over and invited al qaeda or allowed al qaeda to become part of the country, and they of course launched attacks. with respect to the budget issue, we have something called to comeseasthat fund is expectd in fifth go year 2013. the president has not yet submitted his request for the overseas contingency fund. he has set aside 5 billion for certain other purposes as use all with respect to nato and some of our objectives there. iraqin events in a rock -- could have an impact on what the ultimate number is. we will have the defense appropriation bill on the floor of the house this week and i am

sure we will have a debate on the issues going forward. >> questions? >> i am a longtime member of the club. very impressive personality. an honorary southeastern citizen. >> your question, please? >> on the five mystical things would you please respond to the senator five mystical things. thank you very much. >> they were not mystical they were mystical. >> i have to say i can't write them all down. it has stymied

negotiations at least from my perspective. the disagreement as whether or not part of disagreements or deaths of votes we will have additional revenue contribution achieved by closing some of the tax breaks. reducing some of the tax expenditures. mentioned some symbols, and i urge all of you to take a look , some symbols called for more revenue. then the president's budget. i am glad a lot of our colleagues have embraced the framework and balanced, but sometimes they leave out the fact that some symbols concluded additional revenues concluded

from the tax report. they have tax reform, but also a tax reform proposal that's -- generated significant revenue. >> we talked about closing loopholes today. i believe tax reform is urgent. when you look at the democrats and what they have to do with the business tax code and taking individual parts of the governance, our corporate tax code is so uncompetitive and that we are losing jobs and investment even as we sit here. some of you saw medtronic what i sawut doing was talking about doing two weeks ago and what has artie happened with some other companies were they simply stopped becoming a u.s. company

because the tax code is so become for them they can a foreign company. in this case talking about merging with a smaller company. a lower tax rate and a better international system. we have seen a couple of the so-called inversions. what is happening every day if u.s. companies cannot compete. orpetition of an acquisition looking at whether they can compete with another company from another country, we will start losing more and more u.s. companies. this is frightening. of you that her beer drinkers in the room, try to find an american-owned beer. sam adams with one percent market share is probably the biggest. the rest are foreign owned. numbersat down with the on these companies. we have to deal with it.

have,tion that democrats let's make the tax code less competitive by taking away the preferences will exacerbate the problem and result in more jobs going overseas and more investments overseas because then we will reform the entire code. that means getting rid of these codes. in the context of overall reform where were you -- where you get rid of preferences and are able to lower the rate and come up with a more competitive international system that is competitive with the trading partners, we unfortunately are sitting on the sidelines while other countries do this. only country that has not reform the tax code, and we are suffering the consequences. who is suffering the most? the countries. -- the workers. get higherrs would pay and actually have a job. we need to be very purple as we

talk about this loophole in that loophole. let's reform the code and help everyone, including american workers. >> if you look at the president's budget, most of the revenue is generated not by closing the business tax preferences. most of it is generated by reducing the deductions that higher income can take to the 28% range. right now if you are a millionaire for every dollar deduction you get a $.75 benefit. what the president has said is individuals,ncome millionaires should get the 28 set in effect. -- 28 cents benefit. the president has said, and i support the idea of or for tax

reform are we lower the rates and broaden the base. rob is right that at 35% our corporate tax rate is not competitive. our effective court britt tax rate is actually average. creates huges that winners and losers within the united states. so we need to find a way to deal with that issue. stop port all of dave's camps proposal or most of it but at least it was a professional expert -- effort. i would say the people who ran the fastest was the house republican leadership who have the firstax reform bill introduced in the house the number one priority tried to run away from the committee chairman when he put something on the table. so yes, let's do tax reform and simplify the code, but in the process we have to do with the

bipartisan some symbols commission did, which is generate some revenue to help reduce the long-term deficits. >> we are running out of time. >> jonathan nicholson. this is for both of you guys. the senate last week approved legislation to deal with a ba that the cbo says will create entitlement for 50 billion per year paid for on an overwhelming basis. the house last week did tax that added 60 billion unpaid 4 -- 360 billion unpaid for. why should joe schmo sixpack voter who expect deficit reduction since everyone likes to talk about it think that given theyour parties

pieces of legislation. >> great question. that because we are not growing the economy, which is the way you'd deal with that. we are not paying attention to the existing deficit. i appreciate this opportunity to talk about it today because most people think 500 billion in washington is something we should not worry about. of coarse we should. agree. on the veterans issue, the understanding was we were conference that with the house. the house version of it scored by congressional budget office's is a lot less. so we need to figure out a way to work with the house too, but something is fully responsible.

