one of the things that we're doing is we formed this organization to get companies pointed to more effective ways to use the money they are using. there is a lot of work at the business roundtable. cynicism is not the name of the game. when you go out and try to game. when you go out and try to operate a business, we do work to try to solve problems. a little help from government would be nice. we figured out a way to do it without having a turbocharge behind us but imagine if you had a turbo charge behind us. in exports we have a lot of work. to try to enable and lay a system that will help small to large companies export more of their goods and services. that is the goal of the export complex. it is an infrastructure that can work.

there are private companies that are saying we're not going to wait and see, we will debate the keystone pipeline. we will explore. i do not think we're sitting back. i do not think there is cynicism until we come here and start to talk about the problems here. only go back to our home bases. we work and we tried to solve the problems. >> back to calls and comments. your message for corporate america. matt makes fuel efficient engines. go ahead with your comments. caller: i am the chief consulting engineer. we are developing a 30% higher thermal efficiency engine using gasoline, natural gas, diesel, or jet fuel.

a 30% higher thermal efficiency. a car will go approximately 30% more miles per gallon under host: whatonditions. is the number one thing thefederal government can do to to begin this year free to get your product to market.caller: first of the can give us a grant of $20 million so we can demonstrate to the world that this and generally does we're preaching which is 30% higher thermal efficiency. and then later on, with this product will do is reduce the fuel consumption by $40 million thanks for:

calling in. those the run businesses. we're also looking at facebook and asking the same question. what is your message for corporate america? reaction to comments from the general counsel of microsoft. alan, good evening. he is in south carolina. what is your message for corporate america?caller: there is several things. this is coming from a liberal. one of the biggest problems this is the bipartisan effort to

pretty much put in a larger it corporate american status within wall street, government and with been our daily lives. in order to get rid of that stuff, we need to overturn larger corporations and get rid of the monopolies, back down, small banking, small corporations. put business back into the people's hands. the problem is everything has gone too large. we have got the workers are working part-time to 32 hours. it got a small percentage of the employee a that can small percentage of the time. you don't have the people to spend back into a consumer based economy. you have too many college degrees that are not even necessary in today's economy.

it takes the average job market -- you take the average job market would gets ago.they tired within minutes sometimes. nowadays it turns into a two or three week process. you can go online and you sit there for three hours filling out a job application. it is idiotic.host: it sounds like you had an experience try to fill out an application at walmart.caller: i have personally witnessed it. you have a lot of hr department bloat. it bloats up the hiring process. you have people on unemployment,

and they sit there and say i am not getting a job.caller: let's get another call here from sun city, calif. on the republican line. caller: america is the best work force in the world.there is no other place i would rather live. the problem with the corporate america nowadays is when you get into a company and i do work for large retail company that has over a thousand stores in three different countries. they nickel-and-diming want to get and salary-wise and our--- hourly wise. the disgruntling of the workers is a major part of it.i live in a state, california, that taxes

everything. i am not able to give back to my community because i am getting taxed. corporate america is nickel-and- diming me. one of the reasons private workers are disgruntled with our government is because the unions that they care take as well as government workers. i am sure they do work fine. and hard at what they earn. there's a discrepancy between the private workers and union government workers.host: more of your calls coming up. we are using twitter tonight. here is one from dara.who says -- let's look at the largest taxpayers among the largest corporations, exxon mobil is the largest corporate taxpayer, 30

$1 billion. chevron after that. apple, $14.2 billion. we will hear more about that in a moment. wells fargo and walmart running at the top five.conoco phillips, $7.9 billion in taxes. jpmorgan, berkshire hathaway, ibm, and microsoft. the apple ceo timothy cook was on capitol hill recently testified before the permanent investigations subcommittee in the u.s. senate. largely the issue was about the offshore enough corporate profits. here's some of what he had to say. [video clip]>> apple has become the largest corporate income tax payer in america. last year our cash effective tax rate was 35 percent. we paid nearly $6 billion in cash to the u.s. treasury. that is more than $16 million

each day. we expect to pay even more this year. i would like to explain to the subcommittee very clearly how we view our responsibility with respect to taxes. apple has real operations in replaces with apple employees selling grill products to real customers. we pay all the taxes we wrote-- owe, every single dollar. when not only comply with the laws but we comply with the spirit of the laws. we do not depend on tax gimmicks. we do not move intellectual property offshore and use it to sell our products back to the united states to avoid taxes. we do not stash money on some caribbean island. ourdo not move our money from foreign subsidiaries.

they hold 70 percent of the cash because of the rapid growth of our international business. we use these earnings to fund our foreign operations such as spending billions of dollars to acquire equipment to make apple products and to finance construction of apple retail stores around the world. under the current u.s. corporate tax system, it would be very expensive to bring that cash back to the united states. unfortunately, the tax code has not kept up with the digital age. the tax system handicaps american corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who do not have such constraint on the free movement of capital. host: more of your phone calls in a moment. i wanted to show you the back and forth at the senate hearing asking tim cook, the head of apple, whether any profits made

in the u.s. go offshore. [video clip] >> i know some of it depends on where the sale occurred. but some of it depends on a decision you are making internally about where your going to allocate what you're getting for your intellectual property. where is that decision being made and what do you base it on in terms of how much money comes back to the american companies are paying taxes versus how much is attributable to the international companies. >> it is a good question. everything that we sell in the u.s. is taxed in the u.s.. for foreign country, generally speaking, when we sell something in a foreign country, it is taxed in the local market. and then if it is one of the country's that are being served

from ireland, those units are generally sold by an irish that income is taxed to the degree it is going to be in the local jurisdiction. the proceeds moved to an irish sub. it acts cases it is ali. as a holding company and invest in our earnings and then we pay on those in the united states. >> do any of the proceeds come a -- proceeds, the many thousands of dollars to have gone from a over the years, do any of the proceeds from that actually get part in ireland or in any of the international countries under the aegis of international property? >> i think mr. volek could

answer this better than i. >> the answer is no. 100 percent of the profits on any sale to a customer in the united states whether it is through the channels, or our online stores, all of that is taxed in the u.s.. there is no outbound payments going offshore. host: a report ordered by senator carl levin. here is the headline today. a government watchdog agency found that profit will u.s. companies paid u.s. federal income tax equaling 12.6% of their worldwide income. big businesses are lobbying hard to reduce the official u.s. corporate tax rate. the highest in the developed world is that 35%. to arizona.

chris is on our independent line. caller: my general message is to corporate america act, it is true and are playing fair, and you love america, you believe in america, then invest into us, the people, keep your money here. if you guys are paying your fair share and are playing fair, if our government is overspending, then support us. again, the people who purchase all your products. if you guys are trying to play as the big guys and you're on our side than sure yourself as if it is the side. government that is overspending, join us and let's cut out some of the fat in government.host:

new york city is next. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a quick response to the gentleman from microsoft's comments. i fully respect the rights of all -- my great grandparents came as immigrants and i respect i wouldion's heritage. like to say that the ceo mentioned there were 50,000 and its in the country was wondering what the corporations could do to reach our to as before the reset to other countries for have some might negative effects in the future. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am a student. host: what are you studying? caller: computervision. host: thank you for calling.

hi, perry, you're on the air, go ahead. caller: i think there is nothing wrong really with corporate america. i do not think there is anything wrong. host: is your restaurant franchise or is it a stand- alone? caller: it is a hardees. business medium. not as much as mcdonald's. host: there was news about the delayed implementation of the health care law. what concerns do you have about the implementation of that law? caller: not really any concerns. host: the mandate requiring businesses to provide workers

with health care will be delayed a year. delaying the requirement until 2015 is an enormous victory for business that had lobbied against the health care law. it means that one of my-one of the requirements will be implemented after 2014 when the gop is likely to use the affordable care act to attack thenerable democrats. marriott ceo arne sorenson said the has not cost the company that much. [video clip] >> how has the obama health care >>ll affected your business? so far, not very much. it has been about my older children who are on my policy.

i think when we look at the first of 14 will see the mandatory coverage. we have we think about 90 percent of our employees are full-time, 30 hours or more. we will be required to provide insurance to them. we think that this could be 60 million -- 600 million to $100 billion. there is a bunch of interesting things we will see next year. we do not know how many of the folks who are not covered by our plans are covered by spouse's plans and how many are also the young and invincible basically say i do not want to pay my 25%, i would rather go naked because i do not think anything will happen to me. how many are folks that are too tight with the wallet and cannot afford it. we will see when the dust

settles that is the letter to cash -- latter two categories that are obligated to have insurance.>> you have a pretty good sense of what the burden on the company is and what it will cost. >> it was a pretty wide range. that suggests there is a lot we do not know. host: we have 10 more minutes of your calls and comments. your message for corporate ohio, francis is on the republican line. caller: good evening.yes. a lot of the things that were said, i agree and i have been listening to the lot. i feel the big thing that sticks with me is too big to fail. we used to have monopoly law. i do not think the monopoly law is working.i do not know whether that is in effect.

host: what is now working for you? caller: too many businesses are too big. and i think we did at one time have a monopoly tight laws. i think when a company grows s bell wayy broke up back when. broke up that business. because it was too big and covered too much. so they broke it up. host: things seem to be going the other way to you? caller: they influence our government too much.the lobbyists for them. it is overwhelming and we have a union lobbyists. i just feel that everything is host: we just lost frances.

thanks for calling in. we are also looking at twitter. woody tweets in --i will never own anything apple until they bring their manufacturing back to america. we do not buy made in china anymore. steve says --partisan politics and social -- shows progress as they rely on fossil fuels. a couple more calls. this is a on our independent line. i are you there? caller: i would like to see more businesses and co-op oriented business that i think to get away from the one percenter mentality. i think that is a good idea. host: what kind of manufacturing we manufacture

pump stations. we are very proud of that. ray,ld not agree more with government should underwrite for small business. america has turned into a country where we speak so strongly of small business and that is where we get patriotic and that is rah-rah and will of -- we love small business.the government does things for government -- businesses that are greedy. imagine if you would underwrite 500 million toward. the pump stations. the government could underwrite with public offerings. the small business administration is governedfor companies that are $33 million. that is the definition of a

small business. we cannot get to the table and yet i have patents on stations and whether it is a web page or a meeting, we are overshadowed by large corporations. we're challenged daily by large corporations. i would like to see this be the rule of the day. it should be people like me with master's degrees, small business but we are passionate about america. i did not think this will ever host:en in america. this was approved by the senate before the left.on facebook, here is one from daphne. joseph talks about and this is a conversation that is going on back and forth on line.it is

how we ended up with this mandate. on the issue of fuels. fred smith talked about the need for higher taxes on fuel, particularly on gasoline because of the issue of the infrastructure cost the country. >> the combination of the leadership of congress and the regulating transportation and the funding mechanism that was put in place to build our transportation infrastructure was very important to the economic prosperity of this country. beginning in the middle part of the 1990's, the primary funding mechanism for the highway system its been allowed to atrophy. is particularly unfortunate

because we have had enormous improvements in efficiency in terms of the miles per gallon of both private automobiles and the equipment that will operate. the net effect on the traveling public or the shipping public is not unmanageable. that is the easiest, quickest, and most effective way to solve the problem is to put and a fuel tax to fund improvements. on the aviation side, there are mechanisms there to do the same thing. you cannot wish these things will happen. they have to have the money to fund them. host: your message for corporate america. we have a couple more minutes. peter is in brooklyn. caller: i wanted to comment on the high corporate income tax in america and held that makes us competitive internationally.

what we really need is to shift that path and that revenue we may receive to a carbon tax and really try to keep the revenue neutral but protect us and our environment versus keeping this corporate income tax in place which is going to be abused and taken advantage of other corporations with the most host: let's check twitter once again. he says my message to corporate america is to stop paying taxpayers money and starting cap those. jonah said -- small businesses and local governments work best. back to brooklyn and richard on our democrats' line.hi.

caller: corporate america needs andinvest in our children. their parents to support the children so that they stay motivated. you must start with the children in grade school. you disregard children, you disregard our growth, our citizens, our country, our fabric of life. education has always needed corporate participation. backing and also on a daily basis and not just on career day. every day is a career day. this is to be presented to our children at schools. corporate america needs to invest in our children and if they invest in our future, the almighty dollar will appear. i just say corporate america needs to expand their view of spirit and then growth will occur. host: thank you for your call. a quick look at the headline about apple and their new server farms.

apple will build a solar farm to power their reno data center. timshowed you the comments of cook of apple talking about corporate off shoring. one of the cofounders of cofound -- of apple spoke why he thought the technology companies were more important in congress. here's a quick look. >> to look at the big companies of technology, apple, gould, and all that all started by young people like yourself. these companies, every time they come up with a new product to say, this is a better world. we have something better. when a politician the decision were congress makes a decision anywhere in the world, half the people say it is good, half the people say it is bad. we never get a consensus that there is always one super good. very rare. the most important people in the world are the one who run technology companies.host:

thank you for joining us with your comment. we will let you have the last word. the conversation continues online. all of the speeches you saw this evening are available at our video library at c-span.org. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> reuters is reporting that mohamed morsi's security adviser said a military coup was underway after after and are in the deadline passed without any agreement. in a show for several hundreds shoulders -- soldiers staged a parade and security forces say he and the entire senior leadership of the muslim brotherhood were banned from leaving the country. also reporting a deadline has come in gone in egypt where the president is vowing to hang onto his job. the military had given him an ultimatum to meet demands or it would intervene and impose a plan of its own but morsi is refusing to step down.

