dialogue about it. it's two different changes. also, the long wolf. i looked at your apiendapend sis and unbelievable the things they are doing. a sub part of that would be a specific question i've always had. you've got three groups, dhs bfi all working together to try to support the community outreach programs understanding it as mr. shake said the local

police. >> yes, they're very different and long wolves have an actual proceeding to what they're doing. they operate along and don't have an organization and don't have training. i'm glad you mentioned mr. muh muhammad from cincinnati, ohio because he's the only one that's come back to the united states that's alleged to plan an attack. crucially, he was trained.

we need to keep that in mind. >> it wasn't al-shibab. it came from the community. >> i think in that particular case it wasn't in the documents. he went to an unspecified training camp while he was posting about the islamic state. in terms of the problems these are two different problems. we could see isis trying to bridge the two to coordinate loosely long wolf activity with terrorist type activity. in the case of the attorney, this may be a dry run to see what happens when you see somebody back. we have seen that isis has had return fighters who have been

active in europe. we've seen at least one case of what was described by investigators investigators. there's not much reason to believe they wouldn't try this sort of thing. the long wolf piece of it is eds for them. it's relative to other groups. it's going to capture a lot of headlines for them with a lot of investment. the question is how much they want to invest in attacks here. that's unclear right now. >> could you talk about the coordination between dhs and the fbi and the nctc? >> yeah, there is a dhs coordinator. david gurtson comes from a background and i was surprised

to see dhs putting that kind of resource in the area. the office of civil rights and civil liberties is looking at how to avoid the securitization aspect of it. it's really poisonous to the cve branding. community groups were giving a false narrative of what the government is trying to do. if i could quickly make a point on the long wolf, what kind of long wolves are we talks about? i call them isis zombies. these are the self-activating might have mental health issues, low level of competencies and then you can have directed attackers who are syria returns who have a level of competence who one person can pull off a quiet effective attack. in pars, of course, only two

guys did what they did. you could easily have a cell of six people, two three men teams to do simultaneous attacks and cause great disruption. they're again a number of threats in that spectrum. >> we need to do the best practices community by community. local face was important. i said the community has been very involved and i think in a productive dialogue. the federal government where we have responsibility coordinating between the three agencies i mentioned and perhaps some other agencies that are more on the intelligent side. is that working or should there be more accountability that comes from more definitive responsibility? >> it is working.

now that there is a coordinator and that is happening is a positive step. it's running into the issues of critics saying you know, these are just, this is just an excuse to intelligence gather. i think dhs and their particular mechanisms working on cve are trying to navigate the space as best as possible. >> thanks senator portman. we'll start another round. i started my opening statement with description of the posting with the claim that there's 71 trained fighters and 23 of you accepting assignments. nobody knows whether that's blustered or real. is that an unprecedented posting? have we seen similar things like that? similar threats that haven't panned out anybody? >> i think we have multiple

times times. it's pretty precedent. the volume of material they put out is just truly extensive and it comes in a lot of different formats. they've made a variety of threats with greater, more or less over time. one of the reasons was it was something they had actually specifically talked about that had turned into an attack and that was unusual because they create so much noise that that needle in the hay stack can be very difficult to detect. it's the attempted winning message. >> yeah i think that you know certainly, they have dozens to low hundreds of supporters in

this country and some of those people may be prepared to act and i don't think there's anything remotely as organized as what that described. >> certainly in your testimony and in both written and oral, you were talking about the rise of the brand of isis but they're also very vulnerable to the reversal of that. i hope that's true. i also understand strategically they've made a lot of enemies and they're being attacked on a number of different fronts. the state of the goal of this administration is defeat isis. i've asked administration officials in the past what does defeat look like? define it. i would like to have you gentleman take a crack at what does defeat look like to you and how achieveable is that? >> i think there's actually a very clear thing that defeat means in this context which isn't true of other groups.

they have staked their legitimacy to the continuing viability and if the cal fit is no longer viable they could lose the legitimacy quickly. if you're able to make it no longer a viable entity and no longer received as a viable entity, that point they have lost. their narrative would be completely dead. the arguments they have certain outs that for example they believe at some point there would be a grand battle and they would be crushed. essentially, it means you make this already marginal movement much, much more marginal. let me add one final thing. sometimes we talk about what the community could do to delegitimize the message? for the united states, if we had a 5% approval rating we would think that's an awful thing.

for isis, they can have a 5% approval rating and they're dealing with it. they're not dealing with the whole movement. there's many within the movement who argue against isis. the question is not how do we change an entire community but how do we stop this fringe group. does anyone else have different definition of defeat? >> in cutting it off economically, an internal collapse or a major inside group would be better for us than a forcible ejection from their territory especially if that ejection was done through

american motor. >> the defeat, how it looks like is the denial of the territory. >> it's the end of the territory but not the end of the story. they have variances and presence in nigeria and libya. >> an important point. i'm glad you pointed that out, again, anybody else have a different definition of defeat? my next question is i'm no military expert and i don't think we have one on the panel, no offense. expertise has been very valuable here. how far away are we from that definition of defeat? >> as i said, i don't think anyone on the panel could say. number one looking to internal resistance movements is very important. i agree with j.m. at the end of the day if the defeat comes from within, that's going to be a much more resounding defeat. >> how possible is that?

>> the question is how, there's two things to this. number one is how robust are they? in the past we saw very robust instance to them. the u.s. played a role in helping to insure they weren't destroyed. a lot of the movements are also people we don't like. we have on the one hand probably baptist resistance movements and i would say almost certainly you have al qaeda resistance movements which plays in the struggle of struggle. while i think that baghdad is replaceable, once you have a succession, especially with an organization like that, that might cause greater mag menation with isis. the final thing we look to is you've given they're a bit

overstretched militarily. you could possibly see a rapid reversal just like when the u.s. engaged in the campaign early in the iraq war and afghanistan war and also in libya. there were very rapid reversals of the enemy trying to hold territory. particularly when your population isn't doing. >> talking about engagement with communities and understanding local police all the better but how do we find more move and shakes? how do we find more people like you that have had a change of heart and your cramericaapacity and capability to turn people away from this? >> i wish we could clone me. >> wink all doi think we all do as well. >> i try to do the right thing. i got here because i believe i

did make the right decisions. when we say em pourmtpowerment it needs to be clear for the intelligence community. after they've been veded and need to have continual monitoring, to have them step up and go to muslim conferences and let them be seen on main stream media where people hear the message. i don't want to be the only person. a lot of times i feel frustrated and see i'm the only guy doing it. nobody's doing enough of it. there are others like me out there that just don't know how to come forward and so they will need some direction to do that. >> i think i speak for all of us when i say god bless you for what you're doing.

>> i'm tom carper and i approve that message. god bless you. this one for all you, please. i want to say do you pronounce your name mubin? >> it's mubin. >> have you ever been called mubin. >> yes. then i got called bin then bin laden. >> we have a ben not like bin laden. several of my colleagues said in order for the u.s. to have success against al qaeda and isis, you must adequately define the problem and my enemy. they suggest we should announce that u.s. is in war which is going to make extremism or radical islam in your opinion is it necessary or beneficial for the u.s. to define isis and al

qaeda in this manner? >> the question really is what is the benefit of doing so? i'm not sure that there's a benefit in the inexplicitly emphasizing we're war with radicalist. there's a question embedded with that with what is radicalism? in libya, one of the problems is the dignity faction, very high, he's their commander in chief defines ral cal islam defines the enemy. it makes it if one were to support his organization would make it a civil war that's much bloodier and much more defying than it should be. secondly, the administration has moved away from using redder rancic. that's a reasonable thing to do

in terms of public messages. the area in which i sometimes disagree is that i think if we as analyst aren't able to process the i hadcommence it's ativan tashs for the u.s. to make its enemy radical islam. >> it uses the adjective islamic. i believe it's an oxymoron. if i could impose to muslim term for these people, and i've given

