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.

ok, thanks for coming, everyone. i'm dave cook from christian science monitor. our guests this morning and nonpartisan alphabetical order are senate finance committee chairman max baucus and house ways and means committee chairman dave camp. representative camp was our guest two months ago. senator baucus'last appearance with the group was 14 years ago. i was not in the moderators chair then, so it cannot he something i said. senator baucus group up on a 125 thousand-acre ranch and heard his law degree at stanford. the securitiesor and exchange commission, he returned to montana and at age 32, won a seat in the u.s. house.

four years later, he was elected to the senate and longer than anyone else in history. he was born in midland, part of the district he now represents. got elected to the michigan house in 1988, won a seat in congress in 1980 and has been on the ways and means committee since 1993. he became chairman of the panel in 2011. now onto monday and mechanical matters -- first of all, my apologies for the sauna we are running this morning. as always, we are on the record. please, no live logging and tweeting -- in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway -- under way.

there's no embargo when the breakfast is over except that c- span has agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you would like to ask a question, send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have. our guest decided to skip opening remarks, so we will go right to questions. i'll allow the ceremonial saw all or two, and then we'll move around the table -- softball or two. it seems to be bipartisan week here at the monitor breakfast. earlier this week, we had senators talking about immigration. now, we have the chairman of the two most important financial committees in congress here on a bipartisan basis. do you want to give us a brief explication of how this all happened? >> well, i'll start. i believe that relationships are

.o important and a lot in passing depends on you canonfidence, when spend time working with each other. i set up weekly meetings with chuck grassley. i've been doing that for the last 10 years. met him every week. i think we did this together, dave and i -- i felt it a good idea that we meet every week to go over what our committees are doing. the meetings last about an hour. more than that, we are friends. we like each other. you know, it's chemistry. often, two senators from the same state -- doesn't make a

difference whether they are the same party or different political parties -- don't get along with each other. often they do. it just kind of happens that way. personalities and chemistry and so forth. it's a great relationship we have. we are great friends. neither of us want to be president. .e are practical, pragmatic we just work and out really well. >> max is right. we wanted to get this done, and i think he's the one that suggested it. you really find -- often, people visit me. this is still a face-to-face, people to people business in washington. with all the technology, and all the tools that we have, we still

.ave to get to know one another actually, i look forward to the meetings. if you have an ongoing dialogue every week, you actually can deal with the issues as they come up. we are trying to find solutions. tax reform is the big issue we are working on, but there are others. there have been some really significant, bipartisan victories on trade that we have been able to work through, and we hope to have more. >> let me ask you -- chairman cap, you said earlier this week "but we have many chapters to go quarter made on passing -- many chapters to go" on passing tax reform. can you sketch out what the next chapter is on tax reform? >> obviously, we are continuing to -- i mean, there's a formal side of it in terms of continued hearings in the committee. we just had a hearing on tax havens yesterday.

i thought what was interesting in that hearing -- obviously, there were three witnesses. them said the same thing on many issues affecting that policy, so we are going to continue that. there have been well over 20 in the house, continuing the work of a bipartisan working group. for example, in the house -- >> is there anything imposing on you as 2014 approaches >> -- as 2014 approaches? >> it looks like we have a little more time. in the house, we had a bipartisan working group with representative diane black and representative danny davis, and they are now working together to to find a way to deal with the tax provisions that deal with saving for college education and trying to find a way to simplify that so that people actually use it. there's 90 pages of instructions for those 15 provisions.

those two, as a result of those working groups, are trying to come together on that initiative. i see us working together in that way. i also expect that we will continue to do some outreach. i don't know if you want to mention -- -- davenext chapter is is including his working groups. we have option papers. .e meet weekly thursdays yesterday, so we have reached a point where we have done a lot of talking and a lot of learning, and the rubber is going to meet the road. we have to start making some proposals here. the next steps are more concrete in nature proposals will be coming out fairly soon. dave and i are going to travel around the country, and we are going to go

to different cities and talk to ,eople, families, consumers business groups, just to try to help get a better idea of what people think about tax reform all around the country. we have the website, which is also helpful to reach people. people can reach us more directly. the next steps are basically the end of the working groups and options papers and start coming up with some ideas. as dave said, the pressure point will be increasing the debt limit. at that point, i think we will find other next steps. welast one for me, and then will take some questions. chairman baucus, on the subject of the tax-exempt groups that

figure into the alleged targeting by the irs, you said there are countless political organizations at both ends of the spectrum masquerading as social welfare groups in order to skirt the tax code. you continue that once the smoke of the current controversy clears, we need to examine the root of the issue and reform the nation cost a tax laws pertaining to those groups tax laws.ion's vague do you see that as part of the package you are working on with chairman cap or being a standalone piece of legislation? >> i see it as part of a package. the irs regulations are, frankly, helping to spur and help people realize the need -- reform. up-to-ought the code date, and a lot has happened since 1986. that means the code has to be

has to be brought up to date again. exemptions are basically statutes that were passed a long .ime ago the major leg was about 50 years ago, and then, a lot has happened. citizens united has unleashed a torrent of dollars seeking a home. the most favorable home is donors do not have to be -- have to disclose about income. tax havens in my opinion should forbe by a large spending political purposes. there are other developing events which show how the code is so dated. once that is better realize, i think that will be more impetus

to help us get reform. >> do you think chairman cap will be part of the package -- thatman camp >> i expect the end of this, we will have legislative proposals. we are still early on in the legislation, and i will say that we are working on this in a bipartisan way both in the house and the senate together, so we have had bicameral and bipartisan meetings on the issue, and we're just going to try to uncover the facts and go where they lead. once we get that concluded, i think there will be legislation that will come with that, and this is one of the issues that has been raised. we still do not know a lot of things about this -- for andple, who directed this the extent of it. >> i might add, too, i think a basic approach that works is that everything is on the table. after a while, we can decide what we take off the table, but

at the very beginning, we have to start out with anything in the general area of tax reform should be on the table and we can see what we will do. the different pieces are somewhat unrelated. but if we start taking items off, other groups use that as justification for taking bears off, and i do not want to make that decision yet -- justification for taking bears off -- justification for taking theirs. >> we've had a lot of time to think since the 1986 tax reform. i wonder what lessons you draw from that. what is different now and what is the same? what lessons do you draw from that? >> basically, what is different -- what's the same is as then, today, the barnacles have built back up again.

there were 15,000 changes to the code since 1986. 15,000. you have correlations, modifications, so forth. different groups want different things, congress goes along with them, and it has all built up. that is the same. the public back then was quite upset with sheltering of income, and today, i think the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering, and another part is lost income from overseas operations. especially low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens. that is a populist concern -- not just populist, but a legitimate, american concern. what is different? back then, president reagan was

the primary force pushing tax reform on a very reluctant congress. today, it is the congress. point, it ishis the congress and tax committee starting the ball rolling on tax reform, but the administration is not opposed. it is a willing participant, and i think you will find the president more directly engaged. tax reform is going to help the american economy, help get jobs. in this comparative world of ours, we have to do everything we possibly can legitimately and reasonably to help american people, help american small business, help american

multinational corporations, american companies compete better and have less red tape so they can focus more on jobs. it's a combination of substance and psychology, which i think will help spur the economy. >> i would just say that the tax code was broken and needed to be fixed, and the tax code is broken now. all three of our witnesses said the tax code was broken. is other thing i would add the world has changed. the ability to invest around the world with the click of a mouse is so much easier, so we have to look at what other countries have done. they have modernized their tax system, and we have not. the other thing, i think, that i think is somewhat similar is you .ave to be very persistent that reform would not have happened without continual persistence and effort.

is not as strong as it needs to be. we need to get the kind of growth in job creation and wage increases that we have not been seeing, and i think that is making a case. code has been layered upon layer of change, and it is time to look at it again, and that's what we are trying to do. >> let me do a little bit of timekeeping here and tell you where we are going next. we are going to kim dixon next. a gentleman here whose name i'm blanking on -- having a senior moment, i'm sorry. that should take care of us. [inaudible] can you be a little more specific?

to work with my committee. these sessions, these options are bipartisan, members-only, and they are terrific. we are working together. one advantage to know major reform since 1986 is a lot of senators need to learn a lot more about the code, what is in it, and that is an advantage. the senators mutually asked lots of questions of staff at these meetings. it brings us together. we are talking together and a -- and a non-adversarial manner -- in a non-adversarial manner.

