laundering, when it is overt. i thank you for that response. >> this is the recommendation of our drug caucus, that individuals begin to be held responsible for money- laundering, when it is overt. i thank you for that response. there was an oig report on atf's gun dealer inspection program that mr. horowitz is going to

testify carried out, and i understand that report found that 50% of federal farms dealers had not been expected if in the last five years. you cited three reasons for this understaffing. a large geographic area some field divisions cover and an increase in gun dealers. it is my understanding the president has $51.1 million to ensure atf enforcement efforts and strengthen inspections. we hope now to get a director of that unit. the judiciary committee on which i served is coming before us this next week. they project that this allocation would fund 60 additional inspector positions.

your report concluded you would need an additional 199,000 hours to inspect all dealers within a five-year period, and the field divisions told atf headquarters in 2012 they needed 504 more investigators. the federal firearms dealer in my view is what makes any legal gun sales possible in the united states, because they require certain material. that 58% figure is really a distressing figure. what are you believe these additional inspectors could do to increase that 58%, and do you have any idea as to what level we could be confident that with these there would be inspections of federal firearms dealers within the five-year period? >> i think we would be able to deal that. the atf is an organization that has been resource starved over

the recent past. actually, for a great number of years, without senate-confirmed leadership it has also suffered. the concern you raised about doing these inventorying, having the ability to do inventories at the prescribed level will give us greater comfort and have an impact on our ability to monitor the gun trades so we make sure that the right people have access to weapons, and that is fully respecting peoples second amendment rights. we are talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have been. without controls there is no way

to tell. i am confident if we get the money that we have asked for, if todd jones is confirmed as the leader of the atf, that we can change that situation and make the american people more safe. >> i want to say this is important to me, and i appreciate it if an emphasis can be placed in that area. so thank you very much. my time is up. >> mr. attorney general, it troubles me that the president has virtually unreviewable, unfettered authority to order the killing of any american citizen overseas who is suspected of terrorist activity without any kind of charge or trial or judicial review. we have all read this morning of the controversy over the nsa having access to phone records of american citizens. it seems to me that an american currently receives a greater degree of due process protections from the judicial branch if the government is

seeking to listen in on his phone conversations or gets information about his phone conversations than if the president is seeking to take his life. that just does not make sense to me. why hasn't the administration proposed to congress a process that would provide some degree of independent judicial review for a targeted lethal strike against a u.s. person overseas, either an expansion of the fisa court or a different kind of classified proceeding before a court, to ensure that there is some kind of judicial review rather than giving that authority to take an american life overseas only with the president?

>> i would say that it is incorrect to say that it is only in that the president has unlimited authority with regard to the use of drones, and we are talking about being more transparent. i sent a letter to chairman leahy that the president gave a speech to get more transparency with disregard. we operate under the statute, and when we are dealing with these matters we try to focus on capture or possible. we focus on whether or not the threat is imminent. we operate under the rules of law. as the president said in his

speech, people cannot plot against the united states, people cannot kill american citizens and then use as a shield their american citizenship. these are steps that we take with great care. they are the most difficult of decisions that we have to make. the other things that keep me up at night and as a think about my role as part of the national security team in discussing these matters. the concerns you raise are legitimate, but we are working within the administration to make sure when we take these ultimate measures they are done

in appropriate ways, legal ways, have done in a way that is consistent with our values. >> i would say to you that the drone strikes have occurred outside the battlefield. we are not talking about countries that were engaged in hostilities ike iraq or afghanistan. i do not understand why you would not want the protection of some sort of judicial review of the target. i am not saying that the president is wrong to try to kill american terrorists overseas who are plotting to execute our citizens, but i am uncomfortable giving the president that authority without any kind of check. i am not comforted by the office of legal counsel opinions which i have read now for the legal basis. let me turn to a second point that you just made about a preference for capture. i have not seen a preference for capture. if you compare the number of terror suspects who are captured in the previous administration versus this administration, there is a huge difference, as there is in the number of lethal

strikes with drones that were undertaken. is the reason for the exceedingly low number of captures due to the change in the obama administration's position on detention and the fact that the administration does not want to send captives to guantanamo? isn't that really the reason? here we have a case of a terrorist who was convicted but who was driven around on a navy ship for two months because there was no place to put him. >> it is not a function of not wanting to take people there. as you indicated, he was captured and brought to face justice in an article 3 court. the desire to capture is something that we take seriously because we gain intelligence.

that person -- i am not sure how long he was on that boat -- it was not a joyride for him. we were gathering important intelligence from him in the intelligence community and then later on after he was read his rights and waived them from people in law enforcement. that was time well spent, and ultimately led to his plea in that case -- or the conviction in that case. it is not a function of us not trying to take prisoners to particular places. we try to gain intelligence and then we try to bring them to justice. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> that was an excellent line of questioning, senator. >> i want to take you to the verizon scandal, which takes us

to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. when bureaucrats are sloppy, they are really usually sloppy. i want to ask, could you share with us that no phones inside the capitol were monitored that would give a future executive branch, if they started pulling this thing up, would give them unique leverage over the legislature? >> with all due respect, this is not an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue. i would be more than glad to come back in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised. in this open forum, i do not -- >> i would interrupt and say the correct answer is to say, no, we stay within our range and we did not listen on members of congress.

>> i would like to suggest something. i read "the new york times" this morning, and it said not one more thing, not one more thing when we are looking like we are spying on america. i think the full senate needs to get a brief on this, and the attorney general, we need the national security agency and other appropriate people. this is no way to minimize your excellent question, but there are also certain answers that might have to be given in a classified environment. i am not going to determine who answers what questions. >> if i could, i would hope that

you as chairman would create the appropriate forum that is a classified hearing to get into this with the attorney general. what senator kirk is raising is very important. >> i agree that the question is >> i am sure you will. >> what i would like to suggest is that i will send a note to senators reid and mcconnell, because i think this cuts across committees and goes to judiciary, it goes to armed services, it goes to intel, and not only including the scope of appropriations. >> the oversight of justice, does it not? >> i would suggest for separation of powers that whoever was so sloppy writing this for you to not segregate out the supreme court to make

sure that when you are jumping out of your executive branch weighing in, you want to make sure you're not gaining new intel and leverage over separated powers under our constitution. >> madam chair, i would suggest that for separation of powers, whoever was so sloppy running this for you, probably did not segregate out the supreme court to make sure that when you are jumping out of your executive branch lane, you want to make sure that you are not gaining new intel or leverage over separated powers under our constitution. i would hope it we would get absolute assurance that not a single supreme court justice was at all involved in this verizon thing. >> senator shelby raises a great point. why don't we talk about how you would like to proceed when we do our due diligence as a committee, but also this does involve others in addition to the justice department. >> i would like to do that and i

believe it is a relevant thing and we would probably be talking about -- >> and i would be more than glad in an appropriate setting. senator, please do not take my responses as being anything but respectful of the concerns you have raised. there is no intention to do anything of that nature, to spy on members of congress, to spy on members of the supreme court. >> we are going to stop here, because this drives us up a wall. often, it means a group of eight leadership. it does not necessarily mean relevant committees. sitting right here now a senator shelby and i, a former chair of the intelligence committee, senator collins, who chaired the homeland security committee, and

that is the new framework to coordinate intelligence, with national leaders. senator graham's experience, and senator kirk himself was an intelligence officer in the u.s. navy. so we are kind of like an a- team, but we have also been in the fully briefed circle. that does not mean we know what is going on. and senator shelby says we have to know what is going on. and there are appropriate questions to ask. >> madam chairman, if i could, i think it falls within the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee that you chair and the subcommittee that you chair, and i am on both, to get into this. we fund the justice department, we fund the fbi, we fund the operations. and if we don't know and if we are not properly briefed as to what is going on, we are not doing our oversight. >> so what you are suggesting is a classified hearing for the full appropriations committee. >> absolutely. >> that's fine. >> we will proceed in that direction and we look forward to working in a collaborative way. actually, we have senator feinstein tapping the full expertise of the full committee. senator kirk, did you have anything else?

your work on the gang violence is really excellent. i do not know if you had a question. >> i wanted to announce i would be offering an amendment to the next markup of this bill for 30 million bucks to identify gangs of national significance, which i would hope would be the gangster disciples in illinois. i have talked about the possible need to arrest upwards of 18,000 people who are members of that gang. and to do this, especially because of my overwhelming concern for the baltimore gang situation, which is shameless sucking up to the chairwoman. >> anything else, senator kirk? >> that is it. but because i rate this issue, whoever was running this program knows they really screwed up. i would just ask that you kind of seize the records and not

allow the destruction of evidence that they have accidentally monitored other branches of the government. >> as i said, i would be more than glad to discuss this in an appropriate setting. >> we will. and i give my word to both committee members. senator grant? >> thank you. i'm very glad i came. this is been an interesting hearing. i washed you a question. pay close attention. >> i always do. >> i know you do. the purpose of the patriot act and the fisa court and the national security administration is to make sure that we are

aware of terrorist activities in disrupting plots against our interests abroad. is that true? >> i would agree with that. >> the purpose of the patriot act is not to allow the executive branch to gather political intelligence on the judicial branch or the legislative branch. would you agree with that? >> i would agree with that. >> this is exactly like trying to kill it people in a caf?. there is no other strategy to drone somebody who has done wrong anywhere. am i would agree with that. >> we are trying to capture and kill people who we believe our national security threat to our nation, right? >> also true. >> and one thing we are trying to do with the patriot act is find out about terrorist organizations and individual terrorists who they may be talking to. >> again, i would say that is overall -- >> i hope the american people appreciate we are at war, and because i sure as hell do. i hope that the american people appreciate the way that you try to protect the homeland is try to figure out with the enemy is up to. i'm a verizon customer. it does not bother me one bit for the national security

administration to have my phone number because what they are trying to do is find out what terrorist groups we know about and individuals and who the hell they are calling, and if my number pops up on a terrorist phone, i'm confident the pfizer court is not going to allow my phone calls to be monitored by my government unless you and others can prove to them that i am up to a terrorist activity through a probable cause standard. i may come out differently than my colleagues on this. is was created by the congress. if we made mistakes and we have gotten outside of the lane, we are going to get inside. but the consequences of taking these tools away from the american people through the government would be catastrophic. so you keep up what you are doing, and if you have gone outside the lane, you fix it. president bush started it, president obama is continuing it, and we needed from my point of view. now, under the law of war, there are three branches of

government. what branch of government is in charge of actually implementing annex a kidding the war? >> the executive branch. >> so we don't have 35 commanders in chief, we have one, right? >> that is true. >> can you tell me any other time in any other war where the judiciary took over the decision over who to target, who the many me was -- who the enemy was, and took that away from the executive branch? >> i am not aware of that. we operate within legal parameters, but within those legal parameters -- >> i will be astonished for america during this war to turn over from the commander-in-chief the ability to use lethal force to a bunch of unelected judges. who have no expertise and no background as to who the enemy is and whether or not we should

use lethal force. i think the worst possible thing we could do is to take away from this commander-in-chief and any other commander-in-chief the power to determine who the enemy is in a time of war and what kind of forced to use and give it to a bunch of judges. that would be the ultimate criminalization of the war. i support you for having transparency and for making the hard call, but you have, from my point of view, been more than reasonable when it comes to the drone program. into an american citizen, if you side with the enemy and we go through a laborious process to determine that you have, we will kill you or capture you. the best way to avoid that is to not help out qaeda. the citizen in yemen, any doubt in your mind that he was helping al qaeda? >> none, and we laid out exactly

why he was a target, that he was an appropriate target. >> and there are other american citizens who have associated with al qaeda. one is a spokesman. >> that is correct. >> if we find him, kill him, or capture him, don't go to the court because it is the executive branch's job. finally, she asked a very good question -- with this administration used wonton amo bay in the future to house a law of war capture? >> i think the president has been clear it is not our intention to add any additional prisoners to guantanmo. >> agl cannot be a ship. under the geneva convention, that is not a viable option. so we are a nation without a jail. the reason we have the guy on the ship is we have no place to put him. this will catch up with us. this nation has lost the ability to gather intelligence because

we don't have a prison that people -- we don't have a prison to put people. and last question, do you agree with me that the people that we have had at gitmo for years, that the intelligence that we have gathered humanely through the law of war of and delegation the law of war of interrogation is how we sit safely got been laden? >> i think one of the main reasons we got osama bin laden is a variety of intelligence. >> would you agree with me that one of the treasure trove's of intelligence involving the war on terror is from the people at gitmo. >> at this point, you have some people who have been there 8, 12 years, and their intelligence level is zero at this point. >> there is no doubt in my mind that we have not tortured our way to getting bin laden. we have put the pieces of the puzzle together. last question, sequestration. what is it doing to your ability to protect us as a nation?

>> we are struggling, really, to keep our resources at the level where we can do our job. since january of 2011, i put a hiring freeze in place. we have lost 2400 people, about 600 prosecutors. >> when you say lost, what does that mean, did they quit? i don't mean to interrupt, but could you be clear? >> these are people who have left the department of justice who have not been replaced. so we are a smaller department of justice than we were before i instituted the hiring freeze. if we do not get assistance in 2014, the furloughs we were able to avoid because of your assistance, your assistance, ranking member shelby, those are furloughs we would have to institute and you would have fbi agents not on the streets, prosecutors not in the courts, and my guess would be that wherever the attorney general is

year, two years from now, you will see reduced numbers with regard to prosecutions. and i think that will be a function of this sequestration that we are trying to deal with, and we have tried to deal with again with your help. >> i have such a great committee. i really do. the members. the reason i ask, and i did not mean to intervene on your time,

it is really talent on both sides of the aisle to really get to protecting our citizens. if i could just clarify before i turn to senator murkowski, the people when you say they were lost, were they voluntary departures or involuntary departures? >> i think largely voluntary departures, people through normal attrition. >> which you do not request. in other words they left and you do not replace. >> we sell, along with our officials in justice management, that the economic clouds were forming and that we needed to get ahead of this. it was as a result of the hiring freeze and other great work done by the jmg that we were able to with your cooperation avoid >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i wish i had been here for more of the discussion earlier. i understand it was quite animated. i will dial it back a little bit, perhaps, before alaskans this goes back to the misconduct that was found in the ted

stevens prosecution some years ago. clearly admitted procedural defects, and then after that the department has a disciplinary process. effectively, the judge throughout the discipline the department had imposed against the two assistant u.s. attorneys. that was extraordinarily troubling to many of us. we wrote a letter to suggest the department should appeal this decision as well as look at these disciplinary procedures in light of the board's decision. the question to you, mr. attorney general, is, do you think the decision to throw out the discipline that had been imposed on these two prosecutors was fair? are you going to be appealing that? where are we with this, because alaskans are left dangling wondering is there any justice out there, and they think not. >> i have respect for the people at the board who made that decision. i disagree with it. my expectation is we will be appealing that decision. >> in light of that, do you envision any changes in the prosecutorial system as a consequence of what we have seen from this?