script script reference. the anti christ himself emerging from the last remanence. those are the two terms i encourage using. >> we need to understand the religious dimension of this as people studying the problem in terms of public dialogue and in terms of motivation of this we must name the enemy kind of motiff. you know the thing that i think about when i think about this is in 2013 i did a study of the use of twitter and found the people following premises on twitter talked continually and primarily about main stream conservative public politics and we don't insist them be referred to as conservative radicals or republican radicals and i think

if it's a double standard, it's easy to insist when it's minority. >> all right. thanks. >> it's something to do with islam. difficult to say maybe. >> as you know in religion in this country, i won't speak about other countries but in the prodistant date we have many flavors. we have baptist and presbyterian presbyterian. when we think of the muslim faith, it's not just one or two

but many. we often times think of them but it's not that simple. when you look at the isis, al qaeda, the folks with domination and destruction, i don't notice as much involvement. is that my imagination or not? can you speak to that form? >> with respect to isis and al qaeda you don't have share involvement. both of them are city movements. isis is anti sheer. al al qaeda has tried to constrain that a bit. you also have movements you are kind of part of our coalition in

iraq. they pose their own set of problems. that could create make this a longer term problem. so yes, in terms of isis, al qaeda qaeda, absolutely. i certainly wouldn't factor out the importance of some of these militant nonstate groups and one person who has done good on this is phillip at the washington institute releasing a major monograph on this earlier this year which is essential with reading for understanding that particular aspect of this conflict. >> all right. thanks. last question, if i could. could you share with us the story of omar and your experiences with him, please? >> he was an alabama native. he was born in a family to a

serian father and an irish catholic mother. he became radicalized and joined al-shibab. where i came in the story is after he joined he got there and discovered things were not to his liking. foreign fighters were not being treated well. they had a nasty habit of assassinating al qaeda. there was corruption. he took to the internet and put out a video saying look, i have these problems with them and expressed my opinions and now they're trying to kill me and i need help. this plea was directed to al qaeda central. he imagined someone from al qaeda would ride in to save him which did not happen. he in many ways was a van guard of this emergence of this movement on social media. prior to about 2012, 2013 the

media was much lower and because of omar but also because of other centers from the lock step movement people started getting online and they started coming online to argue with omar so they dispatched people to come out and say this guy is a lie yarer and people popped up to push back on that and it escalated from there. same thing happening from the al qaeda context in the forums. some of my kmebtscomments about the remote intimacy. you know, when you talk to somebody briefly, every day or every couple of days you can get a sense of them as a person

which may be artificial and inflated in your head but they become much more real to you than somebody you're reading about or somebody you correspond with by a post. >> very interesting, very informative. >> i want to thank the panel so much for being here today and really on your written testimony was so strong and put my staff to thinking about these issues in many layers and i'm grate. for that. in the final minutes of this hearing i would just like the ask you all if you are a senator and i know that's a scary prospect but if you all were senators or even in a high level executive positioning, we're looking at the issue of counter communications, we use words like rudimentary before. the vision we're trying to get

to, if you could push for two years and the chairperson said this should make us think about legislation, what specifically would in terms of strategy and tactics would you want to see being imp plemtlemented on a broader scale by 2016, 2017. anybody can pick that up. maybe we can go online. >> i think we often look at this problem in a way that's very inefficient and isn't getting to the solution. you in your previous testimony spoke to this. i referenced the u.s. government as a legacy industry and i don't say that lightly. a lot of established companies have seen it beneficial to create a start up in the accompany. that's been a very successful thing for a number of companies to do. i point into it the tax accompany as one who did a good job of creating an interesting tax app where people through their cell phone could get all tax documents and they did this

very much like the start up would do. creating the start up within a broader accompany. with respect to this specific issue, social media, i would want to see a start up within the u.s. government. you would want to get the best people on board and there's a few layers in that. one is are we able to work with the right people? yesterday i spent the morning with a businessman who owed owner a media accompany who had these adds on his computer his accompany put together. he knows the region well and looking to shop around. the production value was extraordinarily high. are we getting the right value? do we have the right people in place multiple things make it hard to have the right people in place. one of the things i would look at is looking at the broader rules that prevent us as a government from having the best people in place to tackle the problems. >> i want to interrupt because i want to get through the whole

panel. anything you would like the provide in the days after the hearing in the image you said i would love to pounce on because i think you're speaking not only a truth but you're speaking an urgent truth. just to move in. >> very quickly. subject experts to guide and train whether there's law enforcement, military whatever it is. ultimately, an on themyautonomy of efforts on the ground. >> often you can delegit economize the organic voices when you put a u.s. government stamp on that. it's important to have strategies that create an atmosphere in which the voices can emerge without being delegitimized by the u.s.

government. >> we're getting creamed on social media. we talk about sfce. they're working with a hand full of twitter accounts. what would have an impact and get around some of the log jams of government in terms of content would be to have hundreds or thousands of accounts putting out even very inokayous messaging to get us into the space. we can define the message as we go. there's a risk in government that prevents us from doing things that are experimental and baring in that space. if we're out in the space first then we can figure out where to

take the ship after then. >> if you look at isis'language propaganda, they're saying it's not your friend. we should be giving every technical assistance a turkey and reinforcing and congratulating them. the other thing we should do is to be building a database of every foreign fighter from the west. we know one in nine foreign fighters returning to the u.s. will engage in terrorism. we need to know exactly who these people are to the best of our ability. >> gentleman, thank you very much for a great panel and for your work on these issues. i'm grateful.

i've learned a lot. >> thanks. >> other experts you can put us in terms with. how do we do this? is it inside outside, whatever? it's urnlt. one thing i do like to do is provide the witnesses a final bite of the apple here. if there's something you want to get off your test. >> looking forward, we have a chance not to have a hearing like this five years from now. if we change, the idea that we're going to turn off the lights of our presence there on december 21st, 2016, and the afghans would want us to stay. we were attacked from there obviously on 911.

it's our interest to say we plan to stay. we have an agreement for 2024. the work has already been laid out. i'm looking forward, this is a proactive measure to prevent having the same kind of hearing several years from now. >> i hope we've learned fail states are not good for security. >> indeed. >> i think isis is the radical social change ahead of us and we need to be prepared to see what happens when people can communicate in these daily routine ways with people of similar interest around the world and you can travel to join somebody. i think we're going to see social networks and societies that are going to be sorting themselves out into groups that are closterred around specific interest and unfortunately, we're seeing what i would hope

would be the worst example of that as the first. there's potential with how we deal with each other as human beings. >> i fear that is a future reality. mr. shake. >> thank you. very quickly i guess on the muslim side of things, just given the things that's happened, we really need to pay attention to the marginization narrative. i think muslims are your best partners in this. i think they understand that we can't do it without each other. it's a common enemy. they're not going to think twice. if i'm there with my family, i'll be killed just along with everyone else. we're in this together. let's move together. >> you can help us make those connections. >> we're ready for an era of radical change. the question for us is are we up

for this new era? we've grown content with a system in which a lot of things don't work. we try to address problems and it gets lost and there's a process and everyone's waiting for someone else to do something and what we're getting in terms of outputs is so optimal if the u.s. government were a corporation people would lose their jobs. the questions are can we move fast enough? if so what can we do to slash the obstacles and are we transit parent enough both internally in terms of getting by in the government and also externality getting by publicly and in the broader world community. we've talked a number of times how to u.s. has a bad brand. that's absolutely true. no question about that. i also think looking at the big picture, we shouldn't be content with this. the u.s. is a great country. we shouldn't be content with the u.s. having a bad brand. that's also one of those big

issues we should try to change and make sure we can have the right people in place who can bring the right idea. right now, having the right people in place is something hard for the government to do. that should change. >> again, having coming from manufacturing background seeing a lot of problems with the process starts with the reality. understanding exactly what it is and set yourself achievable goals. i think it's laid out a reality i wish weren't true. i wish we didn't have to face it. we can't keep our head buried in the sand. i want to thank the witnesses for your systems and answers. thank you for doing what you're doing. thank you all for doing what you're doing. this hearing record will remain open for 15 days until may 22nd at 5:00 p.m. this hearing is adjourned.