i have some ideas, and i'm going to speak with mike committee soon -- with my committee soon and present the ideas to them. some eyes from a bipartisan committee before i proceed. >> i thought when he said the robber was going to hit the road, we are taking a road trip, going around the country -- when he said the rubber is going to hit the road. trying to get a read around the country. we have adopted a website, and together, we have about 10,000 submissions on the website. we have about 1000 followers on twitter. that is what we are trying to do. the other thing that we are also going to do is we are going to begin a series of bipartisan lunches, together with house and senate members to begin these discussions occurring in both of our committees. i'm meeting with every member

of my committee individually. as i said, we have these working groups, but we will also continue to do some other moveach and continue to this very important issue forward. that all sounds a little vague. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] is thees in the morning question. >> stay tuned. it's coming. >> [inaudible] later finishing date for that. [inaudible]

do you envision what realistically it would have to be attached to, and do you -- how do you see the relationship between that and [inaudible] >> initially, it looks like we were going to hit the debt limit in august. i think that would have meant congressional action sometime in july. given that revenues to the government are higher than anticipated and other factors, it looks as if we will not hit the debt limit until october -- maybe even mid-october. this is information the treasury has. we just are kind of estimating based on other things. as a result, in the house, we started talking about how we address that issue. i think given the fact that it is later, it is clearly now a post-august recess issue, but one of the items that has been suggested in our meeting has been -- is there a process, or

is there someway to move forward on tax reform in connection connection with the debt limit? some have suggested entitlement reform in relation to the debt limit. most of the time, the debt limit is passed, whether it is a republican or democrat administration, with some policy matters attached to it. i think that is what people are exploring. i do not think you will see decisions made about that until after the august recess now because of the much later timing on that. >> dave has seen every member of the committee. maybe i'm a masochist, but i have seen every senator privately both sides of the aisle, asking them what they want. in those sessions -- and we will learn a lot more in our joint sessions as well -- you will learn a lot. the littlearn

scenes that might develop and how to begin to find potential solutions essentially to the question you asked. the big question, which has not arebeen asked, is -- what you going to do with all the revenue generated from the base body? as we address base erosion. many say that is all for rate reduction, and many say that is ok, but we will need some revenue. it gets to the point where we are starting to have to increase the debt limit. first of all, i want to make this clear -- the president wants a clean debt limit increase. i personally think that is good policy. we should have a clean debt limit increase. but i'm also enough of a realist to know that this is a big country. we have 535 members of ingres's. this is a democracy.

different members of the house have different ideas on the subject. -- we have 535 members of congress. "this senator on the other side of the aisle can see a path toward more revenue." i have found that two or three times here. how much is rate reduction? how static is revenue? there is going to have to be some agreement. to answer your question, it is a process answer, not a substance answer, really. you go around to get more clues and ideas and you know where they are on some of the basic tax reform questions. i think when we get close to d-

day, whenever it is -- september, october -- we will be in a pretty good position to know what works and was -- what does not work. >> will there be temporary tax leave for victims of hurricane sandy? if yes, when will it the? if not, why not? >> i don't know. i cannot answer that question, and i'm focused on it. >> is the discussion on the table >> -- on the table? >> not my table. >> is it on your table, chairman camp? >> obviously, i'm aware of the issue. i do not see any immediate plans to move that, but that does not mean it will not continue to be discussed, but there's no immediate plan to move anything on that on the ways and means committee. >> [inaudible] >> i am aware of it. >> [inaudible] new york and new jersey

residents. >> a lot of that was done administratively. what we want to make sure is -- is there really need for legislative action? are the problems going to be able be taken care of administratively, as they were i and other hurricane-type disasters? that is what we are really trying to draw out. after what we have been learning about the management failures at the irs with the tea party affair, beyond policy reform, is there need for a new mental restructuring of the internal revenue service? .> i think there may be -- is there a need for a fundamental restructuring of the internal revenue service? >> i think there may be. this may be at best a fundamental error and at worst intentional. before we conclude, we really need to know all the facts. we are just moving into the

interview of witnesses. we have interviewed a few. we will be interviewing many more. we are at the end of the week i hope getting documents from the irs that we have been seeking, so i hope we will get a clearer picture. clearly, the management was either intentionally not looking so out ofd say, touch, almost rising to the level of wrong doing. again, i want to make sure i know exactly what happened, and it take some time to do that. >> i will agree. i would agree. our teams jointly are interviewing irs employees. i got out of court yesterday with my staff, basically concluding that there are real problems. .ave touched on it the office is almost cut off , butd.c. -- not entirely

it seems to me, it's tough to get 90,000 employees -- it's tough to name the mall, but it is not managed well. there does need to be significant restructuring in the irs. whether that means congress has to do it, i don't not know -- i do not know. but we have to make sure people are held accountable and not just left to go in their own direction. >> we are going to get the truth, and we are going to hold people accountable when we get the truth. >> we do not have all the information yet. >> are you using the power to get information from the irs? have you found out anything yet? >> we are beginning to use that yes -- we are beginning to use that, yes. >> [inaudible]

most of the rest of the oecd countries cut their rates. they seem to be willing to trade more -- foreign investment and job creation for more income and taxation. if we cut, is there a chance that our competitors will take it one step lower again? >>, first i do think our nominal rate, our top rate, from a competitive perspective, is too high compared to other countries. there's no question that it should be lower. and the code does encourage many u.s. companies to invest overseas and build plants .verseas it can cause jobs to move overseas. i believe there should be very

significant race broadening -- .ase broadening there is a whole long list, as you know. one of the most expensive is accelerated depreciation. there are a bunch of them. i believe any president has stated several times -- and the president has stated several times that corporate tax reform should be revenue neutral. it is not a race to the bottom because what you might lose with lower rates, you pick up with base prime, but that is by eliminating the tax expenditure. but i do think we need a system that is not a race to the bottom, but is -- but which helps american competitiveness, but also one which addresses

based he rose and overseas, and we are not only country concerned with this -- days erosion -- base erosion overseas. are also goinges to havens, so those countries themselves are losing corporate revenues because their coats -- codes are not sufficiently dated. a month or two ago, the cover story of "the economist" was on this question. a long article on how this happened worldwide. it will be on the list of the g- -8 in and ireland -- g ireland. i do believe the issue must be to stop companies from taking advantage of

current tax laws. the only way to do that is by adjusting the laws and capturing current income that is not captured because so many assets art to general -- are digital. that has got to be discussed. >> i agree -- we do need to bring down our rates. i do not think you can sustain being the highest corporate rate in the world. also what we need to address through corporate reform is the transference of intangibles or intellectual property. much of the testimony we have gotten is if we can bring our rate down, the incentive for doing some of that goes a way, but we will need base erosion provisions as well. the other point is there's about $1.7 trillion overseas that we want to try to get invested back. under our current laws, we cannot do that unless it is double taxed, so they do not do that.

we are out of step. we are out of step with the world. it is very easy to find viable investments around the world, and that is occurring. if we want to rebuild our economy and create more jobs and get people back to work and increase their wages, we have to address this issue. again, the president did put it in his budget -- revenue- neutral corporate reform. we look forward to working with him on that. >> at your first irs hearing, you said that the irs scandal was just the latest in a scandal of a culture of coverups and political intimidation in this administration. hiddend the truth was from the american people just long enough to make it through the next election. do you still believe that? do you tie what happened with the irs to some broader culture of intimidation from the white house?

[inaudible] that you are willing right now to say, "i want a limit." >> first of all, let me say the irs is part of the administration. we had been trying for two years to address this issue, so i was very angry in those comments about the lack of candor from high-ranking officials at the irs when several letters had ate from me and determined the oversight subcommittee. we had a hearing a couple of days on this issue before the subcommittee. we were trying to get assistance, and let me just say -- the evidence we have so far is that donors were targeted as "gift taxes" because of their conservative political beliefs.

conservative groups have had confidential irs tax information leaked as the targeting of hundreds of groups -- i do not know if you had a chance to see the witness hearings we have had, but it's pretty compelling what has happened to americans. so i'm pretty angry about this, and i will not stop until i find out what the truth is. we know that two years ago, high-ranking officials at the irs knew about this and did not disclose it to the congress, even though we had been writing letters, and the senate had as well. and we know the treasury knew a year ago and did not let us know. that is not going to happen again. [inaudible] >> yes, i do have those, but i'm not going to reveal them today. >> we are going to get the facts here. we are still in the middle of that right now. both of us are.

