flagging, this is a race. and i will tell you what the next phase is going to be. the next phase is gone to beat the meeting will become more alert to the fact the governor romney has been completely evasive about his positions, has been all over the lot on many of them, and has tried to play a game of hide and seek with the american people. i think thei think the news mede challenged to challenge him to be more forthcoming. then the story is going to be that for a while. this is the nature of this business. you just have to ride through these phases. ultimately what is going to decide the issue is how the american people's genuine analysis of who these men are and where the want to lead the country, and i think it will have a clear picture of that by november. >> finally, the debates coming up. will there be three presidential debates and what is your approach? >> the commission will announce their plans shortly. the tradition has been three

and one vice-presidential debate. my anticipation is that is what will happen. no one has signed on at the bottom line yet. i know the president is looking forward to the debate. this, ultimately, is such an important decision for the american people and they deserve to see that two of them on a platform actually talking substantively about where they want to leave the country. it should be a contest of tactics. asian not be a contest of innovations. two distinct views about how we should move forward. i would argue one is about moving forward and the other is moving back. but very distinct views about what we should do about our economy. that is a debate where the of the american people and we should have it. >> is this your last campaign? >> because i know that my wife watches c-span, i have to say, yes, this is my last campaign. i am going on to the university of chicago to start in institute

of politics. my hope is to encourage young people to go into this arena, either as a strategist like myself or as candidates, policy makers, journalists. we need people to be part of this process. i tell them all, you may have reservations about this political system but the answer is not to steer around it but to change it, because the decisions that are made in washington and springfield, illinois and the city council in state capitals all over the country will impact on the things that you care about. either you participate in shaping those decisions are you have to accept the verdict. that is my mission after this election. >> david axelrod, thank you for your time. >> great to be with you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> located a block from where the obama presidential campaign

was headquartered in 2008, the obama for america offices in chicago is provincial building downtown in the district known as theloop. the campaign takes up an entire floor of what used to be a lot for. it consists of 300 paid staffers and has an estimate of 100 volunteers on any given day. the office as a news room-like set up for each department, from travel to fund-raising, social media, and advance operations, all working side by side. the president's reelection team decided to keep headquarters in chicago. here is with the operation looks like.

[inaudible chatter]

>> president obama oppose the reelection headquarters are located in downtown chicago. you can get more on c-span's road to the white house by logging on to our website, c- span.org/campaign2012. >> the press secretary for the obama campaign. first of all, where are we? what is the separation? >> we opened the doors here on april 4, 2011, more than a year ago, and began this operation with a focus on the states. that is the reason we based the campaign in chicago in the first

place, so that we were not caught in the weekly back and forth that you get in washington, d.c., with the debate of the week. we have been focused on the battleground states across the country. most the folks here are dedicated to building the organization on the ground, the field offices. the finance the goes into finding those field offices, finding out where undecided voters are, what their priorities are, how they are responding to the president's message and his agenda. that is the heart and soul of the operation. that is what we have been doing over the course of the past year and a few months now and what we're going to be focus on right up to the election. >> let me follow up on the should the political chatter that you get in washington, d.c. how does that make this operation different from your standpoint? >> if you look around, we're not surrounded by cable television, which you might be in washington, d.c. certainly the folks in the communications operation, like

myself, are tune in to those debates, and that this sunday will participate in and follow each week. we have got engineers in the back corner just designing new software that will change the way that politics is run. we have folks dialed into the operation in iowa and in wisconsin and florida, virginia, whose entire focus throughout the day is making sure that those field offices receive the resources that they need, making sure that we are aware of what is happening on the newscasts locally in richmond. most people still get their news from their local newscasts or some people get it directly digitally now. we have digital products a day that are produced here by a team of producers so that people can see communications from the campaign directly that are not even just an eight-second clip on the news, but they're getting the full product from the campaign. just within the course of a few years from a campaign severally

changed. we only send out a couple of tweets in to the senate, but as you know, twitter has entirely changed the pace of the national news conversation. everybody is a wire report this cycle and things happen quickly, often times 24 hours the news is on an entirely different topic. we have been a national organization and a nimble one. we tried to remain relevant to the conversation of what is happening in the states and the priorities of the voters. >> on any given day, one issue, one sound bite, my drive fox or msnbc or cnn. how much of that the focus on in the larger scheme of your strategy? how important is that? >> well, you know, several weeks ago there was a discussion like governor romney's time as a corporate buyout specialist in the private sector. his tenure that he has highlighted in said it should serve as a premise for his candidacy as president, and that

was a very different discussion on cable news and in the northeast corridor than it was in cleveland, than it was in pittsburgh. we're really tune into what is happening on the ground and states on what voters perceptions are. some for its -- there were some server is down after the back with walmart moms and a couple others down in the states that said people had serious concerns about that portion of romney's tenure, that they objected him up profiting off of bankrupt companies and outsourcing jobs. our goal is to separate what is on cable from really with the conversation is in the states. being here in chicago with the focus 100% of that state activity is critically important in allowing us to make that distinction. >> operation vote -- your micro targeting to a very narrow constituency of potential voters. how does that work? >> i would not be fine operation

voted narrowly. i would define it broadly. there are different demographic groups out there that rank issues differently. take a look at the latino community and the advertisement we released today. health care ranks towards the very top of their priorities. according to a recent poll, 70% of latinos are in support of health care reform and the provisions within it. and different demographics have different priorities. so we communicate specifically on the priorities that are important to the latino population, while the conversation specifically about how health care affect them. so operation vote speaks to women on issues that are important to them, two latinos on issues that are important to them, two seniors on issues that are important, to veterans on issues that are important to them, and these are not all democratic-based constituencies.

many of them are swing constituencies. it is important to remain relevant to the priorities that voters are telling us that they have. >> how does that affect the overall strategy that you are putting forth? >> i think the heart of the campaign and the heart of the will t it on the conversation -- give it on the conversation the president outlined in cleveland last week, which is to has the best agenda to create jobs for the middle class and to build a sustainable of economy that will allow america to out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world. i think those are concerns that all americans share. but for certain groups, certainly for women, there is another conversation that is taking place. they believe in equal pay for equal work. that is legislation that the president signed into law right when he came into office and that governor romney's campaign said they would get back to us on his position on that. governor romney said during the primaries that he would get rid

of planned parenthood. so these are conversations that are important to women and conversations that we are having within the larger context of the campaign. >> you have looked at the demographics. you have looked at the white working-class, unemployed, underemployed. those that were in the obamacare ping four years ago on it descent this campaign. how do you go after them? >> i think it speaks to the agenda we were talking about. we're losing 800,000 jobs a month when the president came into office in the midst of the severe economic crisis. we always knew this would be a close and competitive campaign given the historic challenges that faced the nation when the president came into office. we have conversations in the communities with voters about both things the president has fought for over the past three years and what he will do moving forward. we are losing manufacturing jobs since 1997, but because of the decisions that the president made -- one is to grant risky

loans to the automobile industry. we have seen a resurgence in that sector. many of these towns were manufacturing was the backbone of their economy, we have seen them begin to turn around. so we know when we have a conversation about whether or not you want to continue that progress or you want to go back to the same policies that caused the economic crisis in the first place by making the middle-class pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, so that is a conversation we are engaged in in the state every day. >> you are a veteran of politics here in chicago and nationally. how did you get to where your today? >> first of all, if you grow up in and around chicago, politics is in your blood. it is hard to avoid it. you read many articles about it in the paper every day. so, outside of the area, i may have been a freakish child

because i enjoyed politics so much. the first thing i ever did was i interned for a congressman on capitol hill. right out of college, i went to work on a presidential campaign and throughout the primaries and throughout the 2004 election cycle. then i went to capitol hill and worked for the congress woman as her press secretary. i worked for then congressman sherrod brown during a senate race and president obama since the beginning of that campaign. i also came back here to work campaign for mayor. i have done it on the local, state, and national level. >> you were involved in the kerry campaign and now we're in 2012 with a social media in the digital age. how does that change your approach in a very diverse media marketplace?

>> we have produced a lot more things directly now, a lot more digital products, a lot more direct communications. we're finding that more and more voters do not get their news through the nightly network evening news like they used to. particularly, young people or certain demographics. latinos tend to get their news more digitally. so we will put up the full youtube of the speech appeared we will make a video that tells the story within two minutes. we operate across platforms. whether that is facebook, whether that is twitter, is still not really understand what pinterest is, that somebody here is working on that. we work across platforms, but we never forget about the local news in key states, whether it is the local paper or the local morning or evening news. those are still critically important platforms for us. there are elected officials and

other surrogates' holding evensong of the president several times a week in key markets and key states across the country -- holding events. >> will this campaign come down to nine to 12 states? >> you know, i think it certainly will come down to a certain set of swing states. not too long ago, our campaign manager outlined several paths to victory. our goal when we started this campaign was for it never to come down to the map that democrats in 2000 20 doh04 when you make a decision about whether you put all resources and -- into one sitter two states. we have several paths of victory, one that goes through florida, one that goes through the southeast, one that relies on the west, one that relies on the industrial midwest. so there are many roads to victory. the fact is, we're building a strong grass-roots organization in states across the country.

that is something the republicans did well on 2 in004. it was critical to president bush's reelection. there will probably be able to do some turnout at the end of the day. but the question is, did they miss the perspiration period? we have had supporters on the ground talking to undecided voters in states across the country over the past year, and there is a question about whether republicans missed the window on that and spend all their resources on the year. >> what is the narrative are in this campaign, and how do you paint the narrative aimed at mitt romney? >> you know, i think it is what people across the country have experienced over the past several years. they know that the president entered office in a time of historic economic crisis, that we were hemorrhaging jobs. we saw our manufacturing sector in decline, the auto industry on the brink.

and he made decisions under those circumstances that have allowed the things to reverse course. businesses have created more than 4.3 million jobs in the private sector. manufacturing sector had been in decline. we have now created nearly 500,000 jobs. gm is the number 1 automaker in the world. we're on track to double exports by 2015. even before the economic crisis, if you were a middle-class family, it was getting harder to send your kids to college and make ends meet. we need to do more for them to recover from the recession. the president restoring economic security for the middle class. like he said in cleveland, that involves investments in education, investments in research and development to spur innovation. it involves taking control of america's energy future. and mitt romney and the republicans in congress have a very different view. their view is if we continue to provide set -- special breaks to those at the top, that will trickle down and somehow benefit the middle class, that we

should strip back regulation for banks and polluters and that the market will take care of the rest. we have tried those policies before. we passed those tax cuts for the wealthiest in to douse the 1 and 2003. instead of unleashing growth and job creation, it led to this lowest operation in half a century. we think that is the question the campaign will really pivot on. >> if you want to call the political storm clouds, you have a high unemployment rate among college graduates. there is anger in the country with people fearing we're not moving fast enough or in the right direction. you know the romney campaign will go after your about that. how do you got to those voters are still unsure about where the country is going and what the game plan will be in another four years for barack obama? >> there is a broad understanding that we faced the largest recession since the great depression and we were not going to get out of these challenges overnight. the fact is, who was providing

opportunity for them and he was focused on them? you talked about college graduates or recent college graduates. it is the president that provided a $10,000 tax credit to pursue higher education. it is the president to double funding for college scholarships. it is the president that has been fighting for other important priorities for young people. he ended the war in iraq in a responsible way. mitt romney would have kept troops there. the afghans are stepping up to take control of security in afghanistan so that we can end our involvement over there. romney, for young people, he spoke -- he told a student to go shop around if he was looking for cheaper tuition. he cut funding for college scholarships by 20%. and he has a record that contradicts the casey has been making out there on the campaign trail. he has campaigned as a job- creator. but in many ways, his candidacy is based on the false premise.

in the private sector, he profited of up bankrupting companies and outsourcing jobs. when he was running for office in massachusetts and 2002, he said he would be an economic mr. fix-it. but when it came to government, making the same promises that he is today, job creation flipped behind other states. massachusetts was 36 out of 50 and ended up at 47. the debt and deficits exploded. he left the state with the highest per person debt of any state in the country, and taxes on the middle class went up $750 million a year. so if it did not work then, why would it work now? >> shatila to the mechanics of this operation, it has the feel of a newsroom. -- if you look at the mechanics of this operation, it has the feel of a newsroom. how does it come together? >> we make sure everybody has access to each other, that we have physical broken down at the walls, the department of working together. the space is designed for

maximum accessibility. we have what are called regional pods, d that speaks to our focus on the battleground states. you can walk over to the midwestern pod, for example, and he would have a communications stafford, a digital staffer, somebody who works on advertising, a political staffer, and a field staffer all sitting around one table. so when they are hearing a permission bubble up from wisconsin or iowa, they are all in the loop and know what the regional issues are and the needs of the state, and they can elevate issues here so that that is brought to our attention and those issues are dealt with. and, you know, in some ways it might look more like a start-up operation than a traditional campaign or a traditional business. we have expanded quickly, but i think the way in which it is set

up, everybody is able to flag problems and have a conversation with whoever they need to reach. >> between staffers and volunteers t 300o 400 . on the same floor. >> that is right. >> what is that they like you for typically? >> we are an hour behind here. so it starts early. i think it is different for people in different departments. we are up before the morning shows, making sure that we have seen the news that we're flagging any important stories for the show's. and we're looking through the regional headlines to see what is playing in the states. we are preparing events in press releases. the romney campaign has had a candidate on the trail constantly for the past year, but the president has been focused on the responsibilities that the american people elected him to carry out. so many times, we're preparing

even spying and states that do not involve him. that will change over time as his involvement along the campaign to all picks up, and there is a traveling campaign staff. we mainly support events that he has had. if you are a field staffer, most of your activities during the day our preparations for the night when you have volunteers in offices at reaching out to voters or you're preparing to build an event in the area. so there are different schedules, and somebody is up at all hours operating some part of the campaign. >> from your experience in 2004 to now 2012, what is more challenging, to work for a candidate as a challenger or to work for an incumbent seeking another term? >> i think they are different. when you are a challenger, it is a little bit easier for the candidates sometimes, because they do not always have a record that they are getting

into the 15 different parts of the record. they have one thing that they are hitting on the trail about the incumbent everyday. in some ways, you have that, but it is some times harder as a challenger to get attention from the media at the same level as you might as an incumbent. as an incumbent, i think you have more of a bully pulpit a lot of the time. you're held responsible for e events around the world, and so i think that is a distinction. i do not think it is easier or harder. i think the way the media portrays the candidacy tends to be different. >> does that concern you, even as they cannot control? >> listen, i think the president is somebody whose stature on the international stage is known --

he ran on a series of promises on foreign policy that he has fulfilled. he said he was going to end the war in he said he would end the war in iraq in a response away. he has done that. he said he would refocus on al qaeda and take terrorists of the battlefield. he has done that. americans have seen him operate on a global stage and they know his capacity to rally an international coalition and to deal with challenges the united states might face. it is a strength for him. >> you have four months left in the campaign. walk us through the strategy. what will you see up to the debates and in the final 10 days of the election? >> more activity by the president and vice president, engaging directly with voters out there along the campaign trail. you will see a more direct

exchange of ideas between the place at the conventions where they are not directly addressing each other or later in the debates. i think the operation we are holding on the ground will move from persuasion to turn out. at some point, it will be clear which voters each campaign is trying to reach. the number of persuade the voters will shrink and it will come time to run and -- persuadable voters will shrink and it will come time to run an aggressive campaign. eligible voters to participate in to the polls as possible. the republicans tend to have a different view as you can see which the measures they are pursuing in the states to restrict access.

we want to make sure as many voters as possible are able to turn out to the polls and that they are -- there are not any tricks to keep them away from the polls. we have a voter protection effort to make sure our eligible voters are turning out to the polls. the heart of the debate has already been outlined. the president believes that requires the sort of investment we talked about in education, research and development, and infrastructure. that is the core question the president and governor romney will be debating. >> republicans say they want to make sure that if you are not a legal resident, you should not vote in this country. >> i do not think there is a threat of that. the voting clause we have on the books in the states -- we have not seen an influx of

undocumented immigrants voting. we have seen them purging the roles of the eligible voters in the state of florida. we have seen access restricted for somebody who has moved between states but who is an eligible voter. a woman who changed her name because she got remarried or got separated. we have seen wholesale eligible voters hit hard by the impact of these policies. students across the state of wisconsin. there are two parts of this effort. number one, ensuring that voters are not disqualified and number to making sure voters are notified about the rules in their state. >> how is the campaign trying to go after the barbershop worker

or the student or the senior citizen? asked you to get all of your undecided france together at your home for a cup of coffee or a -- france -- friends together for a cup of coffee. people communicate differently now. you can use your many means of digital contact to reach out to your friends. it is not necessary to hold that living room coffee unless that is something you do for your friend. -- with your friends. >> is this fun for you? >> campaigns are tiring. they are always worth it.

it is worth it to wake up every day knowing you are fighting for something you believe in, now when you are fighting for a candidate and an agenda you believe in. that always gets you do -- through the tough for days and be sleepless nights. >> ben labolt, thank you for giving us insight into the campaign. >> president obama begins the week on the campaign trail. a short time ago he left events in new hampshire and boston. tomorrow, several more events. c-span is covering a number of these stops. tokyo c-span -- go to c- span.org. the court struck down three of

the provisions leaving in place the part where police can check the immigration status. also, on the emigration decision, mitt romney had these remarks. today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this issue to pursue a national immigration strategy. president obama has failed. i believe that each state has a duty and the right to pursue our borders, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. as candid it obama he promised, but we're still waiting. go on line where we have set up a session where you can post your comments. go to facebook.com/cspan.