>> you can watch this hearing again any time on our website cspan.org. in this article in the hill, federal court has decided the national security agencies butting bulk list of millions of american's phone records is illegal. they represent the second major court victory for opponents of the nsa. they call the program nearly unconstitutional six months ago. it exceeds the scope of what congress has authorized. judge jerard lynch wrote the

court did not examine the surveillance program. coming up later today defense secretary ashton carter and martin dempsey briefs reporters at the pentagon at 2:00 p.m. eastern. voters in britain headed to the poles today, when the poles close at 5:00 p.m. eastern time we'll simulcast. studio analysis social media a lights and the house of commons forecast. they have called this quote the most unpredictable battle for number 10 in decades. resent poles suggesting no one party will win a majority and the outcome is too close to call. cspan's live korj starting at 4:55 p.m. today eastern time. >> here's a look at some of our featured programs for this

weekend. saturday morning at 10 eastern on cspan live from greenville, south carolina. wisconsin governor scott walker, ted cruise florida senator marco rubio. mother's day sunday starting at noon eastern, members of america's first families remember first ladies featuring the daughters of jackie kennedy and laura bush. on cspan2 saturday night 10:00 p.m. eastern focussing on the college town in montana. sunday evening at 10:00 ann dunwoody talks about her life in military career. american history cspan3, saturday afternoon 4:45 eastern, oral histories remembering concentration camps with an interview with kurt klein.

lost his parents and as an interrogator for the u.s. army questioned hitler's personal driver. sunday afternoon at 2, the 70th anniversary with dignitaries and veterans commemorating the event. get our complete schedule at cspan.org. >> jeb bush was one of the featured speakers at the national reviews ideas summit last week. the florida governor discussed a number of pop rancics including his potential run for the white house. >> we're ready for the next

portion. two terms as florida governor, he's the reform governor in america and we're pleased to have with us today former governor jeb bush. >> thanks. so we have some journalist here so trying to have a question of sufficient gravity. this is what i came up with. has w ever painted you and if you run for president and if you're elected, will you consider having him do your official portrait? >> the answer to the second question is heck no. i'm going to be, i think george's early works was too primitive. i would like to wait until we

get to the post modern era before he starts painting me to be honest with you. he's got better. he started with dogs and did landscapes and now he actually deals with people that are his friends and they put them up. >> let's talk about what's been big news this week which is the situation in baltimore. it's become a little less debate over what's specifically happened in the terrible death of freddie gray. a little less about the handling of the riots and more of the bigger question of who or what is responsible for the state of baltimore and what we can do about it. what is your take about the big question, who or what has failed the city of baltimore? >> first, i think it's important to reflect on the fact that a young man died. that's a tragedy for his family. this is not just a statistic. this is a person who died.

secondly, there were a lot of people who lost their livelihoods because of this. i think we need to be respectful of private property. the riots were disturbing. you can't push over that and go to the grand societal problems. i think public safety is the first priority for any city or government jurisdiction. in this case there were a lot of people going to suffer because of what happened and hopefully, order is going to be restored. thirdly, i just say i think it sends the wrong signal not to have a baseball game with people in it. i think we need to recognize that life doesn't just get paralyzed when these tlaj tragedies occur. now that i got that out of the way, i do think that the tendency on the left is to blame, create a set of reasons

why this happened and the president's view on this i thought he started well talking about people being stuck in poverty where you're born poor today and likely to stay poor. i believe conservatives have the better approach. his approach is to say conservatives haven't offered up enough money to give me to be able to create programs to elect people to be successful. at what point do we go past 10 trillion, a trillion a year. at what point does it you have to conclude that the top down driven poverty programs have failed. i think we need to be engaged in this and say there's a bottom upper approach and it starts

with building capacity and having higher expeksctations and accountability and the kinds of things that will yield a chance for families to be able to survive in a really difficult time. here's the big challenge, i think, for people born in poverty today. if you're born poor today, by the time you reach 18, it's possible you'll never have a job in your entire life? i mean that's the world we're moving towards of dramatic disruptive technologies putting the first rung on the ladder higher and higher and higher. if we don't get this right we're going to have an america radically different than what created its greatness and the ability for people to rise up i think will be changed in ways we can't even imagine. so you know having this conversation in the broader sense, i think is not appropriate completely today but i hope conservative don't feel

compelled to pull back. we don't need to be defense i have. it's the failed progressive policies we need to address and we need to offer compelling alternatives to it. >> let me circle back on the writing specifically. i know you're not going to run for any municipal office. mayor giuliani said the first person who throws a rock is arrested. >> i agree the broken window policy has been proven successful. it's not, you don't have to take it to the extreme of having police brutality but a certainty of punishment. who are the people who get hurt by this? it's the shop owner, the person who may lose their job in a business they can't reopen. it's the nursing home. it's the church i mean these are people this is the community that creates the vie

bran si to -- vibrants. the mayor's record when mayor of new york, creating the strategy with the police department was the right one. >> so family break down as you mentioned, the president mentioned the absent fathers, it's obviously, a huge part of the puzzle there. is there any policy or anything public officials can do to help turn back what has been a rising tide of family break down across the decades now? >> absolutely. there is. i mean it's not necessarily at the core. my views on this were shaped a lot by charles murray's book. except i was reading the book and i was waiting for the last chapter with the really cool solutions. didn't quiet get there. i think we need to have solutions. i don't think we can just accept defeat here. there's things we can do as it

relates to our whole wealth transfer payment system the welfare system where the highest marginal tax rate for people equivalent of a tax would be someone trying to get out of poverty and the minute they start earning enough income, they could in some states lose more benefits than they gain in that income. we have to change this and reward work of the nonwork and i think we have to have a system where we and this is something that many of your colleagues of national review are focussed on the so called reforms and this is a place where the approaches make sense. how do you create a system of report that doesn't create dependency. in government life, i think it's clear that the way to breakout of poverty is there's a higher probability of breaking out of poverty if you have two parents in the home that are focussed on loving their children with their heart and soul and if that child gets a better education and the

great majority of kids in the urban settings of our country get. if you do those two things, you're likely to breakout of poverty. let's encourage those two things to happen more often. stronger family life and a radically different education system. the baltimore education system, best i can recall is not a role model that anybody goes to travel to to see how they're educating low income kids. if you want to see that, go to florida. go to miami-did county where the greatest gangs amongst kids in poverty occur because we have high expectations, we ended social promotion in third grade this policy that says you're illiterate as a third grader but it's fine go to fourth grade. no big deal. basically creating learning gaps from there on out. school choice public and private. ultimately, this is and a girl

can dream here. ultimately, we need to get to a system where time is the variable and learning is the constant. >> what does that mean? >> i know everyone else was thinking i had the courage to ask it. >> darn i thought that was pretty what it means is instead of having your little kid's butt sitting in a seat for 180 days and go to the next grade level because you've been going to school for 180 days, if you don't master the material you don't go on. if you master the material you're pushed forward. you're not held back if you have the capability of learning and they consist economize customize learning appearances for every child in america.

suggest they use an agricultural calender and industrial model where the collective barg bargaining interest for improving student learn, all that stuff, we keep doing it the way we've been doing, we're going to expect a different result is not going to work. so the model i'm suggesting is possible because of the ability to bring high quality, rich digital content into the classroom. every aspect of our life has been customized. why not the most important thing that we do which is to assure the children have the capacity to achieve earned success? >> let me hit something else at the top of the news. before i do, i should mention to participants of the summit, there should be cards on your table. if you have questions for governor bush, write them on the cards. someone will pick them up and deliver them here. very 20th century delivery mechanism. >> yeah. curious, did you get the time -- >> yeah.

i'll think about it a little bit more tonight and overnight see if i grasp it. the senate's engaged in this debate over republic policy and the consensus vehicle is this corker bill. now there's criticism of it from the right which says it's much too weak. what it's