>> i think we have a system in place, a disciplinary system that i think works, is adequate. i don't agree with the way the board looked at the way in which we conducted that disciplinary system. i think we follow the rules, came up with a disciplinary sanction that was appropriate given the misconduct that was found, and we will as i said be appealing that with the board's determination. >> well, i would encourage that. and unfortunately, it leaves the appearance that some of the folks who were not perhaps at the highest level of the decision-making process were held accountable, while others were given a pass. and that just does not sit well. so i would again encourage that appeal and encourage you to look at how we might address clearly what some of the gaps in the

discrepancies are. the second question, and again this is per agree oh, -- and again this is parochial, but we just pass the obama containment act and in that we direct the justice department to consult with the state alaska, consult with our tribes, and present some recommendations to us in congress about reasserting the alaska rural justice law enforcement commission. those recommendations are due out in 2014. this is a commission that had been establish some time ago that allows for basically a venue for various officials to come together and improve law enforcement, judiciary responses to crime, domestic violence, the whole gamut. the commission is no longer active because the your marked funding ran out. so we don't have any forum really need to move forward on the commission's initial work. so i would just ask that you have folks look into whether or

not we have started to work on implementation of section 909 to see if we could make some progress. as you know, we have some considerable challenges that face particularly our native villages when it comes to public safety, domestic violence. we need to turn this around and we need your help. >> i agree with you, senator, and that is not a parochial concern. the mechanism is, but the concerns you raised go outside of your state and i think are worthy of your attention, my intention, and i look forward to working with you. to come up with ways in which we can make effective that provision of the reauthorization. it is something we have tried to make a priority generally in the justice department, but the concerns you have raised about what is going on in your state are very legitimate concerns. they are not parochial. they are not. these are national issues that require national responses and national attention. >> i appreciate that. thank you madam chair.

>> thank you, mr. attorney general. if there are no other questions for the committee, i would like to thank you, until we meet again, and the matter that we have discussed and called -- there are many questions we will want to talk about and work with your staff, but we would like to hear from the inspector general. we know the senators have other duties. mr. attorney general, i want to thank you for your flexibility in the schedule. you were originally scheduled earlier today because of the votes. thank you for your cooperation in participating at the time that we requested, and we look forward to working with you and your staff. and we just have a lot to do here. next,, thank you very much. a debate from the massachusetts senate.

followed by remarks from tom bill sack at the national press club. then tom price talks about his party's agenda. tomorrow, a discussion about cyber security efforts at home and abroad. it includes former ibm ceo samuel, santo. >> when you put on the uniform for a job that is a maintenance shop, and this is true if you are a building janitor or a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the world to the point where it is almost like you are just a part of the background like a machine. you are a human being wearing

the uniform. the general world it's to overlook you. , it is like ait romulan cloaking device, the people who are fellow "star trek" geeks. these are both very frustrating and interesting privilege. when i am wearing a sanitation worker uniform, i can observe people in ways that they do not realize i am observing them. nagle tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> next, ed markey debates gabriel gomez. it is one of three debates this month ahead of the june 20 fifth election. the special election is being held to fill john kerry's warmer seat. the portion of the debate is 35 minutes due to typical problems.

>> good evening and welcome to the boston globe u.s. senate debate. i am a lyrical analyst. i am welcoming our viewers across the nation on c-span. wbz online. and special welcome to our spanish became viewers on univision. welcome also to the political editor of the boston globe. she will be sharing the questioning duties tonight. most importantly, welcome the two candidates. gabriel gomez, a businessman firstocrat ed markey, elected to congress and 1976. before he began, a brief word about our formats. each candidate has up to 90 seconds to address the same

question. they will take first going in alphabetical order. after they have had their say it will be an open ended time of rebuttal and debate. repeat read pete -- throughout the debates. >> let's begin with the first question from cynthia directed there has been energy on question the other candidates character. you are running an ad that calls your opponent dirty. . the way. this out of is your opponent's character in issue in this race? why? thank you. i appreciate you watching. after 37 years in dc, welcome

back to boston. pointter does become a in the campaign. what people are carried about is that we care about the issues. we want to get it up to massachusetts. they prefer us to stay positive. that is what we have been doing. we talk about how we're going to bring jobs to fix this economy. we also talk about national security. seven weeks ago we saw how dangerous is the world we live in. we are staying positive and talking about what people care about. spicy but toll, the boston globe for conducting this important debate. vicki for doing at 7:00 the

people can watch the bruins fan. you will hear about how he is a new kind of republican. you're going to hear the same republican ideas. that is going to be a big part. mr. geomet opposes assault weapons ban. i support mr. gomez opposes a ban on high- capacity magazines. which attaches to those map best weapons. i support a ban on high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports a cut in social security benefits for our seniors. i opposed that. mr. gomez opposes any burden on the billionaires in our country. i support tax -- there's going to be a big difference between mr. gomez and i on these big issues as we debate this evening. it is going to go right to who it is that mr. gomez and i want

to go to washington to represent. i want to represent those massachusetts values that ensure that we protect the citizens in their homes and that we are also able to protect the elderly, the working class, the middle class from unfair tax burden that should be shared by the wealthy, the multinationals in our country. >> thank you. rebuttal. >> you are going to see two different sides here tonight. you will see someone who is going to try to scare you. i will speak from the heart. i will send you the truth. a lot of people in my party and your party are wrong under control. it is going to be an issue that requires bipartisanship. like most of the issues you have been evolving, you want to be divisive about that instead of trying to to fix and solve the problem. you are the first and only political candidate to invoke the newtown masker for political gain. that is beyond disgusting. i am a father of four of young kids. as a navy seal, i know what happens when the weapons fall

into the hands of the wrong person. that is why when i go now to d.c., i will make sure that we passed the expended baccarat check because that is the bill that is going to make our communities, our schools and -- background check. >> i am not linking mr. gomez to newtown. that is a ludicrous position, which he has. we need the ban on assault weapons. we need to tell the nra that it stands for not relevant anymore in american politics. we need to ban high-capacity magazines and attach them which turns them into weapons of war, which belong only on the battlefields of this world, not on the streets of massachusetts, not on streets of this country. that is a huge dividing line. i want to go down to the senate to fight the nra, to fight their position on assault weapons and

high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports the nra and the positions. that is a huge dividing line between the two of us. >> i opposed the nra on expended background checks. the progress men knows this, yet he continues to try to scare you. we need fix this problem. he would to fix this problem is to make sure we pass the expanded background check. we need bipartisan report to pass this bill. there is only one person up here who can get more conservative democrats and you know that is the way we need to make our committee safer. you are the most hyper partisan. you have not found a single time they asked you can you name one time we did not vote with quark >> massachusetts is the leader on the issue of assault weapons bans them on the issue of banning high-capacity magazines.

the minimum, background checks, that is something that senators from west virginia can support. we are massachusetts, we are special. we are supposed to be the leader. we know high-capacity magazines should be banned. that is a huge difference between what you and i are promising the people of massachusetts that we will do we go down to washington -- >> i think taking on the nra is a cargo issue in terms of who will stand up for the people of massachusetts. >> to go back to the character question, there is a lot of mudslinging about each other's character. what would you say about that and do you have an issue with your opponent's character?

>> the people are smart enough to realize they will want to have somebody they want to vote for as opposed to against. they want someone with him the truth to someone who will try to scare them. the reality is, he knows firsthand that the assault weapons ban did not work. he knows that what he is trying to do is trying to buy -- van weapons from everybody instead of banning certain weapons and make sure they don't get in hands of the wrong people. we need to make sure that we passed the bill with bipartisan support. >> there was a flood, millions of chinese assault weapons that were coming into the united states.

it was an epidemic, being used for crimes all of the country. i put together the coalition that led to the ban on those chinese sought weapons coming into the united states. that is still on the books. don't say those bands did not work. they did work. the problem is now, we have a greater epidemic and we need someone who is going to go down to washington to take on the nra, to fight the epidemic. 52 children died every single week from gun violence in our country and we have a response ability to be the leaders to put in place preventive measures that reduce the amount of deaths in our country. >> i want to move on. take 15 seconds and you can return to it later. >> you are the one that is taking millions of dollars from lobbyists. >> rebuttal. >> this issue on funding the nra is very clear -- fighting the nra.

it is mitch mcconnell who is leading the efforts on blocking the passage not only of -- also a an assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez opposes those bands. bans. >> i want to introduce another topic. our format allows you to return to this and you should feel free to do so. thank you. this next question kids was from a viewer. -- came to us. it is not always clear what they mean by middle-class. please define in terms of income range what you think being middle-class means and explain what you will do in the senate to ease middle-class economic and siding -- anxiety. >> the middle class in massachusetts is basically, if you look at the median income in the state, it is about $80,000. of course, it can go up to

200,000. as i look at those middle income families, that is what i am concentrating on. it is the issue of ensuring they get the tax breaks they need. over the last 15 years, i have voted four $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for middle-class families. i have supported him up for example, a first-time homeownership tax break for those workers. i have also supported programs, educational loan programs that help their children to be able to gain access for the education which they need in order to qualify for this jobs.

i worked to bring in telecom jobs, biotech jobs, the clean tech jobs that all play into giving middle-class families in the state of massachusetts an opportunity to believe with the education and health care of their children that they can prosper even more greatly in the 21st century than families did in the 20th century in massachusetts and across our country. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> the middle class is $80,000 to $150,000. my opponent has voted to raise taxes over three times in his career. you can't name is able time that you did not vote to increase taxes to go against your party. i give you credit for inventing the internet over 20 years ago. the reality is, over the last 20 years, you have not authored a single piece of legislation that is not signed into law. the private sector where i come from, the last thing you would do is ask for a raise or even a promotion. that is a difference between you and i've. i come from the private sector and understanding middle-class and what they need. they need jobs and lower taxes, taxes, which is why we think we should have a copperheads of tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform.

>> mr. gomez, you could not be more wrong. in the last couple of years, i passed a bill that created the requirement that we actually have a plan to find the cure for alzheimer's. that is the law and it is my bill. i passed the law that created an on ramp to the wireless world for the deaf and the blind in our country. i did it because of the school for the blind so every one of the deaf and blind all across the country and across the world would have access to it. i authored a piece of legislation was called independence at home which ensures that there is a change in the way in which we view those people who have

alzheimer's, those who have parkinson's so we can keep them at home. so that nursing homes and hospitals all have a financial incentive to keep those patients at home. those are all my laws and passed within the last two or three years and they are revolutionizing healthcare and the telik a medication sector while helping people elect the mother that alzheimer's to be able to stay at home and not -- >> response. >> he give you a slick answer. in the last 20 years coming of the authored is in a piece of legislation legislation that has been passed into law. i am sorry, but you are the poster boy for -- we need to have a no budget, no pay. if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. for the last 20 years, you have

not been doing your job. if you don't do your job, you don't get a pay raise or promotion, which is what you're asking the people of massachusetts today. -- to do. [indiscernible] >> i am the author of the law of requiring screening for nuclear bombs coming into the port of boston so we don't have a nuclear explosion or any other ports in our country. i could go on and on in terms of the number of laws which not every -- which i am the principal author of. whether it be the people who are concerned about bombs on planes, the flight attendants, whether it be the kids at the perkins school, data i was the author of these laws. they came to me and asked me to pass these bills.

>> go ahead, but i want to move on. >> i think he changed the terminology on the authorship of these laws. i did the congressman does not like it when i talk about -- if it was up to him, we would not have the department of homeland security. you voted against that. you voted against the reauthorization act. twice, you voted against a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11. he is going to give a lawyer like explanation to not vote to honor the victims of 9/11. >> let him respond to those charges. >> i voted eight times to honor the victims from 9/11. these two planes were hijacked at logan airport. people from a district were on those planes. i went to their funerals.

i honor those families. i wonder that the permit of homeland security to make sure it never happened again. when republicans controlled the house, they put inside of that bill a position stripping the first responders from their ability to be able to negotiate for their wages, for their health care collectively. mr. gomez subparts -- supports the department of homeland security. >> he gets to respond to that. >> i care about the security of our count -- country. you just showed the put

partisanship and party and politics ahead of the people. i head of the of the people of massachusetts. you put party and politics ahead of what is right and that is what i am running. this election is about the future and new and fresh art -- ideas. we need to do the people massachusetts before party and politics. >> equal time and we are moving on. >> by the way, my position ultimately prevails. i thought these workers, these first responders should not be stripped of their right to negotiate and that provision was taken out. that is not a law. we have a department of homeland

security for these workers are given the respect they need. when they are rushing towards victims, no one checks to see whether they are in a union are not. i don't think stripping them of their ability to negotiate was the way for us to construct the department of homeland security. >>. thank you. >> states have expressed frustration at the prospect of government the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. please give a specific example of something you see wrong with the new law that you would try to change in the senate and please explain exactly what you would do to try to fix it. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> i believe everybody should have access to quality and affordable health care. i sincerely believe that. we should not have done at a federal level. it should be done in a state level. here, we have 90% of our population that has healthcare.

one of the most egregious parts of the affordable care act is the medical device tax that you voted for. you get a chance to repeal it and you did not vote to repeal it. a medical device tax were hundreds of companies in massachusetts with over 25,000 employees depend -- it is our number one export coming out of massachusetts, medical devices. now that you are running for the senate, you are for repealing the medical device tax. you had a chance to repeal the medical device tax and you did not, knowing there are hundreds of companies and over 25,000 employees that are dependent on the medical devices. it is our number one export out of massachusetts. you put party and politics before the people of massachusetts. >> 90 seconds.

