he is playing the game on the american people. we are not buying it, mr. president. $3.80 trillion government, at $3.80 trillion and you cannot find money without cutting the air traffic controllers, without giving us three-hour long line the next time you're at the infuriates people and it should not infuriates travelers. you are being made to be a it's not working. do you know what, mr. president, it is 2% of the rate of growth of government. if we do nothing government grows like this, if we do the sequester, the government grows like this. there is not a white space between the line. the president says that means we could never cut any spending. i have a few items for him

tonight. [applause] we spend $325,000 last year to discover whether a rattlesnake will bite a squirrel that is not wagging its tail. they could not find a squirrel to volunteer so they had to build a robotic squirrel. guess what, the rattlesnake will bite the you know what out of a squirrel that is not wagging its tail. $5,000 was -- $25,000 was spent to go to mars. do you have a son or daughter , this is the basement a job for him.

the only prequiz with it is you have to like the food. the government is telling students if they went to hawaii for two weeks and they get pizza. that was money well spent. --spent $3 million on turtle [unintelligible] i have the picture of my mine that says turtles go under the road not over the road. i'm sure that was working really well. e spent $1.8 developing rollup beef jerky, that came out of the military budget. we spent $5 million in the military budget on studying the collective action of fish. these are just the ones i can remember. there's hundreds of these. tom did a great job looking through these and finding these. it is amazing the amount of

waste. you can't imagine the amount of waste in government. if you're telling us that we're going to fire the air traffic controllers and we're still getting rollup beef jerky, we're not going to tolerate it. [applause] now, i got on the foreign affairs committee this year so i got to ask a few questions. but i did not get finished. hopefully, we'll get them relayed through the media. first question, hillary clinton, where the hell were the marines? [applause] her answer is oh, the marines are to guard the paper. i said look, i know a lot of marines and i think they can do

more than guard paper. she says that is the rule. they are to guard the paper not personnel. i said they don't do that in baghdad. the point is benghazi is more like baghdad than paris. we did a review board and there were a lot of mistakes made at the time, after the time. there is all this coverup but what is most important is what happened in the six months leading up to this. there is no excuse in the six months leading up to this when your people on the ground, military and state department people are asking for more help. they are asking for security, they are pleading for security and they got nothing. it was inexcusable and it should preclude her from holding higher office. [applause]

on may 5 of the year of the attack, they requested a d.c.3 plane. this is not one of the newest plane, i think we can afford this kind of plane when it is requested. it ply flies around the country and to flee when requested. denied. three days later $300,000 was approved for an electrical station in vee enfla. the ambassador is selling electric cars to his friends but the plugs were not working. so we don't have enough money to let them have a plane. we're saving money, no plane for you, we spend $100,000 showing

off our climate change philosophy for the western europeans. we go through the summer, we find out that the state department also spent $100,000 on three comedians that we sent to india on a not war promotional tour. we don't have money for security but we have money for comedians to go to india. we also found out that the state department spent $80 million for a conscious lat in the northern part of afghanistan that will never be occupied. $80 million it will never be occupied. why, they got a 10 year lease and build the building and then noticed there are balconies that look down on our building. maybe this is a security risk. we're not occupying the building. then they have the a dallascy --

audacity to say you did not give us enough money. maybe it takes leadership to to them them how the money should be spent. [applause] but what seals the deal on benghazi is that repeated requests were sent out. she was asked by myself and others, did you read the cables? did you read the request for help? she said no. i'm busy, i get lots of cables. i say look, i don't expect you to read every cable from bull uerra but i do expect you -- bulgaria but i do expect you to read the important cables from libya. [applause] we got some news from the hearing in the house and i think it will go on. i think we'll get more news.

most of that action is going to happen, probably in the house we have requested hear information the house but we don't control the committee. the other big issue before us is immigration. we may not all in this room agree on exactly what it is. i respect congressmen king we may not be on the same page and we may be. i want to let you know where i am and i think we have to think through the issue. we do have a problem. the number one reason why we have illegal immigration in this country is people are not using the work visa program. farmers are bringing in workers, my state has farmers, i think there are farmers here. they are not using the work visa program because it is consecutive, comersome, it is a pain in the you know what. half a million people are coming in to pick crops but only 65,000 are using the work visa program. that's how you get illegal

immigration. if the bill doesn't fix this problem, then we're going to have another 10 billion in another 10 years. you have to fix the work visa problem. i'm in favor of immigration reform. however, i'm concerned about the bills. i'm concerned one of the things they do is put a cap on work visas. currently the visas have no cap. the bill is going to put a cap on work visas. it is some kind of negotiated settlement but it sounds like we're going in the wrong direction, not the right direction. i'm also with them on the fact that we were hoodwinked in 1986. we were promised security that neaver came. we do have to have security. i'm going to try to fix it. there were some amendment introduced in it but you were not successful were you?