congressional budget office analysis of the senate bill was done about an hour before the vote, which i think was a huge mistake. i think you need time to go through the process and look at what the analysis is. the assumptions they make with regard to how many pensions will use the private sector health care system for the choice part of the legislation, let's have that debate and talk about it, rather than rushing about. i was encouraged by that. take our time. we now have the opportunity to work with the house because the bills are quite different in some respect. with respect to veterans, i agree with rob that we will have to reconcile the house piece of

legislation. we have veterans on the long -- long waiting list and another example frankly of the cost of the war in iraq and the fact that it continues to impact ,hese countries in these ways and a huge influx for veterans who have been severely wounded. we have to consider what the costs are for the vi. ,econd, very important question

not about followed by many, which is in the house over the past couple of weeks the ways passedns committee has tax breaks on the extenders on a overnent basis, adding $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. >> the senator has to go because there are both on the floor. >> all right. >> tradition that the national plus club to present to the distinguished speakers the traditional national press club mug. thank you both for coming in contributing to the success of the event. cheers. thank you. >> i will wrap up.

jonathan raised the point in the house last week we voted on a number of measures to permanently extend business tax preferences unpaid for, and if you look at all the bills coming out of the ways and means -- ways and means committee that would add 500 billion to the deficit. the house had to wave their own rules because it immediately made the claimed house republican budget out of balance. the budget they claim to be in balance, which intruded $1 trillion in the affordable care act at the same time they were getting rid of the affordable care act. this would have put the house republican budget way out of terms of the tax breaks not offset as you point out. we made the argument on the is a violation

of the house roles and house budget. but to no avail. hopefully people will come to their senses over the next couple of months. >> we are close to concluding when we wanted to. thank you very much, everybody, for coming. so chris and senator portman, thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> in this news briefing with representative van hollen and senator portman, several questions about foreign aid issues. budget news relating to that. politico saying congress is moving far beyond the white house and providing refugee assistance as part of new spending bills. covering this eight department and foreign aid budget. yesterday the secretary of state john kerry said protecting the oceans is vital or national

security and food. reviewing current and future actions revolving the protection of ecosystems. here is what the secretary of state said yesterday. us to walk away from the conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with a clan. a plan that puts an end of fishing through new rules based on available science. senatorhe things that ted stevens of alaska teamed up with me on the commerce committee in the senate, one of the things we were always finding is getting more, better science so we can convince fishermen and convince countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we hear well, we do not really see that or feel that.

when i go out to fish i see plenty of stocks out there, no reason to be restrict it. we need science. the comforter heads together and governments together and come up with the budget and capacity to do what we need to help convince all of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use here in dramaticallyat reduce the amount of fish and other species caught by accident and discarded. a plan that end subsidies to fisheries to serve to promote that makes, a plan it nearly impossible for a legally caught fish to come to the market anywhere, whether you are in boston, beijing, barcelona or any other city that does not begin with the be. let's develop a plan. that protects more murray and habitats.

more marineects habitats. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today less than two percent of the ocean is considered a marine protected area where there are humanestrictions on activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem. less than two percent of the entire ocean. there is not anybody here who does not believe we can do better than that. let's start by bringing the number up to 10% or more as soon as possible. let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of mastic and other debris from entering the ocean. everyone has seen the massive array of garbage in the pacific and elsewhere. we need a plan to cut down the nutrient solution that runs off of land miles from the shore and intribute to the dead zones mentioned earlier. i learned about that when i was

running for president and iowa and minnesota and mississippi .nd missouri rivers you learn about the flow of nutrients that flowed down into the gulf and have a big dead zone as a result. we know in the antarctic, have we reached the saturation point? i know it is critical to the capacity to deal with climate change and maintain the oceans. we are to know where it is happening, how quick link so we can find the best way to slow it down. for an to push harder agreement to fight carbon pollution in the first place because the science proves that is the only way we will have a chance at reducing the impact of climate change, which is one of the greatest threats facing not

just our ocean but our entire planet. the washington post reporting the president will announce his intent to make a broad swath of the central pacific ocean off limits to fishing on energy exploration and other activities. they write -- that is from the washington post. the president on the road today. first in pittsburgh and later tonight will head to new york city to address the lesbian, gay and transgender they left hosted by the democratic committee. look for coverage on c-span2 around in :00 eastern. the u.s. house due to come in at noon eastern for morning hours speeches. back at 2:00 for legislative business. a dozen and a half or so bills including transferring land today.

approving the use of the capitol .otunda for national gold-medal the house coming in at noon. live coverage on c-span. a look ahead to gop leadership conventions. noted congressional scholar joins us one week after the shocking primary loss of eric cantor. washeadline in your column the implosion and brass rise, get ready for an even more extreme republican party. why do you think this changes things for the republican party? >> we could parse out the reasons for why he lost. i do not think it is particularly important. if you are a member of congress, it does not show -- does not matter what the data shows. this was only the second primary

defeat with a lot of challenges. the first one was ron paul. all it takes is one prime example for the members to learn a lesson. the lesson they learned, i am afraid, is, if you vote to get the government reopened, if you vote to keep the debt ceiling going up, if you do any that operates with barack obama, you are in danger. we will see a party where the forces that aim for ostentation, those who basically want to blow up the government and not just have a smaller one, but a non-unction in government, are in the transcendence. i call them the new nihilists.

