managing director at the chair top group and has had plenty of his own experience years on homeland security. to me turn it over kerlikowski and let him give his remarks. >> it is a great pleasure to be back at csis. especially o be in the beautiful facility. i think well over a year ago i had the opportunity to deliver remarks on another noncontroversial topic, drug csis. at so to be back and have another ascontroversial topic such immigration, border security, et delight. just a te tee thank you again and let me bed things.t with a few i had -- let me go ahead and start with a few things. day 100 days as

commissioner. questions i will be able to dodge some if they are particularly difficult. perfect time to talk about an evolving vision thecbp and talk about pressing concerns that we fisa and also where o -- that we face and where our agency is headed. let me first talk about the workforce because i think that is actually the premier part. soon to have 62,000 employees and 42 -- in 40 countries. range and diversity of people and skillsets and as many you know from the federal employee survey we don't do particularly well when it comes morale in the department. is so working on that particularly critical for me. commissioner to be i'm the first commissioner to be confirmed by the senate in now over five years and i think

it's helpful when you have gone through the confirmation process. the previous commissioners who were incredible people, i have the greatest respect and admiration for all of them. they did a tremendous job. they certainly have the full support of the administration. but i think it's also critical that you have the support of the senate and these issues. during the five years i served president obama as his drug policy advisor, i had that opportunity to work closely with people on the hill. communication, having the support of the administration, having the support of members of congress i think is helpful to this large and diverse workforce. for most of the history, our workforce on the border was very much divided and very independent among federal agencies. borders, air operations, ports

of entry were all served by ifferent federal agencies. since 2003 and since the 9/11 commission and the founding of the department of homeland security, we have had one unified border agency. that has allowed us to really work and try to craft a comprehensive border strategy to not only secure those borders but also to support our economy. many of you know that we have this dual mission with the facilitation of lawful trade and travel and the security of the borders. they are not mutually exclusive. let me give you some idea of the breadth and depth of the people that the people at cbp do on a daily basis. they process one million assengers and pedestrians, 67,000 truck, rail and sea containers. a y make 1,000 apprehensions day.

they arrest 22 wanted criminals, seize about 12,000 unds of narcotics, about $300,000 in undeclared currency. almost $5 million worth of product that violates intellectual property rights. in addition, 400 40 agricultural pests at the u.s. ports of entry, 4379 -- i'm being good by giving these numbers -- 4003 hundred 79 -- 4,379 agricultural materials, that require quarantine to protect our agricultural industry. if you want to in nor about beetles later, i will be happy to discuss those in depth. to carry out that mission, they have become the largest law enforcement agency in the united states. we rely on our employees for our success. even when you look at our budget, the vast majority of our budget is in our salaries and personnel costs. in order to fulfill that mission, it is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to

upport that workforce. there are many ideas to enhance the workforce that involve recognition, support but also a strong mention from every leader within cbp to that workforce that peoples health, taking care their families, making sure that those things are premier are the critical and important things. we are doing lots of experimentation in expanding telecommuting, changing the environment within the organization. but i think when that message comes across from all of the leaders, many of whom are seated in front of me today, that message comes across from all of the leaders about the importance and the value that they place in employees that i think translates well. the better that workforce does, the more efficient they are, the less sick time and on and on but many of you know

this. we are hoping that we are going to be able to improve the way we show on that federal employee workforce survey. this is also an important issue with secretary johnson and also with their deputy secretary. when we work with this vision, we will improve the productivity and we will be better capable of carrying out our mission. carrying out our mission involves sharing information and creating community. partnerships and information sharing are the heart of all that we do. first 100 days, i have worked very hard to travel across the country and many places around the world to visit with our employees and listen to them and have town halls. also to enforce through relationships the important international relationships particularly with places like mexico.

our counterparts in law enforcement, customs, immigration, security and foreign affairs and in peru, i joined the directors general of customs of the western hems fear to consider regional risk management strategy. we do a better job here in the united states government on interagency collaboration and in turn we have to do a better job on international collaboration. i did the same thing in spain, meeting with members of the world customs organization. at this is not only to promote the lawful trade and travel but also to make sure that the supply chain is secure and not vulnerable to crime and corruption. in the middle east, i spoke with our arab leaders about building the capacity for more secure trade and travel. the unified border management system that is being replicated around the world is modeled on the good work that has been done by cbp here in the united states. it's a truly collaborative

pproach. when i listened to all of these counterparts whether it was in customs or border security forces, more and more, you hear the talk from them that it's not just about the collection of revenue. it's not just about the trade and facilitation which is often at the heart of customs organizations in other countries who don't have the dual responsibility that we have. security concerns were absolutely preeminent. they brought up increasing concerns about security. we have models and things that we can offer to other countries to help improve that. we have to work with our industrial partners. we have an extensive interagency collaborative network. in washington, we have lots of interagency meetings and everyone understands and appreciates the value of those relationships. as a result, cbp and his

partners have prevented potentially dangerous individuals from coming into his country. those are often cases we are not allowed to talk about publicly but i have seen it time and time again. we have private sector partnerships so it's not just the interagency and is not just our international partnerships. when you think about our networking and sharing of information with government agencies, we have to include the industry as part of hat. an example would be the acas system. the air cargo advanced screening program. it's the screening system that after the air traffic world wide was disrupted in 2010 with the printer cartridges from yemen, things changed

dramatically and people stepped up to the plate from the private sector along with the government to develop a system that is risk-based and makes so much more sense in protecting the country. we needed to receive data in advance on air cargo and the industry stepped up. fedex, dhl, ups and others expressed all of the air cargo that they handle globally. when we put the problem on the table, what was discovered is those private sector partners worked with us to come up with solution. i think acast is an excellent example. automated passport control would be another one. the more information that cbp customs and border protection officer has a port of entry, the more information they have where they don't have to spend time doing data entry and typing into the computer. if they have that information, because someone has already

scanned their passport through that kiosk, then that's more information or more time they can devote to processing people and to moving legitimate travelers through the system, but perhaps then spending more where additional scrutiny is needed. the automated passport controls are important. you have read extensively about the syrian foreign fighter issue. we are engaged with that with the interagency. it has been no secret and the remarks that director comey and others have made about concerns. the concerns were recently raised in belgium and france. they were highlighted in this particular threat and it's important that we are a part of hat. the need for illuminating this and working more closely with our foreign partners is not only helpful to our safety and security here in the united

states but certainly, more helpful to the security of our partner nations. the employee morale, i want to get back to that with more depth. it's important, because so much of what we do is also based upon those resources. we have huge, significant mprovements in technology, training, etc. but so much of what we do is labor intensive. when you look at all the technology and many of you travel extensively and go through the ports -- i hope you are a global entry member, by the way -- it is so fascinating to see all of the technology that is so helpful. it is also so fascinating to see and experience a knowledgeable cbpo that is there recognizing the importance of their mission to protect this country, but also having the skills to be able to

identify. every single day when i mentioned those significant seizures of cash narcotics and others, the prohibiting of people who should not come to the united states, a lot of that is based upon the work and skill set that those people have. the more we do to improve their training and development and recognizing their performance and thanking them, the better off we all are. we are going to expand our ability within cbp with a large organization to let people know about career path opportunities and perhaps additional training and where we can also be a partner with the interagencies and let people have an opportunity to work in other locations and learn other things. i have never been more impressed with the workforce han i have been withcbp. -- with cbp.

when this job was being talked about within the white house and i was asked about it, in case i knew anybody, i raise my hand and said what about me? i had that opportunity because i have had the chance over the years serving the president to work on something called the southwest border counter narcotics strategy. the first time i worked on those, i was able to spend a lot of time with cbp and a lot of time on the southwest border meeting with them. i said i knew this was a place i wanted to go. not that i was anxious to leave the white house, but i was anxious to also get into operations. let me talk about something that has been in the news a lot, the unaccompanied children. the number of children the cbp is encountering on the southwest border has increased by 92% over last year. i'm talking in the fiscal year numbers. many of them are girls.