>> the affordable care act is going to revolutionize the relationship that exists between 0americans and their access to health care. it ensures that every child has our to healthcare for the first time. if you become sick, it ensures you cannot become bankrupt. two thirds of the grizzly was because of medical bills -- of bankruptcy. if you have a pre-existing condition, the insurance company cannot deny you insurance coverage.

this is a huge revolution. i opposed putting the medical device tax in the bill in the first place. i am working to repeal it. i don't want to repeal it because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it.

for me, i want to repeal it. my amendment on the senate floor will be to reduce the tax breaks which the oil companies get so that we can give back the tax break to the medical device industry. that is the way you have to legislate. the way republicans have set it up is that they cut into the programs of the poor and the middle class. the better way of going is to find an industry does not need a tax break -- the oil industry is at the top of that list -- partnered with the need to protect the medical device industry and we have a winning formula for our state and country.

>> rebuttal. >> i spent the last four months everyday of my campaign here in massachusetts visiting small businesses, talking to voters and talking to families. their main concern is the iconomy and the overburdened of am not satisfied. i think we need a lower unemployment rate. if you go out to the theonwealth and talk to family and voters, they will tell you that the affordable care act is a huge verdant on them. the economy is booming. their time live in a cocoon with a forget how

the rest of the country and their state operates. just because things are going well in dc, does not mean --y're going well everyone everywhere else. >> you do not have to make a choice. you can have a robust economy and you can make sure everyone has healthcare. we are doing that. we have a response ability to be the leaders in hospital cost containment and to put together innovative new ideas to keep the cost from escalating. that is what my program that is called independence at home is program,.and by the way, my independence at home, that is what it is all about. we keep the patient in living room so you can save upwards of $30 billion over 10 years. that is the way we should be thinking, not taken away healthcare from people. i think they want to make sure the system works better, more innovative, more creative, and controlling the costs.

will do that, our economy be better off and eventually the entire american economy. >> we did a great job under governor romney in 2004. you anderence between i, congressman, as i trust the state and the people to do better. you always trust the federal government in everything that you think about and i think the people of massachusetts are smart enough to realize how much dysfunctional and discord there is a dc. 98% of us are health-care coverage here. the other states can do it a lot better on themselves. >> you can't have it both ways. you can't be praising governor romney, the architect of our massachusetts plan, and then turn around and say that everyone is complaining about the romney plan. you can't have it of ways. the truth is that the romney plan is working. it is providing healthcare for

the citizens of massachusetts. it became the model for the rest of the country. but here in massachusetts, it's working. we have to make it better. -- ave to make sure >> you just showed that you don't spend much time here in massachusetts. when you talk to the small business owners and the voters and the families, they would tell you the opposite of that. i will commit to go out there and talk to them. -- i welcome you to go out there and talk to them. >> every day, crisscrossing the state in every corner of the commonwealth, let me tell you something -- this healthcare plan may not be perfect, but people want to make it better. they don't want to take it off the books. they don't want to take healthcare insurance away from people in the commonwealth. >> plenty of time in the next half-hour to continue that. we will move to other topics,

including foreign policy after this brief rate as the wbc boston globe u.s. senate debate continues. >> welcome back to the wbc boston globe u.s. senate debate. we continue with our next question. let's turn to the most important form policy west and the u.s. senator will ever vote on. what is your criteria for taking the united states to war? do you see a global trouble spot right now where that might soon apply? 90 seconds, sir. >> from my perspective, there has to be an imminent threat to the united states. optionas to be no other than for our country to send in our military. it is the most important decision which we can make. and if we do decide to go in, we

have to build a coalition of our allies so that we are not going in alone. so that we are ensuring the maximum consensus in dealing with a threat that exists, not just for the united states, but to the entire world. from my perspective, that decision is one that has to be made with great reserve. for example, in serial right right now, iria don't think it would be wise to send ground ships into a civil war. i think that would be a big mistake. similarly, it is wise for us to pull out of iraq and have a plan to pull out of afghanistan. there hadr missions been completed and we should begin a new process to deploy where there are greater threats to the united states of america. in every instance, it is critical for the united states

to determine our security interests, our imminent danger, and a coalition to deal with them with a collective response that maximizes our likelihood of success in the mission. >> thank you. mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> i have a very unique perspective on national security. ahad the honor of serving as navy man and a navy seal. i have a lot of friends who are still in the service every day to come pushing missions for the security of our country. putting troops on the ground is the last option that we should expended everyve form of diplomacy possible. national security has to be a threat to sit -- to consider that. you want to build a coalition as possible. you mentioned syria. this is iran's last friend in the middle east. i think we have taken too long

to do anything in syria right now. we have had a huge appraising in the middle east with regime changes in yemen and libya. we have to make sure to align ourselves with the right terrorist group or rebel group in syria to make sure that, once they fall, that they promote democracy in the middle east. at the minimum, we should have a no-fly zone and we should be supplying aid to the rebel group that we identify that will eventually take over. because of saud will fall. syria is iran's last friend. they are supplying troops and armament and intelligence. they are doing everything they can because they know that that is their last front. >> rebuttal. secretary of state john kerry is doing a good job of their. -- good job over there. he is building a coalition

toward icily -- toward isolating iran. we haveame time, learned this lesson in afghanistan where we gave weapons and it came back to haunt us. selecting just the right groups that we would be helping, that is important because we cannot make a mistake. the most important thing in any action we take in syria is not how we get in, but whether or not at the end of the process we actually have a peaceful syria. -- peaceful serious .aterially going in, yes but to the extent we are sending military aid, we have to make sure it won't come back and bite unintended

consequences. hashe conflict in syria been going on for a year and a half. we have an opportunity, congressman to take out iran's best friend and ally. our best friend in the area is is israel.srael -- if assad falls and iran is isolated, there will be peace throughout the region. at the minimum, we should have a no-fly zone. right now, we haven't effectively done anything in a year and a half. in egypt, you had the muslim brotherhood takeover which is now putting at risk the cornerstone piece in the middle east between egypt and israel. when you have the wrong group takeover and you are not aligned with them, that causes

rifts throughout, through israel and throughout the world. >> let him respond. when itported israel attacked the missiles coming through syria from iran heading for has bola -- from hezbollah. they did that last week. put down its weapons,. there would be peace but if israel puts down there's, there would be no more israel. so we have to support israel. we have to make sure we are protecting them. anything that we do has to be done in conjunction with our allies. we have to have a concerted plan going in. even a no-fly zone requires all of our allies to understand that that is the first step toward a concerted effort to achieve a particular set of ends. and if it is done wrong, a could lead to military escalation on the ground that could pull in the united states of america.

>> on the next "washington journal," derek shall lay -- derek chollet will talk about u.s. defense policy in iraq. then jonathan bloch talks about insurance for adults under the age of 26. michael assemble with the rand corporation. , tweetsh your calls and e-mails at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the senate returns to work monday to continue debating a conference of immigration measure that creates a conditional cap to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the united states. it also aims to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers, improve order security, and place caps on the says -- on

asas on high skilled workers final vote at 5:30 p.m. and new jersey attorney general will be sworn in at 4:30 p.m. on monday. vice president biden will reenact the ceremony in the old senate chamber. live coverage when it three times -- when it returns on c- span2. as the incentive options, voluntary options are upon us has i do think that the fcc to steer this in a way that is and small, medium-size large companies are able to compete to spectrum. up ideas that a fish swallow little fish is not healthy for

our economy. they'll have a business plan. obviously, they want to make money. but when you look at the markets in the country, 80% is owned, in terms of the beachfront, the most valuable spectrum -- and spectrum is golden our country and we have to do much more in order to loosen it up and free it up. >> cybersecurity and feet amid the internet monday night on " the communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. tom bill sack -- tom vilsack. he served two terms as i was governor before heading the usda in 2009. this is one hour.

>> we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our future through events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information, please visit our website at www. press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public, please visit press.org\institute. on behalf of our embers worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you and our audience today. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause from our audience, i would know to the members of the general public are also attending. so it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. [laughter] i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action today on twitter using the # npslunch. we will hold a question and

answer period. i would ask each of you to stand briefly as your name a is announced. patrick eleni, director for the american [indiscernible] , head ofhardt corporate medications for north america force in gentoo corporation. bonnie, senior adviser for the secretary of the department of u.s. agriculture. vilsack senior advisor for the u.s. agency for international development and the wife of our speaker today. , the editor with bloomberg news, and the treasurer of the national press club. skipping over the speaker for just a moment, a reporter for bloomberg news and the speakers

committee member who organized today's event. thank you. mills acting undersecretary for the u.s. department of agriculture. derek wall bank, a bloomberg news reporter and william coyle, it a private consultant and retired agricultural economist for usda. as a young kid, our kid today sought a cartoon of a very overweight kid with a beanie cap. his parents thought that would be the best way to prevent him from gaining weight. today, u.s. agriculture secretary tom vilsack is responsible for devising more than 300 million americans on nutrition and healthy eating choices and it probably doesn't involve any cartoon on the refrigerator. in fact, what the department of agriculture is doing is including a daily twitter feed

on diet and well-being. -- mr. vilsack became agriculture secretary in 2009. previously, he had campaigned for 2009 -- four heller clinton. -- four hillary clinton. previously, he campaigned for hillary clinton in 2009. he was born in its bird. pittsburgh.t -- in he spent the first 15 months of life in an orphanage. he ran for the office of mayor of mount vernon after the previous mayor had been shot. from governing the city, he went to serving in the iowa senate.

in 1999, he became the first democratic governor of the state in 30 years. hesecretary of agriculture, faced controversy and calls from black farmers for his resignation in 2010 following the hasty firing of use da employee shirley shared -- of usda employee shirley shared after she had been falsely accused of racism. he is working on green tariffs, subsidies to farmers and much more. please join me today in getting a warm national is club welcome to agriculture secretary tom vilsack. [applause] >> good afternoon to everyone. i want to thank the national press club for the opportunity to discuss an issue that was not raised in the introduction,

but which is an extremely important issue that we face at usda. that is a complex environmental challenge that american agriculture is likely to face in the years and decades to come. in particular, i want to focus on america's food supply, specifically how we have in the past mitigated threats to it and how we face today in calling environmental threats, requiring again that we mitigate and adapt. this is an important discussion because our food supply stands at the core of our strength as a nation. today, american agriculture is tremendous the productive largely due to the innovation that has been embraced by our farmers and ranchers. productivity impacts more than the farmers bottom line. to lead theamerica way in feeding a growing world population. it enables us to maintain a national cultural trade surplus that now supports over a million jobs.

it allows us to enjoy an affordable and diverse homegrown roots of life come all of which makes america a far more secure nation. we have achieved this productivity because american agriculture has always adapted to threats. we are flexible and we are responsible when disaster strikes. but we have also taken the long view. we have always asked what will we have to deal with next week, next month or next year? risk management and at a patient starts on our farms. rf -- risk management and added starts on ourptation farms. they find out what is wrong and they fix it. for more than a century, they have had our help in fixing those problems. we americans are a people who have invested and supported our agricultural sector from usda to our great land grant

universities to local extension --nts, experts advisers experts and advisors on all levels have been in to get the job done. it is a joint undertaking and a shared response ability in america. during and after the dust bowl, usda health farmers and match -- farmers and ranchers and forster's remarriage the soil, farmers andginal -- ranchers and forrester's renurish the soil. last year, as producers faced the worst drought in generations, around aching agricultural research and smart is this planning saved crops that in the past would have been destroyed.

thebottom-line is that, in united states, we produce an amazing amount of food as we and adapt it to the threats prepared for tomorrow's threats. today, we face a new challenge in the form of a changing and shifting climate. i am the secretary of agriculture. i am not here to give a scientific that sure on climate change. but i am here to tell you what we are seeing on the ground. we are seeing more severe storms. we are facing more invasive species. we are experiencing more intense forest fires that threaten communities. 2012ct, noah reported that was the second most intense year in our history for extreme weather events, droughts, floods, hurricanes, severe storms and devastating wildfires. they have also advised that laster was the warmest year on record for the -- that last year was the warmest year on

record for the continental united states. new advance practices have helped to keep production steady even in the face of these extreme weather patterns. but this latest science also tells us that the threat of a changing client -- changing climate is new and much different from anything we have ever tackled. earlier this year, usda raised to copperheads of studies, one on crops and one on forests. detailing the projected effects and impacts of climate change on agriculture and for street grade these studies found that, in -- on agriculture and for forestry. we will face the need to adapt our crop production. as temperatures increase, crop reduction may need to shift based on water availability and other factors. fruitwe are growing

intensive vegetables today, we may have to grow a drought resistant road crop. bringing increased cost for our producers. we control a loan cost us we'd istrol -- weed control alone the greatest cost. ask the landowners about the art beetle in the west. we will see more severe weather patterns. these will all demand new strategies. destructivest, the wildfires threatened to become the norm. the fire season now is at least 60 days longer than it was just 30 years ago. , whiche beetle epidemic

is attributed to climate change, now covers 40 million acres of land across the interior west. fires now impact far more many acres. a recent study forecasts a doubling of the annual average fire season. last year, we experienced fire in over 9 million acres. we are beginning to grasp the challenges of our climate and we will see impact in each region of our country. in the northeast, extreme resuscitation events have increased faster than anywhere else in the nation. that reduces yields. across the midwest and the great snow season has increased. in the west and southwest, home to our nation's high-value specialty crops, increased drought poses a particular

threat to irrigation-intensive fruits, vegetables and nuts. the fact is come across america, america's forest -- america's farmers and ranchers and forest owners see the long-term challenge posed by this climate. this problem will not go alone -- go away on its own that's why america must take the time out to adapt. we know that modern solutions require a ebling down on collaboration between our farmers, government, research onrequire a doubling down collaboration between our farmers, government, and research. one-size-t a single fits-all problem. we need a targeted approach geared to the particular challenges faced by each region of our country. stepse already taken under president obama to forge critical new approaches to

mitigation and adaptation. just take the livestock and dairy industries for example. in 2009, usda entered into a historic agreement with the u.s. dairy industry to mitigate its environmental impact. we supported new energy efficiency and waste energy systems. agreementyears, this led to the creation of 400 new .anaerobic digester's last month, -- 400 new anaerobic digester's. we have provided support through our university funding to help the livestock industry reduce its environmental footprint. last month, usda announced 19.5 million dollars in funding to the university of wisconsin and oklahoma state to look at the impact of climate. billy on dairy and beef production. ultimately, these projects aim to deliver -- ultimately --

look at the impact of climate variability on dairy and beef production. ultimately, these projects aim to deliver. under the obama administration, the usda has invested in this effort. a focus on research to sustain our productivity in the face of environmental challenges. we have worked with uc davis to tolore how we might adapt [indiscernible] we have made unprecedented efforts to conserve america's forests while playing a critical role in removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere and restoring them in our trees and soil everywhere.