, talked to my office yesterday uncovering, and there is a lot yet to go. >> i was going to ask an irs question, following up on tax expenditures. can you say how you feel about mortgage interest reductions -- about the mortgage interest ?eduction > >> we are seven weeks into this roughly, and we still do not know more than we knew seven weeks ago, which is seen as rather unusual. how would you characterize what you are learning from the irs? [inaudible] have you gone any further on any

of that? >> i will answer that one first. as i said, this is actually a painstaking process. much of this, to prove it, you need the documents, and we are just beginning to get those, i hope that the end of this week. we have just begun the interviews, so this a lot more work to do. yes, it will take time. having been involved in investigations as a lawyer, this is actually more of a white-collar approach where you really need to get the documents and prove things, and that takes a long time. it's painstaking. again, i'm not going to try to jump to conclusions. we often talk in shorthand and say there's a lot of loopholes that we need to close, and i actually consider that not a loophole but policy. again, everything is going to be on the table. we are going to look at all of the items, and again, if there is consensus that an item is

--ng to be performed reformed or is going to stay as is, that will affect where the rate ends up being, and that is the kind of trade-off and discussion that i want to have and i am having with members of my committee and members of the opposite committee. i have been working with kevin mccarthy and meeting with members in general as well, but that's the discussion we will have. i think it is an important discussion to have, knowing that two/three of americans do 2/3 of americans do not itemize. we look at it all. i use the analogy of it is a blank sheet of paper, and we are going to see what goes in, not take the current code and see what comes out. >> i agree. >> [inaudible]

any sense of how that policy of trading -- [inaudible] >> we are in the middle of an investigation. we will see what happens. staff told me yesterday that it will be a few not terribly impressive people, frankly. more questions asked, more people talked to, and we will find out. the factss to get person to publicly state some conclusions. sometimes i do not get there, but that's my goal. do you agree with chairman debt limit is a

good forcing mechanism for tax reform? and do you intend to move a debt limit bill either before or after the august recess? >> yes, well, do not know the date on which we will move the bill. i would like to move the bill in committee. we in the committee have talked about it. brought jack lew up, and it was a very good session about increasing the debt limit and so forth. that is a question that we will have to determine what makes the most sense as we proceed. in consultation with lots of different people to see what makes the most sense, but i will move at an appropriate time. what is your other question? do you agree that the debt limit makes a good -- >> yes, i think it does.

you know your business is run by deadlines. sometimes you need a deadline, as we do in congress, to force ourselves to do something. i'm moving ahead on tax reform independent of everything else. that may get legs ahead of steam on its own -- i don't know -- but it may be part of something else, but i'm still moving ahead with tax reform. this congress is going to have to make some decisions. >> there has been some chatter recently about a carbon tax. can you say whether, how, if, and why that might it into your initial reform? is everything is on the table. we are going to look at that as

well as some other alternative measures, and, frankly, that is going to be what we will be discussing in the committee thursday.ay -- different sources of revenue. i want to take the temperature of the committee. it's interesting -- the more members of the senate now who openly talk about that, it's creeping up a little bit. not going to rise to the level where it is very strong, serious provision -- i don't know, but we are not going to prejudge it. but it's on the table. >> chairman camp? >> i try to make not many declarative statements on tax reform because we are trying to look at the whole thing in its entirety, but i do not support a carbon limit. lex maybe later.

>> maybe later. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> copperheads of tax reform was a three-year process, not amething. -- tax reform was three-year process -- comprehensive tax reform was a three-year process, not something that got done overnight. have you talked about other ways that your process could tie in with deficit reduction bargains? >> first of all, you are right -- it took a little while, but we have been on this for a while, too. we have had almost 30 hearings on this form, which is not something that has just been hatched in the last several

weeks or months. dave and i and others have talked very seriously about reform and what form it should be for a couple of years, actually. we have had a good number of hearings. taxnd, the assumption is reform has to be this session of this congress. it may be this session of this congress. it may not be. 1986 was an election year, so it's possible. in addition, i think it will be difficult to match corporate- only reform for several reasons. one is the majority of business income in america today is generated through pastors -- pass-throughs. if we have significant corporate reform, by definition, that will adversely affect the pass-throughs unless we address those as well to create individual income taxes.

small business really cares about pass-through reform escause most small business corps. see corpse -- c it is premature to know exactly how that will fit together, but what we do with base-broadening revenue is going to be -- it is a very significant question. i probed that question every time i meet with senators, and i some significant gift with republican senators. now. private right it's not public, and it may not ever become public. or it might be -- i don't know. but right now, the administration would like and many democrats would like to

repeal the sequester or dramatically modify it. and one significant deficit reduction -- everybody does. even though the need for deficit reduction is less urgent than it has been in the past. but when the rubber meets the , then revenue will very .uch be discussed there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. i have learned her life, there's almost always a solution. you have to keep looking for it. it may not be immediately obvious. working and you find a way, and i'm looking for that compromise between

republicans and democrats and how to deal with that. if we can get tax reform because it is so needed and find a compromise so that tax reform is not stalled and bottomed out because we have not else with the revenue question as well. >> i would just say that on sort of the main point of your question, i'm not trying to let that stop our discussions on the policy issues that would make up a tax reform bill. obviously, i'm meeting with every democrat on my committee. many of them say they would like to see more revenue. just say, "let's not just go to our corners. let's move forward on the policy and see what we get." on our side, we think the revenue that was delivered at the end of last year was a significant amount. we are seeing the deficit score reduced. revenue is expected to double over the next decade, but again, i do not think it is productive

to focus on where we disagree. there are so many good simplification policies we agree on. one of the things 80% of americans agree with is the code is to come located. i think the average person should be able to fill out their own taxes. small businesses -- 90% have to hire preparers because they are afraid they will get audited, especially now. i think we need to look at those issues, and clearly, at some point, we will have to address that, but i think it is better to look at that in the context of what are the policies you are getting as opposed to opening that. this is something that, as you mentioned, simpson-bowles has looked at. the first hearing i had as chairman two-and-a-half years ago was on tax reform. we both have been working on this for a lot of years.

there has been a lot of work done, and i would say we have had a lot of years where the economy has not come back as strongly as it should, so i do not think we have a lot of time to waste. i think we need to look at -- a quarter of the kids coming out of college cannot find a job. the fact that there are records -- the highest level of people since the carter administration of people who have just stopped looking for work. even if you have a job, you may not have had a wage increase in a while. that is what is really driving me on this, the jobs and economy issue, and also the complexity of the code, with all the changes max mentioned that have occurred. what really is being called into question as well is not only the integrity of the irs and that whole system, but -- does somebody get a better deal simply because they can figure out through some sharper lawyer or accountant how to lessen the tax burden but not the average guy and i don't know how to do

that and i'm paying at the top? i think there's a fairness issue we need to look at in the tax code as well. that is also driving this theuse -- and in terms of business side, we have mentioned that as well. >> there are 42 definitions of small business in the code. 42. i might make another point here -- if we do not form the code in this congress, we won't, in my judgment, until 2015, 2016, and so forth. beyond that, it will be 2017, 2018. if we do not in this congress, soon it will be presidential election season, and i think it will be very difficult to pass tax reform in that context. much we will have lost by then. >> we have about eight minutes left.

online sales tax legislation -- i wonder what your view is on that. and there was an interesting breakdown on the republican side of the senate where the older republicans, for the most , and younger -- supported it, and younger, for the most part, supported it -- opposed it. >> that particular issue is one that is not in the ways and means committee. this is where our jurisdiction does not quite line up. do not have jurisdiction of state tax issues. that would be judiciary. i try not to tell other chairman what to do. the legislation has changed, and i think we will have to see what we actually look at in the house. a million is a little too low in terms of the threshold for where you have to comply with different tax

provisions, but again, i will let the judiciary committee work that issue, and we will see what the committee reports out, and then i will take a position on it. >> any sign of the generational doit on the house side >> you see younger members looking at this different than older members in any way? >> i have not really analyzed it in that way. i just have not -- i guess i cannot really answer that. >> chairman baucus, would you like to anger your older members and comment? >> i don't see any generational split, frankly. , and wee fewer of us tend to -- i just not -- i just do not see that. >> earlier this week, senator coburn wrote an op-ed where he

talked about, among other things, tax reform. he said the best thing the president could do to help his administration would be to give the house ways and means committee an offer they cannot ignore. what can the president do to make this happen? is he doing what he needs to do to help move this at this point in time? i think he wisely is looking at tax reform the same ways he has approached immigration -- that is, carefully. in this climate, it might not be wise to be too upfront too soon to early. early.