also this, from the congressional budget office, the revised immigration bill passed by the senate would cut illegal immigration by one third to one half beyond existing law. that is a greater reduction than the office said would have resulted from an earlier version of the well which would have cut immigration by 25%. the cbo said the legislation would reduce the deficit despite sending -- spending more on border security. coming up tonight at 8:00 on c- span, journalists and executive discuss medicare and its impact on health care cost. they talk about how medicare has changed over 50 years and healthcare has become the nation's largest industry. here is a look. >> my son had an appendectomy. i got a bill from an independent contractor for the service of

discharge. the hospital swears it has nothing to do with the bill. i have to pay this contractor. everyone in the hotel business would love to do that. but we can't. to go to aunteer hotel. >> on my television network, you would have seen ads for cancer centers. getting cancer is not a voluntary act. what has changed in healthcare, although we never talk about it, most healthcare is the result of a deliberate choice by the patient. it would hurt our business if they did. we view it as a cure. three out of four studies confirm him. -- confirm it. the reality is, we talk about health the way we talk about a

tire blowout on a highway. nothing you can do. we know people who have been through that. the fat part of it where most of the money is being spent and where all of the growth is his chronic condition management, long-term treatment of cancer, and the various replacements we have. food is not voluntary but we have managed to build something that is centrally controlled. healthcare has changed. it is not what it was 50 years ago when our need was urgent in catastrophic. this is the biggest industry in the country. it is something we use all the time. the idea that because you might have a blowout on a highway we should governor the auto repair business, that's absurd. particularly since if any of you

have had a car blowout, the guide does not say let me see your net worth statement before i change your tire. people do that in healthcare. they do it because they can get away of it. >> you can see the entire discussion on medicare tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. the latest term ended last month and each night this week we are bringing oral arguments from the biggest cases. tonight it is affirmative action and analysis of their opinions. . tonight it is affirmative action and analysis of their opinions. that is tonight at 9:00 eastern and coming up@10:30, a connection connection between gun violence and mental illness. they also talk about gun laws across the country. comingan cac of humanity

sea of sea a -- see a humanity coming from union station. the people were already marching. ed us.ea of humanity push so we just walked on. we started moving toward the washington monument. toward the lincoln memorial. time in wonderful american history. >> this fourth of july, civil rights pioneer john millis shares his experience on the march on washington 50 years later and some of the places we visited in the people we have spoken with during the first season of our series on first ladies. and then photographers display

their works and talk about their coverage of world events. at eight p.m., bill clinton and chris christie discuss steps against natural disasters and at 8:45, when did is to be a modern-day american citizen. an annual conference in washington known as the cable show. this our 20 minute portion includes a discussion with executives and new media innovators analyzing broadband technology and digital media on the cable industry. in addition, michael powell delivers the keynote address. >> we are here.

i cannot think of a better introduction, mc hammer and duck dynasty all on the same stage, a true cable experience. >> i really love the duck guys. they have brought great laughter to millions of people this season and we were excited that their finale past american idol in the ratings, another cable milestone.[applause] cable is where it is at. we were thrilled they were able to join us here. we hope we have brought some real fun to d.c. >> that is our overall goal. we want to bring more fine, a little bit more class to the nation's capital. we want to show off everything cable has to offer. we would like to welcome all of you to the cable show 2013. >> welcome. [applause] you may have seen some of the industry's ads saying cable is how we connect.

i think we all planned to do a lot of connecting over the next three days. connecting with our amazing technology, with a stunning array of content, with many of the great talent that appear on our screens, with key government officials and opinion leaders and most importantly, connecting with each other. >> i plan on doing some of my own connecting. i plan to immerse myself in the observatory to get a birds eye view of our industry's contribution. i want to do take in some of the discussions among the 40 sessions. i am going to look at a little bit of the future i cable net. i hope to connect with some of the nearly 300 companies who are displaying on the floor. >> a&e networks is proud to be exhibiting on the floor with so

many of our programming and technology colleagues, it is a great few days. i'm especially looking forward to wednesday, when you will be receiving your vanguard award for leadership. let's give pat around of applause. it is a great honor and well- deserved. i know we will be in great company along with my dear friend and colleague nancy and several other outstanding vanguard winners. >> thank you, that was kind. it has been a pleasure working with you and the vision you have brought to this year's cable show. it has been a fun experience. >> it has been really fun, never expected to be installing cable in monroe, louisiana. will not be doing that again. our objective has been to find

ways of featuring all of the things that people love about cable. incredible entertainment and information, the power of broadband, and the role our industry plays in contributing to the american economy and enhancing the lives of all americans. >> why the theme of the show, cable really is worlds ahead of our competitors and those trying to emulate the success we have had. we are hoping by the time your visit at the show is over, you will be able to see why. >> we're lucky to be kicking off the show this morning with some remarks from an industry leader. with two impressive sediments, featuring global media leaders, one panel will examine the opportunities created by our platform and the other will take a closer look at our incredible robust content. >> we better get off the stage

and let this morning's program get underway. thank you for coming to the cable show. connect with your colleagues, soak in all of the information you can, and have a wonderful time. it is our pleasure to welcome to the stage the president and ceo michael powell. [applause] >> good morning. welcome to the cable show. good be with you. television, it opens the window on our world. storytelling is the most ancient of human endeavors and lets us learn our history, share a laugh, feel a thrill, celebrate. the very best stories live on

cable. a medium of exceptional value and unparalleled quality. americans spend a lot of time with our product and they get a lot for their money. cable is on an innovation tear, expanding the video experience to any screen you want, or any time you want, anywhere you want. cable is more than just great tv. it is a conduit of our future. cable is a significant innovation in its own right. it is also an important contributor to another innovation on this list. the internet. the internet is heralded as the greatest invention of our time and it is. it empowers every one of us to learn, create, and publish. it has transformed industries, bolstered economies, and

overthrowing governments. the power of the people has never been greater thanks to this amazing interconnection of networks that cable probably delivers to millions. not very long ago, getting online required zen-like patience. it used to sound like this. it used to look like this. everyone, everyone wanted something better. we wanted something more powerful, something more useful, some even wanted to use the internet to practice magic. we wanted our internet faster and faster and we wanted it always on. what we wanted was broadband. cable industry heard the cry and answered the call.

we invented the cable modem. from this box, the world's information flows. painful dial up has been put to rest. we are on an endless journey to deliver exceptional experience for american consumers and businesses. moving forward is always good, but it takes energy and effort and money -- lots of money. cable had to dig up a lot of streets and string a lot of wires across lot of poles. cable had to invest, and we have, to the tune of $200 billion as the mid-1990s. it was risky.

truthfully, not everyone was a believer. there is much to believe in now. cable serves over 50 million broadband customers. we have worked hard to reach nearly everyone, offering service to 93% of american homes. i mentioned that does not have a horsepower is not worth the effort. that is why we have increased broadband speeds over 1500% in a decade. today, cable networks available to 85% of all households. this is an achievement envied around the world. while speeds have skyrocketed, the price for consumers have not. all of this has been accomplished in private

investment and the government's light touch. america is an innovation powerhouse largely because of the internet we help to build to nearly everyone. thanks to this infrastructure, america is home to the world's very best internet companies. despite our success, many people like to denigrate u.s. broadband by painting false comparisons to there countries. are some nations doing very well. there are some nations doing well. it is foolish to compare countries like france and latvia to the united states of america. we are home to 316 million people. our challenges are different, but our results are nonetheless impressive. if you can pare u.s. states to

hundreds of foreign countries, 10 of the top fastest regions in the world are here in america. we are flying up the internet speed chart. in 2009, the u.s. ranked 22nd in the world. today, we ranked eighth. average peak connection speeds have tripled over the past five years. like everyone, we want to deliver more. we want every american to have access to broadband number rich, poor, urban, and rural. we do not cherry pick the most lucrative customers. we serve everyone. we still have one quarter of americans who have access to broadband but have not yet gotten online. we want to fix that.

cable has launched adoption programs throughout the country offering low-priced broadband to low income american families. programs like connect to compete and internet essentials are helping get all of america online. one great example is the boys and girls club of central oregon, partnering with a local cable operator to close the digital divide. there is no way for a child to succeed anymore without the internet. broadband is enabling more job opportunities, more power to more people. to help our children and citizens succeed, we will continue to empower our customers to go where they want

and do what they want using the broadband connection. the cable industry has always believed in an open internet. we will continue to embrace it. it is our job to manage our network to keep their internet humming as the world's greatest engine of innovation. we will continue to meet the explosive demand for internet capacity, investing, innovating, competing aggressively, but always fairly. this is the american way. we want america to soar in the information age. cable is the platform that makes our digital dreams come true. you will see it, you will feel it, you will touch it, and experience it this week as cable puts on a show for you. you will discover a world you

thought you knew and find there is much more to know. you will leave more excited about the future yet to come. thank you so much and enjoy the show. [applause] ♪

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the moderator for today's broadband innovation panel, jake tapper. [applause] ♪ >> hello, everyone.

thank you for being here. if you would wait and hold your applause to the very end. the founder and ceo of jawbone, the chief operating officer of twitter, gm of content and services for roku. ♪ have a seat, everyone. before i begin and we start talking to this interesting panel, i would be remiss if i did not take the opportunity to asked our friend from twitter about a story that is in the news. there has been a report in the washington post and the guardian about a program called prism in which, and there are debates,

the nsa is able to access files of participating internet companies. twitter, according to public statements, is not a participant. what can you tell us about twitter refusing to participate? >> first of all, it is nice to be here. [laughter] very nice to be here at meet the press. the truth of the matter is i cannot comment on details of the matter.

we are very interested to see how this story plays out. i will say, one of the core values we have at the company is to defend and respect the user's voice and we believe that tweets belong to the users that create them and we have always try to find the right balance between abiding by the law in any jurisdiction and doing what is right why our users. we will continue to do that. as far as specifics of prism or the issues of the nsa, i cannot really comment. >> thank you very much. i want to get to the real subtext of this panel. are you guys friend or foe to these guys? i would like to very briefly explain what your company does. >> i am with vox media, it is a company built entirely on broadband.

in technology and culture and in gaming. each one of these is built on a technology platform that enables us to grow and scale quickly. our business was enabled by broadband, so we see ourselves as a friend of the industry. we have partnerships with many companies in the room. we would not exist without broadband. for the new wave of talent that has emerged. i look forward to talking about that. >> explain to the people in the audience, what exactly is jawbone? >> we are leading the way around smart connected devices, around this whole notion of the internet of things.

you can revolutionize what you are able to do. in the context of the cable industry, we think of it as very complementary. it allows you to extend experiences in totally new ways. we created a whole new category of the speaker business will be connected smart devices to go along with your phone and ipad. those are the leading devices in the market. that whole part of the segment is growing fast. it is leading to new consumption models. we want to deliver these experiences that will make it richer. >> most people in this room knows what twitter is, but how

does twitter view its mission? >> we are lumped into the social media category, the what is distinctive about twitter is that we are public and not private. our network and communication is in real time, partly because of the short format. it is conversational and distributed. that makes twitter an amazing compliment to television. millions of our users -- 35 million users last year -- tweeted about television programs while the programs were happening. our user base has exhibited a pattern using our service and connection to watching live television. we are really invested in building complementary

experiences between what you guys do and the audience on twitter. our mission is to bring people closer to the things they care about and allow them to participate in the dialogue about those things. a lot of what people care about is what is on television. >> tom, charter communications. >> we are a cable television company. we are a two-way interactive high-capacity digital platform and we still television, cable television, and packages. we have a high-capacity broadband network that is physically out on the streets and highways. hundreds of thousands of miles of physical infrastructure. were a telephone company and

we are a communications company. are we friends or enemies? we create the platform that allows these businesses to operate. we want our platform used, so to the extent that people are using the broadband services, it helps our business grow. it is in our interest. there are times when we bump into each other. essentially, we have created an ecosystem that create a lot of value for our company and all of here.mpanies appear.-- up >> steve, roku. >> roku looks like a hockey puck, it is a streaming player to connect to your tv. to access nearly 1000 channels. we stream everything from the

likes of netflix. we announced a deal recently with time warner cable. channels like hbo go, the lunchbox, all the way down to local churches and all kinds of we arel interest content. available in the u.s. and we are going gangbusters. >> let's cut to the quick. where do you think you and your companies find yourselves at odds the most with the people in

where you think you enter companies are and what are the biggest challenges? >> the punching bag, osher. a vast majority of our users are cable subscribers. our big initiative -- it is roughly 70% are cable subscribers. we are putting a lot of focus into tv everywhere right now. it is a phenomenal opportunity for us. it has been shown to drive affinity for the cable package. services like hbo go, a wonderful way to get hbo. alline multiplying across of the programmer networks, imagine what espn can do, what nickelodeon can do when these programmers can deliver software along with their video in the form of apps. nickelodeon sending games down

or espn allowing you to access more information about your favorite teams,all of that type of software oriented activity is opportunity for programmers and operators to bring new value as part of their overall pay-tv subscription and it is really working. about three fourths of our users are discovering new value to their paid tv package. it has been a huge hit for us and it is helpful to the entire ecosystem. isthe biggest issue we have that the business we are in, the television business, is the television business. it is not the internet, not cable tv. you create audiences and the issues are around business model questions. how do you go and acquire customers if you have a video product? how do make those customers see your product? whether that is in a package or

a bundle, those are the kinds of issues that are being challenged as the technology has brought all of the services together into a single wire, single devices, and you can access voice, data, video on the same device. what is the service? the service is the content. we get into conflicts all the time about, it is the internet, it is cable tv. contentity is, it is and it is sold a certain way and people are confused by the notion of the internet and cable. it creates regulatory issues, business model issues, but it is all television. >> to be honest, i cannot really think of any ways in which our business is at odds with the cable and tv business.

we truly see ourselves as a compliment to the television business, to the cable business. in three or four respects, one of them is in terms of driving discovery to tv behavior. nielsen came out with a study that indicated a very strong correlation between activity on twitter. in terms of creating a complementary content experience around programming that brings more value that from real-time viewing. in the area of measurement, for programmers measuring social engagement. in the area of complementary advertising and revenue models. among the technology companies of our ilk, you will not find a bigger fan and a bigger supporter of the tv business than twitter.