we're going to try again on the floor. i have an amendment that says trust and verify. it says instead of saying mr. president you get to decide democrat or republican if the border is secure by reading a report. i say each year we have to look at and we vote on it. every year we vote on it and immigration reform, the process of what we do to go forward depends on that vote. so it isn't that we get a promise from the administration. we participant and we vote. if they come toward mess and they make border security there's a chance i will vote for the bill. am i worried? i'm worried i might offend some people. i'm worried that it may not work. i don't want to say i'm voting no, i want to fix it because i think there is a problem. i also think as a party we need

to grow bigger. we need to attract latino vote. this is a practical thing. i'm not ashamed of it. we need to attract latino vote and the african american vote. we have to change the way we're talking about it and who we are if we want to attract the latino vote. i say often this is what i believe, we need to treat immigrants with dignity and respect. if you want to work in our country, i want to find a place to work. that has nothing to do whether we're voting or what kind of documentation. there is a certain sense of amnesty in it, they are not going home. their kids will be voting. if their kids think we're hostile to them they will never vote for us. we need to reach out to other people who don't look like us, don't wear the same clothes that aren't exactly who we are.

it is the same with the african american population. we have a rich history. every republican meeting ought to have something about the history of the republican party. it is an amazing history. some criticize me. i went to howard and some say i was lecturing how the . publicans formed the ncaap they may know that but many eople don't know that. in 1930, 99% of the registered black voters were republican. 99%. william worley in 1917 he takes a case to the supreme court. it is the most famous case to overturn jim crowd. the same democrat majority that voted against the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment.

we have a great, rich history, we need to talk about it. we need to bring it to the present. we have to say the school system is awful and more awful for those who are stuck in areas where louisville in the predominately african american area there's a 40% graduation. we need a party that goes in and says, do you know what to the education establishment, we're going to fix this. we're going to give people a choice to go and a chance to go to the same schools that we go to. i think we will get people to consider us as a party. but they won't unless we show up. i went to the hispanic chamber of commerce. a lot of them were friendly and they used to be in republican. they are open to us on family issues and traditional marriage but they are stopped by the one issue. we need to do the right thing on

immigration but we need to stop things that are different. we need to express something that attracts people to our party. there's an american painter by he name of robert. he says paint like a man coming over the hill singing. i used to love the image of that. i think we need to be the party that proclaims what we stand for like a man coming over the hill singing. when i think of it, i think of the vonn trap family. [laughter] i also think -- did anyone catch the band the proclaimers. we need the passion of patrick henry, give me liberty or give me death. we need the passion of what young people have and the song i love is i will walk 500 miles.

[laughter] i will walk 500 more just to be the man that walked 1,000 miles to fall down at your door. [applause] we will be the dominant national party again when we become the party that is like the man coming over the hill singing. thank you very much. [applause] >> president obama will honor the 2013 national association of police organizations top cops award winners tomorrow morning in the white house rose garden. watch coverage tomorrow morning starting at 11:00 eastern here on c-span. >> this department may be nearing a stage where the frequency of this crime and the perception there is tolerance of it could very well undermine our

ability to effectively carry out the mission and recruit and maintain the good people we need. that is unacceptable to me and everyone in the institution and it should be unacceptable everyone connected to the military. every service member needs to be treated with dignity and respect. all allegations of inappropriate behavior is treated with seriousness. a victim's privacy is protected or bystanders are motivated to intervene and offenders know they will be held accountable by strong and effective systems of justice. >> this weekend on c-span, defense secretary hagel outlines new initiatives to fight sexual assault in the armed service. saturday at 1:40 p.m. eastern. former senior diplomat before the oversight committee on the attack in benghazi.

on booktv the new digital age sunday morning at 10:45. on c-span 3, former chief c.i.a. analysts on cold war intelligence during the eisenhower administration. that is sunday at 3:00. >> next the white house briefing with press secretary jay carney earlier today. a major topic of discussion was the report on benghazi. it says the c.i.a. talking points used by susan rice were revised by the state department to remove any references to terrorism. carnie discusses the acknowledge by the i.r.s. that they unfairly audited groups for their tax status. his briefing is about an hour.

>> good friday afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i appreciate your patience. before i take your questions i want to note because it has been reported we did as many of you know, have a background briefing here earlier at the white house. i think 14 news organization were represented from online, print and the like. we do those periodically. we hope that the participants find them helpful. no one here thinks that is a substitute for this briefing that is why i'm here to take questions and with that i will go to the associated press. >> thanks, jay. two subjects starting out with the i.r.s. issue. i.r.s. says they flag conservative name -- groups.

