only five pages have been released to the public through "the guardian" and through "the washington post." so i'm sharing with you the five pages that were released a week ago and are now public. let's take a look at this one. . this says the n.s.a.'s prison program performs the following functions. this is reported to be a training document given to n.s.a. analysts to explain what they can do in this program. who are the current providers to the program? microsoft, hot mail, etc., google, yahoo!, facebook, pal talk, youtube, skype, a.o.l., and apple. what are they providing specifically as the document said, what will you, meaning the analyst, receive in collection? collection from surveillance and stored communications.

the document said it varies by provider. we don't know how it varies. but in general what you get is the following. -mail, the n.s.a. gets email from these providers. video and voice chat. videos. photos, stored data, viewpoint -- v.o.i.p., an electronic version of your actual words when you are speaking on the phone. voice over internet protocol. it's your voice. file strands first -- transfers, videoconferencing, notification of target activity including logons, are you on your computer or not, etc., online social network details, and what is blithely referred to as special requests.

as if all that weren't enough already. now, you might wonder, how does the government actually get this information? well, the five pages give us one answer to that question, let's ook at that. if you look at the bottom, the green rectangle, you'll see that it says that prism collection is directly from the servers of these u.s. service providers. microsoft, yahoo!, google, facebook, paltalk, a.o.l., skipe -- skype, youtube, apple. the plain meaning of this since it is addressed to the trainees at the n.s.a., people who will be doing the analysis of this data, and the injunction on the left which says, you should do both, the plain meaning of this

is that the n.s.a., apparently, has the capability to collect directly from the servers of these service providers the information on the previous page. n other words, our emails, our chats, our videos, our photos. our stored data, our voice over internet protocol, our file transers, videoconferencing, log ins, etc., etc. now, there is an interesting distinction between these two documents. the first case with regard to the court order, the n.s.a.'s position is it's a valid court order, we regard it as legal. if you don't like it, that's too bad with you, go change the law. to which i say, fine, i'm going to try to change that law. with regard to the second document, situation is a little more ambiguous. what the n.s.a. has said publicly is that the green rectangle is not correct.

bear in mind no one said this is not an n.s.a. document. no one said it's photo shopped. no one said it is anything other than what it purports to be and what it was reported as. however, the n.s.a. has taken the position that their own document is wrong for reasons that he we don't know. and the n.s.a. in fact does not have the capability to directly take, collect from the servers of these companies your emails, your voice over internet protocol, your photos, and everything else. they say that they just don't do that. however, we are still waiting for an explanation of how this green rectangle ended up in this document. if it's not true, explain how and why it's not true. the n.s.a. also says that for reasons not evident from this document at all, they don't do this for u.s. citizens. now, that raises a host of

questions. you might think that there might be something else in this document that says that, but the n.s.a. hasn't maintained that. in other words, they haven't said, if you look somewhere else in this document, you'll find that we don't do this for u.s.a. citizens. unless you think that this is somehow selective on my part, anybody else's part, it's been reported that the whistleblower provided this entire document, all apparently 41 pages, to the guardian, to the "washington post," and they decided on their own to release only these five. so, if there's something that indicates that the n.s.a.'s only doing this for americans, apparently it's not in this document, and we reached the strange point where people are being trained in the n.s.a. that they will have the ability to get the emails and the other information on americans, but somehow we are told later separately that's not correct. in addition to that, the n.s.a.

says that there is some process by which they can distinguish between emails of americans and the emails of foreigners. frankly, that is a technology so advanced to me it seems like it might be magic. i used to be the president of a telephone company. i have no idea. i have literally no idea how i could distinguish between the email accounts of an american and a foreigner. i don't know how to do it. maybe they can tell us how they do it if they are doing it at all. that's the real question. if they are doing it at all. i don't know how they could possibly say this email account is for a foreigner. this email account is for an american. if they can't, that means they are taking all this stuff, american and foreign, and having it, using it, looking at it, and destroying our privacy rights. that really is the heart of the

matter here. i don't understand why anyone would think, anyone would think that it's somehow ok for the department of defense to get every single one of our call records, regardless of who we are, regardless of whether we are innocent or guilty of anything, i venture to say there are americans who have never even had a parking ticket. and yet the defense department is pulling their call records as well. now, eventually we will find out whether the n.s.a.'s only document is misleading, and the n.s.a. is not pulling email accounts and emails and photos and voip calls on people who are americans. because if you read this document, it sure looks like they are. you know, this is not the first

time that we have had this problem. this is not the first time that the government has entered into surveillance on people without probable cause. many of us remember that there was f.b.i. surveillance of martin luther king. including wiretapping and bugging his personal conversations. i thought perhaps naively, that we moved beyond that. and in some sense we have moved beyond that. because now they are doing it to veryone. in fact, one could well say that we are reaching the point where ncle sam is big brother. i submit to you that this program, although the proponents take it as american as apple spy, this program is an anti-american program.

we are not north koreans. we don't live in nazi germany. we are americans, and we are human beings. and we deserve to have our privacy respected. i have no way to call my mother except to employ the services of verizon or at&t or some other telephone company. i am not going to string two cups between my house and her house 70 miles away. that doesn't mean that it's ok with me for the government and specifically the department of defense to be getting information about every telephone call i make to her. it's not ok with me. i submit to you, mr. chairman, it's probably not ok with you. and i know that for most of the people who are listening to me today, it's not ok with you, either. franklin said, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. i agree with that. we do not have to give up our liberty to be safe. i have already heard from people who tell me that they are afraid . that they are afraid they are going to be blown up by some terrorists somewhere. that they are afraid their personal safety is at risk. and it's ok with them if the government spies on them. well, it's not ok with me. and i stand here on behalf of the millions and millions of americans who are willing to say, it's not ok with me, either. i'm fed up, i'm not going to take it anymore. when we had a civil war and there were one million armed men in this country who rose up heavily armed to fight against our central government, we did not establish a spy network in every city, every town, every

village, every home. that's what we have done right now. when we had, when i was growing up, 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us, and some people believe there was an communist under every bed, even then we did not establish a spy network as intrusive as this one. i submit to you that this has gone way too far and it's up to us to tell the tea fence department, the n.s.a., these so-called intelligence establishments, we have had enough. we are human beings. we are a free people. and based upon this evidence we are going to have to work to keep it that way. that's what i'll be doing. i hope you'll join me. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege of addressing you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and to have an opportunity to inject some dialogue into the ears and minds of this body and across the country as people observe the deliberations here in the house. i came to the floor, mr. speaker, to address the issue of immigration again. and as we are watching the acceleration of an immigration proposal that's coming through, moving in this direction, at a minimum from the united states senate, it's important for us, mr. speaker, to recognize that there are a series and set of beliefs over there that don't necessarily conform with the majority here in the house of representatives. and if you look at the names and reputations and the faces of the people that are advocating for,

quote, comprehensive immigration reform, close quote, you recognize the history of some of them, regretfully senator kennedy is not here to advocate, but he's one of the proponents of comprehensive amnesty. he's one of the voices back in the 1960's on the immigration, quote, comprehensive immigration reform, close quote. the ronald reagan signed the amnesty act of 1986. we do have some people around here of significant credibility that were part of that process back then, mr. speaker. and one of those is attorney general ed meese. attorney general meese was there as a counselor and advisor to the president. he read the 1986 amnesty act. of course. he had full access to president reagan. and they all -- his cabinet members, good number of them, weighed in with president

reagan, and i remember where i was. i was running my construction company back in 1986 during the middle of the farm crisis. i remember being in my office when i had been watching the debate and reading the news and seeing what was moving through the united states congress, and all the while believing that, if you wave the application of the law to people who have willfully broken the laws, it is a reward for those lawbreakers to wave it, and if you reward them with the objective of their crime, as the 1986 amnesty act did, then the result of that is, not what was promised, what was promised was we will now enforce immigration law forever, and there will never be another amnesty act. that was a promise. and the enforcement was that we had to file i-9 forms for every job application, which would put the pertinent data of the job applicant down on the i-9 form and dotted all the i's and

crossed all the t's on the i-9 form and looked at the identification documents of the applicants that were applying to come to work for my construction company and thousands of companies across america. the full expectation, we had, mr. speaker, the full expectation that the immigration naturalization services, then i.n.s., and now i.c.e., would be coming and knocking on our door and going through our records to make sure we did everything right because the force of enforcement was what was going to justify the amnesty that was granted in the 1986 amnesty act. we were going to control our border and ports of entry and enforce the law against those unlawfully working in the united states, in exchange for that, there was going to be the legalization of some first 700 to 800,000 people in the united states who were here illegally, got advertised up to be or

adjusted up to be, a million people. that turned out to be three million people. lowest number it turned out to be in the 1986 amnesty act, 2.6 million to 2. million, the highest number was 3.6 million, but in that neighborhood of three million people took advantage of the 1986 amnesty act, triple, by anybody's estimate, the original estimate. the tradeoff again was in order to get an agreement with the senator teddy kennedy types that were in the united states senate and house at the time there had to be a concession made. where i come from, it's pretty easy. the rule of law is the rule of law. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. legislating is the exclusive province of article 1 within this constitution, the legislative branch of government, the united states congress. the house and the senate on opposite sides of the rotunda, coming to a conclusion and we

concur, pass the conference report that goes to the president. when the president signs that, it becomes law. and that's the law that we abide by. it's not complicated to understand. that's what they teach in eighth gade civics class. but the expectation that the law would be enforced an the real effort on the part of president reagan to do is was eroded by people who undermined that effort. many of them never intended to follow through on the law enforce. side of the bargain. not only the border security but also the workplace jobs enforce. side, the legislation that some was formed then, some came in 1986 that required the immigration enforcement officers when they encountered someone that was unlawfully in the united states, that they are required by law to place them into removal proceedings. that's the law. ronald reagan was an honorable man. i had great faith in the principles that he so clearly

articulated to the entire nation and the world. with utter confidence. and when i saw that amnesty legislation pass out of the house and the senate back in 1986, i had so much confidence in the clarity of the vision and understanding of -- vision of ronald reagan that i was confident he would veto the misguided amnesty act of 1986 because you can't trade off amnesty for a promise that there would be law enforcement or border security. first thing you do is you enforce the law, you establish that the law is enforced. what if there had been 700,000 or 800,000 people who were in the united states living in the shadows and what if we had enforced the border at the time, enforced immigration law at the time and shut off the jobs magnet at the time. then that number that was viewed to be an inle to rahably high number at the time would have become a number that would have been less than that, not

more than that. if you enforce the law in 1986, there would have been fewer people unlawfully in the united states, not more. on, and by ime went the way, the -- neither ronald reagan nor his successor, george h.w. bush, saw a particular political bump for signing the amnesty act or supporting it, but regardless, as time went on, there was les and less respect for the law because there was less andless enforcement of the law. as much as ronald reagan would have liked to enforce the law, he didn't have everybody bought in on that, mr. speaker. as the undermining of the enforcement and turning of the blind eye took place, there was less and less respect for the rule of law. employers began to understand i.n.s. is not going to be in your workplace, they're not going through your h.r. records, they're not going to apply sanctions against employers for hiring people that are unlawfully present in the united states and can't legally work in the united states.

now mr. speaker, the respect for the law was diminished because there was less enforcement of the law in the workplace, on the border and then we began to see the advocates for open border start to emerge. i want to compliment former chairman of the judiciary committee lamar smith for the stellar work he's done and the immigration reform legislation he was a central figure of when he was rank ranking member of the immigration subcommittee back in 1996, continually i look back at the language put in place then and i'm continually thankful because this nation has been rewarded by the vision of now congressman lamar smith and it has made our jobs easier here. also, 1996 immigration reform which was enforcement reform was triggered off of, to some degree, bar -- barbara jordan's study that took place around 1991 that if you grant amnesty

you'll get more people coming in illegally and the principles are this you enforce the law, you have to place people in removal proceedings if they violate the law. it is not a draconian thing to do if you put someone back in the condition they were in before they broke the law that's not a particular draconian punishment. if that's hard to understand, mr. speaker, and i know you understand all things, but think of it this way. if someone goes in and robs a bank and step out on the sthoaches bank with the sack of the loot and law enforcement appears and says, sorry, you can't keep the loot and we're going to put that back in the bank but you can go. that's equivalent of removal. you don't get to keep the objective of the crime, we put you back in the condition you were in before you committed the crime. that's not draconian. that's the minimum you can do and still have a rule of law apply. you can't be a nation if you don't have borders. and if you don't determine as a

nation what crosses those borders, people or goods, contraband or not if you don't make those decisions as a government, as a people, then it's out of control. then you're really not a nation. then immigration policy is set by the people that decide they're going to break your laws and come across that border and if we decide we're not going to enforce those -- enforce those laws, we have as is often advertised by people in both body this is year, not so much last year, this year, as de facto amnesty. de facto ams inity. that means the equivalent of amnesty, in latin but they also argue we have to do something to resolve the circumstances of ending this de facto amnesty because it's an unjust condition to have people in. now i don't feel that same injustice, mr. speaker. because first of all, the people that are here living under the described de facto amnesty made the decision to come here and live in the

shadows. and some will say, well, they didn't if they were a child when they were brought by their parents and that's true to a degree. and the group of people we are most sympathetic to are those dreamers, those kids brought here when they were young that have gone through our educational system, paid for by u.s. taxpayers, by the way that may have a significant opportunity in this country but are subject to removal just like their parents who clearly knew they were breaking the law. some of those people have been boldly lobbying across this capitol grounds and there's a circumstance not that long ago where the president of the i.c.e. union chris crain who is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit of crain vs. napolitano that seeks to correct the unconstitutional abs of the executive branch including the president, but chris crain was testifying before a senate judiciary committee on immigration and while that was going on, they had people that

were illegal aliens in the united states unlawfully present in the united states, by the way that's a legal term, illegal alien, they were in the room, in the senate judiciary committee, while the president of the i.c.e. union is testifying and they were also in the hallway outside the judiciary committee as recently as yesterday and they had been invited into the judiciary committee, or at least recognized and introduced inside the house judiciary committee by former chairman, now ranking member, john conyers of michigan. how far have we come, mr. speaker, when we have people ho are subject at the specific directive of the law that when encountered by the law enforcement officers, they are required by law to place them in removal proceedings and now they come into the united states capitol and insist that we change the law to accommodate lawbreakers. if we do that, whatever our

hearts say about the dreamers, whatever the short-term peace is about that small segment of the larger group of people that's defined as 11 million and probably is two or more times greater than that, whatever our heart says about that we're eroding the rule of law if we grant a component of amnesty. our rule of law is more sacred to us than the sympathy that we turn toward people that maybe didn't make this decision themselves. but i can tell you, mr. speaker, that the president has directed and it is in the letter of the executive memos that have been produced by john morton, the head of i.c.e., and supported by janet napolitano, who is the secretary of homeland security, who is the subject of the lawsuit, led by chris crain, the president of i.c.e., naming janet napolitano and has been before the court in the northern district of texas and received roughly a

90% decision at this point from judge connor that when congress says shall, it doesn't mean may. in other words, if you're for open borders, mr. president, that -- but the law says thou shalt not read the law to mean you may enforce the law, it means you shall enforce the law. the president of the united states takeance oath of office, it's prescribed in the constitution, and part of the language that he adhere's to is to take care that the laws be faithful -- faithfully executed. that means enforced. doesn't mean kill the law, mr. speaker. it doesn't mean tear the constitution up and throw it out the window. it means take care of the laws -- take care that the law be faithfully executed, in other words, enforce the law. the president has defied his own oath of office. he has prohibited i.c.e. and other officers from enforcing

the clear let ore they have law, some of that was law put in place in 1986 under the pen of lamar smith, the lead sponsor on the immigration reform legislation of that time. the president gave a speech to a high school just out here in washington, d.c., on march 28, i believe the date was march 28, 2011, but i know the actual day of the month, not necessarily the year and when he said to them, i know you want me toest tably the dream act by executive order. in other words, legalize people who were brought here by their parents around the age of 16 and essentially give them a work permit and perhaps a path to citizenship, he said, i can't do that. it's not my constitutional authority to waive the law and grant, say, executive amnesty to the dreamers. instead, he said, you understand, he said to the students, you understand the constitution, you've been taught and you learned this, that there are three branches of government. and the legislature has to pass the lawings, that's congress, and the president's job is to

enforce the laws, that's the president who is speaking before that group on march 28, and the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. that's a nice, tight, composite summary of the structure of our constitution and our federal government. and it is worthy of a former adjunct law professor who taught constitutional law at the university of chicago. president barack obama. he understood it clearly, articulated it clearly to the young people there at the high school just outside here in d.c. and march 28, a little over a year later, the president decided he was no longer going to respect his own word, his own oath of office or his own interpretation of the constitution and just, i'll say, it wasn't necessarily an executive whim, i suspect it was more like a political calculation, but when he -- he did a press conference two hours after janet napolitano released the memo that created four classes of people who were exempted from the law.

and gave them a work permit. and by the way, all lawful presidents here in the united states either -- all lawful presence here in the united states comes from birth, natural born citizen, or the naturalization process set up by congress, or the visas, visitor's visas, student visas, ag workers, all of the lawful presence in the united states aside from natural born citizens is a product of the united states congress. many believe, and i almost entirely agree, that the constitution defines immigration as the exclusive province of congress. it clearly defines the legislative activity as the exclusive province of the united states congress, article 1 in the constitution. and so when the president decides he's going to create immigration law, waive the application of the law, and

create new law out of thin air and when janet napolitano releases the morton memo and announces here are these four classes of people now exempt from the law and manufacturers a work permit out of thin air, that happen and two hours later the president was doing a press conference repeating the same thing at the white house. is so it's not that the president happened to say those things in a press conference. it's not that janet napolitano happened to pick the time o-- timing of two hours before the president's press conference, this was coordinated. i asked her that under oath before the committee was it coordinated, the essential answer after the typical long, rambling that you get from those kind of witnesses was, yes. and so one can one can only conclude it was either by the order of the president or consent of the president that the constitution itself, i believe, was violated. i believe that the separation of powers was violated, and it appears to me from reading judge

reed o'connor's decision in the case of crane vs. napolitano, he agrees also and wrote repeatedly, shall means shall, it doesn't mean may. when the law says shall be enforced, shall be placed into removal proceedings, it means exactly that. and so i expect we'll see a final decision out of the northern district of texas. roughly 90% of the arguements we made before the court were agreed to by judge o'connor. and the other one was one that the executive branch's argument was, less intelligible than it needed to be before a definitive decision could be rendered by a prudent judge, reed o'connor. we'll see that decision come down very soon. i expect that this administration will litigate this all wait to the supreme court and insist the president can't legislate by executive order or edict. they can provide executive amnesty. if the president can suspend any

law, if he has the authority to suspend any law, and he has the authority to manufacture any law out of thin air, and out of thin air was the work permit, just as a reminder, made up a work permit so that the dreamers that he had exempted from the law, but legally and really questionable about the legally part, could work in the united states. if the president can manufacture law out of thin air, and if the president can order that the law be suspended, and if the president of i.c.e. can be sitting in a room with people that are unlawfully present in the united states and compelled by law to place them in removal proceedings but prohibited by order of the president or his executive minions, we have come to a very bad place in america, mr. speaker. our constitution itself is threatened. the function of the three branches of government has been so blurred by an executive that has contempt for his own oath

and contempt for the constitution itself, and the separation of powers. and each time that we go to the court to get an answer, we are asking the third branch of government to be the referee between the two competing branches -- executive and legislative branch. and the founding fathers, as they set up this magnificent and brilliant and balanced constitution between the three branches of government, they envisioned this, each branch of government would have its own constitutional power. and that power was something that wasn't precisely defined between the three blanches of government -- branches of government. they expected the judicial branch would be the weakest of the three branches of government. some years it is. some years it's not. but they also expected that the executive branch, the president, and the he legislative branch, the congress -- and the legislative branch, the congress, would reach a level of tension between the two where each branch would jealously guard the constitutional authority that's vested within it in the supreme law of the

land of the constitution. instead it seems as though these members of congress, 435 here and 100 senators over on the other side, even though we all take an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states, seem to have a different understanding of what this constitution really is. and they seem to have a blurred and weak understanding of the legislative authority that we have here. our founding fathers envisioned that they put all the power of the purse right here in the house of representatives. spending bills start here. there can't be a dollar spent by this government unless the house of representatives approves it, whether we start it here in the -- and the senate amends and comes back or whether we start it here and the senate approves it and goes to the president's desk, there can't be money spent unless this house approves it. and so we have the power of the purse. and they expected we would use the power of the purse in order to restrain an out-of-control executive. they set some other structure in

place, too, that none of us want to contemplate having to use the more draconian approach to this. but the president of the united states has defied the authority here of congress and own oath of office, and this congress has not gotten its backup -- back up nearly enough to defend the constitutional authority that we have or the affront to it. so in the appropriations bill last week, i offered an amendment, an amendment that would prohibit any of the funds from being used to carry out the orders that came from john warden and janet napolitano, and approved by president obama, that grant this executive amnesty to the four classes of people. this is a whole series of six memos known as the morton memos. no money can be used to enforce or implement or execute the special work permit created either by those memos. that amendment was debated here

on the floor vigorously, i might add, very late at night. and i made a strong constitutional argument, i believe, members of congress came down here to the floor of the house and they voted by a vote of 225 to 201 to support my amendment. this congress has spoken. we may disagree on what we do with people that are unlawfully here. but the majority of the house of representatives, that 224 vote clearly said we are going to defend our constitutional authority to legislate. we are not going to allow the president to make it up as he goes along. and we are going to constrain the pursestrings of a president that would legislate by executive edict, which in this case is executive amnesty. so that's a move in the right direction, mr. speaker. but as i see the things unfolding in the united states senate, and the language that comes out of there, and the argument that has been

repeatedly made here on the floor of the house and some extent in the senate, we have de facto amnesty. it is a reality because the president has, as i said, broke his own oath of office. we have gone to court to do all we can do there, and that's moving through the system. but there is another way this thing that's happening, and that is this. in the minds of too many members of congress, they believe that we have to conform our legislation to the president's will. because the president has refused to enforce the law, they argue we should conform the law to something the president will enforce. that's way outside my ability to reason within the confines of the constitution, mr. speaker. i can think of a time or two, there have been more i'm sure, that the supreme court ruled and they came down with the ruling that this congress agreeed was a constitutional interpretation. the partial-birth abortion legislation was one of those.

congress passed a ban on partial-birth abortion. the ruling that came out of the supreme court was that the language that band partial-birth abortion was too vague and there wasn't a provision in it that made an exception for the life or health of the mother. so congress went back to work, we rolled up our sleeves. i was there in those discussions and in the debate and helped move it forward. steve chabot of ohio was a principal sponsor of that legislation. it defined the act precisely from a medical perspective of partial-birth abortion. we brought in experts that testified over and over again and we brightened the definition in a brighter line on what that was. and the congressional findings after much deliberation was that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. that it just doesn't occur from a medical perspective.

