this has been the primary tool of the president to cover our drawdown of conventional forces. the train and equip concept to train indigenous forces to battle in places like yemen, syria, iraq and afghanistan. these forces ideally partner with u.s. capabilities, but under the president's policies they have been left to fight alone as we continue to draw down our conventional forces and capabilities. the essence of this was captured in a speech he delivered at west point just last may. in that speech, the president described a network of partnerships from south asia to

saw hill to be funded by $5 billion in counterterrorism funds. by deploying special operations by deploying special operations by deploying special operations forces train and equip missions the present hope to manage the diffuse threats posed by terrorist groups, al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, boca around, the almost are front, tele- been, libyan terrorist networks, and, of course, i sil. the president never explained to strategy beyond direct action like unmanned aerial vehicle for those cases were indigenous forces proved insufficient as we have seen in iraq and syria and yemen. "weather on the nines" continueh force structure cuts to our conventional operational units. it allowed him to continue refusing to accept that leaving behind residual forces in places like iraq and afghanistan might

represent a means by which this nation could preserve the strategic gains made through sacrifice. it also allowed him to continue refusing to rebuild our conventional and nuclear forces. now, this was never, never an approach designed for success. today it's clear this is now an approach that has also reached its limits. "the new york times" is hardly an adversary of this an adversary of this the new york times. an adversary of this for administration but it recently ran a story titled, billions from the u.s. failed to sustain u.s. forces. here's what it said. this is new york times, a asi mr. president. with the frequency in free sta recent years trained forces in the middle east, have been

staffed, stalled, or collapsed.g as well as the central tenet of the obama administration encouraged to come battingthoutd insurgencies.'s without rebuilding force, tog te deter china's effort to its reach in the south china sea, without rebuilding the force wei cannot deter russia in places like crimea. without rebuilding and deploying forces we cannot hope to deter russia's middle east presence or its air campaign in syria. under this strategy, when thesin host station militaries are trained and equipped and is proved inadequate to defeat the insurgency in question, the strategy allows the president

for enduring threats in that country. that is just what we have seen with al qaeda, caliban and now i thought the growth advance and evolution of isil last year would have presented a turning point for the president. i thought the fall of the pol providence and the threat to allies like jordan, saudi arabia,t and turkey would have l provoked a reconsideration of the entire national security policy. but it didn't. but the latest stories of white house efforts for isilnd strategies are to be believed, t then perhaps the president now finallypa realizes the threats f terrorist groups like isil and al qaeda has outplace thes economy of force. he may even be accepting the reality thatd withdrawing from afghanistan is a good idea.ts one year after the presence isil

signed the reversal of art draw of military, it's time to laysfd the groundwork for the next president to rebuild america'ssi credibility with friends and both alike. to that is true of isil, that is true of dissatisfied powers like russia, china, china, and iran who are looking to exploit it america. to paraphrase, the president russia is calling. it wants its empire back.oo russia wants its empire back.oth china is calling to. so is iran. they watched as both our economy and forced efforts to masssi, america withdrawal and as other u.s. commitments like the announcement of a strategic pivot to asia have proven quite

awful. the next president, regardless of the party will need to craft plans, policies, and programs to balance. i signing the bipartisan national defense authorization act we pass today, of course matching the authorization withak corresponding fund eight would represent a first step along that path. the president is serious and hir restated commitment to combat we isil, he will know that signing this bipartisan authorization anything but a waste oftial. time, some of his allies might pretend it to be. in fact, this bill is essential. >> a democrat leader.ot a >> we come before the senate this afternoon despite of all vo the statements. everyone knows the president

will veto this bill.nt everyone knows. the house, they are called upon first to sustain the the veto, they will do it. if we are called upon first, we will do it. there trying to based on what we have heard here from my friend today, i don't know where, heast doesn't want american troops, china, iran, russia, all of the middle east? stunning to listen to what he has said. we spent a lot of money with foreign troops. i was in iraq. who. who is training the troops thene general petronius. so i don't know what my friend wants but i do tell everyone cat here, let us this funny money

funding and that's what it is. s i can imagine republican friendy who have passed and been supportive of not doing things with funny money. the chairman of the committee t has knowledge of sequestration will destroy the military. that is my word. but. but it will badlye, damage the i military.pport so, we have a lot of problemsthe here. my friend is touting today doese nothing to explore the security here at home, the fbi, border patrol. border patrol. i say to my friend, residing officer here today, you voted the way of thought republican should y vote.