[ technical difficulties ] >> i think it's shameful that the united states is not speaking loudly and acting forcefully on behalf of -- of christians and jews, but in the case of the middle east, principally christians. we have -- i think we have a duty -- we're the only country that can have the resources to provide support. i have a personal interest in this. i have broad interest in being a christian. and i think we all need to be acting on our conscience as it relates to this to provide

support. my daughter-in-law is of iraqi origin. canadian born, lives in miami. and her parents were iraqis and moved to toronto. i was watching the efforts of isis to try to take out the entire christian community of one of the oldest christian communities in iraq keeply disturbing -- deeply disturbing because of my personal interest. the government needs to be supportive. i always thought we had capability of providing support for the few hundred christian girls that were kidnapped by boko haram in northern anything to. i just don't -- northern nigeria. i don't know why we don't want on behalf of people that their only fault is that they had a deep abiding faith in christ.

if you see these things, it's horrific, it doesn't move your heart, then not much will. coptic christians being beheaded because of their faith. who's going to stand on behalf of these folks across the board? i would add the same applies to we need to stand tall against anti- anti-semitism in europe and other places, as well. if we allow thing to ling-- things to linger, they grow and grow. this is what happens when we disengage. this is what happens when we have a regime -- excuse me a government. didn't mean that on purpose. i swear. please -- >> now you're speaking our language, governor. >> yeah. well. >> i think we just fed the news cycle right there. [ laughter ] i was thinking of the regime -- a country that cannot even say what the threat is. islamic terrorism.

the girl with the really cool glasses in the state department, the spokesman -- spokesperson -- she can't say it. i think the press when they talk to her they torture her with asking questions. she refuses to say what it is. no one in the obama administration for some reason can say what it is. as a result, we don't organize against what it is. >> let's run through some more -- >> rewind that regime thing please. that is not my fault. >> let's talk about other policy questions and see if we can get you in more trouble. see marco rubio has a tax reform plan out there. and the central feature of it is a big increase in the child tax care credit, controversial within the right. do you have any view? do you look at that favorably, unfavorably, good idea, bad idea? >> i have a favorable view, and i think it's necessary to deal with the fact that the last tax reform that we had, big tax reform, was 1986.

since that time the code has been modified 15,000 times. i mean now we've created. we went to simplicity to now we have the most complex code in the world. a code that's so complex that $2 trillion of u.s. cash, u.s. corporate cash is overseas because of our worldwide income and bringing it back is -- creates the most punitive activity that -- jobs are created overseas, smaller foreign businesses are finebuying u.s. businesses to relocate them overseas. the next job creators can't set up the job because of overregulation, this complex tax code, and obamacare. those are the three things that suppress jobs. so i think the focus ought to be not on targeted elements but on

how we can eliminate as many of these tax expenditures as possible and lower the rates as -- down as possible. that creates economic growth. and if you want to create a rising middle class where disposable income is growing, where take-home pay is growing you've got to fix the things that are burdens on people's aspirations like our health care insurance system and certainly our regulatory system simplifying the code is part of that. i don't know where that puts me. but if i go beyond running, a candidate, this will be front and center part of my advocacy. >> if you become a candidate, in past you've been critical of grover norquist's tax pledge. is there any circus in which you would take -- circumstance in which you would take that pledge? >> no. i cut taxes, $19 billion. no one comes close to the record of tax cuts. by the way we cut $19 billion in eight years. every year we caught -- we have all sorts of tax cuts.

i don't have to be told how important that is. i did it. i think that's the better approach. cutting taxes in a way that creates economic prosperity ends up creating more revenue, enough revenue for government at least to allow it to function and puts more money in people's pockets. that's the right approach. so i'm not -- i'm not going to change my views on. that my record is clear. in fact, my record is as good or better than any. let me put it this way -- if you've served in the united states senate over the last eight years or six years, you -- there's -- no tax cut has taken place. this president raised taxes to fund obamacare and just because he could, he created another $600 billion tax cut. anybody associated with washington, d.c., can talk about all this stuff. but places where the taxes have been cut are in places like florida where they were led by a conservative governor that thought this was important. the net result, to put it in the broader perspective, during my

eight years 1.4 or 1.3 million net new jobs were created. and five of those eight years, more than any state. in the eight years more than texas. if perry comes tell him that. he'll have to admit it. [ laughter ] >> so it's just -- >> you can tell my brother. either way. >> just to drill down a little bit. the principled opposition to pledges of that sort. >> yeah. >> will you promise not to raise taxes? [ laughter ] >> i think we need to cut taxes and reform our code to create economic prosperity. this -- we're talking on the edge of what ails us as a country. what ails us as a country now apart from the pessimism that really is kind of freezing in place the animal spirits that typically allow americans to solve problems the lack of leadership in washington for sure. it's also this tepid economic growth. we're growing at 2%. and everybody accepts it. this new term. i never -- i read about it in "national review," for the

record. it's called the new normal. the new normal makes me nauseous because the new normal will redefine america in a really bad way. 2% growth compounded out. we'll be overwhelmed by our entitle want problems by the demands on government. we'll be overwhelmed by crumbling infrastructure and the lack of commitment to research and development. 4% growth is what we should be achieving. and so tax reform and regulatory reform embracing our energy revolution in our midst this will get you going -- reforming our broken immigration system and fixing the fiscal structural deficits that we have related to our entitlement system is how you get to 4% growth. that should be the focus. >> so scott walker has chipped up a bit of a fuss -- >> you're trying to get me in trouble. >> of course i am. no, of course i am. hue said that whethern it comes to legal immigration, the first thing we should think about is

what effect immigration has on american workers and their wages. do you agree or disagree? >> i don't think it's a zero-sum game. i think if you -- if we start thinking it's a zero-sum game, we're going to play the game that broim plays oh so well. it's the wrong approach. we have through million to five million jobs unfilled that go un unfilled every day. think about the way i propose it how much extra job growth and investment would have happened in our country that would have provided opportunities for higher wages for people struggling near or at the bottom or people that are squeezed in the middle. this is not a zero-sum game. if you want to grow at 4% instead of 2% a year you need younger, more dynamic people inside of our economy that are productive to get to 4% growth. you can't do it by declining population, and you can't do it with pathetic productivity

growth. you have to have both. it's not the end all and be all but an immigration system that fixes the border the control that creates a more secure america for all sorts of good reasons, and then expands the number of economic immigrant and narrows the number of immigrants coming for family purposes. you follow this, you know this. a lot of people don't, though. we have the broadest family petitioning in the world. every country that i'm aware of there may be one or two like ours, i don't think there are. most countries have the definition of family as spouse and minor children. we have spouse minor children, more than appropriate, and adult sub sublings -- siblings and adult parents. we've allowed it to continue because we haven't fixed the broken immigration system. we put quotas on countries to deal with this because there could be some countries based on chain migration that half the country would come if they were

allowed to. the quota was based on the realet this wasn't working as it should. better to narrow it to spouse and minor children and expand based on need. what our economy would create. a guest worker program, dealing with the huge shortages and information technology and all sorts of areas. that's how you're going to grow the economy. bringing young, aspirational people in. here's the deal -- i love you, and i love "national review." >> this is going to be good. a windup. >> i think you're wrong on immigration, to be honest. and you think i'm wrong. i respect you for it. i honestly believe that if we fixed the legal part that is not working, we could grow our economy far faster and be younger and more dynamic. the world that some argue for is a world of declining population. it's the world of japan. it's the world of europe in decline. i reject that. america doesn't do that well. america does -- does -- we're at

our best when we're young, aspirational, and dynamic. and so maybe i'm stubborn. i'm willing to listen to other views. i hope we'll have a dialogue about this. but i think i'm right on this. if we're going to grow economically, we better figure out how to get this fixed pretty quick. [ applause ] i wanted to get the thing going a bit. it was getting boring. >> i think the argument that walker would make or at least senator jeff sessions would make, it's not an argument that it's necessarily a zero-sum game. it's a basic economic argument having to do with supply and demand. if you increase the supply of low-skilled labor, of course low-skill wages are going to go down -- >> who's suggesting that? that's the whole -- that's the false argument. >> the comprehensive immigration reform would have -- >> you're talking about the people here already that no one has a plan -- >> no no. would have increased legal

