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 puerto rico and i'm asked how you best

describe your community. simply stated, born again christian is what you get when you take billy graham, dr. martin luther king jr., put them in a blender and put salsa sauce on top. that's my story and i'm sticking to it. in that context, there's a fine line between the pathetic and prophetic. i was asked a number of years ago i was in a press conference with a conservative senator that right now the issue is hot and heavy. the reporter asked me, brother rodriguez, why is there so much fear regarding hispanics in america? i took a red eye flight from san francisco. i was wired on three machiatas. i said, the prophetic purpose of my community lies embed in the term, his panic. what does that mean? his, capital h, panic. evangelic evangelical. let me preach a little bit.

i said we're not here to teach america salsa, the her rain gay, cha-cha cha or mariachi. we're not here to make anyone press one for english or two for spanish. we're his panic. we're here to bring panic to the kingdom of darkness in the name of jesus christ. that was my answer. let me tell you about this community in a couple of minutes here, this community voted 44% for george w. bush in 2004. 44%. i sat down with karl rove and talked about how this community is emerging as a fire wall to righteousness and justice, committed to life, liberty. certain things have emerged in the past few years that have created a wedge between the conservative movement and the hispanic american community. i'm convinced that wedge can the be dealt with in an expedited manner without compromising truth or principle in expediency. in the past election, 50%,

49.9%, 50% of hispanic or latino evangelicals supported mitt romney. it's strong. the faith community in the hispanic american community is the most committed activist community in defending the values of life, family, and religious liberty. we succumb to the radical idea that mark explained to me once -- the idea of american exceptionalism. such animal exists. the idea that it's god over man and man over government. that 's the pecking order. god over man and man over government. we have a limited amount of space. if government grows, god and man have to move out of the way. it's our job to remind uncle sam, uncle sam, you may be our uncle but you will never be our heavenly father. we have an agenda. if you do the polling and look at the research, can the

conservative movement make any significant inroads in the community? the answer is yes. we define the agenda differently. we say we're not married to the agenda of the donkey or the elephant. we're married exclusively to the agenda of the lamb. what does that mean? an agenda of righteousness and justice. live life, without life, we can't have liberty, without liberty, we can't pursue happiness. it's a pro-life community. it 's the community committed to defending the family, addressing all issues with the family with truth and love and lifting up the moniker of religious liberty. but we must do a couple of things. let me have suppositions, one, we have to reconcile abraham lincoln's message of justice with ronald reagan's optimism. we have to reclaim the conservative movement must reclaim the idea of justice. it must. african-americans and hispanics can be engaged in the conservative movement, the idea of justice must emerge -- once again emerge as an essential

pillar of the central movement. not justice defined as big government. not that sort of justice. not that perverted sort of justice. justice is not the purpose of big government, it is the passion of the big god. it doesn't belong to the left or right, it belongs to the high for the purpose of lifting up the low. it's justice, not again big government justice but the justice abraham lincoln advocated. the conservative movement must reconcile abraham lincoln with ronald reagan's optics of optimism. approximately moth rock with jamestown. faith with entrepreneurship. the conservative movement must amplify the voices of hispanic americans' life. marco rubio and ted cruz and brian sand var and susan martinez and make sure that it's not just something that takes place at the rnc convention on the first night, but make sure that constantly that we go

beyond the idea that we have some sort -- and with all due defense. that we don't portray the idea that it's some sort of patronizing tokenistic expansion. but the conservative movement is not about you being hispanic or being black, yellow, white, or brown. it's about conservatism. it's about conserving the ideas that makes this nation great. the idea that make this nation exceptional, that make this nation great. that we are, after all, americans. that we may covet the constitution, the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. it resonates with the hispanic american community. i know you're hearing about whether or not these 11 million individuals become legal, the these are 11 million voters that automatically will vote democrat or liberal. don't drink the cool aid. don't drink the cool aid. how do i know that?

because out of 6.9 -- 7 out of 10 individuals that come as christ as lord or have a religious experience in christianity in america today are hispanic dissent. some of those pulpits there's a comprehensive holistic message that stands to be preached. it's committed to life, family, and religious liberty. i challenge you, i encourage you at the end of the day to broaden your optics. we have to put some salsa sauce on top of the conservative movement. that's what we need right now. again, we're not watering it down. because the conservative movement does not live to conserve pigmentation or a white majority. it does not -- it's not about white, black, brown, or yellow again. it's about the idea. they're transformative. they liberate. they look at the latino and the african-american and the anglo and the inner city and tell them don't be perpetually enslaved

from entitlements from government, be free to the power of entrepreneurship to live out your dream. that's the idea of conservatism. that's the idea that we're free in this country, that our rights do not come from the executive branch, the judicial branch, the legislative branch. our rights come from god al mighty. that's conservatism, that's the idea. so i encourage you to rise up, stretch your hands out across, grab a brown hand, find one, look at a latino, look at them, again, don't drink the cool aid coming in right now about the issue of immigration reform. we may have to cross the jordan of immigration reform to step into the promise land of the hispanic american electorate. if we do, i tell you this, the best is yet to come. god bless you and god keep you. >> alan west was elected to the house in 2010 but lost his seat in the 2012 election. he joined the army in 1982 and is a veteran of operation desert

storm and the iraq war. he serves as director of next generation programming and a host on next generation tv. this is about ten minutes. >> first and foremost, do we have any soldiers in the audience here today. all you soldiers stand up. i know a lot of people talk about today being flag day toda today. [ applause ] today is the 228th birthday of the greatest army the world has ever known, your united states army. thanks to each and every one of you. the theme for this gathering is building a conservative pro family majority. that's important. what's built this great nation.

what helped us to expand. it was families. families loaded up in wagons, families that crossed the great divide. families that met all of the challenges, all of the adversities with perseverance, resilience, and resolve. if we are not careful, we'll lose the essence of who we are, the strength of the family. so i want to take a few moments to talk to you from experience. gary bahher stole a little bit of what i want to say. i want to expand on that. if we do not learn the lesson of what will happen in the black family, what will happen po to the united states of america. we can only be as great as the sum of all of our parts. when i think about the fact that i grew up in the inner city of atlanta, georgia, the same neighborhood where dr. martin luther king jr. grew up. when i go back to the neighborhood, i see a shell of itself. when i think about this program that was supposed to be on television called "my baby's mamas" where we're going to

celebrate a gentleman who had countless children from countless amounts of women. when i think about the report that came out recently about a black gentleman who fathered some 22 children from 17 different women, these are the unintended consequences, these are the second and third order effects of lyndon johnson's great society program and the war on poverty and he came out and said, if you just give a woman a check for having children out of wedlock, if not having a father in the home, then you will be helping her. her took a great program that was intended for widows and for orphans and he expanded it. if we are not careful with the progressive socialist program that they have to destroy our inner cities, to destroy and break down the family, then guess what you get -- my wife angela and i represent that which is 29% in the black

community right now. 29% of black children have mother and father in the home. that is not the black community i grew up and that's not the strength of the community that survived so many great hardships and adversities. it's all about the family. so consider this -- how many young black children will be able to celebrate father's day this coming sunday? how many young black children will be able to think about the great successes they can have growing up in the greatest nation that this world has ever known. how many black children will miss out on having that role model. that is why we must have strong conservative values to strengthen the family in the united states of america. when you look at the unemployment situation in the black community today, almost 14% reported unemployment. almost 33% black teenagers, unemployment.

all you have to do is look at detroit. some of you, maybe you'll leave this beautiful hotel where you're having this conference and go into some of the black neighborhoods here in washington, d.c. and see the successful socialist policies that have broken down the family unit in what used to be the strongest family community this country knew. if you read the early writings of a great man i think is the first black conservative, booker t. washington. his program was based upon three thingings. it was based upon education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance. but if you understand what's happening in the black community when it comes to education, we have failing schools. and don't forget, one of the first things that president obama did when he came into office back in january or february of 2009, he cancelled the d.c. school voucher program. and no one challenged him on that. no one said anything about that.

but at least the house republicans tried to restore that program. because as booker t. washington said the first and most important thing is the education. if you break down the family where you don't have mothers and fathers in the home, guess what happens? you lose that sense of entrepreneurship. i grew up in atlanta where i could walk down auburn avenue, walk past ebenezer baptist church. i could see doctors offices, lawyers' offices, professionals, banks, things of that nature. what do you see now? a bunch of boarded up buildings. if we cannot get success back into the black community, you will continue to see detroit. it was in the reagan administration, now deceased member of congress jack kemp and reagan's economic adviser talked about urban economic empowerment zones. yet, we don't hear anyone

talking about them. and if we don't have that sense of entrepreneurship, then you don't have that sense of self-reliance. and if you don't have that sense of self-reliance, if you don't have individual sovereignty, then you have expansive growth of government. you don't have fiscal responsibility. so why is it so important that we have a conservative agenda that is pro family, because it is in keeping with our values as conservatives. unlimited government, fiscal responsibility, of individual sovereignty, of the free market place. of course, as we gave homage to the soldiers today for 238 years, we must continue to defend that which is the greatest in this entire world -- this constitutional republic that we call home. if we don't take that message to every single corner, to every single community, then we're going to lose this great nation. so we can sit here in this great hotel and talk about pro family agenda and conservative values.

some people say i'm preaching to the choir. this is my challenge to you -- go out and sing solo. if you don't go out and sing this song, if you don't go out and take this message, the other side will take their message. the fact that now we're about to embark upon an illegal immigration, an am else inty bill that will further exacerbate the problems in our minority communities, especially in the black community where we see such rampant unemployment. you see such loss of hope and promise. you know, my bible in romans chapter 5 versus three through five talks about trials and tribulation, how it produces character and character produces hope. but its's hope in god. unfortunately some people in this country put all of their hope in one man. and they've been let down. take this message about the pro

family. take this message about the growth of the family, the strength of the family, our conservative values all across this great nation. or else the future of america will be much the same as we see in the inner cities. that to me, ladies and gentlemen, is unacceptable and failure is not an option. god bless you all. i thank you. >> next, the g-8 summit to northern ireland followed by the debate of the 2014 defense authorization over the amendment to close the guantanamo bay detention center in cuba. and later camp and bachus speak about efforts to change the tax system. tomorrow on "washington journal," talk about the 5 million people with u.s. government security clearance with evan lesser, co-founder and

managing director of clearancejobs.com followed by the faith and freedom coalition's road to majority conference here in washington. we're joined by daily column senior columnist matt lewis. a look at the fatherhood initiative and the public policy initiatives that promote with the vice president of development and communications. washington joushl live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. deputy press secretary josh arnold briefs reporters on weapons, president obama's authorization to send weapons to the security forces and the upcoming g-8 summit in northern ireland. joined by ben rhodes and special assistant to the president, caroline atkinson. this is about an hour and 20 minutes.

>> fafrn, happy friday. nice to see you all. going to deviate from our regularly scheduled program today to provide you a preview of the president's visz sit to europe next week, both the g-8 summit and then germany. in order to efficiently use your time today, both of my colleagues will stay here in the course of the briefing and as we call on you, regardless of the topic of your question then we'll keep things moving and get us in and out of here pretty efficient fashion. so with that, let me introduce my two colleagues. the first many of you know. deputy national security

advisor, ben rhodes. then to my right is caroline atkinson, the senior director for the international economic issues at the -- on the national security staff and just as importantly, she'll be there with the g-8 meeting with the president next week. both will have opening remarks and i will call on you for your questions and go from there. you want to get us started? >> sure, i'll start by running through our schedule and giving a bit of a preview of what we hope to accomplish at these different stops. we will be arriving in northern ireland on monday morning. the event we're having in belfast is a speech from the president at the belfast waterfront convention center. this is the first time the president will have a chance to address in length the support that the united states has provided to the peace process in northern ireland and the

development of northern ireland. we engaged with the leaders of northern ireland here and welcome the efforts to carry forward the reconciliation efforts in northern ireland. in the speech, the president will have a chance to talk about how young people in northern ireland have advanced those efforts so the hard-earned peace is translated to a lasting peaceful society and to greater economic opportunities for the people of northern ireland. following the president's speech in belfast, he will be where the g-8 is being held. caroline can preview the plenary sessions be uh the first will begin that afternoon at 4:45 local time. then flowing the first plenary session, the president will have a bilateral meeting with president putin of russia. this is the first bilateral meeting that the two leaders would have held since the g-20

last year. they have a broad agenda to discuss. that will include the situation in syria, afghanistan where russia has cooperated with us in securing both the transit routes four troops and also promoting stability in the region. it will include nuclear weapons, arms control in the issues that we regularly discuss with russia. we discussed counterterrorism as well as deepening the economic and commercial ties between the two nations. following that bilateral meeting, there will be a chance for the leaders to make statements in the conclusion of that meeting. a leader's only working dinner. this is the dinner that focuses on foreign policy at the g-8. the other sessions caroline can walk you through. i'd anticipate a very wide-ranging conversation at the dinner. afghanistan will be a subject. a lot of our key partners will be represented at the dinner. after we approach the milestone