yes there are those dissenters out there, mr. speaker. i don't bring this up for that reason. congress read the supreme court decision and conformed our legislation to the decision that was a precedent decision of the united states supreme court. that shows a decent respect for the jurist prudens of the judicial branch of government. -- prudence of the judicial branch of government. it should be this congress to he respect the other branches of government. but we all take an oath to uphold the constitution. we are not bound by someone else's judgment of the -- of what that oath means or what the constitution means. we are bound by a clear understanding of the constitution itself. the text of the constitution. the original stecks. plus the amendments. the -- text plus the amendments. the constitution has to mean what it says. it has to mean what it says on its face. that's what words are there for. it has to also mean what it was

understood to mean at the time of ratification. this constitution, mr. speaker, is a contractual guarantee that we received starting in 1789, amended 27 times since then. every single amendment in there, all the language in there has to mean what it was understood to mean at the moment of ratification, it can't be changed in its definition because it's inconvenient for today or our founding fathers would not have give us a means to amend this constitution. it has to mean what was understood to mean. you can't change its definition because if you do so you are breaking an intergenerational contract that was handed to us in 1789 to be preserved, protected, and tea fended. -- defended. so each member of congress needs to understand that. take an oath to uphold this constitution. we do that. defend it. but when the reasonable jurisprudence of a constitutional analysis comes from the supreme court, we conform to that. in the case of partial-birth

abortion we have conformed in a number of other times and that's a respectful thing to do from one branch of government to the other. but when the president of the united states defies the literal language in the law and orders that there be no application of the law because he disagrees with the law, and manufactures a work permit out of thin air, and when a congress accepts the president's idea on that and decides that we are going to pass legislation as has been offered by the gang of eight in the senate and the gang of eight minus one, now seven in the house, that we are going to conform this congress to the whim of the president. not that we agree with his policy. but they say, well, you'll never get enforcement of the law unless you conform the law to what the president's willing to do. my gosh, what would the founding fathers say if the chief

executive officer of the united states and our commander in chief defies his own oath of office by his own definition at the school, march 28, as i said, refuses to enforce the law, pledges to punish even the president of the immigration customs enforcement union, for doing what he's commanded by law to do, the president does that and there is any kind of mindset here in congress that we should conform the law to the president's whim. no, mr. speaker. the president has this alternative. if he disagrees with the law of the land and he wants to see it changed, then he can ask people in this congress, the house and senate, house or the senate for that matter, would you kindly draft some legislation that would please me and i'll be supportive of it as you try to work it through the legislative process. through regular order as our speaker often says. that's the president's

alternative. he doesn't write law. he does have the opportunity to veto laws that he disagrees with that reach his desk. but technically the president can't even introduce a piece of legislation here in the house or the senate. we know that there are friends of the president willing to do that. and it should be so. so that the president can advocate for legislation and ask people to move it through the system. instead, as i said, he's defied his oath. he has challenged this congress. and some republicans and most democrats appear to have had this spell cast upon them that suspends their otherwise good judgment, and they are working down the path of a comprehensive amnesty plan in the senate and the stage is set here in the house where i can surely see something similar emerging here. we need to stand up and argue, here's a future for this country. a destiny for this country. it is a precious thing we hold in our hands here. the destiny of the united states of america. the pillars of american

exceptionalism built this. and you can open this constitution up and go to the article one, two, three the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in priority order i would say because article 1 reflects nor directly the people. if there is a conflict between the three branches of government, how is it resolved, mr. speaker? if you dig deeply into this and you look at our history, and you watch how things react, sometimes the judicial branch comes out on top. sometimes the executive branch comes out on top. sometimes the legislative branch comes out on top. but if push comes to shove, if push comes to shove, it's the people. we the people that come out on top, and that's why the house of representatives has elections every two years so we can be the quick reaction force when people get their back up and they don't like the direction their government is going, they recruit people, they step up, they run for office. and two years later there is -- two years or less later, there

is an election and often new people come into the house of representatives that more acutely reflect the values and wishes of those who elected them. e saw that happen in 2010. 2009-2010 brought us obamacare. we saw tens of thousands of people all around this capitol. we saw not just a human chain, not a human ring, but a human doughnut formed around the united states capitol, people six and eight deep, human contact, all the way around the united states capitol. i went around and looked at it, of course helicopters can't go up to take picture, but i wish i'd done a panoramic, interconnectable picture so people could see the magnificent unity of the american people, hand to hand, six to eight deep, that is like a human doughnut all the way around the capitol saying keep

your hands off our health care. keep your hands off our health insurance. that was defied when nancy peso -- pelosi walked through the throng with her huge magnum gavel, remember that? about that long. in a show of, what shall i call it? regality. the reel rhee gal speaker coming through with her big gavel to rule over the american people who said, keep your hands off our health care. do this -- to this day, i don't know of a single legitimate poll that says they want obamacare over repeal of obamacare. the last number i saw said 56% of the people want obamacare repealed. they came to this city and said, keep your hands off our health care. they came on three occasions that i saw, on a thursday then

again on a saturday. some true up to be here on thursday, flew pack home and got the call to come back again they didn't leave the airport they went to the ticket counter and came back. they care that much about our freedom. and still, obama care is being imposed upon them. they want to the polls in the fall of 2010, they elected 87 new freshman republicans to come serve here in the house of representatives. and every single one of them ran on the ticket of repealing obamacare. every single one. 87 new freshmen. a magnificent turnover, a class i call god's gift to america that class of 1987 is here, most of them still here and a new class has been elected. all of the freshmen who came in on my side of the aisle, mr. speaker, and all those who came in in 2010, and every republican in the house of representatives has voted to

repeal obamacare. i believe that -- i believe up until last fall's election, i'm mot sure what's happened in the senate, up until that time, every republican senator has voted to repeal obamacare. they all took that pledge. that's an exafrl of the quick reaction force of the people. now it didn't work out so well with the presidential election but i can tell you that if that election result had been different for the presidency, the obamacare repeal bill getting passed, i'll say, a new majority in the senate, would have gone to the president's desk. but it's passed out of this house of representatives. i drafted the 40-word repeal language in the middle of the height after the obamacare legislation was passed, i was wasn't -- i wasn't alone doing that, i had company doing that. but the response of the american people overcomes the bright line here, overcomes the division of the lines between the american people. it's the people who will speak. when people rise up, when they elect new people to the united states congress, when their

voice is heard in the ballot box electing a president then even a supreme court decision can be -- can be reversed by the voice of the people. it may take a constitutional amendment but in the end, power is something that you can assume, anyone can assume power. we do that in our own families when we direct our children to stay out of the cookie jar, for example. and as long as they respect that power, you have that power, mr. speaker. but if it's challenged, and defied, then the power disappears and it goes to whatever entity can claim that power, whatever entity can successfully assert that power. so we're in this struggle right now. the president's hand is in the article 1 legislative cookie jar. he's reached in and said, i'm taking these cookies of immigration, because i don't like the law that exists. i refuse to enforce the law and i'm going to make up a new law while we're at it and it's almost like having a child with

his hand in the cookie jar with that defiant look in his eye thinking, and you can't do anything about it. you can go to the judicial branch and litigate, we've done that the court's one day going to come down with a decision. will he president honor the decision of the court? if it gets all the way to the supreme court? will he honor it or will he defy it? i sat here on this floor, mr. speaker, as the president spoke from the rostrum mind me, lectured the supreme court that sat over here and told them that their decision was wrong. that's not a decent respect for the opinions of mankind that are seated in the united states supreme court. that blurs the lines between the judicial and the executive branch of government. it also tells me we have a president who doesn't understand his restraint. but i'm troubled by a congress that will allow that to happen, will allow that presidential hand into the legislative cookie jar, because we take an oath to uphold the

constitution. it's our obligation to do that. that means we defend the constitutional authority that we've taken an oath to uphold. that's where we sit. now we get to the immigration policy side of this. if you reward people who break the law you get more lawbreakers. i knew that in 1986. i knew that as a businessman who was working through the farm crisis years of the 1980's to keep my company up and going and try to keep it profitable and raise my young children at the time but i remember when ronald reagan signed the amnesty act, that is a big mistake. that was one of only two times that a great man who i have great respect for, ronald reagan, let me down. only twice in eight years. but it comes back to haunt us yet to this day. why did i know in 1986, not being a member of congress, being a guy that had only been in business nine years at the time, that had three young sons roughly 10 and under and a wife

to hom -- a wife who was also working, how did i know that was a mistake? what was it within me? i didn't have the background that matched up with attorney general meese or the president of the united states. i'm an -- i'm outside a little town in iowa, 300 people at the time. i can't see a neighbor from my porch but i knew that was a mistake. i had no idea that this many years later i'd be standing on the floor of the united states congress making this case. it wasn't a matter of clairvoyance it was a matter of justice. it was a matter of growing up in a law enforcement family and being steeped in reverence for the supreme law of the land this constitution. and understanding that if you don't like the law, you abide by it. but there's a means to change it, whether you're the president of the united states or whether you're this young fellow that is trying to run a business and raise his family with -- but have respect for the rule of law. when you cross those lines,

especially when you do so from the office of the white house, the president of the united states, it's the equivalent of taking -- it's the equivalent of taking a jackhammer to one of the beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism. to define what those pillars are, they're here, they're here in the bill of rights. the first amendment is real easy. freedom of speech. that's a pillar of peppingsalism. without it, we can't be the great country we are. freedom of religion. same answer. without it, we can't be the great country we are. freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, the property rights that used to exist in e fifth amendment before the kolo decision we sought to restore just a couple of days ago no double jeopardy, tried by a jury of your peer, speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right that was not defined in the constitution devolve to the states respectively or to the people. those are all pillars of exceptionalism.

free enterprise capitalism is another one, without free enterprise capitalism we don't have this vigorous and robust economy that we have. that's on the citizenship test, by the way. what's the economic system of the united states? free enterprise capitalism. how about the property rights that exist for intellectual property? up until we amended some of the patent and trademark laws that property rights to intellectual property is one of the big, big reasons why the united states has been so successful. i put this all together and add to that, this country was settled by the values of western civilization, judeo christianity included in a prominent form. all of that arrived here on this continent at the dawn of the industrial revolution and the concept of manifest destiny that settled this country from sea to shining sea. and i can look back and try to reverse engineer america and say where did we make a turn that i could even on monday

morning quarterbacking rules make a recommendation that we should have turned another direction? i can't reverse engineer america and come up with a greater country than we are, except maybe go back to 1986 and say, ronald reagan if you'd just vetoed the amnesty act in 1986, i wouldn't be standing here now. we wouldn't have a senate trying to stampede an amnesty act over to the house. we swront this spell cast over so many republicans that if we just pass amnesty act, it will be ok into the future. this spell that's su spended their good judgment and reason, suspended their ability to listen to empirical data and way the -- weigh the policy the immigration issue cuts across all the opponents of constitutional conservatism. anything that has to do with family, for example, with the

rule of law, with the economy, with national defense and national security. almost every issue that we deal with in this congress is touched somehow by immigration. it is not a simple topic. it's not something where you just say, well, i feel story for the dreamers, therefore i'll grant amnesty, i'll support amnesty and get that off the table and maybe the next congress can deal with it. it does not work like that, mr. speaker. this is an irrevocable and irreversible advocacy for amnesty. it's something that cannot be undone. obamacare, as bad as it is and i've spent more than three years my life fighting obamacare and working to defeat it before it became law and repeal it after it became law and that's a matter of clear public record. but mr. speaker, if i have to accept this perpetual and retroactive amnesty offered by the gang of eight or what i expect to come from the gang of

eight minus one here in the house, if i have to choose between perpetual and retroactive amnesty and obamacare, i'm going to accept obamacare and defeat the perpetual and retroactive amnesty because later on, we can repeal obamacare. we can undo it. we can take it apart and roll it back and we can put together a doctor-patient relationship and a really healthy health care system in the united states. we know what it looks like. we know what to do. we couldn't get it done because we didn't have the votes. you can undo obamacare but you cannot undo comprehensive amnesty because once that genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. it becomes as amorphous as a puff of smoke and if they don't have the political will to enforce the law now why would they have the political will to enforce the law after amnesty would be granted?

they argue they have all these provisions put into the bill, that there's border security in the bill and we'll get tight borders from this point on. now when you read the legislation, there's no prospect of that. it's almost -- i would have to hide my face to say something like that and wink and cross my fingers behind my back with the other hand. they don't mean it. they don't believe it. they write it because it is just a vague, open, comprehensive pla see bobe for -- placebo for those who want border security to give people something to hide behind. if you say janet napolitano has this time to come up with a man to secure the border. that doesn't mean implement the plan, it just says come up with a plan. if they're not satisfied with that, they appoint a border security commission that's job is to come up with a plan. if that fails they go back to janet napolitano again. this isn't that hard, mr. speaker. if you're serious about enforcing the border, you can that if you would give me

janet napolitano's job and a president who doesn't tie my hands i would take the resources that are committed now within the 50 miles of the southern border, the southwest border, and i would get you upwards of the 99th percentile of border security within three years. maybe sooner but i think it would take half a year to get the administrative thing jump starred. i'm in the construction business. i know how to build a fence, a wall, and a fence. i know what it costs to do that. i'm not proposing we go down, i wouldn't bid such a thing but i can surely provide advice. i have designed it already a fence, a wall, and a fence with access roads between so you have a road between the first fence number one, wall would be the second and fence above that, you can patrol both of those areas between a fence a wall and a fence. doing so, you could secure it. when you have border patrol personnel, it's good to have them, boots on the ground are

good. they do a noble job down there under nearly impossible conditions and i'm a big fooven the border patrol and i'd like to think they know it when i go down there to visit but when you start expanding boots on the ground because you don't want to put infrastructure in place it's not logical to me. i live in rural iowa on the corn of gravel roads that go a mile in each of four directions where i live if janet napolitano came to me and said, i want you to secure that mile of road that go gos from your house west and i'm going to pay you $6 million this year to secure that road, if i thought i might lose the contract next year, maybe i would think i'll hire myself some border patrol agents and we'll do our best to catch some of those folk bus we know we're not going to get more than about 25% enforcement but it's a job and take it on. . but if i had a 10-year contract, it's $60 million a

year a mile and if that contract was tied to efficiency , in other words, if they would dock my pay if i didn't enforce the law, if i couldn't secure the border, i can tell what you i would do, mr. speaker. i would invest about $2 million a mile to build a fence, a wall and a fence. now, $2 million is more than i think it takes and to put this in perspective for people who might be overhearing our conversation, mr. speaker, we can build four-lane interstate highway across iowa corn fields for right at $4 million a mile. by the lapped, -- buy the land, do the engineering, the surveys, the studies that are there, do the grading, pave it, shoulder it, paint the lines, put the fencing in, seed it, have it done and finished for $4 mm a mile -- $4 million a mile. well, it's easy to see now in a thank if we can do that for $4 million, we can do a pretty

tremendous fence for a couple million dollars. a fence, a wall and a fence. well, just simply parole roads that allow good weather access through that part of the country. it isn't hard to figure it out. if you give me $60 million for a mile, i put a couple million dollars in, a fence, a wall and a fence, i'd have myself the necessary border patrol agents to watch that. i'd put some cameras up to surveil it. i'd put some vibration sensors in. i'd put some kind of technology on there to add to that, that they don't like me to talk about here on the floor of the house. and we'd have ourselves a 99 %-plus secure border. had we done that back when the secure fence act was passed here in the house, supported by duncan hunter from california, as the lead author, and an excellent leader on this issue, that, we wouldn't

be having this discussion today, mr. speaker. because the southwt bord d ha been secure. and then that argument would be taken away. and then when they promised that there will be border security, we would already have it. and if we already had border security, then some of the harder hearts here in congress could take a look at 11 million that are here and think, ok, we've demonstrated that we're going tone force lawsuit from this place forward -- going to enforce the law from this place forward, is there an accommodation that we can make? we can't get to that decision because the president refuses to enforce the law, they won't allow that kind of security on the southern border, for political reasons, i believe. the ports of entry are not as tight as they need to be. we don't have an entry-exit system. piece after piece of this that are necessary for security. and by the way, i have a bill called the new idea act. what it does is it clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals by employers are not tax deductible. and so it subjects that employer to an i.r.s. audit, it gives the employer safe harbor

if they use e-verify, so an employer could put the employees' numbers into the e-verify database, if it came back and said it confirms that these folks can work legally in the united states, put them to work without any kind of sanction or punishment for the employer. safe harbor. but, if the i.r.s. comes in during a normal audit, doesn't accelerate the audit, but a normal audit, they would normally then in the audit under my bill, they would put the social security numbers and the identifying information into e-verify, run those employees through and if they came back that they could not lawfully work in the united states, they'd give the employer an opportunity, and the employee, to cure that in case there is misinformation in the data, which gets better every time we use it and it's very good. aside from that, the i.r.s. then would rule, sorry, the wages that you knowingly and willfully paid to someone who is unlawfully present in the united states are not a business expense. so wages come out of the schedule, they go into the

grows receipts column again and show up as net income in the bottom. and the i.r.s. would apply a penalty and an interest against the unpaid taxes, plus the taxes to that income, that net income, the effect of this, it would your -- it would turn your $10 an hour illegal into a $16 an hour legal. it means as an employer you're going to wonder what year will i be audited? this year or next year or the year after? well, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they audit you for a year. but it might be pretty expensive as those years accumulate, up to six on the statute of limitations. so employers would look at that accumulating statute of limitations of six years and decide, i'm going to get to legal. i'm going to work my way through and clean up my work force. that's a logical business decision. the bill also requires the i.r.s. to work in cooperation with the social security administration and the department of homeland security

so that they exchange information for the purposes of enforcing u.s. law. this isn't that ard and it's not that complicated -- isn't that hard and it's not that complicated. it just takes the will and the decent respect for the opinions of our founding fathers, the opinion of those who have written law before us, and some who are serving in this congress today, a decent respect for the constitution. let's reconstruct this respect for the rule of law in this country, mr. speaker. let's re-establish its enforcement, let's do so while we respect the dignity of every human person and understand that they don't always get the clearest message in the country that they live in. they know they want to leave there, they know they want to come to america. they want to leave for some reason such as perhaps it's too violent, 58,000 people, some say more, killed in the drug wars in mexico in the last few years. the rule of law doesn't apply down there the way it does

here. people aren't always equal treatment under the law. sometimes they're shaken down by police officers. that hardly ever happens in this country in a significant way. we have equal protection under the law in america. if you look at the statue of lady justice who is standing there with the scales of justice in her hands, and they are balanced, equal protection. balanced prekts under the law. and most -- protection under the law. and most times you'll see lady justice blindfolded because justice is blind. it needs to treat every human person equally under the law. people come here because they want that kind of protection. it is a component of american exceptionalism. the rule of law. and the senate is poised to destroy the rule of law and the house seems to be moving in that direction. i'm very troubled, mr. speaker, as i watch one of the essential pillars, the rule of law, of american exceptionalism be attacked and start to crumble before my very eyes in this

country. you know, the job the founding fathers had, the vision came from god that our rights come from god. they all wrote that. they all agreed with that. it's in the declaration. they put this concept together, inspired by belief. the concept of a free people, a sovereign people, we the people. they sold that to a large enough percentage of the population in the 13 original colonies that they supported the declaration. they had to sell it. it wasn't just thomas jefferson went into a room, got out the quill and wrote the declaration and they decided to embrace it and start a revolution. this was a cultural thing. it was an intellectual thing. it was a faith component. they put that together and they sold it to the people in the 13 original colonies who fought a war to establish this country and then to ratify a constitution. their job was a lot harder than ours, mr. speaker. our job is to preserve, protect and defend it.

they had to conceive of it, argue for it, sell it to the people, put it down in words and parchment, the declaration, fight a war, and some gave their lives to shape america to the great, great country that we are today. our job is to preserve and protect and defend this glorious destiny that's out ahead of us. we cannot shrink from it, we cannot trail in the dust our constitution or the rule of law , no matter what our hearts say about having sympathy for groups of people that may or may not have had a say about whether they came here legally or not. that's what's here to be defended. next week we're going to be very vigorously defending the rule of law. m going to seek to have lynn con douglas -- lincoln duge lass-style debates -- douglas-style debates in the morning. this is going to be designed so that reasonable people can have

an open discussion just like steven douglas and abraham lincoln did. let's air this out before the public and let's hear what the public has to say. in fact, if we can work it out, i want to hear from the public as well, mr. speaker. it will be a big week next week. and i'm looking forward to it. we're called to this task, et's not trail in the dust the golden hopes of humanity. we are the readout of western civilization. if we can't protect the fortress of the rule of law and all this american exceptionalism here, we can't look without for western europe to save us or australia to save us. we can look to them as allies but if our civilization is going to be preserved, it's going to be here in the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move he house do now adjourn.

orry, i had a -- the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. living in interesting times. it's reported to be a chinese curse to live in interesting times. when you see what is confronting this country, what is taking our liberties, what

is threatening our way of life, it's clear we're on the front lines of either winning back or losing for all times the greatest freedoms ever given and secured for one group of people. this is an extraordinary country and it is because, just as our founders pointed out repeatedly, they recognized hat our rights are provided by our creator. but just as any inheritance can e taken by those who are evil, greedy, power-hungry, they must e defended or you lose it.

we have people who make no bones about the fact that they want to destroy our way of life. that they think the freedom of -- freedom afforded the american people leads to debauchry, leads to ways of life that are evil and wrong and therefore they must destroy the freedoms which have provided people the chance to make wrong choices. our founders would prefer the freedoms and so would the people here. unfortunately there are good people who believe that they are so much smarter and know better than everyone else that, gee, since we're in congress we should tell people what they can do, how they can live, how they can make a living, whether hey can make a living, or that

we may just pay you to do nothing and to never reach your god-given potential. and then as we heard today, we had an amendment made by our friend on the democratic side, mr. poe less, that -- mr. poe less, that would have required -- polis, that would have required a new addition to the chaplain corps of every branch of the military. it would be a new addition to the chaplain corps for those ic or eighth eist yiss tick. those who believe there is no god. i had no idea that people who do not believe there is a god needed help and encouragement nd support for their unbelief. it's astounding. if people truly are atheistic,

why would they need help in remaining so? could it possibly be that the more people look around, the more they see things like ben franklin did, 80 years old, and, yes, he enjoyed what some people would call pleasures of different types, he represented us in france, represented us in england. he was a brilliant man, a brilliant man. and the massive painting outside these halls show him sitting front and center at the constitutional convention, it was at that convention, when he finally got recognized, after they'd been there five yeek, and despite so many across the country still miseducating children, unfortunately, by telling them he was a deist, someone who believes there's something, some force, some ing, some deity that -- that

created nature, created mankind, created all things in the universe and if such thing still exists, it, he, she, never interferes with the ways of man you see ben franklin's own words, that's not what he believed. when he was 80 years old, two years or so away from meeting his maker, he got recognized after all the yelling back and forth done there at the convention and someone noted that washington looked relieved when mr. franklin sought attention. or as some at the convention called him, dr. franklin. and he pointed out during his remarks and we know exactly what he pointed out because he wrote it in his own handwriting, people wanted a copy of what he said. madison made notes but franklin wrote it out. among other thins, he said, i have -- thing he said, i have lived for a long time.