many more are under the age of 13. it has created a humanitarian crisis. secretary johnson on may 12 determined that this would be a level 4 condition of readiness within homeland security which is a determination that the situation has exceeded the pacity of cbp and ice and we eded additional d.h.s. resources. he chose the deputy chief of the united states border patrol to be the dhs federal coordinator. it tells you the importance that he places on these individuals that are on the front lines, but also the recognition that they were going to work closely with their counterparts. making sure that these children are taken care of is a huge manage. act. i have been down there a number of times. i would tell you that those border patrols are doing

yeoman's work. they are doing and a credible job. also the bringing together of the inter-agencies, having coast guard corpsmen deal with these kids mail home, most of whom, have never been treated by a doctor or a clinician until they come -- have been encountered by us. fema has done a tremendous job. they know disasters and they know about coordination and they know about engaging the interagency and they know about working closely with state and local. administrator fugate and the men and women of fema have done a great job on this. as you know from secretary johnson's remarks yesterday, he takes his very personally and

it's very high on his radar screen, as it is among every member of the obama administration. this group is all working together to ensure that these children are transferred out of our border patrol facilities quickly and they go to health and human services and that they can provide from the moment we encounter them, from the moment we encounter them -- with nutrition, education, medical care, etc. and then we expand that later through h.h.s. and others, to include housing, to include mental health care, etc. many of these kids have been tremendously traumatized. the vast majority are from central america. they are fleeing hardships and economic conditions. they are fleeing violence within their own countries, and many are also seeking reunification with their families. while these children await the immigration proceedings that they are then under, h.h.s. is

working with these children and relatives to place them here in the united states into onger-term facilities. cbp and many others i've talked about in so many and so many volunteers, the texas baptist men's association, many, many other n.g.o.'s that are involved in helping to provide food, clean clothing, shower facilities, etc. it is a tremendous operation. we are working hard to loss of -- to launch the public affairs campaign in these other countries to talk about one, not only the dangers that these kids face by being placed in the hands of coyotes who are involved in smuggling them. not only those dangers, but also the dangers they face in other ways. also the clear recognition that regardless of what is being

considered now in congress, for a comprehensive immigration review, they would not be entitled to a path to citizenship as a result of ntering the country now. cbp along with law enforcement agencies has surged criminal investigators to break the backs of smuggling organizations involved in this, often times for larger amounts of money and oftentimes they could care less about the safety of those children in their care. we are working hard to make sure those people are apprehended and the department of justice is working hard to make sure they are prosecutors. -- are prosecuted. we have responded to the needs of these children. our border patrol agent zeb -- agents have brought in, and our cbpo's at the ports of entry, also where kids can walk up a bridge and turn themselves in. they've brought in their own clothing. they've done so many other things that is beyond any skill

set that they have, and certainly something they didn't sign up for. use of force is another issue. so i'll change topics dramatically. the use of force, particularly by the border patrol, has received a lot of attention in the media. cbp has been criticized about its lack of transparency about our policies and procedures. about two weeks ago we began to change that. chief fisher began working very hard to make sure that the policy changes and the training changes that are needed -- because you can't just issue a piece of paper that all of this was being done, too. so we're working within c.b.p. and c.b.p.'s leadership to be more transparent, to be more open, to improve policy, to improve training, and i think you'll see more to come in that particular area. let me say that c.b.p. has

succeeded in unimaginable ways to improve our technology, our innovation, our vision. we know that people want to come to the united states. even though we hear quite often about the wait times at airports or the wait times at seaports, people want to come to this country. and over the last four years, every year we have seen travel and trade increase. they want to do business in this country. they want to trade in this country. this is a safe country and cbp helps very much to make it that way. that is why people want to come here. also because, in many ways, you can do business in this country without having to be overly concerned about corruption and payoffs. when i think about the work that cbp does to protect intellectual property rights and make sure that everything they do with the borders, to make sure this is a safe and secure country and to make sure that trade and travel can

flourish in a lawful and legitimate way, is a huge difference. those are just a few small things of an organization and workforce that i am extremely proud of and i could not be more honored than to have been nominated and confirmed and now leading that organization. adam, i think i'm ready. >> thank you all. [applause] >> i'm going to moderate the discussion by starting off with a couple of questions of my own. and then i will look to the audience to follow-up with questions. i would ask folks to raise your hand when i call on you and identify yourself and your affiliation before stating the question.

first of all, thanks so much for the remarks you made in depth and breadth. i want to touch on a couple of opics. you talked about the tremendous increase in unaccompanied minors being apprehended on the southwest border. you talked about the humanitarian response effort and touched a little bit on what the government is doing. to try to deter these journeys from taking place in the first place. i wonder if you can talk more about whether you're seeing any impact from those deterrence-related activities and how you're going to be monitoring that and thinking about whether additional measures are required. >> some of you are familiar with the department of state and the department of homeland security prior programs to get essages out.

a few years ago, they were concentrating more on mexico but certainly in the central american countries, that's where our concentration is now. to say that it is an incredibly dangerous thing -- it's dangerous to attempt in the summer months to come into this country and to traverse really ugged locations. every single day i get reports from the border patrol and our air and marine operations on rescues of people. dehydration, etc. you cannot carry enough water physically to get across any of that terrain. we also need to make sure in this new round of messaging that it's not only the danger to themselves, placing children in the hands of coyotes is incredibly difficult. there has been a lot of discussion and looking at our facilities have been

-- which actually, although not as much now, but have been overwhelmed by the number of people. i guess we need to show the same level of concern by many organizations about the danger these kids were in before they ever encountered somebody from the border patrol or customs and border protection who is a safe and secure individual for them. the last part of that message has to be that this is not a athway to citizenship. >> what kind of an impact as this surge having on the underlying enforcement interdiction mission along the southwest border? >> it has taken away resources within the border patrol to concentrate on caring for these individuals that would normally be doing other enforcement duties. we have to look at alleviating that. chief fisher and others have taken on temporary detail, 115

border patrol agent from other sections where they were less busy and i don't know any place on the border where they are not busy but where they were a little less busy and surge them into this area. the sooner they can get back to doing those other duties, i hink the better. >> you talked about the use of force policy and the modification. can you talk about how it is being received in the field? >> the message i have tried to make sure of is that to the people scrutinizing the use of force by any law enforcement agency but particularly the border patrol right now, is that a written policy is great for a start but it has to be backed up with training. we made changes in the training curriculum. we have made changes in the physical layout of the border patrol academy so that they have more of a real life situation for training without

the use of force. has to be reinforced for supervision and people have to be held accountable if force is used improperly. i don't know any law enforcement officer that opposes these ideas. the message i have given and all of the town halls with the border patrol is that there is no apprehension of an individual, there is no seizure of any amount of narcotics and there is no vehicle pursuit that is worth being injured over. e will have another day. law-enforcement officers across he country recognize this. we do a very good job. e will work very hard but we have to temper that attempts to apprehend with recognizing the risk not only to ourselves or to these agents but the risk to others. >> let me turn it over to the audience. please identify yourself and

your affiliation, i would appreciate it. >> iq for your remarks -- thank you for your remarks today. i am with northrop, and -- northrop grumman. i wonder if you might discuss what collaboration there has been with mexico for working on its southern border. what collaboration has there been with canada for the northern border? >> the mexican southern border with guatemala -- any changes or improvements that could be made there would certainly be a benefit not only to the government of mexico, the country of mexico, but would certainly be of benefit to the united states.