of transitioning, they can discuss the transition under way in afghanistan as well as our plans for supporting afghan government after 2014. they'll discuss the situation in syria. to include the most recent chemical weapons asaysment that we provided, the efforts that are under way to support both the opposition but also the political settlement in the country. i think they'll discuss more broadly the transitions under way in the middle east and north africa, the g-8 has been a good venue for that. that will include, for instance, the type of support we can provide in countries like libya that are working to establish institutions of the state. and i believe they'll cover some other foreign policy issues in ongoing efforts related to the iranian nuclear program that are likely to come up. i should add that the president has been consulting in the g-8 partners in the runup to the meeting. he spoke with the prime minister

the other night about the upcoming g-8, the recent complications with the chinese leader. he will be doing -- the president will with his counterparts later "today." that includes the united kingdom, france, germany, italy. the five of them will have an opportunity to discuss the agenda for the g-8 in advance of the meetings. >> today. >> that's -- i'm sorry, video conferencing. forgive our jargon. that will conclude the first day. the second day is plenary sessions of the g-8. so i will leave it to caroline to walk you through the different plenary sessions on the second day. as is often the case at the meetings, we anticipate the president will have the opportunity to see other leaders on the margins on the g-8 throughout the course of the day. then we'll fly to germany on tuesday night and spend the night in berlin. this visit i think reinforces how critical the u.s.-german relationship is, both as part of

the transalantic partnership and in terms of our deep bilateral ties. we'd expect the agenda throughout the course of the meetings in germany to focus on both economic and security issues and i'll get to that a little bit when i get to our meeting with chancellor merkel. but the president will begin the day with a meeting with the president of germany. following that, to the chancery with the bilateral meeting with chancellor merkel. he and chancellor merkel have developed a close working relationship since the beginning of 2009. they worked through a number of crises together both economic and security. they'll discuss the ongoing situation in the eurozone and the economy. they'll discuss the trade negotiations associated with the potential transalantic trade investment partnership. they'll discuss the situation in afghanistan where germany remains a stalwart ally and continues to contribute to the mission there as well as, again,

how nato can provide support beyond 2014. i don't anticipate they'll discuss syria, iran, and the middle east peace as issues we regularly consult closely with the german zone. following the bilateral meeting, a press conference. then a private lunch together at the chancellory. following that, the president will give remarks at the brandenburg gate. it comes on the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's speech at the height of the cold war when west berlin was under considerable siege. given the progress made in germany and the fall of the berlin wall, it's a true symbol of the partnership that we

forged together. i expect the president would hit on broad themes in that speech associated with the shared history of the transalantic alliance, how far we've come together in germany and the other allies but they need to take that same spirit of cooperation and activism that led us to work together through the cold war and apply that to the challenges that we face today. whether it's nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, our efforts, again, to promote human dignity and challenges we face. you'll see the president cover the agenda that the transalantic alliance has in the 21st century. withe can talk more about that if you like. following the remarks at the brandenburg gate, the president will meet with the leader of the social democratic party, mr. steinbrook as the opposition leader in the country. then, that night, he'll be hosted at a dinner and reception by chancellor merkel and that

will conclude the state visit to germany. the first lady and sasha and ma malia and the first lady will join the president. they'll go to belfast. then the first lady and the girls will travel to dublin, ireland. this is an important signal to send. they were invited to visit the last time that the president was in ireland and this will be an opportunity for the first lady and the girls to accept that hospitality. they will tour trinity college which is ireland's oldest university in dublin where she'll be able to explore the archives that they've gathered and document the obama irish ancestry, which is well known to

you all. later in the day, she'll meet with the staff and families of our embassy in dublin. she'll join the irish youth for the river dance performance at the historic gaety theater. she'll be joined by the wife of leticia and higgins, the head of the president of ireland who also will join that event with her. then they will re-join the president in berlin and the independent event that they'll have is on june 19. the first lady will visit the memorial for the murdered jews of europe where she'll tour the park with chancellor merkel's husband. and mrs. obama will join before going to the dinner hosted by chancellor merkel. with that, we'll be able to take your questions. >> thank you very much, ben.

president obama's 58th summit. the g-8 members account for 50% of the global gdp. last year when president obama hosted the g-8 at camp david, he returned it to a small, intimate, action-oriented event with those two leaders together. one of the actions we saw then was the launch of the food alliance. that is up to $3.7 billion of private sector pledges and we expanded from the original three african countries that were announced and joined the g-8 last year to nine countries and more who are ready to join this year. the prime minister said he wanted to take a similar approach of candid conversations amongst a small group of leaders. so that's a bit of a background. the first session of the summit

will be on the global economy on monday afternoon. the context for that discussion changed a lot over the last year. in europe, for example, financial tensions have eased considerably. large parts of europe remain in recession and up employment in some countries are at record high. in the u.s., the recovery is under way. we avoided the cliff and the budget deficit is declining rapidly. but, of course, we have more work to do to create jobs. as at camp david, we expect the g-8 leaders will express a consensus that growth and jobs are a top priority. as been mentioned, the working dinner amongst leaders. then on tuesday morning, there will be another leaders only session to discuss the range of issues around counterterrorism. that will be followed by a session on trade, tax, and transparency issues in the g-8

countries themselves. that discussion this year will underscore some of the president's most important economic priorities. on trade, the summit will take place just as we're concluding the consultation period here with congress on the transalantic trade and investme investment partnership. on taxes, we expect the g-8 to make important progress on illegal tax evasion and the illegal tax avoidance that companies when they use countries loopholes manage to ship their profits to no, low, or no tax jurisdictions. international tax has been a core piece of president obama's agenda since he ran for president in 2008. in 2009, he proposed legislation to crack down on illegal tax evasion by increasing disclosure requirements, individuals, and

financial institutions. congress passed it in 2010, since then, the treasury department has been working with using these tools, engaging with other governments to ensure that tax evasion is detected and punished. we're going be working with the g-8 to expand this use of the standard. beyond that, we'll be working at the g-8 with prime minister cameron and the others to approve the ability of tax authorities and law enforcement to identify the real people behind shell companies that are sometimes set up and facilitate the hiding of tax liability. increasing transparency will have money laundering, finance and so on. in the efforts to combat illegal tax evasion, the president has been focused on international

efforts to reduce what is legal tax avoidance when companies legally use loopholes that exist in our laws and other laws to reduce the tax liability. tax avoidance is as much about countries and country rules as it is about companies. because the loopholes of the companies use are the results of the rules that countries set. last year in february, president obama laid out a detailed framework for business tax reform which included proposals to take this problem on. the g-8 summit will provide an opportunity to highlight the need to remove tax incentives that encourage countries to shift profits around and instead replace those incentives with ones will encourage the creation of jobs, and investment at home. and there's more on the way of the g-0, the broader grouping beyond the g-8 and the oecd to

think through the issues and to prevent the tax policy. we want to avoid tax competition turning to a lose-lose competition where countries not only lose revenue but they make inefficient decisions by locating where they pay the lower taxes or shifting the profit rather than where it's most productive to invest and produce. the next session on tuesday is the working lunch which will include african and other leaders and the heads of the organizations to talk about the development aspects of the uk agenda which will include the tax and transparency issues. we have put particular inferences on the sector through dodd frank, the united states was the first to require companies to disclose the payments that they make to governments in the extracted sector. and we welcome the steps that were taken yesterday by the eu

to adopt very similar legislation and the announcement from canada that they were also seeking to work to align with these standards. this is an area where the g-8 did its best, rises to a challenge, agrees to take actions that we can do in our own countries that raise standards around the world and to ensure that everybody is competing on a level playing field. the final session on tuesday will be a short session just to conclude -- bring the g-8 together, perhaps talk about next year's agenda. and let me just say that these summits are important, both because they set the agenda on ongoing collaborative work, foreign policy and the global economy and they allow leaders to highlight and discuss candidly among ourselves important issues and then press for action. thank you very much. >> thank you ben, caroline. sounds like a very busy three days next week. we'll open up for questions.

give you the first question. we'll hop around today. people in the back, try taking your questions. >> thanks. thanks to both of you for doing this. ben, on syria, will the decision -- you guys haven't talked specifically about what the supporters regard -- will the decision on military support end in part on the outcome of the talks that the president will have with g-8 leaders? and given the position that the british have stated, is there an expectation they might accelerate their decision making on the support that they might provide. >> first of all, the decisions that we've made are already finalized. so the president's decision to increase support for the opposition including the supreme military counsel, the fmc which, is again, the principal fighting force on the ground that we've

been working on, those are the decisions he made in the last several weeks as well as the chemical weapons firmed up and saw a deteriorating session in general. so this has been a steady increase for us. you know, we have steadily increased both the size and scope of our systems, the political opposition, and to the smc and we take an additional step forward in providing a dramatically increased assistance to it going forward. at the same time, you know, this is a fluid situation. so it's necessary for him to consult with all of the leaders of the g-8 about both of our chemical weapons assessment and the types of support we're providing in the opposition. the french and british, they shared the situation on syria. they've been a part of the core group in the middle east and in europe that worked together to strengthen the opposition. i will leave it to them to make their own announcements.

they did, of course, list the embargo that was in place that prevented arms from the european union into syria. but i think he'll be discussing with the leaders what the best way forward is. he'll hear from him what their plans are. thus far, they have been important partners of the british and the french in particular and sharing information intelligence related to chemical weapons so we'll continue to do that going forward. we know the constructive statement today welcoming our assessment. but it will be an ongoing dialogue between the president and the fellow leaders. >> you said the president to make the decisions in the past couple of weeks, is that -- are fightingers -- fighters on the ground already seeing this support? >> first of all, we had an upward trajectory of the systems in general. and they've seen certain types of assistance that has reached into syria, examples of that

might be what we traditionally call mres and medical kittles. but the additional types of assistance that we will be providing to them going forward, it takes time from a decision for that assistance to reach people in syria. given the way in which we implement our assistance programs, i can't give you a specific timeline or itemized list of when that will get there. but suffice it to say, what they've been able to do by developing a relationship with the fmc and the opposition coalition in the course of the last six months sorry is to develop relationships to find individuals, for instance, the smc who we are focusing the assistance towards. that's important. it allows you to get assistance into the hands that need it but it also allows you to have protections to try to keep assistance from reaching those who we don't want to receive

materiels. >> you mentioned support. not so much from the russians that the data you're citing didn't look too convincing. what does it say about establishing the level of trust that you need at the beginning of the g-8 meetings with putin's presence there and the bilateralism? >> sure, we've had differences with russia on syria. and all i can say with respect to the chemical weapons assessment that we give to them is that we have a broad range of evidence associated with the most wanted use of chemical weapons that we assess took place. that includes open source reporting. that includes intelligence reporting. it includes the accounts of individuals. it includes fizz logical samples

that we've obtained from within syria. so we assess for the sarin that's been used and the regime mentions the custody of the weapons. so both because of our own intelligence assessment and because of the fact that we believe the regime maintained the possession of the chemical weapons arsenal we came to the conclusion that any use of chemical weapons would have been by the regime. we continue to discuss with the russians whether there's a way to bring together to the regime the opposition to achieve a political settlement. we have a difference with the russians on the fact that we believe the charlotte side would have the powers as a part of that process. we'll continue those talks and the type of relationship we have with the russians is such that even if we have disagreements, strong disagreements in some areas, we want to work together on the issues that we do have convergence of interest such as nuclear security,

counterterrorism, and the situation in afghanistan. >> following up on that. do you expect that president putin will move at all on this position in the result of this? and do you have anymore details for us today or will the president share more details with the g-8 leaders who will no doubt ask about the extent of the military force that you'll be providing. and i have a question for caroline as well. >> on president putin -- i -- i would -- i would hetz tate to, you know, characterize his use -- he's good at doing that.

i think what russia demonstrated to us, they do not want to see it gaining a foothold. the point we made is the current course which assad is not being appropriately pressured to sit down powered by those who continue to support him, the international community, is bringing about those very outcomes. so it's in russia's interest to join us in applying president on the side to come to the table in way that relinquishes his power and standing in syria. we don't see any area where he resource the legitimacy to leave the country. so we're fundamentally making an interest-based argument to the russians that they can best protect their interests by being a part of the political settlement that is real and gets it way from assad's rule but preserves the elements of the institution of the state.