immigration, and although they talk the game of high skill, it's increasing low skills -- >> i'm not -- look, i'm not a united states senator -- thank god. just for the record here. i live in miami. i'm -- i'm outside of washington. i've written a book about this. what i was describing was my idea. my idea is to narrow the number of people coming for family petitioning and expanding the number of economic immigrants. you're not increasing the number overall. and so look, we have huge shortages in all sorts of fields. and if we -- what i'm saying to simplify this is canada stole our immigration plan and made it better. we should re-steal the canadian plan and make it american. there are more economic immigrants in canada coming in -- and they're ten times bigger. which system is going to be the one that works? the one that is focused on economic growth, or the one that's focused on family

petitioning? >> let me -- one last try at this. i'll describe -- i'll describe the position on immigration that i think is reasonable. you tell me what's wrong, okay? >> okay. that's good. >> we secure the border first. we secure at the point of employment through an e-verify system. >> right. >> you have an exit/entry system visa system that really works. >> yep. >> you pass this -- it passes all the -- gets through all the legal challenges it can have from the aclu and others. you get it ifn place. whether it works you do some form -- when it works you do some amnesty for illegal immigrants who aren't going anywhere because now you know that's not going to be a magnet for new illegal immigrants. >> right. >> you do the amnesty in exchange for changes in the legal immigration system where i -- i would reduce total numbers, but certainly emphasize higher skills. >> hey, we're getting there. >> okay. >> i don't -- the details of how you -- at what point you say the

border is secure -- i worry about total security which means that we trouble had to lose some of our freedom as a country. that bothers me a bit. i kind of like my freedom. i'm the kind of guy that doesn't like municipalities like southern florida that put -- put cameras on stop lights and -- just to get another $85 from you. i think we need to be focused on liberty and freedom. but yeah, that's the idea. another element should be to make it ease to come legally as part of eliminating the magnet. there should be an option for people to come legally. should be easier than coming illegally. that should be one of the guiding principles of any system which means we need much better enforcement. we got to solve this. here's the political side of this that i'm not sure everybody gets. by doing nothing, you have two things that happen. at least under the age of obama you have a president that uses

this like he's a -- like a stradivarius violin, playing for some symphony. he uses this as a wedge issue. and we always lose. we always lose on the political argument about telling about all this and he always wins or the democrats always win if you knowledge about having family be the driver of legal immigration rather than economic drivers. so delaying this is what he wants. he doesn't want immigration reform. it would shock both of them -- they probably agree with this. and i think what we need to do is to say let's fix this, grow the economy, lift people's spirits -- again, not exclusively because of immigration are we going to grow. there's a lot of other big challenges we face. we're going to turn people into republicans if we -- if we're much more aspirational in our message. and our tone, i think, has to be more inclusive, as well. >> let's try another sticky one. there's a movement among some

parents to opt out of common core testing. if a parent came to you and said, governor i'm considering doing this, what would you tell him or her? >> say well, if it's going to make it harder for you to graduate, then make it harder for you to get into college i think you need to rethink it. my personal belief is common core -- this is interesting. we've had tests long before common core. the idea that this is common core that you have assessments is not true. and people have been opting out. florida had the most meaningful and still does, the most meaningful accountability system in the country. we also had the greatest learning gains in the country. they go together by the way. it's a comprehensive suite of tlaerchls reforms that creates rising student achievement. i'll cite statistics. we were on the nation's report card, you can't teach to that test. it's administered for fourth and eighth grade. we were 24th out of 91 in 1997

on the test. ten years later we were sixth out of 50. florida hispanic kids do two grade levels -- ahead of their counterparts. florida hispanic kids do better than or equal to 33 states on this test. low income kids in florida are in the top five. african-american kids are in the top five in these tests. the reason is that we have meaningful assessments and have robust accountability, and we have school choice that puts pressure on a system that otherwise wouldn't move. so eliminating elements of the accountability system would get -- would gets a bad result. california -- great example -- they have good standards. they're replacing them with common core standards, but they're on par. they're more or less the same. they have little accountability to speak of. and they have languishing results. who's fooling who? when 1/3 of our kids are -- 40% at best are college or career ready, that's where we are. how do you know unless you

measure, how do you know unless you test? the idea that you're opting out of a test because it's stressful, you know -- think about this. i mean, what's the world like? >> this was my college career was based on this, governor -- >> opting out? >> opting out of tests that were stressful. >> that's really going to -- i'm thinking how we're going to compete in this extraordinarily competitive global economy when we have large numbers of parents telling their kids it doesn't matter. in korea, you know, they're sending their kids to tutorials from 6:00 until 10:00 at night to be able to speak korean and english by fifth grade. and they're doing math but it is three or four grade levels ahead of us. who's going to be the competitor that wins? this is -- this works if you're -- look, if you're in an afluent family when you nurture your child and help them along the way, fine, okay. that probably works for you.

but what about the single mom struggling to be able to provide for their kid or kids generally because they start in poverty are treated -- well, they can't learn the subtle -- what my brother called the soft bigotry of low expectations. that exists in america today. you can't deny it. and keeping these, you know -- lowering expectations, eliminating accountability is going to doom a whole generation of people. and i for one won't take it. [ applause ] >> so it's a controversy that's sprung up. is a governor or former governor ready to be president of the united states, an area of foreign affairs? >> wow. i mean -- let me think. ronald reagan. i don't know who else i have to say. [ applause ] you can be prepared from day one for being a governor. governors have to make decisions. they have to say no to people.

they have to speak in english. it's a novel language. once you leave washington, you might actually hear it a little bit. they -- they can't hide behind the collective -- say, well, i passed an amendment about this and the cbo did blah, blah. they actually have to -- they have to lead. they have to make decisions. they have to persuade, they have to convince. they actually have to compromise from time to time. those skills apply directly to the presidency. there's enough examples of governors who have been extraordinary leaders in foreign policy starting with ronald reagan. >> is islam a religion of -- [ inaudible ] >> i'm sure for some, but it's been hijacked by people who have an ideology that wants to destroy western civilization and they're barbarian. that part which is the part that we need to confront head on is clearly not a religion of peace. and i think it's -- you're not

offending the sensibility of people that are peaceful in the adherence of their faith when you say what i just fed. for example here's one of the -- you think about all of the foibles of the obama foreign policy over the last six years, one that may not be on the top-five list but should be is egypt. you know we've got it wrong on egypt. this was secretary clinton's -- i think she was primarily responsible for this. we got -- we dumped mubarak, the muslim brotherhood came in. we embraced them. al sisi is in power, and we've just begun to get back into developing a relationship. here's a guy who should be the strongestal lay we have because he, for the first time -- strongest ally that we have because he for the first time said it's our responsibility to confront radical islam.

that kind of leadership is what we need to support. there should be no uncertainty about this. we should be a strong supporter of leaders like this. the option is dismemberment of the modern states of the middle east. and nothing good is going to happen when that happens. >> we have questions on cards. this must be one that slipped through from a journalist because it says, "dear governor bush bush, we will never forget your regime gaffe." [ laughter ] >> here's another one. "what is it about your mother that makes men associated with her about 10,000 time more likely than anyone else to hold high office?" [ laughter ] >> well -- [ laughter ] >> i don't know. i'm actually kind of struggling with this these days because i know there are some people out there particularly in the press that would love to make this, if i go beyond the consideration of this, make it where i'm giving the impression somehow that i want to break the tie between the bush family and the addams

family. i guess you could say the same about abigail, right? can't answer that. it's different. unusual. i have enough self-awareness to know it's kind of strange. on the other hand i think if i go beyond the consideration, i'll count on the good wisdom and direct not of my mom to help me communicate directly with people. she's pretty good at that -- internally within the family for sure, and externally from time to time. i tell people, whenever i start -- which i've done today tooting my own horn, my rordecord as governor. no one else is going to toot it. whenever i start i feel this presence behind my back. you don't see it back there right? looming presence of my mother saying you know, don't brag. not about you. i'm almost feeling like she's about ready to do what that woman did in baltimore when she tried to get -- >> i thought "w" got that treatment. >> we all did.