it's been a week since this is happened but they are still in relay from the admission of the so-called benghazi select committee. >> to republican presidential candidates ted cruz, and rand paul joined 25 democratic in voting no. two other presidential contenders marco rubio and lindsey graham did not vote, along with pat robert of kansas. the house passed the measure last week but pres. obama has already threatened to veto. the chamber now turns to

2016 energy and water development spending. 16 energy and water development spending. you can follow the senate life here on c-span2. >> this sunday night on q&a, former senator and presidential candidate gary hart on his new book, the republic of conchas. comparing our current government with the way our founders intended. >> the founders use the language of the engine republic greece and rome. they warned against corruption. their definition of corruption was not bribery or quid pro quo, money under the table, it, it was putting special interest ahead of the common good. by that definition our government today is a massively corrupt place. >> sunday night, had eight eastern pacific on q&a. >> earlier today today british prime minister david cameron talk about the majority when this past spring. the u.k. administration and the union. he also commented on the union

leader jeremy corbin. from manchester, manchester, this is about one hour. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you for that wonderful welcome. i am am so glad to be standing here in front of you today, the government and not just any government, a majority conservative government. [applause].

and to the people, i want to say thank you. you are the greatest thing a prime minister could ever have. to the british people, when you put your cross on the conservative box you're putting your faith in us to finish the job we started, to back working people, to deliver security to you and your family. i will tell you now, we will not let you down. [applause]. just for a moment, think back, i don't know about you but it only takes two words, exit poll. then what happened that night, conservatives winning across wales, the march to the midland,

eric wells, conservative, for the first time ever the north, the south, the east, almost a clean sweep. and 100% conservative. [applause]. a new-line, fell across our aisles. i will never forget that morning. getting back to london, sitting for an interview, and then sitting down with a pen and seeing the children getting ready for school. they were, we were surrounded by pens and bags, i was writing my speech. i thought, i will just go and

lie down for some thinking. as i shut my eyes, then i woke up and listen to the radio. [applause]. here's a serious point, fundamentally they didn't understand the people who make up our country. the vast majority of people are not arguing at the extremes of the debate. i'll put it as simply as i can, britain and the people want the same thing. [applause]. the british people are decent, sensible, reasonable, reasonable, they just want a

government to support the government vulnerable, support those who do the right thing, better childcare, controlled immigration, lower taxes so they have more money at the end of the month. nhs was there for them seven days a week. that's what people want. that is what we must deliver. the party for working people, today, tomorrow, and always. [applause]. ten years ago i stood on the stage, quite like this one, i said if we changed our passage we can change our country. we have done that together. i didn't campaign on the nhs alone. you join me. more than just me about social justice, equality for gay

people, climate change, help in helping the world's poorest, central to the department's mission, i didn't select our candidates, it was you. and who was elected in may, whose parents just a generation ago were living in a poor village, kennedy whose work was forced to leave from the revolution when she was five. five years ago, johnny was on his third two are in afghanistan. caught in an ambush, just days before this election. delivering his own campaign and his rises to. [applause].

different journey, often difficult journey but leading here. the new generation of conservative. [applause]. in the cabinet table, a third of my colleagues, a few months ago we were discussing childcare. he was backed up by the dr. of an immigrant who arrived in our country from east africa with nothing except for the close on their back. the first speaker, despite the

drive to pakistan arrived here. now with couples marry because of us, working people back to because of us, children in the poorest part of the world say by us, everyone in this pool can be proud of our journey. it is the journey of one nation of a local compassionate program. [applause]. size five years of government stretch out before us, what did i see on the skyline? i love our history and what we have given, i love our get up and go. i love our character, our

decency, our sense of humor, and i love every part of our country, england, england, scotland, wales, northern island, we are one nation and i will defend our union with everything i have got. [applause]. every day, in every way i know this, we can make it greater still. a greater britain where people have greater hope, greater chances, greater security. i really believe we are on the brink of something special in our country. this year we have seen more people in work and then at any time in our history. our children are starting the university more than ever before. people are setting up shop more than anywhere else in europe.