we believe it speaks for the country. the president will discussing the types of aid and assistant we provide into syria in particular the countries that work on that our european allies and the french and british have been most prominent. i should have added that we fully expected to spend some time with prime minister cameron before the g-8. so he'll be having the discussions, again, in the nature of the assistance and how we provide in an instance like this, an instance where we can be there in every aspect that we're doing, the general point is we indicate because of the actions we've seen taking

chemical weapons use, we decided to take the step of increasing again both the size and the scope of assistance including to the military council. what kind of outcome could you expect? >> i think the g-8 meeting will be able to give the political push to the importance of work ongoing on this. and just to mention here in the u.s., the president has championed propose sales to ensure that the companies cannot shift their profits to places where there's no taxation. for example, with the -- with the propose sal for a minimum tax on foreign earnings that is part of his white papeever. what we want to see is all of the g-8 countries agreeing there's a number of different measures, this is an important goal to work towards. we should be rewarding incentives for companies to

invest and credit jobs here at home where it makes sense to do that and make productive decisions here. >> moving beyond that record. we know that the president -- anything that will have a concrete -- >> i think that these political moves our g-8 leaders do translate to an effect. because they push the processes that otherwise might be going more slowly. and they also involve governments committing to take different actions. we know that we're going ask the oecd to work on a template for more transparency by companies. there will be a strong support for g-8 leaders on that. the uk wants to make efforts in

this area so a tax policy doesn't develop to a race to the pot tom. that's an important outcome because all of these measures require us to go home and take individual actions ourselves. having that collective commitment to work on the issues is important. >> why did it take so long -- because of the opposition is underground and why you came up? and why is it that 160 chemical weapons but not the 93,000 -- we've been against what's taking place in syria for two years. put in place a sanctions regime

to recognize the syrian opposition coalition as a legitimate recognition we could deal with for the syrian people and mobilize an international response. at the same time, the use of biological weapons indicates clear norms. for decades, they sought to strength an norm against this type of weapon. given the potential for mass casualty and given the type of weapon of mass destruction that it is and the effects we've seen it have when it's been use in past history. this is not just a red line for the united states, it should be a red line for the international community generally. with respect to the timing, we have been driven by our intelligence assessment of the potential incident. even the incident we have established high confidence about, most of those you're talking about the things that have taken place in the last several months, in 2013.

in terms of april, what we had in april was an initial intelligence assessment. the direction was to continue to investigate corroborating facts and information so we could raise our confidence level. that was not a high confidence assessment and we didn't feel like we had enough corroborated information to reach that high degree of confidence. what's been done is we've been able to piece together a broader information picture so you're able to take an assessment, reports of individuals on the ground. review the samples that have been collected at the site. you can speak to the chemical weapons in the area and reviewing our own intelligence reporting that covers a range of

different means. piecing together that information picture, the intelligence community is able to increase the confidence level. that's what led to it, the firming up on the last few weeks that the president asked for in april. we'll share that with the french and british and others who, by the way, we've been in touch with on the assessments in the course of the last couple of months and together we need to focus on what each country knows about. we want to present this to the united nations. today, am bahs don rice delivered a letter details the incidents that we were focused on and we're seeking to push this in as well because the u.n. investigation has been frustrated and they're also because the u.n. and security council are perfect venues to discuss the issues like chemical weapons.

>> okay, can you tell us anymore that you were not able to tell us yesterday about what is going to be said to the -- to the counsel? as you know, the reports are around fighting. they seem to have the upper hand. is it going to reach the rebels in time? >> let me start by talking about what we're trying to achieve here. that is the best way to answer the question. we believe the smc, the premilitary council deserves our support. and what we want to do is strengthen their effectiveness with better capabilities. we want to strengthen their cohesion because it's a difficult situation when you have a it scattered across the

country. we want to connect it well to us but also the other partners providing assistance, countries like jordan, saudi arabia, the uae, qatar, turkey, others, so they're able to receive assistance in a timely manner. again, i'm not going to be able to say here's the specific list of every type of item we'll be delivering. we do want to be responsive. consistent with our own national interest. so we'll seek to be respotsive with that very important caveat. seek to get assistance in this timely way. we established a time line do that. we have huge amount of humanitarianism in the country.

and even the assistance for military usage such that i mentioned a medical or food earlier. so these pipelines exist to provide assistance to the smc to allow us to ramp up our systems. >> a complete list. can you say small rpgs, heavier weapons, weeks, months, years? >> on the first question, we understand the interest. we're not going to be able to get to the level of detail about the type of assistance that we provide publicly here. in terms of timelines, this has been a -- you know, we established these pipelines. so you should see this as a continuum. there's material flowing into the opposition. we don't anticipate this is something that's far off to the future, this is part of

continuum of assistance we provided because we've been dealing directly with the smc. this gets to the timing issue as wel well. greater certainty that we cannot just get stuff into the country but that we can put it in the right hands so it's not falling in the hands of the extremists. >> give us a better understanding. explain, how does the provision of the small arms, given the fact that most of the rebels have the small arms, how does that convince bashar al assad not to use chemical weapons again? >> not going to get to a details description of different types of assistance. yeah. what i would say is tend to be as strong as possible. because they are faced with a

brutal regime that's shown no restraint in the actions that they've taken against them. and also the fact that we've seen the increased involvement. we believe we can make a difference. keep in mind, it's not just the united states that's providing the assistance to syria. we have a number of arab partners focused on po providing the system, turkey, the partner as well. we have a coalition of countries that is prepared to support the syrian opposition. this will include their capabilities and effectiveness within syria. at the same time, they need to continue to strengthen their cohesion so they can function in different parts of the country. you've seen that the fighting inform the north down to the south. so we need to make sure that they're also again able to firm up their position and be coordinated body across the

country. >> was it a mistake for the u.s. and the other allies to take this step at this level two years ago. >> momentum has ebbed and flowed in syria. you can assess that the opposition or regime has an initiativ we don't think there's way to obtain the legitimacy for them. the leader of syria has no impact on his people. ultimately we believe there's not a scenario we can foresee where bashar al assad can stay

in a country that rejects his rule and the international community that broadly rejects his rule even though he has some basis of support. in terms of the timeline, these are not the steps we've taken are not something the president takes lightly for a variety of reasons. number one, because we need to know there's a cohesive and coherent opposition to work with. a year ago, the opposition wasn't nearly as advanced in having a political entity like the soc broadly representative of it, that was not an organized entity like the smc, spring military council on the ground. but dpou yao had far more disparate groups of opposition fighters in different parts of the country. so that type of organized opposition was not in existence.

similarly we've been able to seek the extremist elements. and the opposition on the ground given the support of the regime that uses chemical weapons and has this sort of support as well. >> what prevents assad from taking control. what measures are in to make sure that is the regime. >> that's another reason for us to make sure that we're supporting a more moderate opposition. and, again, our -- i know there's a big focus understandably on the military side of things. our assistance runs the gamut to the type of assistance that allows the opposition to provide for some humanitarian and basic services for the syrian people. we want to be strengthening individuals within syria and

organizations within syria that were more moderate such that they were isolating extremist elements and this is a point that we made, those countries providing support to syria should focus that support to the more moderate opposition and seek to isolate extremist elements that could present a security challenge even after assad. >> you know something of an outcry and some of the countries that will be represented at the g-8 about the intelligence programs that have been disclosed in the past week or so. what's the president going to tell the other leaders about this telephone recordkeeping undertaken by the nsa and the web searches? >> he'll be able to discuss with the counterterrorism in

particular. and all of these countries at the g-8 are important counterterrorism partners. together we worked with them on the relationship in the terrorist attacks in the united states and in europe and of course russia with counterterrorism as well. and you know, that speaks to the fact that terrorism is a global threat. you know, we -- if you look at a country like germany, you know, we all remember, of course, that that was one area of staging for the 9/11 hijackers. we do it for the shared security. we understand that like the united states, countries in europe have significant interest in privacy and civil liberties. you have an exchange about these programs and other

counterterrorism programs that we purr to a with the united states in partnership. >> yell, we understood when we attended in 2008 when we went to berlin that, you know, the brandenberg gate is the site of resonance for the german people and reserved for heads of state in the past and we accepted that judgment. at the same time, we could not have received a warmer welcome in berlin generally and we were able to speak in the vicinity of the area. but this is particularly meaningful. any time a u.s. president stands at the brandenberg gate or stand at the heart of berlin, it's an opportunity for him to speak to not just the role of germany, the united states and germany,

but it. >>s the role of the west and the free world. and we had challenges in the cold war that we shouldered together and i think the message is just because the threat is not immediately apparent with the wall and barbed wire, it doesn't mean that we don't have work to do together. chancellor merkel extended the invitation and here for the state visit that the president hosted for her. and he was honored to receive it in preparation for the trip, the government and the city of berlin could not have been more hospitable in arranging what will be a very powerful event there in the heart of berlin where you have not just the brandenberg gate, but you have the new american embassy that has been built in opposite of the german government buildings that symbolize the openness as well. he's looking forward to it.

>> among the bigger topics of the nsa -- can you talk about that and what kind of impact will that have on the success? >> we understand the -- the significant german interest in privacy and civil liberties. i think the point that we will make is in addition to types of safeguards against the abuse that we have, this is not a program that is intended to target individuals on what they're doing other than seek and uncover plots in nexus to terrorism. this point is we're focused specifically on one goal which is how do we disrupt terrorist activity. how do we mitigate security threats both to us and to germany. it's a discussion he'll have with the chancellor and he'll be able to address it publicly. >> how important is the negotiations and the partnership start without any topics like

media, for instance. how some in europe. >> i think we made clear that we are very much in support of the broad and comprehensive negotiation. we understand, of course, that both sides have sensitivities. what happens in europe, there's a lot of strong support in germany for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement. and that's obviously, you know, what we -- what we'll be looking to see. that will be the most likely -- a good type of mandate that would lead to an ambitious agreement. >> yes, your honor. >> can you clarify the rationale behind your decision to expand the military aid? is it to deceive bashir assad or is it still possible the balance of power underground in

preparation for the geneva peace conference. >> the best chance is a military settlement. you have an agreement or you'll have military conflict that continues until one side wins. we want to channel our efforts in support of that. but we fully understand that there are huge obstacles to that and particularly given the activities of the regime and given the difficulty in them sending a serious signal that they're open to a real political transition in syria and one that we believe will have the power. our assistance as a general matter is meant to accomplish a number of objectives, one is to send the signal to the regime there's a consequence with respect to chemical weapons.

the other is to strengthen the opposition. and, again ultimately, we are chosen to support them as the legitimate representative that we're going to deal with in terms of the people. so hopefully our objective and our stated national policy is that bashir al assad should leave power. we're going to continue to support those who are working for a postassad future. >> this weekend -- you objected to the policies and the negotiated settlement for the syrian issue. did that mean you can still consider it in the process and the negotiated settlement between the opposition and his regime? >> well, we think the assad regime would have to participate in any type of negotiation. i don't think we've seen any proposal that bashir al assad himself would come to table as a part of that process.

what we want to see in the negotiated settlement is not a situation where you dissolve the institutions of the state in syria. but where you see the power and the government coming together, bringing the opposition, maintain the elements of the state, the certain institutions of the state, certain individuals who have been there with the government in the government that, again, can restore the unity of the country, respect the rights of the people, and start to begin again to provide services. so bashar al assad himself we think needs to leave the state here. clearly his regime is going to have to be part of any political dialogue we have in pursuit of that objective. >> do you have a couple of questions? you want to do that, right? can you resolve for us the situation of the student loans? in the senate floor. the republicans to offer what they describe as the president's

proposal extending the student loan issues that were objected to. the question is why would the president's own plan be embraced by senate democrats. where are we on this? what accounts for this strategic infusion among democrats on the president -- [ inaudible question ] >> i know there's a range of discussions ongoing between the administration and those in both sides of the aisle, particularly the senate, to broker an agreement to prevent student loan rates from doubling at the end of this month. there are a number of conversations that are ongoing. i don't know if i'm the best person to try to figure out the legislative machinations in terms of the steps that are being negotiated in the senate. we laid out what we think is a clear set of principles for how we can solve this problem and do it in a way to appeal to both sides of the aisle. >> are you at the point where

not having a plan on the floor is better? >> i don't think so. i think we'd be happy to have our plan passed. people who vote on that plan have their own ideas. we are willing to have conversations with them to try th interests of republicans, t democrats, and the administration. so, we have our own plan, we like our plan. but there are other people who have their own ideas. we have principles that we would like to see. for instance, we want to make sure students have an opportunity to repay their loans, to work through an agreement to limit their payments to 10% of their disposable income, for example, provisions that would limit the increase of the interest rate over time. for example, we talked about locking in the historically low rates. there's principals we put forward. >> you understand the time element here. >> we're talking about a couple of weeks there. >> so what's your instructions?