given the threats that are forests have today, we have given way from the timber wars to a recognized vision that we must work together toward a common goal of forest restoration. , usda adopted a new forest planning rule that ensures our forests will be stored and managed in a way that attacks all the benefits that are force can provide to americans, including cleaning -- benefits that our arrests can provide to americans, including clean water. to makee best science sure our forest can adapt to climate change over time. thousands ofed out projects to help embrace renewable energy and energy efficiency processor -- efficiency projects on their

lands. .nd how we need to adapt two climateto the assessments i referenced the obama administration has taken a copperheads of and proactive effort to ensure that the federal government itself is prepared for the climate challenges that lie ahead. usdart of this effort, engage employees and agencies to address their weight once with regard to shifting climate and modern threats to our environment. we software our program program delivery might be impacted by these new challenges. working with many agencies, we laid out 83 specific recommendations to be sure that we can continue to deliver top- notch service in the face of climate impact. we identified, needs to embrace collaboration on planning within the federal government and with

our partners. we laid out a need to better topare our avis program measure invasive species to make sure that our scientific research else deliver modern climate solutions that will strengthen the resilience of our forests that will help create new ways for producers to access information that will help them mitigate threats. we will be issuing a follow-up later this year. these efforts reflect our understanding that proactive steps will pay big dividends in the decades to come. we know we need to be ahead of the game. we must continue to build on the previous actions to better support america's adaptation to climate challenges. today, i am here to announce some measures we will be taking. first, usda will now establish

seven new regional climate hubs to work in partnership with producers and forrester's on me -- and foresters to work on you adaptation plans. if we are to be effective in managing the risk of a shifting climate, we will need to ensure that our managers in the field and our stakeholders have all the information they need to succeed. that is why we will be bringing all that information together on a regionally approved the basis. i want you to think of these as service centers for science- based risk management, to deliver an extension to the 21st century. they will enhance coronation of the science assets of the usda. they will encourage folks to excite this development and the delivery of forecast as well as solutions to improve risk management in ways that matter

to the folks on the ground. these hubs will enable us to carry out regionally appropriate climate change risk and vulnerability assessments, get the data out to the field more quickly. these hubs will deal that advice to farmers and forest owners on ways in which they can reduce on their land the risk of a changing climate. this will serve as a starting point to further implement new strategies for improved soil health and water protection. one promising example of the possibility is a multi-cropping production system that will add additional nutrient value to our soil. better protected cropland, store more carbon, and allow more producers to expand their income as we investigate the possibilities of a competitive market, these regional hubs will have play a role.

many of them will take face and existing u.s. dea service centers across the nation and -- existing usda service centers across the nation. experimenttural stations and new platforms for this important collaboration. second, i can announce new efforts by the natural resource conservation service to move into the next generation of research and technical assistance. in particular, both of these efforts will relate to carbon. we know it is important to understand the role of carmen in contributing to global warming -- all of carbon in country to global warming. it will help to mitigate climate change. it will improve soil health, make it more resilient in the face of these modern challenges. it is launching an

online resource assessment database. the results of a study known as the rapid carbon assessment. this will be useful for researchers and scientists. let me explain more about this. this tool will allow online access to the most extensive database on soil carbon in the world. while they collected soil samples for more than a century, this has been their most ambitious project. it's the largest concentrated soil sampling effort in history. scientists collected more than over00 soil samples in 6000 locations throughout the united states to provide a baseline of data on regional carbon stocks. this will allow outside researchers and scientists begin

taking a fresh look at carbon and soil, which ultimately will have a regional benefit to crop reduction. and the nrc, usda us and our climate change office will be rolling out this online tool. et farm.this the commen this online tool is the next generation of our ongoing efforts to develop user-friendly tools for our farmers and producers so they can better understand the greenhouse gas footprint of their operation. producers will receive input about their land and current and asked management practices that will allow them to establish a baseline. it will let them to select a list of alternative conservation practices to see how each one can change their greasy -- their greenhouse gas emissions and how much carbon then be captured. it can estimate how

much that conservation practice could increase stored carbon and decrease missions from his or her operations. reachl help producers decisions that will reduce their energy costs while the link carbon stocks in their soil. it will also serve as a gateway for future efforts to help reducers anticipate in voluntary carbon markets. these new tools will build on a campaign for soil health at usda because we know that healthy soil can absorb a significant amount of carbon and help really in mitigating the impact of climate change. , wemproving soil health can improve productivity, protect our scarce water resources, improve biodiversity, reduce erosion, and help ring back carbon into the ground where it belongs. we also know that healthy soil is more resilient. every pound of soil organic matter can hold 18-20 pounds of

water, helping these farms and these farmlands to be more resilient to drought and extreme weather conditions. that is why usda has focused on helping our nation's farmers and ranchers through our campaign called "unlock the secrets in the soil." we know that soil conservation practices can help farmers and they can also mitigate the impacts of climate change. efforts like these will only be stronger as we ramp up new regionally focused information sharing efforts. third, usda agencies are starting to work together to make new cover crop methods available for producers and to ensure that our agencies are working together to ensure that these options are viable durin. for centuries, they have been to sustain soil and harness many other benefits. cover crops can also sequester a significant amount of carbon.

however, some producers have encountered conflicting management issues when working with several agencies. there was a perception that one time that crop insurance policies do not allow cover crops. that conflicted with incentives to plant cover crops. some recommendations conflict with the language in the 2008 farm bill,. how the agency was to give a commodity payments that is obviously a problem. we undertook an effort to ensure that farmers who plant cover crops have clarity and consistency from our department. nrcs and fsa are now working together and have worked together to establish a common, science-based guidance on when cover crops could be terminated. this is important because, if you allow them to continue too long, it can impact the main cash crop. these administrators have

engaged stakeholders and universities and the crop insurance industry itself to figure out how best to make cover crop guidelines straightforward and sensible. the result is new guidance, a new model that uses local climate data, tillage management, and soil data to account for daily crop growth and the use of soil moisture. with this information, experts determined the latest possible time to terminate a cover crop, which will allow to maximize carbon sequestration while minimizing the risk to the cash crop yield. fourhis new guidance, cover crop termination sounds have been identified across the united states. the tools to identify proper cover crop management in an area, taking into account the local climate and cropping systems.

to get the time needed this right come including true testing our recommendations with folks on the ground. going forward, we will all uniformly referred producers to these guidelines and will use them in administering their various programs. science- consistent size they will stayp, in compliance with numerous fda rules. they can reap the economic benefits that cover crops can provide. producers will have a greater degree of certainty that, when they use these practices, they will still be a usable for crop insurance and other programs. information on all of these new steps, the regionals. -- the regional hubs and more will be available on our website at www. usda.gov.

these tools represent our competence of strategy for helping agriculture adapt to modern challenges. we will obviously continue to provide world-class research and additional tools from academic experts. reflect an understanding that farmers and ranchers have always been on the front line of meditation. we don't just want to tell folks there there problem, but provide them with real information to create create real solutions for these very specific threat. these efforts are also directed to maintain our abundant and productive agricultural sector, an effort the dozens top at the edge of the field. -- that doesn't stop at the edge of the field. when we spoke earlier about the tremendous productivity of american agriculture that helps keep costs hom low at home and helping to create jobs, here is

the more difficult and bad news. estimates show that at least ends upur food supply wasted. an estimated 333 billion pounds of food each year is not consumed. taking a look around at the plates here. [laughter] first, this is a major food security issue from the perspective that wasted food cannot be used to help the folks at food banks and community kitchens. second, it is in obvious resource issue. all of the research that went into producing that wasted food, nearly 22 billion acres of land, including that acreage, the labor on that acreage, the water used on that acreage, the pesticides and fertilizers could have been saved or could have gone to uses of higher value for society. third, it is also a climate

change issue. epa estimates that, in united states, food is the single largest component of municipal solid waste that goes to landfills. and landfills are the third are just source of methane. you all can do the math. by reducing the amount of food we tossed into the trash, we can help reduce methane emissions. joined leaders from across the u.s. who check your to announce the u.s. food waste challenge. together, we are crawling -- we are calling on americans across the nation to reduce the amount of food that ends up in our landfills, recover food that can be used to feed those in need, and recycle food waste wherever we can. right now, we have a few founding partners on board. there are 200 participants organizations. -- our shared goal is to

build momentum to fight food waste. at usda, we intend to do our part we pledge to reduce waste in our school meals program. we will take new steps to educate consumers about food waste and storage and we will develop new technologies and new applications to help reduce food waste and make it easier for consumers to do so. we will also work with industry leaders to streamline procedures for donating wholesome food and poultry products that are ms. branded -- that are misbranded. then we will recycle food samples that will have an extended that's that have been inspected. then we will recycle food samples that have been inspected.

it is a meditation strategy that everyone can help to create. this work represents the beginning stages and first steps of an overarching focus on a notation in the years to come. over the coming months and years, usda intends to build our new ships with landowners -- build partnerships with landowners. i look forward to sharing additional plans with you in the future. the bottom line today is that america's long history of innovation must continue. our farmers and ranchers have driven over the course of generations that they are up to the task and usda has a strong history of supporting them in their efforts. this will not be a short-term task. it won't be simple, but it is doable.

that is why we need to prepare for the future today. to begin asking how we can work together to prepare agriculture for these new challenges and thereby put our food supply on solid and strong footing for the years to come, allowing our nation to continue to be strong and secure in the years to come. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. as you can imagine, we have a lot of different questions on a lot of different topics. what do you see as the opportunities to integrate climate adaptation into agriculture policies, specifically into the next farm bill? of the things you talked about today, will any of them require adjustment of action? >> -- require legislative action? >> none of the things i talked about today will require legislative action.

in terms of what i like to referred to as the foods and farm bill, there are opportunities to build on this effort by an expanded research commitment that is contained in the senate bill that is being considered and debated right now, an opportunity for us to leverage research dollars with a foundation that could be established. there is also a concerted effort to bolster our own internal research efforts through the agricultural research service. an opportunity to build on the work we are doing with environmental markets, some of the work we're doing doing with .he forest service to expand all of that is contained and supported by the farm bill. without it, we don't have a five-year commitment from congress. we can't establish firmly the next step in this process. it is important that it gets

done this year. it will get done this year and what do you like or not like in the house and senate proposals thus far? >> we have received indications from both that this is a prior art he. it is being -- is a priority. it will be done this week or early next week. processe has done the of getting it keyed up for a debate in the house. there are differences between the two proposals passed out of committee. probably the most significant difference is in the area of nutrition assistance. i think it is important to point out that all of us would like to see reduced numbers in the nutrition assistance programs. but the pro--- but the challenge is how to do it the right way. if you use the house restriction, you will not nones

of people out of the program. 92% of the program are senior citizens, children, or working moms and dads of the children. they are trying to do right by their families and need help through the struggling economy. those are not the people that we want to knock out of the program. a better ways to help those folks who can be employed to be employed. help those who are currently employed to get a better paying job so they no longer need the program. one of the fundamental differences is working out this nutrition go. $.15 of every food dollar spent in the grocery store or a restaurant ultimately finds its way through the supply chain back to a farmer in the form of income. $20ou are going to knock at billion in nutrition assistance, he will also knock out $3 billion in farm income.

that is something that the secretary of agriculture cannot be for. >> you talked about your soil initiatives. do you plan any new incentives to offer to farmers to keep their soil healthy and productive in the long term? >> that is one of the more important things about the data we are providing today on the soil carbon sampling that we have done and the opportunity to provide the online tool. just understand the power of this particular technology as producers are considering their land, the long-term impacts of changing climates, more intense weather patterns, more.warm conditions they have to pay attention to the -- and more warm conditions. they have to pay attention to the condition of their soil. now the it will be able to ofculate the impact conservation practices on that soil health by virtue of their

ability to catholic. we will also -- to calculate. we will also be able to market for industries that need that benefit, that carbon sequestration benefit, for example, that could come from conservation. all of a sudden, you don't have just the government investing in conservation, but industries interested in private land conservation. the same thing would be true with force. but this tool will allow us to better measure, verify and quantify the results of conservation, which creates new opportunities for producers to improve their land and new income opportunities for folks in the rule areas. asked on the or importance of protecting the u.s. farm and ranch land from conversion to house and other as part of addressing climate change. how do we do that to reduce greenhouse gases and keep that land available to sequester carbon? >> it is a critical issue.

on of the reasons why we haven't and has impacted by the expansion of cities and suburbs as we have in this country is because we have been extraordinarily productive in our agriculture. we have seen 200%-300% increases in our production in my lifetime because of signed. we have seen -- because of science. we are doing more with less. the reality is that you will be addressedsentially that issue, first by making sure that the tax laws encourage placing land in conservation easements that are protected from development. our tax laws today do not provide a long-term benefit for that purpose. secondly, adequately funding the programs that we have a usda to create long-term conservation or permanent conservation opportunities. third, income opportunities from land so that folks have options in addition to developments.

the extent that you again can measure the conservation benefit, you will be able to market that benefit. we have local markets today that are being produced around the country. i think it is a power company that is basically taking power generation. they are taking the water that they use in putting it back in the stream and salmon don't like it because it is warmer. down the water before it goes back in the stream. they understood they could measure water temperature. they went to landowners around the shaman said what would it take for you to a shade trees and maintain them to lower the temperature of the water naturally? it saved a lot of money for the company and created a new income opportunity for those landowners. it is that kind of traitor thought process i think we are now engaged in at usda to figure out ways in which we can treat those kinds of market

opportunities. if you have multiple ways to make money, you don't necessarily have to think about selling your land for development or persist. -- the your landposes -- for development purposes. [indiscernible] >> i would say that i would be happy to take folks who are concerned about this for questioning this to examine some of our forest areas in the western united states. bark ason why we have the for station is because warmer winter has resulted in those critters surviving. in the past, they didn't survive. because of the way we have not restored are for us, they have been to literally hop from tree to tree. we are now dealing with millions of acres of dead trees. as warmer temperatures and drought create the opportunity for more intense forest fires

and lightning strikes occur, we are now seeing hundreds of thousands of acres being wrapped up in forest fires that we did not see before. that is an impact and effect of climate. the fact we have had more intense storms, longer drought, more significant floods, the intensity of some of the hurricanes and tornadoes we have seen recently, they are all indications of a climate that clearly is warming. the impact of that warming climate are these more intense weather patterns and they do threaten the future of agriculture long-term as we know it did that is why it is important for us, today, to be serious about this. that is why we are announcing the steps we are taking. ofthe proposed for choices smithfield by chinese companies have some concern. do you think that the usda might work to stop or limit that deal? >> i think there are probably a lot of agencies and government who are looking at.