>> for jawbone, it is the same. the thing that has been interesting, we are used to a different pace of innovation, how fast we want to bring products and services to the market. i think it is aligning companies on being able to do that. comcast has been great and they are moving quickly. as an industry as a whole, it is something that is new for us, the pace of innovation. it is different from what we are used to in silicon valley. >> comcast is a major investor in our company. we are able to create great new journalistic and entertainment services. perhaps we might compete with some of the cable networks, but

it is a very different type of business. this week, we will be covering the apple developer conference as well as e3. we like to apply the level of coverage for fans of technology in the same way that cnn would cover a major news event. do it in a way that is not built for television, but built for the internet and all of the creative aspects of our medium. we think we are building value for broadband users and we appreciate the value they bring to us. >> what cable provider do you guys have? >> at home? >> at home.

>> i'm a loyal comcast guy, but i will say that we experiment with a few of them. fiber-optic in our office downtown and then we have comcast as well. >> cable. >> cablevision. >> time warner cable. >> i have fiber-optic. but i have probably had one or another at different times. what are they doing wrong -- let's pretend none of these people are here. what are they doing wrong? [laughter] this does not apply to everyone who is not listening to us, but some of the people not listening to us can move a lot faster. that applies whether you're a technology company, but

especially in media company. we use technology that its that is able to be printed>> we use technology printable specifically in technology, there's a method of agile. alwayseans you're releasing things. you can't be afraid to disrupt anyone especially yourselves. you have to listen users create a feedback cycle of data coming in based on what you put out and listen and act on that data. that applies on the technology side and even on the media side when you're putting out new programming for a consumer how quickly are you moving. get out of the cycle waiting for the fall release schedule >> i agree. in a world where there's new technologies and experiences being able to constantly, there's opportunities to try things and try them and fail quickly and see what sticks.

that goes in hand with the pace of innovation and also with the pace of modernize experience. as long as people are using them there's opportunities. it is moving quickly. juste willing to fail not a joke. >> i remember when twitter didn't exist. now i can't live without it. is see how fast behavior changing. we got this device where people are tracking activity and we will announce interesting things thinking of that of a view and how that show up on screen. didn'tsomething people do years ago and now they're addicted to it. behavior changes is happening fast. if you embrace it quickly and test it and try new ways to sort of exploit that utilization, it will happen.

that. the way i would say it, this is probably a statement that would have been more appropriate five years ago than today. my statement would be to view technology as a friend as an enabler of new experiences for your experiences as opposed to a foe. that's not just the hardware that a company like jawbone is building. to think that twitter is going around realtime communication. connection to programming. generally having an orientation of technology being an enabler and extender of your business. we'rea cable industry, spending billions of dollars a year every year on technology development and infrastructure deployment. it's technology in the infrastructure that we're spending that money on.

i like to go faster. i like to see us go faster. even though we're going very fast and the capacity networks are coming up, it's amazing how quickly the network capacity gets filled by applications that you build it. i think we can keep going and keep building and create demand. on the programming side of the business, anything that you put anywhere is going to end up on every screen. you can't control it. if you think you can control the space where you distributed a piece of programming, some of the device and bring it back together and put it on the tv or put it on the distributed wifi network and the house or wherever. there's no way to control where your content goes.

if you think you can segregate the internet and this cable tv, somebody will build a machine to abuse you of your notion. >> thank you for the infrastructure. i will be more specific. tv everywhere initiative is really a moment for the industry. we can move faster. we can make some vast improvements in the way that works. it boils down to embracing the internet distribution of the content and most specifically, for mobile, we like to make it for tv's as well. that is still the primary place people want to watch all of this content. people used dent have to log in to watch tv. now we got that going, you have to log in to watch tv. these kind of problems are really ripe for solving in the industry as well as general embracing of the tv everywhere initiative and getting our content out there.

>> that's all the time we have. i want to thank our panel. if you can give them a round of applause. thank you so much, appreciate your time. [applause] ♪ >> now ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the moderator for our content creation panel, the editor in chief for television at variety cynthia littleton. now the rest of the family, the chairman and ceo of showtime networks incorporated, matt blank.

the president and ceo of amc networks incorporated, josh. and the co-chair of media networks and anne sweeney. >> thank you all for coming out. i really appreciate it. we were all talking backstage and listening to everybody that was speaking before us, it is a avary of new ways to watch programming, new ways for viewers to engage in programming and literally, i realized it boils down to those two things. programmingwatch

and new ways for viewers to engage in programming. as programming how has this explosion of platforms and opportunities, how has that changed your job? how has it change the name of what -- nature of what you do? >> we all realized that the consumer has taken control and they're not giving it back. every new technology that comes forward is something that we have to integrate into the way we're thinking about distributing our content and also what happens to our content when it appears on a device. it appears on a new platform. we have an astounding relationship with twitter and pretty little liars from abc family. that show just never goes off the air. it never goes out of consciousness because the twitter verse and our viewers are one of the same. >> josh you've had an incredible run this year with the walking dead on amc, nice

thing to have as the company is now newly solo to have the not only one show on cable but in all of the television universe. can you talk about how you harness all of these new opportunities to -- platform that show? >> it's been a good run. we do look at every platform as an opportunity to do different things, second screen, viewing that are incremental to the show. whichfter the show, in people get to talk about what they just saw. perhaps most interestingly and importantly, what occurs between seasons. in a certain sense, we look at the off season as not the off season but a full year of people who are very interested

and try and provide them with the opportunity to stay on as a fan and in fact to invite new fans in. we all have seen that. it's one of the most interesting, i think, things occurring in tv is what happens between seasons. we've all seen shows, homeland and others, build in between seasons. linear come back to television and it is up almost 50%. that is a rich opportunity to expand fan base into a expanded audience. it's every piece of technology is a big opportunity and think the calendar is not quite the calendar anymore. >> do you actually program to that off season time? do you come up with original content. do you try to feed the audience to come back to our platform or is it about driving people to the awareness that you can catch up with catch one?

with season one and with season two? >> it's both. depending upon the platform. on internet delivered and cable on demand, where it's in the sense same content windowed and delayed. which has been successful bringing in lots of new people to subsequent seasons. it's incremental for the people who seen it. -- who have already seen it. perhaps the most interesting thing of it, it seems to me, consequence, perhaps, i think showtime has done it so well and pretty little liars, is it creates a particular invitation for stories to go on. because people really like their favorites and they don't want to give them up. they can plan viewing them with

their fries ilie i think the technology gives particular rise and influences the nature of content. i think happily its made it better and richer and the craft is better. so we do it all and it does it to us too, by the way. it's doing it to us. the technology is basically informing a little bit what's happening on the creative side of the world. i think mostly for the better. >> it wepts from -- it benefits from all of these technologies. serializedy television. >> give them the opportunity to where you just got to watch one more episode. >> speculate. create conspiracy carries. conspiracy theories. >> matt can you talk about showtime any time and how that, the role out that service, how that differs from the traditional programming of especially cable shows, you

give your viewers shortage of opportunities to catch up during -- no shortage of opportunities to catch up during the week. >> i wanted to start off by apologizing and admitting that we have participated in a government's prism program providing everyone watched homeland. an binged viewed. [laughter] we view the showtime any time, this is another attribute. being premium, we have to be there first, someone is paying for a our service. as a technology it allows us to do different things. we were very early in high definition, premium category really invented the spod world. each of these times, we've seen dramatic impact on how people use our service. showtime any time is another way of putting on demand platform out there. we're very different, unlike

the josh and anne's network. we're not terribly focused on how many people watch the income. of ourpremier of one episodes. if we do well we'll see it in the press and if we don't, we don't talk about it. our network is 80% of people that watch "nurse jackie" watch it after the premir on -- premier on a sunday night. either with d.b. are, on demand, are other ways throughout the week. we're very much in the hearts and minds of business in terms of how we see the impact of our programming on people. anyway to take that on demand platform which has been so terrific for the premium business, provide different access to it and different ways of accessing it. we think just helps the service.

wereember when we launching on demand, there were people who thought well, your business will be totally virtual in no time. people still leak to watch -- still like to watch linear television and watch it vertically to a great extent. certainly the case of a premium network, the more ways we can provide that on demand platform and showtime any time is a great way toking it, the more successful we'll be getting people to watch the shows. theou say cable created spob businesses that are outside of the traditional cable universe. there is a lot of chatter about them. for the major media con -- conglomerates, it's been a double edged sword. there's been a lot of license money coming in.

for amc the deal to bring back the killing. happen if netflix had not been there. i guess the question, are they friend or foe or somewhere in between in terms of your traditional cable businesses versus the new world that we're talking about? >> my sense is they can peacefully coexist. it's all about a windowing strategy and identifying first windows and second windows, the service is like stream pick. there are different places for content producers to put their shows. other thing we should pay close attention to avod. advertiser supported video on demand. for a very positive thing the economics of television and certainly the economics of television production. >> i think spod has been largely friend. there's been a specktor of friends turning to foes. either unwittingly, are growing

up and becoming foes. i think today, we've been quite careful in the manner in which we license and window. we put extended periods of time between what goes on to cable tv and what goes to an s pod service. we enjoy the economic reward. in most cases it's the availability on spod is so proximate, it's just a big juice-up for premier on cable tv. >> its marketing. >>it's a pretty happy world today -- i just add one comment. as cable video on demand gets better and better and capacity expands and the dvr capability goes the way it goes, i think that some of the tricks including recommendation algorithms and other stuff that

makes the internet delivered s pod services appealing today, cable tv will start to do that. that's a happy thing to look forward to. that does keep it all in the system. we're on our way to a much improved cable vod service in terms of all the bells and whistles. >> is that something that in your discussions with cable operators, is that something you talk about, about the need to improve that authentication platform? the need to fill some of the fizzle from netflix. >> ther ones we speak to are very aware of what's going on and how people are consuming. so and we are all over it. they have aggressive plans and deploying plans. we don't have to ignite it. i'm expressing what we hear from them. and we are pleased about it.

>> same question. good answers. we look at the spod business in a number of ways. usis a revenue source for which probably say more programming, control more programming. in terms of competition, you know, the premium services were in business when there was no amc, when there was no ifc no disney channel, no espn, no abc family. yet, we've never had better performance than highly competitive environment. at the end of the day, for us this is about making great content, controlling as much as of that content as possible. neither of those things are easy to do. we have a pretty good track

record of doing it right now. that's our primary focus and if we're successful at that our brand is going to be successful and whatever additional competition, additional ways of distribution come into the marketplace, showtime is going to be a highly demanded brand. we do not want to slide back into a world where we are worried about every time somebody turns on a tv and do they have to go to showtime. me,le are always asking you've been doing this so long, when are you going to retire? the day we become least objectionable alternative, is the day i want to retire. i want to be the most desired alternative when somebody turns on that television or fires up that ipad or smartphone. again, it's content. for us it's all about content. if people want our content all the distributors will want our content and all consumers are

going to want our content. >> it must be -- you've all been in the cable business a long time, it must be a little bit unfamiliar. you had been disrupttors. of have changed the world television. >> we're still the disrupters. it always drives me crazy. every time we look at a new show what we see a new show, we say this is going to blow people's minds. maybe we're right or wrong, we're still trying to be disrupters. the thing that drives me crazy right now,you read in the media everyday, the business news channel love to talk about it and you guys love to talk about it. your favorite companies are companies with no revenue and no earnings. your second favorite companies are companies with revenues and no earnings. then you have anne, josh and i running companies keep growing subscriber, keep growing revenue and keep growing free

cash flow. how you feel about disrupters. meet every day like that, i tell you. every day like that, i tell you. i want to wake up every morning that way. [applause]. >> i think we're still disrupters. we've got probably close to 100 years of experience on this stage. i think we continue -- >> that's me alone. >> i look at the -- that's disruptive and responsive. when you talk about company that's are disrupters, the best are responsive to consumers. we know they love our brand, we know they love our programming. we know they want to hold them in our hands and take them wherever they go and we're making sure they can do that. if you look at the disney portfolio and watch espn and we

watched abc. most recently, we announced watch abc. that's being disruptive. but also i think disruptive in a way that is part of this great ecosystem. it's done in concert with the mpds's and concert with the abc side with the local broadcasters. >> on this earlier conversation tom rutledge said that their in the business of providing it all. i'm not so sure the notion of disruption which puts one on their heels. i'm not sure i see it that way at all. there are certain new technologies that provide different experiences. if you're in the content business, each one is just this rich fun opportunity because twitter is a big part now of what we do and second screen viewing is institutionalized.