many of these young people because of the changes in security along the border are not able to enter the united states or are being kept and -- kept in what would be called stash houses. that has a direct impact on mexico. the united states knows something about the technology and training and skill set needed for border security. we continue to offer and work with the government of mexico to help them with that issue. that is important. in canada, when i was at the office of national drug control policy, we wrote the northern border strategy. a very different 4,000-mile border that is easily accessed. what i would say about both of these things is that it is not about the sheer number of people or the amount of technology. it's about intelligence and information sharing and focusing your finite resources

on the risk. >> the lady in the pink shirt in the back? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am rosemary i am with conflicts and violence prevention from kenya. i'm just here in washington, d.c. thank you so much for your presentation. looking at the border security, i wanted to ask if you can talk something about africa. this problem of the border is everywhere. we can see it in zimbabwe, somalia. how do we develop an nternational policy with immigration, security and customs? because this will prevent terrorism. they can go to another country, take another passport, get to another country, then it's all

confusion. how would you look at that and how can we collaborate in africa and all over the world? because the problem is all over the world. thank you. >> one thing i would offer is a customs and border protection has personnel and attaches and -- in 22 country. we have personnel in about 40 countries. we have advanced training centers and others and working with our partners at the department of state, we are very happy and have done it many times in many countries. we are happy to share our lessons learned. frankly, it is not the united states coming in and saying that this is the way you must do it and this is the way it hould be done. we are pretty happy to say that here are the mistakes we have made, perhaps you can benefit from those mistakes. we are better at this now and when we leave those partnerships and when we leave from those training sessions

which we do quite often, we are more knowledgeable and we have almost always walked away from those sessions having learned more than perhaps we have imparted by we have developed relationships. we would be happy to follow-up with you later and. help in any way we can >> in the front row here. the lady in purple. >> thank you. you talked about air cargo as well as newport technology. how do you feel about the 9/11 commission 100% scanning policy and the pushback? there is new technology out there that is effective and passive. it can detect contraband so how do you feel about that and the pushback? >> many people in the audience

know that the law requires 100% scanning and provides the secretary of homeland security with the ability every two years to say whether or not that can be achieved. 100% scanning based upon the technology that had existed in the past would have left cargo and trade stacked up either in the air or stacked up in ships quite a ways out from our ports. technology has changed pretty dramatically and we are exploring a variety of ways to continue to look at this. as you know, radiation monitoring exists with everything coming into the united states or almost everything. there are a variety of risk-based approach is that we are using. but we also try to make sure we have not just at the border, the security screening but then

further inland. it's a kind of layered defense that we can take. i think we are very hopeful that we can continue to look at the technology that is available to continue to move toward that scanning. >> the gentleman in the blue shirt. >> thank you. you previously mentioned it's not about the sheer number of people on the border or the technology but it's about information sharing. can you elaborate more about how you can become more effective with information shared? >> we have to develop those trusted relationships with other law enforcement organizations and those organizations such as interpol or others can be particularly helpful.

we have also done a better job and continue to move in this direction with something called pre-clearance, pushing the borders out and expanding the borders beyond their borders. when we look to being able to clear people coming into the united states and entering through customs 3000 miles away like in abu dhabi, it makes an awful lot of sense of those of the kind of things we want to be able to continue to work with. my law enforcement colleagues around the world, we have very much come to the conclusion that we are all in this together. the more that we can support and work with each other, the better off we all are. >> the gentleman in the yellow shirt in the back. >> good morning and thank you. border security measures have

pushed a lot of migrants over the years to go through the more city focused -- less city focused areas. where's the highest concentration coming through? >> it is the rio grande valley. it is the shortest distance traveling from central american countries through mexico. it is clearly in that particular area that we have seen the largest number of kids. apprehensions along the border had been decreasing. this is a particularly difficult situation because of the terrain in that area but also because these are children. apprehensions is probably the wrong word. and captures is a much better word. these are kids that are saying they want us to take care of them. >> they are less focused on being caught by border patrol? >> i'm sorry?

>> they're almost openly putting themselves out there? >> very much so. it is not through great detective work. >> the gentleman in the jacket. >> i just arrived from paris. thank you for the global entry. [laughter] it's very effective. my question is -- on the process and the children going across the border, some of them, as you mentioned, are coming in for reunification of the family. i was born in morocco. i went through the system and i understand how long it takes.

can it take less time for these children or the paper process through the embassies to make it a little bit easier or faster? it can take years to get the paperwork done properly or legally. >> your point is excellent. the legitimate lawful way to enter the country going for the embassy and the system is certainly something the department of state is well aware of. we also know that given the numbers of people that wish to come to this country and remain in this country is an overwhelming amount. i think the question is better answered by the department of state but i'm glad you raised that issue. >> the lady in the third row.

>> thank you for speaking today. in a recent csis event on the posture of the national guard, it has been said that more guardsmen might be used on the southwest border. can you comment if that is going to happen? there are already partnerships in place. who else might be utilized? >> i was part of the administration when the surge of national guard come i think about 1200 guardsmen were deployed a few years ago, when secretary gates and secretary napolitano were involved. i don't know of any plans involving the national guard now but i know that customs and border protection has had a long

and rich and fruitful history with the guard, particularly in the areas of intelligence and analytics, gathering information, etc. we have no better partner than the department of defense and secretary hagel. he and the relationship that secretary johnson has is tremendous. the amount of technology that is being returned as a result of the drawdown in afghanistan is very helpful and a lot of that technology can very much be used by us on the border. we have seen a transition very quickly to that. there are some very good relationships going on and improvements there, thanks. >> the lady in the tan jacket four rows back?

>> you mentioned the transition of equipment -- we are a vehicle manufacturer. we were just informed this week that dhs has requested 350. we talked to the border previously and felt they did not need armored vehicles. is the intent of these to go to border patrols or are you aware of that request? >> i would like to pretend that i know the answer to that. actually, i'm very much unaware of it and i'm certainly happy to look into it and try to get back to you. >> the gentleman five rows back. >> at the press conference yesterday you acknowledge complaints that have been made about order patrol officers. you said those complaints would be investigated. can you give a timeframe for those investigations and can you say when the names of the officers involved in those complaints will be made public?

>> sure, i think i have pretty much demonstrated my commitment to having complaints investigated, my commitment to making the information as a result of those investigations known. i would tell you in reading a few of the complaints that the lack of specificity particularly when, where, what station, let alone the names of individuals is extremely troubling. the vagueness of the complaints is very concerning. that means it will take longer and we will have to look at that. the other part that i would mention to you is that i am extremely troubled by the difference -- i am extremely troubled by the fact that i've

been down there a lots and spent a lot of time and i have seen these agents doing incredible things, taking care of these kids who were in a dangerous situation. i have watched them do every thing from change diapers to heat formula. they don't have very good skills in some of these things. having to tilt of my own, i know something about diapers but many of these are single young men who were not particularly good at that. they are really getting better. i have watched them bringing in their own clothing. i saw the pictures of a birthday cake for an 11-year-old who had never had a birthday cake. i have not quite seen the kinds of complaints i am hearing about. i'm a bit troubled because these men and women need our support. i don't have a timeframe only because the complaints are so vague and lack specificity so that it will take a while to

drill down into what is being talked about. >> the gentleman -- with the red tie in the back. >> you had mentioned earlier about the apprehension of potentially dangerous individuals entering the country. could you detail or touch on the process which must be undertaken to either bar a foreign national or bring them to the attention of cbp or dhs? >> we have interagency agreements, interagency relationships so that information about individuals in the united states who may be prohibited or barred whether it is on the no-fly list or other databases, that they, by law,

would not receive admittance to the united states. we work with these other agencies. we are actually the gateway or entry point, the enforcer often times of those regulations. >> the lady in the front row here. >> thank you. you said that many of the kids are girls and many are under the age of 12. many is a vague term. we are hearing that the vast majority are young males under the age of 18 but between 14-18. can you give more specific statistics?