we will always continue to be the safety and security of the food supply in the united states and that which is provided to united states citizens. anhave a responsibility, i obligation to make sure that food produced here in the united states is done so safely. we have folks who are focused and concentrated on that effort. we will import food from other countries and have the response noted to ensure that the methods they use our equipment to or better than the methods we use in the united states. past have hadhe issues, particularly in china. that raises an awareness and sensitivity and a need to make sure that we do our food safety job as well as we can. >> do you have any concerns about the impact on its -- on food safety or security? , i have concerns

generally about food safety because it is a significant possibility of usda. why? because we have several hundred folks who experience foodborne illness. it is something that we take seriously every so they. i won't focus on any particular transaction, any particular company. i think it is incumbent upon us to be very deeply concerned every single day, to continue to try to a dance the research of food science. we know a lot about food and about pathogens and we didn't know year ago or two years ago or ideas ago or 10 years ago ,uring our inspection programs our relationships with companies and other countries all have to be educated and informed why what we now know and are learning on a constant racist about safety. .- about food safety an this is theink

first of many deals as the food industry becomes more globalized? >> you will see that there is quite a bit of international flavor to them. again, the issue -- there are two issues. one, will we continue as a country to be food secure in terms of our own ability to raise food and to grow product here in the united states? that is jerkily connected to our ability to adapt and mitigate a changing climate. that is why this topic today is so important. secondly, we obviously want to provide americans and externally diversity of food produced in this country, but we also want to recognize the affordability of food in this country. americans spend a lot less on food than the perhaps think in relationship to their paycheck than virtually anybody else in the world. of anywhere from 6% to 10% of our paycheck on

food and that is a very small percentage of a paycheck. we want to make sure, as we look at systems, as we look at the relationship of companies, that we do everything we possibly can to be a food secure nation and continue to provide americans great flexibility with your paychecks by having a system that has food as affordable as it should be. >> the other agriculture story of the week -- can you give us an update on genetically modified wheat? >> let's put this situation in context. this was a finding of a very small number of france -- of plants. there is no indication that this particular circumstance has found its way into the stream of commerce in terms of wheat or far that is sold during we have

numerous sass in adjoining fields and from our training partners that suggest that it has been limited at this point in time to that particular field. her calls and very strong requirements and regulations. that is why it is important to to find out precisely what happened and why it happened so we can determine whether or not our regulations were violated and if so, who is accountable. we want to be mindful of the need to maintain market opportunities for our producers. that's why we are working hard to make sure we do everything we can to satisfy our trading -- trading partners. we are hopeful in the next few weeks that we are in a position to move that process forward and open up those markets. that's very important.

roundupyou confirmed ready wheat using monsanto test set when will you provide monsanto with chain of custody data? >> there has been an ongoing communication with the company and they are aware of what we have been doing and the testing we have provided. there has been an ongoing exchange of information. this particular trait or event was determined some years ago not to be one that is commercially as a viable as roundup ready soybeans, for example. monsantohy discontinued the production of this. is two issues. one, finding out what happened

and two, making sure the markets get open as sickly as possible and we don't have interference with market opportunity. at this time, we can ensure there is an investigation ongoing, that there is no public health concern, and that at this point in time, it's a very isolated circumstance. >> do you think you have made any progress on making common grounds in the gtmo debate? >> when people ask me about this issue, which method do i prefer and which method do i think we should be supporting, i say it's like asking which of my two sons i love most. i love them both equally. i think the job of the agriculture secretaries to bring folks together and have an understanding and understand

various agriculture methods. we brought folks together in a program and we brought organic producers, legal experts, university scientists, and we basically challenge them as to what would facilitate a better relationship among various type of method in agriculture. that came up with several recommendations we are in the process of following. one is to do more research in terms of gene flow and how way field can be contaminated based on what some farmer may be doing down the road. what kind of stewardship responsibilities could we enhance, educate that would reduce that risk? can we be sure that we have be ableks that would

to reintroduce a particular product into the market so we don't lose it permanently? process of doing that across the spectrum. a better job of developing tools that understand there is a value added component that could be impacted? help deal with the risk of loss of value? what kind of insurance product or mechanism could you create? we are in the process of working on that. continues tohip improve and there are issues that have to be addressed, but it is important for agriculture to do this because there are so few people in america that understand agriculture. 33,000 farm families and farming

operations reduce 50% of everything grown in this country. that's a small percentage of the population. if you expand it to 85%, it's roughly 200,000 operations. if you expand it to anybody considered a farmer, who sells more than a thousand dollars worth of product, that's 2.3 million people. producen 1.3% everything we consume. less than 1/10 of one percent -- less than 1/10 of 1/10 of one percent produces 50%. the rest of us take this extraordinary diversity that we have, the fact that we walk out of grocery stores with more monies in the pocket than other countries do because of the affordability and safety of our food, we take this all for muched trade we are a

stronger nation because of the nature of agriculture and the fact we are a food secure nation. it is important to educate folks and respect production and work toward education -- educating people so they can make important decisions and appreciate agriculture generally and not take it for granted. whats one of the reasons we are announcing today in terms of the ability to adapt the client is what if we didn't grow all we could grow? what if it's more likely we would have to import more of what we consume? food safety issues would that create for us? what reliance would we have on and help mores secure or less secure, how does that make you feel? what if we had a significantly greater amount for our food?

this -- these issues are not as significant and not as grave and large because of the success of american agriculture. andre a food secure nation we have a safe food supply which is pretty... important and to do what we want in the country. not many people in the world have that country. stop and thank those who produce food for us? that isf the ills promising to move this year is education reform. how important to the food supply is the immigration reform bill and why does the u.s. need immigrant workers to pick crops when unemployment is at 7.5%? >> there are 1.1 million people who work on farms, ranches and

in the production of agriculture. a substantial percentage of those working in those jobs are probably immigrants and many of them are not documented. , because of concerns about immigration laws and circumstanceshave where food is being grown and not being harvested or picked and is going to waste in the field. immigrationoken system and it needs to be fixed. congress has a responsibility to do it this year. the time for debating all of this is over. it's important that we do it not just for agriculture, but this is a bill that will help grow the economy and make us a more secure nation and secure a lot of issues you would not inc. about. you will have more people paying taxes into the system

than we have today and it will bring people out of the shadows. comprehensive immigration reform is important. this proposal being looked at in the senate contains within it a specific opposable for agricultural workers that will provide a stable and secure workforce and a workable guest force program that will ensure we don't have too many or too few workers. it will also provide for decent wages based on wage surveys that reflect regional differences. people will be adequately paid. why do we need this when we have 7.5% unemployment? the reality is this can be triggered unless we are sure there is not adequate workforce to meet the responsibilities in these fields. i tell this story and the numbers may be off, but it is instructive -- during the height of the recession, the

auto workers union put an out on the web to encourage people to come and work in the field. unemployment was high. thousands of people expressed initial interest in learning more about these jobs. when they learn what the job entailed, just a handful of people went further to apply for the job. less than a handful actually went to work. less than less than a handful stayed on the job. this is hard work. every person in this room has a background and has relatives who either involuntarily or voluntarily came to this country and has a story about their background. i don't know what my background is, having started life in an orphanage.

but somewhere in my background, there's someone who came to this country, who came here and at some point in time, with the notion they were going to do a better job and work hard and take jobs that maybe somebody else didn't want and do a better job and save money and scrape and put money aside for the next generation and make sure the next iteration had a better life than they had. that is the american story. that is what makes this country the greatest nation on earth with all of the trials and relation, because that immigration story gets replayed. cropsl continue to have rot in the ground absent that. it's very unfortunate. >> we're almost out of time, but before i ask the last western, we have a couple of housekeeping matters. i would like to remind you about our upcoming speakers. theuly 1, we will have

former ceo of hewlett-packard and currently the chairman of good 360. on august 8, we will have jim rogers, ceo of duke energy. second, i would like to present our guest with the national press club coffee mug. of those.ve a few >> i have a few. >> and for a final question, famously tells us you appeared with cookie monster wants to talk about everyday foods. is there another cartoon character you might envision helping with your next initiative? >> that the good question. i remain partial to sesame street. i would embrace big bird on this. we want a wide diversity of ofdlife and to the coding

to have healthy soils and a healthy first grade and a birds relatives to survive, we should focus on our adaptation and mitigation strategies. [applause] for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff including the broadcast institute and press club institute for organizing today's event. you can order a copy of today's recording online. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next, we speak with a capitol hill reporter on the immigration bills making their way through congress. >> humberto sanchez joins us from capitol hill. what do senators plan to bring up on the upcoming bill? >> you will see senator start to frame the debate.

wehave two camps here and heard a lot from senator sessions who is leading the opposition, making the case he believes this should be done in a piecemeal way and set a comprehensive way. this could hurt low-wage workers and threaten a fragile economy something should be done, something less comprehensive and more piecemeal is the way the senate should take this on. , it of forf eight democrats to drafted this compromise and are putting it forward make the case the current system is broken and needs to be revamped. gotten signed off in the chamber of commerce and they

believe they have the best compromise to move forward on reforming the immigration system. thehen the bill came out of judiciary committee, it had bipartisan support. that still holding? who are the key players in the gang of eight? >> yesterday, senator john mccain told me in casual that he thinks there is 60 votes for the bill. hearing from senator marco rubio, who is that more case republican by and needs to be done and he's asking for people to submit ideas to strengthen which will not only help it passed the senate that passed the house.

if the border security portion is enhanced, it stands a greater chance of passing. ,> when the amendments come up a couple of the key proposals for mueller we likely to see debated or past? >> the key one is whatever comes up with senator rubio. he's talking to his colleagues to solicit ideas and solicit input on the bills. this is a way for him to get my hands from other if the amendment is passed. not passed, he may walk away from the bill. that is the key issue. other possible things could throw a monkey wrench into the system.

giving them benefits under the bill -- senator blumenthal mentioned the gun control debate which could be explosive area >> what about the white house? how is the president weighed in on the legislation? >> he has taken a very hands- off approach. i think that is why he is giving the senator's room to negotiate and discuss this. it's hard to say when the right time will be. he's been very careful to stay back because he's concerned he may alienate conservatives if he campaigns on this too much. >> will we see a house bill on this anytime soon? >> that is the $64,000 question. there is a gang of eight and house made up of four democrats

and four republicans, but one , concerned away whether the bill they are developing is about getting health care benefits. in his decision to leave, there's going to be a couple of competing bills grade they remainder of the senate is going go and labrador is going to write his own bill and it is what the house leaders are going to do, whether with -- whether they will go in a piece by piece approach. there is a lot of momentum to get ink done and that's what the senate hopes to do -- to pass a bill with 70 votes. >> a look at the immigration debate. .oining us is humberto sanchez

thank you for the update. >> when the senate returns to work, they will continue the comprehensive immigration bill approved last month. they are also going to vote on reauthorization of the farm bill vote beginning. jeff das it will be sworn in. vice resident joe biden will reenact the ceremony in the senate chamber. is also in briefly for a pro forma session at 3:00. we will discuss the farm bill today on our newsmakers program. senator debbie stabenow talks about efforts to pass the bill in the senate that includes a cut in the food stamp program. at 6:00 on c-ers"

span. forhen you put on a uniform a job that is a maintenance job -- this is true if you're a building janitor or sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the role to the point where it's almost like you are just a part of the background. almost like a machine. you are a machine wearing the uniform and the general world gets to overlook you and not see you. it's like a romulan cloaking device. for those people who are fellow star trek geeks. or harry potter's folk of invisibility. it's very trust rating and an interesting privilege because when i'm wearing a sanitation worker uniform, i can observe them in a way a don't realize

i'm observing them. >> anthropologist in residence, tonight at 8:00. budget committee vice chair, representative tom price, talks about the republican agenda. he addressed the affordable care act, efforts to reform education, and the state of the republican party. in the christian science monitor, this is one hour. >> thank you for coming. i'm dave cook. representative tom price, his octoberit here was in 2009. we welcome him back. he is a michigan native who graduated from the university of michigan medical school, he's a father and grandfather -- his father and grandfather were also physicians. in georgia to begin his medical career. became majority leader in

2002. according to a washington post story, he transformed himself into a republican guerrilla warrior. in addition to the budget committee, he's a member of the -- we are on the record here. no live blogging or tweeting here mildly breakfast is underway. there is no embargo would meet breakfast eggs over, except c- span has agreed not to use video for one hour after the breakfast ends. please do the traditional thing and send a nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on one and all. will start on -- start by asking questions and go around the table. >> thanks to all of you for allowing me to join you this morning.

i will just make a few comments and cloak them in the sense that i'm the internal optimist, so i believe all things are possible, even in this town. there are great opportunities from a budgetary standpoint and tax reform standpoint. the big issue and challenges we have absolutely must be addressed great folks on both sides of the aisle appreciate that, so our challenge is to figure out how to navigate the developing in this town and the policy that will benefit the american people. about whateverlk issues you would like to discuss. a record fortting brevity in the opening comments. i'll ask one or two and we will

move around the table. you talked about being an optimist. the wall street journal had a piece on a deal to reduce the long-term deficit and it has .ctually grown much worse the journal cited shrinking deficit, slowing healthcare costs and partisan gridlock, meaning any big budget deal was not likely until after the 2014 midterms. is that a few view you disagree with? >> yes. the mechanism has been put in place and house and senate have passed a budget. the senate had not passed the budget in four years. with the prodding of house action earlier on the no budget, we encouraged our colleagues to pass a budget and they had done so. the mechanism is ok along with a a biggeration to get

solution than we have had available to us in the past four years. that, paired with the fact that a littlemic situation less challenging than a couple of ago is still foreboding. we continue to have deficit that is sustainable and a debt that is unsustainable, and the only way to get those items under control is through tax reform and entitlement reform. both of those facts are appreciated. it just takes the will and leadership to get things done. the other body being willing to go to conference? >> yes. the mechanism in place allows us to move to the next step which we are not been able to do and last for years. post had ay's detailed report on the head of your caucus.