thursday, they are expected to release the results of the health-care law. the republican u.s. senate candidates are having a july 31 runoff after neither can it received 50% of the vote. the lieutenant governor faced off in their first debate on friday in a dallas. mr. cruz is a report by sir palin, ron paul, and rick santorum. this is about one hour. >> i believe the republican party is based on fiscal responsibility, less intrusion in your private life. >> i want to see somebody with some backbone. somebody with some spine. >> liberty is under assault in this country and texans are rising up to say no. >> i am the most fiscally conservative lieutenant

governor in the history of the state of texas. >> why do you think i should vote for you? >> welcome to the texas debate race for the u.s. senate. we are broadcasting live from dallas and online at texasdebate.org. i will be the moderator as we bring you the first one-on-one debate between ted cruz and david dewhurst. he served as the director of policy planning for the federal trade commission and is the texas solicitor general. he is currently a private attorney in houston. david graduated from the university of arizona and started a successful energy company based in houston. he was first elected as texas

land commissioner and has served as lieutenant governor since 2003. the candidates will be answering questions posed by republican voters who have been following their campaign and by a journalist. a political reporter from texas, ross ramsey, the executive editor for the texas tribune. thank you so much for being here. we have agreed on some rules for the debate. based on the coin toss, the first question goes to ted cruz. >> more than 11 million undocumented people are in this country. do you support or oppose supporting them. do you support a guest worker program for which a number of them qualified as laid out in the state republican party platform? >> thank you for being here.

the question you raise touches on a crisis that our nation is facing. we have a crisis and illegal immigration. neither party is serious about solving the party. we need to do three things. we need to do everything possible to secure the border. the reason there are ample -- 11 million people here illegally is the federal government has fallen down on its job of securing our borders. i am opposed to amnesty. it is contrary to rule of law and it is unfair to the billions of legal immigrants who waited in line and came here legally. we need to remain a nation that does not just welcome but celebrates legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking the american dream. last week obama implemented a back door amnesty policy. it is lawless, unconstitutional, and wrong.

the constitution explicitly -- >> would you like to answer the question? the question was about a guest worker program. >> i do not support a guest worker program. i do not support expansion's unless and until we support -- secure our border. we have been listening to politicians talk about it and they have not gotten the job done. >> of illegal immigration is a serious problem that combined with dangerous drugs that are coming into taxes, transnational gains. the federal government has done a terrible job in turning to secure our border. i do not support a guest worker program and never have until and unless congress addresses this. only after we have secure our border. i have been recommending we need to triple the size of our border patrol. it is understaffed. by tripling in we would be adding 40,000 more border patrol.

that is an opportunity for 40,000 more veterans coming back from afghanistan and iraq to help secure our border. because we have been running search operations in taxes or six years, that will stop illegal immigration. >> how do you deal with people already here, more than 11 million people? >> we need to do a couple of things. eliminate sanctuary cities. there are cities where these laws are not enforced. i will point out this is an area of my opponent and i disagree. he was responsible for killing the bill that would have prohibited century cities. we need to and the benefits for those here illegally. i opposed in-state tuition for illegal aliens. this again is an area of disagreement. >> neither statement is true. i passed an anti century city bill and i have always opposed

benefits in-state tuition for illegals. we have to address -- the federal government is incapable of doing two things at once. we will have to triple the size of our border control. then and only then should congress address these issues. >> would you like to respond any further to the question about deportation? >> america is a country of laws. we need to enforce all of our laws. >> thank you very much. the second question comes from ross ramsey. >> should the federal government have bailed out general motors? >> absolutely not. the government should be staying out of picking winners and losers. when they do get involved we end up with something like so linda

-- $532 million loss. the federal government should be focused on its problems. washington is broken. texas is a good example of what a good government should look like. i am proud as a lifelong businessman to have come to austin to help create the texas miracle. i want to take that miracle -- the strongest economy in the country. i want to take it to washington and get our country back to work. >> of course we should not have. we have a problem in washington. we have career politicians that spend the tax payer money. that is how we got into 16 trillion dollar debt bankrupting our country.

i do not support bailouts. i do not support the bill out of auto companies or banks. they should not be in the business of spending taxpayer money to help private corporations. the role of government is to protect our rights. to secure rule of law and to stay out of the way and let on to print your -- entrepreneurs make jobs. >> what would you have done with the 2500 or more jobs that would have been lost in arlington had the federal government not billed out general motors? what's at the end of the day we do not know what jobs would have been lost. there may be people who come in and acquire assets and deploy it elsewhere. that sort of question always assumes that the money from the government comes from nowhere. i would ask the same question. all of those billions of dollars -- the $900 billion plan, the money came from the taxpayers. every dollar was not in the private sector creating jobs and across many more jobs that were saved by the bailouts.

>> one of the things i am proud of is the texas miracle that i did not do it alone. i played a large role. taking my business skills to austin and creating not only the strongest economy in the entire country but the fastest growing job base. in a situation where there might be as my opponent had mentioned the -- might be some layoffs, we need to continue to do everything we can to grow our state. to encourage more investment. this model right here in texas works and it will work in washington. >> thank you very much. when we ask our voters about issues important to them, they had strong opinions about improving the economy. >> our next senator, we want him to be concerned with how our future will play out when we are done with school.

>> we are concerned about our future will play out when we are done with school. >> most important to me as a small business person is that the government does everything they can to reduce regulation, overburdening in regulation, we do need regulation, but it is crushing business. >> we need a balanced budget and we need to get our economy on a track that we can grow instead of getting deeper into debt. >> we are with one of the voters you just saw in that video. >> i am with a graduate student majoring in the journalism. >> one in the three young people are under employed.

we have over one trillion dollars of student loan debt. if you were in washington, what would you do to ensure that we have jobs and cannot pay our bills? >> it is a crisis affecting young people. it is a crisis affecting americans across the nation. a huge part of the reason is that for the last few years, president obama has waged a war on jobs. we need the next senator from texas to be a strong fighter to stop the war on jobs. we need to stop the abuse and and farm belt laws. all of these obama policies are crushing small businesses. if we take the boot off of the back of the neck of small businesses, that is how we turn our a economy around.

>> look at the contrast between washington and texas. over the last nine years, we have cut spending each year by billions of dollars. i have helped cut taxes 51 times for over $14.6 billion for texas taxpayers. i have balanced five straight budgets without raising taxes. i have run ads against obama care. in my first day in the senate, i will move to repeal it. >> unemployed people can only collect 60 weeks of unemployment down from 99. do you support this? >> i do not. i do not think the answer is to create people being dependent on government.

the answer is to get government policies out of the way to allow jobs to be greeted by entrepreneur hours. politicians talk a good game. my opponent talks about cutting spending and cutting taxes like the politicians in washington do. what he doesn't mention is that in his years of elected office, he has cut deals with democrats. there was a $72 billion increase larger than population and inflation. taxes have gone up 49% since he was lieutenant governor. we are tired of politicians to talk a good game but keep spending more money. that is what is destroying jobs. >> i love the math. thank you for saying that. one of your big supporters put

out a statement on taxes and said that the state of texas's tax structure leads the country. we exceeded the increase in our budget so that state spending went down. facts are stubborn my friend. i am proud of the fact that by cutting taxes, when you cut taxes you grow your revenue. you have more revenue coming in. that is exactly what happened in the 1980's under president reagan when he cut the marginal federal income taxes. our revenues dracay incrsed.

>>s we said, we of been talking to the voters here. they tell us what they want from the next senator is integrity. >> i want to see someone who has integrity. >> i want to see a man who supports our constitution and does not compromise what our country was founded on. >> we are known as people of our word where a handshake is as good as a signed contract. i am not looking for someone who wants to get a long period i want to find someone who wants to go to washington to do the work that we have been sent to do. >> is there anything your opponent has done to show he lacks the integrity and character that these voters say

they want? >> we need in all of our elected officials men and women of integrity that are consistent and that will do what they say. i am not here to criticize my opponent. i am proud of the fact that i have a record of doing exactly what i say i will do. i had never compromised my conservative principles once. i have negotiated to try to get the requisite number of votes so that we could pass bills but i have never compromised my conservative principles. >> i will leave the judgment of character to the voters. from the beginning, we've been focused on a straightforward comparison of my record fighting to defend the constitution and winning on a national level and

his record of serving in office for over a decade, repeatedly compromising with democrats and increasing spending and taxes. the frustration that we share with career politicians is they talk a great game and yet they keep spending more money. a minute ago we were talking about taxes and the governor has said he has cut taxes 51 times. we had at least one of very big tax increase. it was introduced under his leadership and jack of the taxes for the state of texas. one year later the property taxes were even higher. >> is this an integrity issue for you? >> what the voters care about is what the record is of each

candidate. i did find it amusing that the lieutenant governor said he is not here to attack me. from my and we are going to stay on the record in comparing our records. anlet's give them opportunity to respond. >> i am not going to respond to your washington insider and special interests. i think it is important that when we talk about facts -- we should put them on the table. from cutting taxes 51 times and property taxes by 1 1/3. i want to reduce taxes and get the state government out of your way. >> thank you.

>> we are going to ask each of you to pose a question to each other based on a coin toss. >> you have been widely criticized for opposing a state wide wage tax. your response is to call your critics of liars. did you support a payroll tax. yes or no. is that a good idea? >> no and no. i've never supported a wage tax or a payroll tax. >> that is very interesting. we have over two dozen that newspaper articles according to lt. gov. supporting the payroll tax.

>> we all make decisions and life. i trust that you respect mine. when you got out of college and made a decision to go to harvard law school. when i got out of college i joined the air force. i came back and formed a business from scratch. what about your background to you think makes you more qualified to be the next united states senate toward? >> i believe i've spent a lifetime fighting for the constitution on a national

level. we led the nation defending the constitution and the conservative principles. whether it was the pledge of allegiance or other things, that we stood up to the united nations in defending the united states sovereignty. we need a fighter and that is what i've spent a lifetime doing. >> we now have a question for the lieutenant governor. >> social security is out of balance. you either have to increase the money coming in or reduce the money going out. how would you fix it? >> all about entitlements are

broken. this is one of our problems with politicians. they will not tell the truth. our unfunded mandates are a 80 trillion dollars. social security is broken. we need to start funding social security. we need to honor the contract and our obligations. we have to raise the retirement age on a staggering basis. we have to adjust and consider means testing. >> when you say consider that, what are you specifically looking at? >> congress has to take a look at whether or not people earning over a certain amount of

money, even if they made contributions to social security, whether they would continue to receive those payments or on a voluntary basis. social security is bankrupt and we have got to figure out how to make it solvent. >> would you accept social security? >> under the conditions of today, no. >> we have a crisis in spending. the democrats are being grossly irresponsible by not stepping forward to save social security. those on social security or near retirement should have no changes whatsoever. we should honor those commitments. for younger workers, many of us

do not think it will be here for us in the first place. three changes can save a going forward. gradually increasing the retirement age, setting the rates of increase so it matches inflation, and for younger workers, allow us to keep a portion of our security taxes in a private personal account that we control and can pass on to our kids and grandkids. what is needed is leadership to step in and solve the problem. >> what you think of means testing? >> it is one possible solution that should be on the table. >> we need to do what ever is necessary to save the program. we all,>> paul ryan.

they were running ads showing him being thrown off a cliff. what we need on this issue and everything else is leaders with courage to stand for conservative principles and to take the vilification of the left. >> thank you. arnett said will find himself in the battle over health care. >> we need to find free-market solutions for the challenges of of finding out socialized medicine system. >> i want to see that they make medicare and social security better for health insurance. >> we've got to do something about growth and entitlement spending.

>> we have a question now. >> texas has the highest residence for health insurance. if the supreme court overturns part of the federal health care law, what would you do about this? >> with respect to "obamacare," it is very likely that the supreme court will leave some of it in place and get rid of some of it. if that happens, it will throw the mess into the laps of congress. the first bill that i intend to introduce to the senate is a bill to repeal every syllable of "obamacare." i intend to lead the fight to get that done. i think we should repeal it in its entirety. we need fundamental reform that

moves towards a market-oriented solutions. we need to allow the interstate purchase of health insurance so we have a national market. we need to expand health savings accounts and the link health insurance from employment. >> if "obamacare" is declared constitutional, i will move to repeal every single word. it is an unconstitutional bill.

it will break the back of every state. we do a better outcomes and focus on wellness to keep people out of hospitals. we also need to pass throughout the country in medical malpractice reform. we saw our medical malpractice rates decline by 60%. >> we are with a voter who has a question for the lieutenant governor. >> would you do to develop more

energy for being environmentally sensitive and limiting the powers of the epa? >> there are completely out of control. if we can win the white house with governor romney, we can pick up four more republican senators and be on the way to turning the country around. we feel we have a bull's eye on our back because of the epa. we have the opportunity for

energy independence from foreign oil. we need to expand drilling. we need to use it in electric generation to reduce emissions. >> we need to be exploring and developing our nural resources. we have the potential for energy independence for the first time because of the incredible the technological advances. every candidate says they

support oil and gas. the heart of my campaign has been a proven record. i represented the chamber of commerce challenging that in court. obama is using the epa to try to go after drilling in west texas. i argued that the endangered species act was unconstitutional. we need a fighter who doesn't just talk but has walked the walk. >> my question goes to mr. cruz. you support the construction of

the keystone pipeline. proof property. should they be able to override landowners by using it? >> that is ultimately a question for state law to determine. i think private property rights are fundamental to we are as americans and texans. the problem is the obama administration shutting that project down with the stroke of a pen. he killed tens of thousands of jobs. now that oil will be spent west and refined in china instead. it will pollute the environment more and we will remain dependent on foreign oil from

the middle east and from nations who would do us harm. >> they are in court right now because they believe him in a domain is a problem. how could you assist them? >> my view is that it should be limited with respect to the constitution and the fifth amendment of the constitution. a few years back the supreme court decided in the kilo decision. they said you could use eminent domain for private purposes.

they went all the way to the supreme court and they said that the government could do it to help of private interests. the lid to the governor thinks that we should be favoring the national gas industry. we should let the market decide rather than letting them pick what energy sources to like. >> that there are a land owners that do not want emend domain the use. what would you do to them or do you support eminent domain in this case. >> i worked for six years trying to approve that.

it can only be used when there is a public purpose that provides compensation. otherwise it is a taking if someone does not provide fair market value. how would you address this situation? >> this is important for the pipeline to sit down with the land owners and negotiate in good faith where the route is going to go. we need to make sure that the compensation that is paid is fair market value. that was the problem with the decision in the past.

>> which do you side with? >> you have to look at the alternative routes. if the route goes through someone's property, i know for a fact that when people have had complaints, they have moved pipelines. there is a lot of opportunity. i have never favored one over the other. i am in the oil and gas business so i see a wonderful opportunity. >> another question for the lieutenant governor. >> violence in mexico is

spilling over the borders into texas. how will you keep the gate open for commerce and trade and closed for criminal activity? >> that is an excellent question because they are our no. 1 trading partner. we have to keep trade going back and forth. this new phenomenon with gangs coming into our cities. i would push for closing our borders by tripling the size of the border control and adding 40,000 more border patrol. at the same time, adding in the federal government in the customs and protection side so we can move trade back and forth.

we want to move a legitimate trade into taxes. >> i support free trade. over 2 million taxes make their business in exporting. we are the largest in the country. there is a crisis with illegal immigration and our southern border. the federal government is failing in its job to secure the borders i was meeting with the texas border volunteers across texas to spend their time guarding the border. the federal government is

failing in its job. many are tragically women brought in for sex trafficking. we have to get serious about securing the border. >> we have a question for mr. cruz. >> my view on military intervention is very simple. we should use military might only to protect the vital national security interest of the united states of america. we should go in with overwhelming force and have a

clearly stated objective and we should get out when we are done. i do not believe and nation- building. i think the job of the band and women in the military is to hunt down and kill our enemies, but not build democratic utopias across the world. unfortunately, a lot of politicians in washington want to stay rather than solving the national security threat and coming back home. >> would you cut defense spending to balance the budget? >> know. i do not think it should be used as a purpose of the balance. i think it should be keyed to what i said, the vital national security interest of the united states. one of the things i am most proud of is that i am representing over 3 million

veterans. i don't think the defense budget is onion. members of congress have added spending on top of that. this ought to be subject to heightened scrutiny as not being important to national security. >> i think we went into both countries before the right purposes. we were not able to continue what we were doing. we have safe havens in the

northwestern pakistan. based on information from democrats and republicans at the time, it looked as if there were weapons of mass destruction we have troops there who were unable to train forces. there are overriding principles that i focus on. we have to have overwhelming force on day one. we have to have a very clear and well understood exit strategy. >> we need to keep our military as strong as possible. it is our greatest defense

against being attacked. every weapons systems -- it is interlaced with your march from a different congressmen or senators. lieutenant governor.