i think they are more significant now both outside and inside. it is true, a lot of people are writing the show that money and is not every in and politics home and cantor had a huge bank, $5 million. you can find an example where it is not money over some of the other forces. a lot of big money going into republican politics is coming from people who are hostile to leaders and are perfectly happy to have these confrontations. host: how does one lead the republican party? guest: it is difficult. for john boehner, the challenge has been there for a long time on this front. his approach has been to give his members and enormous amount of slack, a lot of rope, let them come close to hanging themselves until they finally realize his path will not leave them in a good direction, and

then finally get the votes. and it usually comes with more democrats than republicans there you can only do that so often. eric cantor for a long time was an advocate of his. in the last couple of years, they have been working more together as they realize the alternative was anarchy. that hurt cantor. whether kevin mccarty emerges as leader, or what happens with the less -- the rest of leadership, whether the outside forces are represented directly there, or if a get shut out and say, once again, we are on the outs i'm looking in, the task boehner has becomes much more challenging. host: is this a missed

opportunity for the new nihilists, as you describe them, or are they not as strong within the republican conference as perhaps the high-profile victory against cantor? guest: that is a harder one to say. words what happened is the stunning defeat, when it occurred, they scheduled this vote on a very short leash. it meant that organizing to get enough votes to prevail and the caucus would not be easy to do for somebody who had not been engaged in the process before. kevin was ready to go. mccarthy, the great strength he had was personality. when you have got no agreement by insurgents to rally behind a candidate, and you end up with somebody who is urgent among insurgents, that makes it harder. it will be interesting to watch the votes. it does not mean there really secret ballot. members have a sense of how they will go.

votes emerging against mccarthy will be an interesting sign. it will be even more interesting to watch the contest. the driving force of the republican party, the largest element is in the south. one of the challenges they have is the self old shirley is very different from the broader fabric of the country. almost all the districts are lily white or close to it. they have a different perspective on immigration issues. they are different on social and cultural issues. they are the largest force.

host: what if you end up with a leadership that basically comes from a swing state in ohio, a blue state in california, a blue state in illinois, which would happen if peter wins the lips race, and the deep red part of the conference is not represented in the top ranks of leadership? guest: that is the pitch some of the others are making. but yes. we do not know how that will come out. it is a three-day race. a lot of other factors will emerge. my guess is that also complicates matters. they will take the chief deputy's whips position. the right wing of the party and the south, very likely. it may not be enough. i think it will be hard and we do not expect much to emerge in the legislative arena very likely for two years to follow.

host: we are talking to norman ornstein, the author of "it is even worse than it looks." a book he wrote with a congressional scholar. he's here to talk about. cantor's the feet, what it means for ingres's and the institution. our phone lines are open. republicans can call -- we will start on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know who you are but i really dislike what you have said afar.

the defeat of cantor has nothing do it anarchy or blowing up the government or nihilism or anything of the sort. what it has to do with is an's want smaller government, much smaller. they are running a one-party party system in this country right now. meaning, if you do not back the bank, if you do not back the form of or the big guy, and the multinational reparations, like cantor was doing, if you do not do that, you will be run out and called an extremist. we are not extremists. extremist have taken control of our government. they are running our government not for the benefit of the united states citizens, but for the benefit of multinational corporations.

i have not heard you say one you about the big tanks or anything like that. i just hear words about extremism and this. i do not like the rhetoric. host: you can check out his bio. guest: a lot of this emerged in the tea party movement and the occupy wall street movement as well is a reaction in the aftermath of collapse. big banks and big is this. it has -- big business. it is a significant part of it. no doubt david bratt, in running for virginia's seven district against. cantor, made that a significant part of his pitch, and that cantor's close ties to the business community were one of many factors in his loss.

i also think you could draw a distinction here between what i think are conservatives and radicals. conservatives believe in a smaller government but there are parts of government that have to and onto run well. we have got a lot of people in congress who want to blow the whole thing up. one of the main points of distinction was whether you would shut down the government or keep it shut down. when ken for in the end as stated in getting the government -- when cantor in the end participated in getting the government shutdown, that hurt. the economic cost, that it would end up damaging homeland security, border security, national security, that we see parks closed, for the -- for example. they were ready to let that go so they could accomplish the goal of basically returning to the 18th century or something like it.