it may cause a bit of a storm, but he is very involved. i have met with them on tax reform. i meet frequently with his chief of staff, who, by the way, i find is very good. he is going out of his way coming up to the hill talking to members in the house and senate and engaging congress on lots of different issues. caresesident clearly about a fiscal solution, clearly cares -- does care about tax reform. the new will only be generated in the context of tax reform. will only bee generated in the context of tax reform. there will have to be some revenue somewhere, and they know that at the white house and a trying to figure out someway to

deal with it it. they have different personalities, different tiles. president reagan had his own approach to the presidency, and president obama has his. but i think he has wisely been careful. the degree to which he is raising his profile on the forum. >> i will say that the president put in his budget revenue-neutral corporate reform, which is quite a change from where he was two years ago, and with just sort of a working paper, and i think that as a result of the discussion that has occurred. and when he came and spoke to the republican conference, he i may not bely, " where you are on the individual side, but i will work with you peaked -- i will work with you. i'm paraphrasing there.

if you look at the testimony, they have not slammed the door on this. at this particular stage, it may be appropriate to see what can the committees do. is this real or not? obviously, we are both committed to working very hard to make this reality because i do not think we can afford to wait. i think the time is now. we still would like to see a budget conference so- called regular order. they do not want to get ahead of themselves on reform. they are hoping maybe there will be a budget conference. i do not know if there will be. i admire those who are trying so hard to get a conference agreement, but they are still not there yet. >> we have about three minutes. last question. >> you mentioned e.g.-8 at the beginning -- you mentioned the 8 at the beginning.

they are discussing measures that will require companies to discuss revenue changes and the other is country-by-country tax reporting. if the u.s. makes a commitment next week on some of these issues, do you support them >> will they be able to pass the legislation along those lines, whether separately or within tax reform? those are two issues we have not really fully vetted in the ways and means committee. obviously, if the administration makes a statement on that, we will have to ramp up and take a serious look at that. some of that came up yesterday. they were mentioned sort of tangentially an hour tax haven hearing yesterday -- in our tax haven hearing yesterday. there is an oecd report coming out july 1, and i think it would

beheld for to get that before we move too far on that issue -- it would be helpful to get that before we move too far on that issue. as i say, we have not really dug as deep on those two issues as after there are commitments made on behalf of the united dates by the administration. >> that's where we are, too. >> on that, thank you so much for doing this, chairman baucus, chairman camp. http://twitter.com/cspanw tonight on c-span, speakers from today's faith and freedom

coalition conference. first, former governor jeb bush, and then house budget committee chair representative paul ryan, followed by south carolina representative mark sanford. >> i do think what we are doing civilotect americans' liberties and privacy. the issue is, to date, we have not been able to explain it because it is classified, so that issue is something that 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. wasknow that this something that was debated vigorously in congress. both the house and the senate, within the administration, and now for 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 just want to make that clear because the perspective is that we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we are not. >> his weekend on c-span, the senate appropriations committee looks at u.s. intelligence agencies are great collection -- secret data collection programs. also this weekend, on "book tv, those quote coverage from the publishing industry's annual trade show saturday at 1:30. on "american history tv," >> next former florida governor jeb bush speaks of a immigration reform in congress. his parents are former president george bush and barbara bush and also the

younger brother of george w. bush. he was the state's first conservative republican governor. >> thank you all. , councilman. thank you for inviting me. it is a joy to be with you all. i thought i would start with a quick bush family update. my dad is doing better. late last year he announced he to puthe told everyone the harps back in the closet. he decided he would get well out of the icu unit. he is getting stronger every day. has a and everyone who bush as their last name, we are incredibly happy about that. the family says he has a new

caregiver. her name is barbara bush. [laughter] she is pretty tough. a lot of you were at the reception and asked about my brother. he's staying out of the limelight. ,arvin is doing really well since you asked. thank you for asking. [laughter] and his wifeeorge are doing very well. they have opened up their library. forvery proud of my brother all sorts of reasons. and very proud he has maintain a posture of not chirping on the sidelines even when it must've been pretty easy to do. [applause] the final part of the family 's hopeis that my life has come true. i'm a grandfather. [applause] i have a 22 month old function

-- munchkin. i secretly call her 41. and week they were in texas brought prescott walker bush into the world. you will be happy to know i will not spend much time rehashing the results of last november. let me say that we got beat because our brand is perceived to be tarnished and reactionary rather than hopeful and positive. increasing numbers of americans are defaulting to a false choice of economic security from government because we have not been offered a compelling alternative based on economic opportunity. you might be surprised not be spending much time pointing out the the failures of the obama administration. they are clear for all of those

who want to see them. rather than relive the election worker take the presidents policy, i i want to talk about in government.es it is interesting and important that we address these pressing problems. of conservatism should be dominant? we should focus on how to govern again. is throughour path a hopeful and optimistic message based on conservative but suppose, a recognition of traditions that have helped to make the united states the greatest country on the face of the earth. for the mission statement, how can we be in every young country again through high sustained, economic growth. all citizens have a chance to

benefit from that growth. today in washington, the press brings in the argument of austerity versus stimulus. , theying to the narrator say republicans are all about austerity. the other side is all about stimulus. i stored he is what we have got now -- austerity is all you have now. let's turn that around and get some austerity to washington so prosperity can take root again in the real america where people work, live, and dream their dreams. [applause] our path out of this mess that we currently face is to grow economically and reject the new

normal that sets a ceiling on our aspirations as a nation. you must have heard about the new normal. it is that we cannot grow like we used to. the new normal is that we have of apect we are on a path slow climb and there's nothing we can do about it. listen for it. it is all around us these days. i have a visceral reaction. i feel sick to my stomach. should we set higher expectations on our aspirations? yes. grow in real terms over the next decade to come. if he did that, the two percent jillions of create dollars of additional economic activity. simply by growing at two percent more than what we plan to do today by changing the new

normal to what it used to be. that was the norm two decades ago. we can do it again. we had to change dramatically the policies we have. happily go at 4%? 4%?ow can we grow at 4.7 trillion economic activity creates revenue. the whole idea of redistribution of wealth if you are generating that kind of revenue would create more benefits for government. we would be able to help -- cut taxes again. changes? entitlement reform. tax reform -- how do we change this? and had him and reform. tax reform -- entitlement reform. tax reform.

we need to create an economic -- we need to have an economically driven system where young, aspirational people that would create benefits for us on our terms and not in a broken system that does not work. we need to radically change our education system so just more in college or career ready by the time they graduate from college. finally to recognize a loving family life as a society -- as a principle of our society again. we have massive amounts of natural gas and oil resources. there's a source of innovation for all sorts of parts of energy and conservation and renewables.

we transferred out $300 billion of money that went to countries that hate us are ready or unstable vatican hit us in a heartbeat. $300 billion by goes out without -- $300 billion goes out in a heartbeat. the u.s. could be the largest producer of oil and gas in the .orld this is the greatest innovation that is taking place in our country since the commercialization of the internet. problem is that it is not cool like internet is. not cool in the places that define coolness. it takes place in places like north dakota and western pennsylvania. it would create a lot of jobs. it is creating possibility for us to invest in our own country and become energy secure that --

so our security policy can be modeled to our own values. we should celebrate this great american success rather than trying to create barriers to make it not happen. the oil and gas revolution that is taking place in our country will allow us to industrialize. inc. of the hollowing out of the economy of many places in our country -- think of the hollow out of our economy in many places in our country. more power would be generated by natural gas. hundreds would save of billions of dollars because he would have the last -- lowest gas prices in the world. it would allow us to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in our own country. what should we do? let's approve the xl pipeline for crying out loud. [applause]

we should have rational regulation for fracking so we can protect it and keep sustained rather than trying to create rules around it that would make it impossible for to be fully exploited to the benefit of job creation in our country. we should open up federal lands and waters. it should to magically increase for our country's economic security. -- it should dramatically increase for our country's economic security. asneed to the energy secure fast as possible. we should great short-term incentives for natural gas and transportation for freight and trucking. 3 million barrels per day of oil and diesel is used. if the cut that in half, 1.5 million barriers of oil around the world that could come from america. we should create a commitment

to conservation. we have seen reductions in our own use of gas that saves consumers money's is that we should let market forces decide where to invest. i do not think it is appropriate to have the government we having add venture-capital arm inside the department. did not seem to work out that way. that would only grade one percent. .- grade one percent -- create one percent. we need more than that to be successful. we will be -- 10 years from now, we will all be 10 years older. if that is the case, we will have fewer workers taking care of a larger number of people that that country has a social contract with. allowing them to retire with dignity. we cannot do that with the rate

we have in our country. pessimism inis a our country and part of it is the stationing -- is that changing -- art of that is the changing demographic. have them learn english and play by our rules and pursue their dreams in our country with a vengeance to create more opportunity for all of us. .his is a conservative idea if we do this, we will rebuild our country in a way that will allow us to grow. if we do not do it, we will be in decline. the product to the of this country is dependent upon young people he put to work hard -- equipped to work hard. look at japan. look at china. look at your. it -- look at europe. they're all facing the same problems, but none of them have an immigrant experience to

embrace people. american values and american ideas. if we can do this, we will create a lot more energy. immigrants could former businesses and native americans. they love families. they bring a younger population. immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity. what should we do question mark -- which we do? anything that comes out of -- a great country ought to be able to do that and the u.s. should do that before we increase and challenge the rest of the system and that is what is being proposed in washington. hopefully it will get done.

we need to do move to an economically driven system. 75% of all immigrants competition by family member. shouldn't we narrowed the definition down? expand the number of immigrants who can, and work hard in our fields and in stem related areas across the spectrum of our economy and make it more a strategic investment for long-term. canada is the place he want to look to. to have more economic immigrants. he had seen sustained economic growth. economicave more immigrants. they had seen sustained economic growth. giving them a path to legal status, but pay a fine, learn english, not receive any federal welfare payment, they should not violate laws for an extended period of time.