i think my mom and that -- the woman who was bringing her child back home have a lot in common which i admire her a lot for doing what she did. that was pretty -- nice visual symbol of what needs to be restored. >> who is -- among current u.s. supreme court justices, who is your model justice? >> wow. i love -- when i was governor -- i'm not a lawyer but i -- [ laughter ] you got to play one sometimes when you're governor because you're always getting sued, there's always a legal consequence to everything. i learned to appreciate the law a little more. made a lot of appointment to the florida supreme court of appellate courts which were important. i learn good this, and i started -- learned about this, and i started reading ruling. friends that were lawyers would send me rulings so i could find interesting things. scalia is by far and away the most interesting opinion writer.

and probably informs his views in the most eloquent way. he would be on my list. i actually admire and like the opposite of -- of that would be clarence thomas who is quiet and speaks with great clarity when he opines. there's a consistency i admire a lot. i generally share his views. >> pierre schweitzer author of "clinton cash," says he's coming after you next. are you worried? >> no. i hope he gives me a heads up though. >> the controversy a couple weeks ago in indiana over the religious freedom act -- >> yeah? >> -- you seem to suggest if the press reports are accurate that that law needed to be fixed. what was wrong with it? >> no, i didn't say that. i supported penn. i think he needed to create clarity that this was not an attempt to discriminated against people. it was an effort to provide some

space for people to act on their religious conscience. that's where we need to get. we need to get to a place where the government's not going to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. and at the same time make sure there is ample space for people not just to have a religious view or to be religious but to actually act on their religious view. conscience is what we need to protect. i fear that we're not finding that balance now. i -- i just -- you listen to the solicitor general and -- respect to the law here -- again i'm not a lawyer. but i read some of the transcript and the solicitor general in defense of the government's position when she was scalia or someone asked the question of, well does that mean that religious institutions, the church, other institutionings are discriminate figure they don't want to

participate? he said that's not what's in front of you today. maybe i'm misinterpreting that remark, but my interpretation was, well, that might be in front of you tomorrow. and that's where i think we need to focus. i think the country is open and big and tolerant as this country ought to find common ground on both of those fronts. >> something that's divided the right over the last couple of years is federal reserve policy and the so-called quantitative easing. some conservatives arguing this is what the nedfed has to do in a low or deflationary environment. then others saying, well, this is a huge risk, it's not working. it may debase the currency. where are you on that? >> i don't know. i would have thought based on people that i admired and respect on the subject, smarter than me on it, i would have thought we'd already begun to see some of that impact of the second side of this had it

happen. the mav massive liquidity that the federal reserve has brought into the market has got to be of concern. it hasn't happened. here's the problem with it -- we're not growing. our economy's not growing. every time the tepid growth takes place, the fed is saying we've got to keep going. and it actually has the opposite effect of what their intentions are. we're in this weird dichotomy where the fed policy is creating bad behavior in washington, d.c. debt service today is lower than it was four years ago. how could that be? we doubled, 250% rise in the debt. debt service is lower. well we've -- treasury has shortened maturities. 60% of debt comes through, i think, at 4.5 years, something like that. and interest rates in the low end, the low side of the maturities is next to nothing. of course. basically the net result of this

is -- they complain that washington's not dealing with the structural challenges we face. i would argue that they're enabling bad behavior and not forcing the conversation we need to have which is how do you fix the things that impede real economic growth. if we were growing at 4% per year if we had an open kind of society where our tax code wouldn't create $2 trillion of cash overseas but did the opposite, imagine a tax code that created inversions coming our way. which it would happen -- this country is big it is dynamic, it's a huge market. we're productive, our labor laws are better than most of the country's if not all in the developed world. we would get sizable amounts of that investment if we changed how we regulated and how we taxed. that's the better way to get to low interest rates. by having demand of money coming in to invest. not created by printing money and holding it in banks. that has not created any economic activity. and i do agree that the risk over the long haul could be the

debasing of the currency and penalizing favors. so you know let's -- i'll be parochial for a second. i live in florida. the contract the modern contract in america would be you work hard, you save, you buy your c.d.s, you sell your home up here somewhere, and you go live in paradise. that's the american way. american dream. worked out pretty well except when your 401(k) went to a 201k, mortgage value of your home got depreciated because we had this huge excess of sub prime loans so people paying their loans actually were penalized. those that didn't pay may not have been penalized as much. and now you can't live off saving. so the savers are punished because of dodd-frank those trying to secure capital are limited because of this massive regulation. and so this monetary policy is not getting the desired effect.

they should pull back. that would be my view. >> time for a couple more. another from the audience -- "how do we go about improving the assimilation of immigrants?" i would add, do you have any concern whatsoever if puerto rico were to become a state, as i think it's inclined to -- any concern ab assimilating? >> first of all, they're american citizens so that would be a separate -- this is not a sub of the first question, a separate question. >> okay. if you're going to get technical with me. i got two questions for you. >> so, you know, puerto ricans can take -- buy a $79 one-way ticket to orlando or any place and they can participate fully as american citizens. when they're there, they don't. i think it's a moral question. it's been the position of the republican party since the 1970s. and it's been a view that puerto rico have the right of self-determination, decide if they want to have -- want to be a state or not. if they do want to be a state as ronald reagan suggested and george h.w. bush and george w. bush and every republican

candidate since the 1970s, i support that idea. as -- there's one puerto rican guy in the room. [ laughter ] >> i think it's a moral question. i don't think you can, you know -- citizens should have the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. that's just the belief i have, a core value i have. the other issue is one of huge importance because our immigration works when people embrace a set of shared values. it doesn't work -- it doesn't work when we divide ourselves up in this third part where we move toward the european model of multiculturalism. it's a disaster whether it works that way. so -- when it works that way. so one of the answers to this -- first of all, maybe we should have a conversation about what our shared values are. one is learning english for sure. others is being tolerant. having a respect of the bill of rights. understanding the uniqueness of

our country where our freedoms are created to protect us from an overreaching government. these are all part of what have been our set of shared values. and today, i think it's a set of shared values that may be called in to question. part of any significant immigration reform i think would be make it -- create a deeper -- a requirement that's deeper in its understanding of the american experience. let me put it in perspective. to become a citizen, you have to take a test. there are 100 questions that you're given. you'll get ten of those ask ten of them. if you pass -- i think if you get six right, you're in. american -- native-born americans fail at a higher rate than immigrants because immigrants want to become a citizen, so they memorize the questions. i think we need it deeper than that. i think we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is to be an american. if we don't do that we have

problems. i think that's a key element of success. how do you do that? you make the test tougher. it was made tougher during my brother's administration. i think it can be made tougher again. i think we need to get back to civics education in our country in the k-12 system. anybody do their kid's homework, social studies -- you read the social studies books that your children and grandchildren read? not common core, by the way. not common core. this crapola's been going on for a long while. if you look at the lack of rigor, the lack of -- george washington gets the same emphasis as other noble americans. george washington is the greatest president we had. he created this country. we would have been dramatically different had washington not been or -- or our mutual friend abraham lincoln. there should be a deep understanding of the courage and conviction and integrity of these great men. they should be held up high as examples of what it is to be an

american in this extraordinary country. so embracing that and making sure that all of us understand its power i think has to be part of any reform on immigration. frankly, a more hopeful optimistic america. there's no reason why we should be moping around right now. i don't know i don't think i'm naive to think this. we're on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. this is not a time of -- we've had greater challenges in our country's history. this is a time of abundance. we fix a few big things. part of which requires us to go back into our history and appreciate its greatness. i'd rather be 21 than 62. w nothing to my name. as long as i could go back with my beloved columba. nothing to my name. give me a credit card or two so i can play off one after the other. this is the coolest time to be

alive. we need to believe that and then act on it. >> couple real quick ones. it's called the paleodiet. how's that working out? >> you know, i'm tired of talking about it because it's -- someone's going to catch me cheating. it will be like a big deal and blah, blah. but it's worked. look at me. i'm skinnier. [ laughter ] >> isn't that what diets are for? but it's a simple diet. they call it a diet because you're not eating processed foods. that's about the principle of it. it's meat and fish and vegetables and fruit and nuts. lots of nuts. a whole lot of nuts. >> not that you have a lot of time for this now, but when you have more time, what kind of books do you like to read for fun? what sort of books have had a big impact on you? >> i -- i like the charles murray books, to be honest, which means i'm a total nerd, i guess. let's see, what book am i reading now? i never remember the name of this author, but he wrote the