theoretically working pass the president's plan? >> we would like to see something move through the senate that abides by some of the principals that we laid out. our plan does that, obviously. but there may be some other suggestions and we eep ear open to other ideas. >> the president drew the red line. he enforced it many times. yet he himself has not addressed the issue that the red line is crossed. this is the president's red line. what do you sigh seay to those who might say this is not a big deal because the president is not giving voice to this theoretically significant event and your own ain't -- sounds like -- the president not talking about himself is keeping it at arm's length. >> major, what i would say to that is the situation in syria

is an ongoing challenge and the president has repeated opportunities to speak to it. he'll have more opportunity to speak to it travelling through europe. he, himself, is the one that laid out the red line publicly. this is a fluid and dynamic situation. the situation on the ground has its own twists and turns. our own policy has been one of incrementally increased support for the opposition efforts to pressure the assad regime. but this is not something that's going be resolved with the turn of a switch. we made clear what the policies

are. just in this going with the underlying details is not something we do as a general matter. you can expect that the president will be heard on the issues repeatedly in the copping day days. the announcement yesterday reflected his guidance. he's the one that directed us to make it public. >> one more. >> it's clear from those you are fighting is that it's taking a long time for some of the targets announced to get there. you awe announced it in the conference call. you have open pipelines but there are and has been bottlenecks. there have been a couple of months because the bottlenecks are real? because the transit points are weak? might that not be far, far too late? >> we don't make that assumption. it's frankly true.

we have established pipelines and communication to put it in to the pipeline. we're comfortable and confident that given the work we've done we can do this in a relatively timely manner. >> the question for caroline. given [ inaudible -- participant off-mic ] will be settled by the european

union. what if any material impact do you anticipate the g-8 session will have for the frakwork. do we anticipate anything coming out that would impact the scope or ambition? >> yes, on the time use, i said i believe the eu is discussing this matter. urgently amongst trade ministers. we'll see if they're able to reach an agreement ahead of the summit. we understand that there are sensitivities on both sides. the summit itself, trade, the value hoff open trade and high standards for the trade agreements will be a part of the the agenda. but the specific trade agreement such as, you know, ppp where

negotiating obviously with a number of allies include japan and canada who will be at the table there. the eu and canada are diszing where in discussion on trade matters with the responsible eu counterpart. that's not something that leaders themselves, the specifics of negotiations, not something that leaders themselves in the normal course of the sessions would address. we don't currently have any meetings to deal with scheduled. >> a couple of questions. first of all, to determine -- you like to determine that there are these chemical weapons. does the united states nowhere they are and what steps would they take to destroy them? >> good question. we have been monitoring very closely the syrian chemical weapons stock pile. we've been doing that, so have a number of our allies.

while we can say with certainty that we're aware of every chemical weapons initiative in the country, this is something we put a lot of resources and attention to. and we feel we have a sense of both the fact of the regime controlling the chemical weapon stock piles and some sense of where they are generally. in terms of securing them this, would be a priority of the united states in the approach to the scenario. in the current environment, they remain under regime control. when we look at the types of issues we're going to be focused on and we want the international community to be focused on, i think you would see a very intense focus from the u.s. on making sure that steps are being

taken to security chemical weapons stock pile. this is something that the international community can do. one example of that for instance in libya, chemical weapon stock piles not nearly of the scale in syria but in the immediate aftermath of the libyan revolution. we were able to work with other relevant international bodies to makes sure that experts got on the ground to secure the weapons and to begin the work of destroying them. so this is something that will be focused on in terms of monitoring and dangerous weapons. >> is it dangerous because of the weapons themselves that you could not destroy them? >> i'll take the hypothetical in this regard which is these are dangerous weapons and the notion you can destroy them is a challenging one given the nature

of the weapons. the preference would be to have a priority focus for when the international community and given -- not be the united states, a lot of the expertise lies in the international community. we'll have the opportunity to make it a priority in the po postassad regime. >> not just the white house, but every place else. left to talk about a no-fly zone. >> is it more difficult to establish and more dangerous to accomplish a no-fly zone in syria than it was in libya and that's why it hadn't been done? >> it's dramatically more dangerous and costly in syria for a variety of reasons. in libya, you had an opposition where the opposition controlled huge portions of the country and could protect them from the air. you did not have the same air defense system that exists in syria.

that's more difficult. but we also look at the efficacy of it. and frankly in syria when you have a situation where regime forces are intermingled with opposition forces and fighting with block-by-block and cities, that's not a problem you can solve from the air. i think people need to understand that the no-fly zone is not some type of silver bullet that is going to stop very intense and in some aren'ts a sectarian conflict taking place on the ground. we feel like the best course of action is to strengthen the moderate opposition that can be able to represent the broader syrian public. we haven't ruled out options. but i think people need to understand that both the difficulty of some of the options that have been presented, the fact that they don't solve the problem, else inially, and we have to make these decisions based on u.s. national interests and we don't at this point believe that the u.s. has a national interest in

pursuing very intense open-ended military engagement through a no-fly zone in syria at this juncture. >> forced to -- [ inaudible question ] >> the option taken off of the table is boots on the ground for a variety of reasons. we need to be humble to solve a problem like syria certainly on our own.

boots on the ground, you're not necessarily going to be able to prevent violence amongst civilian populations. we saw that in iraq, for instance. making -- that's one -- that's one contingency that we're not entertaining at this point. >> different picture of that for the united states. >> well, the national security staff person against understanding hypotheticals. i will entertain that which is

the time when we think they could make a difference is when we were putting forward resolutions to the security council that would impose greater consequences on the regime. and that was over a year ago. and time and again we saw the security council by russian detail. that at the time did apply a greater measure of pressure on bashar assad to consider how to step down. i'm not saying it would have accomplished the objective but clearly they believed the pressure by the community including russia. that continues to be the case today. but at the same time, you know, it's also -- you have to ask yourself, why are iran and hezbollah so invested in what happens in syria. for us, there's a sign of desperation involved. iraq sees its only serious ally in the region is significantly threatened.

hezbollah, not gotten engaged beyond the borders of lebanon, devoted a tremendous amount of resources. we had a sign of vulnerability from hezbollah and iran. it's threatening the people of the region dramatically against hezbollah. if you look at the standing of hezbollah in the region in 2006 as to where they are today, they are bleeding political capital in syria. and i think that's the sign of vulnerability. >> senator mccain said he wants artillery. i don't know if that's -- he keeps pushing that. is that why you're not sending out the details because it doesn't meet the threshold that the critics said? >> that would be why we don't

get into specifics as a general matter. we're not going to get into specifics about the certain types of assistance we provide. >> whatever we do, we also need to be careful and learning history that you need to have some sense of where any assistance you're providing is going, whose hands you're falling into and what potential dangers you may be associated with having your weapons systems. so those types of -- any time when you're considering these types of issues, you have to be conscious and deliberate in your actions. >> i don't understand the lack of transparency in slightly telling the american people, well, here's what we're sending. if you're instituting a no-fly zone, you would want some secrecy on military movements, of course. but the no-fly zone, here's how we're doing it. why is there secrecy around what you're sending. >> well, i think if you wanted

to introduce, you know, a u.s. military forces through a no-fly zone, activity of that nature, activities in libya, clearly these are things that we would discuss in some detail. i think when you get into questions of the provision of assistance to opposition groups, we just are more limited in our ability to say, well, here's the inventory of everything that we're doing. i understand your question and i'm sympathetic to it and i think that what we can't sketch out for you, here's the president's thinking, the policy, and the objectives we're trying to meet with the assistance to strengthen the effectiveness, to strengthen their cohesion. to keep the requests -- some of the requests that have been made of us. those are the types of factors that are guiding. >> one away -- there's been a

lot of reporting about the president's trip to africa. the contents should be the president spent a lot of money on the trip to africa. president bush spent a lot of money as well on a trip to africa. a bunch of times when it's cancelled, a lot of attention that the president may spend up to $100 million on a trip to africa. can you justify that expense? >> i'll say a couple of things on it. we frankly should have, you know, look -- step back. we had not travelled to africa the same way we travelled to other regions of the world. we travelled significantly in asia, several trips to latin america, europe, taken several trips or will take multiple trips to russia by the time this year's done. and africa is a critically important region of the world. it's huge interests there. fastest growing economies in africa, a massively growing huge population.

key counterterrorism initiatives. we have democratic institutions that are consolidating in places in senegal and south africa and tanzania. we have some of the biggest members on global health, combatting hiv-aids and bit partisan support focussed on africa. for the united states to say we're a world leader except in this continent doesn't make any sense. and as we again put a premium on developing our ties and southeast asia and latin america, we need to be president in africa. there are other countries that are quite present in africa. china, brazil, turkey, the u.s. with the leadership position of the world. that's what he's going to do. a deeply substantive trip and it's the most highly anticipated on the continent. the president hadn't travelled to africa. senegal, you have a country that's emerging democracy.

a partner with us in situations like mali we want to invest in. issues like food security. the developments of the society. south africa, the leading country on the continent. sudan to congo to zimbabwe, to the provision of the global health assistance and the democracy of the continent as we've been reminded. tanzania has been a key part of east africa, every development major issue we have on global health, tanzania has been a solid partner. and so the president is not going to retreat from an entire continent on the terms of the costs if we don't determine the cost of the president's security just as president bush did and president clinton did. the secret service is going to do what they think is necessary to protect the president. that's going to come with its own costs but we don't sit here and say spend "x" amount of money on a trip. but we know from a public policy

perspective, some respects people believe it's overdue and frankly there will be great day for after riff can because you travel to regions like africa that don't get a lot of attention, you can't have very long standing and long-running impacts from the -- from the visit. because when you travel to regions like africa that don't get a lot of presidential attention, you tend to have very

longstanding and long-running impact from the visit. >> one last thing. there's a movement on capitol hill among some lawmakers who exempt lawmakers and congressional staff from having to comply with the president's health care law and enter in the insurance exchanges. does the president disagree with that? do you want to stop that, since they're essentially trying to say we don't have to go into this but the rest of the country does? the president, as i recall, has already pledged that he would join an insurance exchange. so my question is do you have any plans to stop this movement on the hill? and do white house staff, the cabinet, do you all plan to join these insurance exchanges? >> well, i know that a lot of discussion has taken place over the last 18 months or so about how to implement the affordable care act, and to do so in a way that ensures that the large number of americans that can take advantage for the first time of quality, affordable health insurance and quality, affordable health care have access to it. that is a critical domestic priority that the president has laid out, and that's something that we are devoting significant time and resources to get that done. so why would the lawmakers try not to join it, then? >> well, i think this is actually -- part of the law as it was originally passed would actually require lawmakers to participate in the exchanges.

but they're trying to get around it i guess now. there's a movement to -- mr. >> i know that there's been some talk about how to sort of best again, best implement the law as it was passed. it is my understanding -- and i know this is something that we're working through as we work through this implementation -- is that we're going to make sure that there's nothing that lawmakers can take advantage of that the general public can't. and that is for, i think, rather obvious reasons and an important principle. but our most important focus here is making sure that the millions of americans across the country that don't currently have access to health care are going to get it for the first time, and that we're also going to create opportunities for small businesses and families out there who right now are paying an exorbitant cost for their health care to offer them tax credits that are going to lower those costs. we've already seen how -- and seniors have gotten some assistance to afford their

prescription drugs -- that millions of americans across the country have gotten the opportunity to get cancer screenings and other preventative health care measures for free. so there are a number of benefits of the affordable care act that we're working to implement, and that will continue to be a priority through the end of this year, particularly as the marketplaces get up and running at the beginning of next. andrei, i'll give you that last one. thank you. one for ben and one for caroline. ben, i just want you to respond directly to a couple of a criticisms that one hears all the time in russia about syria. one is selective use of evidence. there have been instances -- most recently i think in turkey where chemical weapons were intercepted that were meant for the rebels. so how do you respond to that? the other criticism is about geneva ii, where it seems that the u.s. originally made the commitment to a genuine effort to make peace without a predetermined result. now people are saying the americans seem to have decided everything in advance and are pushing through their agenda. so what is your response to that?