among adjectives coming from members of the caucus were adrift à la fractured, and leadership teams still learning to work together and a rank-and- file so green that even the leaders allies to numb out sometimes. how would you assess the state of the gop in the house so far this season? if you take where the conference was on january 2, which is at a pretty low point, and you fast forward these five months, what we have seen is a way that has allowed us to get do the challenge of the sequester, get to the challenge of the continuing resolution, embraces aet that positive solution and resequence thatebt ceiling debate

will be before us before the october -- november timeframe. the accomplishments in this congress have been noteworthy. as my mom always used to say, it takes two to tango. unless the senate is willing and desirous to solve the greater challenges we have, we will continue to work on these issues in a unilateral way, but our desire is to have it be in a bipartisan way and a bicameral way. we've got our sea legs and we are moving forward. congressman ryan has been trying to reach a framework catherine murray. can you talk about what kind of framework -- what kind of framework can they agree on? do you think what is most likely is a conference will be

saved until later in the year and be used as part of the debt limit increase? >> it is important for people to know that chairman murray and chairman ryan our meeting and talking with great regularity. trying to come to an agreement on the parameters of a budget conference. that framework would be less specific than you all and others might want, but it is important to develop that framework for we sit down in a conference so that it's not a free-for-all. it's not an issue of whether or not tax reform is directed by the conference committee and its included, whether or not title -- in title and -- entitlement reform.

does kind of things are important before you sit down, word adrift was used for something else earlier -- the conference committee would be adrift. >> do you think what is most likely a budget resolution conference delayed until the end of the year? necessary and the budget conference is the vehicle if there is an opportunity. the budget conference is a vehicle for that. >> one question on immigration. why is there not a conference

between house and senate? some of them say they they do not want the debt ceiling to be raised through that mechanism and they come through the floor on numerous occasions to block it for a spread -- four expressly that region -- expressly that reason. they don't want the conference committee to be the difference. >> that's the difference between the majority and minority. the responsibility of the minority is to create a contrast and pull -- and hold the other side to account. the roles are different, not to say they are right or wrong. >> on immigration, some of those folks, rand paul, marco rubio are coming to talk about immigration reform. i wonder if you could talk about how you feel about the immigration reform discussion thus far. do you think of yourself as a marco rubio, rand paul, or

markley? >> i think of myself as a bob goodlatte, a member of the house that recognizes that regardless of what the senate work project is, the house will take this in a methodical, step-by-step fashion. step has been reached by the leadership is the right way to go to address the issues of border security and internal .nforcement matters all of those things need to be addressed in a separate fashion so they can work for the solution is targeted areas. we had mr. goodlatte here a while ago. is the sequential approach tantamount to not getting

something? there are a lot of folks who say if they do it piecemeal, you have doomed immigration reform. >> would we have been better off had we done that for the last four or five congresses? it's not what i'm suggesting we do now, but doing it in a fashion that allows owners to have their input on a specific area of order security and have that work product move forward and have the issue being solved in portions as opposed to this comprehensive, overall solution that has not worked in the past and i don't see it working now. >> what do you think should be attached to the debt ceiling? we talk about keystone, this,

that and the other thing. >> i think it's important for us to put an array of options out there. for example, the large solution to all of this is entitlement reform. the solutions we have put forward in our budget for thatare and medicaid would get significant resources to be able to be talked about and put on the table, that is a long ball. if that was not possible, the isgrowth tax reform which the kind of thing we need to get the economy rolling again and get jobs creating -- jobs created. from a financial standpoint, that would get you a little less

in terms of the debt ceiling increase but would move us in the right direction. finally, you can get back to the dollar for dollar boehner rule. i think an array of options is important to discuss. we are trying to be the ones moving the ball forward for solutions and being wedded to just one is not helpful for the discussion at this point. changing republican attitude on same-sex marriage with the supreme court ruling coming up -- you voted against repealing don't ask don't tell and you voted for dilma. would you vote that way if today? doma.you voted for

would you vote that way today? >> yes. >> could a republican embrace same-sex marriage? some republicans like ted olson or ken mehlman have argued it's actually good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage and do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. .hat is the right position that is what i believe. ,ny candidate for any position whether it's the future nomination for our party for president in 2016, they ought to espouse what they believe. give andll about the

take of the battle of ideas. whether a republican candidate espouses that or not, it's something we are to be stipulating. >> could they win? has it changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nomination? >> that's why they have an election, right? the nation is shifting its view on this edition. whether or not the party shifts is something to be seen. >> going back to immigration, if immigration fails and it's the republicans part, they will be dead in 2015. do you agree with that? looking toward the next midterm,

what is the republican message before passing what is seen at some -- seen as some messaging bills -- what is the message of past republicans? >> your first question on immigration? republicans be in trouble? >> i think with the american people want is to see individuals working to solve challenges. republicans will demonstrate as a conference and a body that we have positive solutions for the challenges both for legal and illegal immigration. how far down the road we get on be evidence for folks to recognize we are trying to

address this issue in a way that is responsive to the nation but also solves the challenges we have gotten this area. people will see we are working to solve this challenge. the umbrella i would paint it under his we are interested in creating the greatest amount of opportunity and success from the greatest number of individuals so the greatest number of american trains can be realized. that is what we are about. our budget was demonstrative of that. to ance to get us balanced budget, which is hugely important, not just to have numbers add up on a page but make it so the economy can become vibrant again and jobs can be created and people can be much more secure. tackle thearly

issues in the entitlement arena with medicare and medicaid with positive solutions. we have not seen that from the other side. the tax reform issue we are embracing right now coming out of the ways and means committee this year will demonstrate we are looking out for folks all haves this country and not a government that continues to spend more and more than it takes him but also takes more and more from the american people. we have a bill we think is a positive alternative and we are that would gett folks covered with insurance the they want and solves

problem of portability and pre- existing and saves hundreds of and have theollars financial wherewithal to do so. >> you are so nonthreatening then mark shields -- >> i just wanted to clarify something. debate would take place in what arer november -- the options? >> i don't think the homefront but that is the vehicle for moving the debt ceiling issue.

budget conference report that makes the most sense for me. there are certainly other ways to do it, but i think that's the one that makes the most sense. >> the timeframe would be later this year? >> they have the opportunity to select when the jig is up and define this moving forward so we in the in crisis mode time when washington makes the least responsible decisions. >> with the timeframe for it

moving out of the ways and means committee? happening with the irs is going to affect the scope of what you do with the tax reform? it has been specifically .efined this year as soon as we can move forward with that, we will. i am getting them put from all , certainlysociety from the other side with our working groups so we have been working over years. i would expect by the end of the .ear, possibly before i think the irs issues that have been raised and the real

at that agency allow impetus forreater tax reform. i'm not one of those new would put the kibosh on tax reform and we embrace that greater opportunity because when all folks look at this issue, they realize the irs is a huge monolith and it's concerning and frightening and anything we tax code simplify the and make the internal revenue service bus threatening, that would be a good thing and you will beginnk to hear on the other side. >> looking at revenue from tax- exempt organizations, you are [inaudible]k at

>> we are starting with a blank piece of paper as opposed to starting with current policy and things we don't inc. are appropriate. acknowledging that congress has never been as popular as free beer, right now it's as unpopular as any time in history. unpopular, butre the republicans are pariahs. the leadership at 19%. to remedy it?ne i'm impressed by your optimism today. i would just like to ask if you would. three democratic host

colleagues, you say there's been a few across the aisle to share may be you could give us an indication to date i think what we have to do is demonstrate we are moving forward with positive solutions and demonstrating challenges -- my constituents and folks across this country are frustrated with washington because washington does not seem to be working. wings don't seem to be getting done in a reasonable, responsible way. they know we have challenges, they know the country spends too much. they know we are not creating the kind of energy in this nation that we could trade all of these things, they know.

they wonder why the folks they elect to congress and the executive ranch are unable or done.ing to get things our lack of popularity is well- deserved. as an overall group, we have not solve the problems that exist. around his youat demonstrate leadership and create positive solutions responsible to the needs of the american people. some people would just bring -- we just lame obama, bush l clinton, whoever is in charge. seen is a have greater level of demagoguery from the other team over the past few years.

that in some circles has worked. the way that we counter that is to remain optimistic about the future of this country, remain optimistic about the principles that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world, and put forward solutions that are consistent with those principles. >> three, craddick house colleagues you look to work with --oss the aisle >> in tax reform? >> tax reform, entitlement --orm, >> on our committee, ron kind, joe crowley, at least two s who appreciates the challenges we've got. we have been working on some of

the tax initiatives and he understands that we need to be able to come together on that common ground that has to be there in order for us to move forward as a nation. medicine forced over 20 years. i did not give up the practice of medicine and a privilege it was to care for people to come to this town and fight with the other side. that's not why i did it. i gave up the practice of medicine so i could come to washington and hopefully have some positive input into solving the incredible challenges that we've got. that same story is basically true for every member of hunger is regardless of their background. they did not do it to fight a partisan political battle over and over again. they came to solve problems. do youou ever get --

ever regret the choice? >> absolutely not. to be involved in this beacon of freedom to the world and have the opportunity to preserve that and increase that opportunity for future generations in this country is an incredible privilege. >> why hasn't the house appointed conferees for the budget conference? second, specifically on the debt ceiling, you guys have negotiated an agreement and the white house says you won't and he boasted stick to your guns and break the debt ceiling. what happens then? some people say it's doom and gloom and some people think it's manageable. what is your take question are going toint of conference on something like the budget require some parameters. is just a free-for-all, it

becomes more of an opportunity for the demagoguery and partisan back-and-forth that won't reach any solution. laying out the goal of refining those parameters, i think that's a responsible process. of the debt ceiling, i'm an optimist, so i think we can get to a solution before we get to that date area requires a willing partner to say yes, wouldaren't things they attach to the debt ceiling as opposed to being dogmatic about whether or not they would allow anything to move forward on the debt ceiling. the closer we get to that timeframe, that stance will soften. i think the house has acted responsibly to say that default

cannot occur and will not occur which is why we passed the bill to ask to pay its debts is solid. >> we are the only country that budgets in this manner. wouldn't it just makes sense to get rid of it? >> does it make any sense to have a limit on your credit card question mark it probably makes sense to have a limit on your credit card. you indicated earlier that the house leadership and your conferences decided piecemeal bills on immigration is the best way to go. but what about this bipartisan group working in the house? if they came to some kind of agreement, how much willingness with her be on the part of

chairman goodlatte and others to embrace a more bipartisan approach before the senate will got a vote on the floor? >> that's a great question and i don't know the parameters folks are working on in the group are as broad as what we have seen come forward in the senate. i think that group has actually -- would be heartened by any movement on the issue in committee. i do know, i think what would likely occur if the group produces a work product and because to the judiciary will break it down into its segments. that's not any internal knowledge. that holds the greatest amount of promise for moving something forward. there used to be coalitions on issues instead of just the

shirts and skins, so you would have a water coalition and health coalition and energy coalition. they were bipartisan, most often. the more focused the issue was, the zero was to put forward the coalition and be supportive going forward. i think there is wisdom in that, broad, expansive on comprehensive pieces of legislation and give everyone d oppose it. i came out of state legislature. most of them have single issue rules. you can't have a piece of legislation that has soup to nuts.

that's what allows you to produce a better work product but can actually resolve the problem. >> the first one, businessmen and insurers doctors that they will say,-- no problem, it's all going to work out find. out fine.ng to work >> senator baucus was very wise the law when it was fully implemented look like it was going to be a train wreck. what we need to do is pull the emergency brake. tell youician, i can this law is unworkable for

patients and for docs for the health-care system. as a former employer, i can tell you it doesn't work for employers or employees. member of the congress, it doesn't work for anybody in this system. there are so many other positive solutions that embrace what i call patient centered healthcare, which is patients and families making decisions, not washington, d.c., that we ought to move in that direction as soon as possible, and my fear is if this is allowed to come into its full glory, it will not work, it will collapse, but in the interim, real people will be hurt and it's irresponsible at -- irresponsible of us as a

congress and allow that to occur not because of anything inherent within the people trying to make it work, but because of the rules that have been put in place. we will continue to work and fight and put forward positive solutions as alternatives. been around long enough to remember the page program and there were former pages trying to bring it back now. intou think you would be doing that? >> i think it was a huge asset .o our body i haven't had this discussion with anybody. >> you mentioned republicans are working on alternative doles. can you be more specific than

the patient-centered solutions? republicans say they have a replacement, but they don't really know what it would do. can you be more specific? >> we will be introducing a will be a today that comprehensive opportunity to solve the challenges in your area of healthcare trade there are a whole lot of things in it, but a couple of specifics. we have got to get folks covered. you have to get folks covered with insurance. do it the way the administration and congress did it, and this dictate that they have coverage and force them to have coverage and put the irs in charge of whether or not they have coverage. that is the wrong way to do it. we propose to make it financially feasible for every single american from a financial standpoint to purchase the coverage they want for themselves, not what the

government wants for them. you do that through deductions, that every single american has the financial wherewithal and incentive to have health coverage. we believe that gets everyone coverage. thend, you have to solve insurance challenges. the biggest ones are affordability and pre-existing. that's a holdover from a bygone area when if you work for a company, you tended to work for that company forever. our son just graduated from college last year and statistics say he will work for 12 different employers in the course of his career, which means if the employers provide health coverage and are able to do so, he will have to plug-in at 12 different spots with who knows what? the best ways to allow every single americans to own their health coverage regardless of who is paying for it area you

solve the affordability issue overnight. you change your job, you lose your job, you take it with you. pre-existing illnesses, you ought not be priced out of the market if you have an awful diagnosis or suffer from an awful disease. right now, folks at the individual and small group market, about 18 million individuals are under threat of being priced out of the market with the next visit they have to their doctor. that's craziness. that's a system that isn't working. how do you solve that without having the federal government dictate to people and dictate to insurance companies and dictate to employers what they must do? you make it so that those 18 million individuals can pool together. you make insurance work so that they -- you get the purchasing power of millions. then the health status of any one individual, the average health status doesn't drive up the cost of health insurance for anybody because you get the power of numbers. it's why self-insured plans work.