>> do you believe the u.s. should intervene in syria? >> the foreign policy of president obama has been a disaster. assad is committing genocide. states is providing some weapons that are being bought by our allies to be moved to the syrian the freedom fighters. look at the three principles which i laid out. it has to be in the

overwhelming of vital national interest of the united states. point today. things may change in the future. >> i do not think we should intervene militarily in syria. president obama has not even attempted to lay out any such argument at the end of the day, but president obama is trying to get us involved because the united nations is leading him. he says he wants to leap from behind. the united nations has no jurisdiction whatsoever. we should be following the constitution of the united states. there is no issue i am better

known for than standing up to the world court and the united nations and saying you have no jurisdiction in our country. the only binding law is u.s. constitution. we should be defending u.s. interests and not the views of the united nations. >> even though your decision is based on the stated principles, is it difficult to hold to that? >> at the end of the day, the job of the united states is not to be the policeman of the world. but we do not have the resources

and it is not our job to intervene all over the globe. it is our job to protect united states interest. none of these questions are hard if you have a firm foundation on the decisions reached over 200 years ago. george washington famously observed that we should be wary of foreign entanglements. if the violence in a series of began to impair the national security of israel, we should stand with them unapologetically. it would become a national security interest. we should not be intervening and just because obama wants to follow the lead of the united nations. >> we should do what is in the best interest of the united states.

even though none of us likes to see what we are seeing on television, children and innocent people slaughtered, our allies are providing arms to the syrian of freedom fighters. this is something we need to monitor very carefully. i have little conference in the foreign policy capabilities of the obama administration. if there was and the administration decision we would need to have more information. israel is our best friend and only ally in the area and we always have to have their back. if they started firing missiles or attacking israel, we would have an obligation to defend them. >> this question first for mr. cruz. do you support the current psa

security system? if not, how would you change them and still provide a high level of safety? >> i strongly oppose the policy of groping innocent civilians. it is typical of the policy of the left to violate the law abiding rights of innocent civilians rather than going after the wrongdoers. israel targets terrorists. the united states is too politically correct to do that, so instead we look for weapons. that means we do a cavity search of 90-year-olds. that we need to defend the liberty of our constitution. in the texas legislature there was a bill to ban the groping. the obama administration

threatened the state of texas and the lieutenant governor backed down. he did not want to fight obama. >> the truth is that i am opposed to the grouping of the gsa as much as anyone. the facts are awful what has happened to passengers. if that happened to my wife or a little girl i would be enraged. that is why i worked with senator patrick, why i asked the governor to put the bill on the call. that is why i passed a stronger bill than we had before.

we passed it out in time for the house to debate it. my recommendation is i would do away with it. let's eliminate the tsf and privatize it. >> we will go to closing arguments. >> please give us an example of how you might vote differently. >> i believe him to be a conservative. i like solving problems. i try to solve problems within the narrow fairway of my conservative principles. >> with respect to spending and taxes, but the simplest is

"obamacare." there will be an enormous pressure to compromise. the governor is a good and decent man. if you look at his record, you know for sure that is what he would do. i will lead the fight to repeal every word. >> debate. thank you for this evening and to the panel for being here. think you for watching this evening. you of heard some contrast this evening. over the last four years, but there has been a loss of freedom and opportunity in the jobs in america. i have lived the american dream

and i am fortunate. i am a lifetime of businessmen, but i did not inherit anything. my father was killed when i was 3 years old. i inherited service to country and the heart of a fighter. volunteered and went into the cia. formed a country -- company from nothing. skills to austin and we created the very best economy

and the entire country. we are the fastest growing job creator in the entire company. >> our country is in crisis and we are going broke. our national debt is larger than the gross domestic product. all over the country americans are standing up and saying they are fed up with the same tired establishment incumbents. they're turning to new leaders. i have spent a lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and conservative principles. we were outspent five to one and we are in this runoff because the party leaders and conservatives came together.

just about every major conservative leader nationally has endorsed this campaign. if you think the answer to what is happening in washington is to send another establishment politician, then you have an easy choice in this race. if you think the answer is to send a strong conservative and fighter, then i ask for your support i give you my word that when we win this race, taxes will lead the fight to stop the obama agenda and restore the constitution. >> thank you for a great debate. we appreciate you coming and to the voters for taking part in the debate. the democratic broadcast will also be available online. thank you for joining us.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> at 2:00 pm, the u.s. house gavels in. remarks from leon panetta, who spoke at a veterans' suicide

conference in washington. >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. introduction. and thank you all for your leadership, for your wise counsel, and for your commitment to ensuring that our service members and their families receive the kind of treatment and support that they so richly deserves. i would like to express my appreciation to all of you in this audience. appreciation for coming together, appreciation for the work you have been doing at this three day conference. appreciation for the focus that

you are making to give attention to one of the most complex problems facing our military families, the problem of suicide. you are the experts in trying to deal with a difficult issue. nobel prize winner. he had won the prize in a complex area of physics, and was going throughout california giving a very complex address on the area he had gotten the nobel prize. as he was heading toward fresno one day, his chauffeur leaned

back and said, "professor, i heard that same speech so many times, i think i could give it by memory myself." the professor said, "why don't we do that? why don't i put on your uniform and you put on my seat and you give the speech." they did that. the chauffeur got up and spoke eloquently for an hour and got a standing ovation. the professor sat in the audience and could not believe what happened. then somebody raised their hand -- "but i have a question." they went through a three- paragraph question, some formulas, questions, and said, "professor, what did you think?" there was a long pause.

the chauffeur said, "you know, that is the stupidest question i have ever gotten. [laughter] just to show you how stupid it is, i am going to have my chauffeur answer it out in the audience." there are a hell of a lot of chauffeurs in this audience when it comes to this complicated, difficult issue, and i appreciate the devotion and dedication that all of you are issue. i am particularly pleased that this conference is run jointly by the department of defense and the department of veterans affairs. building a strong collaboration between our two departments is absolutely essential, it is essential, to meeting the needs

of our service members and veterans. i am proud of the strong working relationship that i have built with secretary shinseki, and i agree that our two departments are working closely, more than ever before. it is essential we are going to have to build a partnership if we are going to address issues like suicide. this issue, suicide, is perhaps the most frustrating challenge that i have come across since becoming secretary of defense last year. despite the increased efforts, the increased attention, the trends continue to move in a

troubling and tragic direction. all of us gathered here share a very deep concern about this issue and about the trends we are seeing. we also share a commitment to take action to do everything possible to prevent these horrible tragedies and to support those who have served our country with honor and with distinction. greatest frustration, greatest frustration is that there are no easy answers here. there are no quick fixes. there are no simple solutions.

that does not mean that we cannot do more to prevent it from happening. we can do more. we must do more. and together, we will do more. first, it is important for all of us to recognize the nature of the challenges that we face in our military and veterans community. for more than 10 years, we have been a nation at war. repeated deployments, sustained exposure, combat, tragedies of war have brought stresses and strains on our troops and on their families back home.

thanks to advances in protective technologies and battlefield medicine, more of our men and women are surviving combat. once home, many are grappling with the wounds of battle, both seen and unseen -- traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress, the other psychological ailments that can contribute to the risk of suicide. the end of the war in iraq, the beginning of the drawdown in afghanistan will hopefully ease some of the strain of our troops, but that will not solve this problem.

indeed, more than half of those who have committed suicide in the military had no history of deployment. we are dealing with broader societal issues -- substance abuse, financial distress, relationship problems -- the risk factors for suicide that reflect problems in the broader society, the risk factors that will endure beyond the war. we have to develop an enduring suicide-prevention strategy.

the department of defense is committed to being a part of the comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. we are committed to doing whatever it takes to protect and support our people. building off of the recommendation contained in the 2010 dod task force report last november, we have established a dod suicide-prevention office. this office will put new resources and a new focus where it implements the task force's recommendations and enhances the successfulness of our suicide-prevention program. but i see our efforts, and let me focus on four key tracks, and let me discuss each of

those areas. first of all, this is always critical when it comes to an operation like the defense department and to our military forces. leadership responsibility. leadership responsibility. we are directing military leaders to take this issue head on. like almost every issue in our military, progress on suicide prevention depends on leadership. i have made that clear. this issue is first and foremost a leadership responsibility.

all those in command and leadership positions, particularly junior officers, nco's, who have day-to-day responsibility for troops, need to be sensitive, need to be aware, need to be open to the signs of stress in the ranks, and they need to be aggressive -- aggressive -- in encouraging those who serve under them to seek help if needed. they also must set an example by seeking help themselves, if necessary. as part of their leadership responsibilities, junior officers, junior nco's must foster the kind of cohesion and

togetherness that is a fundamental part of our military culture and can do so much to improve mental health. my wife, who is a nurse, worked on metal health care issues, and she said to me time and time again, "this is a human issue, a human problem. you got to look in people's eyes, you got to be sensitive to their emotions, you got to be sensitive to the challenges that they are facing. you got to be aware, you got to have your eyes open." and the more we can see those problems coming, the more we can do to help those in need.

we have to make clear that we will not tolerate, we will not tolerate actions that belittle, that haze, that ostracize those who seek professional help. leaders throughout the department must make it understood that seeking help is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. it is a sign of strength and courage. [applause] we have got to do all we can to remove the stigma that still too often surrounds mental health care issues.

outreach efforts such as the integration campaign, which work to increase awareness in the use of resources, such as the military and veterans crisis lines, are also a very important part of these efforts. secondly, we have got to do everything we can to improve the quality and access to health care. this is a second pillar of the suicide-prevention strategy -- improving the quality of behavioral healthcare and expanding access to that care. we now have more than 9,000 psychiatrists, psychologists,

social workers, mental health nurses, counselors working in military hospitals and in military clinics. that number has increased more than 35% over the last three years. behavioral health experts are now being imbedded into line units, and the department has worked to provide health care providers in clinics to facilitate access. guardsmen and reservists often do not have ready access to the same support network as the active-duty force. we have got to do what we can to increase initiatives like the yellow ribbon integration program that is working to address this kind of problem. going forward, i want to make

sure that all service members and their family members have the quality mental, behavioral healthcare that they need, the kind of care that must be delivered by the best health care professionals in the world. thanks to the efforts of so many of you in this audience, we are improving our ability to identify and treat mental health care conditions. we're working to better equip our system to deal with the unique challenges these conditions can present. for example, i have been very concerned about reports of problems with the screening process for posttraumatic stress in the military disability system. for that reason, i have directed a review of this

process across all of the uniformed services. this review will help ensure that we are delivering on our commitment to provide the best care for our service members. we have got to do everything we can to make sure that the system itself is working to help soldiers, not to hide this issue, not to make the wrong judgments about this issue, but to face facts and to deal with the problems of fraud and make sure that we provide the right diagnosis and that we follow up on that kind of diagnosis. thirdly, we have to elevate the whole issue of mental fitness. a third pillar of suicide

prevention is better equipping service members with training and coping skills that they need to avoid or bounce back from stress. to that end, all of the services, under the leadership of general dempsey and the senior advisers, are working to elevate mental fitness to the same level of importance. we have got to elevate mental fitness to the same level of importance that dod has always placed on physical fitness. [applause] separately, a whole government

effort that has been led by the president and mrs. obama to combat veterans' unemployment and boost hiring of military spouses is aimed at helping to reduce the financial stress faced by military families and veterans. finally, fourthly, we have got to increase research in suicide prevention. in partnership across the government and with the private sector, the fourth pillar of our approach is to improve our understanding of suicide, to improve our understanding of related mental health care issues to better and improved side to research. i would like to note the leadership of the department of

health and human services and ms. sebelius in addressing this conference earlier. all of us recognize that there is far too much that we do not know about the causes of suicide, the effectiveness of particular suicide-prevention programs, and the linkage between psychological help and traumatic brain injury. trying to find out more about these very difficult complex issues is not easy, but we have got to do everything we can to continue their research effort into learning more about this difficult issue. many of you are working tirelessly to address these gaps. as part of this effort, the

department of defense and department of veterans affairs are working to build a data repository that will help us better analyze suicide and suicide attempts and do what we can to spot trends and to get ahead of that. likewise, we are improving program evaluation so that we can better focus our resources on those programs that are proven to be effective. the department is also working to fundamentally transform the nation to understand and treat traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress, the signature unseen wounds of the last decade of war. earlier this month, the department and the intricate fallen heroes fund announced

the plan to construct state-of- the-art treatment centers for brain injuries, psychological disorders at nine of our largest installations in the country. i am delighted that we were able to break ground on the first twof these centers at fort belvoir and camp lejeune. these centers are made possible by the generosity of private citizens -- and god bless them for their generosity and what they do. because of their generosity, this will help complement the national center of excellence in bethesda and provide cutting-edge evaluations and treatment planning, research,

and education for service members and for their families. my long-term goal for the department of defense is to be a game-changing innovator in this field. just as we fostered the space age and the internet, i want us to break new ground in understanding the human mind and human emotions. in doing so, we will be drawing on a rich history of military

needs, spurring innovation in this field. during world war ii, millions of servicemen saw firsthand the need for better psychological services and psychological treatment. in its aftermath, with the gi bill and the new veterans administration's clinical psychological training program, the entire field of modern psychology has transformed. it really has. for the first time, psychology was a field that was richly funded in training and in practice, and the result has been better treatment and better care for millions of americans. i believe we could help bring about another transformation, made possible by the hard work

of men and women like all of you. i know that you will not rest and will not be satisfied until we have given our service members and their family members and our veterans the support they need. there are, as i have said, no easy answers to the problem and the challenge of suicide. but that is no damn reason for not finding the answers to the problem of suicide. [applause] we have to keep trying to do everything we can to prevent, and all of us -- frankly, for

that matter, all americans have to always support and care for those who have stepped forward to defend our country in uniform. we are a family. we are a family. and, by god, we have to take care of our family members. that is not just italian. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., june 25, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day.

signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain reverend aaron damiani, from the church of theres. election in wearkeds. the chaplain: let us pray. we thank you for establishing the vocation of public service. on behalf of the men and women of this body we ask for your grace to carry out your work without partiality. may they exercise their authority with wisdom so our country may be governed in peace. give each member of congress a concern for our rightly ordered public life so justice may roll down like waters. strengthen the bonds of trust i among the elected officials gathered here and the ones serving throughout this great land. may honesty and good will define their common labor. o god our help in ages past, do

not let our country be overcome with evil but let us overcome evil with good. in the name of the father and the son and the hely spirit, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 21, 2012, at 5:46 p.m., that the senate passed h.r. 33.

with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i am writing to inform you that i am taking a leave of absence from the house armed services committee effective immediately. should you have any questions or concerns, please contact my chief of staff. signed, sincerely, c.a. "dutch" ruppersberger, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

>> such rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally committed to upholding the rule of law, while ensuring that the constitutional rights of all in arizona are protect including prohibiting law enforcement officers from sol considering race, color, or national origin in implementing this provision. in fact, under my direction, senate bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and to emphasize the importance that civil rights ar protected. arizona is prepared to move forward. to enforce this law that we have fought so hard to defend ever mindful of our rights, ever faithful to the constitution.

and ever worthy of the blessing of god, who has given us that. that we share together as arizonans and as americans. thank you. >> you mentioned -- [inaudible] and i appreciate there. there were three other sections of the law that you signed and defended, one that would make i a state crime not to work and the full court, the full court essentially said with the exception of justice scalia, no you can't do that. how do you defend having signed something like, how do you claire having declared that constitutional two years ago, only to have the high court you? >> well, today, the state of arizona and senate bill 1070 wa vindicated and the heart of the bill was upheld. unanimously.

[inaudible] >> well, with section 2b being upheld, it says that local law enforcement can assist the federal government in the right to ask under reasonable suspicious and whenever practicable to confirm the lega ability of someone being in the state of arizona. >> but the point that i think jeremy's question is, if they have decided, the president, an today they also cancelled the state 27g status, that they're not going to pick them up, what's the point? you stop, you determine somebod is illegal. i said so what, so you let them go. so you've accomplished nothing. >> i believe that we have accomplished a lot and that it was upheld by the you state supreme court, and that we wi move forward instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the united states supreme

court has upheld. >> governor, with arizona and the court recognizes that there probably will be challenges to section 2, you -- on three of the provisions, you prevailedn section 2, but it looks like there's an opening there. some people saying characterizing this as a broad victory. >> well, this certainly is not the end of our journey. we fully expect lawsuits to be filed, and that this portion of the law be challenged. and we will be getting ready an prepared if that takes place. [inaudible] 

to certify whether they have legal status in arizona. i would think that it would be in effect immediately. you probably might want to spea to a lawyer, but my personal opinion is when it's upheld by the supreme court, that it would be effective immediately. >> one more question. >> a u.s. law professor said cities and localities have the right to look -- [inaudible] >> i believe that it does. i think that section 2b was t heart of the law. i think that is where the majority of the concern was, whether local law enforcement had the ability to seek information from people that they apprehend in the middle of a crime. and now it has been validated unanimously by the united states supreme court.