it's fun and we do webisodes on the show. guys have done a really good job. spacethat stuff is all addive. deadu're a fan of walking or breaking bad, you're finding ways to get deeper and richer experience and much more connected social experiences particularly by using all of that stuff. that's not a bad thing. that is a good thing. we sort of welcome it. if you actually look at ratings of good tv shows, we spoke about this briefly. we saw -- this is the metric if you want to get the tv metric. what's the rating in season three, four five and six. we've seen these escalations on our tv shows. they have been -- hopefully they're good shows -- they have been enabled by the disruption. thisis actually created

ground swell of people talking so that this guy who does the walking dead robert kirkman said it's an internal zombie move that never ends. during the years the audience getting better aunt appetite increasing. -- and the appetite is increasing. i will look at that stuff as cool and not worrisome. >> that's the lightning in a bottle who would have thought. >> it's not just walking dead. we had probably 70% of our scripted shows saw increases in seasons where tv historically has gotten little longer. -- long in the tooth. >> can you corollate? people watch 10 episodes. people caught up with the previous seasons?

can you draw a direct line between availability and the catch up opportunities? >> let me give you one. last fall in the second season homeland, tremendous on demand viewing of the first season of homeland. there's a lot of ways that this viewing relates to linear viewing. we have four seasons. what we see almost universally is higher ratings for the final episode of a show than the first episode. we see for 12 weeks, the beauty of these 12 weeks -- you got people sucked in for 12 weeks and you move on, those shows will be in the top 10 of trender. we're not creating a viewing

experience, we're creating an experience for all of this chatter, all of this talk around the shows. in a prescription business is very important. if you're in the eyeball business, makes those shows more important and more interesting and brings more people under the tent. ultimately, that is what we want to do, we want to have the most people under our tent. if that tent has to change, we're still going to grow the size of that tent. >> unfortunately, i feel like we just got started. we have to wrap it up. i really appreciate your time and your thoughts and i wish we had more time. thank you so much. [applause]. ♪

on thisis the latest massive government protests in egypt as we look at coverage. those protests for and against the standing government. media reports are saying army troops backed by armor and including commandos have deployed across much of the egyptian capital, surrounded by the president's supporters in key intersections. it is part of a move by the military to tighten its control of key institutions. a travel ban has been placed on egyptian president morsi and his allies after the deadline for him to respond to protests. also, protests in brazil are causing issues. in discussion covered by c- span, concerns were voiced about the world cup in brazil next year. here is a look. >> i remember when i was living in china, i was optimistic about brazil hosting the world

cup and the olympics. but remember, being in beijing in 2007, they have 40 miles of subway. in 2010, they had 160 miles of subway. nowadays, they have 200 miles of subway. i am a journalist often, i thought, what a great opportunity that is for brazil. and many brazilians now have these frustrations. we are spending a lot of money on stadiums. corruptionhere the needs the world cup. how many brazilians, without having access to the numbers, or without having access to the think the stories stadium's cost almost $1 billion each are somehow too expensive. and the same construction

companies, which built those are the greatest fund- raisers for political companies. whether it is right or not, the brazilian middle-class and the poor think that they're spending a lot of money, and that the legacy, that thing i saw in beijing, that somehow we are building white elephants everywhere. most brazilians are happy about finally going to the streets. i think for the brazilian government, we were very condescending in the last decade. oh, now we are great. that moment has finally ended.

we are not the united kingdom. we're not going to have the system of the british. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, journalists and tv executives will discuss medicare health carect on costs. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span care of the supreme court closed its latest term losman and each night it -- this week, we will bring new oral arguments from the biggest cases. tonight the focus is on affirmative action decisions. we will share your analysis of the justices topinions. that is at 9:00 p.m. tonight. and we will look at gun violence and mental illness. that is at 10:30 p.m. tonight. >> we came out of those seadings and we could see a

of humanity coming from union station, and we knew it was going to be big. were supposed to be leading the march. the people were already marching. it was like saying, there go my people. let me catch up with you. [laughter] and this sea of humanity just pushed us, pushed us. so we just locked arms and started moving toward the washington monument, on toward the lincoln memorial. time in wonderful american history. >> this 4th of july on c-span at 2:20 p.m. eastern, civil rights pioneer congressman john lewis shares his experience of the march on washington 50 years later. and at 4:45 p.m., some of the places we have visited and the historians we have spoken with on the first ladies. and a little after 7:00 p.m.,

pulitzer prize-winning photographer talk about their work. pro-active steps against natural disaster. and at 8:45 p.m., what it means to be a modern-day american citizen. british prime minister david cameron updated the house of commons yesterday on the outcome of his recent trip to afghanistan and his meeting with european leaders in brussels. following his statement, members asked about the future of british membership in the european union, the government's plan to help british troops transition after leaving afghanistan. this is just over an hour. >> with permission, mr. speaker, i would like to make a statement on afghanistan and report after last week's european council. i would like to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who risk their lives every day to serve our country. we should remember every day

the 444 who have lost their lives in afghanistan. i will welcome the decision to use money from banking funds to build a permanent memorial in staffordshire so that our generation and every future generation can honor and remember the sacrifice they have made for us. mr. speaker, we are in afghanistan for one reason, to protect our national security by stopping that country to be used as a base from which to launch terror against our people and that of our allies around the world. that includes resisting taliban insurgent attacks, driving out turning that forces to do this task themselves. it requires political support, supporting the afghans to build a more peaceful and prosperous future, including a peace process. and it requires a diplomatic response, working in particular with pakistan, which has a vital role in fighting terrorism in the region.

turn. take the three in home security, serious plot against the u.k. have been linked to afghanistan and pakistan. british and allied forces have stopped afghanistan from acting in a safe haven for al qaeda. onafghan forces have taken security across the country. forces i'm mad are absolutely clear about the capability, confidence, and leadership of the afghan forces. afghan forces are already delivering 90% of their own training, and the 1000 police controls -- patrols, an acting alone. it enables us to draw on our troops. our numbers in afghanistan have already been reduced from 9500 to 7900. by the end of this year it will be around 5200.

until recently, we were at 3700 different bases. at 37 now at -- we were different bases. we are now at 13. and by the end of next year, afghans will take on full security. there'll be nobody but their own troops in combat roles at all. we will also contribute 70 million pounds a year as part of the international financial support to afghan security beyond 2014. a strong security response will be accompanied by strong political response. in helmand, we been working for many years to support the battered government, local justice, plumbing services, and a chance for afghans to build sustainable livelihood's not involving drugs. children are in school, including girls, something that would have been impossible under the taliban, and they% have

health care. 80% have health care available. there will be the first peaceful succession of power following next year's elections. 30,000 new voters have registered, including 10,000 women. and britain is supporting this with 4.5 million pounds in aid, specifically targeted at increasing female pardiss patient. -- participation. the progress in the forces and on the ground indicates that the onlyo aid afghan future is through engaging a political process. the peace process must be afghan lead, but we should do what we can to support it. it does not signal any weakening of our security response. but if we can persuade people that there is a legitimate

political path to follow, we should do so. we also know that the problems in afghanistan will not be secret -- not result in afghanistan alone. the support of neighboring countries like pakistan will be vital. on my visit to to pakistan, i the newlyaged by elected president. his election represents a sign of progress in pakistan. we agreed to work together in -- encountering extremism and radicalization, attacking poverty, investing in education, and giving with all of the issues of terrorism. by building a trilateral relationship with afghanistan and pakistan, i welcome working for the defeat of terrorism across the region. we are rightly focused on sorting out europe's economy by doing what we're doing in britain, getting a grip on

spending and supporting jobs and growth. on spending, the council finalized with the european parliament a seven-year budget deal that we successfully negotiated in february. this brings new flexibility is between different years and different budgets. but crucially, the deal delivers for the first time a real time cut on the credit-card spending for the next seven years. there was no change for the february deal that set total payments at 908.4 billion euros across the union. that compares with 43 billion euros in the last seven. -- seven years. repeatedry, after attempts to water down the rebate, we reached a clear deal that it would remain unchanged. this was reflected in what i reported back to the house. this discussion that took place was not necessary, frustrating, and unacceptable that we had to go through it again. but the proposal was to remove

our rebate on agricultural spending is on new member states and it would have cost taxpayers 1.5 billion pounds, and has been categorically rejected. we'll continue to get the rebate on the same basis that we do now. it is fair and right, and unlike the last government, this government will not agree to weaken it or give any part of it away. was a council, there particular focus on youth unemployment by creating private-sector support to create jobs. we agreed that the european investment bank would increase its lending by 40% with more finance for small and medium- sized businesses. we agreed to do more to help young people not working to acquire skills for proper education and training, very much in line with britain's 1 billion use contract. youth contract.

to give additional detail and urgency to the commission's work, we went to establishing a new task force with six of our best business leaders to look freshly at the impact of the you on british companies. it is vital that we expand our trade and investment into the uk. that is one of the reasons i was one of the first serving british prime ministers to visit kazakhstan on monday. this country has seen growth at an annual rate between 8% to 9% and the per-capita income has doubled. it has the potential to be the sixth largest will and gas producer in the world. over 700 million pounds will go toward creating jobs right here in the uk. finally, croatia became the newest member of the european union over the weekend. we agreed to start negotiations with serbia and on the stability and association agreement with kosovo.

when we have -- when we remember the balkans within our lifetime highest remarkable that these countries are preparing to -- it is remarkable that the vendors are preparing to join the ueu. it is in our national interest to get spending under control, to make europe more competitive, and to expand interest to the balkan states. these are vital element of the first element that is needed for the european union. we want more of a say in the national -- more of a say in the national parliament and for powers to flow back to the states. i'll introduce a referendum in the first half of the next parliament that will give the choices they want and the next general election. it is a referendum for which my party will be voting for in this chamber on friday and i commend this statement to the house.

>> mr. speaker, can i start by addressing the prime minister's remarks on afghanistan? " i would like to join him in commending the extraordinary job they have done in the last decade. i join him in particular in remembering those who have lost their lives, and their families and loved ones as well. it is right for the government to study with state of withdrawal for our forces from afghanistan, but it is also important that the international community including the u.k., continues to make a contribution to afghanistan because the long- term stability through 2014. on the arrangement for 2014 and after, can the prime minister provide a bit more detail on the specific nature of the u.k. forces' role, and can he say whether beyond officer trained there will be further

responsibilities for any u.k. forces? and can the prime minister say at this stage what objective will determine the length of stay of an individual u.k. force? on political reconciliation in afghanistan, i agree about the importance of a proper political process. can he tell us what the prospect is in his view of getting it on track, including with the taliban that he mentioned in his statement? and in what timetable, given the 2014 deadline for our combat forces, what time table may be possible? i joined the prime minister in recognizing the vital bilateral relationship between pakistan and the u.k., and i also join him in the belief that the u.k. will need to build strong working relations with the newly pakistan,ader of especially with regard to afghanistan there is wide support not just for

inclusiveness in afghanistan, but regionally with its neighbors. at the summit five months ago, in that communique they are committed to building a peace settlement over the next six months. can the prime minister say what progress has been made since then and what more can be done to achieve this goal? let me turn to the european council, mr. speaker. can i join the prime minister in welcoming croatia into entry into the you, as well as the start of associations with serbia and kosovo. real right to vote for last october. i think it would be a shame to without quoting the prime minister's lowrey words from the press conference last week. -- floury words from the press conference last week.

he said "you need to be prepared at any time and that means lock and have one at this about." let me turn to discussions on youth unemployment, which was supposed to be the main focus of the summit, but a small part of the statement. there are 26 million people looking for work in the european union, and nearly 6 million unemployed young people. nearly 1 million of those young people, one in six across the european union here in britain. does the prime minister really believe that the response will equal the challenge? the prime minister said the council agreed to take action along the lines of britain's used contract, but that is worrisome news.

last year, the prime minister launched the youth contract and said he would spend an enormous amount on youth unemployment. can he explain why of what was spent last week, knox -- not one single one has used the youth contract to hire a young person? that is not a solution to europe's unemployment problem. and frankly, this summit did not give direction -- the recognition that is long overdue to the current policy that is leaving millions of young people without prospect for the future. he should look at regulations, as he proposes, but does he propose that the solution to unemployment in britain? the british economy has not grown as they promised. that is why there is nearly 1 million young people still looking for work here in britain. the long term young people and employment is up by 160%. the contract is failing. the prime minister can hardly

argue effectively for action in europe when he is so transparently feeling here at home. failing here at home. >> i'm grateful for his response. let me take his questions in order. forces afghanistan, we have not taken any action beyond 2014. as far as the funding of forces, i would say that this country has played a very big part, but also paid a very big price. i think it is right to focus on the one thing we have been asked to do by the afghans and we take pleasure in doing, the officer training academy, rather than looking for ways to go beyond that. in terms of the timetable, that is urgent and what meetings to take place as rapidly as possible. i spoke to the ip counsel, who is ready to meet with and speak

to the taliban. but we have to speak to the office in doha with the way that was done. it has caused a second -- a setback and is deeply unpopular in afghanistan but the idea of getting them to talk is right and i believe will happen. in terms of what he's about pakistan and the democratic transition, i agree. i agree that the trilateral process has worked to try to move the agenda forward. there has been progress on the release of prisoners so that talks can put -- take place. other discussions on conferences and borders and police and cooperation have also made some progress. he talked about the u.s. he said not my rather floury language. the point was trying to -- about the eu and he talked about my flowery language . the point i was trying to make is that you have to get rid of the rebate.