[unintelligible] when did the white house become aware that the i.r.s. engaged in this? in a tax collection system that relies on trust, do you think e i.r.s.'s credibility is at stake here? and will they call for an investigation? >> we certainly seen those reports. my understanding this matter is under investigation by the i.g. the i.r.s. as you know, is an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees. the fact of the matter is, what we know of this is of concern. we find the actions taken as reported to be inappropriate. we would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and

for corrections to be made in a case like this. i believe the i.r.s. as addressed that and has taken some action and there's an investigation ongoing. it certainly does seem to be, based on what we've seen to be inappropriate action that we would want to see thoroughly investigated. >> given the president was so critical of some of these groups in 2010 and 2012, isn't it natural to think these things are politically motivated? >> two things need to be noted, which is i.r.s. is an independent enforcement agency. i believe as i understand it contains only two political appointees within it. the individual who was running the i.r.s. at the time was an appointee from the previous administration. separate from that, there is no question if this activity took

place it is inappropriate and en.ion needs to be take the president expects action to be taken. > on benghazi and the comments by susan rice. we heard that the administration pushed back on the talking points and how some of the information would be used politically in congress. the white house made a stylistic change that these were not stylistic changes. so, again, what role did the white house play, not just in making but directing changes? >> for that question, the way to look at this is the start of -- start from that week and in the wake of the attacks in benghazi an effort was under way to find out what happened, who was

responsible. in response to the request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the c.i.a. began a process of developing points that could be used by members of congress by members of that committee. in that process, again, led by the c.i.a. involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest now stake in the process, that would include the state department, obviously since it because state department facility that was attacked and an ambassador killed as well as three others. the f.b.i. investigating authority and other entities were involved. the c.i.a., in this case, the deputy director of the c.i.a., took that process and issued a set of talking points on that saturday morning. those talking points were disseminated.

this is in request from congress. the only change made by the white house to those talking points was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post. the pointing, it was a matter of non-substance tin tive factual correction. there was a process leading up situations ving like this. the effort is to always in that circumstance with an ongoing investigation, some accurate, some not on what happened and who is responsible to provide information for members of congress and others in the administration for example, who might speak publicly about it. it was based on only what the

intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew and that is what was generated by the intelligence community by the c.i.a. >> this information that was information that c.i.a. obviously knew about prior attacks and warnings about those. does the president think it was appropriate to keep that information away simple lir because how congress might use it? >> first of all, the c.i.a. was e agency that changes to the talking points and produced the talking points. second of all, i think the overriding concern of everyone involved in that circumstance is lways make sure that we're not giving to those who speak in public information that cannot be confirmed, speculation about who is responsible, other things like warnings that may or may not be relavent to what we

ultimately learn about what happened and why. all of that information, by the way, was and remains part of the investigation. it is information provide to congress and others looking into this matter last fall and throughout the winter and into this year. that investigation continues. but on the issues of what happened in benghazi and that the time, what the intelligence community thought it knew, that was reflected in the talking points that was used again by ambassador rice and other moves congress. if you look at the information that has been reported, you can see that evolution and it was -- the talking points were focused on what we knew and not speculation about what may or may not be responsible or related. all of this information was provided months ago to members congress. a fact we made clear to all of you at the time.

during the confirmation for john brennan as director of the c.i.a. there was a request for more information, including e-mails around the deliberating process points. in these talks this administration took the extraordinary measure in providing those emails to members of the relevant committees, as well as the leadership members and staff in congress. that information was available, again, in late february to members of congress and through march. once that information was reviewed in the case of the senate, senate republicans went on record saying i know what i need to know then allowed the process for the confirmation of john brennan to go forward and he was confirmed in early march. >> why were those e-mails provided in a -- [unintelligible] >> it is a standard procedure

for both parties going back decades that internal deliberations are generally protected information that is not something that is regularly shared with congress. that is to allow for a process in the executive branch. in this case, to answer these concerns that members of congress had, particular republican members of congress. that step was taken and provided and they were able to review all of the e-mails, which now they have leaked to reporters but they were able to review these e-mails for as long as they wanted and to take notes. again, once the process was completed the confirmation of john brennan went forward. several republicans came forward and said they had the information they needed about that aspect of the benghazi incident and it is now for what i think is, again, reflective of

political empts to size a tragedy that took -- political zies a tragedy that took four american lives. we're seeing actions that ignore the basic facts. there was an attack on our acility in benghazi. as we learned more about what happened we provided it. that's why everybody has received the information that it has throughout this process. one of the things that is interesting about the points is that from the beginning there was included in the points a statement about demonstrations taken place auds of the building. the is what the assessment,

collective assessment was at that point there was attacks launching at the facility. when we found out that was not true, the assessment changed we made that clear. when we had the discussion back in the fall, that was the point that republicans were focusing on. it is clear from what you see in the documents that was the assessment made by the intelligence community. it is also clear from the evolution of what public officials said about what we knew as we got more concrete information and information we felt confident about we provided it to the press, the congress, and to the public. >> the substance of these e-mails have very specific exchanges between state department officials and officials at the white house. the state department official

raises concerns about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of concern that congress would use that against the state department. >> the state department has said -- they raised two primary concerns about the talking points. the points went further than n assigning responsibilities. there was concerns about protecting the integrity of the investigation and that was expressed in other departments not just the state department. >> there were concerns about giving members something to use against the state department. >> this was a process where here was an effort underway, interagency process for information that could be delivered by government officials both congressional and administration officials about what we knew. not going beyond what we knew was important.