>> thank you all for being here. thank you. >> governor, but you still have the fact that the federal government is saying they're no going to appoint these people. -- to deport these people. >> governor jan brewer of the governor of arizona, jan brew, wrapping up here after about 10 minutes of remarks. by the way, you can see it in its entirety if you go to our web site, c-span.org. illinois congressman luis gutierrez says scotis is at its best w it demands that all americans are treated equally. arizona congressman jeff flake one thing is clear comin comingf scotis sb-10 ruling, obama administration should focus on border security instead of suing arizona. the court kept the door open to discrimination. we urgently need immigration r

reform. mitt romney has these remarks. by the way, you can go on line to c-span's facebook page. go to facebook.com/c-span and by the way, thursday, the court is expected to announce the ruling on the 2010 health care law. we'll be live in front of the court for immediate reaction. we'll also get your thoughts on whatever the court decides via your phone calls. it will be shortly after 10:00 a.m. thursday after "washington journal" here on

c-span. dr. eric goals by, the u.s. global aids coordinator says the president's emergency plan for aids relief is helping move the world towards an aids-free generation started under under the presidency of george w. bush in 2003. pet condition far is a government initiative aimed at saving the lives of people with h.i.v.-aids. us investments true the years he says have allowed for basic health care in areas where it wasn't available before. >> thank you everyone for joining us. i am a fellow with our development assistance and government initiative here. brookings is very pleased and honored to welcome blast tore eric goolsby for our cushion. key lessons from a decade of action. in the interest of time, i will

forego the truly detailed dr. goolsby's impressive resume, but despite the emphasis on the lessons from the past decade, ambassador goolsby's experience in the fight against aids makes him a pioneer in the matters since his involvement dates back to more than 30 years when he had not yet completed his residency, but was already backing a special -- becoming a specialist in the yet unidentified disease that would identify his career. he led domestic efforts to respond to the disease, including the act that unlocked federal support in response to aids. and then a decade ago, he turned his focus to the global pandem pandemic, establishing the global aids foundation to build better capacity for response in resource-poor environments. now he has brought all those experiences to bear in his role as u.s. global aids coordinator at the state department.

his office has the authority and the responsibility for coordinating, overseeing and managing all aspects of the president's emergency plan for aids relief, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of global health assistance funding from the u.s. and that in turn constitutes more than a quarter of u.s. assistance resources globally. just to put it in to context. he also receives u.s. government engagement with the multilateral global fund to fight aids tuberculosis and malaria. his visit to brookings today is particularly well timed, in the leadup to the large international aids conference that will take place here in washington, d.c. in a month's time. and after the ambassador's remarks, i'm sure we'll have time for what will be some very -- a very interesting set of questions from all of you. so let's get to it and please join me in welcoming ambassador eric goals.

goolsby. >> plus. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the kind introduction. it's really an honor to be with you today. i think that the brookings institute has really gone which out of its way to make me feel welcome, but also to kind of scramble this, to make it a meaningful and rich contribution for both people in the audience and those on video. the aids 2012 conference is now just one month away, as we heard. thanks to the obama administration for the first time in more than 20 years, this meeting is taking place in the united states. as americans, this should make us proud. what should also inspire pride is that the conference comes to the nation's capitol at a pivotal moment in our fight against aids. seven months ago, many of you in this room heard secretary clinton declare the historical of creating an aids-free generation. less than a month later, the

president stated that we can and not only can win this fight, but that will win this fight. these words from the president and the secretary were based on a series of scientific discoveries, primarily funded by the united states, which has become game-changers over the course of the past year. and because of the science, the world will come together at aids 2012 to say that we're turning the tide. that's the theme of the conference. a tide that once overwhelmed the world is now a tide that is uniting the world. hope is truly taking the place of despair. but we're not going to be wholly successful in our fight against aids. or improving global health overall if we don't take on three specific areas of improvement. first, let me offer a bit of history. i have been involved in this fight against aids for a very long time. nancy reagan the 1980's, in

1981, i was working as a clinician in san francisco, and experienced the grief and loss that came with seeing so many people succumb to the disease because we had nothing to stop the progression of the disease in them. that all changes in the mid 1990's, when anti-viral treatment literally brought people back from the brink of death with highly active antretro viral activity, in the form of inhibitors. in the united states, having access to this treatment has transformed h.i.v.-aids in to a long-term chronic condition, cared for largely if an outpatient setting. it has saved many, many lives. but this access to treatment was not universal. oh, about 10, 13 plus years ago, i turned my attention to the global pandemic, and i will never forget what those early years showed us. aids was wiping out a generation

and reversing health gains in africa. hospitals were completely overwhelmed by the massive volume of dying patients. people. these were routinely multiple people in a bed, people on the floor. they weren't getting the anti-retrival treatment. aids threatened the industry foundations of society. it wiped out people in the prime of their lives when they should have been caring for their families. it created millions of orphans, unable to attend school without the support provided by their parents and the disease stalled economic development. leaving countries stuck in the cycle of poverty. that in turn created societial instability, leading the u.n. security council to identify aids as a security issue, in 2001. it's because of this emergency that resources were mobilized to

address aids. we weren't looking around for a global health issue to spend money on. in truth this, crisis found us. today, aids is no longer a certain death sentence in subsahara and africa. a decade ago, almost no one in africa was receiving treatment. now, 6.6 million men, women and children are on antiretroviral therapy in developing countries, with the vast majority being in subsahara and africa. through petfar as of last year, the united states supports nearly four million people on treatment. that's up from 1.7 million in 2008, showing continued rapid expansion, even during these tight budget times. in 2011, petfar's program provided drugs to 660,000 h.i.v.

positive pregnant women. thanks to this effort, an estimated 202,000 infants were born h.i.v. negatively. we also supported h.i.v. testing and counseling for more than 40 million people, again, in 2011 alone. truly an incredible achievement. these results aren't just numbers. they are lives saved, each of them. each individual is part of a larger family, and community, that has been and has and will continue to be our best test of success. for petfar, it's all about results. by adopting a targeted approach to address one. most complex diseases, and global health issues in modern history, and then taking it to scale, with urgency and commitment, in recourse-cleansed settings, the united states has challenged the conventional wisdom on really what is

possible. our response to the global aids crisis has already transformed the health sector. we are seeing more and more after the initial investment in infrastructure. while focusing on h.i.v., petfar's investments have strengthened national health systems, so they can more effectively deliver essential services for all the needs of their people. including the nonh.i.v. needs of h.i.v.-positive people. clinics and hospitals that no longer were overwhelmed with dealing with aids, now have the capacity to address other health issues that our people face. beyond that, we have rebuilt hospitals and clinics, increased quality and numbers of trained health care workers, put in patient information systems, put in quality-controlled laboratories and strengthened

our commodity procurement and distribution systems. our focused investments have enabled access to basic health care, often where little or none existed before. in countries with substantial petfar developments, we've seen reductions in maternal, child, t.b.-related mortalities, increased use of anti-natal care, wider availability of safe blood, just to mention a few. all of this helps explain why petfar remains a true example of bipartisanship. people sometimes say that aids exceptionalism has distracted us from other problems. but that's simply not true. our response to the h.i.v.-aids crisis has increased the size of the pie for global health and bolstered systems that can now respond to a variety of health issues that confront the population. in reality, petfar has proved that we can take a situation

with little hope and turn it around. it challenges all of us to raise the bar for what our global programs are expected to achieve, because they must. and this brings me to the first issue that i want and need to bring to stop -- to bring to you to consider. and that is to stop treating petfar as one off-health program. and start looking at it as at foundation of what we can do with our global health challenge. we need to stop claiming that aids is taking away attention from other diseases, and look at were we can be when we build upon our substantial aids investment, and response. we need a global health vision, that is additive to our global aids response, and allows us to capitalize on the investments already made. when you think about this, if

petfar has built a clinic, trained a doctor, a nurse, a lab tech, put a laboratory in place that wasn't there, that is reliable, and can give the provider of care diagnostic information to make diagnoses, change diagnoses, or monitor care, to add a maternal health capacity, or a child health clinic, immunization capability, nutrition, etc., over time, we should be able to add the treatments for the chronic diseases that are also increasing again in our h.i.v.-positive population, as well as our h.i.v.-negative population, such as hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease. this doesn't mean, and i emphasize this, that we stop our work on aids. what it means is that we need to make sure that health systems are not only prepared to deal with h.i.v., but with the other health challenges faced in the

same person and communities affected by aids. we are at a point where we can turn to expand the service portfolio at the already established aids sites. our path to creating an aids-free generation requires us all to work smarter, and better together. which brings me to the s.e.c. thing i need to put before you to really successfully achieve an aids-free generation. and that is country ownership. this is the starting point for everything we do. this challenge was stated clearly in oslo earlier this month by secretary clinton, and i'm pleased to announce today that we are going to hear more from the secretary on her dedication to creating an aids-free generation at the aids 2012 meeting. in oslo, the secretary said, and i quote, country ownership in health is the end state, where a nation's efforts are led,

implemented and eventually paid for by its government. communities, civil society, and the private sector. to get there, country's political leaders must set priorities and develop national plans and accomplish them in concert with their citizens, which means including women, as well as men in the planning process. and these plans must be effectively carried out primarily by the country's own institutions. unfortunately, country ownership is sometimes misunderstood, to signal a complete absence of external support for a country's response. let me be very clear, that this is not what we mean. what we do mean is that the overall letter role amongst to the country, not to -- belongs to the country, not to external partners the the united states cannot be the ministry of health for the countries in which we work. in terms of health, this leadership means planning and overseeing its national health sector.

and it means that we need to address head on the difficult barriers to country ownership. donors failing to coordinator allow coordination, and making unreasonable demands on partners. governments that are devoting too little money to health, and not investing in their people. not being held accountable and i under line this one, not being held accountable for their results. there's no time to play the blame game for these obstacles. there's no yield on that. we've all been part of them. it's time for us to pivot, and explicitly insert lines of accountability so our management and oversight can grow and learn from lessons that allow us to improve and change the output of these programs to match the changing needs of the populations we serve. as external partners, we must acknowledge that we have a long history of playing the

leadership roles, often creating an unhealthy relationship of dependence. over time, this diminishes the capacity of the country to ensure that services persist, and most importantly, remainly at high quality. so we need to commit ourselves to support a health system, organized around the needs of the country's populations, rather than around our needs as donors. we must choose to step back and support country leadership, rather than reserving that role for ourselves. we have a responsibility to build capacity, through technical support. as countries assume more and more managerial and financial oversight, and responsibility. as for governments, they have a responsibility to their citizens to orchestrate this continuum of services. they must identify their country's your honor met needs, prioritize the needs, make the

allocation decisions against those unmet needs, using diverse funding lines, such as the global fund, petfar, other bilateral programs, so they are additive and complementary. governments must include the people in the decision-making process, who use the services. including civil society representation, civil society organizations, the faith community, and, of course, the people living with h.i.v. let me address the issue of financing by countries. it is only one dimension of country ownership, but it is an important one in this era of constrained global resources. at the summit in 2001, african nations agreed that they would denote at least 15% of their national budgets to health. to date, few have. as secretary clinton has, this needs to change. but we're also seeing progress as countries begin to step up

and take over services from external partners. in south africa, the government has more than doubled its commitment to h.i.v. over the last two years, to over $1.3 billion per year. a special two-year commitment by petfar to provide antiretroviral drugs in south africa with aggressively negotiated generic drug pricing as part of the agreement, help the government launch its own increased purchases, with new low prices, allowing a shift from a trigger to initiate antiretroviral therapy at 200 cd4 cells to 350. other countries have also increased their developments and are making this a point of emphasis in our diplomatic discussions. in addition to financing, countries must address the political and cultural barriers of an effective response. in the h.i.v.-aids dimension,

this often involves marginalized populations that are often at most risk for h.i.v., including men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs and people who have known sexual violence. the need for public health responses to incorporate human rights, remains critical. petfar's job is to bring science to the table and pursue dialogue toward responses that are both country owned, science based, and human rights sensitive. another barrier to progress at the country level is failure to fully include women and girls. given its disproportionate impact on women, and girls, h.i.v. is not only a health issue, it remains and has been a women's issue. petfar and all h.i.v. programs must be part of the broader effort to support countries in

meeting the needs, the health needs of women and girls, including those living with h.i.v. as external partners, we are in a position to engage countries in dialogue around and strongly support country-owned plans that will improve the overall health of women and girls. there is no doubt that the move toward country ownership in petfar is a work in progress, but it is well underway. during petfar's reorganization in 2008, congress provided us with the authority to establish partnership frame works, designed as joints, strategic road maps on aids, agreed to and signed by the united states, in partner governments, promoting mutual accountability and sustainability over a five-year time period. petfar has signed 22 partnership frame works since 2009 launching really a new era of collaborative planning, with our partner governments.

i leave tonight to sign the partnership framework if haiti. most importantly, the discussions are creating a new level of trust and transparency, among those involved as partners reveal vulnerabilities, and limitations in a shared effort to prevent gaps in services. i believe we need to reach that same point of partnership in all of our health global work. for example, african countries face health workforce issues. handicapping all their health efforts. through the medical and nursing education partnership initiatives, petfar is supporting countries and developing sustainable local capacity to produce skilled doctors, nurses and mid wives for generations to come. of particular note, we make grants directly to the african educational institution, the medical school or the nursing school, they are the principal investigator in these grants,

they are the senior partners in these relationships, identifying a u.s. counterpart in the process. in sum, as partners, we must challenge ourselves to apply our human and financial resources in ways that strengthen national leadership, to expand the country's capacity to make the programs more sustainable, where the sole purpose of saving more lives. but country ownership alone will not solve the aids crisis, let alone our broader global health challenges. we must also challenge the world to accept that global health remains a shared responsibility. it is not the purview of governments alone, but also the private sector, civil society, faith-based organization, and communities who together contribute financially and otherwise to the fabric that is needed to establish a responsive and sustainable health care

delivery system. a crucial part of this shared response is the multilateral mechanisms. and this is the third thing that we need to achieve in aids-free generation. that is a robust, multilateral response, particularly targeted toward the needs at the country level. the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria, really is an indispensable tool and remains a single conduit through which other countries that will never have a bilateral program can funnel resources to those countries in need. it provides that large-scale mechanism for combating these diseases, particularly for those donor countries without the bilateral programs. by law, the united states cannot provide more than 33% of fund contributions, so the money we provide leverages resource interests other donors, multiplying impact beyond what

our dollars can do alone. in recent months, since the united states demonstrated its increased commitment to the fund, both new and old donors, including saudi arabia, japan, germany and the gates foundation have stepped up their contributions. we know that other donors are also look to go do the same. part of our shared responsibility is to ensure that all resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible. with our support and encouragement, the global fund has taken a number of actions in recent months to recommit itself to this goal. the fund's new again manager has dramatically reoriented the fund to assume a role as an active investor. i am very optimistic about the impact of the fund, moving forward and that heightened impact in turn will strengthen its ability to generate additional new resources. to support country-owned programs, petfar and the global

fund are increasingly engaging in joint planning, and now, co-finance many components of country responses. for example, the global fund presources covering the expense incurred by buying antiretroviral drugs, while petfar focuses on targeted technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation systems, patient information systems, voluntary counseling and testing, etc. weaving a series of resources together that at the individual site, create a responsive medical delivery capability. the reality is that we need both the petfar and the global fund resources to be successful, but they need to be convened by the country. all country global fund, petfar, bilateral, foundations, etc., resources all are central to any vision of a sustainable future, for global health, panned it is

through that responsible orchestration bill the partner country that this will be realized. another important multilateral dimension is that of the technical agencies of the united nations family, including u.n.-aids and the howar -- and e w.h.o. these organizations have done a tremendous job in marshaling global support for health issues. but now, we need to figure out how to best maximize their i am fact at the country level, and this is a dialogue i look forward to having with my colleagues globally. multilateral activities in country must be assessed through the same lens of accountability as those of petfar or our partner country governments, asking whether they are making a contribution that is truly additive. if not, it's incumbent on the country government to address that, and on all of us to support them in doing so. when you look at the three

issues we've addressed today, recognizing petfar as the foundation for other global health successes, promoting country ownership, and fostering a shared responsibility, the thread that unites them together is that we are truly putting countries in a stronger position to ensure we can reach the goal we are all committed to. achieving an aids-free generation, and creating a stronger and more secure world. so as we draw closer to aids 2012, the meeting, let me end where i begin. and that's with a message of hope. we know what most of us know and have learned over the years. we know what must be done to end this epidemic. and i have great hope that we can do it and get it done. hope that we see in the science that died our effort, hoppe that we see as the world units to turn the tide against this

devastating disease, hope that has taken the place of despair, hope that keeps everyone in this room pushing forward, getting up, and doing it again. it's an honor to be part of this effort, it's an honor to be with you all, as we move forward, as we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and i want to thank you for this opportunity to address you this morning. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, ambassador goosby, for those remarks. from a development effectiveness perspective, it is wonderful to hear from a lead of an assistance program about an approach that is results oriented, that is evidence-based and with an increasing emphasis on country ownership, so thank you very much for that. you spoke about strengthening broader health systems and also about others stepping up to

advance multilateral support and i'm sure we'll get questions on those topics and some i suspect on different ways of pursuing and prioritizing prevention and treatment, but before i turn it over to the audience for questions, i'd like to ask a question of my own. about the transitions to greater country ownership. which are clearly essential. this administration has had a heightened focus on sustainability and some of the program components that you mentioned, that focus on building capacity, some them have been in place for quite some time. others are newer, widely recognized innovations that are just coming on line, like these partnership frame works. do you envision significant shifts within petfar's overall budget? i mean, if i'm sitting in congress and looking at the overall program and the bic picture, do you envision significant shifts that clearly demonstrate an even greater focus on building capacity, and if so, what are those shifts look like, and what are the

tradeoffs. you've talked about the tradeoffs of not building capacity in country. but if there's a big shift now, within the program, to build greater capacity, are there tradeoffs in the other direction, and especially in light of the possibly flat or even decreasing budget? >> sure. well, i think that if we aren't serious about shifting our emphasis to country ownership, we will not achieve the sustainability that you refer to. we need to take the leap to partner with our partner countries, in a dialogue that allows them to gain and trust, so they reveal their vulnerabilities to us and their ability to manage, oversee, monitor and evaluate these programs. once we can develop a technical assistance kind of strategy or curriculum for each country, for

each ministry, provincial levels as well as federal, we will then be in a better position over time to expand their capacity, to truly manage and oversee these programs. the management and oversight is critically dependent on a monitoring and evaluation system that gives in as close to realtime feedback to policy decision makers, allocation decision makers, where and what they're doing, what they're not doing, what they need to continue to do, and what adjustments are needed in the program to achieve that. i believe that although this is a slower trajectory to get a capability in place, it is the only means through which a sustainable service portfolio can be realized in these countries. it's a long haul, it's a long-term commitment, but the united states remains committed to that sustained portfolio of services, and not just a transient, expansion of services

with a retraction on the ending of the program. in terms of the shifts that we expect, the vision here is to take an existing platform that is strong, with trained doctors, nurses, laboratories, as well as patient information systems, procurement distribution systems, all of which could be used for any service needed, be it h.i.v.-aids, t.b., malaria, maternal and child health services, children's services, nutrition, etc. those types of expansions need to be added on to, that platform, to allow the services to increase, that are available not just to the h.i.v.-positive person already using the site, but also for those who are h.i.v. negative, who now can start using the site. i don't envision shifting resources from aids to

hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease, except insofar as as they need a lab to support diagnosis and treatment of those other diseases. they need doctors, they need nurses, they need a procurement distribution system, all of those need to be taken advantage of, and used for the same purpose. other resources need to come on and be additive to that already existing platform and we need to be open to using our aids-specific resources to expand them and stretch them as far as we can, to support that expansion. >> well, thank you. i'll now turn it to the audience, because i know people have been waiting patiently with questions. if you have a question, please raise your hand. wait for the microphone and identify yourself and please make sure it is an actual question. i'll start here in the third row up front with you, sir. please wait for the microphone. >> well, thank you.