that's why you've got to make sure you take a tough approach and are ready for anything. approach, you go in with your hands up and a white flog -- a white flag and that is what you get. that is why they gave so much of it away. about youth unemployment. it is down 60,000 in the last year. many of theut programs that have gotten them off of benefits and to work. 320,000 people as of yesterday getting work. that is almost twice as except -- as successful as the new deal. use unemployment in britain fell

italy,than in germany, and others. we think it is worthwhile. what i thought was interesting was there was not a word about the referendum. and i think i know why. he said he is not in favor of the referendum. the shadow chancellor said it is pretty stupid not to have a referendum. the chief adviser has said it is conceivable they might have a referendum. but his chief adviser thinks all sorts of things that are conceivable. they're not going to talk about a referendum. i think i can some of his policy in three words, weak, weak, weak. >> may i ask the prime minister

in question, which i have asked other ministers over the years? to which the central authority will the afghan national army of its allegiance? and as the army is led by the is very and pashtun unlikely. what is more likely, a civil war with the taliban after 2014? afghanistan back into the chaos that existed when they want russians withdrew. when the russians withdrew. >> in terms of the afghan

security forces, which are getting toward that number of 340,000, which is a sizable investment the international he is rights made, to say that we still need to work on the balance of the different ethnicities within the afghan national army. as that's -- but actually, to pashtun being recruited to i was at aarmy, ceremony where there was an award given to a pashtun serving in the army. a splinter of afghan, we want to avoid that. he is absolutely right. that is why we want to continue to fund the afghan national security forces.

but we also continue to fund afghanistan. i see no reason why the country not see why they cannot stick together. >> the afghan forces have improved their capability, year on year. there are still challenges i and equipment logistics'. i am told there are no plans for us to give any equipment to the afghans. even some of the more fit, specific equipment that we acquired over the years. how are those challenges going to be met after combat action? >> first of all we look at all

of the equipment and see if it is something that can be made available. but he is absolutely right, it is very striking now when you talk to our forces in afghanistan and as chinos, you are often talking to people on their second or third tour seeing a radical improvement in what is available. the challenges are in making sure that the afghan army has the enablers and assistance that they need. what has been noticeable about the recent attacks is that they were entirely dealt with by the afghan national security forces. >> commend the prime minister for the decision to ensure a proper memorial will be created, which i am sure is a decision here with the new prime minister of pakistan. was there any discussion of the problems caused by the border

tribal areas? in the past they have been used as safe refuge with evidence of the taliban determined to thwart the efforts of nato in bringing down the karzai government'. so long as the borders remain porous, they will be difficult objectivesieving the that the prime minister agrees upon. >> i am grateful to my rifle friend for his question. i think it is the right move and it is important that some elements of the very moving memorial are transferred to the arbor, there is an issue of continuity. on the issue of tribal areas in pakistan, this problem has dog to that area for decades. i did discuss this with the afghan prime minister and the simple point is this, it is in

both countries' interests that toe danger of talibanization both countries is real. there are pakistan taliban in afghanistan and it is a threat, there are taliban in pakistan. the need to recognize importance of dealing with these things together. stable, democratic afghanistan. when discussed of the leaders, did they mention on friday the referendum? particularly of what is it that they took in the requiring of private members? [laughter] >> i did not explain the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, but in the very good debate that we had, one of the sessions of the european council, i made clear my view,

that we need to have, just as the countries within the eurozone needs change and need to integrate more, so do countries like britain, who in my view should never joined eurozone, need to make changes as well. we need to make them flexible enough to include both country. there is a growing recognition that this is the case. >> given that they were originally proposing to have their names on the bill, it is probably just as well that the prime minister was not looking to explain the intricacies of parliamentary procedure to his colleagues. >> i quite agree with the prime minister, the threat message to taliban stability is best achieved not through violence, but through negotiation. pertinent to the question from the leader of the opposition, could do not say what the prospect for the talks actually are? what percentage of regional

players will be involved? will pakistan be a part of that settlement? >> i think the overall prospect for talks between the taliban and the high peace council, the right body in of and the stand to have these talks, i think the prospects are good but we have to recognize that the way in which the office was established, the fact that it established itself as the emirate of afghanistan, has caused a setback. but the sense -- and i discussed this with the president, the sense that it is in the interest of afghanistan for all heghanistan m people laying down of fighting, that is in their interest, a setback but also the underlying logic. >> when the right hon. gentleman

was in islamabad, did he discuss the operation of the entry clearance office memo which is currently preventing the mother of a constituent of mine, dying of cancer, from visiting him in manchester before he dies? and did he discuss with noaz sharif the american drone attack on pakistan that violate their sovereignty, killing very large numbers of people, violating international law? >> on the first issue, obviously i did not discuss with the high commissioner any specific cases, but i did discuss with him the important operations of our visa processing and the important work that he does. it is an important way to pay tribute to the high commissioner and his staff. on the second issue there was

nothing off the table in my discussions. i think that the right approach is to maintain a very tough security response to terrorism. there is no doubt that the presence of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan has been radically reduced over recent years. we need to make sure that that is accompanied by properly combating terrorism in all forms, making sure that we deal with the underlying narrative that it -- that the terrorists depend on and it is in that combined approach that we will succeed. >> mr. william cash. >> mr. speaker, on the proposed trade deal, what are the contents and areas covered by the negotiating mandate agreed upon behind closed doors last weekend? there isity of voters, only exclusive competence

controlled by the commission. themy friend explain why security commission has not been supplied with this mandate? and when will we get it? >> what i can say to my hon. friend is that the discussions are going ahead on the basis of maximum level of inclusion of all topics. as has been announced before in this house. there is a reserve on audiovisual matters, as there has been with all of the eu mandate talks. to there is the opportunity opt back in. i will have to look into the committee to see if there is anything i can do to help. >> rev. william mcrae. >> i welcome the visitor to afghanistan to pay tribute to our troops and fighting terrorism there. we must never forget the sacrifice of those who died in

the conflict. can the prime minister make sure that those who returned under the troops returning home, many of them were wounded, body and mind. receiving all the attention that they needed. >> i think that if you look at the advances that have been made in recent years, what is available in afghanistan and in transport aircraft back to afghanistan and what is available back in the u.k., i think it is second to none. we also have to think of what happens next, which is what these centers of expertise around the country are all about. it is also important that we continue the work of the committee chair by my arrival presence in terms of military .ovenants >> james gray?

>> there are 44 british deaths that the prime minister referred to. the people of britain are hungry in moving forward towards the end of continental operations regarding forward operating bases in afghanistan. can the prime minister bring us up-to-date about what will happen once we leave afghanistan? will it remain some kind of strategic base? or will we be imagining it? >> paying tribute to the people there and in my own constituency, who i think have shown the best side of britain in welcoming back, somberly and properly, those who have fallen in combat operations in afghanistan. no final decision has been taken. it is likely that it could be used as one of the american lead bases for their continued

presence in afghanistan. how that will of. what you see is a lot of work being done to return kids to the u.k. >> did they have the opportunity to discuss the zimbabwe? particularly as the you took away some of the restrictive sanctions. will he continue to urge south africa to actually get some more international monitoring into that country as soon as possible? otherwise we will see another stolen election. >> great expertise about this issue, i did not discuss it with the european council. we had a national security council meeting recently with the high commissioner present. what we have been doing is working out how best to maximize the level of influence that we have to get a proper

election, proper democratic transition, which is why we have taken the steps referred to in the european union. we are making sure that we do everything we can to make the transition the company badly -- the country badly needs. unravelhe work to not after next year, one of two things has to happen. the need to be persuaded that they have made a terrible mistake, or the americans must keep one or more strategic bases to dissuade them from offering it in the future. does the house minister know if any of those things have happened or are going to happen? thatre optimistic, i think those of the vote -- both of those things will happen. if you look at what the taliban has said through the statements, one of the reasons the peace process can get under way, it

will be used to harm other countries. the decoupling of the taliban from al qaeda is on its way. that is a positive. and the second thing is that i do not believe that america and we will maintain the funding of the afghan national security forces. they will maintain a presence in that country, negotiated with the afghan government. the point that i make is this -- of course we want the peace process to succeed, but the security response of training is thehan national army key part in making sure it will not fall back on taliban control. after seeing the effectiveness, they are capable of making sure it happened.

minister takeime this opportunity to praise the persistence, dedication of the european union's representatives in getting the agreement on april 19 for normalization? explaining why many in his party want us to leave. >> let me pay tribute to kathy and the good work that she does in the european union. the have worked very closely together. the dossiers that they are responsible for must be immensely frustrating, but there is no doubt that she can take huge credit in terms of

negotiations in serbia and croatia. i made it clear for the european council. as for his comments about my body, i would make the point that everyone has been in favor of the widening of the european union. we have been arguing for that for decades. indeed, we were arguing for it and delivering it in the 1980's. >> for many of us, there is the morphing of the nation-building mission. compounded by the fact that we should have been holding talks with the taliban a long time ago. trulylks are unconditional. this has been a plot in the past, particularly for the americans. >> first of all, since becoming

prime minister in 2010 i have pursued the agenda of a peace process and political process from the very first day of taking office. of course, historians will argue about whether the berlin peace conference of 2001 will deal with the here and now. oneink if there is important condition that is to come about. , the talibanding will not allow -- do not believe that afghanistan should be used as a base for attacks. the prime minister has already a knowledge the population is an independent member state of the union. news that all

sides of the house would agree on. the u.k. government has published a report suggesting somehow it will be in spot -- scotland. being sure i'll. and from his favorite conservative commentator as trite. will the prime minister addressed these pure i'll stories? a legal device is absolutely clear. clear from the government and the commission. is clear.device if scott and votes to become independent it will have to queue up behind serbia to get back into the european union. that is the truth, and convenient though it may be. friend agreesn.

that the country will understand if members of parliament failed to engage in the debate on the ind for us to renegotiate membership for the european union, letting the people decide in a referendum on whether or not they want to have membership being negotiated on that basis. this is not an issue in which parliament can run away from it. trackfriend has a long record for his support for the european union and makes a sensible point. when it comes to this bill on friday, the issue of a referendum, you can either be in favor of holding a or b against holding the referendum. surely, you must have an opinion. my hon. friends and i will be voting for that bill, voting for a lot is on friday. i think the whole of the country will find that completely

feeble. considerable concern was expressed before over u.s. intelligence operations and european countries, including eu offices in washington. this is the european council. surely there are announces that should not have been. perhaps the prime minister can give us his views about what the united states has been doing. >> i think the same thing. , ilicly and in the council do not comment on national- security matters. that would be wrong. it is important to remember that our services operate under the law and we do not use cooperation with foreign services to get around this in the u.k. and it is worth remembering that the intelligence and security gathering that we do is a huge

benefit to those partners, including many in the european union that we cherish. it helps to keep them safe and us say. how will the women in afghanistan be represented in talks with the taliban? what assurances can you give them that their hard-won advances in the right for education for girls and women will be sustained in the 2015 settlement and thereafter? >> the answer to the question is that the afghan president and afghan government are not clear that any discussions need to proceed on the basis of the constitution, which received some safeguards for other issues. it is important to note that in 2001 there were virtually no girls in school and now there are 30,000.

my hon. friend, he is still a patriotic champion of enlargement, but does he agree with me that it is not just sufficient to welcome a company like croatia, we need to support them and make sure that they are a benefit to the european union. >> i agree, we should support croatia and have agreed to. the year -- the use of the european budget is to make sure that croatia gets its receipts from the european union and makes payment into the european union. i think the strength of widening the opinion is not only that when those countries come in, they have become greater trading and investment partners for britain. also the process of preparing to join, they have to put their own hands in order to tackle corruption. we have seen that in croatia and it is very welcome.

last night i had a communication from my son in afghanistan and he wanted to express the views to this house how much the serving member of the region serving members appreciated the efforts of the prime minister to come out there and speak to them personally. i hope that the prime minister will except those thanks. >> thank you for his service in afghanistan. we have been there for many years now. as i said, you do come across people who are on their second or third tour of afghanistan. people who have spent many months of their lives working under difficult conditions. i think that what we can be proud of is that when you sit in a room and asked about the job they are doing, morrell as high. enthusiasm over afghan security forces, they are enthusiastic about the kits they received. there are still issues they need

to deal with, access to wi-fi and other things, but generally speaking i found people in high morale. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister's wife in uniform, when asked to reconsider the question of the use of drones in pakistan, there has been a consistent body of evidence that the use of drones has killed far more civilians than actual al qaeda operatives. violation, can we look at this properly? >> this is an issue for the united states and pakistan. what i said about the huge done beyond a fact, when it comes to a afghanistan i think it is important that we

give them all the protection they possibly can. and is ready use of drones cameras and the like have done a huge amount to keep the armed forces say. richard drax. >> what does the prime minister mean by fundamental renegotiation of our membership with the european union? >> setting out from the speech i made at the end of this year, i believe that we need to recognize changes taking place in the european union, meaning that single countries will have to integrate further. they will see powers blow back to them. i gave one particular example in which i thought the phrase closer to the union should be to supply from the united kingdom. this is something we never

really wanted to sign up to in the 1970's. i think that we do need that different sort of european union where we give people the choice to join or leave. .> jeremy korman >> prime minister, help me in telling us what you think about afghanistan really. we have been there for 12 years, lost over 400 soldiers, 700 billion pounds spent, and now there are talks of the taliban in qatar. does he not think it is time to reassess the question of intervention and what it does to this country and others around the world and what it does to the world as a whole? >> where i take such a different view is this -- we know what non-engagement with afghanistan leads to. that is what happened after the end of the fall of the previous

regime. there was a process for the world looked away from afghanistan and we paid the price of a civil war that went on for years in afghanistan. everyt backwards in bogart -- every regard. out qaeda extremists, killing people on our soil, in america, in other parts of the world. that is what happens when you do not in gauge. of course the state is the perfect, but the investment and sacrifice, this is a country where there are not active stocks being hatched, economic and social progress, a country that has elected a president looking forward to a democratic transition with security forces that have a good prospect of maintaining afghanistan into the future. we know the results of disengagement. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the regiment will be marching through later this month on a freedom parade. communityway for the to pay tribute to their brave servicemen and women. >> a good point, there is a yearning in this country to find new ways to recognize what our armed forces do and what they represent. for some years in the past, and this is not a political point, but for some years we really did not do enough. armed forces day is a good step forward. and i also think that the labor chief -- you will find that it was put into law by this government but i am attending not to make a political point. on a cross-party basis of everyone turning out onto our streets and saying thank you.