>> well, on the first question, andrei, as we said yesterday, we have not seen any evidence that the opposition possess chemical weapons. in fact, what we see is the opposite; that the regime has maintained custody of these weapons. we detailed to the russians several incidents. we had dates associated and places associated with those incidents. as i said, we have multiple streams of information from intelligence, but also open- source reporting, physiological evidence of the use of sarin, reporting from individuals that was corroborated. to us, that adds up to a very convincing information picture that chemical weapons have been used and they've been used by the government. i've seen those statements by the russian government about this. but again, we believe with a high degree of confidence that, clearly, chemical weapons were used. we've got physical samples that demonstrate that point. and we don't see that the opposition has possession of these weapons. but we'll continue our dialogue with the russian government on this. with respect to geneva ii, we share the goal with russia of seeing if there can be a political settlement to the challenge within syria. we have a difference with the russian government about the fact that we believe that there is no solution in which bashar

al-assad can stay in power. that's been a longstanding disagreement that we've had. but we still believe, given the fact that everybody has a preference in a peaceful resolution to the conflict, in making an effort, together with russia and other countries, to bring the parties to the table, but it has to be serious. and frankly, where we've seen some lack of seriousness is on the regime side where they offer the kind of traditional pledges of dialogue without kind of a concrete plan here to transition to a different type of governing authority that can bring in the broad representation of the syrian people. but we'll continue to pursue that objective. and like i said, we have a relationship with russia and with president putin where we can have disagreements -- strong disagreements -- on a set of issues but still work together on an agenda where we do share some common interest. and we've been able to do that with president putin on counterterrorism, on economic issues, on afghanistan. mr. >> i'm going to leave the last

one for caroline. q >> for caroline -- simply, you mentioned fatca. fatca is an american law, and if you want your international partners to comply with it, what are you offering in terms of reciprocity? ms. atkinson: you're right that fatca is an american law. and what we're seeing is general support, and what we're hoping we will see is g8 support for the development by the oecd of a standard that would be based on fatca. so there would be a single global standard for the kind of information exchange that is involved in fatca. and we believe that's a very powerful tool. we've already seen it having a powerful effect on tax havens and illicit activity using such tax havens. so that's what we're -- >> do you know, are the russians joining the regime? to the best of your knowledge, what is the russian position? ms. aktinson: well, we'll have to

wait and see what comes out from the g8 communiqu?. mr. >> okay. the last thing is just for the week ahead. you got a pretty detailed readout at the beginning of this briefing. the president will -- let me finish here. the president is going to leave on sunday night for his trip to europe. he'll be there monday, tuesday and wednesday; return to washington late on wednesday night. on thursday and friday, we don't anticipate at this point that we're going to have any public events, but the president will be here at the white house for meetings at that point. so thanks, everybody. have a good weekend. >> will talk about the nearly 5 million people who have clearance area -- clearance. the road to majority conference here in washington. we are joined by matt lewis. a look at the national fatherhood initiative and the public policy issues they promote.

" live on c-journal span. the library has reached a milestone. there are now more than 200,000 hours of original programming, public affairs, history all searchable and free. a public service created by public industry. >> the white house debated and passed the law authorizing 23 defense programs by a vote of 315. adam smith a reagan democrat committee -- a ranking democrat committee talked about a framework that would close guantánamo bay. thismendment failed area debate is about 25 minutes.

>> is a very straightforward amendment that asks the president to put a plan to close guantánamo bay. one of the complaints in recent weeks as we have seen as guantánamo bay, more untenable and continues to be an eyesore. way back in 2007, george w. bush said it should be close. candidate john mccain said it should be close last week. senator mccain and other senators went down and reached that conclusion. comes from criticism the other side of the aisle while you cannot close it unto you have a plan to close it. that is what this amendment does. it would require the president to come in a plan with closing guantánamo bay and removes all of the restrictions that are in this bill that will stop him from generating the that plan. be bottom line is we we do not

need guantánamo. it was set up in the first place in the hopes because it was not on american soil, we could hold people outside the normal bounds of due process of the constitution. the court ruled otherwise. it ruled it does apply. it is still under control of the united states. there is no benefit or greater rights. we just continue to have this prison that has been setup in a way that the international community cannot stand. it makes a problem for us in terms terms of cooperating with our allies and have the ability to get that cooperation. i am simply asking that we put a plan in place so that we can close guantánamo bay once and for all. something that we have said we wanted to do. we have not taken the steps necessary.

the prison is becoming expensive. there is $250 million in this bill to keep it at a temporary status. beyond that, the prospect of the united states warehousing 166 people with no end in sight is contrary again to our values. i want to emphasize the that that we have here in the united states well over 300 terrorists incarcerated. there's a notion that somehow we we could not possibly accommodated them because of the threat. ussef and some the most notorious terrorists in the world health here already, safely and securely. that is simply not in arguments against doing this. the temporary facility are not sustainable. i am not going to rush this.

i requiring the president to come up with that plan and giving him the legislation power to get the plan. >> the gentleman from washington. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seeking recognition? to myield two minutes friend and colleague. >> thank you. >> in 2010 i stood on this lore and made a motion that stopped some of the worst terrorist in the world from being transferred to the united states. skelton said this. we are in a position to accept this motion.

there is no difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. we step on a course with this amendment to change that as the highest ranking democrat on the committee seeks to overturn that motion. mr. chairman, if the gentleman was asking that these terrorists be called to his district, that will be one thing. he knows that is unlikely. what you are having is that they can be brought to any of our districts. and north carolina virginia and every other place, do not bring them to my district. they know to call since. the moment they touch u.s. soil, they will receive constitutional rights that no one in this room will argue is what they are exactly. on everyo target elementary, small business in that district by other terrorists. that is why it is important that we come together and send a

message to the president to stop every terrorist from coming to u.s. soil,, but we could stop these. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york as recognize. -- a sixvides a sick part plan for closing gitmo. -- end funding. the time to close guantánamo is now. it is a stain on our national honor. 86 people have been cleared for release. they have been found guilty of nothing and just not to post a danger. there is no need for us to hold

them. i wonder which of our colleagues do not believe in the u.s. system of justice? which one of us does not trust our american courts? who does not believe in the bill of rights? who does not believe in the right of counsel? what we have a gitmo is a system that is a threat to those police and america. the last decade we have be in -- begun to let go of our freedoms by each executive order and act of congress. we have been giving away our price -- our rights to privacy. we are continuing down the path to be free from imprisonment without due process of law. i want to commend the gentleman from washington. the language in this bill prohibits moving any detainees and guarantees that will continue to help people and definitely, that are not terrorists that we only suspect to be terrorists but have not

had their day in court. them incontinue to hold deftly without charge contrary to what this country stands for. no person may be deprived of liberty, certainly not in deftly. we must close gitmo to restore our national honor. and it will have no additional rights. the supreme court ruled that have the same at quantum of that they have here. we must close this facility. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman of california as recognize. was i yield two minutes -- >> i yield two minutes of my time. with the gentleman from ohio is recognize. to holds designed unlawful terrorists.

theust clearly address transfer of detainees still held there. many of the detainees are some the most hardened terrorists include those responsible for 911 -- 90 letter. 9/11. transferring them to another country comes as substantial risk. the reinvention at risk of detainees is nearly 28%. i have served for one year in iraq, one of the largest detention centers there. we saw the same people return for new offenses. there were multiple escapes attempted escapes. abend to guantánamo at the facility there is safe and secure away from our soldiers on the battlefield. i do not think there are many

people in cuba who are trying to free the people held in guantánamo. that was not the case in iraq. and maybe if they were transferred to the united states. the prisoners at guantánamo are being treated appropriately and it way we can be proud of. the hunger strike is carried out humanly with the detainees treated as patients. the access to caregivers is the same for our troops as those detained. to the united states would be expensive. will build a courtroom that cost us into millions of dollars. these detainees pose a real threat to our security in america. they mean us real hard. the president has the ability to transfer, but he has yet to do so. until the president leaves, i believe keeping guantánamo open is our best option, our safest option thomas and our most logical option. i yield back.

>> gentleman for washington is recognize. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman of new jersey. thank you, mr. chairman. worst let me say we all agreed that -- first, let me say that we all agreed that they have brought great honor and respect all of them. andlieve there is unanimity somebody is a credible threat, they should be detained, tried, and brought to justice. the question is where to do that. why should be guantanamo? do defendants have greater rights if they are transferred from guantánamo to the place in the united states was mark the supreme court have said some unknown, they do not. are they more likely to escape if they are transferred to the united states? the number of

escapes from a maximum prison if the united states has been zero. is it less expensive to hold them at quantum of? most certainly not. the average cost of incarcerated somebody in a super max prison is $34,000 a year. the cost to the taxpayer of incarcerated so but at guantánamo is over $1.6 million a year. is there some strategic advantage globally of holding the dick cheney's -- detainees? general petraeus and other leaders of our intelligence and military forces have said that guantanamo is the best recruiting device against the united states around the world for those who are trying to sell the lies that the united states is inhumane and unjust place.

there is simply no rationale for an indefinite extension of the problem at guantánamo. for reasons of security, for reasons of law, for reasons of cost, for reasons of strategic advantage we should close one time ok. that is why i supported the amendment. >> gentleman from california is recognize. was i yield one minute to the gentleman -- >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas. >> i oppose this amendment at the close of a tunnel. -- guantanamo. it is a state of the art detention center where we have spent millions of dollars. the detainees have access to tribunals and proceedings here in washington dc. who are these detainees?

i detained numerous potential terrorists. they are people like the mastermind of 9/11 and one of the would-be participants and 9/11. and terrorists closely associated with osama bin laden. .uicide bombers we should not to bring them to united states and get them the miranda warning and attorneys at taxpayer expense. it should not be released onto the streets. if that is what the africans would like tom a -- if that is what the advocates would like, they should rewrite the amendment. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. win anypretty much battle you want to fight with

superior military might. ,ut for wars of consequence you have to be fighting from the high ground persistently. that is what this amendment is all about. againstwin this war violent extremism, but in order to do so we have to win over the hearts and the minds of hundreds of millions of muslims around the world. they want equal justice under the law. and want fairness and truth transparency and democracy. ,he vast majority are young idealistic, very impressionable.

unfortunately, too many of them misled andd -- manipulated. we have superior set of values and principles. it is what defines us as a nation. we have to hold steadfast to those. we have to show that even when we are challenged, even when it is politically difficult, we believe in equal justice under the law. we believe it that are innocent until proven guilty. we believe that every life matters. we believe in human rights. we do not believe in torture. we do believe in our justice system. it is not our justice system that is operational at guantánamo, it was set up outside of our justice system so we could detain people indefinitely.

could have another 40 seconds customer -- 30 seconds? we are furloughing department of defense employees, how can we justify spending $1.5 million per detainee at guantánamo? half of them have been cleared for release. it does not make sense. 250re authorizing another million dollars to be use. those are misguided price -- priorities. , we can'tuntry convicted of. >> the time has expired. judgment from california is recognized. was i yield -- >> i yield. thank you, mr. chairman. ifew facts are appropriate.

oppose this amendment vigorously. two weeks ago, i was down to guantánamo bay. i will tell you that the soldiers are taking tremendous care of our facility and the detainees. those who suggested this should go away will create a problem that is worse than we have today. his amendment is a pattern of appeasement -- this amendment is a pattern of appeasement. a few more facts. we try to release them to countries that will accept them. at least 1/4 will return to the battlefield. we could bring them to the course as some of them could walk the streets of united states. the final fact, if we simply close the facility that recruiting for radical islamists will stop.

they will continue. this facility is legal. it is just. it is a national asset. >> gentleman for washington is recognized. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> a whole bunch of false arguments are being laid out. no greater constitutional rights, two people in the united states in guantánamo. it is a phony argument. somehow they cannot be held safely. i have a federal prison in my district. frankly, if there was a super max in my district i would not have a problem with them coming. a should be held. i would hope that all of our super max facilities which hold a very dangerous people, they should be holding them secure. it is $1.5 million a year versus earning $4000.