this is chris collins with amfarm. thank you for your tremendous leadership and it's truly incredible what this program has accomplished. you know, in november of last year, secretary clinton gave a wonderful speech, and in that speech, said it wassal policy priority to achieve an aids-free organization and called out three interventions that were core to accomplishing that, and she did acknowledge, of course, that you can't deliver those in isolation, but called out three core interventions. i'd like to get an update or where we are with going to scale with those interventions that the secretary called out, the treatment, voluntary male circumcision, for example, where are we in terms of the country operational plan of review and bringing to scale those three core pieces as we know, the allocations to treatment had been falling overall in petfar, i'm wondering if that's changing? thank you. >> thank you, kills.

those are all good questions. we have reviewed our country operating plans for 2012. and have tallied up kind everywhere we are in our pursuit of kind of world aids day targets. those include the treatment targets, as well as the male circumcision, the expansion of pmpct services as w. -- as well. we believe that we, in light of the cop review, are on track to achieve all of those. we, since 2009, have continued to expand all of our portfolio areas of care, prevention, and treatment, significantly. really during this kind of resource constrained budget period. and we are quite confident that we will achieve the goals that were articulated by president obama and secretary clinton. in terms of the male

circumcision scale, it is a slower process, we've learned this by direct experience, having the political buy-in is difficult to get, and critical to have before you can move to implementing the program. trying to put the other first doesn't work. we have kind of pulled back in that expectation, putting the cart before the horse, and are now shoring up the political buy-in and the targeted community awareness that needs to come with that for both the male as well as the partner and have given and gotten a lot better at doing that. it is going to be of the three, the most challenging, to achieve, but we are positioned to achieve it, and are budgeted to achieve that as well. in terms of the pmpct, we have been in a strengthening exercise, really since 2009.

we over the last year have partnered with u.n.-aids, unicef, w.h.o., other both private and public sector partners, to bring the resources together, to aggressively move to scale our pmpct effort. we have targeted out of the 390,000 children who were born h.i.v. positive annually on the planet, we have looked at where countries -- what countries are contributing to that. they boil down to about 30 countries, 22 of whom are in subsahara and africa. we have developed specific plans to look at what their current effort; and look at the holes in dropoff from test to go staging, to initiate of antiretroviral therapy for pregnant women. we have also looked at when and where they're identified and on antiretroviral therapy for the women and the baby, that they

have a seamless line into followup care for the continued antiretroviral therapy. we've also funneled the h.i.v. positive into that treatment line, but this not forgotten the h.i.v. negative at high risk and the h.i.v. negative prevention kind of messaging that should go along with that, and tried to address that as well. i am confident that with our current plan and our current portfolio in each of the countries, that we will move aggressively towards the aids-free generation, achieve the goals that were articulated last year by the president and secretary and i believe we have engaged in the other dialogues needed to make sure that this effort can be sustained. multilateral dialogue as well as dialogues with our other colleagues in bilateral relationships. >> >> towards the back on the aisle, please.

>> thank you. thank you, that was a very positive, wonderful presentation. in light of your emphasize upon -- emphasis upon health systems, the importance of health systems, your stress on partnership and your emphasis on multilateral programs and relationships with multilateral institutions, i found it interesting that there was not a single reference to the world bank, and i wonder if you'd care to comment on that, particularly given the shall resources and the other kinds of emphases that you've talked about. thank you. >> i would absolutely include the world bank in that multilateral community. i think that all of our multilateral efforts need to understand their current contribution to the aids effort and to global health in general.

they need to explicitly understand what their resources are doing, in each country that they're in, over a given time, with a specific eye to does this intervention have a high probability of sustaining, or is this going to be a transient contribution, or can we change it. i think more attention to that needs to be part of the thinking on day one for any of the multinational, multilateral programs that are existing. i think the world bank has a special role and there's great hope with jim kim coming into the position, that the world bank will look at its portfolio of services, its loan programs, the resources that move from north to south, and better understand how to maximize the ability to truly have a demonstrable impact on capacity

expansion for the countries. examples of world bank creating an ability to work with countries such as angola, nigeria, that have a significant mineral reservoir of resources, that those kind of extractive industries be tied to the treasury of these countries, so they are immediately before that resource is up for grabs, investing in health and education for their people. when you put money in the treasury of a country, it quickly becomes subject to a lot of competing needs. and figuring out how the point seven countries, norway in particular, positioned itself to make sure that those resources were tapped, botswana, another example, that those types of strategies be part of what our

world bank colleagues bring in to the portfolio of services and resources. >> let me take two questions and i'll lump them together, so in the back, i'll go to the back role, just back there. >> i'm carol fareson with the voice of america. ambassador goosby, could you talk a little bit more about this partnership agreement with haiti, and what it looks like, what you're going to be doing tonight? >> and then let's take -- let's combined it with one question up front and then ambassador, if you could answer the two together. >> hi. my name is mandy and i'm with results educational fund but i also volunteer with the local washington, d.c. organization, hip. with the upcoming aids conference, it seems there will be one contingent of workers

missing and that sex workers, and the petfar anti-prostitution plan seems to have made it difficult for sex workers to made it difficult to engage in the discussion of ending h.i.v.-aids and given that petfar has been evidence-based and human rights focused, i'm wondering if petfar is looking at reviewing and possibly reversing these policies so that sex workers can better engage if the fight against h.i.v. >> well, the -- let me take the haiti question first. this is the result of really work that began in october of 2009, to work with the haitian government to define what their specific continuum of services for h.i.v.-positive, h.i.v.-t.b.-positive people are in haiti. what services the government

wants to make available to each of these individuals over time, so the continuum of services, that they're supporting. those services basically, what we agreed to in the partnership framework that's being signed, is a setting up, a referral capability from primary care clinic systems, there are about 137 petfar states that are already up and -- sites that are already up and running in haiti, those have arv capability, those sites matched with primary care sites, will raise the primary care services in that same region, referring to secondary and tertiary facilities, there's only one tertiary facility in haiti, it dropped, fell down with the earthquake, the united states is it rebuilding that tertiary hospital in port-au-prince, and it's rebuilding three secondary

hospitals that are out in the -- out in the states in the -- you know, that are secondary hospitals that refer from the primary care sites. so a referral system is really what's being put up, it will have an ability to also put maternal and child health referral in place, immunizations in place, and a small list of essential services, that basically allow for screening for hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, coronary artery disease. and that all is at the kind of mid point in being implemented. it's already started, it's about a year in to being implemented, but over the next year and a half, will run to completion. the building of the tertiary hospital in port-au-prince, the huey hospitals, will take about a year and a half to complete. in terms of sex workers, the ban

that was put in place really focused on individuals who had to report a disease, such as h.i.v., that was taken off of the list, as something that would block entry for a visa. any other activity really wasn't to the referral of the waiver, but the customs and immigration services have a lot of, you know, laws that are still in place that indeed focus on the sex workers and their ability and that is a past history of felonies. so i hear what you're saying. we've been if continuous dialogue with them. we won't be able to change the law, but sensitivity around that issue in blocking an individual who indeed wants and has something to say and do at the

conference is actually in dialogue for kind of exceptions to be made, but it has been a difficult thing to overcome. i appreciate your question. >> i'll jump in with a question of my own, which is a bit of a different angle. but it relates to your point about the broader global health investments, and the additive ways to build on to the petfar program. within the diplomacy and development review, there was a commitment to look toward the target of the end of fiscal year 2012, so september of this year, for a transition of the leadership of the president's global healthy initiative to us-aid, in an effort to build usaid to be the lead initiative for developments across.

that seems to not be going through and the idea was that that target would be reached if certain bench marks were met. what bench marks have not been met in this process and is part of the hesitation that if the global healthy initiative is led from the usaid, by petfar is still kept separate from usaid, that the majority of global health developments will be outside of the -- this sort of agency that's leading the effort, could you explain a bit of the thinking behind this? >> well, i think that the global healthy initiative really did show us the advantages that are realized by coordinating and working together, integrating our planning, decision-making around what services we're putting in place across vertical programming. h.i.v.-aids, t.b., maternal child family health, nutritional training, all of those service portfolios, which are in most of the countries that petfar is in

as well, does give an opportunity, when we integrate our planning to actually implement it differently, so all those services rise in their ability to be available. our need to coordinate at the country level is evident, and we have been also impressed with that coordinating effort for us g programs that the need to coordinate at the global level across multilaterals, other bilaterals with country programming is the essential kind of means through which we will achieve a greater capability of services, more services kind of for the staple amount of resource. that ability to integrate is a global dialogue and we need to

elevate our health diplomacy, truly to a diplomatic dialogue and put that expectation on our ambassadors in country, to support them in that effort. the decisions on the bench marks and how this will evolve is in its final stages of deliberation. it's now with the secretary to make that final determination, so we'll have to be patient with how that all evolves, but it will be soon. >> great. we have time for one last question and then we will -- right up here in the front row, and if you could in your answer, mention any concluding remarks that you have as well. >> thanks very much for your very positive and hopeful speech. i share a hopefulness in that speech. if you look at the international numbers on the development aid for help, what happened in the past 10, 15 years, is actually unprecedented. if you look at the institute for health metrics and evaluation

reports, 2011, you see that external support, financial support for health has increased to 27 billion annually for 2011. which is a -- many times more than 50 years ago, so it's a truly amazing story. if you read a little bit further in the report, it's actually showing disturbing news, that for every eight donor that answers a country for help, the country itself reduces its own expenditures by $56. that's a big number. the numbers in line with previous studies of the staple kind of phenomenon. you must be fully aware of this. what's your view of this, and what do you think in the next few years can be done to really reduce, if not eliminate this type of substitution. >> well, thank you for that question. it has been an understandable

response by many countries to have resources coming in through global fund or petfar, and to our colleagues in country who are looking at many unmet needs, they turn their resources toward something else. we have seen this as counterproductive, and really precludes our ability to be additive. they need to not only sustain their resources to partner countries, but also over time, as they are able, increase their resources, so they truly are investing in their population. i found in partnership framework kind of dialogue, the most convincing discussions i've had have been when i remind our partner country's leadership, that i'm in a discussion with our appropriators every time we try to move presources to your country, that help -- it diminishes my ability to ask my

appropriators for more money if you aren't willing to invest in your own population and they are very aware of that investment or noninvestment, so i have found being honest with them about what my challenges are, in trying to agree and sustain more funding, that that is the best way to make it happen. so i want to thank you for the opportunity to have this dialogue with you, and look forward to all of you contributing in your own ways to move this agenda forward. i do think that the president and the secretary clinton feel strongly that we are at this moment in time, where if we can converge our resources in a start way, to converge them at the country level, to have an agenda on day one of capacity expansion, so countries can truly manage and oversee these programs, that the resources, which we know for many countries over time will evolve and become

more realistic, that that will increase our ability to really put a basement of health care services on the planet for those populations most in need, so i want to thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you today. >> ambassador goosby, thank you very much for your leadership. [applause]

>> the supreme court reached a decisions on several key issues today, including campaign financing, jail sentencing for

juveniles, and mixed decision on immigration. president obama is out on the campaign trail, in determine, new hampshire, and boston today, and he offered a statement on the court's deal significance on immigration. in part, the president said i'm pleased that the supreme court has struck donkey provisions of arizona's immigration law. at the same time i remain concerned about the practical implications of the remaining provision of the arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration -- because of what they looked like. going forward, we must ensure that arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of americans. also, attorney generic holder commented that as the court itself recognized, section 2 is not a license to engage in racial fro filing, and i want to ensure communities around this country that the department of justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal

prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. on line at c-span's facebook page. go to cspan.org and offer your thoughts. we will be live in front of the court for immediate rearcs and get your thoughts on whatever the court decides via your phone calls and it will be shortly after 10:00 a.m. thursday after "washington journal" here on c-span, we'll have it live on c-span3.

>> >> on capitol hill, a pretty busy day and agenda, the house gaveled in today at noon for a pro forma session. they'll be back tomorrow for a legislative business on their schedule for the week, 2013 spending bills for the agriculture, transportation and housing departments. the full body plans to vote on a contempt of congress resolution against attorney generic holder for failing to provide documents related to operation fast and furious. in the senate, lawmakers gaveled in at 2:00 p.m. today to take up consideration of a couple of bills. a flood insurance measure and another dealing with the f.d.a.'s collection of fees from drug makers and manufacturers of medical devices. also, both chambers face a july 1 deadline preventing as you know loan interest rates from doubling, and to reauthorize the highway and surface transportation bill. being, watch the house live on c-span when they gavel back in tomorrow and live coverage of the senate is on our companion

network, c-span 2. >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? you can believe what you want about our existing energy sources, but why couldn't you also believe that there's an opportunity for clean energy? >> i think we need to create demand to offset the advantages that fossil fuels have had and i think it's clearly happening on a state by state basis. it would be much more effective if it was a federal political buy-in. >> i. >> roughly three times of our energy is consumed in mobility, as it is in heating our homes and offices and natural gas, north america is the only continent where we don't have widespread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can used compressed natural gas. there's a ton of people out there that believe that compressed natural vehicle cars or trucks are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy

sources, including wind and biofuels, were all part of a next generation energy forum, hosted by the atlantic magazine. watch their considerations on line at the c-span video library. >> the first governor was brown, and here we have a photograph of governor brown and his wife and children. what's interesting about brown is the fact that his kidnapped garr, margaret brown, wrote the book "good night moon, which is a favorite of many of the school children not only here in missouri but all over the united states. >> july 7 and july 8, book tv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of missouri state capitol, jefferson city, with c-span's local content vehicles and american history tv inside the governor's mansion. >> there was a governor stewart, that the story says he rode his

horse up the front steps of the mansion, into the dining room, and proceeded to feed his horse oats out of this plate warmer as part of the side board. now, the comment was, that he probably should not be feeding his horse in the governor's mansion and his comment to them was, i have had to feed more people in this home with probably less manners than my horse has. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri, july 7 and jul july 8, on c-span 2 and 3. >> conservative women leaders took praise a former on monday, including babe buchanan and christina summers and talked about president obama's health care law and the way it's changing women's views. this was hosted by the clara booth policy institute in washington.

>> good afternoon, i am the lecturer director at the claire booth policy institute. i want to welcome you all here this afternoon, today, to hear from our great panelists about the real war against women. as the nation's premiere organization for conservative women duluth policy institute seeks to promote leading conservative women and prepare women form leadership. we do this through a series of unique programs and events like this one and helps students bring conservative ideas to their campuses. our campus lecture program includes great conservative women like bay buchanan, michelle malkin, and some others whom you will be hearing from this afternoon. if any of you are learning to case to combat this at your college or university, please

call us as 888-891-4288 or visit our web site at cblbti.org. our first panelist, christina summers, is a resident scholar they american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. she was a professor of philosophy. summers is the editor of vice and virtue in everyday life. a leading college ethics textbook and is also the author of who stole feminism and the war against boys. her latest book, co-authored with aei colleague sally fatel is call one nation under therapy. summers has appeared on numerous television programs, including 60 minutes and the oprah winfrey show. she has also made appearances on the daily show on comedy show.

she has lectured and taken part if debates on more than 100 college campuses and we are very glad she is here to join us together. our second panelist is karen harden, executive director of the national federation of independent business, small business legal center. along with 26 states, the nfib joined the lawsuit at the supreme court against the health care legislation. karen has argued passionately on behalf of small business owners and their right to own and operate business. as an associate at olson, frank and weida, she specialized in food and drug law, and represented several small businesses and their trade associations before congress and federal agencies. she also worked as an assistant press secretary for senator don nichols from oklahoma. she received her b.a. from the university of oklahoma, in 1989, and her j.d. from the george washington law school in 1995.

our next speaker, lala moony is and outspending activist against the oppression of the cube ban government. lala and her family were put into prison in 1961, immediately following the bay of pigs invasion. the family was able to escape after two months, made their way to the united states and eventually settled in the d.c. area. she now travels to cuba, on a yearly basis to visit her relatives and friends and takes clothing and medicine to the local churches there. she has appeared on bbc and uni vision, and has also been covered in publications like the frederick news post and other hispanic publications. she has four children, one of whom, alex moony, is the chairman of the maryland republican party. she's now retired and divides her time between her 13 grandchildren and her dedication to cuba.

she earned her b.s. in psychology from catholic university, and a masters in psychology and community counseling from hood college in maryland. our last panelist, who will be joining us shortly, is former u.s. treasurer and author, bay buchanan, whose extensive career and policy analysis, campaigns and her outspoken defense of the right to life makes her one of our most inspirational campus speakers. bay began her political career as the national treasurer for ronald reagan's presidential campaigns in 1980, and 1984. this position catapulted her into a distinguished career when she was appointed the youngest u.s. treasurer in american history in 1981. until recently, bay was a political analyst for inside politics on cnn. she has also appeared on numerous television programs and talk radio shows.