book about the colombian exposition, the chicago world's fair. i love that guy. i'm reading all of his books now. that's the one i'm reading. >> "the trail of" -- >> i'm reading actually -- no, that's -- i'm reading about marconi. that's -- next one is lusitania. >> well confident to tell you what book you're reading. >> well, that's his most recent book. i recommend those book because they are -- they're nonfiction but written in a fiction kind of way. >> governor, thank you very much -- >> i should have said the "national review." >> yes, you blew it. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. [ applause ]

now more from the national review's yesterdays summit that represented paul ryan chair of the ways and means committee. he said he hopes to move comprehensive tax reform through the next congressional session and also talked about his plan for addressing poverty and the baltimore riots. his remarks are followed by a panel discussion on conservative ideas with some of "national review's" writers. >> with the last speaker, we want to take your question. want to welcome the leaping congressman ryan -- >> sorry i'm getting you a water. >> thank you. >> there you go. >> thank you very much. want to welcome congressman ryan. i told the congressman off stage that he was the one that

everybody was looking for shirtness pictures of in 2012. we should ask him about his diet. i found out we have another adherence of the paleo diet. 20 seconds about that? >> the jeb bush diet, i guess. if it wasn't a food 100 years ago, i don't eat it by and large. and i think -- i'm told dairy isn't compliant with the paleo diet. i eat dairy. i come from wisconsin. other than that, kind of pail yoyo -- paleo diet. >> the president has said there are items on his agenda that would have addressed the problems we're seeing, rioting. he pointed to thing like early education and job training. will you respond to that? >> i don't know -- there's one bill in congress that if only we passed that this would not have occurred. i think these problems go much, much deeper than that.

what i think we ought to do and pause and reflect is, number one, how cool is it that mom, you know, taking matters into her own hands getting her son indoors. showing a great leadership. that was inspiring. what about the people who are actually cleaning up? what about the people who are going into the city, into the neighborhoods and saying let's stop this and fix this? there are already heroes in baltimore today who are showing great leadership. and let's give them a round of applause, you know. the people who are -- [ applause ] >> but there is real anxiety. there are real problems. let's go into the communitieses not when all the tv cameras are on and listen and -- and learn. and collaborate and off solutions. and then what i -- i've been doing this for the last few years, what i get out of this is we just completed a 50-year war

on poverty. trillions of dollars spent, and the poverty rate's just as high as it was when we started. peak poverty at near all-time high. you know, so maybe we ought to rethink this. what i would argue from looking at these issues quite extensively is today we measure success on this war on poverty by how many government programs can we create, how much money can we spend, how much people go on these programs? we're not measuring it based on like are we getting people out of poverty. you know, are we restoring upward mobility? are people getting on the ladder of life and rising? we're not. and so let's go from an input-based, effort-based measurement to an outcome-based, results-based measurement and make that success. and if you look at the world that way, i think it's an enormous indictment on the status quo. i think it screams out for a new

round of what i would call welfare reform. and reformwelfare reform is not an exercise in saving money, it's an exercise in saving lives. let's get at the root of the problem, and what i would argue -- i can go on and on. there are heroic people already in these communities doing amazing things, getting people off of drugs, getting people back into the work force redemption. go to opportunitylives.com, and watch the comeback miniseries that we have out there that shows these phenomenal stories. let's learn from these people. they're not coming to congress saying i want more government. they're saying get out of my way so i can do more good works. we, people, community, organic bottoms up, grassroots need to do more to listen, to implement to get involved, to make a difference. as policymakers, let's focus on outcomes and results,on inputs and spending and all that. >> on that note i know you put

forward an anti-poverty plan that got a fair amount of attention in the conservative movement. do you think that's something that conservatives aren't paying enough attention to? >> i don't think anybody is paying enough attention to it. it's not just conservatives. i think as conservatives we have such an opportunity here to make an incredible difference. where i think we've done a good job in movement is the area of school choice. i represent milwaukee suburbs, and we have a good choice program there. what we did there is we took our conservative principles choice and competition, and applied it to education particularly for kids in poor and failing schools. it's working very well. let's take these same principles, and apply it to other areas, plagued community,

and use the enthusiasm and principles and apply it to these other areas. that's what i'm attempting to do. that's what the plan i put out does. it's not here's a plan, pass it we're done. it's a different way of looking at things. it's using our principles and applying it to problems and showing that we have far better solutions. i would argue that the status quo, which is, you know pretty much dominated by left thinking isn't working and the evidence is right in front of us. want some water? >> i'm okay. >> sure? >> thank you. we have the first time in years a bicameral budget. and i just wanted to read the lead from a politico piece about it. "forget about paul ryan's medicare privatization plan. the same with entitlement reforms." is this budget a step back for entitlement reform?

>> first let me say if we define what we were doing as medicare privatization, it's already privatized. you use private provide force provide health care and medicare. people have access to private insurance products. we simply want to make that work much better. so i always think -- >> the budget doesn't include the premium support -- >> which i believe is the only way to fix medicare. >> right. and which for those in the audience, the budgets in 2011, '12, '13, '14 represents a departure. is this a step back? you led the way. >> yeah, i wrote the budgets you mentioned. first of all the budget which we had to vote in like ten minutes -- i might have to leave early, excuse me -- the numbers accommodate it. it's allowed. it's not precluded in the budget. what this compromise budget doesn't do is say as an illustration, this is our policy pronouncements.

we did this in the house, where i work in the house of representatives, we were proud to proclaim our support for being a support system for the fifth year in a row. the senate has not been on record. with this compromise between the house and senate, this extra what we call policy illustrations didn't prevail, and this budget is pretty much numbers. i think budgets should be more than that. and i've demonstrated that. i think we should be proud to declare our reforms to entitlements which, by the way if you don't fix them we're going to have a debt crisis. i see a lot of young people here. we've got to get our hands on this situation. do i think we should have been more proudly in declaring throughout the process in the house more? absolutely. this accommodates doing those things. it's still a balanced budget and pays off the debt and hits the key numbers. by the way, with what we were trying to do with respect to obamacare, we're going to need

reconciliation. we have to have this tool which this budget provides. >> on the flip side of that question you were the guy i remember vividly in 2011 who was portrayed as throwing grandma over the cliff -- >> pushing, not throwing -- >> pushing grandma over the cliff in the wheelchair. i remember that clip many, many times. is it good politics ahead of 2016, somebody right before you who -- >> it is. >> -- might think it's good to take off the table and you were pilloried in 2012 on the campaign trail for wanting to -- >> most of my career. i'm so used to that. >> is this budget good politics for not taking on this issue? >> not in my opinion. not taking on the issue is not good -- the budget hits our numbers, it gets us what we need to get, reconciliation. and that sis good. it doesn't go as far as i would like it to go.

but taking on entitlement is taking -- what does that mean? these programs are going bankrupt. doing nothing means they're going bankrupt. doing nothing means seniors get hurt, young people get a debt crisis. we should take that on. and we should say how we'll do it. and good politics -- let me tell you this. i wrote, what, eight budgets, i think, passed four. the guy who became our nominee put me on the ticket. do you think he would have done that if he thought it was really bad politics? >> there are some in this room who might question his political judgment. >> sure. some people did. yeah funny. i did sometimes -- kidding. i'm joking. i spent the first month of me being on the ticket in the race criss-crossing the country, doing town hall meetings on medicare reform on entitlement

reform. i took my mom to the village to talk about medicare reform. we won the senior vote by i think, 17 points. >> the favorite shows -- >> the village? >> yeah, cool place. a lot of golf carts. >> yes. >> but the point i'm making is run on these issues, run on the reforms, be specific treat people like adults. yes, that's good politics. and i think the proof is our success. we didn't win 2012, but it wasn't for lack of votes among senior citizens. the proof is be respectful of people by giving them ideas, telling them what you'll do to fix problems, treat them like adults, offer alternatives put specifics out. there yeah, i think it's good politics. i got to go don't i? vote -- sorry.