, we will have sustained growth. how will we sustain it? 40% of our kids are college or work ready. too many young people have shattered dreams because they do not have the skills to be successful. we accept this. there is a complacency that is damaging. most people say that is an urban issue. that is an inner-city issue. i could go to a good school. if we measure ourselves to the best in the world, the schools that our kids go to are not that good. we have made our standards so low -- [applause] of the god-e way given talent of young people knocking for filled as some of the else's fault -- of not being

fulfilled as someone else's fault. in florida we tried a different approach. we graded schools 100% based on student learning. f.b, c, d, we're limited social promotion in third grade. we focus on early literacy. we spend a school choice to empower parents to make decisions for their children. -- we extend school choice to empower parents to make decisions for their children. we need much higher standards than we have today and evaluating teachers on student performance. in florida, we went from the bottom of the pack to near the top with these reforms. if every state made a commitment to ensure that all drinking the power of knowledge,

we would be far better off. it is hugely important for our country success. a sharedocus on believe of strong families and faith as a back own -- backbone of any american renewal. it is important. when we deprive our families of fathers and mothers, our schools and religious institutions, what happens? without purpose, they begin to crumble. so does the culture that defends them. some of you might know i was raised by -- as episcopalian. we should read the bible, work hard and honestly and not complain. robert bush emphasize the not

complaining part -- barbara the nothasized complaining part is i remember. [laughter] , ityoung husbands and dads would not be easy to emulate. i had a great appreciation for what i started out on my life's journey as an adult. the things that my parents did that that was do they? they were right. they were more than right. it was an anxious time. it is often exhilarating in many ways. i lived overseas and moved back. moved to houston. moved to miami. build a business. work hard. went to all the baseball games. went to all the children's plays. it required humility and lots of prayer. i saw firsthand the role that

strong families, strong and loving parents, playing a successful community. i watched as first-generation, cuban-americans come here to have a better life for their children. i watched and learned as my own children grew older and began to make their own decisions. i learned that love and forgiveness was everything. what my mom knew when she was young, everything starts in the family. my journey brought me to the catholic church. first it was for the love of my wife who is a devout catholic and an inspiration to me. are you nine years married. -- 39 years married. [applause] but then again, that is probably how many husbands convert. they convert to their wife's religion. but then i began to understand

and love the blessed sacraments. love and compassion of the teachings of the church. it is a god-given blessing. [applause] unfortunately we are facing a crisis on the family front in this country. what a two percent of babies brought into the world today 42% of theught -- babies brought into the world today will be brought out of wedlock. women are increasingly choosing not to marry. worse, men are increasingly not engaged in the rearing of their offspring. a transfer payment or another rule or regulation. government cannot fill this void. ande are fantastic faith community-based groups providing support for america's families. they recognize the incredible work they do. we have to reclaim the family as

a force for good. families do not look like they used to, and that is ok. aey have to be supported of single mom or dad or a taking care of young children. -- or a grandmother taking care of young children. america's children in loving homes and taught the difference between right and wrong and hard work and justice and walking humbly? ,ow that i'm a grandparent everything has come full circle. things are not as black and white as they used to be. there is a lot more gray now. i spent a lot of time reflecting. every day i hear of a new challenge. i know my own children will face those challenges as they raise their own kids. i wish i could take with a hearty that i know is coming.

-- i wish i could take away the heart ache that i know is coming. the firstword for time. holding your breath every time your child gets behind the wheel. for now, i try to live my life in a way that will connect with god and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. as abraham lincoln suggested, plant flowers. let me close by asking -- and all the problems we hear about each and every day, would you rather be the age you are today or start over at the age of 21? . would take 21 in a heartbeat if i could go back with my beloved, maybe two credit cards to make it easy. i would do so in a heartbeat. the future of our country can be incredibly bright. allill be bright if we

resolved in the struggle and focus on making it so and returning to and half of workers and meaning -- and returning to a life of meaning. faith and family is what they should be about. you do not have to go back to be 21. we can do it ourselves. if we do it, we will restore america's greatness. let's get to work. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next representative paul ryan was elected to the house in 1999 and has been chairman of the budget committee since 2011. this is about 10 minutes. [applause] good to see you all. welcome to washington. [laughter]

in a, ralph is about 10 years older than me. i've known him since i was in my early 20's. back then they used to say, you kind of look like him. nowadays think i'm older than him. it is a strange place here. congress openss with a prayer and end in investigation. [laughter] but i mean that sincerely, welcome to washington. we aret likes to think the fringe. guess what? we are the mainstream. [applause] when you take a look at what is happening, the goal we have in front of us is to reclaim the center of our politics.

let's assess where things are. thise witnessing washington knows best philosophy. if you want to see how this product of progressivism is an assault on our liberties, look no further than what it is doing to our religious liberties. we had this investigation in the ways and means committee. he had a hearing last week where we -- we had a hearing last week where we talked with various groups on what the irs has done. , just like anywa pro-life group we have worked with in our communities, a nice and earnest woman trying to do her part in her community to advance the cause of life. the irs in harassing this group

to get their tax exempt status so that donations to them would not be taxed. they said, what is it you pray for when you pray? if you and your board of directors sign an affidavit taxissing you will never planned parenthood, maybe we will process your application. this is big government assaulting our first amendment rights. look at what is going on. that if youys believe in this -- in the church, if you disagree with abortion inducing drugs, it doesn't matter. if you are a church, you musthospital,

offer your employees these things that are in contradiction to your beliefs, to your teachings. this is what the federal government is demanding. big government is bad enough in theory. look at what we see in practice. this is the challenge that mr. romney and had. -- and i had. we had to argue against the promise and rhetoric of president obama. the great, soaring rhetoric and empty promises. passed hist term, he program, but not a moment it. we are seeing in england -- he did not implemented. now we are seeing it implemented. we are seeing what happens when you give so much power.

we shouldn't push people out of faith. when we take a look at people of faith, look at what they do in communities. they care for the poor and the hungry and the sick. they do their work in their own ways. religious liberties, or is a reason why it is in the first amendment of bill of rights. the freedom to pursue and practice our religion and freedom to speak our minds and petition our government. they present a christmas ornament. it is not something you take out on a seasonal basis. it is something we live with and struggle with everyday. big government undermines liberty. big government is undermining our liberties. conversations like this with people in wisconsin, on earth did this happen? to the idea of america,

the role and goal of government as we believe as our founders established, as the documents that created this country put forward come it is the idea of natural rights. the declaration get it well. we get from our creator unalienable rights. among those are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. they come from nature and god. not from government. [applause] is thel of government quality of opportunities to we can make the most of our lives. that is freedom. that is american idea. but the progressive idea that we see in practice is the idea that figuring outnment

the outcomes of our lives. that means government gets to decide how we exercise these rights. i cannot tell you how many time this health care debate, health care is a. what does that mean? if this is a government granted right, the government decides how we exercise it -- who we get it from, how we get it, where we get it. we do not need to get the government that kind of power. that is unfortunately where we are right now. in theu look at the goal fight in the cause in front of us, it is not all lost. what we are seeing today is that washington knows best, big government philosophy. what the american people see every day when they turn on the tv screens and see this is not what is bargained for. this is not the rhetoric used.

this is not with the president said it would be like. now we have a job in front of us. those of us who believe in liberty and faith and freedom, we have a job and that is to resell the american idea. what is the american idea. it is based on those principles. the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. you work hard, lay by the rules, you can get ahead. canlay by the rules, you get ahead. it does not matter where you come from. you can do this. the problem is the often split the rules into two parts. there is individuals and the government. we're forgetting that middle space between the person and the government. matterswhere our faith the most. that is where check birdies -- that is where charities operate.

that is where we fight poverty and addiction and homelessness. that is where we champion life and families and marriage. if you have a government idea that seeks to displace that space, that society, that civil society, that we are not free after all. that is the idea here. what we are witnessing is this idea that that middle space of civil society where we are free and prosperous and work together, it we can displace that and choke it off because of government rules and , the government feels -- fills that space. life is too complicated. we cannot figure out how to

manage all of these difficult and technological affairs. we need smart people in government to do it for us. so we have this philosophy that delegates our power in liberty to certain bureaucrats in this agency and they will distribute justice and equality fairly. that stuff? >> no. that stuff?y >> no. not know better. that is the oldest joke on the planet. this idea that we should just delegate our power and freedoms .nd values to other people we need to introduce these ideas.