a published author, her most recent book is called bay and her boys, unexpected lessons i learned as a single mom. a native of washington, d.c., buchanan has a masters degree in mathematics from mcgill university in montreal, canada, and has further studies at several universities, including the university of new south wales in australia. in 1981, she received an honorary doctorate of law, from stanford university. she lives in virginia and is the proud mother of three sons. at this time i'll invite our panelists, each to speak, after the last panelist, we will have a q & a session with all of them. if you'll just join me in welcoming them all. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am christina summers from the american enterprise institute, and it's an honor to be here

with the claire booth loose organization, it's one of my favorite organizationers an i urge you to join it and support it in any way you can. for the past few decades, i have studied the influence of the american -- of feminism on american culture, with a special emphasis on academic culture. today, i'm going to argue that that feminism is dysfunctional. that in my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged by the contemporary women's movement. and in the little time that i have with you, and i'm keeping track of it, no more than 15 minutes, i will explain why i think it's doing more harm than good, but first, i just want to say a few words about my background. in the early 1990's, i was a feminist academic in good standing. my courses at clark university were cross-listed with women's studies, my philosophy courses, i was invited to view papers for

feminist journals, invited to feminist conferences. paul of that changed in the mid 1990's, when i wrote a book, who stole feminism and the book was rongly feminist, but i rejected the idea that american women were oppressed. for the most part i said feminism had succeeded. it was a great american success story. by the 1990's, women were among the freest and most labrale in the world. it to longer made sense to speak of women as a an oppressed class and women had be pro recommends but men had problems too and for each sex, there was a mix of sort of burdens and benefits. it wasn't -- it wasn't easy to say that women were doing worse than men. it was a complicated mix. well, in the book, i tried to show that the women's movement, that feminism had been hijacked by gender war eccentrics, and i do mean eccentric. at the time i was writing, some of my colleagues -- one in

particular, one feminist colleague had changed the name of her seminars to augulars. sedidn't like the word -- she didn't like the word seminar, i suppose because the root word of seminar is related to male. i was going to the dictionary and i realized, she made it up, but i also realized she wasn't kidding. she was serious. when who stole feminism was first published, i received some fan mail from feminist colleagues, not very much. for the most part, the feminist establishment was very unhappy with my book, they did not appreciate my plea for moderation and i was quickly subjected to a alread color -- colorful array of insults for my heresies. many feminist leader and academics at the time believed that american women were living under patriarchy.

they did not appreciate my denial of that oppressive fact and i was called a backlasher, anti-women. on one occasion, she referred to christina hoff sommers and margaret thatcher as a female impersonator. what i am is a philosophy professor, former now, working at a think tank, with a respect for logic, clear thinking, rules of evidence and i hope, i have a strong sense of fairness, and i believe that it is my bias towards logic and reason and fairness that put me at odds with the feminist establishment. now, i realize that is a harsh assertion, but i'm going to try to back it up. if you have had a feminist speaker at your school, or just go to one of the websites of one of the leading women's organizes, the national organization for women, the national women's law center, the american association of university women, you are -- it's unlikely that you're going

to see a celebration of equality feminism, a celebration of anything. form the most part, they are very negative, they have ar long litany of factoids about how women are held down and held back in american society. i consider myself an equality feminist, i want for women what i want for everyone, fair treatment, no discrimination. on the other hand, i can accept the facts that the sexes are different, but equal. i don't insist on equality of outcome. i want equality of opportunity. most of the feminists in the -- are in sort of in the mainstream women's organizations, are not equality feminists. they're equity feminists, they are what i call gender feminists. most of them believe that women are in this -- this was developed in the 1980's, the theory of the sex gender system, the idea is that we are every --

every institution in the society bears the impressive pay tree ar can i, churches and schools, even language itself has to be liberated from this oppressive system, and one feminist philosopher described it very sort of vividly, said the section gender system is that system by which -- oh, she said they are all born buy sexual and then transform in to male and female gendered human beings. one destined to command, the other to obey. i read that to my husband and he said, now which one commands and which obeys, but never mind. but that's the section gender system. we're all just born kind of gender neutral humans, human beings and then the system, only conditioning turns some into little boys and some into little girls, they give the boys trucks, dress them in blue and they create gender, which imposed from outside. now, i just reject this view.

i don't argue that gender is entirely -- of course, there are cultural influences, it's probably obviously a complicated mix of biology and environment. but to say that on some campuses to gender feminist sincere to commit an act of, as i said, heresy. now, i hasten to add that -- they include their fair share of academics who offer straightforward courses, in women's psychology, women's history, or women in literature. but ideologically fervent, statistically challenged hardliners, set the tone in most women's studies department. all that i've ever seen, and if there's a department that defies this stereotype, let me know. i would love to visit they will. and by the way, conservative women, moderate women, libertarian women, traditionally religious women, left out. not at the table. it's just an unwritten rule,

only women from the radical left have the right to interpret the lives of women. so we have a whole body of scholarships developed by women from very, very narrow range of views and opinions and so forth. on many campuses, young women are taught that they live in a pay streakal oppressive society where girls are short changed if school, robbed of their self-esteem and channeled into low-paying fields. once in the workplace, they're cheated out of 25% of their salary, they face invisible barriers, and all sorts of forces that hold them down and keep them back, keep them out of the high echelons of power. now, this picture just doesn't fit reality. it's distorted. the false claims that support it -- that support it have been repeated so many times, they've taken on this aura of truth. i was at a -- well, many times i'll be lecturing on a campus

and some young women come who have had one too many courses in women's studies and it's as though they have deeply drunk the kool-aid. they are generally intelligent, sensitive, socially concerned young women, but they have come to take on this grim feminist world view as absolute truth, and most of them seem to be unaware that there could be reason empirically based arguments, contrary to what they've been taught in their classes. i recall speaking at a college and there were -- while i was talking, there were a whole group of young women knitting nervously as i spoke and someone said those are from principalmar, i don't know if they were protesting, they might just like to knit, and i don't mind wicken, my best friend in high school turned out to be a wicken, her name was mimi, but she changed her name to star hawk. she's a leading wicken. i don't want her to cast any spells, negative spells, good

spells. she says she only casts good spells, so that's good. but anyway, in this -- there was a hectic discussion with the wickens and the feminists and so forth, afterwards, and one woman defended her major at brinmar and said it taught me to love my body and as a philosophy professor, i suggested that was a rather weird goal for a college class. it's nice to love your body, i guess, but what was the point of that class. anyway, she was mystified. another young woman was appalled that i had suggested that the free market had afforded -- had helped women, that the free market had actually created the conditions that made feminism and women's emancipation possible. well, this one young lady was horrified, how can you say that capitalism has helped anyone? and i was amused and afterward i thought, maybe they at least enjoyed having a lively debate. i found out that afterwards, they went to the young women who

had invited me and said that she had provided a forum for hate speech. so that's a philosophical debate at haverford. over the years, i have looked tearfully at -- carefully at feminist standard claims, statistics on -- well, just choose any subject you'd like. eating disorders, violence against women, pay equity, education. what i have found is that in most cases, not all, but in most cases, these statistics are wildly kills torted. egregiously horrifically wrong. i don't have the time to go through the long and sorry and twisted detail of feminist misinformation, but anything you read in a feminist textbook, i hate off to say this, but take it with a grain of salt. women -- and here's the thing. just as i think that young women

are harmed, if they take too many of these courses and become bitter, and angry at the world, because they're oppressed, that's ridiculous to take young women and change them in this way. this is not -- this cannot be a legitimate goal of a college course. but there are these gender feminists from the -- many from the 1970's and 1980's who are still bitter around eager to transfer that state of mind to their students. and i think that's wrong. and i also think it's very bad to disseminate so much false information. i'll just give you an example of false information. there's so much. but this one i just saw today. there's a professor, jesse klein, who has written a book about bullying in schools, and she writes it from a sort of hard line feminist perspective and she had a number of statistics, and i recognize almost all of them as standard distortions, but one of them she said dating violence is another step on an escalating continuum of behaviors which boys

demonstrate their power over girls. so i looked at the rates of dating violence she was writing a book about high school. i went to the c.d.c., their 2009 study of youth risk behavior, grades 9-12, and what i found was distressing, but it said 9% of girls and 10% of boys report being hit, slammed, or physically attacked by their boyfriend or girlfriend. so it is a problem, but it's not the problem she described, but by reporting it that way in her book, she -- she gives people -- first of all, it's denigrating to men. some of the statistics i've called hate statistics, because they create a bigotry. i became a feminist in ethical decision 1970's because i did not like misogyny, i still do not, and i don't tolerate them, and i can't stand them. but on the other hand, there are now female traglodites, who are

just as full of prejudice and we need both words, misogyny and misundry, so the misinformation is everywhere, and it's routinely passed along to your honor suspecting young women and it embitters them and it leads to policies. but i do want to take on probably the most durable false statistic in the american policy debate and just to show how poorly served we are by the feminist establishment. they are in love with this statistic, they will never let it go and it is a claim that women are cheated out of -- women are paid 23 cents for every dollar a man it paid for the same job. the 23-cent gender pay gap -- now, what is that figure? it's true, there is -- well, it depends on our you calculate it, but roughly 23 cents. it's simply the difference, if you look at the wages, all men in the united states working

full time and all women and you do the average, it turns out there's a 23-cent gap. and you've got nancy pelosi and vast numbers, the leaders our women's group, just up in arms, they're not going to stand it. they tried to pass the paycheck fairness act, tier going to put an end to it. this will not stand. well, the problem is that whether any half competent economist looks at the pay gap, they immediately see that you have to take -- that men and women are somewhat different. and women have a slightly different relationship with the workforce. for example, women take -- may have different majors in college, they enter different fields, they work different numbers of hours per week. and oh, gosh, ok. just a second here. ok. they work different hours per week, and 2012, oh, this is last

week, in the "new york times," it was about doctors, and this is a quote. it said female doctors are more likely to be pediatricians than cardiologists. they are more likely to work part time. and even working part time, they work -- even those who work full time work 7% fewer hours per week. they are much more likely to take extended leaves. there's a very big difference between women and men -- but will you have the feminist group, women doctors are paid considerably less than male doctors, for the same work. they don't do the controls. i don't see how women are well served by hyper bowl, exaggeration, misinformation, sorry for the pun. i'm just going to end by mentioning a game that i think captures maybe everything that's gone wrong with feminism in the last 20 years, it's called gender bias bingo, and it's actually sort of fun. we may want to play it late early. with the help of a large government grant from the

national science foundation, this activist feminist lawyer, john radical shiite cleric, an her team at hastings school of law, developed a web site called the gender bias learning project and the centerpiece is this bingo game and to win, a female scholar is supposed to submit harrowing tales about how some usually male colleague mistreated her or stereo typed her or misperceived her in some way. some injustice narrative. the site includes animated videos, demonstrating bias, and in one episode, there's these three obnoxious male scientists who are sitting together, conspire become their obviously superior female colleagues and they refer to these females ar harpies, hotties, i can't say all these words, according to professor williams, she says, our site is public, and funky and it's based on science. well, in fact, it's based on 1970's ideology, trumped up by

statistics, and a set of readings, and then she says, this is on the around mated video, she says, it's better to be a [beep] than a door mat, well, who want to be either? and why did professor williams in her like-minded colleagues, how did they manage to run off with feminism? so my message today is to take back feminism, reform it, correct the excesses, insist that moderate and conservative women be given a voice, and then set about writing the next great chapter in the history of women's quest for freedom. this section of the ovular is over. thank you. [applause] >> it's great being with you all here today. it's -- i just think it's

wonderful, yo i do not recall ts when i was on the hill and i'm very sad because i would have enjoyed it, i know. so yes, i run the national federation of independent businesses, small business legal center, and i'm going to talk to you a little bit about our health care challenge today. i'm going to be probably a little light in my discussion on our actual legal arguments. i'm going to save that for question and answer, to the extent you all want to discuss those, since we're waiting the decision, i thought i'd get more in to what's actually going on at the moment. so anyway, the right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. this quote from supreme court justice william o'douglas could have just as easily been written by one of the 7.8 million women small business owners in this country today. according to the u.s. census, in

2007, women owned firms, accounted for 28.7% of all nonfarm businesses in the u.s. women owned firms employed 7.6 million people and generated $1.2 trillion in sales. another $4.6 million or 17% of the nonfarm u.s. businesses were equally owned by men and women. 50/50. these firms employed 8.1 million persons, and again rated $1.3 trillion in sales. like all small business owners, women started their business to have freedom. they wanted the freedom to do the kind of work they enjoyed their way, an on their time schedule. according to a recent nfib survey, the recession was hard on women-owned businesses. about a half, or 49% of those, that are still in business, have lowered their real volume sales -- have l'oreal volume sales today than they did in

2007, before the recession began. but as the country works to get back to better times, it's the small business owner who holds the key. after every recession, small business has led our nation to recovery. as you can imagine, over the past several years, people like you, people like your bosses, have asked small business owners what can the government do to help you create more jobs and their answer has been almost universe a. get out of our way. yet, here we are on the cusp of one of the most historic decisions and the supreme court's history that really deals with this very fundamental principle. of how big we want our government to be, and how much we want our government to control our personal choices, our business choices, how we use our hard-earned dollars. our founders did fight a war to secure these freedoms, and upon securing that independence, they

sought to protect our liberties, by enact being the constitution with the explicit purpose of limiting the powers of government. they believed that limiting federal power, by limiting that, they were preserving our individual rights and ensuring our future prosperity. but in the past century, we have seen that those freedoms that our constitution gave us have been chipped away bit by bit, and quite frankly, at the end of the day, because of that, because we really do view this health care law as, you know, the great crossroads, if you will, for what our federalist system, what power congress is going to have over all of us going forward, will ultimately be, that is truly why, nfib did join the 26 states in its challenge to the health care law two years ago. at the time being it was viewed as frivolous. we just saw the court devote over six hours, it was six and a

half hours of time to argument, and at the end of march, and that was the most that we've heard -- they've heard in oral arguments since the landmark cases of miranda versus arizona, and brown versus board of education. we really think that our challenge is humble one. we win the only law that is impacted is the affordable care act. however, if the government wins, you are going to have a new -- you're going to have a new world, if you will, in america, where there will be essentially no limits to what congress can require all of us to buy or do moving forward. and that really has been something that i've seen, you know, as i talked to report in the leadup to the decision, has just been increasingly validated, disturbing to me, if you will, throughout this two year process, at every court, whether it was the district court, one of the three courts

of appeals, or most famously, the supreme court, i mean, listen to the arguments. the government cannot answer the question where it will end. they cannot answer the question, what can congress not require us to buy, if this health insurance mandate, the individual mandate is upheld, and that i think was what was so fascinating to me watching the arguments firsthand. i say that because you know, again, we were a really -- i don't know, dismissed by so many that just assumed that congress could do this, that the government could require us to buy these things, and to see so early on in that second argument on the individual mandate that government be challenged on this by all of the justices. some truthfully, that are -- were more sympathetic to them, helping to try to bolster them but the best they could come up

with is this whole argument that everybody is going to need health care at some point. the health insurance market is unique, it's different than everything else, so for this basically, we're going to give congress this one chance, but i think you've seen some good writing on this in the last couple of weeks, why we keep on going back to the broccoli example if you will, that congress can require everybody to buy broccoli if they can require you to buy insurance is because of this health insurance market's unique argument in my opinion. look, how we eat, how we -- whether or not we exercise, whether or not we take vitamins, all sorts of things affect our health and if you open the door and say, well in the health insurance market horthe health care market, you know, everybody has done that, so everybody has to buy health insurance, really, you can easily get to the next, you know, piece. you see this in new york right now with them being looking to limit the size of your fountain drinks and that sort of thing.

it is not a reach to see the narrative develop on the next congressional agenda of what they limit we do because of the cost, our behavior will have on the health insurance market, the health care market, medicare, medicaid, you name it, and i think at the end of the day, as much as the small business owners that i represent care about the on coming taxes, and all of the bad mandates that are riddled throughout this law, that is what really gets them the most energized, because for them, like i said before, they want government out of the way. they don't want government meddling into their business and this is the most intrusive they have seen the government be today, and it scares them. because they don't know what's next, and quite frankly, you all are here, you flow, employers are already regulated heavily in that. our top three issues have not changed, in, i don't know,

decades. it's taxes, it's regulations and it's cost of health care and this law really hurts all of those, but on the regulatory component, that really also just gets to the freedom. they've seen those regulation ins effect, so i think with the individual mandate, it's katie, bar the door and on that i would just say, you know, since i'm speaking to women about women, that what my experience has been in the 10 years i've been at nfib, if you're a business owner, you're a business owner. it's not -- your business isn't defined by your agenda at all, and the problems that every business owner faces again, are taxes, regulations, and health care costs, and it doesn't matter whether or not you're a man or woman, because those are all issues that impact your bottom line and your ability to make payroll, and to stay in the bills. and -- so for that reason too, i think this is a timely topic for

y'all, because i do think that there really is no difference for the business owners. we represent men and women alike and they all share these concerns equally. as far as the health care decision itself, again, we do expect obviously that the decision is going to be next week, there were four issues that the court was asked to consider in three separate case, so it may very well be a situation where they release, you know, one opinion, that's read and then the next opinion, that's read, and those would be, you know, the individual mandate, i think was coupled with the anti-injunction act. they probably deal with those -- both of those issues at the same time. the anti-injunction act wag the first day, that's an old tax law that prevents all of us as taxpayers from suing the government over tax penalties that we think are unjust until we've actually paid them and the question of course was, was the penalty attached to the mandate that we buy health insurance a tax or a penalty, as i'm sure

you saw on the coverage, afterwards it was humerous with alito challenged the government, because they said look the anti-injunction act does not bar this lawsuit at this time and alito said today you're saying it's not a tax and tomorrow you're going to be back saying it is. which is it? that was an awkward moment, from my perspective for the government. but that was a threshold question, were we could bring our lawsuit at this time and i'm hopeful that the answer would be yes, it did seem to me that the justices were very skeptical of this whole taxing power argument that the government was offering up. on the individual mandate day, you've seen the coverage as much as me, i've gone back and listened to the arguments, the government did get a sound grilling, if you will, from the justices on where the limits were, and i think at the end of the day, however the -- that opinion goes, i -- that the