and the longer i live the more convincing proofs i see of this truth, god governs in the affairs of men and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire can rise without his aid? we have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, he called t sacred, by the way, in the sacred writing that unless the lord builds a house, they labor in vain that build it. he encouraged those at the convention that he also believed in his words, that without his, he's talking about -- talking about the same god, the same lord he had just referenced, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of babel. we'll be confounded by our local partial interests and we ourselves shall become a byword down through the ages.

and now here we are, all these years later, that was 1787 that franklin said those words, late june, here all these years later, since 1787, we have a motion to create chaplains in the military to help people not believe in what ben franklin said was the god who governs in the affairs of men. generically speaking. but it is important that people have the freedom to choose what ey believe as the founders believe that god gave us freedom of choice, that he gave us, our creator gave us those rights, they also believe that people should have the chance

to choose right or wrong as well. as an exchange student in the soviet union back in the 1970's, i saw people and became very good friends with some college students, who didn't have our rights, who envied our rights, who would love to have shared the rights that we have, and ultimately we saw that play out a couple of decades later when many across the former soviet union demanded those rights. of the 15 states that made up the socialist republic, some have gone back to those ways. some -- i was intrigued, some are scared when they're giving that much freedom to choose where they work, you mean, i've got to find a job? but i've never had to look for a job. it's a little scary. as so many americans,

particularly over the last five years have found, it can be very, very difficult to find a job. so the idea that the government may just tell you what the job is, tell you whether you get a chance to go to college or not, that sounds good. i don't have to think about those decisions. let the government do it for us. and it's shocking but there are many, there have grown to be many in america who like the idea of the government telling them what they can do, when they can do it, how they can do it. takes away the need to really wrestle with those things. or as so many of the signers of the declaration believed, to have to pray about it and struggle with the decision and try to find out as many of them did what is god's will for our lives.

peter mulenberg from pennsylvania, we have a statue of him, was just down the hall but when the visitors' center opened, he was moved, but he's the christian minister, pastor, who is depicted in the statue taking off his ministerial robe as he preached from ecclesiastes, there's a time for every purpose under heaven. as he told his congregation, there is a time for peace and there is a time for war. and now is the time for war. and he led men from his congregation to join the military and to fight for freedom. his brother frederick, who also s a statue here, frederick was the first speaker of the house under our new constitution. he had not actually immediately

been in favor of the revolution. but after his church was burned down by the british he kind of thought maybe it was a decent idea for ministers to be involved in a revolution and for ministers to be involved in government where there was self-government of a people. so that brings us to today. from the revolutionary years to the constitution, the articles of confederation fell apart, and once, now, there was debate ben franklin's proposal because under the continental congress, they had prayer every day to start their sessions. but the only way they could do that with the diverse christian denominations, including the quakers, was to agree on a minister they believed would not offend the others and pay

him to be the chaplain. but as they pointed out during the debate over franklin's proposal, we don't have money, we're not getting paid. we're here for a constitutional convention but we don't have money like we did in the continental congress. we can't hire a chaplain. but once the constitution was passed and ratified, from the time of the first congress, that first day, actually, when george washington was sworn in at the federal building in new york, made his way down to the chapel that's still there, the only building that was unaffected at ground zero. as the towers fell. they had a prayer session for the nation. and then each congress ever since, house and senate, began each day with prayer. before they ever began their session.

still true today. but, again, today we have the feeling that those who believe there's no god are insecure enough that they need somebody to encourage them in their unbelief. one of the dangers, though, we have come to face and come to realize is that many in our nation are choosing political correctness over safety. yes, we all in this body, all of the armed forces, when i was in the army four years, we took that oath. we were supposed to support, protect the constitution, everybody i knew was prepared to die for it, to die for their country, if necessary. those people are still serving. of course we found out, though, that if you get too involved in political correctness and it's

politically correct to look the other way when people are talking about hatred for america and wanting america to have the constitution subordinated to sharia law that gee, it's just politically correct not to face the facts that those people exist and that some of them are in the military. so they pass a man up the ystem so that he is there to ounsel christians, atheists, others, who need counseling and with the people i've talked to in the military, especially in afghanistan, when we were in iraq, when you have a commander in chief who on his watch does not allow you to fire at people who may be firing at you unless

you can be sure you won't hit a civilian, at least that fear is put into those individuals, and i have asked for an official response from the department of defense, put in writing exactly what our rules of engagement are, that our soldiers are fighting under, and we were told that's classified and it can't be provided in answer to your question. well somebody has passed it on to the military in harm's way. just like in august of 2011, when we had seal team members whose target was put on their backs by this administration when first of all, the vice president of the country violates the classified information laws and sets out in his speech who the commander was who brought down osama bin

laden and about his great seal team. and yes, he was paying them compliments but he put a target on their back and i know our vice president did not intend to that. he was just so excited, just as he was when he revealed when the undis-- where the undisclosed location was. he didn't mean to breach national security, he just was so happy and whatever he was to reveal those kinds of things. but he put people's lives in danger. team ine soldier's seal -- or seal team member's father told me right after the vice president's speech, his daughter-in-law looked out the window, she had a marine guard out front. karen and billy von, they talk about how aaron called them, part of seal team six, after they were outed. and it's been printed in the media that leon panetta as a

cab met -- cabinet member was meeting with people who could receive the classified information but this administration wanted all the kudos they could get before the election, of course so they had producers of what i thought was a pretty good movie, "zero dark thirty" but he gave them classified information and told them who took out osama bin laden. in august of 2011, our seal team members paid the ultimate ice of this administration's carelessness. they paid with their lives. it would be nice to have, out where we could talk about it as a nation, just exactly what he rules of engagement are that our military are dying under because there was a c-130 gunship there and this was not from some classified source, i got it because it was

information that was given to the family members although the military may not have known what they gave, and there's c-130 gun om the ship -- gunship pilot and others that they saw this group moving like a military group that were not allowed to take them out. they even saw them shoot down our chinook and kill our americans but there was a chance they might have hit civilians if they had killed the people that took down our seal team six members so they couldn't even kill them after they killed our people. we need to know what the rules of engagement are. we need to address the political correctness that is blinding our agencies and blinding our military of its ability to see who the enemy is. because it's getting people killed, in harm's way. when you refuse to acknowledge

that the afghans you are training may be willing to turn their guns you're training them on and kill you just as an aggie friend had happen here recently in afghanistan, what they call a green on blue killing, until we recognize that and recognize who our enemy is and that our enemy can be among us and that our enemy can be in uniforms that we're supposed to be friendly with, then more americans are going to be killed needlessly. when the political correctness of the f.b.i. and the justice department and the state department, intelligence department for that matter, is that you've got to leave mosques alone where people are being radicalized and even though they were sting operations that identified people radicalizing americans before this administration changed the policy and they had to get friendly and reach out

and partner as the f.b.i. said it originally did with care, the council on american islamic relations and even though they said they're not partnering with them, any time cair says, this offends us, then the f.b.i. says, oh, gee, we better change it. . when you've had the fifth circuit of the united states court of appeals confirm that, yes, the evidence shows that cair, the islamic society of north america, those are front organizations for the muslim brotherhood. they want shari'a law to be the law of the land, not our constitution. and that is what we did not take an oath to allow to happen. we took an oath to the constitution. and that means no law shall be above our constitution. and so that brings me also to the conversation, the question and answer with the f.b.i.

director this week. i have a great deal of respect for him. he's been a patriot, he fought in vietnam, he's a warrior. he cares about the country. but he's done great damage to the f.b.i. he instituted an administrative policy that has caused actually -- caused thousands and thousands of years of lead the f.b.i. -- leave the f.b.i. and say, under the new policy i have to leave. so you have very willing, able young f.b.i. people who get in charge, but they have not benefited from the years of experience that others that had to leave had. i think that contributes to some of the problems that we see with our rights being protected, that we see with poor investigations. they just have not been the beneficiary of enough years of experience and they've been taught by language that does

not allow them to talk about or see our enemy. i've been making the point for onths that the boston massacre had clear potential to be completely avoided. and then when we find out russia gave our administration information to say the older brother has been radicalized and he's going to kill people, you better look into it, then all we've heard since the boston bombing from this administration is, the russians should have given us more information. now, i grew to know a little bit about the way they think. and i don't entirely appreciate some of it, but i appreciate this. if they give information that says this person is going to kill americans, understand we really don't care that much about whether they kill americans, but we would like for you to recognize that these

are the kind of people that will take out your government, will take out our government, and we'd like you to look into it, it's a thing of mutual concern. and when they put our government on notice and the reaction of our government is, well, we did some interviews, we looked into it, we didn't find anything, the russians -- are you kidding us? we hand you somebody who is going to kill americans and you can't find anything? what's wrong with you? there's a great article, and i used it in questioning our f.b.i. director, it was entitled, obama's snooping excludes mosques and it missed the boston bombers. it says, since october, 2011, mosques have been off limits to f.b.i. agents. no more surveillance or undercover sting operations without high-level approval rom a special oversight body

of the justice department dubbed the sensitive operations review committee. who makes up this body and how do they decide requests? nobody knows. the names of the chairmen, members and staff are kept secret. the f.b.i. director did not want to provide those as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has six minutes left. mr. gohmert: so the f.b.i. director, as i pointeded out to him here -- pointed out to him here before i asked a question further, pointed out that according to this article the bureau did not even contact mosque leaders for help in dentifying the boston bombers' images, after those images were captured on tv cameras and cell phones. the f.b.i. director attempted to correct me. he said, you said facts that

aren't true. fact, he said, your facts are not altogether -- and i understood him to say not true. so i demanded he point out specifically what facts were wrong. answered said, we went to the mosque prior to boston. said, we went to the mosque prior to boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand and i couldn't during the questioning heard what he said at the end, but what he said at the end is part of our outreach efforts, if i had heard that i would have known and could have followed up and said, wait a minute, that was part of your outreach effort to a muslim mosque, it was not to follow up on the boston bombers. and then, knowing that he not properly followed up, knowing

the f.b.i. did not properly follow up with the mosque, i then asked about the mosque that was started -- a couple of them started by the islamic society of boston. were you aware that a founder -amudi. we know who he was. he was arrested. which we could have done with al maliki who was killed by a drone bomb that was ordered by our president that caused a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle to say, wait a minute, is that a good idea, to kill american citizens, you know, without a trial? and why is he an american citizen? well, he's an american citizen because we have this policy that says, and a misinterpretation, i would submit of the 14th amendment, that if someone comes in here on a visa and has a baby, then

they're american citizens. so, his family was to come in on a visa, and then take him back to yemen and radicalize him so that he hated america and then he could come back here and as he did, lead prayers here on capitol hill with congressional muslim staffers and also have contact with people in the administration. but i guess we won't ever know who all he had contact with because they blew him up while he was in gemen. but he was free to come and -- yemen. but he was free to come and go, to radicalize people in america, because he was an american citizen. because his father and mother got a visa to come in here where he was born. the other was free to come and go here in the united states and that was until he was arrested at dulles airport and

was tried and an coicted and is doing over 20 years in federal prison for supporting terrorism. and our f.b.i. director said at the hearing, he kind of had his head down and said it quietly, but, no, he was not even aware that al-amudi in prison for supporting terrorism was one of the founders, in fact, he is the one listed on the articles of the organization for massachusetts for the islamic society of boston that started this. he didn't even know that. until we get past this political correctness, so that we can see our enemies, see those who want to destroy our way of life, and subjugate our constitution to their ideas, then we are not protected and we have got to get over that. and how about that? when director mueller testified before, he had said, oh, yeah,

we have this great outreach program to the muslims. so apparently this is a part of. this i asked, how is the outreach program going? you know, christians and catholics, jewish, buddhists, i forget who all i named, but anyway, it was interesting, there's no such outreach groups specifically for them, but there is a specific outreach group that didn't want to offend people who are radicalizing and being radicalized. so, it is pretty clear we need to protect our borders from people who want to come in to destroy us. all avenues of entry. we need to deport those who overstay their visas. we need to reform our immigration service and our immigration process so that it is more effective, more efficient and gives people proper answers more quickly. we must stop allowing members of terrorist groups to consult

with this president or his administration. we must stop discarding our allies who have fought with us and for us and throwing them under figurative buses. we've got to stop rewarding our enemies so that when they say it they -- when they say they want to destroy us and we're their enemy, we don't send them $1.3 billion and tanks and jet planes. and then also, we have got to educate our federal protection encies on whom the enemy truly is. and with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for 30 minutes. mr. holden: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con -- consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. holden: mr. speaker, in a time when many americans are out of work and struggling to make ends meet, the last thing that they want to see is tens of millions of their taxpayer dollars being spent to send the president on a trip to africa. mr. speaker, while every president deserves appropriate protective detail, the security provisions for president obama's upcoming trip are excessive. mr. holding: hundreds of secret service agent, over 50 vehicles, fighter jets, a navy aircraft carrier with a fully staffed medical trauma sent already cost the government tens of millions of dollars. mr. speaker, our country is over $16 trillion in debt and the government agencies have made cutbacks as a result of the sequester. it is no secret that we need to rein in government spending and the obama administration has regularly and repeatedly shown a lack of judgment for when and where to make cuts.

for example, why should pilots' hours, air force pilots' hours be cut back at see more air force base so the president can have his most expensive trip since taking office? mr. speaker, the fact is that the president's upcoming trip to africa is going to be for less than one week. nd that trip costs $1,3 -- 1,350 times more than a week of white house tours. so for the cost of this trip to africa, could you have 1,350 weeks of white house tours. which the white house has canceled indefinitely due to budget restraints. mr. speaker, the numbers don't lie. so either the administration is bad at math or they simply n't see a problem with their spending. the american people have had enough of the frivolous spending and they deserve real, appropriate cuts from this

excessive administration. mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday

>> watch live coverage of the ouse here on c-span. the c-span video library has reached a milestone. since its online launch in 2007 ,000 hours 200 searchable and free. a public service created by private industry, america's cable companies. >> from my small experience, you do see people, older journalists who you know will not cut it today. that does not mean they are not good at what they do but the demands of their generation and the demands of our generation are very different. what people who try to see

the media industry is doing to us and the argument of taking your time and get your facts right, that is always going to be true. we saw in the health care ruling, we saw it in the boston bombing. people are reconsidering how important it is to get your facts right. >> more with politico reporter, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q and a." the house and ways committee spoke this morning. they reflected back on tax -- rm efforts in 2006 and 1986 and the lessons learned.

>> we've had a lot of time to reflect on history and the experience of the last major tax reform. what lessons have you drawn from that. some things have changed and some things have remained the same. what is different now and what is the same? >> well, -- >> i'll go. basically what is different -- hat's the same today there's the barnacles have built back in again. there's 15,000 changes to the code since 1986. you had more correlations and modifications and different groups want and congress goes along with it. so that is the same. in addition, the public back then was quite upset with lots

of sheltering of income. today, i think the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering but a lot of it is lost income from overseas operation especially, low tax jurisdictions and tax havens. that is a concern. that is a legitimate american concern is being built up. what is different? president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on a reluctant congress. today it's the congress, at least at this point, the chairman of the committee who are starting the ball rolling on tax reform but the administration didn't oppose, it's a willing participant and the president, more directly

engaged as me move along. i'll stop there. essentially, the basic need for reform to get the economy going. we haven't talked about that yet. tax reform is going to help american economy. help get jobs and in this competitive world of ours we have to do everything we possibly can to help american people, help american small businesses, help corporations, american companies to compete better and have less red tape so they can focus more on jobs. it is a combination of substance and psychology that will help the economy. >> the tax code was broken in 1986 and the tax code is broken now. all three witnesses we had said the tax code is broken.

the other thing i add to that, the world has changed since 1986. the ability to invest with a click of a mouse, is easier. we have to look at what other countries have done. they have modernized their tax system, we haven't. the other thing, i think is so much similar is you have to be very persist and. that reform would not have ppied without continuely persistance and effort. the economy isn't as strong as we need it to being we need to get wage increases that we haven't been seeing. i think that is making a case. the code has been layered upon layer of change and it's time to look at it again. trying to at we're do. >> you can watch the entire remark at today's monitor

breakfast tonight beginning at 8:00 here on c-span. according to the center for disease control prescription painkiller abuse is the fastest growing drug abuse here in the u.s. today, the director of the center of drug abuse treatment, congressman from pennsylvania chairs the committee. the hearing is just under two hours. >> the sub committee will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. today's hearing is the first in a series of hearings the sub committee will hold on a subject on prescription drug abuse, which has been described by the center of disease control and

prevention as an epidemic in the united states. in 2010, seven million individuals age 12 or older -- that's 2.7% of this population were current, non-medical users of prescriptions over one. visits involved use of pharmaceuticals. these drugs were prescribed by a physician. prescription drug abuse is most prominent along young adults, ages 18-25. in 2010, almost 3,000 young adults died from prescription drug, mainly overdoses, which is more than the total number of people who died from overdoses f any other drug including

heroin and cocaine combined. vike incident and oxycontin are the largest class followed by still you lapts to treat adhd. such as ritalin and central nervous system depressants for relieving anxiety. according to the national survey on drug use and health, published by the mental health administration, those individuals who use prescription painkillers, nonmedically in .75 and 2011, nearly received the drugs from a friend or relative, either for free, that is 54.2%, through a purchase or by stealing the drugs or 4.4%.

today's hearing focuses on the federal government's response to the prescription drug abuse epidemic. it should be noted that this committee has played a key role in facilitating prescription drug monitoring programs by authorizing the national all schedule prescription reporting act. the program, which is housed was signed into the law in august 2005 to assist states in combating abuse of controlled substances. it provides grants to set up oirm prove state systems that meet basic standards of information, collection, and privacy protections that will make it easier for states to share information. it enables authority to identify

drug abusers as well as the problem doctors who either overprescribe or incorrectly prescribe prescription drugs. it an excellent step in the right direction, the program hasn't been funded since fiscal year 2010. they continue to fund through ants and integration and improve the timeliness of access to the data. it is clear that the prescription drug abuse epidemic is a crisis in the united states. however, while we discuss this complicated issue we need to keep in mind many of these medications are critical for many patients living with chronic pain. it is estimated that more than 100 million u.s. adults living

with chronic pain. it is critical that we remember these medications are vital for americans who will living with such pain. in addition, the sub committee will learn about the programs we currently have in place and the level of effectiveness. today's witnesses represent the f.d.a. and the mental health abuse administration and i look forward to hearing their testimony. thank you and -- does anyone seek time -- i guess we don't have time. we i yield the balance of my the nd i recognize gentlelady for an opening statement. >> i ask that i put the opening statement of mr. waxman into the record. >> so ordered. >> i'm happy we're having this hearing about drug abuse in the

united states and i'm glad we can work together in a ipartisan man torle talkle manner to tackle this problem. y constituents peter jackson tragically lost his daughter to this epidemic. ter taking the oxycontin tablet after drinking emily went to sleep and never woke up. ily's story of taking an unprescribed oxycontin tablet is rare but misuse of the drugs are not.

prescription drugs were involved in ,650 overdose deaths 2010. accounting for more deaths than overs dos of heroin and cocaine combined. this respects a 313% increase in deaths over the past decade. in addition to the other deaths there are other negative health consequence that results. for every overdose there was 10 abuse treatment emissions, 108 people with abuse or dependence d 733 non-medical users of those drugs. there are financial costs that will our health care system cannot afford. the direct health care cost exceeds $70 billion each year. researchers found that the

abusers generate 8.7 times higher than nonabusers each year. it is imperative that we work to end this crisis. we think it can save lives and save money. there are actions under way to combat this problem at the federal level. last year we passed several provisions as part of the food and drug administration act to combat prescription drug abuse, including a requirement that the f.d.a. holds a public meeting on and to e of hydrocodone ffer die yans. -- guidance. federal offers are critical we must partner with states to be successful to end prescription drug abuse. we need to train the health care

probablies who prescribe and dispense these drugs. we need to identify additional steps that we can take to tackle such abuse. we must tackle such abuse. drugs containing hydrocodone schedulee ii drugs. notake sure this does limit access patients with legitimate medical need, this change is needed to adequately reflect the potential risk these drugs pose to public health. we should also take steps to restrict the use of oxycodone rather than moderate to severe pain in order to prevent the overprescribing of these powerful medications. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the efforts to combat prescription drug abuse and learn additional steps we can take to stop the abuse and misuse of all cleared opioid drugs. and i yield back.

dr. burgess.gnize >> thank you for the recognition. the fact of the matter is we lose more people in this country to the drug overdoses than we do to automobile accidents. of those overdoses, two thirds of them are prescription drug overdoses. we have a big problem. the good news is there is plenty we can do about it. the agencies and lawmakers have so far not taken anything other than a short-term approach. we need a broad-based strategy that is focused on going after the bad actors. to start we could go after the pill mills. , butmay be hard to find maybe not. they advertise. we are very fortunate. they tell us where they are. a tell us their charges. how cancan find them, not be ablercement

to? i ran a medical practice 25 years and never once did i ,dvertise a free visit discounts off meds, coupon included. this warrants a hard look. it does not fit a normal type of medical practice. we should reauthorize and fight the fund. it is the only authorizing legislation that encourages we should reject contrary medicare policies. we should encourage abuse deterrent formulations and reward investment in these technologies. we might also work with canada to align our policies in reimbursing these technologies. we should look and examine the

personal use exemption to see if it encourages building -- bringing controlled substances into the country. we should do more to shut down the road pharmacies. rogue pharmacies. you can go on an the internet ad say you need the drug and i am not lying. most people can meet that bar. i am open to discussing education, if it does not subvert medical judgment. we have allowed a few bad actors to jeopardize the ability to offer pain care for their patients. this is an important point, think someone who has written prescriptions, i have a perspective on this that says we have to stop the diversion but we also need to be careful that whatever we do is not so

prescriptive that it prevents have awho need and legitimate use of this medication to not obtain it. estimated $100re billion a year. prescription medications may be an important part of pain therapeutics if we don't stop the bad actors, we're going to hurt the people that have legitimate uses for these medications. the bad actors can't be allowed to jeopardize the ability to alleviate suffering. there is much we should do. i understand why this may be a series of hearings and the chairman, i look forward to working with you. we need to involve doctors and patients and witnesses. thank you for the consideration then i will yield the comments of the time. pre-k's i appreciate my colleague from texas. i agree with so much of what he said. you know, the problem is a huge