it's why the federal employee health benefits plan works. that's an easy one to solve as well. finally, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars in this country in health care. the main way we do that is through what's called practice of defensive medicine. it's what i did. it's what every single physician in this country does, to make certain if they are ever called into a court of law they can look the judge and jury honestly in the eye and say i don't know what you expected me to do because i did everything. everything. and everything was rarely necessary to either treat or diagnose the patient. rand estimates it's $600 billion of waste in this country on that. jackson health care has done a study and they estimate it's one out of every $3. that's $800 billion. that's big money still. even in this town. you can solve that not by a cap on noneconomic damages, which i don't believe does a thing to decrease the practice of defensive medicine, but put in place a lawsuit abuse reform system that the president has talked about which would

recognize that society guidelines, if the doctor does the right thing based upon what his or her specialty says is the right thing to do for a set of symptoms or diagnosis, that individual is allowed to use that as an affirmative defense in the court of law. it becomes a higher bar to get over for the plaintiff, not preventing anybody from going to court, but a higher bar if the doctor does the right thing. that's the kind of thing i think would actually change the culture of the practice of medicine. you can get folks covered. everybody. you can solve the insurance challenges. you can save hundreds ever billions of dollars. you can do all of those things without putting the federal government in charge of a doggone thing. that's what i mean when i talk about patient centered health care. >> david. >> the house of representatives passed the first appropriations bill. as you know we have very widely differing spending levels in the house side and senate side. it's difficult to see how those are going to gets resolved without an overall budget agreement.

so are you resigned that we will likely need to have a c.r. to get us through to the new fiscal year? because the appropriations bills will probably not going to be able to pass all of them? >> i sure hope not. i think appropriating by continuing resolution is a failure of the body, is a failure of the responsibility that we have to work through these issues. at this point an annual basis. to move and allow for the flexibility and changes in public policy from an appropriating standpoint every ear. the house will, i think, work through the appropriations bills. i'm hopeful we'll get all of them done. i know that's the goal of chairman rogers. and we started that last evening and we'll work through them. i think that the -- i think just

doing a c.r. at the end of this doesn't respect either the citizens or the individuals who are working on their behalf in the house at this point on the appropriations side who are bringing their best effort to the table to put in place the priorities for the country. i do believe that the budget on both sides, the budget in the senate and house, was a huge step forward because the number that was agreed to, the overall number, discretionary number, 302-a number was the same on both sides. if i would have sat at this table four months ago and said the house and senate were going to agree to the same top line number in the budget, none of you would have believed me. and would you have been right in your skepticism. but that's what happened. so we've got the foundation for moving forward on the appropriations bills. >> sue. >> immigration, when you talk

about the approach, one of the pieces continues to be the pathway to citizenship. do you think there is a legislation for path to citizenship that could pass the house with a majority of the majority? >> i think at this point that would be highly unlikely. because i don't think there's any trust of our conversation in the administration to enforce -- conference in the administration to enforce the laws as they relate to much of the immigration. not just this administration. it's been previous administrations as well. the american people don't trust washington in this area because the promise that was made in 1986 has been broken. in 1986 there were about three million individuals who were here, estimated to be here illegally. and the agreement, bipartisan agreement was that we will provide a path to citizenship for those three million individuals and control and secure the border so we are

never in this situation again. and we as a nation did away with the path to citizenship and woeful job on controlling and securing the border. there is no trust at all. the first step in regaining that trust is living up to the promise that was made to the nation back in 1986, and that is controlling and securing the border. until the administration is able to do that, i don't think there is any trust, whatever we pass, would be enforced or made certain that it worked in a positive way. the boston bombing that occurred pointed out a huge defect in lack of responsibility and enforcement of our simple student visas. there are hundreds of thousands of young men and women here on a student visa. when it expires we ought to know that as a nation. it's foolishness. it's irresponsibility. it's reckless not to know when

somebody's visa expires and make certain that they either regain a new visa or that they return to their home. and what that pointed out is that one of the bombers clearly exited this country, went back to the country where he was given asylum from. this fellow was given asylum from a country he visited apparently repeatedly. so the asylum system doesn't work. at least didn't work in this instance. then he returned to this country with an expired student visa and regained access. this is a system that is terribly broken and needs fixing. the first step is to make certain what we have currently on the books works. and prove that it works and demonstrate that it works. that's the way you regain the trust so you can move forward and solve it in a positive way. >> alexis. >> i was wondering if you can alk about -- are there any

concerns about how the various numbers of the congressional delegation running for the same office, if that rivalry will have an impact? >> senator chambliss announced in january that he would not be running for a third term. so that opened up an opportunity in the state of georgia. these open senate seats don't come along often. so a lot of people jumped at it. for those of you who don't follow georgia politics, three of my colleagues in the house are running for that seat as well as former secretary of state, karen handle, and there's a rumor of one or two individuals from the private sector getting in. we have a late qualifying time. we qualify in april of next year. our primary is late. primary is in july of next year. there is a lot of time between now and then.

i think it's too early to get predictions about what will happen. i think that -- i know that the citizens of the state of georgia want somebody who is going to actively and aggressively work to solve the challenges that we've got and they want somebody who is a solutions-oriented person. i think that the folks who are running from the house will have a bit of a challenge because of what was pointed out earlier, and that's the popularity of congress isn't at an all-time high. i think that they will have a challenge getting over that hurdle. they also will have a significant voting record that they'll have to answer to. for those running from the outside, it becomes an easier political target. i know that it's going to be a vibrant and robust campaign. i think that the citizens of georgia are excited about the opportunity to move through that process.

>> anybody who hasn't had one before we do a second round? heryl. >> the heartbreaking case of the young girl in pennsylvania, the 10-year-old who needs a lung transplant. i know you were there. i'm wondering as a doctor what do you think of kathleen sebelius' decision not to intervene in that case? conversely, do you worry in asking her to intervene if the government did intervene it would set a precedent where the government could intervene in individual health care matters? >> this is a situation, heartbreaking situation right now. of a 10-year 9 month old girl who has cystic fibrosis which in her case is a death sentence because of the severity of the disease. there is a solution. the scientists and the doctors who are caring for her and in

that area as i understand it all believe that she is an ideal can gate for a lung transplant, which is potentially a lifesaving procedure for her. because of a -- what can be classified as anything other than an arbitrary cut off, which is the age of 12 years, she is ineligible right now to receive either an adolescent or adult onor lung. we've got patient whose physicians and whose family are desirous of moving forward with a solution that is available and they are being held up not because of science, not because of the doctors, not because of the capability of the facility, not because of the willingness of the family or patient, but because of a rule and out for that, the escape for that when everybody agrees that this young lady ought to get a lung

transplant, the escape for that is the secretary of health and human service who is has the full legal authority to sign a waiver, exclusion, to allow that procedure to move forward. it is astounding to me that the secretary of health and human services won't provide that waiver. not just for this young lady, but for apparently the two other young people who are also on this list and awaiting a lung. as i understand there were three pediatric lung transplants last year. three. so the likelihood of a pediatric lung becoming available for these children is not great at all. we are not asking for her to go to the top of the list, it's to be eligible for the list. from a clinical standpoint her health status would dictate under the rules of organ transplantation would move her to the top of the list if she were allowed to be on the list.

so the notion that the secretary of health and human services is protecting some sacrosanct thing so we keep order in the system i disagree with adamantly and i think that the days -- this young girl's days are numbered with her current clinical status. i have yet to see any reason demonstrated to me why the secretary ought not provide that waiver. > question for the doctor. it's been discussed, i believe it's been floated by congressman diaz-balart, the possibility that if there is some sort of legalization program for the people here illegally now, that it should be important to force them to buy insurance so they are not sort of a drain on the system on the resources in the system. and it's been reported in a way as sort of an individual

mandate, but aim not sure that gets at it. could you talk about that a little bit? do you support that idea? where should it go assuming there is some sort of a program in there? >> i'm not sure i want to buy the premise of the ssumption. tough issues in conflating the issue of illegal immigration and how we deal with as a nation those who are here in that status, and health care i think confound both of the issues and makes each of them less likely o be solved. so my preference on this because i haven't spent a lot of time on this area of the immigration matter, is to allow it to work through, that's why i commend chairman goodlatte so much for his process that he's defined is to allow this to work through in our normal committee process and allow all of the pros and cons

of what you describe and what others would say are options to be available for public evaluation and for evaluation of the members of congress and i think will come up with a work product and a solution that is most able to be supported by the members of the house. >> let me ask you -- >> follow up. you said the house and senate agreed on 39023 and the budget resolutions. i'm wondering what you mean given that the house discretionary limit is 967 billion. and the senate discretionary limit is $1.058 trillion. >> the discretionary number the senate agreed to was $966. what their budget also said was that they in a nebulous way said that the sequester would be fixed, done away with. that's how they get to the 058.

they are writing to an outcome that has yet to occur. so the agreement was a discretionary number of 966 which is the starting point. we as you well know don't believe that the sequester has been administered in a responsible fashion. we believe there's a better solution for the sequester. we believe that the spending level needs to be in place, but that there is a much better solution in terms of prioritization which is why the appropriations bills are so important so you can define where those priorities are. that's what we'll be working through. i think the common ground is 966, 967 number. dealing with the sequester is something that has to be addressed and the process that we'll go through to address that on our side will be the appropriations bills written to the 966 sequester number. >> in the three minutes

remaining, let me ask you a question prompted by "the new york times" article on colonoscopies. this is what the "christian science monitor" brings to the special breakfast. >> i'm an orthopedic surgeon. >> i'm not going to go down that road. what struck me was in that really remarkable piece of reporting by the times was the wide variance in prices. looking down the road you were talking about not wanting the government in health care and having it be patient centered. looking down the road say five or 10 years, sir, is it going to be possible for that kind of model without sort of more government interference to be to work given what's supposed to happen to health care costs? isn't the government in the end going to have to do more to bring down this wide variance in cost so that we can afford to take care of geezers like myself?

>> we want to take care of all geezers like yourself as a nation. and i'm approaching that geezer. i think that the argument can be credibly made that a significant portion of the cost and the reason for the costs of health care is governmental involvement. if you look at the -- one of the things that i would use as evidence for that, if you take areas of health care that are uncontrolled by government, you see significant reductions in price over a period of time, and greater flexibility, and greater options, and greater choices for patients in those areas. so i think that the argument that the government has to engage and get involved so that it keeps prices under control is a lack of appreciation for the main reasons why health care

spending and costs are out of control. and i would suggest that it's significantly related to governmental intervention in the first place from a pricing standpoint and cost for health care. i think we can hold down costs in a much more efficient manner if you allow patients and families and doctors make medical decisions. >> you did that right ending at 9:30. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute/] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013/] >> tomorrow the alliance for health reform hosts a discussion

on the future of the health advantage and how the affordable care act could impact the program. also live tomorrow, a discussion on the proposed immigration bill and whether it can pass the senate and the house. from the new america foundation, that is live at 12:15 on c-span3. as the incentive augses, auctions that are -- auctions, voluntary auctions that are upon us i think the f.c.c. has to steer is in a way that very small,)i companiese, and largeii can compete. ei idea that the big fish swallow up little fish is not ri economy. ou all have a business plan, obviously, they want to make money. when you look at the markets in

the country, 80% is owned in terms of the beachfront, the most valuable spectrum. spectrum is gold in our country and we need to do much more to loosen it and free it up. >> the freedom of the internet and cyber security monday night on the communicators on c-span2 at 8:00 eastern. >> now part of the day-long conference on mental health. it brought together advocates and officials. you will hear from vice president joe biden and actor bradley cooper. his is about 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome the secretary of the veterans affairs. [applause] >> thank you very much. very -- thank you very much. what a good day this has been. this summit has enabled a crucial, much needed, national level discussion on mental health. at v.a., the department of veterans affairs we know that and we are able to diagnose treat people get better. between 2009-2014, the president has requested funding increases for mental health totaling almost 57%. thanks to. president's leadership the v.a. has strengthed its services and he announced some of those accomplishments this morning.

24 pilot projects with federally qualified community clinics in nine states, increasing our mental health capacity through partnering at the local level. local mental health summits to be conducted each of our 152 v.a. medical centers broadening the dialogue. finally, over 1,600 addition kaline call professionals -- professionals. the v.a. will improve access to menal health services and reduce the sigma of mental health. one of our most effective efforts has been our veterans crisis line, which provides immediate help to veterans and service members in distress.

in the past six years the line has answered over 800,000 phone calls and over 100,000 online chats and text messages. in the most serious of those phone call, 29,000 veterans have been rescued from a suicide in progress because we were there for them. [applause] partnering with local communities and other federal agencies can help make the most of our resources like the veterans crisis line and the dditional 1,600 clinical professionals went we can reduce the sigma. everyone can help and everyone must if we want to make a difference, as the president emphasized this morning. we're indebted for all the great work you do. now, special thanks to our next

speaker. bradley cooper for his portrayal in "the "silver linings playbook" helped to shine a spotlight on those dealing with the issues of mental health. with that, bradley. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much for that introduction. for all you're doing to address mental health issues to our veterans, thank you. what a privilege for me to be here today to have a chance to participant in this conference. it has been a fascinating day, obviously, an important day. the truth is i'm here by accident. its not they didn't know about mental illness, i think i didn't see it as part of my own life. i didn't think it affected me. it was an abstract idea that i

was removed from. en i did this movie called "silver linings playbook" it was as if a vail was lifted. people i knew people i cared about were coping with this. oneostomy best friends was bipolar and i had no idea. -- one of my best friends was and i had no idea. people could come up to me and share their struggles. they were telling me how they connected to this character that i played and that is what helped me to see that, i think all of us are touched in a meaningful way with this illness and i think it is up to all of us to help. i want to be part of the solution. [applause] s it turns out, the way we can

do that is to talk about it, bring awareness to it. it's about helping people understand they are not alone. the thing they that are feeling it probably has a name, it certainly has a treatment and that treatment works and it's effective and it can change the way they live their lives in probably ways they didn't think were possible. in a lot of ways, it's about helping people find the courage in themselves to take the step to seek treatment. that is partly by raising awareness about the availability and the quality of the treatment. today's conference has been such an important part of that effort but i think we need to make fundamental changes to our culture. it is always going to take courage for people to deal with mental healthness. it is more about the people who aren't dealing with it. it is about the rest of us who can work together to destick

maize these issues -- destigmatize these issues. your final speaker today, understands that very well. i had the honor of spending time with vice president biden in february and we talked about mental health issues and the importance of reversing negative stigmas and negative attitudes and the actions this administration is taking to make sure that mental health care is available and affordable to all americans. he has been a very strong advocate, a great friend to the mental health community and the kind of leader this moment requires. ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states joe biden. [applause] >> please, sit down.

good afternoon. my name is joe biden and i'm a friend of bradley cooper. [laughter] how many of you saw "silver linings playbook"?" after i saw it i called and asked whether or not he would see me and the director as well. many think sometimes or times it has more a profound impact -- hey, how you doing buddy? [laughter] come here. come here. [applause] this guy has a program going on to deal with the only uncharted part of the world, the human brain. it is a giant initiative and he is always doing great work. >> give him a pland, please.