if they don't have family here which already is kind of strange because the family are here illegally -- if our mission is to put kids who come in a illegally with the parents who are illegal, that's one thing. what if they have no family? they just come in and they are under 18 and we consider them minors. what happens to them then? will they be deported? >> the issue specifically around the numbers has been a bit difficult. we have a number of border patrol stations where these encounters occur. we have a number of doors of entry. at times, we have definitional issues of family units as opposed to individuals. we have lots of information but what the secretary and i and others have stressed so clearly is we recognize that this is an

overwhelming number of young people in need of care and in need of protection. that includes many under the age of 18 but the vast majority of these kids -- needing our services, needing our support. i would tell you that health and human services is doing an admirable job under the circumstances to take these children within 72 hours so they can either be reunited with their family member or placed in foster care. i would not comment on the deportation issue. >> the gentleman in the front. >> wonderful presentation but my

question is this -- the president has done such a wonderful job in trying to push for immigration reform. one of the ways in which he has been blocked politically by people who are in congress, against immigration reform, has been against raising false questions they say they want to be for immigration reform when the border is properly secured. is there somebody in the administration with whom you would be in contact with who can explain this or is chartered to explain this to the american people.

not everybody can come and listen to your wonderful presentation. that's really my question. there are spokespeople for climate change issue but what about immigration? >> i think the person most knowledgeable and has been the spokesperson for the administration on the immigration issue is the head of the domestic policy council, cecilia munoz who is incredibly knowledgeable about so many details. the border security issue is important. often times, when we talk about border security and metrics, it's often discussed as an eye of the beholder quality. there are more resources, more technology, more time, efforts and focus devoted for border security over these last few numbers of years than at any time in history. i think we all have to recognize

that we have finite resources and that we are going to continue to work very hard. the men and women of cbp will continue to work hard to uphold that responsibility. >> the gentleman in the gray suit. >> you were talking about manpower and technology and border patrol, could you discuss what roles the systems have begun to play and where that goes in the future? >> the technology systems already in place? was that --? i think the things that are most helpful that i have seen and listening to people on the border would be things like the tethered arrow steps, the technology -- we have unmanned aircraft also along the southern

border. we have remote video systems. they can be deployed that are also, the infrared systems that are a part of that also. all of those things i think are value added to the people that are working on the border. >> we've got time for two more questions. >> nice to see you again. i was astounded by your comment that the increase in the number of children in this category from last year, i think you said 92%? that is an unbelievable statistic. i don't know what the numbers are present but normally, if you see an increase of this nature,

it's due to some factor, it's not just things as normal. since the economy the draw we had in the past, is there an effort to identify what specifically you the right interviewing these children or else where, what exactly is the spark here? is there an individual or groups of people? is there a cabal working to take advantage of something? the real problem is going to be what started this and how can we deal with that issue? >> no one in the administration particularly the secretary has tried to couch this about the reason why in terms of other than what we are seeing and what we are hearing area this increase did not happen overnight.

it said about 48,000 right now. that has already doubled the number from last fiscal year and fiscal year over that which was an increase. nothing quite extent we are seeing this year. we have seen surveys from the united states conference of catholic bishops, we have seen other surveys at igo that's of the issues. there has always been a pull factor for people coming into the united states. as we know, honduras has the highest homicide rate of any country in the world. gang violence, other kinds of violence within those countries like el salvador are quite a concern. the quest for an education, the quest for a better economy, the quest for safety and security are there and so is family reunification a part of all that. that's why we are trying to address in our comprehensive

message to be broadcast, the fact that it is not only dangerous but the fact that this will not lead to a path to citizenship. >> last question lady in black. >> what is your take on implementing biometric exit given your work on the southwest border and given technology now like smartphones and biometric software? >> the biometric exit issue is important and it has a lot of value. we look at how we can decrease wait times in the united states for people entering the country. our continuing study of biometrics is important. at the end of this month, they will be opening an experimentation center on biometric technologies. we will continue to reach for that. it's not just the biometrics

that would be helpful. we know they have to be put into an infrastructure. our airports are really not designed for biometric exit. all that has to be put into an infrastructure and would also have to be able to aware -- to be aware of privacy in the personally identifiable information. it's a pretty complex set of things. we are exploring with the number of people and a number of very smart people in a very open way with members of congressional staff biometric exit programs and technology. >> thank you for your time. not many people appreciate what a complex mission you have. you talk about processing a

million travelers a day. part of that is trying to find very few high risk travelers in the midst of the great number of mostly legitimate travel. one of the things you have been doing for number of years as being the interface between governments and stakeholders in the private sector. of the community in general is buried in that gap and getting greater visibility than the challenges that is facing the country. thank you for partnering with csis to provide the picture and the topics. >> thank you all very much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on the next washington journal, a round table on the news of the week. kimberly kagan, a founder and president of the institute for the study of war has the latest on the violence in iraq. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal. live at 2:00 a.m. eastern -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. chairsmakers, caucus xavier becerra talks about eric cantor's departure from leadership and how it could affect the legislation prospects. newsmakers, live in the -- live

sunday. a.m. on one of the things people don't always recognize is during the war of 1812, it was fought from 1812 until after 1814, early 1815. it was about the america -- about america reestablishing its independence against the british. this is was -- this was sort of our second american revolution. this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem. it wasimage in 1995, made to look whole and restored. there is a section that was reconstructed. when the flag was moved into the space, there was a decision

not to do that again. what we wanted was the flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it is tattered and torn, but still survives. themessages the survival of country and flag. we are not trying to make it look pretty. we are trying to make it look like it has endured its history and can still celebrate. >> this marks the 200th navalrsary of the fish bombardment of fort mchenry during the war of 1812. learn more about the flag that francis court -- that francis scott key wrote about. part of american history tv. this weekend on c-span three. c-spanover 35 years, brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. a public service.

brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> >> we'll hear from kentucky senator rand paul, louisiana governor bobby jindal and rick santorum. every two years, the 2014 iowa republican party convention is held in des moines. state members review their platform and address party business. we're going to show some of the speakers at the event. first kentucky senator rand paul, than louisiana governor bobby jindal and former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. their remarks are just over an hour. rand paul.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. i can tell you most everybody in washington has seen joanie earns t's add. and i can tell you that the purvares of pork are shaking in their boots and worried that joanie will come up there. i can also tell you that we're going to do everything to make sure that she can come up there. i don't see how iowa can send us a guy who disparages farming and disparages my friend chuck grassley. i don't see how that's going to happen. [cheers and applause] >> now, i don't know about you but i'm not so excited about

the president freing the taliban. i'm not so excited about the president saying somehow they're no longer a danger. i'm not so excited about hillary clinton saying oh, the taliban's of no danger to americans. so i said the other day, i was in texas. i said, you know, if this president likes to trade so much, we've got that marine on gun charges down in mexico. why don't we do a trade but this time instead of trading the taliban, why don't we trade them five democrats? [cheers and applause] john kerry, hillary clinton, nancy pelosi. i can come up with a list. but here's the funny thing about trying to tell a joke when you're in politics. immediately the reporters are like, seriously?

did he just compare democrats to the taliban? so we had to issue a correction. so we sent out a tweet and we said, just kidding. except for pelosi. i've got good news and bad thuse though from washington. the good news is your government's open. the bad news is your government's open and still borrowing $1 million every minute. the debt is spiraling out of control. if you've seen the debt clock.org? just look at the numbers and you'll be frightened for

>> this sounds like a good process until i discovered that there were 100,000 federal employees that make over $100,000 a year that were declared unessential. that's the bulk of the government, maybe we could have a smaller government. this is washington. i discovered that there is a trick. if you're declared unessential, you don't have to show up for work during a shutdown, but you're still paid. only in washington could you shut the government down and it cost more than keeping it open. completely insane. i asked for a report from my staff, i said, well, what did the i.r.s. say, essential or unessential, 90% unessential. what did the e.p.a. say? 95% unessential. i said, we're getting somewhere here.