hope is returning, we are moving into the light. but we are not there yet. we are only halfway through. for me that has a very literal meaning. i can say something today that perhaps no prime minister has been able to say before, i'm on stopping my second half of the time in my job. as you know i am not going to fight another election, i don't have don't have the luxury of unlimited time. let me tell you, i am in just a much of fight as i was five years ago. securing our country, improving our economy, infrastructure, this is what will put our country on the path to great. to make great britain greater we

need to tackle some deep social problems. economic emergency, the surge of politics, the shadow of extremism hanging over, great britain doesn't need just a stronger economy it needs a stronger society. delivering this i think is a great, we have always been optimists, leaders of change, that is why joined it, that is why wanted to lead it. now in my final term is prime minister i say let us move on to these great predictions of social reform. [applause]. and all of the challenges we face will be guided by our

conservative value. i believe in strong defense, i believe an enterprise economy. we set free what burnt so deep within the british people, take on new work, take on the world, i believe any quality for opportunity. not everybody ending up with the same results, but every one having the same shot at it. some people argue, some people will say these things are obvious. i have to tell you they are not. it becomes clear by the day that the labour party has completely abandoned any notion of these ideas. let us know here at this

conference to do what we have always done, to prove those conservative is true, to save britain from the slaves of labor, and to make britain a greater britain, that is our goal. [applause]. now it begins by making the case for strong defense. my first duty as prime minister is to keep people safe. when you are reading those intelligence reports, this summer i was told about syria and planning terrorist attacks. i wondered do we have that capability, is it legal, i knew that whatever action i took it

would provoke at least debate. my job is quite simple, ultimately it is to decide and the choice i basis this act or stall and an innocent people could be killed. another subject of protecting our country from terrorism. let me say this, thousands of words have been written but the

only thing you need to know is one thing, the the check tragedy of almost 3000 people murdered, the tragedies the moms and dads who never came home from work that day, the tragedy of people jumping from the towers, my friends we cannot let that man, osama bin laden, threaten on this country that we love. [applause].

when a refugee crisis impacts our world. like most people i find the image of that poor syrian boy has not left my mind. our responsibility is to help those with their lives. so to that we must keep our heads. let's keep it simple fact, 1 million people have been made homeless by the conflict in syria. if we opened the door to every refugee the best thing you can do is help neighbors, syrian people with refugees. and then we do take refugees

taken from the region. that encourages a dangerous but lethal journey. we have to's not stop caring about syrians. then any other country we have helped that country more than any other country on earth except for the united states. [applause]. we have been able to do that because we made a promise and kept a promise to send part of our national income in a. others made that but they didn't keep that. i say if britain can keep their promises, so should you. [applause].

the real answer, of the refugee crisis to places where people actually want to live, that that means having a government, not terrorizing people, in its place we need a government that could defeat isil. we never be safe until we eradicate. some people think we can contract, we shouldn't. we must do our part to. we can because of our commitment we made the summer, we will spend 2% of our our gdp this year, next year, and throughout the next decade. [applause].

in the coming years will be launching in our history, a new class, we'll have apache helicopters, because our independent nuclear insurance policy this government will persevere. [applause]. now government having great to help people at home and abroad. above all to see how britain's armed forces. in the last year loan they have attacked in west africa,

protected, they built the fences against isis, they patrolled the seas, there in the pacific, then they were in the atlantic and then they were at the med. with armed forces like that, we can be greater still. [applause].

a greater britain that is strong, that should be strong in europe too. comes back to the conservative values. a belief in the conservative state. we all know what is wrong with the eu, it's too big, too bossy, but we also know what's right about it. it's the biggest in the world. some people say take what we have got, others say walk away from the whole thing. i say no. this is britain. we don't duck a fight. that is how we kept our border checkpoints and others decided to take it down. it is because we do things at our roof way, it's not just what

we get europe out of, it's what we get europe into. if you think that the deal with america could be the biggest radial in history. it was britain, we did. i have i am interested in two things,. that is why i'm going to fight so hard so we can get the best deal, and get get the best of both worlds. let me give you an example. we're told it was about going into a common area, the goal some had let's look at this

clearly. britain is not interested in closing the union. [applause]. today it is an uncertain world. investments going into our country more than anyone else in the world. if anyone thinks the battle on the economy they need to think again. the battle has only just begun. we still need to become more competitive for our whole country and build that northern powerhouse. at a time when our opponents

have given up any sensible, reasonable, rational argument. we live in a country where it the main, let's not forget it in terms of government, institute jacking up taxes, there is an epidemic called britain perfect. he's the man behind that plan. he gave an interview a few weeks ago and he admitted that labor plan is a sterling crisis. he said afterwards, i quote. he written a book called the joy of tax. i've read it.