will you seek to change the rules of the house so that the names of the fallen can be honored by being read out in the chamber that send them to their deaths? what lasting achievements have there been in afghanistan that justify $37 billion in taxpayer money and 444 deaths? >> what i would say to the hon. gentleman is that we do read out the names of those fallen and rightly pay tribute to them because they have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country and security. i am asking what this has achieved, the point i would make is that before 2001, afghanistan was a haven of terrorists flooding activity to do harm to people in this country and elsewhere. since 2001, he can ask services at this question himself if he wants, since 2001 there have not

been serious plot hatched in afghanistan and carried out against us. i would argue that that is a big and important achievement. when need to look at the capacity they have today to continue to deliver that. 2005,ou went as i did in or 2006 was my first visit -- there were no afghan security forces. they were created from scratch. we would not talk down in any way to the extraordinary achievement. not to say that there is not more the should be done, but we need to engage in a legend and identify the good points and the points the still remain. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the focus on tackling youth unemployment. long-term and

determined effort to defeat the surge? -- scourged. >> the package is important for spending in five regions of the u.k. with high rates of unemployment. there is growing recognition that simply spending money on the old schemes, these are a structural changes. with it youth unemployment rates in spain going over 15%. all of it heard in the direct toks of the house stands increase the of female participation in afghanistan. how can he sharpened his voice to be really heard?

moneypecific piece of that is part of a dip in the budget is simply about getting women to register to vote. what happened this what is being passed. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i welcome the news that the investment bank has increased small and medium-sized businesses. the current prime minister -- at current, prime minister, is there more of an appetite for the market? >> first of all, we have written support and our policy has always been one saying that fiscal policy, we should be looking at all the ways we can get money from banks into other institutions.

that is what funding is about. and they say that that is the expansion should be about. there has been progress, but it is an ongoing thing. >> the prime minister said that they would expand trade and investment. the does he think of efforts on trade? will they be helped or hindered? 3,000 pounds of visitors from india or pakistan? >> what the home secretary is talking about is using them in some circumstances to make sure that we do what is necessary to be done. study at come here and university. need to have an immigration policy that has an emphasis on quality. able tohe points i was

make in pakistan, as i did i and , -- kazakhstan, there are no limits on the number of students that can come to a british university. at the same time, we have shot down something like 180 bogus that were operating as he assisted the government. >> simon hughes. >> again paying tribute to our armed services, as many of us did over the weekend. against the background of the knowledge that there will be a conflict resolution, can the prime minister discuss the role it pays for civilians and people from neighboring states? making sure that the elections are peaceful and democratic, respect that? my friend makes a good point

about these elections. they are important. obviously as the security in afghanistan is dominated by these forces, they should be the ones predominately providing security amount -- around elections in 2009, which we were more a engaged in. as for making sure that they are as good a set of elections as they can be, we need to make sure that these elections are properly monitored. >> based in my constituency it has raised with the references from the foreign secretary where the minority speaks with hindus in afghanistan and the right representation of women. what commitment was given in discussions with the prime minister about women representation and minority rights being maintained? commitment being given on this issue is that he remains committed to the afghan

constitution and he believes that any discussions with the taliban should be taken on the basis of the constitution. >> mr. speaker, last week's eu council will be seeing greater mobility of young people discussed. have assurances from my right humble friend that this will not lead to greater benefit tourism in the country? >> i can give that assurance, in gauging with others in europe to cut down the benefits and look at what we can do to make changes to the residence test so that people can come to work. the pointh making that this government will put in place transitional controls. >> on both sides of the planted we should bring our troops home from afghanistan. one of the knox that ties the

transatlantic relationship eventually loosen. implicationsitical to these allegations in the newspapers about electronic eavesdropping by the united states from the you -- you -- eu. what can britain do to heal the rift? the first point, i do not believe that the ending of combat operations in afghanistan will loosen the bonds between britain and america. i think that they're deeply appreciative of the fact that we have been the second largest contributing nation. they understand the high level casualty's we have taken and welcome the role we play at the heart of the command structure. a british general

who i spent of the weekend with. country we offer a clearly under a legal presence. king got -- can i the links that we share? the discussions had with prime minister about reforming the religious group in pakistan , being a recruiting ground. does the prime minister agree with me that we need to make sure that there is a widespread spectrum of education in pakistan? the discussions that i had with the prime minister, he may well say that his three prime

minister -- history objectives -- his three objectives brought a need for a tough security response. but we also need to drain the swamp through reforming education. he was particularly praiseworthy of the work delivered in the and a well -- punjab has worked his socks off, a program that means millions of pakistani children have had schooling that otherwise they never would have had. [indiscernible] $6 million of gin in college. can the prime minister give the house an update of how many are

drinking each quarter? can they be required to deliver for all of afghanistan? have those specific figures for police officer training. the monthly update you can see the police training and army training in the overall national security force training on those with retention numbers, a good way through northern ireland. >> does the prime minister agree that the separation of croatia yesterday it will increase the burden on the european union budget because it will be another net recipient? >> it will obviously put a little bit of extra pressure on the budget, reflective. it is a modest additional amount. britishit is in the

interest. this is adding croatia to the world's already largest single market. there are all sorts of opportunities to increase the trade investment with croatia. let me add that we will be putting in place transitional controls. >> the commission has been worse than useless in the upstanding burdens on our smallest businesses. inputo the 5 million sme's into the new task force from last week? toi think that we have recognize that the commission has made some progress. pushing for more, that is my top -- my tactic. the first time committed to exempt micro businesses.

throughe also looked the forthcoming regulation to remove 17 new regulatory progress, but there is that is the going fast enough. i am setting up this regulation review panel while taking glenn cooper from what he is making from the angel investors. ofery senior list businessmen and women. they can send in their ideas of what they want change. >> they have established an early and productive relationship with the new prime minister in pakistan. high on the agenda, the issue of , there is severe

persecution. the a advantages of getting in their early is the first prime minister to have this sort of dialogue, we do have a full strategic partnership with security dialogues so that these can all be raised. >> i congratulate the prime minister, obviously following the first peaceful demonstration of power in 1947. lasting and stable peace in afghanistan cannot be achieved without trade, energy, relations with india, hire on the agenda. what can our prime minister do to make sure that the momentum is not lost? my hon. friend makes a great point. it is an incredible moment for pakistan and they can use this moment to get them to look

afresh at this enormous population. necessarygher decisions. there will be many priorities. it is that last element prayer we need to work together, the extremism in pakistan cannot be addressed without addressing the extremism as well. if we can achieve that joint work between the governments, that is the key. agreed my hon. friend that the surge of youth , companies like india and china, two fifths of the world's population live there.

making europe and more competitive environment. >> i agree that the creation of private sector jobs are the absolute key. the decline of public sector jobs, we have seen it three times in the jobs created. particularly that the european union was a low growth area. is why we should be looking at countries like kazakhstan. that is why we needed to compete in this global race and forge partnerships around the world. >> labor opposition rightly mentioned youth unemployment, which has fallen 15%. one way to drive it down further is negotiations with serbia.

do we agree that the long-term angle, if it is going to include more diverse countries? >> i agree with my hon. friend. if we wanted to be that sort of europe, we would have to make changes and be more flexible. , attracted,gration the list is competitive. >> i have been saving philip to savor him. >> [yeas] there are for a national offenders in the prisons, many from eu countries. there is a compulsory transfer agreement with only the united kingdom and 12 other states have ratified it. if it was not discussed at this

council, will the prime minister endeavor to ensure the agenda on the next council head of the removal of immigration controls from eu countries? >> my hon. friend makes a good point. this is absolutely in britain's interest. we have held specific discussions about prisoner transfers and foreign nationals, because i think we need to do much better in getting people out of our jails and back to the countries that they belong. it is hard work. also, by latterly with other countries to get them to sign and implement. >> here we see it -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the egyptian military has

suspended its constitution and ousted president mohamed morsi. the military has seized power. president morsi has reportedly been moved to an undisclosed location. defense leaders who ousted president morsi have assured the u.s. that they are not interested in long-term rule. the leaders have reportedly discussed this with chuck hegel and martin dempsey. they have both suggested that they put a civilian government in place quickly. tonight on c-span, journalism executives discuss health care costs. they talk about how medicare has changed over 50 years as health care has become the nation's largest industry. that is tonight, in a flock eastern on c-span. the latest u.s. supreme court term ended last week. we will bringing you the oral arguments from their biggest

cases. tonight, affirmative action. at 10:30 tonight, a look at the connections between gun violence and mental illness. here is a portion where they talk about the u.s. being a uniquely deadly society for gun crimes. about massink shootings, i think there is probably a compelling case to be ise that mental illness quite involved in mass shootings. so, and mother jones magazine ,nalysis of 62 mass shootings looking at the record, that might relate to press reports and some of the court documents. it suggested that most mass shootings involve some degree of mental illness. to that degree of rethink about

some of those prominent and , there was shootings a significant amount of mental illness in a number of the shootings. everydaywe think about shootings and every day gun crimes, we see that people who had serious mental illness tended to commit crimes at a lower rates than the overall population has serious mental illness. they are responsible for a lower portion of crime than their portion of the population. at crimeshen you look with weapons, which most times mean guns, again, crimes committed by people who are mentally ill are under- represented.

pausing fors worth a moment to think about how this fits in to this picture of everyday shootings. have a gun crime problem. illnesse mental component is exceptional. but the gun crime component is exceptional. we are not a uniquely criminal or uniquely violent society, but we are a uniquely deadly society. the level homicide in the u.s. is especially unusual if you compare it to similar countries. in comparable countries, firearm homicides are lower than 72%, which is the u.s.. we do have an exceptional and strange gun crime problem when

we think about these everyday shootings. they seem to be deeply involved in it. >> the panelists also talk about gun laws across the country. you can see the entire discussion on gun laws and mental illness tonight and at 10:30 eastern on c-span. a sea of humanity coming here union station. we knew it was going to be big. who was supposed to be leading the march? it was like saying -- there go my people. let me go catch up with them. [laughter] this sea of humanity just pushed us, so we just lock on and started moving towards the washington monument.

it was a wonderful. in american history. >> fourth of july on c-span, 2:20 p.m. eastern, john lewis shares his experience on the march on washington 60 years later. at 4:45, some of the places we of first in our series ladies. at 7:00, pulitzer prize-winning photographer is talk about their coverage of world events. at 8:00 p.m., bill clinton and chris christie talk about proactive steps against natural disaster. at 8:45 a panel discusses what it means to be a modern-day citizen. >> catholic legal scholars reeled at the supreme court decision last week. the court invalidated a provision of doma that prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax,

health, and return benefits generally available to married people. this one hour and 50 minute discussion is hosted by the catholic information center. >> in the first case, united states vs. windsor, the court declared the part of the defense of marriage act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law, was unconstitutional. in the second case the court held that they lacked the authority to decide the question they were asked, mainly whether state constitutional provisions in california that define marriage as between a man and woman was permissible under the federal constitution. both the doma and prop 8 cases were closely divided. in the wake of these important

cases, we are privileged this evening to hear from an accomplished group of panelists who have offered their formidable talents as lawyers and scholars to help us understand what happened last week at the supreme court and what future impact these cases might hold. professor arkis received his ph.d. from the university of chicago and was one of the constable architects of doma. edward waylin is the president of the ethics and public policy institute. a former clerk to justice antonin scalia, he served at high levels in the department of justice and judiciary committee. is the chiefo policy administrator at the

policy institute and former clerk for clarence thomas. we will hear from each of our panelists first, giving them an opportunity to respond to each other. time permitting, we will open the 44 q&a. a brief word of context about why we get -- open the floor for q&a. a brief word of context about why we gather. as catholics we seek to understand our days as fully as possible. as paul francis recently put it, those led by the police. are realists. they know how to assess reality. and that enables us to live out our callings fruitfully. success depends not just on what we talk about, but how we do it. i invite everyone to join with the panel at the end in striving for a spirit of fraternity and charity. in a special way that includes solidarity with those of us here

tonight at the center of these topics, including are gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, those who are wrestling to understand their own views on same-sex marriage, and those striving to raise families in accordance with the church. with that in mind, let's dive into our discussion and turn it over to prof. marcus. >> where? over here? thank you very much for that introduction. there is the goal line, a german joke is no laughing matter. -- there's that old line, a german joke is no laughing matter. [laughter] as a prelude to my remarks tonight, in the debates over marriage over the last several years some of us raised the question of whether same-sex couples could encompass two wood doors, trying to fool their social security benefits to pay off the expenses of a nursing

home after the death of a spouse. could these people take advantage of the new arrangements of a law with the understanding that a same-sex couple need not imply asexual or an erotic relationship? the answer persistently from people on the other side was no, i had to be clear that the law was recognizing a legitimate sexual relations. the question was -- how would we know? the supreme court of massachusetts, when it struck down the laws of massachusetts on marriage insisted that it was no longer legitimate to require consummation as a test of marriage. judges in of four massachusetts was not exactly overthrowing, but they would even be embarrassed to say that the test of consummation is no longer required for a marriage but absolutely required for same-sex marriage.