[applause] -- hand, please. >> if he doesn't say that he will hear about it. good to see you. >> thank you. four star general led our efforts in iraq and now is leading our efforts in one mind for research. thank you. [applause] >> anyway, before i so rudely interrupted myself. [laughter] by the way, this is the general one of my first 20-something trips to iraq he was in -- he gave me the single best advice for iraq. we met in the middle of what was not a very friendly time in downtown baghdad. it's great to see you. this is a man who came home,

realized -- i mean this sincerely and realized his role back at the pentagon how many tens of thousands potentially of our young women and men coming back from multiple deployments needed the help and devoted his life to this now. so this guy is a warrior, a physical warrior, and now a warrior for making sure his warriors are taken care of. [applause] look, folks, back to bradley cooper. [laughter] so i went home and i said to my daughter to my four granddaughters, i said bradley ooper came in to see me.

it made me sort of a hero. he caused me great pain recently. i've been asked by the president to lead an a new initiative in latin america to begin to change the way we interact with the rest of the hemisphere. i went down to meet with the new brazilian president and i was in the hotel room and as we check in my youngest granddaughter. i had two granddaughters with me. they were traveling with my wife and going to the slum areas of brazil, bradley knows about that. my youngest grand daughter said, bradley cooper is in this hotel. i said you're kidding me, i said that's nice. he says, pop, you're his friend, right? [laughter] swear to god. swear to god. this is my 12-year-old.

i said, well, we're kind of friends. she said pop, you ought to call him. i said what do you want me to do? you should have him down like you do other people. you have presidents and things come and see you. [laughter] i said -- swear to god true story, i said i have to meet the president of brazil. all. id, pop, -- that's honey, i've got to go to the meeting. ok, pop. i'll see you. bradley, somehow we have to make up for this. you owe me. my standing with my granddaughter has plummeted even though my standing with of brazil has gone up. [laughter] given the choice i'm not sure what to do. it is a kind of a tough deal.

look, speaking of warriors, the general is a guy who has spoken truth to power. he did it in the afghan war -- excuse me in the iraqi war. he accurately stated what the facts were and he had the courage to do it and he got a lot of heat for it. one of the best decisions the president made was asking him to head up the veterans administration. [applause] we all know, know one knows better than eric that there are real problem, we have real backlogs because we have reached back so far, that we should have been doing for the last 20 years to people with ptsd and dramatic brain injuries. the thing i know about the general, he and i agree, we have

only one truly obligation. that is to equip those who we stoned war and care for them when they come back to their families and we have more to do as the general will tell you. is ron barber still here? ron, wherever you are, thank you man. thank you very much. [applause] you've been such a champion of mental health. ladies and gentlemen, i just want to say a few words to close the conference. i hope a very fruitful endeavor for you all. you know the most vulnerable age for mental health problems is in young women and men is 16-25. i have a son-in-law who is a reconstructive plastic surgeon who works on cancer patients but he also has his p.h.d. in neoscience. i asked him what he did his

thesis on and he said i did it on developmental mental pathways and what impacts their actions. he said you know, pop, what we neuropathways aren't stable until you get to 18-25 and that is the middle east difficult period as all of -- that is the most difficult period as you know. we have the 9/11 generation coming back from a very, very difficult circumstances and work with a lot of invisible injuries. we count every single day -- i list i asked my staff to to me every single day on my schedule the number of troops

who died in iraq and afghanistan by the day, by the day every morning and the number of wounded in afghanistan. 6,582 dead as of this morning at 7:00. wounded, 50,832. they are the visible wounds, it does not count the invisible wounds. so the need what you're all about is going to increase as time goes on. th these groups rp folks who are the -- represent folks who are most in need of help and the least likely to seek help. they are not only -- they are not the only americans living with mental illness but what is most encouraging is many are

living with mental illness who recognize it and have gotten help. as bradley pointed out, it works, it has worked. they are the best living testament for the need for of seeking this help. but the most important thing is, they recognize they needed help and they went out and sought it. that's what everyone -- everyone needs to understand, it's ok to seek help. the general will tell you, i had a son in iraq for a year and he came back and his mom was so anxious to see him. he was gone for a year. when he got back he was at the ase and my wife was ready to climb the change-linked fence to get to see him. there's a prom now to try to condition all of his you -- there's a program now to try to

condition, are you having nightmares? are what are your dreams like? are you having trouble remembering thing? these guys and women are trained to be warriors. they are not train -- to seek help is to acknowledge weakness, it is contraire to the ethic that they all possess. young people, also are in -- they feel invulnerable, incensible but when they have help it is hard to ask for it. so what all of us are doing here today matters a great deal. it is my hope this conference begins to make clear to all americans there is no distinction between a mental health problem and a physical problem. there should be, there is, but there should be no stigma to a family or individual to seek health for mental health anywhere for a broken arm or a

diagnosis of cancer. in the process, it's our goal to improve, not only the access to mental health care at an affordable rate but in the process, we have not talk about today, improving the already positive, positive help that is out there. it begins by making sure insurance companies provide coverage to mental health services that are affordable and available and that is what we've done through the affordable health care act. your dad championed for so long, established a while ago, only now coming to fruition. it is going to ensure that 62 million americans get quality mental health care and substance abuse coverage now. we're working to implement the

mental health parody law to make mental illness as treatable as all other illnesses. we need to make sure that people in need of help know it is availables and have faith in its ethics. there are mothers as i speak right now and fathers with a 17-year-old son or daughter, they know needs help. they know needs help. they know something is wrong. it's intuitive. they know it. but they don't know where to go. they are almost afraid to say something because if they do they are afraid it ends up in the kid's record. somewhere it is in writing and that's going to mean, maybe they won't get into georgetown. i know -- my friend here, they are afraid maybe they won't get

that job. they are afraid they won't be able to join the military. they are afraid by getting the help they are going to stigmatize their child. we need to change that. i know this is preaching to the choir but we also need to expand the availability to personnel, sick trick nurses, psychologist, we know there is an enormous gap between the trained personnel we have and the number we need. according to h.h.s., we need out 8,000 more mental health professions. think of the irony here, through your great efforts we encourage people to come forward and they find out there is no one there to help them or they have to wait a long time. last august, the president

wanted to hire professions by june of 2013 and today the v.a. announced they met that goal. [applause] this isn't a government's solution, we're proposing to provide funding to train more than 5,000 menal health professions. we need more than that to serve young people and their schools and their communities. those of yo who are mental health providers know there is a reason why people don't go into the mental health fields. because not that many people ask. people go where the need is, almost every doctor or nurse i've known, if there is any angels in heaven by the way they are all nurses. nurses make you want to live.

[laughter] male nurses and female nurses. i.c.u. that i was there for two months and the doctor said necessary and then they do what i needed. you think i'm joking. those who had significant help. here's the point, it is not just about getting more experts in the field, it is about -- oping new and embodien embolden strategies. my grand mother used to say, there is where than one way to skin a cat. ne way to get someone into mental is to eliminate the stigma. another way is to give them cover. i found generals a colleague of general yours retired

of the united states army and a psychiatrist serving for 28 years. i had an interesting conversation, i'm no expert but i met with him and others who are devoting their lives to make sure we get more help and more awareness. he suggested that integrating ental health screening in or theirry physicals to lesson the need and lesson the stigma. while he is getting his physical also get a mental health screening. it is not on his record, he went to get a physical. medicine groups such as m.a.m. and the medical association made a commitment to train all doctors and nurses to recognize the signs of mental illness, which is consist ent with

providing the health of their patients. folks we have to be more imaginative. it can't be a straight line. we proposed a new $130 million initiative. it came out of the tragedy of newtown but all the psychiatrists i met with, i met with many of them. they say there are certain signs, they are like roman candles that go off when you're 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 years old. anyone recognizing that particular action would know that child needs help. not able to provide it but that child needs help. so many -- so many people could be saved if we recognize it, just like cancer, the earlier you recognize it the greater the possibility. we e propose, we teach,

state, local governments teach -- my wife's full-time professor. she gets classes in c.p.r. she gets classes in first aid. we should be teaching, educating our either caters to recognize, not all forms of mental illness but those things are like the roman candles that go off and totally inconsistent in a behavior that is considered to be appropriate. the earlier we get this help the better we all will be. most importantly, the patient will be. we know we can learn a great deal more. ike i said, the only uncharted portion of the universe is the brain. you know i had -- as we used to ay in the senate, excuse the

point of personalism here. i had two aneurysm and they had to take the top of my head off. they had to find the artery that was leaking and one that hadn't before it burst. those of who are doctors know very profession as their six jokes. the -- sick jokes. the joke among doctors how do you know someone had a cranial aneurysm? on the operating table. one of the fascinating things after the first operation, which they gave me a low chance of surviving. you're counting the sealing tiles as you're heading in the operating room, a lot of you have been there. i said what are my chances? i will never forget, i won't

mention his name because he's the leading neuro surgeon in the world. he said senator, for mortality or morbidity? [laughter] i swear to god. geez, you know. i said let me put it this way, there was a long road to the operating room. true story, i said what are my chances of getting off this table and being completely normal? he said your chances of living are a lot better. [laughter] and i said ok what are they? he said they are in the 35-50% range. i thought, well, hell, 35 out of 100 make it. i might as well be the one. what is the most likely thing that will happen if i live but

-- he said well, the side of the brain that the first aneurysm is on controls your ability to speak. [laughter] i thought why didn't they tell me that before the 1988 campaign. it could have saved us all a lot of trouble, you know what i mean? [laughter] now i'm going down the second operation, four months later. it was on the other side of my head. this is not about me but it is about the truth. they put together the same crew, as you know, they want the same team if they have done an operation on you. so there's a great guy, military. he had been transfered down to texas and they brought him back. i'm going down this operation with a 98% chance because it had

not bled at all. trying to make me feel better the doctor kidding and the neurosurgeon looked at me and said senators do you know why neurosurgeons have the biggest egos? >> i said i don't know. who else would go into a brain knowing as little as they know about it. i thought about that for a second and decided to stop thinking about it. all kidding aside, there's so much we don't know. so much we don't know. and we believe the same way, the possibilities are immense. we don't know -- they are immense. that's why the president has asked for $100 million to launch a new initiative to map the human brain, truly the last frontier.

the prospects are overwhelming to the most thing we're concerned about, about mental health. ook, we can't do this alone. it's not in the province of government alone. that's why we need you. i want to thank my staff and valerie for reaching out to all of you, putting this together. you're the ones who are able to reach millions of americans through all forms of the media. it's not just glen close and bradley, it's -- you have significant reach. >> thank you. >> well, you teach our children, you treat our patients and you minister to the faithful. i want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in this room for the commitments you made and those who have been ahead of the curve as most of you in this room have been ahead of the

curve. to my friend, and he really is i had more wish kids trying to get into georgetown because i think i would have a shot now. i think they should name a sidewalk after me. [laughter] i want to thank you john -- jack for the efforts you made to integrate the conversations about mental health and wellness into the curriculum and students as undergraduates. i hope more university campuses replicate the program you put in place. i also want to a thank -- he's not here but my good friend gordon smith. he and i served in the united states senate. we've been close friends. what is ent through, probably the most frightening

and horrible prospect any parent to d face of losing his son suicide. he, unlike a lot of us not the same loss but the loss of a child, he had the courage to relive it every day by speaking out. make no mistake, all of you know this, every time gordon smith stands up to talk about this issue it comes home immediately. t is not a distant memory. tractor-trailer killing my wife and daughter that is not a distant memory. every time i talk about highway safety, it is not a distant memory. every time you show up to a funeral, it is not a distant memory. i want to publicly acknowledge his courage. a courage to take a terrible tragedy that happened to him and provide -- provide help, provide

help to other parents and other families so they might be spared the agony that his family endured. now he is representing the national association of brad casters. i -- broadcasters. it is part of their obligation to reduce the stigma around mental i'llness so i thank them but i also thank gordon for all he is doing. [applause] and in another context, this is part of it, i met with the represents of the video game industry. they have agreed they are going to engage in public health -- public service announcements about mental health. to all of you, the faith groups, school groups, some of the others, thank you for your commitment and your dedication

to this work. if my mom were here, god lover, she would look at you and say you're doing god's work. you really are. hat a lonely, lonely, lonely feeling. i have a friend who passed away, my college roommate, who was having real problems with his son with mental illness. i will never forget what he said. he was a big strapping guy, we played ball together in delaware. buffalo,big fella from new york. tough guy. i will never forget him saying to me, joe, i'm frightened. i said what are you frightened about? he said i feel like i'm going to make up the kid's name -- i feel like johnnie is in the end of the string. his is the metaphor it stuck

with me. he's on the end of a string and he's out there in space and i'm afraid. joe, i'm afraid. i'm afraid if i tug it too hard the string will break and i will lose him forever. forever. that's how a lot of people feel. their child is on a string. their husband is on a string, their wife is on a string. they don't know what to do. if they tug too hard they are afraid it will break and they will be lost forever. so let's use this moment -- let's use this moment to extend message to tens of millions of americans to young people and the parents of young people all over this country, there is nothing to be ashamed of if you're struggle with mental

illness, or if your child, spouse, or your friend. it's ok. it's ok to talk about it. it's ok to ask for help. it's ok to acknowledge that it is frightening. it's ok to help a friend. it's ok to intervene. it's ok to take a chance. get help. most importantly, in the significant portion of the cases that we could intervene and help there is help. ofworks what we know so much what people are suffering through is able to be managed. it is able to be managed. millions of people live with high cholesterol. millions of people live with diabetes. millions of people live with

cancer. millions of people live with life-threatening diseases. thanks to the doctors and nurses out there and the research out there they are able to manage their lives. so many millions more could youre their lives and with help, a some time, with my grandpa would say with the grace of god and the good will of neighbors and the creek not rising, there is help. general winly mean it, i -- genuiwinely mean it. we can change the way we deal with mental health problems in this country. may god bless you and may god protect our troops. thank you. [applause] "newsmakers" span

with senator stabenow. later arizona's senator jeff blake delivers his first formal address from the floor of the >> we want to welcome to "newsmakers" senator debbie stabenow. >> it is good to be with you. >> we have two reporters with us. one writes for the national journal. neil covers the senate for roll call. the senate is working on a farm bill in the house as well. why is when needed? >> we are blessed with the most affordable food supply in the world. we have a group of people that go every day and their whole business is dependent on being able to get there all the different weather conditions.