it has 64 positions and none of them work. [applause]. this is actually very serious. in growing our economy this has never been more vital. nothing less than every single family in our country, as we do that, i know it's not just british business. [applause].

what makes me most angry about labor, is not just the argument, these deficits, who gets hurt when government, interest rates go through the roof. who gets hurt when you waste money on debt and then you have to cut debt. who gets hurt, businesses start firing people. it's not not the rich, it's poor people. let's just remember labor ideas don't help the poor, they hurt the port. they are not for working people. if you want to lecture about poverty. [applause].

is another argument, we also need to win, there are some people that understand the deficit needs to turn but don't know why we need a surplus. i will tell you why, i will stand here like the prime minister, remember him, we should be thinking about the rainy days, put something aside, take out insurance, pay some mortgage when you have some to pay back. that is what we should do.

making sure we are ready to deal with future crisis. for those labor people who say work for today, get us tax break for tomorrow, stop it. i am here to ensure that our children have a future. [applause]. for me there is one big piece of unfinished business in our economy, a greater britain must mean owning a home of our own. it goes back to reward for hard work. it's not just enough to have a roof over your head, i i want you to have a roof of your own. in the past year thousands of new homes have been built.

in our manifesto we have a policy extending the rights of home association for tenants. house association, the legislation would never pass, let me tell you we have secured a deal with the housing association for the right to buy the home. that will mean people will be able to buy their home next year. over 1 million people the chance to become home owners. [applause]. challenge is far begun. we have a generation of hard-working people, we're waking up each morning, that

should be a wake-up call for us. we need massive national thing for homes to be built. in all of these things i'm going to be working and i hope soon to be on there. [applause]. today i want to single someone out. he served this party and has a huge amount or to come. let's hear for the man who fought to terms, mayor of the great city. [applause].

those a great beach boris. fabulous speech. i was a hooker, and by the way that is a factual statement statement not a chapter of my book. [applause]. increasing homeownership is something else. we have been talking about building what they thought portable homes in ways it was deceptive.

it basically meant homes were available to rent. not homes they would actually own. think about it to prepare the plans for the homes, most of these people on the homes they live in. what do others want, home of their own. [applause]. so today i can announce a dramatic shift in housing policy, the old rules of developers who build only if you build affordable homes for rent, replacing it with new rules. you can build here and the home can be available to buy. our party, the conservative party, the party the party for homeownership in britain today.

[applause]. a more prosperous britain. we must not stop there as we build a greater britain. first economic success it is the foundation of which were built a better society. there'll never be some grand notion of hiding, but a deep which says you make a country greater and today that means entering a no go zone. where politicians dare to venture. it means looking at the extreme opportunity.

so when you look at a newborn baby, the most precious scene, she knows she can. when a schoolgirl sits in a classroom and someone will take her to the very top. when immigrants are loyal to this country his country. that is what fires me up. people. to those who say social problems are too big and there's no way to support them, i said who said our party wouldn't change and we did. we set our economic plan wouldn't work when it did. who said we went win an election and we did. we will take on these issues. [applause].

central to that is an all-out assault on poverty. conservatives are serious about solving the problem. we we need to tackle some root problem. homes, addiction, millet and mental health, abuse, family breakdown. today someone is more likely to own a smart phone than having a debit with them. think of your own child, think of the day they were born. how they were, and then today babies are born in britain addicted to heroin. you have to get to grip with

this issue but we made a start this last five years. the majority turned around the lives of over 100,000 addicts. it was simple, get the addicts a job because we know one way out of poverty is to work. we help create two and half million jobs. it's not enough to just have a job work has to mean something. but for some work hasn't worked. for next year we will take a giant leap forward. 9 pounds an hour by the end of the decade. work pain for millions of people in our country.