, not only the cost of the legal dispensation or prescribing of these types of medications, pain medications, antidepressants, whatever, think about the cost of decreased activity. and the individuals that maybe are a little bit overmedicated. you know, this might signed harsh but i think a little pain or a little anxiety is a good thing. it can be a productive thing. and it makes you appreciate you have to work through that. tried to completely eliminate each of those things, that is where you get to the dependency and the decreased productivity, the cost to society. i think physicians have a big

role to play in this. even the ones that are prescribing it legally. i am not checking about the pill mills. doing a good job of cracking down on that. finally we missed take a look at how we, as a society, support treatment and recovery to overcome addiction. we must look for new and innovative plans to treat this and leave the abuser without new addictions where they are on some other medication that is supposedly helping them and they are just as addicted as they were before. i yield back and i thank you for the time. >> that concludes the opening statements. the committee has one panel before us today and i will introduce those members of this time. , director,likowske and drug control policy is with us. dr. throckmorton, deputy

director of regulatory program for drug evaluation and research. u.s. fda. ,inally, dr. westley clark director, center for substance abuse treatment administration. thank you for coming. your written testimony will be made part of the record. you will have five minutes to summarize your testimony. esther kerlikowske -- mr. kerlikowske is recognized. >> thank you, members of the subcommittee and thank you for the opportunity to address the important issue of ascription drug abuse. repenting drug abuse has been a major focus of our office is my confirmation four years ago. -- since my confirmation quencher years ago. we have worked to address what has been termed an epidemic. position allows me to raise

public awareness and take action on drug issues that affect the nation and the administration recognizes addiction is a dizzying and prevention treatment and smart law enforcement have to play a part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce drug use and give help to those that need it and to ensure public health and safety. we are here today because the project -- prescription drug abuse has had devastating consequences. increasing in treatment for substance use, emergency room visits, and the deaths that are attributable to prescription drug overdose place a burden upon communities across the country. in 2010, more than 38,000 americans died from a drug overdose, 22,000 of them were due to prescription medications and most of those deaths were attributable to prescription painkillers. in response the administration released a program called

prescription drug abuse prevention plan. it brings together a variety of federal, state, and local partners to focus on the major areas dealing with this. education, disposal, and enforcement. safehe plan for most prescribing and addiction practices for prescribers and dispensers. current training for healthcare addiction canfe be inadequate and inconsistent. medical schools students receive an average of 11 hours of training on pain education. most schools do not offer specific training at all. several states, including utah, have mandatory education legislation. we have come a long way in educating the general public about prescription drug abuse. we work with a wide array of leaders and medical association, public safety organizations to prioritize overdose prevention.

the second pillar focuses on strengthening the drug monitoring programs. in 2006, 20 states had them and authorizedve legislation and 46 states have operational. supporting that expanded interoperability. the administration has worked with congress to allow the department of veterans affairs to share prescription drug data and we are pleased to say that the rulemaking process is nearing completion and the va has authorized its providers to access them. when consistent when state laws. the administration is has continued to expand safe and proper disposal of unused medication. the drug enforcement administration has partnered with thousands of law to hold sixagencies

at national take back days, milliong of over 2.8 pounds of unused medication. focuses ontration improving law enforcement capability to reduce diversion. an initiative of high-intensity areas has trained more than 2500. enforcement and criminal justice professionals on pharmaceutical crime investigations and prosecutions. the federal law enforcement continues to partner with state and local agencies around the country to reduce the pill thoseand prosecute responsible for improper prescribing. the administration is working to in emergency overdose medication for first responders who may encounter overdose victims and can help prevent a fatal overdose. we are also addressing many of

the other consequences of the epidemic, including the emerging issues like neonatal abstinence syndrome and indications of increased heroin use in places throughout the country. in closing, let me recognize none of these things would be possible with my executive branch colleagues and i want to accomplish for this nation without the support of the ongoing support of members of congress. in q4 the opportunity to testify. -- thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. after throckmorton. -- dr. throckmorton. opportunity for the to be here today to discuss the misuse of prescription drugs and opioids. importance of this problem is hard to overstate. beyond the statistics of individuals and families, whose

lives have been shattered by a misuse, abuse, and addiction, it is a crisis that affects us all and meaningful solutions will require all of our efforts. balancing the needs of patients suffering from pain with the need to combat misuse and abuse -- addiction is a priority for the fda and for me personally. fdaeeking these balance, has targeted an approach aimed at critical points in the development and use of a pure medications. additional work remains to be done, i would like to mention some of the activities fda is doing now. -based we are a science agency focused on improving the safe use of pain medicine. this includes work we have done to encourage the development of abuse deterrent formulations. the fda believes the development of these formulations is an important part of our efforts to improve their safe use. for example, in january, the fda

issued a graph -- draft guidance document outlining the drug products. in the fall, they will participate in a public meeting to discuss the issues addressed in the draft guidance as well as issue abuse deterrent formulations for generic drug product. in addition, they have taken recent actions concerning to productsojects -- that were reformulated with the intention of making them more difficult to manipulate and abuse. the data for these projects were reviewed carefully and independently by scientists and resulted in a change in the labeling for oxycontin. our decisions relied on the totality of the evidence for the particular drug and given where we are in the evolving science, made on a case-by-case basis. a second area where we have devoted time and resources is the development of effective

education. the interaction between them and patients is a critical role in improving the safe use of the strength and the fda has taken a improve theeps to educational materials available for patients. 2012, we approved a risk evaluation strategy for manufacturers. under this, manufacturers are required to support the training programs. by accredited continuing education providers and make them available at little or no cost to professionals. the training is based on a syllabus developed by the fda with input from stakeholders. we are putting the material on our website to make them easier to find and make use of. a third area where we have devoted time and resources is on ways to vent overdose deaths.

by improving the treatment of overdose. there is a medication that is the standard treatment for overdose and when given quickly, it can and does save lives. fda public meeting, the convened with several other parts of the federal government. waysholders encourage the to administer it and it might be easier than currently available, nasals via administration. the fda is working to provide priority assistance to manufacturers. we are working on assessing these new ways t. faces two important challenges -- we must adjust the misuse and abuse and addiction that harms our families and communities and the need for appropriate access to pain medication for patients that need them. there can be no doubt there is much to be done and we must act now. these are not simple issues and

there are no easy answers. given the complexity of the issue, real and enduring progress will require a multifaceted approach and bind with the dedication, persistence, and engagement of all parties. the fda prioritizes our efforts to combat this outlook health crisis. we welcome the opportunity to work with congress, our partners, the medical community, advocacy organizations, patients and families, to turn the tide on this epidemic. thank you for your interest in this important topic and the opportunity to testify on this issue. i am happy to answer any questions. .> we recognize dr. clark five minutes for an opening statement. good morning, members of the subcommittee, i am the director of the cdc. thank you for inviting me to testify regarding our role in the abuse- inventing

of drugs. our mission is to reduce -- ok. mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse on medical communities. it is essential for health prevention work, treatment, and people to recover. the challenge is a complex one that requires surveillance, intervention, education, access to treatment services, and research by the private and public sectors. the strategy to reduce misuse and abuse aligns with the four part strategy. by participating in the committee's prescription drug abuse subcommittee. we are in partnerships with the cdc, the fda, nih, and others aimed at treating prescription

drugs abuse. according to our survey, nonmedical use of prescription drugs is the second most common illicit class in the united states. you have mentioned these data and there is no need for me to repeat it but it is important there was a slight decline between 2010 and 2011, which suggest the efforts to reduce misuse may be having an impact but there is much work to be done. prescription monitoring programs are an important component in efforts to prevent and reduce abuse. the goal is to prevent prescription misuse and diverse and even illegal diversion. in 2005 electronic reporting act created a grant program administered to enhance it.

2000ceived congress in nine and 2010 which resulted in 26 grants to 14 states. in 2011 and 2012, congress did not appropriate funding for the program. in 2011, refunded the enhanced i.t.s through health objects in collaboration with the cdc. the project was unlike the other grant in that its purpose was to use timely access to data. in 2012, the electronic health record expansion program was funded. the program complements existing efforts by improving real-time access to data through the integration into existing technologies such as electronic health records. effortslso engaged in to prevent and treat misuse and abuse through education treatmentprevention,

of prescription drug abuse and regulation. to support the education through continuing courses and other less former efforts like webinars. is anreening program important tool for the early identification of persons that might be at risk for substance use. help torovides implement it for adults in primary care. we have a residency grant program to address future prescribers include screening for drugs. we support early intervention. are targetedgrams toward funding states and territories further treatment and services. is framework partnership designed to address two of the top substance abuse priorities including underage drinking and abuse among persons 12-25.

we work with them in collaboration to make sure the communities can prioritize prescription drug abuse. we are working with other agencies to explore the need for increased access in rural settings. our strategy includes the expansion of improved access to treatment, the drug addiction treatment act prescribing certain medications for the treatment of opioid addiction. we also regulate treatments that use methadone approved by the fda to treat patients with pendency. we are working with the dea. through these and other efforts, samhsa is working to address the issue for this problem. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i welcome any questions you

might have. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and apologizes, we're trying to get the jackhammer to start. if you will please speak directly into the mic, we would appreciate it. i recognize myself five minutes. director kerlikowske, the ondcp court made the many agencies involved in prescription drug abuse. these describe the advantages and challenges that come with having so many departments involved in the fight against restriction drug abuse. the needss recognized for coordination, the fact there are 15 agencies that have a role in the drug issue, i do not think any in is more complex or challenging. it is not like an issue where it is coming across the border. it is coming out of our medicine cabinets. the fact it was not recognized

as a significant problem except by subject matter experts, people that ran treatment programs, but generally the public did not begin to understand the magnitude of the problem. we worked to bring everybody together to develop a plan knowing that any single component, whether law enforcement, the regulatory agency, and that any components not be able to solve or reduce this problem. our partners, two of which are here, but a number of them are with onecame together goal, to reduce this tragedy, not only the loss of life but expense. we could not be more pleased with their cooperation and the inkling of some success in this area. , genericrockmorton

versions entered the market in january of this year. tos the agency intend monitor real-time data in order to evaluate whether it affects opioid abuse? and how will retirement data be data be -- real-time utilized when evaluating claims of abuse deterrence? chairman, the gold that our agency has is to incentivize the element of formulations -- the goal our agency has is to incentivize the development of formulations that makes that successful and make that happen in good time. following up on that, we need to work develop ways to work generics that also have abuse deterrent technologies and make them possible to come onto the market. you asked about monitoring of

the response in the marketplace to those decisions, we watch that information and we have an office that focuses on marketing issues.nd safety we use that information as we look at individual decisions to understand the impact of the decision hours might have with regard to the use of products in the market. has committed to increase transparency and the approval process. earlier this week come a we wrote to the dea regarding delays in reviewing recommendations for new drug approvals containing controlled substances. does the agency have recommendations to address the issue of dea delays? >> the focus, it is an important question, we make sure we have timely access to do medicines that are recommended

for controlling that we need to remember the final decision is made by the drug enforcement administration. my focus has to been make certain there is an assessment tom the fda that can work inform that decision by the drug enforcement administration. what we have been doing is looking at our process to make sure it is as efficient and timely as possible so we get our recommendations in good order to the drug enforcement administration through our at the healthis and human services level. >> can you discuss your relationship with the 46 states that operate prescription drug monitoring programs? >> we are working in concert with the department of justice. , reaching out to many as

possible so that we could link the pdmp's with health records. the program has not been funded so we have shifted our focus looking atffort to other technology so can address the public health aspect of this by linking health records to pdmp. so we can have real-time data so the practitioner in the clinic or in the emergency room has access to information about the some of ther than delays associated with current pdmp programs. we can't wait to inform the clinician. we would like to be able to give them real-time action so they can make appropriate decisions. sometimes someone is running a scam, sometimes a patient is having a reaction to the medication. it is useful to have real-time

access to the clinical context of using prescription drugs. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. my time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. are hereo glad we today having a hearing on an issue that cuts across party lines. prescription drug abuse is a real and pervasive problem. while it impacts communities across our nation, it also affects our health care system. i want to make sure that efforts to invent -- address those issues do not cause other problems, especially those regarding people with chronic pain. this is a delicate balancing act. andican struggle with pain has been an important for me for many years. i introduced the pain care policy act and was pleased to see part of it was included in

the affordable care act. the institute of medicine was directed to a study on pain and they found pain is the most common reason people seek medical care. over 116 million u.s. adults suffer from chronic pain. the severity and consequences of person,y from person to as does the response to treatment. but pena companies companies a range of other conditions, as you know, including cancer, diabetes, arthritis. access to medication is critical for these patients and survivors in order to complete other treatments and maintain activities of daily living. containmedications ,ydrocodone, dr. throckmorton as the fta reviews the rescheduling of hydrocodone containing medication, does

physician data and analysis exist about the potential impact on patient access to medication? me say i agree with you, finding a balance to between the necessary access for pain medication for patients and addressing the crisis of abuse is absolutely essential. something the fta keeps in mind as we are thinking about regulatory activities. with regard to access to pain medicines, it is something we have worked on internally and something i have discussed extensively. i know there are people looking at better ways to measure that. --part of our information implementation, we require the manufacturers to assess the impact of that on access to pain medication because we understand it is an important aspect of our activities and whatever we end up deciding to

do in the future. ,t's regard to hydrocodone to hold airected us public hearing on hydrocodone. and in that direction, included language directing us to talk to patients in groups that had experience on the impact this .ight have we held that meeting and we have 700 comments about that meeting that we are looking at. a large number of them comment on the effect that different activities might have with regards to access, something we are reviewing as we think about making our decisions. >> if there are problems, could you elaborate? on the process available to individuals that are prescribed these medications but encounter problems accessing them. the reason why they are

having trouble getting the medicine would be important to understand. if there is a drug shortage in their challenge is getting a drug that is not available in their area, the fda has a staff i supervise and we would love to hear from you. we have a website. we want to find ways to make that medication available. if it is due to lack of availability at a pharmacy, because of concerns of scheduling, those things i would have less clear answers but i local areast other groups might be somewhere to talk to. i am out ofman, time and i did not get to ask the other members of the pana. this is such an important topic to be discussing. i would hope that this is one hearing and we have many more. i want to get into prevention. and that is a whole other topic

that involves some other people. but you are experts on this. we could use some more hearings on this topic, in my opinion. >> this is the first in a series of hearings. the chair recognizes dr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kerlikowske, you heard me reference the alignment of our policies with those with our neighbor to the north and you sent a letter about this. you have dr. throckmorton working on abuse deterrence in oxycontin but how do we align our policies with canada to prevent the generic form from coming across the border? as we speak about this, i can see someone developing a business plan that would involve the importation of large amounts of generic oxycontin.

an important issue because the united states has done a lot to reduce the easy availability and also the fact that the opioid prescription as easilys are not manipulated. the fact canada has that was of great concern to us. early on, before they had the market, we had written to the health minister. the health minister from canada replied she actually did not have the authority to limit this but she had not only heard from us, she had also heard from the provinces that were concerned this would be easily available within the provinces. so we notified customs first is to identify and be aware of this in case they see these coming through. so far in milwaukee, that is

the only location we have received a report of seeing some of these and it was not a great number of them. inhave a meeting scheduled july that our canadian counterparts will be here in washington, d.c. and i will be traveling to ottawa, hopefully with a colleague from the fda, to work with them. >> would you be averse to providing. e-work ports to this committee? periodic reports to this committee? the last pillar was the enforcement piece. ofpite the salacious nature the covers of these magazine, i submit to you i can help you .ocate the bad actors they advertise. it is not hard to pick them out or crowd. i i hope you are focusing some efforts on disrupting the supply chain because these people are

not shy about telling you who they are and where they are and their hours of operation, their prices. >> you can see in florida, that was the epicenter of this. they had 90 of the top 100 dispensing facilities. >> i was not going to identify the question, but since you did, are there efforts to make over- the-counter preparation, like an inhaler? >> we think it is important to understand how best to use it. much largerng as a group of federal agencies to understand the best uses of it as a regulator. my job in that discussion is not it should be used and instead to lay out the regulatory pathway should a

firm be interested in developing a product. we have met with the makers of an auto injector product, and lay out the pathways necessary for them to get approval. at the meeting we held last , we, attended by samhsa heard there was a broad interest in moving it to over-the-counter status. >> i am not sure i agree with that. where live in a world things are available over-the- counter. to workce is not going in other areas, maybe this is something that needs to be looked at. anyone who has ever seen the dramatic reversal on opiate overdose will understand you go

from crisis to normal in the space of 26 seconds and it is dramatic. i am not saying i advocate that bad i wonder, in this rave new world, and is that a consideration? i hear you are entertaining that. i also have to mention about your diversion, you mentioned the hours in medical school, you do learn a lot in your first years, and i recall very ,ividly when i was a resident someone would come in with a textbook description, they have probably memorized it, a pain.ption of renal beforeuld buy their lip they collected a specimen so they had blood in their urine. i know what it is, i just need something to get me through the night. and about the fourth time you hear that, you think there is

something fishy. dr. shopping is a big problem. and the doctors that are just leaving training and getting into practice, the us is where a lot of that activity could do a lot to prevent diversion. i will you back. thehe chair recognizes gentlelady for questions. .> thank you, gentlemen i am especially grateful to youctor kerlikowske because have given us such great guidance in the state of it has been a horrendous problem in the state of florida. you would not believe, you could drive by some of these clinics and see lines of people early in the morning. ourould often hear from colleagues in kentucky, virginia, tennessee about how folks would travel down to florida, find a pain management clinic that would give them on-

site hundreds of pills and go back and this pipeline fortunately has been squeezed. aorida finally adopted database. we have some stops and starts. they are not using it voluntary. i am concerned there is not a long-term commitment to make it work and i would like you to address that but local law enforcement is seeing some improvement from where we would have one death per day in our community, from drug abuse, they ,ay now with county ordinances new requirements to go after the but is, prosecutions,

know local law enforcement can't do it all. is the give me -- how state of florida doing i know it has been one of the worst in the country. and of the federal level, what can we do to provide better tools to law enforcement? people say this is addiction and we have to do more. >> is a graduate of the university of south florida, i have a special affinity for the problem in florida in particular. but i can tell you florida is doing better. the leadership of the attorney general on this issue has been very good. we have worked hard with a number of groups in florida to reduce the problem. i think from seven overdose deaths a day they have been able to make progress. i think from the federal government standpoint, what we

need to be able to do is to make sure these drug monitoring plans are interoperable, 14 states and share data but we saw a movement of some of the physicians that were suspect, as the vice chairmanship, from florida to other states and that information needs to be done. that is one thing the government can continue to do. >> our databases voluntary. it has not been up and running very long but there is some frustration that you only have 10% of pharmacists using it and not many doctors. we have interoperability between states, that does not get to the problem of to usevizing doctors that. how do we better in incentivize? >> we are seeing improvements. one is the electronic health records system, which

eventually will be compatible with these kinds of systems so you do not have one pdmp standalone system and you have your other health records. prescribing. the e- physicians are not being able to -- happy about doing a large number of drugs but when it comes to controlled substances they go back to pencil and paper. ofhink the amount information is a result of using and the stories they have told. and the fact we are advocating prescriber medication will be helpful. , i am aou tell me withnsor of a bill, congressman buchanan from would amend the

controlled substances act to make any substances containing hydrocodone a schedule two drug. do you support that could you say yes or no? the do not believe administration has taken a position. we have strongly encouraged the science-based a valuation for the scheduling. i would not be to say that right now. for theing administration. >> the same answer? >> speak to the administration. the time has expired. at this time i request consent to include a statement from the national association of chain drug stores into the record. so ordered. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, five minutes. wo readst have t questions. i understand 85 or prescription

drugs is in blister packaging in europe, whether that is correct or not. you think that would have any positive effect on some of the specific drugs, especially for those that might be going to families or families that are taking care of seniors and really, the accountability and the inability to disperse that --hout waking up the package raking up the package -- breaking up the package? >> one of the things we have not had an opportunity to him through as fully as we would like, i formed a group within the fda to start looking at these issues. thate a part of my center focuses on packaging and labeling and i have asked them to look at issues like this. one of the challenges about for oneblister packs

kind of drug is that it spills over to requiring them for other kinds of drugs with similar dangers. there is a concern about access and impact on other parts of the healthcare system. we need to look at how the packaging was created. >> anyone else? let me just, we were talking a medicalnd i am not doctor, so i do not remember all of the names of the drugs or the , the jug affect -- but i am curious how much coronation there is between each of you when there -- coordination there is between each of you abating the drug abuse crisis. i know the fda has approval but are you involved with them, especially in this case? not only the fda has the

leadership but we work with ondcp, and i age, and others, that the science-based literature produces new ideas. we have this ongoing dialogue, we have working groups that are multi agency to examine the implications. we also work with organized medicine and various medical societies to address these issues. we try to track these so we can can be movedr they into clinical practice. >> we spend more time with each other than our families. >> thank you. >> we recognize the gentlelady from illinois for questions.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. reinforced myso view, i think i do have something as a comment that is already in the record, changing the scheduling of hydrocodone from its current schedule iii to ii of the controlled substance act. that was one of the suggestions that came from my constituents. was -- he suggested, and i do not know if this is under consideration, it takes steps to reduce the use of ratherne to severe pain than moderate to severe pain. that would change the packaging, in order to prevent the

overprescribing of these powerful medications. --onder >> that is probably something i can comment on. there are citizen petitions. there are request for action there my agency about changes in labeling you are referring to. i won't be able to talk about the changes in the moderate to severe language that is in the current opioid indications. i will say that the fda has always had an interest in making sure our labels are accurate and fair and include all of the information we know to be scientific. i had a public meeting earlier this year where i posed a series of questions to academics, family members, asking for their help in understanding how our current labeling might be improved. in general asking for suggestions and we got a number

of comments. we are in the process of looking up those comments and other ways to make sure those labels say what we need to. we believe education begins with the approved labeling, which outlines how the products are best used taste on our scientific judgment. we need to make those as accurate as we can. art of the if education includes encouraging families with children between 12 and 18 to have a lockbox for certain drugs so they keep them out of the hands of children? >> yes, we believe that prescription drugs should be treated very carefully. lockboxes are a good idea. as the chairman pointed out, a lot of the drugs are shared between friends and families.

you have this culturally dynamic we also have to deal with. consumers and family members need to be wrought in. -- brought it. the idea of promoting the appropriate management of prescription drugs in the home. one strategy,is making sure we have an informed consumer. another is making sure the delivery system educates the consumer about the potential risk of misuse of the medication. was pointed out, we need to reach out to consumer groups and to consumer coalitions so that we can promote this cultural shift in attitude about these medications. >> i have one more question. it appears there is a new trend seeking approval of new abuse deterrent formulations near the

time of the expiration. they then with draw the original formulation, claiming it is no longer safe in light of the availability of the abuse deterrent formulation. with thee fda agrees original formulation for safety reasons and the fta is precluded from approving generic without comparable abuse deterrent formulations. and in the absence of generic versions, then patients are fored to pay higher prices an extended time, which has the potential to decrease access to these drugs. have you heard about this? >> yes. this is back to the discussion of the balance that needs to be kept in mind as we think about

addressing this crisis. in this case we have the necessary balance between incentivizing the development of abuse deterrent formulations. we want to have opioids in formulations that deter abuse. i believe that is everyone's best interest, to incentivize that end the same time genericsng the impact in the u.s. market. 75% of theore than total prescriptions. accomplishing that balance is something the fda is working hard on. our first action was early in the year when we put out the guidance laying out how we would try to incentivize the development of new formulations. following up on that, we are now to developout ways guidance on abuse deterrent formulations to generics, to allow them to come on the market as well. and i wouldces,

expect our focus would be on the performance of those generics and not on the technology that was used to make that generic. we would require generic demonstrate they are of abuse deterrent. rather than that they use the same technology. we think that would incentivize the development of appropriate generics that work in recognizing the important role the innovator plays in terms of new product. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. , what percentwske ?f docs write narcotics >> i actually don't know. information about the doctors that do prescribe, oncologists --