-- versus 44,000 a year. this is all something that is harmful. >> your time has expired. >> i yield to the vice chairman of the house committee, the children from texas. -- the gentleman from texas. >> does it cost more to keep the detainee at guantánamo that a federal prison? probably. nothing like the figures that have been cited on the other side. if you look back at the school year 11 budget request, we are moving the techniques and he ends up -- we are moving the detainees and it ends up being $500,000 per detainee in recurring calls. on the other side of it, even the president in a speech at a university said it is less than

$1 million per prisoner now. is there a difference. if anything like we have been hearing. the rest of the story under the geneva convention if you're --ding somebody, you cannot even in a super max. they have to be segregated. that is not really the issue here. the issue is what is the best thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist threat. closing everybody that guantánamo is not permanent. we have to pre-approve it every year. if the president actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech to" tunnel and deal with the detainees, that band can go away -- to close the guantánamo and deal with the detainees,

that ban can go away. his amendment in addition removes all of the existing restrictions at on page four set specifically know funds should be used to detain people after decent but 31. -- december 31. we have to get the plan first before it closes. this amendment should be rejected. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> how much time do i have a smart -- half? i yield my time. >> i strongly oppose this bill. i sent the president a letter about these important issues. i said "i fully recognize crafting a comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorist who wish to harm the

united states and i recognize the challenges and legal complexities of such an endeavor. is why this issue is too important for the insertion to address on its own." the president did not take up my offer. in another an answer letter, i wrote "while i remain open to foreigntogether, -- governments and the media on issues related to our national security than it has with the u.s. house of representatives." those are excerpts from two of the five letters i have written and the president has not answered. he has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. what to do with guantánamo a plan.y to what he proposes to do with

those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release, but cannot be tried. transferhe ensure overseas what not returned to the fight. what he will do with the detainees we capture in the future. how will he prioritize. what he will do with a high- value terrorist in afghanistan. to say critical priority for me. there are several extremely dangerous individuals in custody in afghanistan. the only action -- is to allow their release. we have seen the outcome of making this tragic mistake in iraq. you bringingciate the member -- the ranking member's amendment, we cannot agree to bring them to the

united states and release of overseas. lastly, this important. i am proud of the men and women in uniform who serve our nation every day. it is not an easy duty. we of them a debt of gratitude. i yield back. >> the senate returns to business on monday. a pair of nominations at 5:00. the vote is expected at 5:30 p.m. the focus will turn back to the immigration bill. majority leader reid said he finished -- he plans to finish the immigration bill. among the issues the house is expected to work on is a bill and abortion after 20 weeks in the farn bill.

watch it live on c-span. >> tonight on c-span, dave camp and senator baucus speak about efforts to change the tax system. some of today's speaker at the freedom coalition. and paulorida governor ryan. >> tomorrow, we will talk about the nearly 5 million people who have security clearance with the cofounder of clearance and jobs. followed by a discussion on the road to majority. we are joined by matt lewis. the fatherhood initiative in the

public policy issues that promote. the vice president of development. "washington journal" here on c- span. >> finance committee chair max baucus. >> 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. after working for the securities 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 served 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 so important. and a lot in passing depends on trust, confidence, when you can 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.

we 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 have 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. all three of 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 -- >> yes, next chapter is -- dave is including his working groups. we have option papers. we meet weekly thursdays.

number nine was 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. in addition, dave and i are going to travel around the country, and we are going to go to different cities and talk to people, 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. >> last one for me, and then we 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 -- the nation's vague tax laws. 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 for warm -- reform. 1986 brought the code up-to- date, and a lot has happened since 1986. that means the code has to be has to be brought up to date again. tax exemptions are basically statutes that were passed a long time 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 not be by a large spending for 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 -- chairman camp >> i expect that 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 example, who directed this and 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. in addition, 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. at least at this point, it is 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. the other thing i would add is 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 have to be very persistent. that reform would not have happened without continual persistence and effort. the economy 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? >> my style -- 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. i want to get some eyes from a bipartisan committee before i proceed. >> i thought when he said the rubber 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 outreach and continue to move this very important issue forward. >> that all sounds a little vague. [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] headlines in the morning is the 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 think 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. you will learn the little scenes that might develop and how to begin to find potential solutions essentially to the question you asked. the big question, which has not yet been asked, is -- what are 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 anythinge plans mean it will not continue to be>> [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. learning about the management

party affair, beyond policy mental restructuring of the internal revenue service? >> i think there may be. internal revenue service? >> i think there may be. this may be at best a intentional. before we conclude, we really need to know all the facts. there just moving into interview of witnesses. we have interviewed a few. manyll be interviewing 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 or, i would say, so out of 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. dave touched on it. the office is almost cut off from d.c. -- not entirely, but 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 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 overseas. i believe there should be very significant race broadening -- base 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. foreign companies are also going to havens, so those countries themselves are losing 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-eight and ireland -- g-8 in ireland. i do believe the issue must be addressed to stop companies 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 transference of intangibles or intellectual property. much of the testimony we have

rate down, the incentive for doing some of that goes a way, the we will need base erosion 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 theit 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 get people back to work and increase their wages, we have to address this issue. again, the president did put it 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 of a culture of coverups and political intimidation in this administration. you said the truth was hidden 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 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 gone from me and determined at 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. 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. i 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 deduction? >> 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 going 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. kevin been working with 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 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. my style is to get the facts person to publicly state some conclusions. sometimes i do not get there, but that's my goal. >> do you agree with chairman camp that the 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. we actually 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. i'm working 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? >> my mantra is everything is on the table. we are going to look at that as well as some other alternative measures, and, frankly, that is tuesday -- thursday. 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 carbon limit. laughter -- >> maybe later. >> copperheads of tax reform was a three-year process, not something. -- tax reform was a 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 be for a couple of years, actually. we have had a good number of hearings.

second, the assumption is tax 1986 was an election year, so it's possible. in addition, i think it will be 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 are not see corpse -- c corps. 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 find some significant gift with republican senators. it is private right now. 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 road, then revenue will very much be discussed. skin are a lot of ways to 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. you keep working and you find a way, and i'm looking for that way to find a 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. sortwould just say that on 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. withusly, i'm meeting every democrat on my committee. many of them say they would 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 agreeone of the things 80% of americans agree with is the code

is to come located. i think the average person 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 looked at. the first hearing i had as chairman two-and-a-half yearswe 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 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 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. because -- and in terms of the >> there are 42 definitions of small business in the code. 42. i might make another point here -- if we do not form the code 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, election season, and i think it will be very difficult to pass tax reform in that context. just think how much we will have lost by then. >> we have about eight minutes left. >> the 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 part, 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.

state tax issues. that would be judiciary. i try not to tell other chairman what to do. i think the legislation has changed, and i think we will have to see what we actually look at in the house. i think a million is a little too low in terms of the threshold for where you have to provisions, but again, i will 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 split on the house side >> do you see younger members looking at this different than older members in any way?

>> i have not really analyzed iti just have not -- i guess i like to anger your older members split, frankly. there are fewer of us, and we 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 ignore. 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. -- too early. but he is very involved. i have met with them on taxi meet frequently with his chief find is very good. he is going out of his way coming up to the hill talking members in the house and

senate and engaging congress on lots of different issues. the president clearly cares about a fiscal solution, cares -- does care about tax reform. the new will only be generated in the context of tax reform. -- new revenue will only be 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. 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 said basically, "i may not be 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 noti think the time is now. 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 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 g-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.

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. >> tonight on c-span, speakers from the freedom coalition conference. first, and jeb bush. then representative paul ryan followed by south carolina rep mark sanford. doingo take what we're does protect american civil liberties privacy. the issue is to date we have not

been able to explain it because it is classified. that issue is something we are wrestling with. how do we explain it and still keep the nation secure? that is the issue we have in front of us. you know that this was something debated vigorously in congress. both in the house and senate. with a and b administration and now the court. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers, this is what we're doing on behalf of all of us for the good of the country. now what we need to do is bring as many facts as we can to the american people. that we arespective trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we are not. take of this weekend, the senate appropriations committee looks

that u.s. intelligence agency secret data collection program. fromthis weekend, coverage the publishing industry's annual trade show. that is saturday and sunday. on american history tv, lectures on the end of slavery. sunday at 1:00. theext, jeb bush talked to faith and freedom coalition about immigration reform in congress and his political career. his parents are george h. w. bush and barbara bush. floridad as the governor from 1999-2007 and was the state's first two-term republican governor. >> thank you all. thank you, councilman.

>> thank you all. thank you, 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 was -- he told everyone to put the harps back in the closet. he decided he would get well out of the icu unit. he is getting stronger every day. a dad and everyone who has 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. marvin is doing really well, since you asked. thank you for asking.

[laughter] in reality, george and his wife are doing very well. they have opened up their library. i'm very proud of my brother for 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 update is that my life's hope has come true. i'm a grandfather. [applause] i have a 22 month old munchkin. i secretly call her 41. last week they were in texas and brought prescott walker bush into the world. you will be happy to know i 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 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 want to talk about how conservatives in government. it is interesting and important that we address these pressing problems. when strain of conservatism should be dominant? we should focus on how to

govern again. as for me, our path is through 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 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. according to the narrator, they say republicans are all about austerity. the other side is all about stimulus. 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 to expect we are on a path of a 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. we should grow in real terms over the next decade to come. if he did that, the two percent growth would create jillions of 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 dramaticallyhow can we grow at 4%? by the way, 4.7 trillion economic activity creates revenue. the whole idea of redistribution of wealth if you that kind ofg revenue would create more benefits for government. we would be able to cut taxes again. how do we change this? entitlement reform. tax reform. 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 than 40% are 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. last year, 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 goes out in a heartbeat. the u.s. could be the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. 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. think of the hollow out of our economy in many places in our country. more power would be generated by natural gas. consumers would save hundreds of billions of dollars because he would have the last -- lowest 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 benefit of job creation in our country. we should open up federal

landsit should dramatically increase for our country's economic security. we need to the energy secure as 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 create one percent.

we need more than that to be successful. 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. part of that is a pessimism in our country and part of it is the changing demographic. playthem learn english and by our rules and pursue their dreams in our country with a vengeance to create more opportunity for all of us. this 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. thisroduct to the of country is dependent upon young people he put to work hard -- equipped to work hard. look at japan. look at china. 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? 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. theldn't we narrow definition down? we can 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 we want to look to. to have more economic immigrants. they have more economic immigrants. they had seen sustained 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 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] we excuse the way of the god- given talent of young people not being fulfilled as someone else's fault. in florida we tried a different approach. we graded schools 100% based on student learning.

a, b, c, d, f. we're limited social promotion in third grade. we focus on early literacy. we extend school choice to empower parents to make decisions for their children. standardsch higher 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. we must focus on a shared believe of strong families and faith as a backbone of any american renewal.

it is important. when we deprive our families of fathers and mothers, our schools and religious happens?ons, what without purpose, they begin to crumble. so does the culture that defends them. some of you might know i was raised episcopalian. we should read the bible, work hard and honestly and not complain. barbara bush emphasized the not complaining part is i remember. [laughter] all young husbands and dads, it 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 -- 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'sit 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. 39 years married. [applause] but then again, that is how many husbands convert. they convert to their wife'sbut and i began to understand 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 will be brought -- 42% of the 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. there are fantastic faith and 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. they have to be supported of a single mom or dad or a grandmother taking care of young children. our america's children in homes and taught the

difference between right and wrong and hard work and justice and walkingnow that i'm a grandparent, everything has come full circle. things are not as black andthere 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 their own kids. i wish i could take away the heart ache that i know is coming. reading a word for the first 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? i 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. it will be bright if we all resolved in the struggle and focus on making it so and returning to and half of workers and meaning -- and 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 house budget committee chairman and former presidential candidate paul ryan. he 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. does not sound real right, does it? i have known him since i was in my early 20s. back then they used to say you look kind of like ralph reed. now they can't i am older than he is. the guy it just does not age. it is a strange paraphrase, he s

opens with a prayer and ends with an investigation. that is what is a decade ago. it is the same as it is now. i mean that sincerely, welcome to washington. the left likes to think we are 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. we are witnessing this 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. we had a hearing last week where we talked with various groups on what the irs has done. a woman from iowa, just like any 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? they said if you and your board

of directors sign an affidavit promising you will never picket planned parenthood, maybe we will process your application. this is big government assaulting our first amendment rights. look at what is going on. obamacare says that if you believe in the social teaching of the church, if you disagree with abortion inducing drugs, it doesn't matter. you, if you are a church, charity, hospital, you must 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 promise and rhetoric of president obama. the great, soaring rhetoric and empty promises. in his first term, he passed his program, but not a moment it. but 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. christmass not a 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. when i had conversations like this with people in wisconsin, on earth did this happen? it goes 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] the goal of government is the 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 we have government figuring out 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 right. 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. when you look at the goal in the 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 overreach, this is not what i 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.-- play by the rules, you can 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. that is where our faith matters 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 regulations, the government anyls -- fills that space. have government so involved in your lives. -- and you have the government so involved in your lives. 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.

do you buy that stuff? >> no. >> they do not know better. that is the oldest joke on the planet. this idea that we should just delegate our power and freedoms and values to other people. we need to introduce these ideas. liberty, 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 upon to do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. [laughter] i feel good about it. you are here. 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 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. interesting story is they are in philadelphia, the first congressional convention. they are wrapping up their deliberations. an older man steps out. some steps forward and says, well, doctor, what do we have? his reply was, every public if you can keep it. -- a republic if you can keep it. he said, if you think you could. keep it. vesting in individuals a degree of power and individuals in turn

were in essence loan the government power. only in is much as it is consent by the government. that is to say 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? we are at a point the likes of which i do not remember any cap -- have been here in washington. what is interesting is we have seen tough times before. within seven years of that constitutional convention, there

is a question as to whether every would make it. we weren't in an economic slowdown. we were in a flat-out depression. aou have the whiskey rebellion. host of things going wrong. said no,egular folk we're going to continue to push on and forward. republicans have existed for more than 200 years. 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. it makes relevant what was talked about more than 100 years ago. he was a little-known scottish historian. he studied history for most of his life. 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 realize that democracy is followed by a dictatorship. these nations have progressed from bondage to spiritual faith. spiritual faith to great courage. great courage to liberty. liberty to complacency. to dependency and 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. and yet in some ways i want to spend my time speculating.