work hard, you want to get on, the party to do that is the party right here in this room. [applause]. been out of work is only one symptom. children, eight out of ten leave school without, and tragically caregivers are more likely to commit suicide than anyone else. children in our care, we the state, what are we setting them

up for. an early grave, i tell you we will put it right. just as we said, failing schools, do better or we will send new leaders said to improve or be taken over. [applause]. just as we have the best graduates and teachers, we need to get our best and brightest to the front line. we must also start of needing to care. our adoption bill will help increase it further.

let us think of all those children desperate for a family, all all the families desperate for a child, we are the ones who can bring them together. [applause]. another service run by the state , failed in the trenches publicly. i believe if you committed a crime punishment must follow. when it's a serious crime punishment must mean prison. the system is still not working met our bill being release, some and get on with locations and

come out with none. drug addiction, mental health problems, we have not to get away from the debate. we have to get smart about this. they often said we have their full attention so educate them and put them to work. we can make sure they're working we are spending money keeping them in the cell so where make sense let's use them. when our prisons are relics it is time to sell them off to something that actually works. [applause].

this is going to be a big area of social reform in the next five years. the man who takes on every vested interest and gives everyone. the man who began and will do the same for prisoners, michael go. [applause]. we need it tackle the problems of poverty we can make our country great. another big social problem, the lack of social mobility. unable to rise from the bottom to the top or even the middle to the top. britain has the lowest social

mobility in the developing countries. here it is more linked to what your father got paid, i'm sorry for us the conservative's, cannot accept that. we know the springboard to opportunity, our children studying math and science, learning computing and engineering, competent to build character, last year 53 of the university, 52 were ever to do so. that's i'm so passionate about academies are raising the aspiration of children, parents, communities.

my next in mission is this, every school and economy and local, make them a thing of the past. [applause]. let's be honest, too many people even a good education is not enough. there are other barriers that stand in the way. think of this you graduate with a good degree, but you get rejection after rejection, what's wrong? it's not your previous experience, stewards at the top, first name, last name.

for our country today having the same qualification people with white sounding names are more likely to get called back then people with ethnic names. this is a true story. one woman changed her name to elizabeth, and the 21st century britain. [applause]. we can talk all we like the opportunity but it is meaningless unless people are judged. opportunity doesn't mean much if it walks down the street, opportunity doesn't mean much to a black person if there stopped by police because of the color

of their skin. it doesn't mean much to a gary person reinjected over by the person they love. it doesn't mean much to something they're good at. i am the son of, father of two daughters who they could grow up and get paid less because of their gender and not because of if they know less. [applause]. the point is this, you can have true opportunity and i want our party to get this right. it is the party of the fair chance, the party of equal chance, the party that doesn't care where you come from but where you are going. i want to end discrimination, finish the fight, put, put real policy into our country today.

[applause]. tackling the causes of poverty and real opportunity, and big social reform in our mission. to rebuild, we need to confront and i mean really confront. when i read what some kids brought up this country are doing it makes me sick. girls not much older than my

oldest daughter straight a and are in life with isil. boys who could do anything they want to in britain instead ending up in the desert. this ideology has become a tepid dominic infecting the minds. here's what we need to do, pair up that the muslims who will who is isil murdering more than anyone else? they want to get away with the politics anymore. [applause].

take on extremism in all its forms. people don't become terrorists from standing up, it begins with a preacher telling them that christians and muslims can't live together. it progresses to a website and before you know it a young british boy, early 17 bombs his body and kills people. we have have to stop this instead of letting it grow. we need to tackle segregation.

there parts today where you can get by without ever speaking english, you will see some institutions that say this not to aid its division. some children, there is nothing wrong with children learning about their faith but in some addresses we have children been taught that they should not mix of people of other religions. these children should be having their mind open, not having their heads filled with poison in their hearts with hate. [applause].

i can announce this today, institution teaching children intensively and we will like any other school make it so can be inspected. if you are teaching and tolerance we will shut you down. [applause]. this goes to a wider truth we are so frightened of causing offense that we don't look at what is going on in our community. i will tell you where it leads children, british children, but a pakistan in summer holidays they want to marry a man they

never met. it means children, six children are labeled in the back street of britain. this turns into a less integrated country, puts puts our children in danger, it is unforgivable. so no more intolerance and britain. [applause]. >> ..

>>