limiting principal question, what congress can or can't do going forward, i think is definitely going to be the center of that opinion. obviously, we hope that they say the individual mandate falls and that congress can't require you to buy any product, but even if they allow it to go forward, i would like to think that they're going to articulate some limits to congress's power that are easy for people to understand and go by, going forward. and then finally, the last day, we had the whole question and this will also, i think, shall really interesting, also to see how the courts flip on this, what happens to the rest of the law if the individual mandate falls, so if we are fortunately and the individual mandate does fall, you know, will it be a clean 5-4, 6-3 decision on what comes next and by that i mean where you're just going to have a majority opinion with some concurrence, but as far as on the judgment, yes, it should fall or no it shouldn't or pieces should, you know, you've

got five votes here, four votes here and you've got them for the reasoning, or if you're going to have like a plurality of opinions, you're going to have like three or god help us, four opinions, that cobbled altogether, you get to the five votes and then you have to figure out well, who did they need to get that vote, so we know that this is the opinion that we really care about going forward. by that i mean, there was a case a few years ago, when it was a property rights case, and it was called rapunas versus u.s., it was a plurality opinion and what happened was, with kennedy's vote,er they were able to get the five votes, but he didn't sign on to scalia's reasoning on how to get there, and so it was really kennedy's opinion at the end that controlled. so that will be interesting to see whether it's plurality or just a straight up or down, you know, majority dissent, you know, opinion and then finally, they have the medicaid issue

that they'll be considering around answering on, whether or not congress can basically give it a take it or leave it to the states. can you -- you either do everything we say when it comes to medicaid or you lose all your medicaid funding. but at the end of the day, again, the small business owners i represent very much value their freedoms. this case is very much about freedom for them, and man or woman, we are very hopeful that we will ultimately prevail on this lawsuit, and i'm sure all of us will hopefully know the answer at this time next week. thank you so much. [applause] >> hi. it is an honor to come and speak to you as a guest of the claire booth luce policy institute and i often -- i've been trying to find a microphone that takes

care of my accent. >> there's an app for that, i think. >> technology hasn't advanced that much. so i appreciate your understanding, whatever i mispronounce. i can tell in your faces, because generally when i make a mispronouncement, i see all the faces smile. as you know, as she said, we -- i was in prison in cuba, my whole family was in prison in cuba. and what's not often said is this was when the bay of pigs invasion took place, and what is not often known is it failed. everybody in america knows it failed. but the history books don't tell you that fidel rounded 100,000 prisoners all over the country. they went in buses and they picked up people, they came to my houses, everybody goes to

prison, so that already gives you a flavor of what i'm going to tell you today of the system, which i'm sure you already all heard, where they pick you up and they though you in prison for anything. what really i want to cover today, three issues very important to women. prostitution, abortion, and stew sides. -- suicide. and i'm going to start prostitution with a story, a real-life story. this young man, he was a student, a friend of my son's, went to cuba, and as he was walking down the sea shore where people meet, this woman approached him and said, would you like to have sex with my daughter. and she pointed out to her daughter who was only about 15. the man was horrified, he didn't have that in mind. so he said no, no, no.

so then the woman insisted and then she said, would you like to have sex with my younger daughter, who is only 11. and he pointed out to her, well, my friend says, he just could not believe it, he was horrified, he stayed no. and he walked away. and this is the picture that you find today in cuba. it breaks your heart. but you have a situation, you know, you say prostitution, it's always existed, but prostitution was the mother and the father and the family is into the business. it shows you how hardened the thinking is in cuba, and how they have lack of mortality. to make it even worse, in a public speech, public speech.

fidel castro bragged about cuban prostitutes. and he said, they are the best educated and the healthiest ones in the world. he bragged. and i was talking to a friend of mine who travels to cuba constantly and he says, that's what makes it different too. prostitution generally is done by women who are very poor, that have no other means, but in cuba, the prostitutes are the engineers, the architects, and the medical doctors. why do they do it? why do they have that need to go that way? and then it has gotten even worse, so now it's not only women, now it's prostitution with children. and homosexuality and all kinds of avenues. and the government looks the other way, let's it happen, or

even supports it. to the point that after fidel castro expressed his support, the group of women, the youth group made a declaration, that being a prostitute was being patriotic, was bringing foreign currency to your country. so this is the official stand of the youth group in cuba. the second thing now i tried to bring it to food. why do some of these women do this. what is the situation with food in cuba and how much does hunger have to do with it? ok.

>> in cuba, the problem is lack of knowledge. so after talking to a lot of people, cuba has a ration card. so if they give you a ration card, your assumption is that you're going to have enough food, right? so one day, finally, i got it down and i made a drawing. do you all have the drawing with you? this is the say must cuban ration card. this is what is supposed to maintain you for a whole month. so as you can see, this only lasts two or three days. after that, you're back to hunger. so it's a very interesting phenomena that people don't understand when they see cuba, how the government controls you through hunger. through control of food.

all the food, there is no small businesses there, trying to sell you anything. everything is in the hands of the government. there's all kinds of laws about things that you cannot do. since there is not enough, hate 0% of the food that you eat, you buy in the black market. so the moment you go in the black market, you're violating laws, so all the cube bans get up in the morning, how am i going to eat today and how many rules i'm going to violate, so this brings to another interesting concept. the person that's constantly breaking the law is constantly scared of the police.

so many times journalists go to police, people carry the police, in their hearts, because there's so many laws they're break, they're so scared. so when somebody, this cuban professor explained it to me, i understood, you know, but a lot of people, what you have to do is whether you judge journalist and college professors, that go to cuba, and go to the tourists places and the hotels and everything and they don't grab the reality of what's going on, maybe the secret service will like to go to cuba. [laughter] i know some very good secret service men. i figure i have to put a joke in here. finally, there's two more issues. that go with the desperation. we talk about women, you know, a lot of people tell you how well cuban women are doing, and how

many rights they have. and how many good things they have. and they -- they totally don't see this part. and actually, when i was invited to talk about the war on women, war, it's a little bit of a hard word, but that's what it is, in other words, the cuban is the -- the woman is the center of the family, the woman is the one that has to fight over these things.

then i went to ask about suicides. i have met some people whose children have committed suicide, and sure enough, and there it is. studies show that cuba has the highest suicide rate for women in the world, and also, not even that, the highest rate of completion of suicide. you know, you have heard that more women intended than men, but more men carry it through. here, women have the highest completion of suicide. so, i ask you, are the cuban

women better off? is the system helping them? what i really beg you in understanding statistics, in understanding cuba, is the lack of knowledge. the newspaper people go there. they are liberals. they see what they want to see, and that gets complicated by the fact that the cubans do not know what they do not know. the cubans do not have a basis for comparison. and they also cannot speak. they do not have the freedom, because -- this is the last thing i'm going to tell you. there is a lot in cuba that is called the lot of -- law in cuba that is called the law of

dangerosity. if the government or anybody else thinks he may be a danger to the revolution, they can throw you in jail. they do not have to prove it. the law of dangerosity is the new lawyers turn. thank you some much for listening. the conclusion is, prostitution in cuba is rampant. it is explosive and it is scandalous. peace -- please feel for the cuban women that yes, while they have other benefits, they are the center of the family, and they're in a desperate situation. thank you. [applause]

>> good afternoon. peace be with you all. these ladies have a major advantage over me. i am in the world of politics. these ladies deal with facts. the war on women is right to that point. but this is the key in politics, and this is very important for you to realize. i was taken back when i found out that a party i have been an activist in for the last 30 years has been at war with women for all this time. a complete shock to me. so much so that when i felt like when the first question went to mitt romney during one of those debates when george stephanopoulos decided to ask him if he would outlaw contraception, i had the exact same reaction he did -- what? why are you asking best? is there somebody trying to outlaw contraception? it did not matter to george

stephanopoulos. he just kept hammering at three or four times in a row. this is something i have not heard about for 30 years in politics. no woman in either party, and i have had a lot of debates with the left, no one has ever suggested we're going to take contraception away from them. but this year we're going to do it. very nice to know. the key is it does not matter in politics if it is real, if it is true. all that matters is if it is to -- is if there is a perception. the voter perceives that this particular party or this particular candidate is against freedom -- is against women.

they're not going to vote for that person if they want to throw them back to some time when women did not have these rights. it does not matter to them whether it is true or false. what matters is that they can sell this to enough women. that is where we are today. how do you do that? i am just going to give you a little example of what has happened over the years so you can get a taste of what is going to happen over the next few months. when we had the big debates and ever since, we were pro-life if you're against abortion. in the early days, they were for abortion, pro-abortion. after a few years, they realized this is a negative, so they changed the words to be pro-choice. because choice is an honorable thing to before, choice. women should have a choice. they manage to get a higher road.

we are pro-life, which is obviously a positive. when they went and started talking about their movements as pro-choice, they picked up enormously. people were saying that is something i would be for two. i'm for choice for women. they were able to sell it that way very successfully. words are cheap. words are very key. -- words are key. words are very key. no mistake that the words war on women were thrown out there very deliberately. but i think they took it too far. the democrats to get too far. that is the second point when you're dealing with perceptions. it is the spin of politics. you take a kernel of truth and you spend enough so that you make a case. in the end, it becomes completely invalid, but it does not matter, you have a kernel that you keep coming back to that has always been true. if you go too far, it fails.

james carville made that point earlier, but the obama campaign ignore it. they said early on, you guys are out there saying that the economy has turned around, that it is going well. that is not going to work. do not go there. they ignored it. we heard last week that the private sector is just fine. and everybody said what? even democrats were bailing out that shipp. why did he say that? because his campaign was going to try to sell 4 million new jobs in the last x number of months or years so things are moving the right direction and pull a few facts and then spin it that things are on the right track. do not through anything off now. things are moving in the right track. things are going to improve. but the problem is, more people lost jobs, lost homes and have fallen into poverty during the three and a half years the man

has been president. it is hard to convince people things are ok. gas prices are shooting up. kids are coming home -- as a mother, that is in the right direction when kids are moving -- that is not the right direction when kids are moving back home, especially when they have children. he sends this message and then back it up with the facts. i'm constantly hearing 4 million new jobs, 4 million new jobs, and i am thinking 23 million unemployed or underemployed people. but a stick to it trying to say it is turning around. but they overplayed their hand. now they are backtracking. because you cannot convince people of something that they know every single case is not -- every single day is not the case.

people are nervous in the country and you cannot tell them, by the way, everything is fine, you can relax, because they are not relaxing. they are not. that is when you overplay a message. you have both those things. the words are very important, the words they use. the second thing is that they do not take it too far really is credibility. >> the third thing. let me spend 01 minutes on it. you need someone to help you carry the ball. republicans will say that obama did this. nobody says anything. that is the end of the story. that is the end. but if the media picks up and runs with it, if they get excited about this, then you have enormous momentum. day in and day out. you can get the country to start considering the proposition to take a look at it. that is what the media has done

for the democrats. they do it continually. i have always known that the media was on the left. that is for the lean. -- where they lean. you always have a disadvantage. i never considered it a disadvantage, but in the sense that there would be more against you than they would never before you. he would not give a fair opportunity to make your case. you always knew that. things have changed now. we have foxx and we have rush. we have lots of radio shows. we are well aware of the disadvantage. always have been. we have turned a corner and we have a lot of the bandage is now. -- advantages now. however, the media, by definition, is supposed to be an institution that keeps honesty with elected officials and candidates and movements to make sure they're honest and people are getting the facts. that is what they're going way

overboard. this is ridiculous. this war on women, for instance. this is what happened. there is a federal assault on religious freedom. the catholic church and religious institutionswe're going to be forced to pay for abortion and contraception, things against their religious beliefs. there is no way this will survive the supreme court challenge. if there is anything clear in the constitution, this is. but they were adamant that they were going to do this. of course, the feminists would love it and the women would love it. there would rally around the president. we made it the case. constitutional scholars went out and said this is an absolute assault of religious freedom. well, within a few days, we thought this was terrific.

people are really passionate about this. within a few days, we had a war on women. we were going after their contraception. and they were saying,this is outrageous. you're going to take contraception away from us. and i thought, how did i get from here to here in a matter of days. there is no discussion. others would talk about religious freedom. that is boring. let's talk a war on women. that was the proposition. you go on television, and dick gregory had a perfectly. he had an interview with john mccain. he said, and you think there is something among a war on women against republicans. not, there is a suggestion among democrats. let's ask them how they can make this case. no. let's make the presumption and have the republicans defend themselves. we are out there defending ourselves. what a ridiculous debate. we lost it days. there were winning that one.

one reason. we're not talking about the most important thing to women. and that is the key. that is the key. this is the politics. they need of the women to win in november. and women tend to go more for democrats. they need to not only win, they are hurting with a man badly. they need to win big. they decide, ok. we have to go to the women and strip them of the republican vote. this is key to us. and so, they came up with this war on women. make the republicans look outrageous. that is where they went. now, i want to take a little credit for something. i was one television to talk to of the first amendment. now i am saying, 30 years, i've

never had any woman say to me, why are you taking my contraception? i know you're talking about. -- i do not know what you're talking about. i'm having a hard time making this case. and then the romney campaign called me because they had some new information. they're talking about some research they had done. of all these people, more people have lost jobs, 93% of those who had lost jobs are women. i said, excuse me. did you just a 93%? they said, yes. at 92% of jobs lost are women. this is a beautiful thing -- not but i want to see women losing jobs, but this and that it would turn women around quite nicely. the next erratic conference call. -- of the next day we had a conference call. there were three of us. the former senator spoke first. i said, if you want to have a

discussion about a war on women, you should go to the white house. not only do they have proms -- problems without a pay the women in the -- problems with how they pay the women in the white house, the white house staff, but the second point is that women account for 93% of the jobs lost. under barack obama and his policies, women are losing jobs. well, then some local elected officials spoke on the phone call. every single question of the media, and we had nbc, cbs, the new york times ron, said to me? what was the number? press said the war on women, head writer ever to the -- i said, the war on women, head right over to the white house. do i think this is an exaggeration? threat to the have established

a word? of course not. but if you recall war on women, that is the economy. of the jobs. what you think women care about most? i was a single mom. making sure we will be able to provide for them. likewise, married women. t think they want to see their husbands lose jobs? -- do you think they want to see their husbands lose jobs? you don't think they are concerned? in addition to that, they have huge debt. you don't telling there are concerned? you don't think this is a concern among women? they are undermining -- they basically show enormous disrespect for women if they think women are more worried about some phony war on their contraception more than the economy. they have at all wrong. that is the key. they know they have a problem with the economy. they know women are suffering. they know that small business women cannot stay alive if they

have their taxes going up. they know they are in trouble. they need to be listed -- to be able to take care of themselves and their families. and any their husbands to do the same period -- and they need their husbands to do the same .erio that is where the argument goes. respect women. of the polls are overwhelming. it is the economy. the jobs. the spending in washington. a obamacare. those of the things they are worried about. if we win on those -- today, i saw an ad. i will close with this. the new obama and is on women. he comes out. there's a very attractive picture of the president -- son of a single mom, father to two daughters. and he cares about women. the first thing he did was sign this bill that gives equal pay to women.

wycherley was not equal pay to -- which really was not equal pay for women. that already existed. women. that already existed. it was to give the ability to sue easily in the workplace. and then, obama believes in fairness for women. like we do not? excuse me. is is not a war on women. it is fairness for women. that is where they will go. there will pull back on the war and go to the fairness. women out there trying to make a living, tried to take care of themselves, trying to skip their hopes and dreams, be able to have those hopes and dreams. that is where we go. let me tell you. this is going to be some tough of five months because they need those women. you can expect every possible accusation against republicans at every single stage. that we indeed want to undermine and suppress the freedoms and rights.

it is ludicrous. it is ridiculous. so far i believe the have overplayed their hand. i think we can play them one on one. the key is for us to go right back to the economy. hit it. we will be able to help women for the next four years. begin to get back on their feet, have their home andyou'll be able to go forward to the future. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for questions and answers right now. please go to the microphone. you can line up right there. that is fine. please see your name before you ask questions. ok? >> i have a question for cristina. i am an intern.

my question has to do with the page fairness act. i was wondering if you have any insight into that. >> well, this act was introduced four years ago. it is about fairness. who could be about paycheck fairness, until you read the small print? it is predicated on the assumption that the reason women earn less than men in the workplace is because of unscrupulous employers. it dismays me to meet -- to see this sort of language in the bill. there is no evidence for that. an irresponsible economists who look at the wage gap sees there are innocent explanations that have nothing to do with meanspirited and unscrupulous employers.

so, what does the bill ask for? as they said, we already have laws. we have had losses since the 1960's against wage discrimination. if you try to pay jill 76 cents and you give jack same job for $1, jill can take you into court. the paycheck fairness act is about the women's groups say that the reason women are paid less for certain jobs is because of the legacy of discrimination. in the bill it says that employers are not only irresponsible for not -- responsible for not discriminating, but they cannot pay it if it is a legacy of discrimination. what does that mean? employers have no idea. i know what it means having been a student of feminist economics for many years. some of the activists in washington think, let's say, universities will paid professors in the law school more than they pay purposes in

the school of social work. there will pay professors of engineers more the new paper festers of education. -- more than they will pay the professors of education. there are more men in engineering than in the schools of education,. some will say it is market driven. if he not pay engineers that can -- if you do not pay engineers a lot of money, they can get some much more in the private force. it is impossible to attract them about salaries. women will say, isn't this part of the legacy? were nurturing jobs are given less about you than jobs in -- less value than jobs in business? the can go into court and try to make this case. a will have feminists and activists there on their side. typically, you'll get employers wanting to settle the case and

not go to court because it is so expensive. it's made it easier to sue. for nebulous reasons that only hard-line feminists truly understand. the washington post and out against it. the boston globe. two senators from maine who often votes for feminist issues were against it. senator snowe and senator collins were against it. but it is a very clever power grab by hard-line feminists who want to litigate. >> can you give us your memories of when you first came to the united states?