i mentioned is now just to recall just one part of a rich mixture of arguments that have been offered over the past 10 years as we have engaged this question, get none of this elicited the engagement of justice kennedy and his colleagues. i hit -- in his understanding, there were no subjects on the other side. that it was entirely an irrational animus. in his refusal to engage serious arguments, his insistence on characterizing opponents as bigots, it could be argued that justice kennedy was showing the most pronounced and irrational animus. justice scalia pointed out the way in which justice kennedy pointed out the way that bigot's brought forth the defense of marriage act. his string of caricatures stopped short of mentioning me,

because i was one of those lines that brought forth the defense of marriage act. wine was section 2, not section 3, the part that was struck down. the part that congress stipulated that every reference to marriage in the federal code referred simply to the union between man and woman as husband and wife. that part seemed to us the most invulnerable to challenge. no one could go against the authority of congress to specify the meaning of terms. there are so many places where congress needs to address the issue of marriage, whether it is the test of law or naturalization of spouses. i had the privilege of leaving the testimony back in may of 1996. as i look back at it, i discovered again that justice

kennedy had been much on our minds of the time. even then.factor, i would like to sketch in briefly the background and what gave rise to the defense of marriage and why justice kennedy had been the driving force and creating this problem from the beginning. the defense of marriage act was brought forth with the awareness of two colonels and a lot. one that emanated from hawaii. the equal rights amendment. the question arose whether the public could be married and to bring their marriage back to the mainland. faitheration of the full and credit loss. that a marriage in another state

would be respected in the second state. in that way, if they are required to respect the marriage coming from away, how do they bring their marriage back home to connecticut. toare in a position rationalize same-sex marriage for the whole country. coming inuld refuse from abroad if it had a moral objection registered to certain kinds of marriage, let alone a certain age. the second current came then. romer vs. evans coming out of colorado.

the details of the case was about the rights in colorado and amending the constitution there. what we anticipated coming out of the case was precisely what took place with justice kennedy's opinion that came down after the hearing just when the house was in the middle of debating the defense of marriage act. byseems inexplicable anything but animus toward the classic and effect. rationala relationship. centuries of jewish and catholic teachings could be reduced to an irrational passion, an analyst.

they could find a reason to ground of justification. and therefore, a state could not incorporate an adverse moral judgment on the homosexual life. if that were the case, the state could not refuse any longer to honor a same-sex marriage coming in from another state. could knock out the proper that supported the authority of the states in refusing, and that is what brought forth the defense of marriage act. that congress would give guidance to the court under the full faith and credit loss and support the authority of the states in refusing to accredit those marriages. the judges and congressmen have the responsibility to pass judgment of the

constitutionality of those facts. to which we said to make ourat theyame time, kennedy professed to only reach section 3 of the act. 3 of the act, that part in which congress asserted that all references to marriage and the federal code would refer to the marriage of a man and woman, a legal union for the man and woman who is husband and wife but justice kennedy thought the very title of the bill, a defense of marriage to me again humiliated gays and lesbians by implicitly refusing to accord to their relations the dignity america union. and so in his can stroll if you're provided for same-sex marriage, then the federal government should respect that marriage and its policies on

taxation and everything else. at the same time, kennedy implausibly claimed that his opinion here was carefully limited to section 3 and would not touch section 2 and questioning the authority of the state to form their own policy on marriage. that pretends will soon be dissolved. if the decision of the court did not strike down section 2, kennedy's key premise planted long ago surely will because this is the premise that has worked its way from all of the litigation since then. justice kennedy held that the state could not justify the laws on sodomy because there was no rational ground on which to break into the economy of

personal relations. and to them homosexual relations with people pursued in their private lives. he insisted at the time that this judgment entailed no formal recognition in the law of any other relationship. that is to say, marriage. to which justice scalia famously said at the time, did not believe it. it is coming soon and it took five months to prove justice scalia cripe-quite right. the five months later, supreme judicial council invoked the language in lawrence b. texas to strike down those laws on marriage and the commonwealth and install six marriage and then kennedy intern invoked lawrence last week in down doma. simplyia said, are

waiting for the other shoe to drop. including the laws that offer no recognition of same-sex marriage. and all that the judge needs to do now is in vogue justice kennedy's overheated language and u.s. vs. windsor to conclude that the laws are constitutional provisions irrationaly an supply noey can reason ground of justification. to use an old line discussing marriage now without justice kennedy used to say-- rather like playing hamlet without the first grave digger. there is a lesson here about

the conservative jurisprudence. many of our friends would like to believe that these decisions are indeed limited and constrained. that the court will respect the difference between striking down section 3 of the federal code while respecting the authority of the states under section 2. in hollingsworth the decision will simply be reduced to the holding of the court in the district court case which touches no one but the litigants and has presidential the value but no other court of land, the band's [indiscernible] the marriage is already taking place in the political class in california is acting as the same-sex marriage has been restored now to the whole of the state. what our friends seem willing to persistently not to see and which justice scalia has said- seen all along is that the underlying moral judgment and the moral wrongness, the want of rational justification for refusing to accredit same-sex

marriage. that underlying moral judgment sets off a dynamic of its sound. run premise promised to through all the cases to come. bringing down all the remaining barriers to same-sex marriage and entities we passed all those distinctions in the positive law that our friends treat as though they really meant something. where do we go from here is the next question. we have a couple of moments for that? i will take two more minutes. on this matter i have some suggestions to make. where might say is this. lincoln and his congress did not take the path of a constitutional amendment to deal with the regime altering

decision in the dread scott case. they moved to counter that act through an act of ordinary legislation which lincoln signed in june 1862, an act which forbade slavery from all the existing territories of the united states. they're putting the question to the court to take a sober second look at ways of done, consider that you might have been mistaken and if this does not work, which could rise to constitutional amendment. beginninggo we were with this, that it would be useful to get a constitutional amendment going right away. i wanted to get it out there and moving. that would be-that would not be taken seriously right now. in the meantime i do think we should come forward with a statute to restate the defense of marriage act that the court professed to leave untouched but to drop out the implications that the left would not find congenial. what this means is that couple in new york could be covered by

federal law because new york allows same-sex marriage but those privileges which not follow them if they went to alabama. that is what justice kennedy seems to be implying. i do not think the left or president obama would entertain that for a moment. that is where the challenge would come. it does not stand a chance of passing but that is not the point. if republicans take the senate began in 2014, it does have a chance of passing. it probably would be passed. the critical point now is that raising this point, bringing forth this bill offers us the chance to see who among the republican political class will have the spine in the conviction to support this measure. and find a way of making the argument in public.

calledfind republican so- wiseman telling us that we really cannot talk about these matters in public any longer, that for some of us will be a telling sign. thank you. [applause] >> thanks to all of you for being here. it's great to see an overflow crowd interested in this set of issues. i will be discussing the proposition 8 case. i would like to begin by outlining how vice president dick cheney and hamas supporters of marriage say the relation between the constitution and marriage. it is quite simple. it is important to distinguish the constitutional question from the policy question. it leaves the matter to the democratic process for

resolution. to the states in defining the basic constitutional marriage and to congress in addressing what marriage means and the various provisions of federal law. it is permissible to retain traditional marriage laws. it is permissible to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. the claim that a person has a constitutional right to marry another person of the same sex is wholly implausible which unfortunately is a different matter from predicting how the courts will rule on it. herridge has all-always been a marriage of man and woman. elementaryts the biological reality that all the opposite sex units -- unions generate children. this is to encourage the generation of children in the

context of marriage and discourage it in non metro context. marriage existed in every state at the time of the constitution. it existed in every state at the time of the post civil war amendments. one historical matter, no contends that the amendments were directed against the traditional understanding of marriage or they had anything to do with homosexuality. in the face of all this claims for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and rests on some combination of the following. free-wheeling constitutional theorizing that is camouflaged one's own moral preferences. i have my own strong policy views on marriage. i do not claim that the constitution in trenches them. the other side's -- other side does. and such claims trade as fact [inaudible] and the ruling by the district

court illustrates all these flaws and more. before turning to the explanation and criticism of the supreme court ruling, i would like to provide i hope some helpful background. but the back to 2000 -- let's go back to 2000 when california voters exercised their power to adopt proposition 22. ro was identical to 22 have the status of a statute. under california law. given the opportunity to override the statute, the state supreme court ruled that this definition of marriage had been the definition for ever in california. defenders of marriage are ready for such a ruling.

it was a 4-3 vote. proposition 8 was adopted by people of california. nocera had this ended then the odd bedfellows couple followed -- filed this lawsuit. this was then governor schwarzenegger and then attorney general brown. later, jerry brown became governor again and harris as attorney general. -- kamala harris as attorney general. , is important to give a flavor of the hijinks that occurred. it is fair to say that there

were thousands of words and hundreds of posts of the years but there has never been a federal judicial proceeding more wrought with irregularities. totaldge was reversed a of three times before his -- even reached a final judgment. he issued a series of absurd factual findings that were contradicted by the other side's own witnesses. he ended up issuing abroad statewide injunction that would bar all state officials after he retired from the bench, we learned that all this time he had been in a long term same- sex relationship and this was

deciding his own right to marry his long-term partner. it got even worse. the case and of being assigned to a panel including to the judge. judge reinhardt's wife runs and insulate you -- an aclu affiliate. she had an organization file briefs in this case in front of judge walker. i agree that proposition 8 should be struck down. she celebrated the ruling in this very case but judge reinhardt saw fit not to recuse himself.

i could go on about the absurdities. let me jump forward to that particular standing issue world. one thing that the judge did right is he certified the question of what exactly is the status of the proponents who stepped in to defend the law when state officials would not, what authority did have a state law? the california supreme court unanimously ruled that it is essential to the integrity of the initiative process in california that the official proponents of initiative able to assert the state's interest in behalf of the people when public officials will not do so. the state said proponents are standing in the shoes of the governor and the attorney- general. the did not have to have standing that there would normally have. you end up with the odd 5-4 division rowling. by descent was written

justice kennedy. you have a mixed group in both alignments. this was an open issue for the court. i do not pretend it is an easy issue but it is significant that the constitution simply speak to the question states allocate their own internal authority. thee's nothing in constitution that says state cannot assign authority to one person rather than another. the separation of powers apply

against the government. that do not apply against the states. it is quite a step for the court to have said given what the supreme court had to say about the authority of the proponents that there was not standing. the more serious consequence is that the ruling makes executive branch lawlessness effectively unremediable. when -- and the supreme court and i think wrongly has said we have no authority to step in to decide the substantive claims that they proposition a proponents have brought. the very limited of the ruling is the court did not address the merits of proposition 8. that is mixed-. i would prefer the do so in a matter which way would go. if the court is going to roll

that marriage laws are not constitutional, i would rather see that up front rather than proceed by stealth and try to oppose this-impose this on the people when they are not looking. this will be litigated and fought democratically in various states. first to highlight the virtues of the democratic processes. the wisdom of the constitution saying this issue like so many other contentious issues is for debate and decision. everyone feels he has a fair shake. we tried to persuade each other and make arguments that are appealing. we treat our enemies [indiscernible] the incentive is to stigmatize and demonize and brand as bigots people who held the deposition that barack obama at least pretended to hold until last year or the year before.

the democratic process also allows us to revisit these issues over time. to realize this thing that we thought was a great reform has had a horrible unintended consequences. i think it offers huge advantages over courts constitutional rights. i would like to emphasize why marriage matters. i referred to that briefly before. we seem to have now this notion that we can redefine basic institutions at no cost. we can ask how many licks does a dog have if you count a tale as a leg. three-quarters of the country would scream 5. a dog has four legs and if you're calling a tale leg, your very confused. consequencese the of around us of the collapse of the marriage culture.

this is not the fault of homosexuals. heterosexual of have done the bulk of the work and ruining our marriage culture. you see the damage all around us with huge percentages of out of wedlock births and all the misery, all the governmental programs that cannot possibly put hannity down to back together again when you have families broken up like this. this ought to be the time when we realized we need to work to restore a vibrant irish culture 3 a not take a sixth step and i fear an irreversible step in the wrong direction by redefining marriage in a way that orients it away, decisively away from the mission of raising children. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

you have heard a little bit about the doma case in the proposition 8. my job is to come from --talk about legal implications. the good news is that same-sex marriage advocates did not go around the country raising millions of dollars of money to fund these cases to bring them to the supreme court for the result that we got. they wanted to nationalize a redefinition of marriage that would be imposed by the judiciary. they did not get that. they lost. they did not come here to get a default judgment. the good is it is it does keep the marriage somewhere where it belongs which is in the hands of people and their elected representatives.