>> i'm going do one more of my own questions before -- >> that's you just feeding me questions. >> before i get to these cards. but on the same subject you helped roll out what you call an off-ramp to obamacare in the case the supreme court strikes down federal changes. the republican majority in the senate has sent a strong signal that will there will be no republican stamped and approved alternative to obamacare as a whole. what are your thoughts on that? >> you talking about irrespective of king-burrwell? >> that's right. >> i think we should have an alternative. i not the country knows we're not for obamacare right? i think we got that part down. >> i wanted to add i think the reasoning behind it is it leaves an opening for a 2016 candidate to put his or her support behind that plan and to lead on the issues. what are your thoughts? >> i believe in the ideas. i think we should put -- i'm working on one myself with my

colleagues in the ways and means committee. so i think we should put plans out there. and i think we should go into 2016 showing the country specifically what we will do if we win. and here's what we will do to replace this terrible health care law. here's what it would look like. here's when we should do on jen entitlements and taxes. i've been involved in campaigns before. and it's my experience and my deep belief that we need to be clear with the country who we are, what we believe in, what are our principles and what the solutions look like when we apply those principles and go to the country with that. and by the way, you win that election, you have a -- you have a mandate to do that then. that to me is the way to go. so for my role, i'm not running for president. one of the reasons i chose ton run is i want to work on the policy platform to getting us to being that party.

you know jeb is -- he's probably run if five six places today. these guys are doing so much to run for president. i want to focus on the policy. i want to focus on the ideas. i want to make sure that we are a party offering a real alternative, that we are giving the country a clear choice. you know, i don't think we should just run on we're not hillary clinton, she's bad therefore, ergo vote for us. you know we need to contrast. we need to say here's who we are, this is what we'll do because by the way problems are getting out of our control. that's why i think we should be specific. >> speaking of specific, your off-ramp includes tax credits for those currently on the federal exchanges and receiving subsidies. where does that money come from? >> well, we'll roll out these details as we develop them further. right now we're busy doing scoring. that's probably one -- more

questions? >> no. >> for everybody we have a vote pending. and there's no -- >> that's why they're out there watching for sign. i promise to get you out of here. >> all good. so we're looking at how exactly and just understand that say the 37 states, there's a lot of subsidies pouring into the states, right? i mean, if those subsidies all of a sudden aren't going to those individuals, that frees up a lot of fiscal space to do an off ramp and alternative. we're looking at all of those. >> i want to ask you about the defense budget. it's a question from the audience. "the budget resolution you passed a year ago called for $566 billion in defense spending in fiscal 2016. the gop is about to pass a resolution that only has $523 billion for defense. what would reagan think of the gop going wobbly when confronted by the greatest threats in a

generation?" not a loaded question at all. >> yeah. not a loaded question at all. is jim calen here? [ laughter ] >> we need a new president. and we need a new president. [ applause ] we need to rebuild our budget and redesign it. with this president we can't do it. i tried for six years. we need to reform our entitle entitlements and rebuild our military. right now you have a president that says maybe i'll do a little more for the military but raise a lot of taxes a spend more money in other areas. this is the president who giving us these budgets that whack defense hard. just this year he gave us a different budget. i don't think that was the budget he really wanted us to give. i'm in the camp that believes we've got to do so much more to

rebuild our military. we have a budget that comes in above where the obama budget is on the military but in a new presidency we'll have to rebuild the budget to get our entitlements of reform and we cut spending where we need to cut spending. there's a will thelot of areas to do that. >> why don't congress use zero based budgeting? >> i'm all in favor of it. i've passed the woodall bill twice. we been pitching those bills at the senate and harry reid never brought it up. i believe that tom price is moving to these issues. budget process reform and i expect he'll bring that bill

along with louie gomer. >> we have one republican presidential candidate who has proposed a flat tax and abolishing the irs. can i get your thoughts on that? >> i've always been a flat taxer. that's been my choice of preferable tax reforms. that's the one i worked on when i was working on the hill. my goal is again we need a new president. have i mentioned that already? i do comprehensive tax reform. we'll see if we can do some things now. i want to have a vibrant debate about what that looks like.

he's got a bill he wants to look at. i think the flat tax, that direction is probably the best way to go in my personal opinion. i think we need to have a big debate about tax reform and show the country this is what we'll take on in 2017. in 2017 i want to do comprehensive tax reform across the border. >> can we or should we abolish the irs? >> in a flat tax you don't abolish the irs. i've never seen a flat tax bill that does abolish the irs. i would like to make the tax codes so flat or simple that we don't have to worry aror feel threatened. i could go on and on about this one. we just passed bills two weeks ago dealing with that in the house. they have tax code that's so

comeplyicate complicated, so packed that it gives them so much discretion and subjectivity. let's take that away so that we have a tax enforcement or collection agency that's objective so that we have a very simple system so that next time we're talking about the irs we don't think too much about it because they're not in the middle of our lives telling us how to lead our lives and what health care plan to pick and all the rest. dramatic tax simplification fixes that problem. >> you talk about a vibrant debate within the conservative among republicans about tax reform. i think that debate has been happening between people who want to see the rate on top income earners come down and those like to focus on middle income earners. i know rich asked governor bush about whether he supported child tax credit big child tax credit. what are your thoughts on the

tension of those two. >> what . >> i want to invite people to bring their ideas to the table. i try not to criticize any one person's plan because i want to encourage more plans to come. do i think we need throer our rates across the board? absolutely. 80% of the american businesses don't pay their taxes as corporations. they pay them as people. we call them pass throughs. our top tax rate is 46.6%. we're losing in competition. we've got to get our tax rates down if only for global competitiveness but the point i keep making in tax reform is why don't you keep your own money and you decide what you want to

do with it. the way it works today is you pay your taxes and send your money to washington and if you engage in that then you can have some of your money back. i would rather lower across the board and let people keep their own money. that's clearly the better way. without getting into specifics of this plan or that plan that's where i think lens have consensus because we're a proworld party. i'm a card membering member. >> what advice do you have for the many people who are aspiring to be the vice presidential nominee right now and i know you mentioned in an interview that

running for office requires you to sanitize parts of your personality. what parts of your personality did you have to sanitize? >> that's a good question. when you go on a ticket you feel the pressure not to mess up the race. you're there for three months. you have an obligation that you want to not disturb or disrupt or mess up the nominee. being a running mate you have a bit of a different pressure. what i find and you kind of go through these experiences is there's all this pressure to not gaffe, to get it right. to say things just appropriately and exactly right.

i just watch hillary clinton and i can tell there's all this gear turning in her head and probably because she had 15 people telling her don't do this don't do that. just be yourself and tell people who you are, what you believe and what you're going to do and risk losing as a result of that. it will be a heck of a lot more fun and i think people will much more appreciate the sincerity. to be a really good candidate in my opinion is you have to be willing to lose the race because of that. i think you'll be a more authentic person. you'll feel better about yourself and people will feel a better connection to you because you're not just giving them lines. what i learned is first you get your sea legs and you understand

how the scrutiny and then just get through that fast and be yourself and don't worry about the sanitizing that consultants and people just are so risk averse that you just got to worry about being too risk averse. >> what parts of you didn't we get to see? >> i don't know. >> we didn't know about the paleo diet. >> i don't know. it was a fun experience. i enjoyed it. i had a great time. >> so much that you came back for a second round to run again. >> people make their own decisions. i can make a huge difference for our country. our kids are 10 11 and 13. i'm home on weekends. everybody makes their decisions. i made mine. i think i can make a big difference where i am. running for president, not for president but running nationwide is an exciting thing. it's an incredible privilege.

dop do it without regrets. that's the advice i give. >> my final question before i let you loose to go vote. we're at the idea summit, so who are your current load stars in the conservative movement. i said current. >> sounds like i changed them. >> i like the austrians. >> already violated the rule. >> i'd have to give some more thought to that. thst a good question. i'm so focused on