maybe we're going to learn something. it actually went through some of the e.p.a. employees. one woman had not been to work in 20 years. she had had no contact, no email for five years. you say, well, good, we found how she has been fired. no, you don't get it. she is a federal employee. we can't even fire the people at the v.a. who have lied to us about our veterans, made up these lists and allowed veterans to wait in a line and die, we can't fire them. this is how dysfunctional your government is. they discovered another woman at the e.p.a. who was selling jewelry and vitamins from her computer and had employed 17 paid interns that were family members of hers, they found another guy had been downloading porn for six hours a day. you would think certainly he was fired. he still works for the e.p.a. it's a disgrace. but my favorite is they found a guy named jonathan beal. he had been working at the e.p.a. for 11 years.

he was gina mccarthy's ride-hand man. he always got raced, performance bounces, his reviews were good. he wasn't at work for six months. they asked his boss. they followed up and asked his boss, the reason he is not very often, he is also a c.i.a. agent. they were like really? he works for the e.p.a. and the c.i.a., kind of an interesting combination. they did something extraordinary. they called the c.i.a. and they said jonathan who? turns out he had never worked for the c.i.a., but i imagine this guy makes $150,000 a year sitting at his apartment or his house next to the pool with a beer and he is like his boss calls, are you coming in? no, i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. this is where your government is. it's completely crazy and completely out of control. ntrol. so we went through this shutdown and you said, well, i guess that was terrible.

all the government's shut down. right? no. two thirds of your government's anauto pilot. two thirds of your government is mandatory spending and never shuts down. this is medicare, social security, and medicaid. so a third of your government is national defense and the other stuff we spend money on. so we did the right thing. we said we should pay our old jers. we can't have them in the field. so we opened up the military and paid. so now we're down to a sixth of got. about 16% was closed. you would have thought the world was ending and the sky was falling from all the talk. the president though was afraid you might not notice. so do you remember what the president did? he wrapped the world war ii monument. no telling how many employees it takes to wrap the world war ii monument. there is no entrance, there is no exit. nobody works at the world war ii monument but he wanted to make sure you knew you were going to pay a penalty if you messed with it. if you messed with the the president and said i'm not going to negotiate so he wraps

the world war ii monument. but if you want an image to remember from the confrontation from the shutdown? from trying to get the president to do the responsible thing? if you want an image to remember, you remember the world war ii veterans cutting the placards, cutting the barricades and throwing them on the lawn at the white house. cheers and applause] the democrats and the president they say woe is me. where would we cut? we can't find anywhere to cut. so i've been pointing out a few things and a few areas where he might consider it. we spent $1.8 million on rollup beef jerky. we spent $5 million studying the collective action of fish. we spent a half a million dollars developing a menu for mars. now, that is good job. if you've got a 26-year-old kid who can't find a job and you're

looking for a job, this is a great job. pays $5,000 stipend, two weeks all expenses paid in hawaii. the prerequisites to get the job are difficult though. you have to like food. so they sent these 20-something-year-old kids to hawaii with the assignment to develop a menu that's a half million dollar study to develop a menu for mars. you know what a butch of college kids came up with? pizza. we spent a quarter of a million developing a 3-d printer for pizza. so i'm madging are we going to be able to get the 3-d printer on the mars module? we're going to send a 3-d printer to mars. this is your government the total and complete dysfunction nalt of your government. but they can't cut anything. but realize two thirds of the problem are the enentitlements. and none of us are saying get rid of that. we're saying reform the entitlements.

[applause] but here's the disappointing thing. and this is what discourages me about washington. we had a vote about four months ago to try to cut $3 million. now, some will tell you, $3 million, that's peanuts. why bother? if you don't start somewhere, how are we ever going to get started? [applause] this was to cut $3 million for twiggy, the water skiing squirrel. now, i like dumb pet tricks and if you email me one i will look at it. but i'm not for having the taxpayers spend $3 million for twiggy the water skiing squirrel to support the selling of american walnuts in spain. and god love you if you've got a walnut farm but that's your job to advertise them, not the taxpayers. [applause] but we had a vote.

and here's the disturbing thing. that's easy. this should be really easy. the vast majority of republicans, americans, democrats, should say when you have a $1 trillion annual deficit that we should be able to cut twiggy the water skiing squirrel. but here's the disappointment. it failed. the majority of republicans voted to keep the money. and here's the other thing we need to know as republicans. it's not that we're against the safety net. but we think a safety net should be temporary and the able bodied should eventually get back to work. that's tough love. but as republicans, we can't be out there for what it takes, which is tough love, if we're not willing to stop corporate welfare. we've got to stop and end all the welfare at big business. t's crazy. when i think of this

administration, i think of old mcdonald's farm. old mcdonald's farm of scandals. here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal. but of all the scandals the one i think that bothers me the most is benghazi. [cheers and applause] there's been a lot of discussion of the talking points. the democrats say well that's political. well, i'll tell you what's not political. if you are going to consider somebody to be your commander in chief, you have to have somebody who will secure the troops, protect the embassies, and who will send reinforcements. cheers and applause] the debacle in benghazi started in the very beginning at the very top with hillary clinton deciding that the benghazi consulate was more like paris than it was baghdad. it was a war zone and it was a

mistake from the very beginning to have nobody protecting that consulate. [applause] six months in advance of the attack on the consulate, there was a request made of hillary clinton for a plane to fly the plane around in case of emergency. guess what. that emergency did arise and the night we were looking for reinforcements in triply, do you know what we were doing? we were begging to let them have the libyans use one of their planes, which was an american plane that we paid for. but we had to beg the lip libyans because there was no plane because the state department refused to allow a plane to be there. this was something that was a terrible and tragic error. but a couple of days after hillary clinton state department turns down the plane. do you know what they have money for? they found $100,000 for a

charging station for electric cars at the embassy in vienna. hey found $100,000 to send comedians to india to make chy not war. they spent $5 million on crystal glassware. but didn't have enough money for security. hey spent $650,000 on facebook ads. seems they need more friends at the facebook for the state department. they spent $700,000 when they say i didn't have enough for security, they spent $700,000 on landscaping at the embassy in brussels. so all of this is going on. meanwhile colonel woods is there with a 16 man personnel team a month before the attacks and he said we need to stay. the british embassy is pulling out. there have been attacks on our complex. we need more security not less.

hillary clinton's state department what do they say? no. so i finally got her in front of my committee on the way out. and i frankly said look, if i would have been president i would have asked for your resignation. cheers and applause] and i asked her a question. i asked her a question. i said did you read the cables from the ambassador? she never read them. it's a dare licks of duty. it's something that should preclude hillary clinton from ever being considered as commarpped in chief. -- commander in chief. cheers and applause] thank you. but if you want that to happen,

if you want a republican to be the next president of the united states, we are going to have to be a bigger, better, bolder party. there's a big debate going on, though. some say for us to be bigger we have to dilute our message. we need to be democrat-like. we need to be more moderate to get more electoral votes. i couldn't disagree more. in fact, i think the core of our message we could be even more bold, more honest, more forthright. [cheers and applause] when ronald reagan won a landslide, he ran unabashedly on lowering tax rates for everyone that it would stimulate the economy and 20 million jobs were created. that's what we need again.

it isn't about being tepid. in washington, you've got people in washington saying i'm for revenue neutral tax reform. i frankly if that's what we're for i'll go back to being a doctor, back to kentucky, and continue. but that's not why i ran for office. to say oh mr. smith will pay a little more and mrs. jones will pay a little less. but the overall tax burden will be the same. let's be unabashedly for returning more money to iowa, leaving it here to create jobs. [cheers and applause] but how do we get bigger and better? i think we don't give up our core message. but part of our message has to reach out to people where they are. so i spent a lot of time in the last year going to historicically black colleges, going to predominantly hispanic audiences. going to berkeley.

going to places republicans haven't gone before. but i'm not going there and changing my message. i'm going there with the same message. i spoke to the conservative political action committee and i told them, you know what? we're conservatives and we believe in the second amendment but we also believe in the fourth amendment, we also believe in privacy. [cheers and applause] i took that exact message to berkeley. and i was received in both places. young people will vote for us. but it isn't that you don't meet young people and say i'm not voting for republican because they're for the balanced budget amendment. you don't meet african americans who say i'm against the balanced budget amendment. it's not where they are particularly young people. they don't have any money, any job. they don't care about regulations and taxes. but everyone of them has a cell phone and they think frankly it's none of the government's business what they do on their

cell phone. [applause] there are ways we can reach out. but you've got to realize where people are. i'll bring up something that may not bring everybody together just you can think about it. if you think about the war on drugs. i think drugs are a scurege. i think we've maybe gone too far that marijuana is a problem. and yet i also think it's a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes. if you look at the war on drugs, three out of four people in prison are black or brown. white kids are doing it, too. if you look at the surveys, white kids do it just as much as black and brown kids but the prisons are full because they don't get a good toirn, they live in poverty. it's easier to arrest them thoon in the suburbs. but i will tell you if you got into the african american community and ask them if you think the law is fair they'll tell you know.