,iberty, freedom, and faith these principles have made is the best country ever. it is the idea that you can get ahead. the chapter is not yet written. the saga that we are engaging in is not yet over. when you get not down, what do you do? you get back up. winston churchill probably said it best. is that americans can be counted but to do the right thing, only after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. [laughter] i feel good about it. you are here. misty for helping. god bless you. -- thank you for helping. god bless you. do not forget to speak your values. coming up next is representative mark sanford. he was first elected to congress

in 1994 and was elected governor of south carolina in 2002 and reelected in 2006. this year representative mark sanford won a special election for south carolina's first congressional district against a endocrine. -- against a democrat. this is 10 minutes. >> thank you. i reshape being -- i appreciate being with you. i thought for a moment about what i would say. what hit me is the story that many of you know well. they areng story is in philadelphia, the first congressional convention. they are wrapping up a liberations. an older man steps out. some steps forward and says, well, dr., what do we have? , every public if

you can keep it. -- a republic if you can keep it. he said, if you think you could. nesting in individuals a degree of power and individuals in turn were in essence loan the government power. as it isis much consent by the government. that is to stay this point that we find ourselves in right now in washington d c is a tipping point, a remarkable point. what is happening in washington of late question mark -- is --t and watched him, because right now in washington,

d.c. is a tipping point, a remarkable point. what is happening in washington of late? the likes ofoint any capdo not remember have been here here in washington. what is interesting is we have seen tough times before. within seven years of that ,onstitutional convention there is a question as to whether every would make it. we were -- as to whether a republic would make it. we were in a flat out depression. you have the whiskey rebellion.

we are at the tipping point based on this larger notion of internal problems. for 200 years, our challenge have been what is on else can to do? what will the british do. what will the russians do? what would someone do to us? the challenge of our time is, what will we do to us? government has gone to a spot that our founding fathers could not imagine there something else going on. we are facing internal problems we have never faced before. besides all those external threats, the threat today is

internal. what wasrelevant talked about more than 100 years ago. he was a little-known scottish historian. he gets to the end of his life and the quote attributed to him was that democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. it can only exist as the voters that democracy is followed by a dictatorship. these nations have progressed from bondage to spiritual faith. spiritual faith takes great courage. great courage to liberty. liberty to complacency. and backto dependency into bondage. -- complacency back into bondage. we are at a point the likes of

which has never been seen. it is in many ways i recognize the ways in which i am unworthy of offering my opinion or my perspective on many things given my failures. in some ways i want to speculating. they called and asked me to come. i went back to the office that afternoon. marie, who has worked with many years and she said, you know, if you believe in second chances, which you do, it is important you speak out whenever you have the opportunity based on the ideas that you have long believed in. i humbly and respect least afford to offer two ideas.

one idea is exactly what i realizebout, which is we are at a tipping point the likes of which this civilization has never seen based on internal challenges. two, i would simply ask everyone of you to really focus on spending. i know you're focused on a whole host of issues. all of them are important to maintaining this liability. o overlooked.o the ultimate measure of government was what it spends. it is not the only measure, but a pretty important one. historically, bad things that happened when you spend too much. it is a moral issue. of taxationte case without representation when you have systematically the government basically taking

from the young to afford benefits for the old before the young has even gotten here. it is a moral issue. unless we get it right, there will be incredible implications with regards to future inflation. i think there'll be incredible implications in terms of the value of the dollar. incredible implications in terms of the savings. be incrediblell implications in terms of the american way of life and the dreams it has afforded unless we get this thing right. i think it is important that you demand folks to have focus with regard to spending along with a whole host of other issues. think about barry goldwater. little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient. i mean to reduce it.

i do not undertake to promote welfare for our proposed -- my aim is not to pass, but to appeal them. anything that impose in the people on a financial burden. i need to determine whether it is constitutionally permissible and if i should be later attacked for neglecting my constituents interest. main interest is liberty. in that cause i'm doing the best i can. it is important you focus on spending and that you reckon as -- if you follow benghazi and verizon, and hoboken of issues and the spending issues, we are in a time of -- and a whole host of issues and the spending issues,

we are in a time of great difficulty. i encourage you to push hard. i encourage everyone of you to be of great urged in that process. i have been discouraged. i remember going to ray nash. a great christian man and great leader. he said, your advisors have got this wrong. you need to be of courage. a spirit of courage and not of fear. you need to seize that and operated. -- operate it. as you build a movement to make ed difference in the country -- as you build a movement to make --ifference in that country, there is a story. the colonel was little more than

a professor of language at a college. he signed up and thought it would be an interesting thing to do. it proved to be none of the above. .863, he was assigned orders he opens up the orders. not exactly the fighting force you dream of. he literally ran for the hills. no manhes down and says has to battle. we judge you by what you do and not who your father was. here is a place to build a home. it is the idea that you and me, we have values.

they are worth more than the dirt. i'm not asking you to come to join us. we're fighting for in the end is each other. his words were prophetic and true. at the end of the day, what we are all fighting for is each other. but that of impact that he and his men had, they found themselves on the very far left flank of the union line and it was the second day of the battle of gettysburg. theyfar left corner, literally changed the course of the battle of gettysburg. it changed the course of history in this nation. it is changing the course of the history of this world. i'm a southerner. if we were a nation divided, i do not know who would have been or whole host of other challenges that have come this

nation's way. if 200 deserters in maine can have that kind of impact in world history, imagine what you and i and other conservatives .an do working collectively thank you for what you do. [applause] >> next minnesota representative and former 2012 presidential candidate, michele bachmann. she was elected to the house of representatives in 2007. she is the first woman represent the state in congress. last month, she announced she would not run for reelection in 2014. she speaks for about 10 minutes. >> good morning. it is good to see all of you.

he is right. you ain't seen nothing yet. [applause] i'm thrilled to be here with all freedomt the faith and coalition. we are doing exactly what the united states need. bringing fruits to bear. we have done this successfully in the past. we are doing it today. we will continue to do that. i recently announced i would not be seeking another term in the u.s. house of representatives, but i have a very important announcement i would like to make to you today. i do intend to run for president. [cheers and applause] of the tim tebow fan club. [laughter] i had you going there for a minute? but you never know.

hold onto your hats. some say i should try out for have an idol because i lot of experience in front of a microphone in a room full of critics. i do believe that congress needs citizen legislators rather than career, lifetime politicians. [applause] that is not a judgment statement thomas but i believe it is very important that we continue to have a recirculation of fresh blood into congress as our founders envisioned. when i entered congress eight years ago, i came not seeking to make a name for myself or to get rich. that is not what i wanted. whogan as a foster mother saw there were serious problems in our public education system.