>> are they pain doctors >> pain doctors. and i think dr. throckmorton can help me. >> i just play a doctor on tv. able to give you specific numbers. the majority of pain medications are actually written for by primary care doctors. >> that is the majority but if we look at those that write an extraordinary amount, two standard deviations out, it i definition you are five percent are fiveinition you percent. the folks we are concerned about, i think it is going to be a small percent. you are nodding your head. is that correct? >> it depends on where you cut the line, five percent or something like that. there is a majority of physicians that are writing large amounts of these opioid. >> i think one of the two of you, i do not think this is

samhsa's gig, you have 46 states with a monitor drug program. every time i write a number it goes into a database and they know if i have written ian rx. havenk they likewise patient information. i keep on wondering if our goal is to find that small percent of doctors writing inappropriately, que identifier,nit why don't we turn it over to are thend tell us who crooks? you follow what i'm saying? if we have all of these unique identifiers and all of these databases, what is the challenge and figuring out which are the bad actors? >> there are a couple of challenges. that things can change in rural areas dramatically.

if a physician leaves a practice or is gone and suddenly that physician taking write her place begins to more prescriptions because they have taken over. >> as we look at the data, knowing that the urban settings is where this is happening, what .ou described is a broad sweep seems like you have a unique identifier and you have a real- states.abase and 46 does not seem like it should be a challenge. >> the real devastation has been in the real -- rural areas. real-timee a database, what is the challenge? >> the other challenge is because these are individual state programs, some within the law enforcement component, some within medical practice, and each state uses those individually to determine -- >> did they have access to these programs? the development -- department of

justice? entirely state jurisdiction. >> exactly. >> i presume in these interstate contracts the states are ,ommunicating as to listen this fellow just dropped out. he is someone you should watch for. dr. clark? do you have a thought? >> we are moving toward that position. it is important to recognize electronic health record in interoperability is moving toward that. some are trying to come up with algorithms where you can identify the outliers in terms of pain -- >> it seems like a thwart. >> it is more complicated in part because you do have the cancer doctors. >> i know that.

you know who the cancer doctors are. if there are 100,000 docs, there will be 5000 of the judgment it -- legitimate pain doctors. >> that is what the electronic health records -- it concerns me because i do not want the government looking into my medical record. see here is myd top thousand writers. you see what i am saying? >> hhs has done a survey looking at part d programs, and it is complicated because trying to pigeonhole a practice as simple as that. but you are right, with the advance of increasing monitoring capability and big data, we

will be able to make a reasonable assessment of a practitioner and explore what that practitioner is doing. >> that chair thanks the gentleman. thank you so very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for convening the witnesses. prescription drug abuse is a serious problem that impacts and estimated 12.5 million americans. it is a serious problem. this hearing is appropriate. mustis a conversation we have and do something about it if we can. in the last congress i served as ranking member of a committee under the leadership of mary no.n n

our committee held several hearings, and i have a keen understanding and interest in stemming the growing problem. the chair and i shared the concerns with individuals'well- being, especially young people who had access to. the multiple hearings we had during the last congress made it clear that drug manufacturers and the drug supply chain are not the problem. drugthe development of resistant drugs, the industry is playing an increasing role in stopping illicit use. as far as black markets at the end user stage, they are the problem. the question is, how do we address this problem while aborting burdensome regulations?

i want to follow-up on mr. kerlikowske's lines of questions. at use of drugs are a new addition to the market. -hat impact have abuse deterrent drugs on the illegal and illicit use of prescription drugs? i would imagine that if one drug is made up use-deterrent, the person would find another drug -deterrentt abuse that produces similar results, shifting but not reducing the abuse. remove roadblocks to manufacturers who want to produce abuse-deterrent drugs so they can speed the new formula to market to reduce overall abuse? >> yes, we should. and we are working to do exactly that.

i view the development of us abuse-deterrent technologies as an incremental process. we are beginning now to walk a road where i would hope to see a inad journey of opiates abuse-deterrent formulations. that will address your concern of squeezing the balloon, people moving from an abuse- deterrent formulation to another that is easier to abuse. in the short term, we would be fully ourselves if we imagine that was not going to happen. agency's job, is to incentivize the development of those new technologies broadly and make certain those technologies demonstrate that they work, so we should be developing abuse-determined -- --errent for relations tha

formulations and reward them in a way that will encourage their use by physicians and by a long-term goal of having a broad range of opioids that are in abuse- deterrent formulations. >> let me go to dr. clark. how can we educate healthcare providers to spot the warning users whorequent might not have a legitimate need for powerful drugs? think the implementation of interoperable medical records wouldhelp flag these -- help flag these individuals? thendeed, we think that interoperability between electronic health records and -- and prescribing is proper.

we think educating practitioners is important. we work with the fda and the --we have both training , and they have a training program associated with boston university. we trained over 30,000 prescribers. we work with state medical , and wes, training have as a result of this broader effort that the congress has mobilized, we are finding or practitioners are showing up at conferences to listen and learn about prescriptions or abuse, about adequate pain that engagement strategies, how to monitor for deviant behaviors and also while maintaining a good balance of care because pain is a problem. we want to continue that effort.

>> thank you. my time is expired. i did not get to mr. kerlikowske, and i spent considerable time cursing your name and i did not get to use it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. please update committee as to where the agency stands related to requirements of the food's drug administrations safety and innovation act, pertaining to the scheduling of combination hydrocodone products? hadmentioned a meeting been held in one of the answers to your questions, you were relying on science instead of of scheduling some of the drugs. can you tell us what you hope for and what you think is the process going forward on this rescheduling? >> i will not be able to talk in detail because we have not yet formed a recommendation about the matter.

to thek was to respond science, the request from the drug enforcement administration, reconsider our recommendation from 2008, as well as respond to the language that congress gave us directing us to hold a meeting that included never ship to solicit -- membership to solicit it the impact of scheduling. we're taking this thing seriously. 700 60eting elicited some comments, and over 100 of them making specific recommendations for us to consider instead of scheduling. instead of making recommendations, we are trying to work through all of those who form the best science. >> any idea of a timeline? .> i cannot i can understand your frustration, that this is i an important issue we want to move

forward. my people are doing everything we can possibly can. >> it may come as a surprise to some of you that virginia has the oldest medicinal marijuana law in the books, dating back to 1979. that was however, unlike some of those states that said if it makes you feel good, do it, virginia requires there be a medical reason and there be a prescription, which is not currently allowed. wouldn't you agree that we have to have a discussion about the legitimate uses of medicinal marijuana and freeing it up so virginia can exercise its will so that doctors can actually prescribe it in those areas that are authorized by virginia law? aside,wn personal views the fda would not have a clear role in responding to issues medicinal marijuana. we have a role in scheduling

erewhon up in a similar fashion hydrocodone.ay as that is regarding the development of marijuana -- >> you would agree we should have a public discussion about legitimate medicinal marijuana usage? >> i would not be able to comment on that, sir. >> i appreciate that. supported recently reduce physician education on the use of medications to treat opioid addictions. the number of treatments have been approved. one such drug is --. csat plan to increase its knowledge about these medications? >> one of the things we're doing is working with medical societies, with treatment program so that they are aware

of the existence of medication. advisoriesmulgated so people can understand, and we ca our meeting with manufactures of we have a better understanding of what their strategies are. we think this is an important issue. we work with the fda and other so we can promulgate an increased access to the treatment, because that is one of our concerns, aching sure people have access to new andtments as they develop consumers have access to them. >> i thank you. i would point out that i have heard a lot today about electronic medical records and there was a concern or warning, a broad interpretation of the smith versus maryland case upon th which the nsa relies its standing. au may also not require

search warrant to get those records. i do not think that is right, but that is another day. >> i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, for five minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the panel being here. i want to follow-up on drug used to treat ovoid addiction. the current information published by the fda allows for , in thee of generic context of the dr. patient joint decision. there is a concern from psychiatrists treat patients with addictions that there is misinterpretation. there is misinformation about when a doctor can prescribe brands, so it leads to access issues because

pharmacists are concerned about prescribing generics. are you a way of a problem with this issue, and if not, is that something you can get active me with? i'm trying to see if we can dialogue on that. >> it would be better if we had more specifics about that one. s,cent issues about generic an there was a petition that we responded to. i'm not sure if that is it, but we would be happy to follow up. of the overdoses and how much they have killed with prescription painkillers. we know it is safe to collect information on prescriptions. this helps is still a concern. one person can go to 10 different pharmacies and collectives, and states can pick up if it is the same person. john doe can also say i'm filling a prescription for my grandmother, my aunt, and the question is can we find that

person in the current system who made the using the different prescriptions or the next step is false names, etc.? how does this collect information by the state hous hp us in fighting those persons? wo important parts of these which are run by the state aards of -- one is that physician can have that instant access to a new patient or the number of doctors that the patient is also seeing. these require when they fill these prescriptions, identification. the other is the board of licensure's and the state regulate medicine, not the federal government, can use that to identify prescriber who may be above and beyond and take appropriate steps for inquiry. i think people look at

innovative ways around this, but the states -- and i would recognize kentucky as an example -- that have the most knowledgeable people running pdmp's have been successful in bringing this down. the other part of that goal is to get somebody into treatment to reduce the problem. >> another element to this, a couple years ago congress passed a law saying people were picking up sudafed and had to show a photo id. our concern is in terms of what you understand very well is picking uprson multiple or superscript is for themselves we can identify, and that can be picked up. one person who may be legitimately gathering prescriptions to pick them up for family members but we have to somehow identify who is the person and who is not. and you comment on the kinds of extending that requirement of phony ids becaus so that personn

be checked also? >> i can tell you what this pdmp's aree state doing. >> any others have thoughts that agencies may have on extending that? drugl one would be the enforcement agency, and there are limitations on our people can fill prescriptions that are not written directly to them. it would be important to look into that. i do not know thesose details. >> while we are thinking about this in a more formal way, many photocies are requiring id on presentation even for the person or whom the prescription is written and whoever picks up the drug, the photo id is required. i know that people are concerned about the issue.

>> i understand the chain drug stores will begin to raise themselves by contacting the dr.. we want to stop the illegality of this and wonder how people in need. i hope that is an area where we can move toward a concrete action that congress can take and i look forward to talking with you more about this. but i recognize the gentleman from texas. >> think of her having the hearing today. you spoke about efforts to prevent prescription drug abuse and described their treatment at. addiction to prescription drugs is of in portals and we know promising behavioral medical approaches exist to treat this form of addiction. the affordable care act tilt on bipartisan legislation supported by many members of this committee, the mental health parity and addiction equity act of 2008 to ensure

more individuals suffering from substance abuse issues, disorders, or see the care they need. my first question is, how do you activate the affordable care act will impact access to services for people who are addicted to prescription drugs or have other substance use i disorders? >> one of the things in the act is the fact the provision of services for mental health and substance use disorders, which means individuals who have no coverage currently, one of the barriers for people seeking treatment of that barrier, would be removed, so the affordable care act would allow health coverage for individuals who cannot afford the cost of care and will be able to engage in care. it will also allow for a broader reach for using organization so that we can identify individuals

early before they develop full- blown addictions. be able towe can intervene at an earlier point in time. >> medicaid and the market was exchanges, will expand the population for those who have received substance abuse treatment? >> indeed. >> it made it possible for substance use disorders, addiction to prescription drugs or illicit drugs, to access treatment. we have that differences over the affordable care act, but i hope we share the goal of providing more robust treatment to those two are working to overcome prescription drugs. director kerlikowske, how do you track the progress an in completing action items

identified by the plan in meeting the goals you have set? >> when they put together presen the prescription drug leh brought everybody at the table for a number of months, and all the agreements that are there continue into an interagency workgroup hummus so we set specific goals, and then we brought those people closest to the problem and on the ground and had a responsibility for each of their agencies to gather on a quarterly basis. -- and iarting to see come from a profession that is not known for its optimism in law enforcement -- but i can't tell you seeing the changes that dr. clark and the chairman to 2011,out from 2010 i think we are starting to turn the corner on this prescription drug problem. >> dr. clark, i would be ages to hear more about the

coordination with the centers of disease control on surveillance activities. samhsa funds that also oversees drug abuse warning network's activities. is that partnership going to continue, and do you have anymore to to share with us on that partnership question mark we like agencies to work together. >> indeed, we are working together. the assistant secretary for health howard: and my boss, chairing the behavioral health committee, the objective is to make sure we are working , working closely with the director of the cdc to make sure there is no duplication of effort, but there's

collaboration and coordination. we have our data teams working together. dr. pete delaney is working with the national center for health statistics to make sure that we get the best data possible dealing with the epidemiology of sustenance abuse. >> recognizing the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, and i thank you for coming. , have been a strong proponent and in kentucky we have been aggressive with dealing with the drug problem in our area. technology has been important. you talked about there were recent determinations from the fda on different formulations --and cantin and for you explain why there are two different determinations of

those cases about the drug -- resistant technology? but i will speak in general terms. in both cases we look to the available data on that product in specific, the new formulation, and then looked at it in comparison with the earlier formulation, the formulation that had been originally developed. and ask questions about whether or not the new technology promised to reduce abuse. we think it is important that this bar, concluding something is abuse-deterred, be high enough to worth developing, make it an incentive, something that we can reward in labeling terms to make those products attractive for manufacturers to take the time and money to develop. in the case of oxycontin, when we looked at data, there were important aspects of the new formulation that did predict it would be harder to abuse. one is when people try to make

it ready to inject. it turns into a gel that is physically impossible to inject into someone's arm. some of that testing involved using people who are addicts, trying to do things that would allow this to be used, and they were unable to do it. those sorts of evidence suggest that a product with those formulations their heuristics are going to have reduced attractiveness to abusers in the real world, and we are tracking that experience now going forward. we looked at the totality of the data around the -- er er products, we did not see data of of the same time, meaning we would see less abuse. >> thank you for that. on capitol hill there has been discussion about whether generic prescription opioids must have identical abuse- deterred technologies or must they be comparable or may be

made to exceed the other drugs. can you discuss this debate and what you're making -- doing to make sure this is science-based? working internally on this and planning on talking about it at public meetings at the end of september and early october. what i anticipate is we will rely on the generics constraining they are abuse- deterred, but that they use the same technology. that would be the approach we used in other places. the testing we will lay out that we will develop will be to decide whether or not the new formulation, however it is made, is abuse-deterred to a level it needs to be, compared with the innovator, not that it uses the same technology. >> i will bring this up, a good very aggressive

in this, and we get together quite often. he brought to me a few months ago that heroine has showed itself and an alarming statistic. that seems like something that was 1970's, and he said because our legislators have been so aggressive with pharmacies, , so nowper resistant prescription drugs are more difficult to get the band heroine. the abusers are finding an outlet because we have been good in our state of try to control it. >> that has been going on for a while. the evidence is there is increase in heroin, and instruments are showing we have a younger population. there is another component about this and that is young people n naïve.i

older people have an understanding of the dangers. younger people believe it is not that powerful, that as long as they smoke it or snort it they will not become an injecting drug user, and within a few weeks they do become and injecting drug user. at the same time that prescription drugs are the made less available through all of the things that you have heard about today, and the cost, and costly.s much less we have more concerns about the heroin issue. >> i recognize the gentleman from kentucky, five minutes. >> thank you for being with us today. i wanted give a historical perspective on a prescription drug monitoring program, and since my facts are often times wrong, if i am wrong, you all can correct me. i want to ask a couple of questions. in 1998 started a

prescription drug monitoring program. in 2002, hal rogers started the prescription drug monitoring national training and technical assistance program at the department of justice. now, that was an unauthorized program, as this committee has the jurisdiction. since that time it has received an average of seven or $8 million a year, and we all it has beenand say an effective program. no one would dispute that. in 2005, this committee, that does have jurisdiction, recognizing the success of that nasper. initiated the only difference was that rogers'program was centered at

justice and the other was at hhs. nasper received funding in 2011 and 2012, i believe, and someone at the appropriations committee in the report language in the omnibus bill specifically said no money will nasper, which i thought was a little bit mean- spirited, myself. regardless of that, you three fellows are the experts in the area, and i would ask you the question, do we need nasper? should we focus on the hal rogers program, or should we try to combine them all, or should we try to reauthorize nasper? i think a lot of the problems we have in the government and a lot

of programs is that congress does not have a coherent organized approach to dealing with the problem. would you all give us -- our committee does have jurisdiction, a.b. we should reauthorize it and start over, but i would ask for your guidance on this issue. if each one of you would comment, i would appreciate it. >> i know that nasper was designed to have a different take on the program ursus the the high-rsus technology of the hal rogers pdmp. we are pleased there is almost $8 million each year made available to the states to start up these pdmp's, and i would be happy to sit down with not only representatives from congress, but also some of these interagency people and provide some level of our expertise and what we have seen has two

nasper. we would be glad to do that. directore with kerlikowske. there needs to be a convening of minds to look at what it is that we are trying to achieve and how best can we achieve it. may notific programs be the issue. it is the technology that exists that is giving the limitations and dealing with the conflicting paradigms associated with both programs. on linking prescription drug monitoring programs with electronic health records, working with the office of the national coordinator of information technology with the support of ondcp to get practitioners access. pdmp'sunt of money in hasn't been large. the strategy might be how do we best use noted resources to

enhance efforts to deal with the problem without compromising the health of people who suffer from pain or other conditions requiring controlled substances? >> i might suggest that committee in a private setting some of our staff could work with these three gentlemen and their staffs to determine what can we do to make this program more effective. maybe all of the effort should be generated in the hal rogers program, or that there would be a combination or something we can do. since our program is no longer -- has expired, looking at reauthorization, it would be helpful to have these successions. thank you. >> we will pursue that. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for holding this

subcommittee hearing. thank you to our panel. i have a couple of questions in regard to patient safety for those who truly are in need of pain medication and how as we are trying to make the system for identifying to use and work on a problem, how do we protect those patients as well? the first thing that comes to my mind is the sudafed issue and aw an individual has to sickly show their license or identification, and i know why that has been put in place. i am curious as to why that approach was taken. is it because it was an over- the-counter drug initially, and because it is used to formulate other drugs.

, can you tellon us about that approach because i'm concerned we might take an approach like that into the future with others. >> i want to make sure i understand the question. with pseudoephedrine, sudafed itself is not abused. it is being used to create highly dangerous methamphetamines, and it was over-the-counter, and congress felt there were additional restrictions necessary to ensure the safe use of that product. that is different than the conversation we are having around hydrocodone, where in and of itself it is a product that has the potential for abuse. one that is already under some control for drug enforcement administration, the schedule three's -- >> the difference is seven fed -- sudafed was an agent used to create another, so the idea was to find out who was making --

to make sure that those individuals purchasing it were identified. the other issue i guess then on that is, what other protections is the fda putting in place to ensure that patients who really are in need of those critical pain medications for whatever, whether chronic pain or acute pain, what protections are in place so that again we might -- i hate when the pendulum swings one way when really what we need to do is come up with a real balance. >> we think of several things. first, we have been listening carefully. i have been working on the opioids for a substantial fraction of my time for the last several years and that had the opportunity to sit down with hospice care workers, cancer survivors, sat down with groups that see the need for access to

a pain medicine for patients that need them. i have sat down with groups that see the cost of prescription drug abuse is having in america. to fully understand the broad spectrum of views among we are trying to listen as carefully as we can. one of the things we concluded peoplet better educated were about how best to use these medications, and that means both prescribers and patients, the more comfortable we believe they would be in making the right choices. the right choice here could be not prescribing an old we did to avoid abuse, avoid misuse, or it could be to make a choice to prescribe it because they are now educated well enough to know how to do it well, how to monitor the patient well, how to spot the signs of abuse, so they are not scared to use a word, to use the opiates) >> thank you, because that is the best

approach as well. if there is an individual right now, and i appreciate working with hospice and that is an area where those medications are used, and i can see that issue occurring. if there is an individual who feels their pain, for whatever person, whatever reason, has an issue with access and feels that they are having difficulty obtaining thomas is there a phone number, is there a way -- who does that individual reach out to? any of you can't comment on any of these things. >> partly it will depend on what the source of not being able to get the medicine is. , for is a drug shortage instance, that the drug is not available the way sometimes drugs have gone into shortage recently and we have shortages with -- periodically, that is

absolutely something the fda its to hear about. you have a staff that works on that 24/7, try to understand, prevent, minimize the shortages and we a website that the fbi to allow people to report. if there is a pharmacy not carrying the drug, those are decisions the f da does not have a clear role in, and i would suggest boards of pharmacy or other local authorities would be the ones to talk to. >> i apologize, my time ran over. >>. i recognize the florida gentlemen. >> they q4 holding this hearing, and i think the panel for the testimony. i'm concerned about the increase of drug abuse and medications. issues concerning both overprescribing and the illegal use should be addressed.

prescription drug abuse is a federal and state issue, and i have worked with both local and federal officials to take on this issue. in my district, my counties have had the highest oxycodone causes of death, it 197. hillsboro county, with 128 deaths from oxycodone. another county also led the state in methadone deaths and hydrocodone deaths. the number of aer-related business from abuse of drugs has doubled in the past five years. recently there was a drug summit in the county where both health officials discussed the growing problem of babies born addicted to prescription drugs. in else county ranks first in the state for babies born addicted. florida has taken some positive steps to fight abuse such as legislation to eliminate pill mills.