many people say that they do not want to live here anymore. can you give me some of your memories of when you first came here? >> i am one of 14 brothers and sisters. a and >> the first apartment rented we would hide. -- the first apartment rented, we would hide and make sure people did not count us. but then america was good. all the people in our churches helped us. i had to learn english. we were able to get ahead. this was a moment when the economy was good. all the people and the churches helped us. we got ahead.

i was the first person in my family to marry an american. my mother used to say, you took a risk. my children said, would you -- granma, what do you mean, a risk? later on, the good news is we did really well. my brother became the mayor of miami. he was the mayor three times. my son alex got elected to be a state senator at age 27. i'm looking at all of you, and in a couple of years you could all be state senators. at the same time iambs torn by -- i am torn by thinking that if you were in cuba, you would have been part of that culture where the family thinks of you as someone who could bring money. let me leave you with that idea. i see you're young faces. endure beautiful colors. the pain of coming from a

country where this is accepted. the mentality of cuba would put you in a different situation. thank you. >> i am from the university of virginia. i am an intern. my question is in regards to religious women. i think i remember reading that women tend to be more religious than men or it tends to be an important part, including myself. it feels like the left has projected the concerns of religious women. and don't want to finance the sexually promiscuous choices of other women.

i just wondered if you all would speak to that. >> i recently wrote a book about the history of conservative feminism. believe it or not, there is a tradition. it is a kind of lost continent. celebrated are not in women's history month, but they were there. they played a critical role in women's emancipation. frances willard, for example, in the 19th century, was a leader of the temperance union. of course, we think of temperance has a very outdated cause. at the time, it was a feminist issue. it was implicated in family violence and desertion.

all the leading suffragists were in the temperance movement. but frances willard was able to attract a lot of religious women. initially, this was not a popular cause. it wasn't that men were against it -- many were. but many women were against suffrage. for complicate reasons i will not go into. if you just appeal to them and abstract ideals, they were unmoved. what frances willard did is show that with the home -- with the the, women could protect the homes they dearly loved. they could protect their families with votes, she attracted mainstream religious women into the movement. there is a wonderful sociologist who has shown how women made their greatest progress when there is a conservative and progressive wing in the movement and worked together. i think that is a big problem today. we don't have a conservative

wing. we don't even have a moderate wing. only a radical wing. the official voice of women is coming from the left wing and feminists. the women's group talk about women having been marginalized into silence. >> they turned around and found a movement that markingallized and silences their -- marginalized and silenced their sisters. support groups like the booth institute and organizations on your own campus. demand a place in the women's center and that you be heard and that you do have a voice. there is a battle. we need to take back feminism from the feminists. it's too torn possible left in their hands. >> let me just mention an add on to that, i agree with everything you just said obviously.

if you look at modern feminism today, the whole movement is driven by self. women need to do what is best for them, if i'm not ready to have a child, obviously i shouldn't be made to have a child. it's my right to decide when. if i'm pregnant, i should be able to abort the child. i should have opportunities. it plays into the opportunities in you're a mother full-time at home, you heard it from one of the feminists, you don't work a day in your life. they don't respect stay-at-home moms. you need to be fulfilled in the work-place. you need a profession. it's about me getting more information, experience, opportunities in the professional fields. so you look at religion, religion is about service. religion honors service. that is where they say the real happiness comes from when you serve others. being a mother, you serve your children. you serve your family. you serve your husband. you're there to make life

easier for them. and you know you get pregnant and you're not expected, it's not timely, you put your child first and you change your life. in order to make it so that it all works because you now have to take of this child. you have to put them first. it's two different philosophies. i was on television when was a single mom of three kids. you need to find time for yourself. put aside time for yourself. at home, have your own space. own space, i go to take a shower and the kids come in. what are you talking about, your own time? there is no own time. and you're part of a family now and that's your time. so but listen to them and i think you will constantly see a very selfish theme run through most of the arguments and that's where religion fights

it. >> i'm going into my senior year at ave maria university. my question was recently i read a back called "manning up" and it was really interesting how in the last 20 years, everything that they wanted has to be -- you look at 20 and 30-year-old women mayor making more money than that and you have more women graduating from colleges and grad schools than man. it seems like they proceeded so well in the promotion of women's right and it's men in a lot of ways taking over. does it seem like it's really

hard on one extreme or the other. i wonder what your thoughts are. the young women are trying to figure out what to do with our careers and our lives. i'm trying to figure out the best way. >> a big challenge for many of you, college-educated young women is to find a young man as educated as you are. as you said, the women's movement has succeeded and i must say, many years ago in the classroom, they were better students, moving ahead. i became concerned about how we're treating boys and i looked at classrooms across the country and there are a lot of policys that come out of schools of education. they emnate from the gender scholars that treat boys, truce mau cue -- it's class are run

by women for girls. we see they're further and further behind. they bear the brunt of a lot of bad policies. it is one thing if they were' free, open educational, fair mindeded educational system and you saw the girls moving ahead. i see so many policies that have a disparate impact on young men and no one speaks up. the reason is there is this asymmetry, this structural asymmetry. they have a network of women's organizations like you have never seen a juggernaut marching in sisterly solidarity and they're there monitoring every little scintilla of activity. what do the boys have?

we have major efforts, some good efforts to strengthen girls in math or science. i'm in favor of them. where are the initiatives to strengthen boys in reading, writing, literacy, college attendance? they're nowhere. if you try to propose them, groups say that is backlash. you are trying to take away what you have given to women. they see it as a zero sum game. they're champions for the women. most women don't see the world that way. we have sons. we have male friends, husbands and their future is our future. we're connected. again, that's why i say if we had more moderate and conservative women in the women's movement, we would assert that connection. but the lack of our voice has led to this complete imbalance in representation for women and men. >> i am kathy and going to be a

senior. [[inaudible] ] >> my question is where would you start or friends of your own or women who have started, maybe there is like a book? i'm curious how you put this together? where do you start? >> first of all, you have to start with what youle.

you can't let the fact that you're a conservative, a tiny little minority on a college campus and be intimidated by that. you have to live your life as a woman who truly believes in this country and all the opportunities available to you, but also believes in family and if you're religious, you have those beliefs. then you have values and you live them, and you lived them boldly. and you don't let people intimidate you. you can't talk like that, it's political insensitive. i'm an american, i see exactly what i believe. i have looked at the issues and this is what is important to me. you are a leader in your right, if your own fear. i have given many speeches, i get matters. my girlfriend and i laughed at you, what you said was a bunch of nonsense. we're now mothers and you know what, you were right. that's not all bad.

and that's what you can do. laugh at what they're saying. you got it all wrong. obama is the best thing in the world. guess what, 400,000 women lost jobs with him. do you think that's good? is the economy good? let them think. challenge them. don't let them intimidate you. when they can't find a job, maybe she had a point. maybe she had a job and the taxes were unbelievable. my son is a law student and he got a bonus because he graduated from law school. he makes nothing. they're a father of two children. they just live on loans. it was $10,000. he was so excited. they got $4,500. the rest went to taxes. he made no money last year. i said that's ridiculous. no, that's how it works. it's a dividend or something. she is devastated. let me tell you, that should happen to a few left wingers,

what the heck is this? they'll be conservative when it comes to fiscal issues in a matter of short time. they want to make a living, too, and take care of things. you will be a leader in your own sphere if you speak to those things that mean something to you. make yourself be that person. >> hi, i'm a senior in college. we rely on media. [[inaudible] >> what is the approach?

again, as i said, the first thing is, number one that, you know a few issues. you don't need to know them all. get a few that are important to you. start debating them. i'm talking about how you do this, not how that all of us do the same thing. then you speak about them. you consciously make points. you look for opportunities. if you're a very strong pro lifer, i'm going to tell you right now find pro choicers and make your case to them. you got it wrong, every time a child's life is taken, how can you take this position? they'll beat the blazes out of you with their arguments. you got to be prepared and keep coming back. i believe and some conservatives disagree on this, i'm not an in the face kind of person. i'm taking you on if you take me on and i'll hold my own. a sense of humor, a sense of respect goes a great deal, goes a great distance. you can say -- you see him the next day, you lost that

primary, didn't you? your man is not doing too well. laugh about it. boy, you knocked us off our game plan yesterday. you know what i mean? whether it be in local politics on campus or issues that are happening or the presidential, don't take yourself too seriously, but recognize that the issues that you hold dear are to be taken seriously and you don't let anybody get away with dismissing them or ridiculing them or making you feel uncomfortable. you come right back, even if you're not sure what you're going to say, you let them know. your intensity and your beliefs, that sells, might not sell to the person you're talking to, but there are people observing you. you're saying that person seriously believes this. i think it's crazy and i respect them how they're holding up, standing up. they will consider what you have said. they will register it somewhere. it might not work this year, but maybe next year at another time. that's how you make a difference.

that's how you sell conservativism in my opinion. it sells real well because we're right. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i'll start with a little story from a friend that told me. he said it was nighttime, all he had was a potato. so he look at that potato and see who was going to cook it, the next day. he cut it in half and he ate half, saved a half for the next day. one of the things that most journalists, people who go to cuban fail to see, they fail to see the way food coles

everybody, lack -- controls everybody, lack of food. so many times when you don't have any food to offer to your child, you just take a little bit of sugar, you put it in the water, you shake it, this is your meal for today and this is your meal for tomorrow. you might take -- i'm doing a demonstration because we go to a lot of abstract thoughts here. i like you to remember, you know, this. this is water and this is your meal for today. mrs. buchanan says the women that are responsible for our children's food, so the heartbreaking thing is, it's difficult to see how they control you, you know. so i wish you have -- i'll give

you one example real quick. economist is a very well known magazine. "economist" has an article about cuban, everything is ok, very well said. when it comes to food, you know what it says, this economist six months ago, all of the cubans have a ration card, and the ration card subsidizes food. and like how could a good journalist be so fooled. this is what has happened all over the world. all over the world people think that the health is good in cuban and medicines are good in cuban. you know what i take for presents for my friends in cuban, a ziplock with 10 aspirins. this is what i give them as gifts.

so a government-controlled economy is just something totally different that you cannot visualize, so thank you for asking. >> hi, -- [inaudible]

>> i mean, i cannot speak for all of the legislators. i can say what we are hoping to see. the bottom line was when congress passed this law, they dealt with the coverage issue and not the cost issue and for small business owners i represent, we still -- even if we win, we still want reform that will drive down costs. you alluded to some of the solutions out there. we definitely think, just like with life insurance, you should be able to buy health insurance across state lines. you should be -- insurance should be truly portable. not that the small business owners don't want to offer health insurance to their employees, truthfully, we're getting into -- i think it's increasingly become the case that people really are tied to their employer through their

insurance. if we could all just be treated the same under the tax system so it doesn't matter if you get your insurance through your employer or not, you get tax-free dollars to buy a policy, then it does become truly portable. you get to pick what you want, what works for you. one other thing that i would say that is a problem with this law is all the mandates that are -- it's not just about having insurance, it's what kind of insurance that you have. this came out in the oral arguments, too, from the chief justice which is a lot of people are never going to be substance and abuse treatment, but under this law, all of us are going to have to buy a policy that includes that, which means we're paying extra for something that in many instances we're never going to need. we want more flexibility, people to truly pick what is it that i really need. a lot of the business owners they represent, they don't need help paying -- they don't need prepaid medical expenses. they can pay to go to the doctor. they need true insurance that

helps if you get a catastrophic illness or get hit by the proverbial bus. that's the interesting thing that the government has come to. oh, my gosh, these people that get the bad illnesses, they go to the emergency rooms and the rest of us have to update bills. under this law, that type of catastrophic coverage is illegal. you can't buy a policy under this law that would just cover those types of illnesses. and many of my members, that's all they need, that's all they want. we want more choice, not less like we have now and more portability of insurance and equal tax treatment. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is ann morris and president of the students for life group at u.c. berkeley. my question is more for ms. summers, among my peers, i notice the idea to be a women in the career field, we're

expected to salerize ourselves sometimes because in the top professions, law, academia and medicine have very high up front investments in terms of time and so by the time i get tenure, by the time you finish your medical residencey, your peek years of fertility is over. it's a large struggle for women who want to be women and also want to be ahead and they're trying to balance this. i might not want to wait until i'm done with medical school before i start dating. do you have any advice on perhaps different structures or just how to balance that? >> these are very big questions. it would be nice if we had a women's movement that was responsive to them. in fact, from its beginning, the second wave of feminism has been very good at telling women how not to have children, how to, the right to abort them if you get pregnant, birth control.

they're very good about that, daycare, about what about women that want to have children and want to be with them? what are the policies that they encourage to make that possible? i don't see them and that's what i think is a huge problem with con term feminism. it's not responsive to where women are. you study women's preferences, you find that about 20% of women are high powered careerists. they're the match for any man. you'll see them at the height of success and they're very devoted. 20% of women want to stay home. they don't want to work -- they might if they have to, only if some great fortune befalls them. 60% of us are in the middle. katherine hakeem calls them the adaptives, that's the most women.

then there are the stay-at-home moms and the high careerists. they want a balance between work-place and home life. there was an article today in "the atlantic" it's caused a stir, on the front page of the "new york times." it was written by a high powered official in the state department. she ended up going, leaving her job, not pursuing anymore power in washington. she just found she wanted to be home. she had a very cooperative husband who happily would take care of the kids, but you just find it's not the same. she had a 12-year-old boy who was skipping school and sort of trouble and the husband was trying to handle it and she knew that she had to be there, that she was -- women are very distracted by children and it's not easy to put them in daycare and go away all day and not think of them and a lot of men can do that. they find it possible. we need a women's movement that is responsive to that need,

that reality. what i'm telling you is i can't refer you to organizations that are responsibly addressing this issue because there are a few, but they're very small. the majority of women's movement, the gender scholars in our university, they're convinced that gender is just arbitrary -- well not arbitrary, cultural soirblization, no real difference between men and women. if you give little girls trucks and little boys dolls, we can resocialize them. we give the boys dolls, they would take care of the children. we would be a gender neutral population. it's never happened. it's a feminist fairy tale from the 1970's. mother nature appears not to be that politically correct there are differences and women, as you see from this story and as i said, it's causing a stir. it makes feminists very nervous when women say they have some special attraction to the

domestic sphere. feminism is getting women out in the public sphere. it's good, we needed that. it would be better to have a movement that is reality-based. most women wanted to be in both spheres. men, it's their relationship to the domestic sphere is very different. >> i would like to take -- that was an excellent question as all of them have been, i might add. specifically, i think what you all have to come to grips with, one of the ladies said it's hard to be equal. it's not hard to be equal as long as you realize you're not the same. we're not the same as men. we shouldn't try to be. why would we want to be? we got the better end of the deal. we have enormous talents and abilities and obviously at this age, you want to pursue them. everything that you might want to do, try different things. if you want to be a doctor, go for it. if you want to be an attorney, go write for that law school. it doesn't mean you postpone

dating or postpone a family, it means this is what you're doing right now. but the key, i think, for you all is to keep your minds open to other possibilities and so as you're going through school, you meet somebody, you marry, you get your degree. maybe you say, hey, i'm going to take the bar and i'm going to work part-time or i'm working fall-time or i'm not going to go the corporate rout or this or that. you have all kinds of choices available to you. do not get the education. don't say, well, i want to be married, if i was a doctor, it will conflict. you don't know if it will conflict. you don't know if you'll find the right person at the right time. go as fast and hard as you want as far as education. get yourself as much experience in the world. enjoy life. if the opportunity comes to be married and have a farges grasp it, too. this is the key. i know so many professional women who try to do all things. one was an attorney climbing the corporate ladder.

another was a doctor, a pediatrician and then the kids came and they were not happy because they wanted to be home at 5:00 or 6:00, see the kids before they went to bed. they want to be available for school plays as the kids got older. they were thinking how they weren't doing the work. it wasn't working. it won't. you can't have all things. but what they it is one said, finally, look, her husband, my brother, my dad, i'm going to be a prosecutor. forget this corporate ladder you're on and she became a prosecutor, assistant u.s. attorney. it's 9:00 to 5:00 work. then she became a judge. it's 9-to 5:00. it's all being regulated. it's a wonderful profession. she is top notch in the legal profession. the doctor decided to become an emergency room doctor. she worked four nights a week while her husband was home with

the kids. first class kind of medical experience she was getting. that's where your options are. keep your mind open to any kind of variation. when those kids come, that's when you put them first and say, all right, now, they're first, what can i do to make certain i'm there when they need me. i still -- i may want to take three years off and go back. any variation. it's up to you and your husband what is best for your family. don't think that the best thing is wait 20 years and hope you are having a family then. if you believe that, you may want to read the silly magazines on the cover, on the line of the safeway where everybody is trying to have babies at 40 and paying huge sums of money and not having husbands, they were sold a bill of goods. they turned 40, 45 years old. what do i have, a profession, an empty nest? they want family around them. that's the bill of goods. don't buy into that.

will is nothing better than being a wife and a mother and a family that is harmonious and works together to move the interests of all ahead. >> i just want to add, when you hear some of the things we say, i don't want you to take it as just a problem, it's an opportunity. you're entering college, some will go to graduate school, you can change things. especially conservative women, there is a desperate need for your presence in the shaping of policies and the debating these issues, journalists righting the articles that appear in the women's magazines that influenced so many young women. there is a great opportunity. right now i can tell you, we need a major correction. the women's movement is dysfunctional. it informs almost everything we read about women's issues, they

have a monopoly on the knowledge about women. that knowledge is not trustworthy. this is an enormous opportunity. i can't encourage you enough to pursue careers where you can change the way we talk about men and women and it doesn't have to be as sort of eccentric feminists with odd theories about the world. they should not have a monopoly on how we think about ourselves. thank you. >> thank you. >> this is our last one, time for one more. >> my name is emily. i'm a senior and i have an internship this summer. as a woman in college and being active, a lot of my friends think that i am anti-woman.