and pointed out that is where it belongs. they're reading it into the constitution. that is not the way to decide one of the most contentious issues that we're facing today. that is the good news. we still have the state's in our elected processes for now as a backstop on these things. we have not put-- we can see how this plays out in various states at least for now. the bad news is everything else. arelegal implications troublesome given these decisions, given the logic

behind them. starting with the doma decision. there's a danger to the grounds that there is a lack of rational basis for the government to enact laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. it is explicitly defined marriage as a has been defined through all of him in history. we have seen this slope is the barrier-is more sebree than some have predicted -- the slope is more slippery than some have predicted. they're saying there is no rational basis to not fund these couples. this is truly frightening and it undermines chief justice robert's careful attempt. one was this was talking about the right for the decision. -justice scalia may have had the better of the argument.

rather than limiting itself to where the decision said that federal government does not definingnterest in marriage, and perhaps -- states have taken the role of defining marriage, domestic relations law. you have to look at state law. that was a line that the majority took. the logical next up, there is no rational basis for the government to do this. i think you could articulate a rational basis for both and more rational basis to do it in the federal government.

i do not think we can count on the judiciary to see that when they refused to see every rational basis that has been presented. we see that is already happening. another natural consequence is going to happen fifth. we will see an uneven and confused regime of laws. the decision itself, we should not have a situation where this [inaudible] there were concerned that you could get married and not have federal benefits. there is the question of what happens when you do get married in new york and moved to north

carolina. it had federal benefits one day in lost in the next. one could point out sixth that is the value of-one could point out that that is the value of having doma. they're going to make the logical argument that this is strange to have an uneven system of marriage and so now we're going to be pushing portability of benefits. and there is currently complicated questions. the windsor case itself came up in the context of state law. what happens if you get married in new york and you move to birth carolina and you still own property. beingtate-your estate is probated but what about new york?

does that go to your same-sex spouse or does that get run in a different fashion in north carolina? the pay federal state taxes but you were in the state of new york. been to see how that happens. the next up will be with force these to be portable. there will be the next court case. new york becomes new las vegas. everyone goes to new york or one of the other 13 states that has a same-sex marriage. to get married and to get home. that puts a lot of pressure on section 2 which says states and i have to accord full faith and credit to these marriages especially in cases where states are involved in administering these federal benefits. what position does the state take? we do not recognize same-sex marriages but we have to administer a medicaid program that does recognize to people as being married. it will be very complicated. the trajectory is all these decisions will be resolved in favor of nationalizing same-sex marriage and it will be done by unelected judges imposing that rather than by the people deciding for themselves. that -- my strategy would be the fraud in the pot strategy. if you had thrown them in a hot pot there would have jumped right out. by taking it step by step i'm afraid that it builds

complacency and cultural acceptance of all these things and that is a logical strategy. it is -- a lot of people were warning about as the case was being taken. the characterizations were rampant between this case and roe v. wade. pointing out when you have a social movement like that that is undecided, very contentious and the cortex and out of the hands of the people and nationalize it-- nationalizes it all at once. it shocked people and galvanized the pro-life base. the same-sex marriage advocates did not one case that would do that for the marriage movement. if question is will it and

we treated as do not worry, this is a narrow decision, perhaps will get the down side without any of the upside, at least galvanizing the base. 8 terms of the proposition decision, the biggest legal consequence is the risk that it brings to the initiative process. justice kennedy pointed that out. when you have a situation that the state initiative cannot be defended by the executive branch of the state government, any state initiative in that circumstance is completely vulnerable to attack. all you have to do and my strategy again in this case is to wait until you get a friendly governor and attorney general who you know are not going to defend it. you win by default everytime. you do not need to appeal to the equal protection clause or the due process clause. you just piece by piece take

apart all the remaining 37 states that do have traditional marriage. you have to wait for your opportune moment and is a one- way ratchet. the ramifications go beyond marriage. which is looking, there is a large number of them that have to do with the citizens pushing back on judicial decision. the process was an attempt to avoid having power in the hands of republican -- [indiscernible] but now it is being used a lot by people who are pushing back against judicial use of power. goingtiatives that are back to reinstate rewrites. this is coming before the

supreme court. it followed the decision allowing affirmative action, higher education there and saying we're going to have [indiscernible] the is being brought to supreme court. thatave a state executive is going to defend the decision. if you did not this exact same thing would happen. that is a troublesome consequence because many of the states that have traditional marriage, it has been enacted through the initiative process. it does not have to be an initiative. it could be any law. we're entering an era here which is troublesome. the president is refusing doma. rather than having a view toward the institution of values, there is a willingness to not offend for -- to defend the law because this is not a policy etf

-- that is not my policy. you can refuse to defend any law and that is an unfortunate development. the other potential next up is going to me that we see a challenge in a state where there is standing to attack one of these laws. say that the 14th amendment requires equal treatment and require same-sex marriage to be forced off people because that would be treated differently [indiscernible] the question is whether justice

kennedy would buy this argument and that is what everyone is looking towards. there's a reason to think he might not go that far. he was torn during oral argument. we will see how it worked before we decide to institutionalize that. if it was that excited about nationalizing same-sex marriage at this point, it is not clear why he would not have just jumped on and tried to go there in his dissent in the proposition 8 case. at least for now that seemed to be-he could be a fraud in the pot as well. maybe he is still feeling of water.

we will see if he of all along with our national culture. what is next. there is two angles that we should be looking. one is the culture that has been mentioned before. defending marriage in the culture. is second part of that philosophically explaining the underlying roots of marriage and its value. the other half is living in out. that means holding everyone in the church the same standard of sexual morality that we hold those with same-sex attractions to. everyone needs to be living fidelity in their rotation. vocation.

-- location. it is possible to live in fruitful marriages and chastity is a possible bowl. in our culture that is seen as off the table because it is not even possible. until catholics are willing to and other people who believe that are willing to show it is possible. another very important thing is to shore up the limitations of the government in terms infringing on our religious freedom. we just had a finalization of the hhs mandate. this administration has been troubling and everything they have ever said about religious freedom in terms of arguments. some of them have been rejected by the supreme court. the president has not really got a memo on that. he said he would not be forcing churches or religious institutions to perform same-

sex marriages. thank you very much, mr. president. he really had no authority to do that. it is hardly a gesture of grace on his part. worrisome that he seems to think that that is the end of the line. it is not at all the extant over freedom. you're not and will unless you're willing to cooperate. we will see secular colleges that have to open housing to same-sex and married couples. ,he wealthy employer problems offering benefits to a same-sex spouse even if it violates your personal beliefs.

>> churches are counseling people and hiring teachers, performing social services. catholic charities have gone up against adoptions and forced out of business because of their unwillingness to perform those. i'm married couples might not allow adoption by this married couple. we need to use the time we have , to prepare the defense of religious freedom for wendy's dominoes fall. the positive note is that we saw the decision that was absolutely a step in the right direction. ofognizing maybe not a bigot victory but that the government should not have the authority to determine what compromises earth festival.

that is a step in the right direction and the need to keep taking many more. [applause] >> i will give the panelists feature a couple minutes to respond to what each of them has been saying, and after that, will move on the questions and answers from the audience. also point out that my friends with me today are people that offers some of the most luminous commentaries of >> benchitution, members. >> it is a chestnut horse.

the point about optimistic than the pessimists, they say it can't get any worse and the optimists says that it can. confined to initiatives. the government can refuse to defend the laws. refuting these claims about marriage being inherently part of family law. they argue years ago that if we had a state that that dissolves all contract of marriage without the consent of the parties, it raises an interesting question. have to address that question. we're seeing the court's .hallenged those laws

the thing most readily of local are pleadingvists for local jurisdictions on this matter, and we are moving to invoke the full faith and credit clause. -- the i was majority opinion was written by and weicitor general, take a look of the reasoning that our guys have to put in place to win that case. premise of they other side. and we are in a very difficult

situation. case, we're pointing out the don't need a marriage for love. no one can deny the real of the census between parents and children, grandparents and children, siblings, and in the nature of things, none of those would be diminished if they are not intended by penetration and reflected in marriage. is an incomparable framework of commitment under conditions in which children are generated and raised. so of his child has accepted that his parents have forgone their freedom to equip their relation with one another, if we move away from that natural from do people say that

our love is not confined to a coupling, which are connected to a larger ensembles. , and wea larger group can't simply be one section. we're back to polygamy. be after this decision the other day, i can marry one of my sons or both of them. this might be an open question, but we see there is no principled barrier any longer. but he offered pressing the envelope. what is it you are now in a position to say when people come to say, why is it that we can't

marry the other people we love? unclear past the barriers and it is just a matter of unfolding the implications. i can't leave you with something positive, will you except negatives? >> on polygamy, some people say that is a down slope argument. polygamy is of slope from same- sex marriage. it has been a common variation on monogamous one male and one female marriage. certainly the distinction between two and three is more arbitrary than the distinction between male and female.

moved by logict and principled reasoning, so maybe that will not happen tomorrow. there is no basis for the and adult ancestors another. -- incest is another. both cases, you had supporters of marriage using the ordinary political processes, fighting the good fight, winning, and the other side is running the court to government leaders saying please, don't enforce this. or we will punish you.

or we will punish you. i will highlight that he when doma was enacted, it had overwhelming majorities of both houses, 342-67. there were many strong supporters of gay rights. it was signed into law by bill clinton. polygamy pick up the line and say that the best defense of a monogamous marriage act, it might be an interesting test case. what is the logical basis and what the court is putting their money where the mouth is. was justice sotomayor making questions, what's the distinction between consensual adult incest or you don't have the concern about children, to a

gulf of let them love each other the way they want to. if that is the basis of marriage, it is very arden make these distinctions. during the argument, everybody was saying children is not what is about. it was fascinating to watch the press conferences because almost every single person said , i am so excited, but this is about the children. the children knowing that their parents are married, the voices of the thousands of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships now. they know that marriage is about children, that is what makes families difference in just two people that want to come by and social security benefits. maybe we can capitalize on the natural instincts at some point.

>> i think it is fair and appropriate as a policy matter. they have suffered from the collapse of a marriage culture. those are kids that are not being taken into account when they tried out for the camera. >> the same problem arose when we get away with polygamy. i was talking, ha likely to see become -- the couple moved from new york to alabama, interfering with my right to travel because if i can't carry my benefits to arizona, your and hitting me. it will be brought back.

the cost, flowing to you through the federal government is something that you can lose when you enter a state, this takes us back to the theory the rights of, citizenship could only be through your membership of state. of ingredients are there. there is only a matter of time for their inclination. >> we're close to the end of the hour, but we have the permission of the house, we will take a few questions in the form of a question. very overwhelming discussion.

i just wanted to ask you, where is the whole? -- hope? how do we push back to prevent us from going down that slippery slope. >> i just got voted the optimist. of these statistics looked just as grim back then in terms of the trend and the elites legalizing abortion. when people started to see in the culture recognized how devastating abortion was, there is now a big push back and we have more young people considering themselves pro-life. it has turned around. we can hope to do the same thing in terms of making the cultural argument.

thatnk our other hope is we have a hope that we can rely on this that choose to be faithful right now. virtue as a theological and optimism is may be a human delusion. the good news is that things are so bad that everybody ought to be awakened to lift. the back at how aircraft on venusian everywhere, and if your way and conscious, those of you beliefto live out your in your lives, he will be dealing with this issue all the time and you have to prepare workelf and your kids,

with friends and neighbors to make the argument. the battle is engaged. remember, don't just do something, stand there? moments we of those have to reject that aphorism. it is important that we do something in get the statute in the works. it has been distressing to me to see friends of ours writing pieces on how republicans can regroup, they mentioned immigration, taxes, and what is left out is marriage and abortion. nobody is mentioning we are in the middle of a crisis over marriage. i am afraid some of our friends are drifting into the notion that is not prudent to talk about these things in public. the republicans will not win.

we can'toln saying talk about slavery in the churches, we can't find a place to talk about them. the task is to come to an understanding of the issues that are central. and give us a way of talking about it. so ordinary people can speak again and we have a political issue that is legitimate to talk about these things in public and show you how to do it. for taking the time to come and talk to us today. i was wondering what your response would be to the question of someone were to ask you whore say there is no legal or moral precedent to deny marriage to a law-abiding citizen based on the factor that they could not necessarily be

good parents. >> marriage exists because parents

parents have kids outside or inside marriage. if you are suggesting that the alternative to someone being a bad parent inside marriage and outside of marriage, all kinds of social science -- clearly, americans seem to rebuild. a lot of that involves teadching and when and how to be -- teaching men and women how to be fathers and mothers. >> yes, sir? >> to the point it is evident the heterosexual union is not only necessary for the structure of marriage, but in terms of procreation, can that be explicitly expressed? always beent has understood to be implicit. to make thate need understande don't that. i don't think that is necessary. >> i think that a thread running through your comments was the lack of a purchase that this position and the benefits have for society. kennedy, e justice

mentioning that there would be irrational -- a rational basis. what is the reason for that lack of purchase? what are the fundamental divide in the positions here? >> i've been there is a misunderstanding and the notion of marriage. we don't have to institutionalize it in our at least worked into law. providing for the children of think it is just the misunderstanding, just about love and if love is about sex,

apparently, it is hard to explain to someone why marriage should be based on something other than to people that feel sexually fulfilled by each other. what is implicit, obligations can me elicited only on the obligation of those that have been for sale by -- the ones but then sustain their. are you ready to make a commitment. think about it seriously. he were forgoing your freedom to quit this association, as this is your convenience. this is a serious matter. it is -- this used to be understood.