-- no. >> in 19 0 there were 200,000 kids with a dad in prison there's now 2 million. i'm not for saying no laws but i am saying that look, most of us are christians or jews or of the jude yo christian faith. and it's like we believe in redemption. we believe in a second chance. should a 19-year-old kid get a second chance? i think yes. let's be the party that has compassion that doesn't say the behavior is right but says you know what? when you're done with your time, that you get the right to vote back. let's be the party that is for extending right to vote back to people who have paid their time, who have reformed their ways. [applause] so i say we don't need to dilute our message. but i think if we can take our message or aspects of our message to people where they are, people who live in poverty, the republican message should be you know what? we'll come to your town. we'll come to detroit. and we're not going to bring

money from iowa, we're not going to bring money from kentucky. but we'll so dramatically lower your taxes that it would be a $1 billion stimulus for detroit by leaving money in drit that originated in detroit. then we have something we can offer. but if you're for revenue neutral tax reform you're not bringing anything to detroit. touf believe that we can have less taxes and smaller government and that will help create jobs. we have to believe in what we once believed in. if we do that we'll be the dominant party again. we have a strong force here. but frankly the president won iowa twice. so we can't do the same old same old. the definition of insanity is thinking the same thing will get you different results. the real question we have as a party is we have to decide can we be true to our purpose, true to our core, true to our message, and figure out how to reach out to people? that's what we have to do. [applause]

there was a painter by the name of robert hen ry about a hundred years ago. and he said, paint like a man coming over the hill single. -- singing. i love the image of that. if we could be the party that proclaims our message with a passion of patrick henry but also proclaims our message, our core message that we truly believe boldly proclaim that message like a man coming over the hill singing, then i think we will be the dominant party again. i want to be part of that. and i hope you'll help me. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] .

>> thank you all very, very much. thank you all very much. [applause] thank you all for that very warm reception. i want to first of all start off by thanking my good friend your governor terry for the great job he is doing for the people of iowa. [applause] >> cutting taxes, growing the economy, reforming your educational system. he is going to do a great job if we give him another four years. let's hear another round of applause. [applause] >> you've got several great leaders here whether it's your senator chuck grassley, or steve king your congressman. i had the privilege of getting to know the next united states senator from the great state of iowa. isn't joni an amazing

principled conservative? [applause] there are so many reasons to help her get elected. she will rein in taxes, rein in government spending. but if you needed one more reason to get excited, how amazing come this november when we get to retire harry reid? we no longer have to call him the majority leader of the united states senate? [cheers and applause] i thought long and hard about what i wanted to share with you today. i want to share with you today my greatest concern, my greatest frustration, my greatest fear of the obama administration and his legacy. there is so much that worries me about president obama. i worry about $17 trillion of debt. i worry about an e.p.a. that's going to strangle our economy. i worry about more taxing, more spending, more borrowing. i worry about a diminished america on the world stage. i worry about an economic growth of 2% recovery.

i worry about a culture that becomes more course day by day by day. but the thing that worries me the but the thing that worries me the most, not only is the governor of the great state of louisiana, but as the father of three children, is this president's attempt to redefine the american dream. what do i mean by that? if you listen to this president long enough, if you watch his policy, you see a focus on class envy, a president intent on dividing us by ideology, age, gender, success, a president who talked about redistribution, a president who seems to believe that america is about equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity. i don't know about you, but that is not the american dream my parents taught me about. the american dream is not about growing the federal government, taxes, spending. the american dream is not about

managing the slow decline of this great economy of this great country. the american dream is not about making us more and more like europe. the american dream is different. the american dream is that the circumstances of your birth do not determine your outcomes as an adult. the american dream is you do not have to be born any rights it took to the right gender to th}) to the right parents to do well in this country. the american dream as if you work hard and get a great education, you can do better than your parents and grandparents. indeed, how many parents had told their young children, "if you work hard, you can be the first in our family to go to school. you can be the first in our family to be a small business octor, entrepreneur, dr whatever your dreams are." , a parents have told a boy or girl, any child in the world

they can grow up to become president of the united states? unfortunately, we found out how true that was in 2008 and 2012. my parents taught me an american dream where our best days were ahead of us, not behind us, where we are a forever young country, and i want to talk to you today how we have to fight to preserve that american dream for our children and grandchildren. i want to start by sharing with you why that american dream is so important to me. my parents, my dad especially, he has lived the american dream. my dad is one of nine kids, first and only one of his family that got past the fifth grade. grew up in a house without electricity and without running water. i know because we heard these stories every single day growing up. maybe you've got a parent or grandparent like that who is the first in your family, and what's amazing is nearly 50 years ago, my mom and dad came from halfway

across the world -- they came from america because they were in search of the american dream. i want you to think about something -- there was no internet back then. it was not that easy to get on a plane back then. international long distance phone calls were incredibly expensive. my parents had never been to america. my parents had never been to louisiana. my parents had been to louisiana -- my parents had never met anybody who had been to louisiana. but they had an unshakable faith that if you get there and work hard and get a great education, you can provide your children with a better quality of life. they knew the american dream was alive and well. they came nearly 50 years ago so that my mom could study at lsu. my dad -- he did not know anybody. book,ned up the phone went through the yellow pages and started calling company

after company after company looking for a job. i don't know how many people turned him down or how many people laughed in his face or slammed the phone down, but after hours, days -- i don't know, maybe even after weeks of finallyhone calls, he convinced a guide to take a chance on him. there was a guy at a railroad company that said, "you can start on monday." what i love about the rest of the story is that you have to meet my dad to understand it. he had finally got the job. he tells this boss he never met that is great. i will start monday. he says look. i don't have a car. i don't have a drivers license. you have to pick me up on the ay to work monday morning. he did that. six months later i was born at woman's hospital in baton rouge. baton rouge, same hospital where my -- a couple of my kids were born.

by the way, when i was born, i was what you would likely call -- politely call a pre-existing condition. there was no obama care or .nything like that back then my dad did something that was pretty simple and pretty common back then. he went to the doctor and shook hands with the doctor and said, "i will send you a check every month until i pay this bill in full." no obamacare, no government programs, no paperwork, two guys in a hospital shaking hands, and that's just what you did. when my kids were born, we had great insurance. it took us hours to fill out the paperwork. it wasn't nearly that simple, but i don't know if that would work today. i asked my dad -- it was a simpler time back then. i said, "how do you pay for a baby on lay away? if you skip a payment, do they take the baby back?"