-- fourruns for road drug tracking programs. the number of the top purchasers declined by 97% in a single year, and pain management registration decreased by 36%. as is a good start, but there's much more work to be done. that is why i have instructed my office to look into issues up prescription drug abuse and developing future legislation. mr. chairman, appreciate you holding this hearing. i have a couple questions durin. i talked about the problem of asies born addicted, such oxycodone. this is a serious problem, and i would like to have you come down if you will to the tampa bay area and meet some of the providerscials and who are dealing with this growing problem. i want to ask a question

question, are there any funds or programs available for the local community to tap into to help with the problem, either on the prevention or the treatment side, and i also want to ask dr. clark are there resources for my community, of course, from samhsa. >> congressman, we fund and the free community programs that do prevention, and oftentimes that local voice is more powerful and more important to people about prevention. we have worked with them to help them understand become more knowledgeable. 700 of them to become more logical about this neonatal abstinence syndrome, because we are seeing in a number of states, florida, and i attended the first meeting of the advisory committee that has worked so hard under the attorney general, to reduce that problem, it is a complex

problem because there are women in pain that are also pregnant that are being treated. there are women in drug same time. the and so there has to be a very careful allen's. i would also tell you i would be happy to visit the tent that they area with you and examine this more closely. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. anyone else wish to comment? >> we have the expansion grants that are available to states where states can use block grants to help promote education. we are developing an internal strategy to do with --it is much broader than the prescription opiates, but as you know any time and woman has to take medication while she is pregnant, there is some associated risk for the neonate, and we try to promote education

at of consumers and practitioners so we can address these issues. have a pregnant and postpartum women's program that allows women who have addiction get into treatment while they are pregnant wome soe can do with that problem. the data shows the outcomes of the birth are much more positive when we have those kinds of programs. the most important thing is having this concerted effort involving multiple layers at the state level, the local level, community level, involving practitioners as well as -- >> thank you. i yield back. i ask the chair thanks the gentleman. the house is voting on the floor. you are less than 10 minutes at to vote. that concludes the questions from the members. there might be other questions that we will submit to you in writing, if you would som respod

problem. members should submit questions by the close of friday, june 28. thank you very much to the witnesses, to members for attending. without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> earlier today max baucus and irs camp discussed the targeting of conservative groups and what they need to be done to restructure the tax agency. here is a look. >> what we are learning about

s.e failures at the iri is there a for fundamental restructuring of the internal revenue service question mar? >> there may be. this looks like a complete management failure, and at worst intentional. i think before we can really conclude that kind of thing, we need to know all the facts. we are really moving into the interview of witnesses. we have interviewed a few. we are just beginning by the end of this week to get some of the documents from the irs we have been seeking. we will get a clearer picture. at least in the initial hearings we have had him a the management was either intentionally not looking or i out of touch,

almost rising to the level of wrongdoing. i want to make sure i know exactly what happened, and it will take time to do that. >> i would agree. [indiscernible] there are real problems here. .ave touched on it [indiscernible] there are these differenc offices around the country, and it seems to me it is tough. you got 90,000 employees, tough to manage them all. it is not managed well. to bedoes need significant restructuring of the irs, and whether that means congress has to do that, i do not know, but there has to be some [indiscernible]

to make sure that people are held accountable. >> i do think what we are doing protects american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is due date, we have not -- to date, we have not been able to explain that because it is classified. that is something we are wrestling with. how do we explain this and still keep this nation secure? that is the issue we have in front of us. you know that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress, both the house and the senate, within the administration, and now we are

before the court. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers. this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us for the good of this country. now what we need to do i think is to bring as many facts as we can out to the american people. i agree with you, but i wanted to make that clear because from the perspective that we are trying to hide something because we are doing something wrong, we are not. >> this weekend, the senate appropriations committee looks 'secret collection programs. that's a discussion on the strength of u.s. economy economy

and recent unemployment numbers. this is 40 minutes. host: mark zandi is with moody analytics. how strong is the economy right now? guest: the economy is growing at about 2%. the valuable things is 2%. just for context, that is what we have been growing in the last four years. this month is the four-year anniversary of the economic recovery. sometimes it has been a little stronger. when you look at volatility is 2%. it is not great but steady flow growth. host: a headline in "the washington post" -- what are we hearing from the fed and what are you watching on

wall street? guest: unless to get faster growth we're not going to get the unemployment rate down. it is at 7.6%, that is way too high. a good economy would be 5.5% of the unemployment rate. the fed is pushing to get the economy more quickly -- there is some concern on wall street about how exactly -- how much exactly the our point to provide to the economy. we feel this volatility in the stock market. host: the bottom line is how a lot of people feel and how their personal bottom line is faring. how are you watching americans consumer habits right now for

indicators of economic strength? guest: we are selling about 15 million vehicles. the peak of the recession it was down to 9 million cars. a good economy would be 16.5 million. we have made a lot of improvement. if people are feeling really good and feel like they have a lot of discretionary income they will be eating more at restaurants. host: the unemployment rate at 7.6%. we are watching other numbers, including those that are underemployed. the average long-term unemployment is over 36 weeks. what does that tell you? guest: we are improving.

the unemployment rate peaked at 10%. that is improvement but it is well away from a good economy. i mentioned 5.5% being the benchmark. we have mentioned in other statistics that are important for the labor market, how many people are unemployed, that is still very high. wage growth is very weak, barely keeping pace with inflation. the other statistic you mentioned is the number of people who are unemployed for a lengthy period. the economy is better and the job market is better. we have come a long way from where we were five years ago but we have a long way to get out of this hole. host: if you like to talk with the chief economist at moody's analytics, here are the numbers

let's talk about housing for a moment before we go to the phones, we're seeing this headline -- mortgage rates have risen but they are still low compared . are we facing in a potential bubble? guest: we have a long way to go from that. some strong markets are phoenix, the bay area of california, these are markets that were crushed by the downturn in prices in the collapse. the prices are a long way off from bubble-like conditions.

you could see the flipping speculation -- people cannot get that kind of market. a really interesting statistic, 40% of home sales are for cash. that is not a sign of speculation or bubble. we are a long way from that. host: here is a story in "the new york times" -- making it impossible for first- time buyers to compete. guest: first part of the recovery is having investors come in. they change the psychology of the market. two years ago there was a deflationary psychology, people did not want to buy home because they thought prices were going to fall overnight. the investors come in and push

up prices, psychology has changed. we are getting to the point where investors -- it is no longer a slam dunk for them. we need to see the transition from the demand from investors to the demand from first-time home buyers. i think we will see the transition over the next year or two. what we are seeing in the housing market is not atypical. host: the numbers shows that while mortgage rates are at a 14 month high the are still at 3.89%, that is a 30 year average. we do see a boost of refinancing applications and basic home purchase applications. guest: we were at 3.5%, that is unbelievably low mortgage rates. 3% is still incredibly low. 4% is still very affordable. what might happen is with this

rise of interest rates, it might convince buyers that maybe they should buy now or they will lose the opportunity to get these low mortgage rates. we might see the market pick up a little bit of activity. it might choose things up a little bit. host: mark zandi is the co- founder of moody's -- his focus include macro-economics. he is on twitter. what is dismal scientist? there is a section of your website that focuses on that. guest: it is called the dismal scientist. it is the idea that the economists are part of the dismal science. it was said the world was going to go down the tubes because the

population was growing exponentially but the food supply was growing linearly. that became the moniker for economists and dismal scientists. it was not my idea to go with that name. host: let's hear from dave in quincy, michigan. caller: good morning. i was looking at some unemployment rates online this morning. the chinese have, i guess in the last eight years, had a 4% unemployment. maybe we should hire them to run washington. guest: i am not sure what you're referring to. host: china. guest: the nation of china.

host: their economy has a continuous 4% unemployment while the united states runs about 8%. we should hire the chinese to run washington since they are much better at controlling their unemployment than our administrations are. guest: the chinese economy has the marvelously well and has been experiencing strong growth over the past 10 to 15 years we do need to take their data with a bit of salt. it is hard to know exactly what is going on in the chinese economy. that is why economists take a look at a lot of different things and try to gauge what is going on in china. what is going on with electricity production, production of electricity is pretty hard to manage the statistic. if you look at the trade

statistics you can get a sense from the other side of the trade. it is doing well, it has done fabulously well. it has lifted a lot of chinese out of poverty. we do need to take the statistics with a grain of salt. host: let's hear from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: i was calling to say that the economy is doing better but as far as the jobs, it is foreign trade and technology that is costing so many american jobs. that needs to be changed. let us go back to made in america. guest: you make a good point

that globalization and trade has had some negative impacts, particularly on people that are having a hard time competing in a global marketplace. it has contributed to the skewing of the distribution of income. folks at the bottom half release struggled as compared to the top this is because of the globalization and technological change. having said that lemme see to things, having globalization has had a net positive for our economy. there are winners and losers, no doubt. if you take a look at the whole shooting match together it has been a significant positive for our economy to help raise our standard of living and it has ade us a stronger economy. the second thing i will say is

that the dynamics are starting to shift and american companies have done a marvelous job of improving the competitiveness and improving productivity. there are in very good competitive shape. i think going forward the fruits of the global economy are going to be more evident to s. there'll be more jobs for everybody top to bottom. i think there will be a significant net beneficiary of the global process. it has not been as clear in the last 20 years. this was when the emerging world was very difficult to compete with. we are now at a point where the large middle-class will buy what we produce. we are positioned to benefit enormously from globalization. host: one of our followers of twitter rights in and asks

-- guest: the key is our administration has had come together and signed on the dotted line a piece of egislation that will raise the treasury debt limit. we have to raise the treasury debt limit and fund the government. the government wants out of money unless we get another piece of legislation. they have to come together before september and sign on the dotted line. if they can do that in a reasonably graceful way, i doubt it will be graceful, but that they can do this without doing too much damage, think we are pretty good shape. fiscal policy will become less of an issue. my guess is that one year from now, it will not be on the front page. that's because the private economy like businesses and households will be off and running and we will be in good shape. having said that, we have

issues it would be nice if we could make some progress on the obvious issues like entitlement reform. we will not be able to pay for medicare and medicaid 20-30 years down the road unless there are changes and also tax eform. that seems like a pretty obvious thing. our tax code are not helping us. there are some things that i think both sides can agree on reasonably so and we need to come together and figure that one out. that would be a big plus too. >> host: the hill had a story that had a story heading for a debt limit rerun and it remind us about the intensity of the brinkmanship that took place in 2011 over the debt ceiling. and we saw headlines constantly

about the economy and negotiations in congress, sequester, debt ceiling. you name it. we're not seeing those headlines have such prom nance now. guest: i think the politics has shifted. i'm an economist so i'm stepping out of my zone a little bit. the politics have shifted so if you go back a couple of years ago the thinking is if i push on these issues then i can gain political traction and hope i'll win politically. and that didn't work out so well. remember the debt limit deboc scared in 2011 that tonche death and didn't work. they understand this and it's less likely they'll go down that poth going forward. if you go back two years ago in

the summer of 2011 the economy was weaker. it was only two years into the economic recovery. if you had this kind of brinkmanship it does a lot of damage to business decisions about hiring and investment and spending. today it would do less damage because we're four years into the recovery. the collective sike is on stronger ground so we're in a better place. it will hurt and i don't think it's wise for policy makers to go down that brinkmanship path but it won't hurt nearly as much. host: let's go to an independent caller. caller: just two quick questions. i was wondering do you believe arm sales large arms, small arms in the yilets, outside the united states have an effect on the economy in any significant way.

and another question about general economics. do you believe the value of gold goes up or the value of the dollar goes down in a general way? guest: with regard to arm sales, clearly defense and defense armaments is a big business. and it is a significant number in terms of export. soilts not inconsequencele. it's meaningful. in the grand scheme of things it's small. it is not a big number but it is meaningful. when we sell arms overseas it is part of the exports that we have to the rest of the world. so it's not incons conventional. in terms of gold and the dollar, there is an inverse relationship between the two, at least there has been a significant inverse relationship in recent years.

there might be a number of reasons for that inverse relationship. so if the value of the dollar is falling, that would be inflationary to some degree. it means that import prices would be rising more quickly and generally in an inflationary environment investors are more interested in gold so you'll see more investors coming into gold and that drives up the price. there is other linkages but in general there seems to be an inverse relationship between the two. host: mark zahn i did from moody's. that's hear from texas on the republicans line. caller: thank you very much. -- zahn i did, i want to be ndi, i want to be respectful

to say that i kind of take your economics like you take the chinese economics with a grain salt. ult -- when the auto companies were asking for bailouts. the democrat congress told them no. come back in and we'll talk. they come back with about $18 billion they were asking for. no again. and then the great economist zandi it was they are going to need $75 billion to keep from bankruptcy. gm et the $75 billion and still goes bankrupt. and their sales projections weren't that far off.

they've recoved. and mod dis, weren't they the ones that rated those junk ? nds triple-a ratings guest: i'm not part of the ratings agency. so just that we make that decunks. in terms of the auto bailout, i was quite proud of my role in that period. very difficult decision. obviously very difficult time and there was no good answer there but i thought it was fortune help the auto makers navigate through the bankruptcy process simply because they couldn't go through a normal bankruptcy. if the they went into bankruptcy, they would have in all likelihood been lick qui dated. there was no financing to help

them navigate through the bankruptcy process as there would be in a time when markets are functioning normally. i do think it was necessary for the government to step up and to provide help. and actually it's worked out pretty well i think. chrysler is now out of the hands of the government and gm is very far along the way. government will lose some money on the deal. under the circumstances not clear how much. it depends on the price they get for gm stock but at the end of the day it saved taxpayers money because if the government had not helped them out and they had been lick qui dated -- this is a judgment call. it would have been just a mess. millions of jobs would have been lost in a time when we were already losing millions of jobs and i don't think we could have taken that chance. if i were king for the day i

would have done a few things differently. there were some things i didn't like about the process and what came out of the process but this was a very difficult time. people had to make stigses very rapidly with a lot of competing political views and it's hard to do that. what we got out of it was pretty good. i'm actually quite proud of that period and i'm glad i could play a royal in it. host: we saw in the "new york times" recently the sequester is starting to show. she writes hello sequestration the monthly jobs report is starting to show the across the board bummingt cuts that the government needs to carry out before the send of the fiscal year in september. $16 that's not much ff a trillion economy it will slow growth in the coming months and years. n may alone we saw 14,000 jobs

she had since march it's been 45,000 all together. we've seen a real uptick. what is your concern about the sequester's impact? guest: the vor is having an impact. you can see it in the g.d.p. data particularly in defense spending. think they are hitting in q 3. 900,000 government workers are going to have furloughs so it's having an impact. and that's one of the reasons why the economy is still growing. remember that % number? that's why we're growing 2%. the sequester cults are weighing on the economy. the good news though is two things, one is i have to say that the negative consequences

of all of this have been less than i would have anticipated to this point. next month if you have me back i may sing a different tune. but so far it's weathering the storm well which goes to the streppingt of the private economy. and these physical head winds if there is no more policy changes other than raise the debt limit and pass a budget then these will fade next year and the better private economy will shine through and we'll feel a lot better about things a year from now. host: david is our next caller on the democrats line. caller: started off earlier talking ability investors buying up the houses and whatnot, corporation investors i would like to call it. my question is how -- a group of investors let's call them

banks buy up all the houses which actually they took through foreclosures and the houses are only worth so much but when they go to resell them on the market they jack up the prices and because of the job market everybody works at burger king and nobody can afford to buy a house. the banks get all the money and all the property to the point they have everything. i do not understand when you take out the people like myself , how does that help the economy when banks are buying -- that doesn't make any sense when investors are investing in the housing market and people like myself can't. and the other thing is when you talk about jobs, what happened to the promise of the education of nafta? talk about short term. that was supposed to be the biggest thing nafta was, these

high-tech jobs we were supposed to get trained for. they are cutting education. they are privatizing education. our colleges are so expensive. we have three children. we've never thought of how do we send them to college? there is no way. that's the average life of the average american, the majority of americans. and -- host: let's get a response. guest: you sound very frustrated and i can understand that. let me tackle the housing question first and then the question about education. in terms of the point you make about housing, the investors that are coming into these distressed markets and buying property. there are two types of investors, one i would call mom and pop investors. these are people who live in a neighborhood, just a normal homeowner or household, they

see a foreclosed property in their neighborhood. they can sense that that property has good value because they know where they live and the school district and they know the value and they step up and are buying that property. roughly speaking half of the purchases by investors aren't by big institutional financial waurt types, it's just mom and pop investors. that's one thing to consider. in terms of the institutional investors, they are not the big banks. the big banks are selling the properties. it's these are hedge funds, private equity firms. these are groups that have come together and pulled money together because they sensed an opportunity. this happens in every market when things go bad you have tune nist i can investors who come in and they didn't make

the mistakes in the bad times, they didn't overextend themselves so they are in a good financial position now and they are coming in and buying up the property. that's part of the process. i sympathize with the idea that prices are now rising and it's going to make it more difficult for first time home buyers to come in because the prices are higher. if these investors hadn't come in the market wouldn't have turned and the first time home buyer would still be locked out of the market. it is not ideal but it has worked reasonably well. i think if you dig down deep into who those investors are it's not the same big banks that got us in trouble with the bad lending in the bubble period of the last decade. in terms of education i'm on board with you on this. we are really falling short

with respect to educating our kids. at the end of the day if we are going to have a strong viable economy and a good economy for everybody, we need to bring up the educational attainment of the population and that's k through 1 and particularly higher education. and we have policy be regard to higher education all wrong. we provide student loans but that isn't improving affordability for these kids because many of the university are capturing the student loans by raising tuition so kids are going nor. i think we need to rethink educational policy and how we can increase the supply of educational services and make it easier for kids of all income groups in all parts of country to avail themselves of those educational resources. that i think we really need to work on. it's not going to be something

we solve next month or next year but if we work on it today, it will help the generation of tomorrow. that really is key. host: the "washington journal" had this story yesterday virtual currency sis have nothing to fear. her agency isn't working to clamp down on currency sis and administrators for didgal cash to comply with the same thrules apply to other financial institutionings. what are your views on bick coin and the us economy? guest: i can't get my mind around bit coin. even with all these safeguards it doesn't feel safe to me. ybe i'm not a first mover in that sense. let someone else go first and see how it goes and if it works

out. but i'm very skeptical. and i'll wait a year or two down the road and see how things go. host: mike, independent caller. caller: good morning. with the outlook where i live, i work for an auto splire. four years ago things was really slowed down. they got to be where they was laying off but right now things are really looking good. we went from eating bo lonnie to eating stake. i noticed one thing that what schools should do is start more g to put kids into

, start figuring out what type of path they need to do in life instead of teaching abc's all during school you know. because all these other countries that's what they do. where they can get a step ahead. guest: you make a good point. germany for example spends a lot of time in energy with regard to educating kids for various kinds of trade craft so they don't necessarily go on to college and university and education, they learn a trade and become quite good at it and that's been helpful for the german economy. europe has been struggling over the last several years but the german economy is doing well and that's part of the reason.

there are other efforts to go down a similar path. so for example some companies are teaming up with universities and they say i'll help pay for your factty and laboratories and training and the quit proquo is you give me input into your curriculum process so i know when they graduate they have the skills and talents necessary to do well in my business. so i think that is a fruitful way to go in terms of trying to improve the educational attainment of the population. i think you are right and the other caller made this point we need to raise the educational attainment of the population. that's the only way to lift people up from the bottom to the top of the distribution income. host: what policy decisions would you like to see coming om the federal reserve

chairman ben stewart-kruger -- ben bernanke? committee a he couple of weeks ago and created confusion. frankly i don't think his views on policy changed it's just that the message got a little muddled. next wednesday he has his press conference. i think he'll be crystal clear in what he is thinking. and with that clarity, nothing has changed, he just has to be clear with his thinking. he'll call markets and we'll be up and running. obviously it depends on the outlook for jobs in particular but my sense is by the end of the year before he leaves the chairmanmanship that he'll begin the tapering process. e's got his foot flat on the

accelerator. he won't go to the break, he'll just take off the accelerator. caller: thanks for taking my call. sounds like you are optimistic over the economy. how do you think the immigration bill they are trying to force down our throtes right now possible legalizing 20 million plus low wage workers that you're not going to get a lot of tax money from and are going to get more benefits affect our economy in the coming years? guest: here is one very important thing that the immigration bill needs to do and that is to make it easier for people with lots of skill and education to come to the united states and stay in the united states. in my view if you're a foreign

national and and you come to an american university and get a degree we should make it easy for to you stay because these are very talented skilled individuals. they will generate a lot of tax revenue and take care of themmingses and family. if you come from a different country and come to this country you have to be very talented and motivated. they'll start companies and generate jobs and it will be a net benefit to the economy. if anything comes out of the immigration process i think that's the most important thing. obviously some have negative economic consequences but if we can get that one thing done, i think it will be a huge plus. caller: good morning. i proshte c-span. my question to your guest is it's my understanding that in the last century the strongest source of u.s. wealth was manufacturing. and it seems like we lost half

of it permanently so how if ever will we recover without manufacturing? guest: i think it's coming back. i think american manufacturers if they survived they have to be doing something very right. they have to be selling a product people want in the rest of the world and they are primed for growth. aerospace, computer technology, sophisticated materials and instruments, various kind of chemicals, pharmaceuticals. i think we will do well with regard to manufacturing and the energy revolution which is real is a huge plus for manufacturers because they use natural gas in particular and oil to alesser degree in their production processes and the fact we have plentiful supplies and low prices i think is good for our manufacturers. so i think 10, 20 years from

now manufacturing is going to be a bright spot for our economy. host: independent line. caller: $40 billion a month since the dollar is no longer fundable and the elite can use a nip trick to get free money why don't we let the american neem on the flip trick. i no at the $has to be fundable. but it's not it's merely printable. my last point is as a spokesman for the elite i hope the american people remember your faith. hanks. guest: the qe is bigger than

you think. it's $85 billion a month. ere are a lot of negatives with qe. hat is what joshua wa is refering to. ling oh.ught up in the there are negatives and the fed policy makers hammer over this all the time. they talk about the down sides to what they are doing. no one is comfortable wit but at the end of the day i think it's a net positive for the economy. you brought up the value of the dollar. if you look at the dollar on a broad trade basis the value of it today is exactly what it was equal five years ago before the recession hit. it's been up and down and all around like anything in a financial market does but the value of the dollar has held its own so it's hard to argue

it's been debased in any way by this policy. it's not what anyone would like but this economy is not what anyone would like. so extraordinary times take extraordinary action and at the end of the day this will twin day. a year from now if you ask me back i think we'll be feeling a lot better about things. host: mark zandi from moody's. thank you so much for joining us today. >> the chairman of the house weighs and means committee talked about the need to overhall the tax code.