they called and asked me to come. i went back to the office that afternoon. marie, who i have 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 respectfully step forward to offer two ideas. one idea is exactly what i talked about, which is realize 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. it is often too overlooked. 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. it is ultimate case of taxation 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.

i think there'll be incredible 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. he said, i have 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 old ones thatncel do violence to the constitution or impose on the people 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 recognize if you follow benghazi and --rizon, and hoboken of issues 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 -- great courage 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. god gives us a spirit of courage and not of fear. you need to seize that and operated. -- operate it. as you build a movement to make a difference 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. june 1863, he was assigned orders. he opens up the orders. he is being assigned 200

deserters from his home state, maine. not exactly the fighting force you dream of. he literally ran for the hills. he reaches down and says no man has to battle. this is free ground. 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. we 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. they hold that far left corner, they 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 there or a 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 can do working collectively. thank you for what you do. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> 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. thank you for that introduction. he is right. you ain't seen nothing yet. [applause] i'm thrilled to be here with all of you at the faith and freedom coalition. you 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 american idol because i have a lot of experience in front of a microphone in a room full of critics. i do believe that congress needs a lot more 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. i began as a foster mother who saw there were serious problems in our public education system. i have got involved. i saw how big 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. i 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. we are fast tracking in a breathtaking scale that i have not seen in eight years on capitol hill.

peopleimmigration reform. of goodwill on both sides of the issue. 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. why is it of such great magnitude? we are looking at the legalization of over 30 million

illegal aliens. this is not an anti-immigrant speech. i married an immigrant. first generation immigrant. my ancestors 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 what this will mean -- amnesty will cost a fortune. you're looking at $6 trillion cost for amnesty. just retirement benefits alone for illegal aliens will be something like $2.7 trillion. the bill we are currently looking at provides an existing form would mean that the borders will 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 takes the technology of e-verify and puts it on the shelf. it prevents the state from using the concept of e-verify. this is a serious concern. we have a history -- in 1986, the 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 --egal aliens.take a look at ts rick .5 million illegal --3.5 million aliens. take a look at the numbers. we will give more people the girl -- legal status in 10 years that we have in the last 40. the average illegal alien that comes to the united states, the average age is 34 years old. is average education level about the 10th grade. that is 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. theave us salvation and richness of the kingdom of god in we confess our sins and turn towards him. we are people of compassion. andfor 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. in a very compassionate way -- you should give so much that your family -- since out of bankruptcy. that is what we're looking like -- where looking at in this

country. at the worst 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 january of 2007, the national debt was -- 8.67 trillion dollars. 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 compassionate to not be able to 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 most, the people who have hurt the most are hispanic havefrican americans who already suffered very high levels of unemployment because rather than competing for jobs now and save $10 an hour, 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. ofthey cannot, then get out humanity we will have to supply those services. let's think carefully and cautiously. love deeply. have a big heart. but use our head at the same time we are using our heart.

we can solve this problem with love and compassion. with humanity. 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. is just over 10 minutes. [applause] >> good morning, friends. good to see you. great to be part of this conference with my friend. ralph reed. 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. you are a breath of fresh air in barack obama's washington, d.c. let me tell you. 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. everycausing us to lose issue that we care about are -- not for a year or five years, but probably a generation or more. he has got tremendous political skills. this is a guy in which the battle is not over. he has thousands of ideologues like lois lerner and the irs to get up and rush in to work because they cannot get -- way to get onto business of restricting our liberty. american to our

european socialism. quite frankly, 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. the issues that brought us, the reason why i worked for ronald reagan for eight years and issues of heart and home. on 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. ladies and gentlemen, the figures are beyond imagination. it used to be a big urban area problem. 60% 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. left,f those on the including the president of all people, could care less about 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? why would the government want to do anything about it? around big cities america. they have been an hands of the democratic party for decades. philadelphia, washington, d.c., detroit, democratic mayor after democratic mayor. city councils where literally 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. party, they understood that issue and they would want to address it. we came into this party because of the issues of sanctity of life. our position on that is noble and decent and compassionate. isbelieve -- even though it 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. republicand for a presidential nominee to say? just went through two elections where the nominee had a hard time expressing that. perhaps the nominees have a hard time expressing that. we believe all human 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 a newborn with down's syndrome or a 90-year-old fighting off the fog of senility. andhave dignity and value worth. our founders put that idea 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 -- are 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. was decided back in 1973. it violates the basic idea of america. [applause] of all the things you can say about barack obama, the list of problems we have with the president, 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 that about 10% of the american people have. he will not stop one abortion. of one because of the sex

the baby or in the seventh month of pregnancy. hen famously in illinois tried to block a law that merely said that if by some miracle a 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, god bless you for what you do. to a group of people whose job it is when they jump 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 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. the left in this country is 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 who believe in 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. [applause] they actually tell political candidates, go out there and base your campaign on the idea that we need to cut everyone's 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 issue about that definition of marriage. myy have it upside-down,

friends. the republican social agenda 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 are more popular than the republican economic agenda. [applause] so my friends, i would say to 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-crunchers and accountants, you do not have to go off and pass an amnesty and try to outbid the other guy on government spending and getting all this other stuff that they are being told to 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. he was first elected in 2002 and chaired the national republican senatorial committee from 2007 to 2011. this is about 10 minutes. >> thank you for that nice introduction. it is great to be with you here today. i want to thank my friend, ralph reed, for the opportunity to speak and all of you for being here. i know following up on a good continential breakfast is a 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. welcome to washington. the temperature is cooler here than in texas today, but we're glad you all are here. i would 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 to serve my constituents comes from my family. my two daughters and my wife of 33 years. throughout our country's history, families have been a source of perpetual strength for all of us. they provide the love and the social cohesion which absolutely is necessary to produce the next generation of

american leaders, and in maintaining america as an exceptional nation on the world stage. strong 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. obviousthem are more than others, but there is one particular threat i want to focus on here initially, and that is big, intrusive, all- encompassing government. bey are many reasons to 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. and we have seen that maxim in 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 dodd- frank and obamacare and this failed stimulus that left us with $1 trillion in deficit. -- additional debt. 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. dangerous a

expectation. in an era of trillion dollar deficits and 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 second is to love our neighbor as ourself. remember the parable of the good samaritan where jesus taught this lesson and said openly, who is the one who is the neighbor to this man, and it was the one who showed mercy. we need to remember that and show that love for our fellow man, and particularly those who are less fortunate than we are. havee know that americans 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 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. time and time again we've seen big government and all of its bureaucratic clumsiness or less --ted and infecting, but to is poorly suited and in fact in complement to serve the needs of so many americans and so many people. and yet i fear that as government becomes bigger and more paternalistic, it tends to weaken and undermine the traditional family structure. i visit more and more young

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 will simply look to government as some sort of faceless parent figure or 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 to big government. and social science could not be clearer. as families disintegrate, so do the social and economic prospects of those families. in modern 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 sawhill, 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% 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, the out of wedlock birth rate in america has been trending up for several decades now. this is a national tragedy. 5% of children were born outside of marriage and that number is exploded to 23%.

in 2011, it was an astonishing 40.7%. they are born outside of traditional families. the birth of the child is a blessing. but when the traditional family model is abandoned, research shows that children face of much more difficult climb to success. and we do is as exciting. try as we might with all of the best intentions, government is not and never will be an adequate substitute for good parenting and stable families. let's be clear -- the victims here are not the adults who narcissistic we make choices to gratified their needs. it is the children who lack the type of family environment is that cultivates happen is, responsibility, and success.

this is precisely why the good work you are doing here today and the values we are embracing is so important. by fighting for the families of our country, you are fighting for social mobility and the economic vibrancy that is always invigorating our country and made it something special. you are fighting for the longevity of a great nation that believes that doing things for others and helping the most vulnerable while maintaining peace through strength is the greatest contribution we can make. and by nurturing strong families, we also put a brake on growing expansive and interests of big government. this is no small task and the stakes could not be higher. but with all parts, we can and we must press for with our resilience of our convictions. thank you for allowing me to come here and address you today.

god bless you and may god bless the united states of america. >> next. remarks from the faith and freedom coalition founder and president, ralph reed. his remarks are about ten minutes. >> well, it just keeps getting better and better, 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. [applause] 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, balancing majority in the house, in the senate and eventually in the white house. that is what we need. [applause] and, we don't want to be greedy. but the minimum of 35 governorships with majorities in both houses of both legislatures. [applause] 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. -- cometary it.

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 agendas, -- his domestic 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 and every sentence in obamacare is killed and left on the ashheap of history where it belongs. host

>> the soldiers and marines are taking care of the detainees and our assets. those who suggested that this prison should go away will create a problem that is worse than the one we have today. this amendment is a pattern of appeasement that does not comport with the fact that radical terrorist will not seize to attack us simply because we wish they go away. we close guantánamo bay. we try to release them to countries that will accept them. we know at least one quarter of them will return to the battlefield. they could go to civilian courts in united states. undoubtedly some of of the milwaukee streets of united dates. -- some of them will walk the streets of the united states.

the recruiting for radical extremists will diminish if we close the facility -- this seems illogical. there is no support for such a statement. they will attack us whether we open it or close it. i yield back. >> the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is record highs are in -- is recognized. >> of whole bunch of false arguments. as has been clear, no greater constitutional rights come to people in the u.s. than guantánamo. that is a phony argument. the second phony argument is somehow they cannot be held safely. i have a federal prison in my district. frankly if there was a super max facility in my district, i would not have a problem with them coming to that district. they should be held. i would hope all of our super max facilities which are holding very dangerous facility, they better be holding them securely. it is $1.5 million a year versus dirty $4000.

it is an absolute recruitment tool for al qaeda. our military leaders have all said that this is something that is harmful. >> mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my colleague thomas vice chairman of the house committee committee, the gentleman from texas. mr. chairman, cost to red herring argument. does it cost more to keep a detainee in guantánamo been a federal prisoner here? probably. for example, if you look back at the fiscal year 2011 department of justice budget request for moving the detainees to the u.s., it ends up on the first year being about $1.9 million per detainee and about $500,000 per detainee in recurring costs. on the other side, even the president in a speech at the

national defense university says that it is less than $1 million per prisoner now per detainee. is there a difference? yes. is it anything like we have been hearing? no. under the geneva convention if you are holding somebody under the laws of war, you cannot put them with federal prisons. .hey have to be segregated those costs of bringing them here are higher. that is not really the issue. the issue is, what is the best thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist threat? i would just remind everybody that the ban on closing guantánamo is not permanent. we have to re-approve it every year. if the president actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech, but a real plan to close guantánamo and deal with the detainees, then the band can go away. but you cannot say, we are going to remove all of the

restrictions, and we are going to close guantánamo, and then we will figure out what to do with these people. that is exactly what this amendment does. gentleman from washington says it is about a plan. his amendment in addition to asking for a plan, it removes the existing restrictions, and subsection d says specifically, no funds shall be used there to detain people after december 31, 2014. we've got to get the plan first before it closes. i think this amendment should be rejected. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> how much time do i have? >> two and one quarter minutes remaining. >> i yield myself the balance of the time. >i strongly oppose this amendment. two and a half years ago i sent the president a letter about these important issues. , i fully that letter recognize the importance of crafting a careful and

comprehensive remark for the detention -- framework for the detention of terrorists. i also recognize the legal complexities. this appreciation is why this issue is too important for the administration to address on its own. the president did not take my offer at that time. nearly one year later, and another unanswered letter, i wrote, while i remain open to working together, i'm disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a greater willingness to engage with the international institutions, or governments, and the media on issues related with our national security than it has with the u.s. house of representatives. those are excerpts from two of the five letters i have written to the president on this issue which he has not answered. yet he still has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. what to do with guantánamo is secondary to the president coming forward with a comprehensive plan. such a plan must include what he

proposes to do with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release but cannot be tried. number two, how will he ensure terrorist transfer overseas? do with the terrorists we capture in the future, specifically how will he prioritize intelligence questioning? finally, what will he do with the high-value terrorist still held in afghanistan? this is a priority for me. there are several extremely dangerous individuals in custody in afghanistan. the only option i see that is completely unacceptable for those detainees is to allow their release. you have already seen the outcome of making this tragic mistake in iraq. while i appreciate the proposal of my friend, the ranking member, we cannot strike all prohibitions on transfers of gitmo detainees could agree to

bring them to the united states, release them overseas, and then all funding for gitmo -- and all funding for gitmo. -- end all funding for gitmo. lastly i want to say that i'm proud of the men and women in uniform who serve our nation every day at guantánamo. it is not an easy duty. we owe them a debt of gratitude for their critical service to this nation. i yield back. >> the house and senate return for business on monday. the senate dabbles in at 2:00 p.m. eastern for speeches written they both turned to a pair of judicial nominations at 5:00. votes are expected at 5:30. the focus will turn back to the immigration bill with amendments being offered and debated. majority leader reid said he plans to finish the immigration bill by the july 4 recess. the house cattle -- dabbles in at noon eastern for speeches -- gavels in at noon eastern for speeches.