.e said, "don't worry you are paid in full. no one is going to take you back ." the reason i tell you back is my -- the reason i tell you that is my parents have lived the american dream. my dad would always tell my brother and me growing up that he was not leaving us an inheritance or a famous last name, but he said every single day we should get on our knees and thank god we were blessed to be born in the greatest country in the history of the world, the united states of america. [applause] my dad said what is so great is that if you are willing to work hard, if you get a great education, there's no limit on what you can do in this great country. there's so many things i could done.bout that we have

i just signed a couple of bills on thursday helping to make sure thesiana continues to be most pro-life state in the country. [applause] theut our own version of second amendment into our state constitution, but the thing i want to talk to you about today, and one of the things i think is the most -- one of the most important things we have done is we have fought to preserve the american dream for all church in -- for our children, and impart that means making sure every child has the chance to get a great education. if you say it's not fair to tell a child you have the chance to pursue the american dream if you are trapped in a failing school -- we have done several things. one of the most important things we have done is said we are going to let the dollars follow the child instead of making the child follow the dollars. [applause] 90% of our kids in new orleans

are in charter schools. we have doubled the percentage between reading a graph on -- a reading and math on grade level in five years. we have got one of the countries most expansive, ambitious, comprehensive, school chores -- choice programs so the parents can decide because every child learns differently. some children are better homeschooled. some children do better in public schools. some children do better in christian schools, parochial schools, online schools, dual enrollment programs. we trust our parents. unions did not like this much. one of them got up and said, "parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids." i cannot summarize the debate at her between the left and the right. you see, they don't think we are smart enough to the size -- to decide what size soda we drink.

they don't think we are smart enough to exercise our second amendment rights. they don't think we are smart enough to buy our own health insurance product and decide what we want to buy. they don't think we're smart enough to pick the schools for our children or to exercise our first amendment rights. they took us to the state supreme court. we picketed. we won those fights. we have a program where we are saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. 93% of the taxpayers are happy with the program. it's growing by double digits. who could be opposed to giving children better education and more choices? .ric holder, that's who the department of justice, eric took us toally federal court to stop these children from having a chance to get a great education. i went to d.c. and called the 's attemptsion cynical, hypocritical, and immoral. [applause]

i'm on president obama's christmas card list anymore, but that's ok. i said that these kids only have one chance to grow up. i said it's immoral almost 50 years to the day of martin luther king's famous "i have a dream" speech to trap the children in failing schools, but it is also that the critical. i say it's hypocritical because you know and i know there's not a chance in the world eric holder or president obama would send their children to these failing schools they are trying to force louisiana kids to attend. [applause] and i'm glad they have the ability to send their kids to great schools. i just want the same ability for kids in the louisiana, iowa, and every state of this great country. you may wonder how we get to a point where our federal

government is trying to trap kids in failing schools. i would argue this goes back to something president clinton said in the 1990's. remember, he said the era of big government is over. never before has somebody been so wrong about something so important in our modern political history. david axelrod actually said something i was agree with -- i agree with. he was trying to defend president obama in the middle of one of the scandals. there have been so many it's hard to keep track, but this is what he said -- he said the federal government is so vast, so expansive, the president could not possibly be responsible. you know, he is exactly right. that is the problem -- the government is too fast and too expansive. we have seen things that i never would have believed would have happened in the united states of america. i can build a time machine and go back in time, if i were standing in front of you years ago before president obama had taken office, if you really believed that the federal

government would run up a $17 trillion debt, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you really believe the federal government was going to use the irs to go after conservative groups because of their beliefs, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you would really believe the department of justice would try to take away guns from law-abiding citizens while they provide guns to mexican drug cartels and fast and theory is, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you really believe that they would create a new, expensive entitlement program putting bureaucrats between our doctors and patients when we cannot afford the government we got, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked would you really believe when our ambassador was killed in libya, they would blame it on a youtube video, would you have believed me? no. i had fun back in time and said that our secretary of state would get so exasperated with the congress, with the senate for asking her about this she would actually say "what

difference does it make," would you have believed me? if i had gone back in time and said the department of justice would be spying on ap reporters in the press, would you have believed me? >> no. and here is perhaps one of the most dangerous overreach is a federal government power -- time and time again, we think we have seen the worst erie we have the federal government intruding into our religious liberties, one of the most dangerous assaults on constitutional freedoms by our founding fathers, can you believe that the obama administration found the supreme court threatening the green family and hobby lobby with fines of up to $1.3 million a day simply because they don't to buy use their money abortions for their employees? one of the most important fights we face as a country is to stand up for our first amendment religious liberty -- religious

rights. [applause] i knew the president did not like our second amendment rights . i thought he was ok with the first amendment. i guess he does not like those either. this president has the wrong idea about religion -- he thinks it starts and ends on sunday. the united states of america did not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. it is the reason we live in this great country. [applause]

you may have noticed there was a controversy over the "dynasty" "duck a while ago -- dynasty" family and while ago. defenders wasst the governor of louisiana. you may have thought i defended them simply because the family is from louisiana. you may have thought i defended them simply because they are friends of mine. you may have thought i defended them because my little boys are big fans. you may have thought i defended him because i think it's great to have a tv show you can actually watch with your family, you know have to worry about the language and the images and all that other nonsense that comes up. [applause] the reason i defended them is of the left.tired i'm tired of their hypocrisy, tired of them saying they

tolerate the bait and dissent. the reality is this -- they do tolerate debate and dissent for everybody except for those that have the temerity to disagree with them. [applause] by the way, i don't think it's any coincidence the assault on religious liberty happened to be focused on even jellico christians in our society. i'm not generally in favor of lawsuits, but there is one lawsuit i would endorse -- we like to say that president obama is a smart man. we like to call him a constitutional scholar. i know he spent three years at harvard law school. i would encourage and recommend to him that he sues harvard law school to get his tuition money back. i'm not sure what he learned while he was there. [applause] i thought it was pretty ironic a

few months ago at the national prayer request, the president spoke eloquently about the war on religious liberty, on christians being persecuted overseas -- and let's be clear -- there's a silent war on religious liberty at home in america. there's a shooting war overseas. beingare men and women killed, executed, tortured for their beliefs overseas, and i'm not trying to compare the two, but it was disjointed to hear the president get up and speak so eloquently about the need to protect the rights of religious liberty, the freedoms, the ability of christians to worship on an international basis. i don't think he realized the irony that once again there was a grand canyon sized gap between what he says and what he does right here at home. saiddent obama basically if you like your religious liberty, you can keep your religious liberty. [applause]

as i close, i just want to focus on the latest piece of insanity that now defines our foreign policy -- apparently, the president has adopted a catch and release program when it s.mes to terrorist as i wrap up, i've got just three questions i want to ask, and i want to make sure i understand, want to make sure we are on the same page. the first question i got for you think the do you president of the united states should set the precedent that we now negotiate with terrorists? do you think the president of the united states should just unilaterally decide when and how he wants to obey or break united states laws and constitution? do you think the president of the united states should release five terrorists who oppose not

only the united states of america but our way of life so they can go back and rejoin the fight against americans? as i think about this, it leads me to one inescapable just difficult question. opinion on this as well -- are we witnessing the most liberal, ideological extreme administration we have seen in our lifetime right here in the united eighth of america? are we witnessing the most incompetent administration we have witnessed in our lifetime right here in these united states of america? [applause] i've thought about this long and hard. this is a tough question like which came first -- the chicken or the egg? the only answer i've been able to come up with, the best answer