>> i wonder what lessons you draw from that. something has changed, some things remain the same. what lessons do you draw from it? >> basically what is the same the barnacles have built back up again. there have been 15,000 changes to the code. each year goes by and we add more provisions and modifications and so forth. and dumpt groups want and basically congress goes along wit. that's the same. in addition, the public back then was quite upset with lots of sheltering of income and

today i think the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering but ost income from overseas tax havens. so that topped the list of concern. it's a legitimate american concern starting to build up. what is different? president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on a very reluctant congress. and today it's congress, at least at this point the chairman of the committee who are starting the ball rolling on tax reform but the administration isn't opposed, it's a willing participant and i think you'll find the president more directly engaged as we move along.

i'll stop there. but it's essentially the basic need for reform to get the economy going. we haven't talked about that yet. tax reform is going to help the economy, help get jobs. in this competitive world of ours, we have to do everything we can legitimately and reasonably to help american people, help american small business and american companies compete better and have less red tape so they can focus more on jobs. it's a combination of instance and psychology that will help the economy. >> the tax code was broken in 1996 and the tax code is broken now. the witnesses said the tax code is broken. i would agree on what max said. but the world has changed since

1986. the ability to invest around the world with a click of a mouse is so much easier. so we have to look at what other countries have done and they have modernized their tax system. we haven't. and the other thing is i think somewhat similar is you have to be very persistent. that reform would not have happened without continuele persistence and effort. but as max said, the economy isn't as strong as it needs to be. we need to get the kind of growth and job creation and wage increase that is we haven't been seeing and i think that is making a cose. code has been layer upon layer of change and it's time to look at it again and that's what we're trying to do. >> and you can watch the entire remarks tonight beginning at 8:00 eernl right here on

c-span. >> i do think what we're doing does protect american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is to date we've not been able to explain it because it's classified. so that issue is something that we're wrestling with. how do we explain this and still keep this nation secure? that's the issue that we have in front of us. so you know that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress. both the house and the senate, within the administration and now the court. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers. this is what we're doing on behalf of all of us for the good of this country. now what we need to do i think is to bring as many facts as we can out to the american people soifment agree with you but i

want to make that clear. from the perspective is we're trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we're not. >> this weekend on c-span, the senate appropriations committee looks at the secret data collection programs saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern also on .-span2 book tv >> earlier today michelle bachmann spoke on immigration policy and why she feels the current bill being debated by the senate is moving too quickly. here is a look. >> there is one issue we're going back and forth on now in this particular conference but also across the united states.

and reasonable people can disagree. i want to put forth just a couple of ideas for your consideration because i'm here to tell you we are fast tracking in a breath taking scale that i haven't seen in eight years on capitol hill a bill through and it's dealing with immigration reform. there are people of good will on both sides of this issue. i want to throw a couple of facts in the mix to consider. because next week the house judiciary committee will take up the immigration bill for a two week period. we just began a debate this week. the senate stated this may be done completed by july 4 and may be done and through the conference committees on the president's desk for signature by august 1. that's a breath taking speed to get a bill of this magnitude through the united states

congress. why is it of such great magnitude? we are looking at the legalization of over 30 million illegal aliens and we look at the impact that could have an our nation this. is not an anti-immigrant speech. do not walk away with that thought at all. i married a first generation immigrant. my an zest tors came to this country with nothing but their hard work eth i can and their invasion. and i imagine that is your story too from your family as well. but what i'm asking all of us to consider are the profound implications of what this will mean because am nestty will cost a fortune. we are looking at a $6 trillion . st for am nestty

the bill that we are currently looking at if it survives in existing form would mean that the borders will not be secure despite the promises that we're being given it is as we heard this week from one of the members of the gang of eight, it will be legalization first and then maybe we'll deal with border security down the road. as a matter of fact the bill we're looking at takes the whole technology of e verify and puts it's on the shelf. it moth ball this is system to check for legalization status. it prevents the states from even using the concept of e verify. this is a serious concern. because you see we have a history. in 192i68 american people were promised we would have a one time deal for amnesty one time and it will be 1 million

illegal alien that is would be given status. that wasn't true. it wasn't 1 million. it turned out to be 3.5 million illegal aliens. take a look at the numbers on immigration. in the last 40 years if you collect together all of the people that we have given legal status to in the last 40 years we will give more people in the next ten years than we have in the last 40. this would be one thing if we had high skilled workers coming into the united states but the estimate is the average illegal alien that comes into the united states the average sage 34 years old. the average education slelve about the 10th grade. that's not to demean anyone who comes into the united states for a lack of education. but it isn't prudent to think if you are 34 years of age with a 10th grade education or less,

it's tough to believe that a person will be paying more in in taxes than they will be receiving in benefits. so i'm saying we need to be open to recognize what the cost s. >> he gelts the headquarters to assume command from hooker and hooker doesn't -- he's such a poor leader he hasn't gathered one detailed map of pennsylvania. he takes commands and immediate doesn't have a map.

>> the 150th an ver si of the battle of gettisburg sunday june 30 on american history tv on c-span 3. >> white house deputy josh earnest and special assistant to the president brief reporters next about the syrian civil war and the upcoming summit. on thursday the white house disclosed that has evidence that they used chemical weapons against opposition forces. in addition they authorized sending weapons to the opposition for the first time. his is an hour 20 minutes.

>> with that let me introduce my two colleagues. the first many of you know ben rodes and to my right is car line at kin son. she is the director for economic issues on the national security staff and just as importantly she'll be in the meeting with the president next

week. both of them have some opening remarks and i'll call on you for your questions and we'll go from there. >> i'll start by running through our schedule and giving a preview of what we hope to accomplish at these different stops. e will be arriving in northern ireland on monday morning and the eent that we're having in belfast is a speech from the president at the belfast water front convention sernt. this is the president's opportunity to address the peace process in northern ireland over the years and to the development of economy and society in northern ireland. so he'll speak to students. we've engaged with the leaders of ireland and welcome their efforts to carry forward the reconciliation efforts. in the speech the president will talk about how young

people have to advance those efforts so the hard earned peace is translated into a lasting peaceful society and also into good economic opportunity for the people of ireland. following the president's speech in belfast he will move to lock earn where the gam is being held. the first session will begin that afternoon at around 4:45 local time. then following the first session the president will have a meeting with president putin of russia. this is the first meeting that the two leaders will have held since last year. they have a very broad agenda to discuss. that will include the situation in syria and afghanistan where russia has cooperated with us in securing our transit routes for our troops and promoting stability until the region,

arms control, missile defense and the security issues we very regularly discuss with russia as well as deepening our economic and commercial ties between our two nations. following that bilateral meeting there will be a chance for leaders to make statements at the conclusion of that meeting. there will be a leaders only working dinner. this is the dinner that focuses on foreign policy. the other sessions car line can walk you through. i'd anticipate a wide range in conversation at the dinner. afghanistan will certainly bay subject. a lot of our partners will be represented at the dinner. as we approach our milestone transitions lead responsibility to the afghans they can discuss the transition under way in affering as well as our plans for supporting the afghan government after 20 146789 they'll clearly discuss the situation in syria to include the most recent chemical

weapons assessment we provided. the political settlement in the country. i think they'll discuss more broadly the transitions under way in the middle east and north africa. that will include for instance the types of support we can provide to security forces in countries like libya that are working to establish institutions of the state and i believe they will cover some other foreign policy issues, iran and the nuclear program are likely to come up. the president has been consulting with ga partners in the run up to this meeting. he spoke the other night about his consultations with the chinese leader. the president will be with his quint counter parts later today, united kingdom, france,

germany and italy so they will have an opportunity to discuss the agenda in advance of the meetings. that is a video conference. forgive my jargon. that will conclude the first day. the second day is sessions of e ga so i will leave it to carolyn to walk you through that. we'd anticipate that the president will have an opportunity to see other leaders on the margins of the ga throughout the course of the day. then we will fly to germany on tuesday night and spend the night in berlin. this visit i think reinforces how critical the u.s. german relationship is as part of the trance atlantic partnership and our deep bilateral ties. we'd expect the agenda throughout the course of the meetings in germany to focus on economic and security issues and i'll get to that when i get to our meeting with chancellor.

but there will be a meeting with the president of germany to begin the day. following that he will go to his meeting with the chancellor. they have developed a close working relationship since the beginning of 2009. they have worked through a number of delicate crisis together both economic and security. euro zone iscuss the and economy. they will discuss trade. they'll discuss the situation in afghanistan where germany remains a stall ward ally and contributes to the mission there as well as how nato can provide support beyond 20 146789 they'll discuss syria and iran as middle east peace. following the meeting there will be a press conference and

then they'll have a private lunch together at the chancellorry. then following lunch the president will give remarks. this is a his or the rick site for the german people and for u.s. presidents. it comes on the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's speech at the height of the cold war when west berlin was under a considerable siege. it's also notable in one respect that it is the eastern side of the gate that the president will be speaking of, something impossible r50 years ago but given the fall of the berlin wall and reunification of the country it's a symbol of the partnership we've forged together. i would expect the president to hit on themes of the shared history of the trance atlantic aligns, how far we've come together. the need to take that same spirit of cooperation and

activism that led to us work together through the cold war and apply that to the challenges we face today whether it's nuclear weapons our efforts to promote human digty and values around the world. some of the significant security challenges we face. i think you'll see the president cover the agenda ha the trance atlantic aligns has here in the 21st century and we can talk more about this if you like. following those remarks, the president will meet with the leader of the democratic party as the principle opposition leader in the country. that night he'll be hosted at a dinner and reception by chancellor and that will conclude the state visit to germany. before i turn it over to carolyn i'd note that the first laid and sasha and mali i can't will be joining president obama's trips.

they will come to belfast. then the first lady and the girls will travel to dublin ireland. this is an important signal to send given how close the yilets and ireland are that she's able to visit there. they were innovated to visit the last time that the president was in ireland and this will be an opportunity for the first lady and the girls to accept that hospitality. they will tour trintty college is ireland's oldest university in dublin where she'll be able to explore the archives they've gathered and the obama's irish ancestry which is known to you all. later in the day she will meet with the staff in dublin and join some youth for a performance. she'll be joined there by the

wife of the president of the ireland who also will be at that event with her. they will rejoin the president in berlin. the independent event they will have is on june 19. she will tour the wall park then rejoin nd the president for the official dinner. with that i'll turn it over and then we'll be able to take your questions. >> thank you very much. this will be his fifth summit. members account for about 50% of the world's global g.d.p. and they include some our closest allies and partners. last year when president obama hosted at camp david he turned

it into a small action ornted event with just those few leaders together. one example of the actions that we did then it was launch of the new aligns food security and nutrition. that now is up to $3.7 tpwhl private sector pledges and expanded from the three african countries announced last year to nine countries and more are ready to join this year. prime minister cameron said he wanted to take a similar approach amongst a small group of leaders. that's just a bit of the background. the first session of the summit will be on the global economy on monday afternoon. the context of that discussion has changed a lot over the past year n. europe for example financial tensions have eased considerably but large parts of europe remain in recession and

unplacement in some countries is at record highs. in the u.s. recover i have under way. we avoided the physical cliff d our deficit is declining rapidly but we have to create more jobs. at camp david we expect leaders will express a con sen sthause growth and jobs are a top priority. as ben mentioned there will then be the working dinner just amongst leaders and on tuesday morning there will be a leaders only session to discuss the range of issues around counterterrorism. that will be followed by a session on trade, tax and transparency issues in the g countries themselves. that discussion will underscore the president's most important economic priorities. on trade the summit will take pleas as we conclude with

congress on the trance atlantic trade and partnership. on taxes we expect the g 208 make important process on the issues of illegal tax evasion and tax avoidance that companies when they use countries loopholes manage to shift their profits to no or low tax jurisdictions. international tax has been a core piece of president obama's agenda since he first ran for president in 2008. in two thousand nine he proposed legislation to crack down on illegal tax evasion by increasing disclosure requirements for individuals and financial institutions. congress passed that in 2010. since then the treasury department has been working with using these tools engaging with other governments to ensure that tax evasion is detected and punished. and we're going to work with the g 8 to expand this use of

the standard. now beyond that we'll also be working with prime minister cameron and the others to improve the ability of tax authorities and law enforcement to identify the real people behind shell companies that are set up and facilitate the hiding of tax liabilities. increasing transparency around company ownership, what is called beneficial ownership will help prosecute ill liss it activity, money laundering and so on. in addition to these efforts to combat ill eel tax evasion the president has been focused on illegal tax avoidance. when companies use loop tholes reduce their tax liability. tax avoidance is as much about

countries and country rules as it is about companies. because the loopholes they use are as a result of the rules countries set. last year president obama laid out a detailed framework for tax reform which included propose tols take this problem on and the g 8 summit will provide an opportunity to highlight the need to remove tax incentives that encourage dops shift profits around and instead replace those incentives with onces that will encourage creation of jobs and investment at home. there is work under way in the g 20 the broader grouping beyond the g 8 to think thu these issues and prevent racist tax policy. we want to avoid that turning into a lose lose proposition where companies lose revenue and make inefficient decisions

by shifting their profits to the lower taxes rather than where it is most productive for them to invest and produce. tuesday is a working lunch which will include african and other leaders and the head of organizations to talk about the evelopment aspects of the u.k. agenda. we have put particular emphasis on the extractive sector through dodd-frank. the united states was the first to require companies to disclose the payments they make to governments in the extractive sector. we welcome the steps taken yesterday by the e.u. to adopt similar legislation and the announcement from canada they are also seeking to align with these standards. this is an area where the g 8 condition at its best and agrees to take action that we can do in our own countries to

raise standards around the world and assure that everybody is competing on a level playing field. the final session on tuesday will be a short session to conclude and fwring g 8 together and perhaps talk about next year's agenda. let me say these summits are important both because they set the agenda on ongoing collaborative work, foreign policy and the economy and they allow leaders to discuss among thepses important issues and then press for action. thank you very much. >> sounds like it's going to be a very busy three days next week. we'll open up for questions. we want to hop around today so people in the back start thinking of your questions. >> thanks to both of you for doing this. , you guys haven't

talked specifically about what the military solutions are but will decisions on military support depend on the outcome of the talks that the president will have with g 8 leaders and given the position that the french and british have taked out that they might accelerate their decision on any military support they might provide. >> first of all, the decisions that we made those are decisions he has made over the course of the last several weeks. as our assessment of chemical weapons use is firmed up. we saw a deteriorating situation with outside actors. this has been a steady increase

for us. bothve steadily increased the size and scope of our assistance. we have decided to take an additional step forward in providing increased assistance going forward. at the same time, this is a fluid situation so it is necessary for him to consult with all of the leaders of the g-8 about the chemical weapons assessment and the types of support we are providing the opposition. the french and british have yria.d our position on seriou i will leave it to them to make their own announcements. they did lift the embargo that was in place that prevented arms flowing from the european union into seriouyria. he will hear from them what

their plans are. thus far, they have been important partners in sharing information and intelligence related to chemical weapons. this will be an ongoing dialogue between the president and leaders. >> are fighters on the ground already seeing some of this support? >> we have had an upward trajectory of assistance in general and they have arty seen certain types of assistance that has reached into syria. examples of that could be meals ready to eat and medical kits. the additional types of assistance we will be providing going forward, it takes time

for that assistance to reach people in syria. given the way in which we implement our assistance programs, i cannot give you a specific timeline or an itemized list of what that assistance is. what we have been able to do by developing a relationship with the syrian opposition coalition over the course of the last six months, is to develop relationships, to find focusingls who we are the assistance towards. that is important. it allows you to get assistance into the hands of those who need it. cameron's mention support, but so much from the russians.

the foreign minister said the intelligence you are sidinciting [inaudible] >> we have had differences with russia. all i would say with respect to the chemical weapons assessment is we have a broad range of evidence associated with the multiple incidents of chemical weapons use that we assessed took place. that includes open source reporting. it includes intelligence reporting. it includes the accounts of individuals. frankly, the regime maintains custody of these weapons. the cousin of our own intelligence assessment and

because of the fact that -- because of our own intelligence assessment and because of the fact that we believe the regime has maintain control of these weapons, any use of chemical weapons would've been by the regime. discuss continue to whether there is a way to bring together elements of the regime and opposition to achieve the political settlement. we still have a difference with the russians on the fact that we believe assad would have to leave power as part of that process. the type of relationship we have with the russians is such that even if we have disagreements, we want to work together on issues where we do have convergence. following up on that, do you expect president boudin -- putin will move at all?

[inaudible] will the president share more details with the g-8 leaders? on president putin, i would hesitate to characterize his views. he is very good at doing that. what we would say with respect is thatussian position what russia has articulated to a is they do not want to see downward spiral. they do not want to see a chaotic and unstable situation in the region. they do not want to see extremist elements gaining a foothold in syria.

it is in russia's interest to join us in applying pressure on bashir al-assad to come to the table in a way that relinquishes his power and standing in syria. we do not see any scenario where he restores legitimacy to lead the country. they can best protect their interest by being a partner -- part of a political settlement that israel -- that is real. preserve some elements of the state, the regime, but respects the rights of the syrian people. will beresident discussing the types of aid and assistance we provide into syria. the countries that work with us on that our european allies and

the french and the british have been the most prominent in that regard. it will also have opportunities to see the leaders on the margins of these meetings as well. i should have added that we for himte the chance to spend some time with prime minister cameron. he will be having these discussions. given the nature of the assistance and how we provide assistance in situations like an instancenot where we can be specific about every single aspect of what we are doing, but the general point that we made, because of the actions we have seen, we have decided to take the step of increasing the size and scope of assistance. ,> on corporate tax avoidance what concrete outcomes

[inaudible] >> the g8 leaders will be able to give a political push to the importance of work that is ongoing. the u.s., atre in the has championed proposals to ensure our monies cannot shift their profits to places where there is no taxation. for example, with a proposal for a minimum tax on foreign earnings. we need to have a comprehensive solution. will the g8 countries agree there are a number of different measures? we should be rewarding incentives for companies to invest and create jobs here at home where it makes sense for them to do that. >> [inaudible]

>> these moves do translate into an effect because they push the processes and they also involved government emitting to take different actions. we know what we have put working we will ask -- on a template for more transparency by companies. i expect there will be strong support from g8 leaders on that. other countries, including the uk, are stepping forward and saying they also want to make important efforts in this area so that international tax policy does not develop into a rate at the bottom. although these measures require us to go home and take individual actions ourselves. having that collective commitment to work on these

issues is important. >> thank you. [inaudible] it is because of the opposition lazing on the ground. >> i will take the second question first. the use of conventional force against civilians is what led us to say assad had to step down, to put in lace sanctions -- put in place sanctions. an to try to mobilize international response. at the same time, the use of

chemical weapons violates clear international norms. for decades, the community sought to strengthen a norm against the use of this type of weapon. given the type of weapon mass destruction that it is any effects we have seen and have when it has been used used. this is not a red line for the united states. it should be a red line for the international community. we have been driven by our intelligence assessments of potential incidents. even the incidents that we have established high confidence about, most of those you are talking about things that had taken place in the last several months. in terms of the time from april, we had an initial intelligence assessment. the presence direction was to continue to investigate corroborating facts and information so we could raise

our confidence level. we did not feel we had enough information to reach the high degree of confidence that this red line had been crossed. what has been done, we have been able to piece together broader information picture. you are able to take an assessed incident of chemical weapons use, you are able to receive reporting from individuals there on the ground. you are able to review samples that have been collected at the site. you are able to review open source reporting that speak to the use of chemical weapons. we are able to review our intelligence reporting, which covers a range of different things. the thing together that information picture, the community is able to increase its confidence level. that is what led to the announcement yesterday. it was driven by the firming up of this assessment.

what we will do is share that with the french and british another's who we have been in touch with on these assessments over the course of the last couple of months. together, we want to focus on what each country knows about what is happening in syria and we also want to present this information to the united nations. -- we are rice seeking to push this into the un, because the un investigation has been frustrated and because the un and the security council are appropriate venues to discuss issues like these. >> can you tell us any more about what is going to be said to the rubble counsel -- rebel counsel? aregovernment forces

fighting around aleppo. they seem to have the upper hand. is it going to reach the rebels in time? we believe the security military council deserves our support, just as the political opposition does. what we want to do with our assistance is strengthen their effectiveness of they have better capabilities as they are pursuing their efforts within syria. we want to strengthen their cohesion because it is a very difficult situation when you have fighting scattered across the country. we want to connect them well to us and to our other partners providing assistance, countries like jordan, saudi arabia, the uae, turkey, so they are able to receive assistance in a

timely matter. those are the types of objectives we are seeking to meet through the decision the president has made. i am not going to be able to say, here is the specific list of every type of item that we will be delivering into serious. we want to be responsive to the request that have been made by smc, we will seek to be responsive with that very important happy at. we will seek -- caveat. huge amounts of humanitarian assistance going into the country, significant amounts of nonlethal types of assistance. and food. the pipelines exist to provide assistance into the smc and that

will allow us to ramp up our assistance. heavier weapons in weeks, months, years? >> i completely understand the interest. we are not going to be able to get into that level of detail about the type of assistance we provide publicly. in terms of timelines, we have established these timelines -- pipelines. you should see this as a continuum. there is already material that has been flowing into the opposition and that will continue to be the case. isdo not anticipate this something that is far off into the future. this is part of the continuum of assistance. we have been dealing directly with the smc. we have relationships today in syria that we did not have six months ago. it gives us greater certainty

that we can put it in the right hands so it is not going into the hands of extremists. better us a understanding, explain how the provision of the small arms, how does that convince assad not to use chemical weapons? >> i am not going to get into a detailed description of different types of assistance. a generalf all, as matter, we want the opposition to be as strong as possible areuse for the reason they faced with the brutal regime that has shown no restraint and the actions they have taken against them. we have seen this increase foreign involvement, particularly around iran and has below -- hezbollah.

we have a number of arab partners who are also focused on providing assistance. turkey has been a partner as well. we believe we have a coalition of countries that is prepared to support the syrian opposition. this will improve their capabilities, their effectiveness within syria. they need to engineer to strengthen their cohesion so they can function in different parts of the country. they areo make sure able to firm up their position and be coordinated body across the country. >> given the fact that they have fallen behind [inaudible] the u.s.istake for and allies to not take this action at this level two years ago? >> what we have seen is momentum has ebbed and flowed.

you can assess either the regime or the opposition has some initiative. as a general matter, aside has been rejected -- assad has been rejected by a significant majority of his people. that is not a genie you can back in a bottle. we do not think there is any way for the regime to prevail in a way that obtain security for them because the leader of syria has no legitimacy among his people. we still believe there is not a scenario we can foresee where inhar al-assad would remain power in a country that so rejects his rule. , thesems of the timeline are not the types of steps we

have taken to increase our vision, they are not steps the president takes lightly. there is aknow cohesive opposition. a year ago, the opposition was not nearly as advanced in terms of having a political entity that was broadly representative of this. people. there was not -- representative of the syrian people. what you had was far more disparate groups of people. a type of organized opposition was not in existence. we've been able to develop our own relations with the opposition and seek to do things to isolate the more extremist elements. we are doing this for a variety of reasons, including the fact there needs to be a consequence for a regime that uses chemical weapons and the opposition on

the ground needs additional the diregiven situation of being faced with a regime that used chemical weapons. >> what prevents [inaudible] from taking control? that is another reason to make sure we are supporting a more moderate opposition. focus onere is a big the military side of things. our assistance runs the gamut. we want to be strengthening individuals within syria and organizations within syria that are more moderate, such that we are isolating extremist elements. this is a point we made to other countries in the region, those countries providing support into serious should focus that support towards more moderate opposition and seek to isolate

extremism. it could present a security challenge. >> there has been something of an outcry in some of the countries represented at the g-8 about the intelligence programs that have been disclosed in the past week or so. what is the president going to tell the other leaders about the telephone record keeping that has been undertaken by the nsa? >> he will be able to discuss with the other leaders the importance of these programs, in terms of our counterterrorism efforts. the constraints and safeguards we place on these programs so they have oversight against potential abuses. in all of these countries, at the g-8, they are important counterterrorism partners. together, we work with them on an intelligence security relationship to foil terrorist attacks in the united states and

russia shares that as well. if you look at countries like germany, we all remember that was one area staging for 9/11 hijackers. we remove a tool that is essential to our shared security. we understand countries in europe have significant interest in privacy and civil liberties. we will want to hear their questions about these programs and other counterterrorism programs. [inaudible]

we understood when we attended in 2008 8, when we went , will we went2008 to the brigade, this was a site that had been reserved for heads of state in the past. we could not have received a warmer welcome in berlin and were able to speak in the vicinity of the area. , any time aingful u.s. president is able to stand at the brandenburg gate or at the heart of berlin, it is an ,pportunity for him to speak it is the role of the west and the free world. we had challenges in the cold wars that we shouldered together. his message is going to be that just because the threat is not immediately attached with the

wall and barbed wire, or it does not mean that we do not have work to do together. chancellor merkel extended this invitation why she was here for the state visit. he was honored to receive that invitation and preparations for the trip, the city of berlin could not have been more hospitable in arranging what will be a very powerful event in the heart of berlin. you have the new american embassy that has been built that symbolize the opening -- the openness of the new germany as well. >> internet users had to learn they were among the bigger targets of the nsa. does thatof impact have [inaudible] >> we understand the significant interest in privacy and civil liberties.