. have got involved this government of ours was getting. it was diminishing our values as parents and trampling upon our rights as citizens and believers in this nation. . came to expect several things i'm a full conservative as i imagine most of you are here. i believe that government taxes us and we are taxed enough already. government should not spend more money than what it takes in. i believe that government should follow the constitution of the united states. [applause] those are some of the issues that we are following.

there is one issue that we are going back and forth on now. reasonable people can disagree. i want to put forth a couple of ideas for your consideration. in ae fast tracking breathtaking scale that i have not seen in eight years on capitol hill. it to's -- it is immigration reform. i want to throw a couple of facts to consider. the house judiciary committee will take up immigration reform bill. they will take it up for two weeks period. the senate has stated this deal might be done or completed in the senate by july 1. it has been stated that this will might be done through the house and on the president's desk for signature.

that is a breathtaking speed to get a bill of this magnitude. such greatf magnitude? we are looking at the legalization of over 30 million americans. -- thisat the profound is not an anti-immigrant speech. i married an immigrant. first generation immigrant. came here as well. i'm a descendent of immigrants who came to this country with nothing but their hard work and at take and their innovation -- ethic and innovation. i imagine that is your story from your family as well. are the profound implications of amnestys will mean -- will cost a fortune. you're looking at $6 trillion

cost for amnesty. just retirement benefits alone for illegal aliens will be .omething like $2.7 trillion the bill we are currently looking at provides an existing form would mean that the borders .ill not be secured despite promises we are being given, we have heard this week that it would be legalization first and then maybe we will deal with border security down the road. the bill that we are looking at verifythe technology of e- and puts it on the shelf. usingvents the state from the concept of e-verify. this is a serious concern. in 1986, thetory.

american people were promised we would have a one time deal for amnesty. one time. it would be one million illegal aliens. we know that did not prove to be true. it wasn't one million illegal aliens. it turned out to be 3.5 million illegal americans. take a look at the numbers -- rick .5 million illegal --3.5 million aliens. take a look at the numbers. we will give more people the -- legal status in 10 years that we have in the last 40. alien that illegal comes to the united states, the average age is 34 years old. the average education level is about the 10th grade. not demeaning anyone

who comes to the u.s. for a lack of education, but it is not prudent to think that if you are 34 years of age with a 10th grade education or less, it is tough to believe that a person will be paying more in taxes than they will be receiving and benefits. what i am saying is we need to be open to recognize the costs. we are a people who believe in compassion. that is what we believe. christ was compassionate to us. he gave us salvation and the richness of the kingdom of god in we confess our sins and turn towards him. for those of us who are believers, many of us, our conviction is that we give 10% of our income to the church. maybe more than that in ministries and various charities that we give to. --a very compassionate way

you should give so much that -- family possible time financially, we are looking at allowing in more than 33 million illegal aliens at a cost of over $6 trillion. when i came into congress in the national07, debt was -- do you know what it is today? over $17 trillion. the projection of the next decade will be that we are looking at the national debt of $106 trillion. we have an obligation to our parents and grandparents, social

security, medicare, and medicaid, and now obamacare. we have obligations we need to meet and adding in more people will be drawing off of the system rather than adding in, we will find it is not able toonate to not be meet obligations to our parents and grandchildren -- grandparents. it is not compassionate as for children to take a lower wages or benefits are not have opportunities. the people who have suffered the the people who have been are hispanic and african americans who have already suffered very high levels of unemployment because rather than competing for jobs hour,d save $10 an they'll have seven people with

less skills they will have to compete with for the stops. if they cannot -- compete with for the jobs. let's think carefully and cautiously. love deeply. have a big heart. we can solve this problem with love and compassion. let's not forget the compassion we need to have with american citizens who are here already. god bless you. god bless the united states. i love you all. [applause] [inaudible] ♪ >> gary bauer also spoke at the faith and freedom conference. [applause] >> good morning, friends. good to see you.

great to be part of this conference with my friend. doing a fantastic job. standing for our values. i wanted to come here this morning and let you know that we come from all over the country. in are a breath of fresh air barack obama's washington, d.c. by the way, do not make any mistake about this. it still is barack obama's washington, d.c. he has been cut down a notch and wrestling with some scandals, but he still controls the u.s. senate and has the compliance of the media in his back pocket. he is one appointment away from the u.s. supreme court. it is causing us to lose every issue that we care about are probably a generation or more. he has got tremendous political skills. in which the

battle is not over. he has thousands of ideologues up and rushto get in to work because they cannot get -- way to get onto business of restricting our liberty. , my intention was to come here and spend my 10 minutes giving you more lousy news like that. [laughter] but i began to think about it last night. i remembered that this coming sunday is father's day. it reminded me why men and women of faith got into this battle in the first place. we want lower taxes and smaller government and get rid of obamacare in all of those things.

, thessues that brought us reason why i worked for ronald reagan for eight years and issues of heart and home. ,n father's day this sunday when the sun comes up, there will be more american little boys and little girls who will wake up in houses with no father than any time in the history of this great country. thees and gentlemen, figures are beyond imagination. it used to be a big urban area problem. of all children born in richmond, virginia this year will go home to fatherless homes. for the minorities in richmond, 85%. no civilization has gone down

this road and survived. children need mothers and fathers. most of those on the left, including the president of all about, could care less this issue. they show no interest in it. in fact, the more fatherless families there are, the more demand there is for big government. if you are a woman alone trying to raise kids and the dad or husband is not there, uncle sam will be there, right? would the government want to do anything about it? look at big cities around america. philadelphia, washington, d.c., democratic mayor after democratic mayor.

there is not one republican in many of the cities. i would challenge you to look at the record and find in any of those cities and democratic mayor or city council proposing even one idea that would make it more likely that the children worn in the cities would have moms and dads. you will not find them. in fact, there are big city democrats that spend all of their time trying to redefine marriage, guaranteeing that the children born in their city will go home to households that either will not have a dad or not have a mother. this is the kind of issue that rot people like you and me into the republican party -- this is the kind of issue that brought

people like you and me into the republican party. came into this party because of the issues of sanctity of life. our position on that is noble and decent and compassionate. -- even though it is seldomly explain -- we believe children should be welcomed into the world and protected by law and have a seat at the table and be part of the american family. is that hard for a republican presidential nominee to say? we believe all commend beings are made in the image of god, and because of that, all human beings have value and dignity and worth. it does not matter if you are new born with down's syndrome or

a 90-year-old fighting off the fog of senility. you have dignity and value and worth. our founders put that idea is right in the middle of the second paragraph of the declaration of independence -- we hold these truths to be self- evident that all men -- all mankind clarke created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. among these other rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that is the central idea of america. that is why the abortion debate is not over even though roe v. wade was not decided back in 1963. if it violates the basic idea of america. [laws " is bracket you can say about barack obama, the list of problems we have with the president, had this one.

this is the most aggressive pro- abortion president in the history of america. he is an extremist on abortion. he has a position on abortion and that about 10% of the american people have. he will not stop one abortion. not one because of the sex of the baby or in the seventh month of pregnancy. even famously in illinois tried to block a law that merely said that if by some miracle baby that was supposed to be aborted is born alive, that the people there in the room will have a legal obligation to save the life of the baby that made it out of the womb alive, and not like some barbaric society, throw it in the garbage can. the president had the audacity

recently to be the first sitting president to address the national convention of planned parenthood. and he went into that room and looked out at those men and women and said, caught bless you for what you do. job group of people whose s whit i they jumped out of bed every morning to go in to work and see how many innocent little boys and girls they can snuff the life out of it before they can take a single breath in the greatest country in the world, a country that the founders wanted to be a shining city on a hill. country is this beyond hope on restoring the family or the sanctity of life. they are committed to radical social change. what about the gop?

they have all the right words in their platform. at the grassroots, the republican party is you. it is millions of men and women like you believe in the strong families, believe that children need mothers and fathers, believe in the sanctity of life, and i am telling you, my friends, in washington, d.c., the republican party is taking the advice of a bunch of cowardly pollsters and political consultants, and people walking around with their finger up in the air trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing. they actually tell political candidates, go out there and base your campaign on the idea that we need to cut everyone social security. because that is really a popular idea, but stay away from that abortion issue. or they go out there and tell the candidates, now hold the

line on no tax increases on the very wealthy, because everybody in america gets up in the morning and worries about taxes going up on billionaires', right? but don't get into that controversial is you about that definition of marriage. they have at upside-down, my friends. agendaublican social quite frankly and i am a conservative across the board, i want to reform social security. i do not want tax increases. but if you are measuring popularity, the social issues we believe in our more popular than the republican economic agenda. [applause] say toriends, i would the republican party, if you want to regain the idea that you are a compassionate party, if you want to sound like there's something more than a party of

number-cruncher's and accountants, you do not have to go off and pass an amnesty and try outbid the other guy on government spending and getting all this other stuff that they are being told the do. just go back to your roots. speak without shame or embarrassment on behalf of our values. if you will do that republicans, then and i believe only then will you be the governing party of the united states of america. thank you very much. god bless you all. never give up, thank you. [applause] -- next, john cornyn. 2002 andrst elected in chaired the national republican senatorial committee from 2007 to 2011. this is about 10 minutes.