, actually comes from secretary clinton herself. to quote our secretary, "what difference does it make?" [applause] i am here to tell you there's a revolution brewing. i am a complete optimist about the future of these united states of america. our founding fathers, our founding fathers trusted not in the brilliance of our federal government, not in the beautiful buildings and monuments of washington, d.c. -- they trusted in the brilliance of a free people. they knew if you got the government out of the way, if you freed the entrepreneurial spirit and the everyday love in hard work of moms and dads, that truly, the american dream would be alive and well. they knew and we know that we will leave more opportunities for our children and we --erited from our parents then we inherited from our

parents. i know this -- there's a rebellion brewing in these united states of america. people don't want incremental change. we want a hostile takeover of washington, d.c. our best days are ahead of us. god bless the united states of america. thank you very much for allowing me to speak with you today, and god bless the great state of iowa. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. back in great to be iowa. i am actually on vacation, and when i was asked to speak your today, i talked to my wife, and she said, "it's right in the middle of our two-week vacation," and i said that chuck

grassley has always told me i should vacation in iowa more often, so here i am. i am honored and happy to be here. [applause] admit, i will not be here long. i have a book i will be signing which you will be hearing about in a minute because -- because i want to talk to you about what is in that book. if you cannot make the book signing, i will be at my friend's reception later this afternoon. hope i get a chance to see .verybody i feel like i'm coming back home in many respects. had a wonderful experience a couple of years ago. i can tell you that it changed me. it changed our family. we have a very special place in our heart for the people of the state of iowa. last time i was talking to a

group anywhere near this side was just down the road at stony creek inn on caucus night. that night, i got up and talked , and iy grandfather talked about my grandfather's funeral. when i was a young man, the first person i had ever seen who .ad died was my funeral i knelt next to his casket. he was a coal miner, worked until he was 72 years old. i remember looking at his hands, these enormous hands of a coal miner who literally as an immigrant dug his way for freedom and opportunity for me and my family. the reason i talked about that that night and i continue to me, about it was because to he -- even though he was not a republican, he was a dang

democrat, but that hard work, responsibility, take responsibility for yourself and create a better life for the next generation, that the great experience, that blue-collar experience -- to me, that is the republican party. up,s ago when i was growing the republican party was the country club set. it was the corporate set. .t was the 1% if you look at the surveys right now, those folks are voting republican anymore. the 1% on the republicans, by and large. the areas we use to win, rich suburban areas -- they are not republican anymore. , you knowcross iowa the republicans i met were hard working people, folks who were not the corporate executives, onple who work for a living

-- earn wages, small business people trying to piece things together, who believed in the inrican dream, who believed work and responsibility. that's the republican party. that's who we are, but let's be honest -- that's not how we talk as republicans. that's not our message, as the republican establishment would .ave us dictate our message is all about corporatism and business. i remember at the convention, i spoke on a tuesday night at the national convention, and i walked into the arena, and there were placards on all the seats. do you know what the plaque richard reid? ."e built that >> do you know what the placards read? "we built that." at aent an entire night

convention bringing out small business person at the large business personal one after another talking about how they .uilt their business not one time did we bring out a business owner and a worker to talk about how they built their business. can win every business person's vote and still lose elections by landslides. we need workers if we are going to win. we need to start talking to workers if we are going to win. is who we are. that is who the workers in the republican party are. that's who the base of the republican party are. look at any of the surveys. as far as a lot of workers in america are concerned, we don't care about them because we don't talk about them. if our message is -- which it has been for quite some time, cut taxes, particularly focused on higher income individuals to create growth and opportunity, balance the budget, and cut

part of the you are 80% of americans who do not get welfare benefits and are not the top income earners, where are you in this picture? see, what is the most favorite word of every single person in america? their own name. deliver as get up and message and paint this beautiful picture of growth and economic prosperity, but as we paint that picture, they do not see themselves in this picture. we are not going to win elections then. i wrote this book "lou koller conservatives," and i'm traveling the country talking to candidates, and painting for candidates, and encouraging them -- i wrote this book "blue collar conservatives." start talking about average

working americans. start -- stop talking about corporations and wall street and business. yes, we want to be the party of growth, but we also want to be the party that is pro-worker as well as progrowth. how do we do this? well, it's very simple. one of the reasons i think we did as well as we did not just here in iowa but in ten other states which we won and others we came very close, is we went out and talked about the core things that connect to average working americans. things like energy and keeping energy costs down, not just so your bills are lower. but also to create jobs in energy but also to create manufacturing jobs. because lower energy costs result in a better opportunity for manufacturers to be

profitable. and i went out with a whole plan on manufacturing, how we have to bring jobs made in america back in the lex con of the republican party. [applause] and we need not just the rhetoric to say we want things made in america. we want policies that make that possible. americans can compete. we can compete with higher wages because we have better talent, we have better patent protections, cheaper energy. but we have higher taxes and higher regulations and higher litigation costs. and that's something government can do something about and that's something republicans should be talking about if we want to be successful in getting working men and women's votes in this country. we need to talk about manufacturing. when you talk about energy we need to talk be construction, rebuilding the infrastructure of america.

we can do that by shifting resources not new tax bus shifting resources from the waste and the excess of this bloated federal budget. and state budgets. and start putting people back to work. start talking about jobs, 70% of americans don't have college degrees. but if you listen to our rhetoric you would assume that they all do. because that's the jobs we're talking about. but we need to have good-paying jobs, family-sustaining jobs. in areas where folks who don't go to college can also raise a family. it connected with people. i'll give you a little statistic during the campaign. it was -- i had a meeting with governor romney's people shortly after the campaign. and they shared a survey with me. which sort of stunned me. but i noticed that all the exit polls were always wrong and they would come out about 6:00 and always underestimate how well i did.

they started noticing that, too, state after state that they did better than what the exit polls showed. and we didn't do following, we didn't have any money to do polling. but they started asking the question not just who you plan to vote for but when are you planning to vote? and what happened startled me. they show med a poll from the last state the campaign was in. and if you were going to vote before 6:00, governor romney and i were tied. if you were going to vote after excuse me. 5:00. if you were going to vote after 5:00 i was ahead by 21 points. over 6 million workers stayed home and didn't vote in the 2012 election. they wouldn't vote for barack obama. but they didn't think we cared. because we don't talk about them. and their lives. and it's not just about

economics. because you know what? the folks struggling in america, the people whose wages are stagnant and inflation is keeping away. but there are other things going on in their life, too, that's not getting ahead. do you know what the democrats are going to hit us with in the fall. you know what's coming. they telegraphed it and they did for 2016. income inequality. what's our answer? what are we going to say? cut capital gains taxes? what's our answer? well, let's look at their studies. because they actually did studies. you know what their studies showed? all the liberal colleges and think tanks did these studies on income inequality and guess what they found out two major things. number one, income inequality has not increased in america in the last 50 years. number two -- that doesn't mean that's good because that we have had a lot of income inequality. and we should be concerned about that. but what they found was the

number one factor, the number one factor to determine whether people will rise in society or not is not education. you know what it is? marriage and family. marriage and family. if you were raised in a two-parent family you do better. if you live in a two-parent family, the husband and the wife and the family do better. yet where are we as republicans? i'm not talking about going out and fighting the battle of redefining marriage. i'm talking about the battle of reclaiming marriage as an institution that we should be romoting in america. [applause] we have lost the marriage debate in america for one reason. because during our watch

marriage has been redefined. marriage is now by most people's cal bration simply a romantic relationship between two people that the government affirms. well, ladies and gentlemen, if that's all marriage is, then as far as i'm concerned anybody should be able to get married. but that's not what marriage is. at least that's not what it used to be. marriage used to be the union of a man and the woman for the purpose of coming together to have children to raise the next generation and give every child in america their birth right to be raised by their natural mother and natural father. cheers and applause] why can't we reclaim marriage? why can't we do what we did with a whole lot of other things? everybody knows you shouldn't text and drive. why? because everybody in society says don't do it. you know you're not supposed to smoke. you know you're supposed to

drink -- not supposed to drink issuingrd beverages. none of those things have the health impact on children on adults that marriage does. we need to be campaigning on the public good of marriage. and we need to have policies that promote the two things i just talked about. work and marriage. [applause] there was a study i talked about it all the time. if you do three things in america, if you do these three things you are almost guaranteed, 2% chance you will ever be in poverty in america. number one, work. number two, graduate from high school. and number three, get married before you have children. you do those three things in america you'll never be in