the point we will make that in addition to the types of safeguards, this is not a program that is intended to target individuals for what they are doing online other than to uncover terrorist plots. this ist is that focused specifically on one goal, how to we disrupt terrorism, how do we mitigate security threats? it is a discussion that he will have with the chancellor. is it thatrtant [inaudible] >> i think we have made clear that we have already much in support of a broad and comprehensive negotiation. we understand both sides have sensitivity.

very closelyng what happens in europe. we know there is a lot of strong support, including in germany, for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement. that is what we will be looking to see. that would be the most likely type of mandate that would lead to an ambitious greenland. -- >> is itttle bit still possible, the balance of power on the ground in preparation for the geneva peace conference. >> as a general matter, the best way to resolve the information is through a political settlement and geneva is the one framework at exist .or a political settlement

i think that makes the most sense. we fully understand that there are huge obstacles to that. the activities of the regime and given the difficulty in them , ourng a serious signal assistance is meant to accomplish the number of objectives. one is to send a signal to the regime that there is a consequence for what they have done. another is to strengthen the opposition. we have chosen to support them as a legitimate representative we will deal with in terms of the syrian people. we have aive,

preference that it be done politically, but we does that mean that you still consider bashar al-assad an interlocutor in this process, in a negotiated settlement between the opposition and his regime? >> well, we certainly see the assad regime would have to participate in any type of negotiation. i don't think we've seen any proposal that bashar al-assad himself would come to the table to as a part of that process. but what we want to see in a negotiated settlement, if it can be achieved, is not a situation in which you dissolve the institutions of the state in syria, but rather where you see bashar al-assad leave power and you see a governing authority come together that brings in the opposition, but maintains certain elements of the state -- certain institutions of the state, certain individuals who

have been associated with the government in a government that can restore the unity of the country, respect the rights of the people, and start to begin to provide services. so bashar al-assad himself we think needs to leave the stage here. but clearly, his regime is going to have to be a part of any political dialogue that we have in pursuit of that objective. >> can you resolve for us the situation of the student loans? yesterday on the senate floor there was an attempt by republicans to offer what they described as the president's specific proposal in the budget on extending the student loan issue that was objected to. republicans are raising their -- what in their mind is a legitimate question as why wouldn't the president's own plan be embraced by senate democrats? where are we on this?

and what accounts for this apparent strategic confusion among democrats on the president's plan? >> well, i know that there is a range of discussions that are ongoing between the administration and people on both sides of the aisle, particularly in the senate, to try to broker an agreement here that will prevent student loan rates from doubling at the end of this month. so there are a number of conversations that are ongoing. i don't know that i'm the best person to try to figure out the legislative machinations in terms of the steps that are being negotiated in the senate. but we've laid out what we think is a pretty clear set of principles for how we can solve this problem and do it in a way that, frankly, should have appeal to both sides -- to people on both sides of the aisle. >> are you now at the point where not having the president's own plan put on the floor is better? >> no, i don't think so. i think we'd be happy to see our plan passed. the question is if there are people who actually have to vote on that plan who have their own ideas. and we are willing to have

conversations with them to try to broker an agreement that would reflect the interests of republicans, democrats and the administration. so we have our own plan. we like our plan. but if there are other people that have their own ideas -- we've laid out some principles that we would like to see. for instance, we want to make sure that students have an opportunity when they're repaying their loans to be able to work through an agreement that would limit their payments to 10 percent of their disposable income, for example that there are provisions that would limit the increase of the interest rate over time. for example, we've talked about locking in the historically low rates. so there are some principles that we've put forward, but we're open to negotiations. but quite clearly, you understand there's a time element here and the senate has to pass something to get this to conference. mr. >> there's an urgent time element. we're talking about a couple of weeks here. so what's your instruction specifically to the senate democratic leadership that's theoretically working with you on this? pass the president's plan, or

get about something that's an alternative? >> we would like to see something move through the senate that abides by some of the principles that we've laid out. our plan does that, obviously. but there may be some other suggestions and we're open to some other ideas. ben, the president drew the red line. he reinforced it many times. yet, he himself did not address this issue that the red line had been crossed yesterday. and he is not here today. no disrespect to the three of you, but this is the president's red line. what would you say to those who might think that this is not such a big deal because the president is not giving voice to this theoretically significant event? and even your own inability to describe with any specificity the arms that would be going to the rebels, this sounds like an incremental policy change that the president, by not talking about it himself, is sort of keeping his arm's length from. >> well, major, i think what i'd say to that is the situation in syria is an ongoing challenge and the president has repeated opportunities to speak to it. i'm certain he is going to have opportunities to speak to it, for instance, over the course of the several days that he'll be traveling to europe. he himself is the one who laid out the red line publicly. but people have to understand

that this is a very fluid and dynamic situation and the situation on the ground will have its own twists and turns. our own policy has been one of incrementally increased support for the opposition, efforts to pressure the assad regime. but this is not something that's going to be resolved with the turn of a switch. and so we've made clear what our policy objectives are. we believe that articulating those objectives can give people an understanding of what we're trying to achieve in terms of strengthening the smc in syria, strengthening the opposition. in situations like this, spelling out the underlying details or the itemization of material that may be going to the opposition is not something we do as a general matter. but you can fully expect that the president will be heard on these issues repeatedly in the coming days. and the announcement we made yesterday very much reflected his guidance, because he was the one who directed the

intelligence community to pull together this assessment and directed us to make it public. >> just one more. it's clear from those who are fighting that it's taken a long time for some of the aid that's already been announced to get there. you acknowledged in the conference call yesterday even though you have these open pipelines, there are and have been bottlenecks. isn't it worth assuming that it will be at least a couple of months before any of this other aid arrives, because the bottlenecks are real, because the transit points are weak? and might that not be far too late? >> i would not make that assumption, because frankly it's true that there have been times in which we couldn't move assistance quite as fast as we would have liked. but we've had opportunities over the course of the last several months to get better at establishing pipelines into the country. so we believe that our own efforts have improved in terms of streamlining the means by which we can work with some neighboring states to supply assistance into syria. so i think we have essentially an established pipeline and established lines of

communication and assistance that allow us to take additional types of assistance and put that into that pipeline. so we're comfortable and confident that, given the work that we've already done, that we can flow our assistance in a relatively timely manner. quick question for caroline. on the ttip trade, given that the matter that our german colleague referenced, the cultural parameters for the negotiations, these supposedly are going to be settled ahead of the g8 meeting by the european union. what, if any, material impact do you anticipate these g8 discussions will have on the framework for the ttip agreement? do we anticipate anything coming out of this summit that would have a real impact on the scope or ambition of those trade

talks, given that this other matter is supposed to be settled in advance? >> yes, on the timing of that, as i said, i believe the eu is discussing this matter urgently amongst trade ministers. we'll see if they're able to reach an agreement ahead of the summit. we understand that, of course, there is sensitivities on both sides. at the summit itself, trade and the value of open trade and high standards for new -- for trade agreements will be a part of the agenda. but the specific trade agreements such as tpp, we're negotiating, obviously, with a number of allies, including japan and canada, who will both be at the table there. the eu and canada are discussing. we're in discussions separately on trade matters with the responsible eu counterparts. that is not something that leaders themselves -- the specifics of negotiation aren't something that leaders

themselves, in the normal course of the sessions, would address. and we don't currently have any other meetings to deal with as scheduled. a couple questions on syria. first of all, since we've determined -- the united states has determined that there are these chemical weapons and they've been used, does the united states know where they are? and what steps would they take to destroy them? >> it's a good question, jim. we have been monitoring very closely the syrian chemical weapons stockpile. we've been doing that; so have a number of our allies. so while we can't say with certainty that we are aware of where every chemical weapons munitions is in the country, this is something we devote a lot of attention and resources to and we feel like we have a sense of both the fact of the regime controlling these

chemical weapons stockpiles and some sense of where they are generally. in terms of securing them, this is something that would be a priority for the united states, particularly in a post-assad scenario. clearly, in the current environment, they remain under regime control. and there's a very active conflict in syria. but when we look at the types of issues that we're going to be focused on and that we want the international community to be focused on in syria, if we can reach a resolution, if we can get to a post-assad syria, i think you would see a very intense focus from the u.s. on making sure that steps are being taken to secure these chemical weapons stockpiles. and again, this is something that the international community can do. one example of that, for instance, is, in libya there were chemical weapon stockpiles not nearly of the scale in syria but in the immediate aftermath of the libyan revolution, we were able to work with the relevant international bodies to ensure that experts got on the ground to secure those chemical weapons and to begin the work of

destroying them. so this is something that we'll be focused on in terms of monitoring, but also in terms of planning for post-assad scenarios. >> but during this scenario, now, is it just too dangerous? is it because of the nature of the weapons themselves that you could not destroy them before assad is gone? >> well, i'll take the hypothetical in this regard, which is that it is -- these are dangerous weapons, and the notion that you can destroy them if you aren't physically present is an extremely challenging one, just given the nature of the weapon. so the preference would clearly be to have this be a priority focus for when the international community -- and, again, it need not be the united states; a lot of the expertise lies in the international community. we'll have the opportunity to make this a priority in a post- assad syria.

>> if i can just ask one follow up, one other question, and that's about -- not from the white house, but all over everyplace else there is lots of talk about a no-fly zone. what is more -- is it more difficult to establish and more dangerous to establish a no-fly zone in syria than it was in libya? and is that why it hasn't been done at this point? >> yes, it's dramatically more difficult and dangerous and costly in syria for a variety of reasons. one is that in libya, you already had a situation where the opposition controlled huge portions of the country and you could essentially protect those portions of the country from the air. you do not have the same types of air defense system that exist within syria. so in that regard, it's more difficult. but we also look at the efficacy of a no-fly zone, and frankly, in syria, when you have a situation where regime forces are intermingled with opposition forces, they're fighting in some instances block by block in cities -- that's not a problem you can solve from the air. so i think people need to understand that the no-fly zone is not some type of silver bullet that is going to stop a very intense and, in some respects, sectarian conflict

that is taking place on the ground. and so that's why we feel like the best course of action is to try to strengthen a moderate opposition that can be able to represent the broader syrian public. we haven't ruled out options, but i think people need to understand both the difficulty of some of the options that have been presented, the fact that they don't solve the problem necessarily, and that we have to make these decisions based on u.s. national interest. and we don't at this point believe that the u.s. has a national interest in pursuing a very intense, open- ended military engagement through a no-fly zone in syria at this juncture. but again, we aren't ruling out contingencies, but we're weighing them in a very deliberate fashion.

>> if this assistance to the opposition is not effective and the situation continues to escalate, could the president be forced to consider putting boots on the ground, or is that completely off the table? >> the one option that we basically have taken off the table is boots on the ground, for a variety of reasons. one, nobody has asked us to do so. the syrian opposition has not thought that that's a good idea. we certainly don't think it's in our national interest to troops.e u.s. we need to be humble here about our ability to solve a problem like syria certainly on our own. i think recent history teaches us that even when you have u.s. boots on the ground, you're not necessarily going to be able to prevent violence amongst civilian populations. we saw that in iraq, for instance. and at the same time, when u.s. boots are on the ground, that involves us in a much more dramatic way. it has a way of making us the issue, instead of the future of the country where we are.

so that is one contingency that we're not entertaining at this point. >> and a hypothetical here, which -- i know you don't like to answer hypotheticals -- but if russia had been willing to apply the kind of pressure that you wanted a month ago or six months ago or two years ago, would there be a different picture now? would there have been a need for the united states to provide this kind of assistance to the rebels? >> well, they do give you a briefing when you become a national security staff person against entertaining hypotheticals, but i will entertain an aspect of it, which is that the time when we think russian support, for instance, could have made a difference was when we were putting forward resolutions in the security council that would have imposed greater consequences on the assad regime -- and that was over a year ago. and time and again, we saw international action blocked at

the security council by a russian veto. that, for instance, at the time could have applied a great measure of pressure on bashar al-assad to consider whether or not to step down. i can't say that it would have accomplished that objective, but clearly, we believe that additional pressure from the international community -- including russia -- could affect bashar al-assad's calculus. that continues to be the case today. but at the same time, it's also iran and hezbollah. and you have to ask yourself why are iran and hezbollah so invested in what's happening in syria. to us, there's a bit of a sign of desperation involved. iran sees its only serious ally in the region significantly threatened. hezbollah, a force that has traditionally not gotten engaged beyond the borders of lebanon, has devoted a tremendous amount of resources. frankly, we see that as a sign of vulnerability from hezbollah and iran, and frankly, it's turning the people of the region dramatically against hezbollah. if you look at the standing of

hezbollah in the region in 2006 as against where they are today, they are bleeding public support, political capital, and resources in syria. and i think that's a sign of vulnerability. >> and i've got one for josh as well. on arming the rebels -- as you know, senator mccain has said over and over that he wants to see heavy arms and he wants artillery, he wants anti- aircraft. i don't know if that's the right solution, but he keeps pushing that. is that why you're not spelling out the details of what arms you're sending, or what aid you're sending, because it doesn't meet that threshold that the critics have set? >> no, that's not the -- that wouldn't be why we wouldn't get into specifics. i think as a general matter, we're not going to get into specifics about certain types of assistance that we provide. the only thing i will say is that whatever we do, we also need to be careful in learning

lessons of history, that you need to have some sense of where any assistance you're providing is going, whose hands they're falling into, and what potential dangers may be associated with heavier weapons systems. so those types of -- i think any time when you're considering these types of issues, you have to be cautious and deliberate in your actions. >> but i don't understand the lack of transparency and just flatly telling the american people, here's what we're sending. if you were to institute a no- fly zone -- i understand there needs to be secrecy in war and peace on some military movements, et cetera, of course. but if you instituted a no-fly zone, there would be some accounting of we're sending this many planes, here's how we're doing it. why is there secrecy around what you're sending? >> well, i think if you were to introduce u.s. military forces through a no-fly zone and activities of that nature, activities like we saw in libya, clearly those would be things that we would discuss in some detail. i think when you get into questions of the provision of

assistance to opposition groups, we just are more limited in our ability to say, well, here's the inventory of everything that we're doing. i understand your question and i'm sympathetic to it, ed. i think what we can do is sketch out for you, here's the president's thinking; here's our policy; and here are the objectives we're trying to meet with our assistance to strengthen the effectiveness of the smc, to strengthen their cohesion, to meet some of the requests that have been made of us from general idris. those are the types of factors that are guiding the assistance we're providing. and there's one that you both may want to weigh in. there's been a lot of reporting about the president's trip to africa -- the trip after the g8. the context should be that president clinton spent a lot of money on a trip to africa; president bush took, i believe, two trips to africa, spent a lot

of money as well. but in these budget times, after the sequester, after white house tours being canceled, a lot of attention on the fact that the president may spend up to $100 million in taxpayer money on a trip to africa. can you justify that expense? >> well, i'd say a couple things, and josh may want to say something, too. we, frankly, should have -- well, let me step back. we have not traveled to africa in the same way that we've traveled to other regions of the world. we have traveled significantly in asia. we've taken several trips to latin america. we've taken several trips to europe. we've taken several trips -- or will take multiple trips to russia by the time this year is done. and africa is a critically important region of the world. we have huge interests there. you've got some of the fastest- growing economies in africa. you've got a massively growing youth population. you've got key security and counterterrorism issues that we work on with african countries. we have democratic institutions that are consolidating in places like senegal, south africa and tanzania. we have some of our biggest development efforts on issues like global health, combatting hiv/aids, things that have broad bipartisan support that have been focused on africa.

so for the united states to say we're a world leader except in this continent doesn't make any sense. and just as we put a premium on developing our ties in emerging regions like southeast asia and latin america, we need to be present in africa. and i can tell you that there are other countries that are quite present in africa. you've seen significant investments in africa from china, brazil, turkey, and the u.s. would be ceding its leadership position in the world if the president of the united states was not deeply engaged in africa. and that's what he's going to do. and this is a deeply substantive trip and one that has been highly anticipated on the continent. and frankly, there's been great disappointment that the president hasn't traveled to africa until this point, other than a brief stop in ghana. and so senegal, you have a country that is an emerging democracy; that is a partner with us in situations like mali; that we want to invest in issues like food security and the development of civil society. in south africa, a leading country on the continent, partners with us on just about every issue from sudan to congo to zimbabwe, to the provision of our global health assistance,

and also the iconic democracy of the continent, as we've all been reminded in recent days with nelson mandela. tanzania, similarly, has been a key partner in east africa. every major development issue we have -- on food security, global health, democracy promotion -- tanzania has been a solid partner. and so the president is not going to retreat from an entire continent. in terms of the cost, we don't determine the cost of the president's security, just as president bush didn't and president clinton didn't. the secret service is going to do what they think is necessary to protect the president. that's going to come with its own costs. but we don't sit here and say we want to spend x amount of money on a trip. but we do know that from a foreign policy perspective, in some respects people believe this trip is overdue and, frankly, it will be a great bang for our buck for being in africa, because when you travel to regions like africa that don't get a lot of presidential attention, you tend to have very longstanding and long-running impact from the visit.

>> one last thing. there's a movement on capitol hill among some lawmakers who exempt lawmakers and congressional staff from having to comply with the president's health care law and enter in the insurance exchanges. does the president disagree with that? do you want to stop that, since they're essentially trying to say we don't have to go into this but the rest of the country does? the president, as i recall, has already pledged that he would join an insurance exchange. so my question is do you have any plans to stop this movement on the hill? and do white house staff, the cabinet, do you all plan to join these insurance exchanges? >> well, i know that a lot of

discussion has taken place over the last 18 months or so about how to implement the affordable care act, and to do so in a way that ensures that the large number of americans that can take advantage for the first time of quality, affordable health insurance and quality, affordable health care have access to it. that is a critical domestic priority that the president has laid out, and that's something that we are devoting significant time and resources to get that done. so why would the lawmakers try not to join it, then? >> well, i think this is actually -- part of the law as it was originally passed would actually require lawmakers to participate in the exchanges. but they're trying to get around it i guess now. there's a movement to -- mr. >> i know that there's been some talk about how to sort of best again, best implement the law as it was passed. it is my understanding -- and i know this is something that we're working through as we work through this implementation -- is that we're going to make sure that there's nothing that lawmakers can take advantage of that the general public can't.

and that is for, i think, rather obvious reasons and an important principle. but our most important focus here is making sure that the millions of americans across the country that don't currently have access to health care are going to get it for the first time, and that we're also going to create opportunities for small businesses and families out there who right now are paying an exorbitant cost for their health care to offer them tax credits that are going to lower those costs. we've already seen how -- and seniors have gotten some assistance to afford their prescription drugs -- that millions of americans across the country have gotten the opportunity to get cancer screenings and other preventative health care measures for free. so there are a number of benefits of the affordable care act that we're working to implement, and that will continue to be a priority through the end of this year, particularly as the marketplaces get up and running at the beginning of next. andrei, i'll give you that last one. thank you. one for ben and one for caroline. ben, i just want you to respond directly to a couple of a criticisms that one hears all the time in russia about syria. one is selective use of evidence. there have been instances -- most recently i think in turkey where chemical weapons were intercepted that were meant for the rebels.

so how do you respond to that? the other criticism is about geneva ii, where it seems that the u.s. originally made the commitment to a genuine effort to make peace without a predetermined result. now people are saying the americans seem to have decided everything in advance and are pushing through their agenda. so what is your response to that? >> well, on the first question, andrei, as we said yesterday, we have not seen any evidence that the opposition possess chemical weapons. in fact, what we see is the opposite; that the regime has maintained custody of these weapons. we detailed to the russians several incidents. we had dates associated and places associated with those incidents. as i said, we have multiple streams of information from intelligence, but also open- source reporting, physiological evidence of the use of sarin, reporting from individuals that

was corroborated. to us, that adds up to a very convincing information picture that chemical weapons have been used and they've been used by the government. i've seen those statements by the russian government about this. but again, we believe with a high degree of confidence that, clearly, chemical weapons were used. we've got physical samples that demonstrate that point. and we don't see that the opposition has possession of these weapons. but we'll continue our dialogue with the russian government on this. with respect to geneva ii, we share the goal with russia of seeing if there can be a political settlement to the challenge within syria. we have a difference with the russian government about the fact that we believe that there is no solution in which bashar al-assad can stay in power. that's been a longstanding disagreement that we've had. but we still believe, given the fact that everybody has a preference in a peaceful resolution to the conflict, in making an effort, together with russia and other countries, to bring the parties to the table, but it has to be serious. and frankly, where we've seen some lack of seriousness is on

the regime side where they offer the kind of traditional pledges of dialogue without kind of a concrete plan here to transition to a different type of governing authority that can bring in the broad representation of the syrian people. but we'll continue to pursue that objective. and like i said, we have a relationship with russia and with president putin where we can have disagreements -- strong disagreements -- on a set of issues but still work together on an agenda where we do share some common interest. and we've been able to do that with president putin on counterterrorism, on economic issues, on afghanistan. >> i'm going to leave the last one for caroline. >> for caroline -- simply, you mentioned fatca. fatca is an american law, and if you want your international partners to comply with it, what are you offering in terms of reciprocity? you're right that fatca is an american law.

and what we're seeing is general support, and what we're hoping we will see is g8 support for the development by the oecd of a standard that would be based on fatca. so there would be a single global standard for the kind of information exchange that is involved in fatca. and we believe that's a very powerful tool. we've already seen it having a powerful effect on tax havens and illicit activity using such tax havens. so that's what we're -- >> do you know, are the russians joining the regime? to the best of your knowledge, what is the russian position? what is the russian position? ms. aktinson: well, we'll have to wait and see what comes out from

the g8 communiqu?. mr. >> okay. the last thing is just for the week ahead. you got a pretty detailed readout at the beginning of this briefing. the president will -- let me finish here. the president is going to leave on sunday night for his trip to europe. he'll be there monday, tuesday and wednesday; return to washington late on wednesday night. on thursday and friday, we don't anticipate at this point that we're going to have any public events, but the president will be here at the white house for meetings at that point. so thanks, everybody. have a good weekend. >> next, finance committee chair senator max baucus and ways and means committee chair congressman dave camp discussed tax policy and irs oversight. they spoke at the christian science monitor breakfast in washington for about an hour. >> everybody, please be seated.