20ill banning abortion after weeks and the farm bill, which includes nutrition programs. watch the house live on c-span, the senate on c-span2. next week, the house plans to take up a bill by arizona representative trent franks that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. now former colorado republican congresswoman marilyn musgrave and representatives from conservative women's groups talk about their support for the bill. this is about 25 minutes. good afternoon. as our lovely panelists get settled, we are so grateful to be here. we are so excited to be here talking about advancing the pro- life movement. said, no one wants an abortion as she wants an ice

cream cone or a porsche. she wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own life. it is truly the spirit of why we are here. matthew 25 tells us to care for the least of these, and certainly abortion is a least of these issue for both the unborn child and the mother who desperately is seeking a solution. it is in this context that we came up on the tragic anniversary of roe v wade. 40 years this past january. in its wake him and left 55 million babel -- babies aborted -- in its wake come if left to the 5 million babies aborted. $1 billionre is a abortion industry profiting from their pain and loss. planned parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider, performs an abortion every 94 seconds. currently it receives over $1 million a day of your money and my money.

all of this is devastating, but we have some good news today. actually on the issue of abortion, we are winning. we are winning. so much so that "time" magazine in january came up with a cover article that said "40 years ago ." [applause] the truth of the matter is 56% of americans take a pro-life position. especially young people. 72% of teenagers say that abortion is morally wrong. we know that in 2011, 92 state laws were passed, a record in 24 states, and in 2012, 19 state laws were passed on the issue of abortion.

we are down to one abortion clinic in four states. , mississippi,as south dakota, and north dakota. we welcome others. we know that more than half of the states have pro-life majorities in their legislatures and pro-life governors. we are advancing. advancing is about the pro-life movement, but we have lots of room to grow. we have a lot more to do. joining me this afternoon in our panel are wonderful and brilliant women who i'm going to let and -- introduce themselves. i will start with kate. >> thank you for having me. i am an author, commentator, blogger. it is an honor to be here. i also work with a wonderful conservative women's organization, i served on their board.

they are fabulous. they promote conservative women to leadership positions, give them the support that conservative women need, because we get attacked far more than you guys do. we need a group. we need lots of groups that work to support these women. i think on the issue -- what we need to do to advance the pro- life movement? there is so much we need to do, so much we are doing right. i think we need to instruct our leaders and how to remain courageous and not run as fast as they can when the mainstream media tells them to. stand up and champion life. we often need to expose the hypocrisy of the left when they claim to be the ones who are champions of women's rights and women's health. give me a break. they do not even support basic healthcare regulations for abortion clinics, and they care about women's health we need to expose the fact that the left does not give a hoot about women's rights. $1 billionbout the abortion industry. 1.i make in my book that i think

we are ignoring to some extent -- 1.i make in my book is that i think we are ignoring -- one that i make in my book is i think we are ignoring is that the obama administration is hoping to spread abortion. they do not even acknowledge the fact a large portion of women around the world are in virtual slavery in the name of islam. these women cannot even walk outside of their house without a male escort. they cannot have a job or an education and yet we are going to make sure they have abortions on demand at every point in time during her the. that is absurd. -- during their pregnancy. that is absurd. we need to provide women around the world with basic human dignity and rights. let's support the right of these precious unborn babies in let's point out that unborn babies. the point out the democrats of the left, they do not care about women. >> amen.

hello, i am jane gardner. i'm president of the national black pro-life union. you can also check out my website. havetly many americans celebrated the guilty verdict in the philadelphia sending kermit goznell to prison for the rest of his life. he preyed on women and young girls of his own race. more than 30 years, he participated and perpetuated an epidemic of black on black crime which is a national problem that has become increasingly more pronounced over the years. he ran his bloody clinic in a black neighborhood he made millions of dollars killing black children. we heard heartbreaking testimony, and i was there.

, crying whileng being killed, babies with/next, babies beheaded, babies flushed down toilets, tiny severed feet displayed like -- displayed in jars like souvenirs. the media for the most part looked the other way. all this horrific trout took place, the media was talking about jodi arias and o.j. simpson. after his sentencing, there was a sigh of relief from all of us. the pro-abortionists were signing two. -- sighing too. it is not over. he is not an anomaly. abortions across america are continuing where he left off. as a matter of fact, i will be in houston next week to decry the actions of douglas karpen, the abortionist known to forgo the slipping -- the snipping

procedure. thepts instead to twist heads of babies off with his bare hands. you have a unique opportunity to gain solid ground in the abortion debate. it will not happen with namby- pamby conservative politicians who are convinced that the only way to win an election is to highn top of that really gray fence. we need politicians who are powerhouses. --need pro-life communities [applause] pro-life communities to come together and stand in unity, each and every one of us. for those of us who consider ourselves christians, we need to stand boldly for the things of god, knowing that he is all- powerful, he is almighty, and by his grace, we must exude courage and we must be fearless.

[applause] >> thank you. former congresswoman marilyn musgrave's. >> i am a former congresswoman from colorado. i do have the scars to prove it, in case you wonder. i'm not vice president of government affairs at the susan b anthony list, the national pro-life organization, working hard to elect pro-life women. what an opportunity before us today. i'm so glad that you brought up kermit. in the pro-life movement, many of us have been in it since roe v wade. the pond and said we would not be talking about this issue in just a few years. we are still talking about it. in the political arena, we have not had many victories in -- victories. when the nation has to look at partial-birth abortion and really think about what went on, the nissan legislative action. you saw the bill signed into law

by resident george w. bush. right now, the curtain has been pulled back. the nation, and god willing, the media would have been more cooperative in covering this sensational stuff, but i'm so thankful for the ones that did -- the curtain was pulled back, and people in this country had to take a look at what was really going on in that facility that was called a clinic, by a man who said he was a doctor that was giving healthcare to women. you can hardly read through the grand jury report, when comments have been made this morning, we recoil, we gasped. the nation needs to look at that. it is all about money. there is legislation in congress right now, championed by trent franks from arizona. . was elected with trent what a great pro-life leader. we have an opportunity now to

ban abortions nationwide at 20 weeks. we are talking about a late-term abortion bill. people need to look at what is going on in regard to rosie wade until now. what has happened in the abortion industry? when you think of the graphic descriptions of what went on in that facility, believe me, americans are with us. americans are becoming more and more pro-life, more pro-life women, more pro-life young people, that wonderful thing, the ultrasound, a woman is pregnant now, and you see a picture of the baby before it is born. i saw my grandchildren. i saw pictures of my grandson isaac before he was born. it is incredible. science is on our side. we are moving in the right direction.

not only do we want this bill passed, but we want hearings for it we want people -- hearings. we want people in the trial to talk about their experience. we want former clinic workers, people that could not take it anymore, to come and tell what they saw. likent abortion survivors melissa oden to come and tell her story. this is the time for the pro- life movement, like we have not had in decades. we must seize the moment. we must move legislatively to .ddress this horrific situation it is happening around the country. where news is coming forth everyday. we must address this legislatively. i believe the american people expect us to do so. >> to that point -- [applause] you brought up trent franks' bill it will be on the house floor

on tuesday. everyone of you, before you leave today,, call your congressman, go see them, and if they are pro-life, have them speak. we need this to pass. it would not wipe out, but it would do a lot to curb this situation. 20 weeks, that is for five months. these are late-term pregnancies that we are talking about abortions occurring in when you can feel fetal pain. trent franks was here last night. make sure you let your voice be heard. if you do not speak thomas someone else will speak -- speak, someone else will speak for you. with that, the other thing i want to touch on -- we are running out of time -- i want to talk about big abortion, the industry, they are addicted to our tax dollars. you're giving them half $1 billion a year every year, making all of us complicit. it will only get worse with obamacare. i want to talk about, how is it

that planned parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider who doesn't one in every four abortions, is able to maintain the thin veneer of respectability and still is able to convince people that the crux of their business plan is not abortion, which is absolutely false? i want to start with you, kate. give us what needs to happen and what kind of educational processes and anything else. >> one of the problems is when you have a president who gets up there and says, god bless planned parenthood, that strikes for in all of our hearts. it is a stunning thing. all of our hearts good it is a stunning thing. it helps when a planned parenthood staffer says if the baby is born alive on the table, it is up to the woman to decide. as for effect is that is, it is very important that you get out

there and everybody years -- hears. this is a policy of planned parenthood. they are barbarians. one of the things that we need to do, not just with big abortion, but the issue overall is focus on the young people. the left is so much better about focusing 20 years down the road. by doing so, they are winning. not necessarily on this issue, we are winning with young people, but we will lose those young people as soon as they go to college, as soon as they go through women studies training, sensitivity training, abortion sensitivity training, everything at our campuses is oriented to promoting the billion-dollar abortion industry. it is not about the right of women to control their bodies. it is about to write of planned parenthood to make billions and billions. programs to focus on for young people, groups that are represented here, the young america's foundation.

trying to promote an alternative to the leftist ideology. if we do not reach out, frankly grade school, high school, but campuses or indoctrination camps for the abortion industry. i see young women out there. i know you know what i'm talking about. on collegeo get campuses. do not let go. do not give up the fact that it is so leftist already, we've got to fight for that ground. if we do not when young people, it happens in congress next week or next month is a very temporary thing. if young people en masse believe abortion is a woman's right and somehow we do not care about the rights of the unborn, you're doomed. andsing on young people informing about what the abortion industry is all about is the most important thing. women for america, we will have 50 by the end of the year, 50 different campuses. our young women for america chapter. if you have young girls who

want to get involved in the pro- life movement, looking for a place for fellow conservatives, please come to our website. >> it is hard for those women to stand up for what they believe in. we have to give them courage. specifically because they are willing to stand for life, because they believe in purity -- it is hard. the hookup culture is hard. i think that it is very important to hold people accountable, whether it is on the local level, offices, people you elect to your local offices, people who are appointed. when you think about what happened in this last case in philadelphia, the fact that somebody from the abortion facility try to make it known what was going on, and she was the one who took all the horrible pictures that you see on the internet. hold them accountable. that means you have to go to the , to thehe city

investigators, whatever you have to do. you cannot wait for everybody else to act. in our communities, we have to act. the other thing very briefly is making sure that you raise your own children. if you do not want the other side feeding all the garbage to your kids, you have to do your job and make sure that you raise your children, especially teenagers. although on-site. it is a difficult ride. -- hold on tight. it is a difficult ride. >> i'm hopeful about the movement gaining more young people and women. america is pretty much evenly divided on abortion, but a little bit or life. you know what happens when we reveal what is going on, whether it is this last case or taxpayer funding of abortion, whether it is not sex selection abortion? think of that. it is supposed to be for women. talking about the war on women that is being waged. what about of war -- the war on

women in the womb? we have to keep bringing these things up and make people think about what is really going on in the abortion industry. americans do not want taxpayer funding of abortion. i do not believe in late-term abortion, a majority do not. they do not like sex selection. they are absolutely amazed that anyone could think of taking the life of a baby that could feel pain, whether in the womb or out of the womb. these things are something that we have an opportunity now to show people what really goes on in these clinics. god bless lila rose. we have to keep ringing the facts before the public. bringing the facts before the public. when i feel the heat, i see the light. i invite each one of you to contact your congressman, to tell all your family and friends to do this, to act on the trent franks right now.

this is a nationwide wendy week ban. americans -- 20 week ban. americans are with us on this. we have to keep chipping away at the image that the pro-abortion crowd has. we have to get the truth before the american people. they will not like what they see. >> you brought up the phony war on women that all of us wanted to hurl by the end of the last presidential cycle. we talked about how politicians bullied into silence or afraid to speak on this. if there is one thing that you could tell now, if there is one fact that you would want them to know, what would that be? what is the message you want to give to every member of congress, every senator, every governor about what women truly think the life issue and what is the real war on women? >> if i can speak, i think the

most important thing if you are going to run for office, especially for house or senate, do not bother running if you're going to leave your backbone in your state. [applause] it is important -- the things that you work for and the things you get elected for -- i'm going to do this and do that i'm strongly pro-life, and then you get up there were two makes a difference in you back off because you are afraid of not being elected for another term. i think that stinks. i think you do not along in office anyway. we have to be able to say that to our representatives. [applause] with that to continue to hammer that home. -- we've got to continue to hammer that home. >> you've got to put yourself