>> thank you for that nice introduction. i want to thank my friend, ralph reed, for the opportunity to speak and all of you for being here. , know following up on a good no breakfast is a halt -- of hard act to follow but i am going to do the best i can this morning. i know we have some texans in the audience this morning. [applause] it is good to see you. the temperature is cooler here than in texas today, but we're glad you all here. i like to spend a couple of minutes with you to talk about something i believe that lies at the very heart of our nation's greatness and that is the american family. as a senator, i have the honor of serving 26 million people in the united states senate, but as a husband and father, i know that the strength i derive from

my constituents comes from my family. my two daughters and my wife of 33 years. families have been a source of perpetual strength for all of us. they provide the love in the social cohesion which absolutely is necessary to produce the next generation of american leaders, and in the maintaining america as an exceptional nation on the world stage. families create strong citizens and strong citizens create a strong america. it is not an overstatement to say that the strength of our nation is derived fundamentally from the strength of our families. and we all know families are under a series of threats today. some of them are more obvious than others, but there is one particular threat of want to focus on here initially, and that is big, intrusive, all-

encompassing government. they are many reasons to be skeptical of the government, and you do not have to look any further than the failed projects of the obama administration during the last five years. and the scandals which have proved the truthfulness of lord acton's maxim -- remember that one? he says power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. in we have seen that maxim action here recently. nevertheless the prevailing wisdom of president obama and his allies seems to be that the government knows best. that is what gave us these failed practices like dog-frank and obamacare and this failed stimulus the left us with $1 trillion in deficit. this is the narcissistic belief that these leaders know better than you do what is good for you and your family. they believe that by massively

expanding government, massively expanding regulation, growing the size of the bureaucracy and its intrusiveness in your life, that they can solve america's biggest problems. and of course, this is an impossible -- this is an unrealistic expectation. it is also a dangerous expectation. in an era of trillion dollar deficit some ballooning national debt, we know that something else is required. to be sure, we also note that we as individuals as up -- have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than we. remember the first and greatest commandment, the first is to love god, the sec is to love our neighbor as ourself. remember the parable of the good samaritan were jesus taught this lesson and said openly, who is the one who is the neighbor to

this american, and it was the one who showed mercy. we need to remember that and showed that love for our fellow man, and particularly those who are less fortunate than we are. but we know that americans have always had a strong streak of compassion and charity. we need to yield to that impulse to help those who need help when we find them. but we also need ask what is the role of government and can government be a substitute for the obligation we have to help others? as a conservative, i believe we should strive for society where the government's role in our life is as minimal as possible. that is blocked bridges that is because i believe that a big government crowds out individual freedom and initiative and individual responsibility. it is not because we do not want to help our fellow citizens, quite the opposite, as i said. top -- time and time again we've

seen big government and all of its bureaucratic clumsiness or less suited and infecting, but it to serve the needs of so many americans and so many people. and yet i fear that as government becomes bigger and more paternalistic, tends to weaken and undermine the traditional family structure. youngt more and more americans, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, and being good moms and dads and parents, that more young americans lacking a stable family barmen will simply look to government as some sort of faceless parent figure for parent substitute. but this is a tragedy in the making. it is unsustainable and it is precisely why strong, loving families are so important to our country and to our future, they are the antidote it to big government.

and a social science could not be clearer. as families disintegrate, so the the social and economic prospects of those families. in monomer america, keeping yourself and your children out of poverty is quite simple, believe it or not. all you have to do is follow the success sequence described by two scholars, ron haskins and isabel saw hill, and their landmark study on opportunity. if you earn a high school diploma, if you secure full-time employment, if you delay childbearing until after marriage, it is about 98 percent certain that you will be able to escape the grip of poverty. isn't that amazing? in fact, the poverty rate among single parent households is five times higher than it is among families with a mom and dad. more alarming steerer, the isle

isn't nationallf tragedy. 5% of children were born outside and that number is exploded to 23%. the birth of the child is a blessing. .

remarks from the faith and freedom coalition founder and president, mark reed. his remarks are about ten minutes. >> well, it just keeps getting better and bert, doesn't it? i think so far it's been rand paul, mike lee, ron johnson, marco rubio, mike huckabee, jeb bush, paul ryan, michelle bachmann, who have i left out? ted cruz, thank you. and we're all -- rick santorum. and we're only halfway -- we're

not even halfway through the weekend. i want to thank you for being here. i want to thank all of them for being here. this conference team as you know is road to majority. and when we say road to majority, i want to be clear about something, we don't mean a republican majority. we don't mean a democratic majority. what we mean is a profamily, pro life, pro marriage, tax-cutting, fiscally responsible, budget balancing majority in the house, in the senate and eventually in the white house. that is what we need. and, we don't want to be greedy. but the minimum of 35 governorships with majorities in both houses of both legislatures. now, can you get excited about that vision? because that's what we mean when

we say road to majority. now, on election night, 2012, it was beginning to look like that majority was as far removed as the east was from the west, didn't it? especially if you listened to the pundits and the commentary. they proclaimed that obama's re-election ushered in the dawn of a liberal renaissance and the demographic changes meant that there would be a durable, majority for the democratic party based on a left of center electorate that was younger, more female, and had more minority participation. we were dinosaurs, heading for extinction, or so we were told. that was four months ago. today barack obama's job approval sits at 45% in the quinnipiac poll, the domestic ape general data is in shambles,

the notion of a grand bargain with a massive tax increase on the deficit and the debt hangs by a thread. a relatively modest background check bill based on a compromise failed in the democratic controlled u.s. senate after the media did more to campaign for that than they did for barack obama. and he couldn't even deliver the democrats in his own party in the u.s. senate. and in spite of the supreme court's opinion, which was proclaimed as a victory for obama care, about a year after that opinion, obama care is collapsing under its own weight with 25 states where either the governor or the legislature or both have opted out of medicaid expansion or creating a state-funded health care exchange. it's not me saying that.

this is the national journal. they said, quote, it is increasingly clear that the loss of the supreme court on medication expansion is punching a major hole in the law's primary ambition. that's good news. [ applause ] by the way, we're not going to rest until every single word and every syllable and every period and every sentence in obama care is killed and left on the asciis of victory where it belongs. meanwhile, we have the scandal. that is plural, by the way. it increases on a daily basis. benghazi, the nsa program, the irs scandal. the justice department scandal.

it appears that the attorney general of the united states committed perjury before a house committee and on and on it goes. i don't want to say the best part but the most ironic part is his administration subpoenaed the phone records and e-mail of his biggest cheerleaders in the media. all we can say to them is, we warned you. and you wouldn't listen. you know it's bad when you've even lost chris mat thutz. i kind of like chris, actually. but apparently the thrill is not going up the wag. he said, and i quote, on his program -- what part of the presidency does obama like? he doesn't like dealing with other politicians, including his own cabinet. he likes to write speeches.

he likes going on the road and campaigning. he doesn't even seem to like being an executive. that's them saying that. how do we explain the profound disappointment with this liberal political messiah who promised never to raise taxes on people making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year and then did so, who promised he believed in the traditional definition of marriage and flip-flopped and campaigned for the opposite position and criticized george w. bush's terrorist program, then expanded it. how do we explain that? well, it turns out he's complicated. jerry signs of "the wall street journal." this is a quote. quote, simple people aren't often elected president.

instead, presidents tend to come in very complicated packages. so you see, he's a paradox. he's a jumble of contradictions. and he is beyond the understanding of simple folk like us. folks, i don't know about you, but i think leaders should set a clear path. i think they should light a way with moral clarity and with consistency so that people know where they stand and so that they can follow them to that higher ground. that's the kind of leader we need in the white house. by the way, we need a president who understands that america is not venezuela and an organization that can audit you, punish you, and imprison you should not be used ever to punish ones political opponent. that is wrong and it's

un-american. one last thing. you know, there have been a lot of naval gazing, a lot of prognosticating. a lot of autopsies. a lot of second guessings since the 2012 elections. and i don't know if you followed this or not, but there seems to be an emerging consensus that we're the problem. have you noticed that? well, keep in mind, self-identified evangelicals were 27% of the entire electorate. they voted 78% to 21% for mitt romney. they comprised 45% of the entire vote that the republican ticket got in 2012. but they're the problem. i would say this to those who say we should ride in the back of the bus, that our issues are

a liability, and we should if not be silent, certainly speak in a whisper. we need to make it clear to them that when it comes to the sanctity of innocent human life, when it comes to the need to strengthen the family as the foundation of our civilization, when it comes to fighting for the sacred union of marriage as between a man and a woman, we cannot and will not be silent not now, not ever because our faith requires us to speak to it. [ applause ] >> next, from the faith and freedom coalition -- remarks from national hispanic leadership conference president reverend sam rodriguez. it's just under ten minutes. >> well, i oversee by the grace of god, 40,118 hispanic evangelical churches throughout the united states and