that is a real distinction here as well. those are all factors that contribute in a witches brew to the turmoil with the party. host: let's go to los angeles, california. caller: just quickly, i want to comment quickly about immigration. it drives me the. i got my green card right at the airport. could you please in your program to find the broken immigration system? my second line, please bear with me, i am fed up with norman. he is an obama surrogate and should be in the democratic artie. something for immigration progress.

host: let's let norm talk about his background and research for a little bit, and then we can talk about the prospects for immigration reform. guest: i started as an academic there it i thought at johns hopkins in italy, came back to the catholic university for 15 years. i have been there part-time and full-time in 1984, ever since. focus on congress but also our rotter american politics. aei is a very open is the tuition that has let me follow my muse.

people can take to work at face value or whatever they want to do with it. host: one of your best books, can you talk about the broken branch and what that is talking about? guest: it emerged in 2006. and will and working in congress who as congressional fellows in as congressional fellows in 1990, we had grown increasingly dismayed at the decline of the by dismayed at the decline of the institution, the breakdown of the regular order their it we cast a lot of lame on both parties in that look for a branch that was not doing oversight, not appropriately carrying out its function in the and in legislative arena thomas not following the regular order, say use things like having amendments on the floor, going

to conference committees. zero good girl all of those things were breaking down. by 2012, we did our book and we saw the institution changing again in a different and worchester action and we put more blame on the republican side. that is because of the reality we saw, not because of partisan coloration. host: what are the prospects for immigration reform? guest: i would not say zero but the close. there are currents within both parties and within the broader political system on the issue. you have the establishment of the republican party that realizes if it does not i in a better way to reach out to a broader group of older voters, older white males, that becoming a majority party and winning presidential elections will

become more challenging. immigration reform is not the answer, but it is a necessary component of it. right now, it is in some trouble. a caveat here to the stark differences between conservatives and radicals, if you look at ronald, very much on the radical perspective for most things. he's in the race for majority leader, but he is also a proponent of trying to find the ways lowered in what is broken with the system. the lines do not fall completely and directly. but i think the republican party base is very much against any kind of movement on immigration reform, unless it involves border security. that will be a challenge for

leaders who know that if they do not act on this, they will become known as the anti-immigration party and winning over hispanic americans, asian americans, and a lot of others will be that much tougher. host: about a half hour left with norman ornstein. let's go to smitty on our line for republicans. caller: it is kind of unique this morning that one of the programs you are promoting is that book review on the forgotten man, back on again. iris -- i assume you are rebroadcasting it. i got the book and read it. progressives today to be liberals a couple of years ago and they like that hillary clinton described herself as a progressive from the early 20th century. progressives in the early 20th

century were registered members of the american communist party. that is who they are. when you say the right wing conservatives are trying to blow up the government, i am not trying to blow up a government. i just really feel uncomfortable that i have got a congressman from mississippi, missouri, johnson, voting on what kind of light olds i am allowed to use and he is afraid we might capsize and we have too much weight from our marine battalion. these guys are idiots and we are letting them tell us what kind of like bolts we can use. this is nuts. we have tens of houses of refugees across the border, and they try to tell you the immigration is not broken, all we need to do is fix the immigration system and we will be fine. i feel sorry they got those diseases but we made the effort to get rid of them and are reintroducing them into society. these are what progressives and liberals are doing in washington and they are socialists and communists. you just have to recognize that and everything else makes a lot of sense.

host: do you want to talk about the history and your perspective? guest: if you look at the progressives of the earliest 20th century, they were republicans. both parties have always had tensions between a base and an establishment group. in the early part of the 20th century, the republican party struggle was between a progressive ace, teddy roosevelt, wendell wilkie, tom dewey, and the like. they were not communist's. they were republicans. and a conservative base, william howard taft, robert taft, goldwater, onto ronald reagan, although he govern our more as an establishment pragmatist than anything else. when hillary clinton talks about herself as a progressive in the early of -- early 20th century, it is or more along the -- those lines. there are progressives on the republican side. the struggle is between those

who would be the old conservative route that i think are more radical, and on the immigration front, i think smitty reflects what is the genuine tension here now in the republican party. on the issue. a lot of people who see immigration -- the immigration system, by every standard, is broken. it is not working. a lot of people basically want to shut off the borders and others see it in a different way and navigate through that. it is one of the great challenges. not the only, but of the great challenges both artie's in the country have. i think we are moving toward a crisis point. the other thing to keep in mind is we now have this surge in children coming over the southern border, from central

america, from countries that have an enormous level of lyrical progression. wanting to claim refugee status, we have treaties, we cannot turn them away from the border. we are going to struggle because there are thousands of brokers making a lot of money by desperate families taking the money and bringing kids in their we will not be able to sustain that for any length of time. this is a really difficult problem to resolve very host: -- resolve. host: you said there is always a tension between the base and the establishment. are we seeing this in the democratic party right now on capitol hill? guest: we are to a significantly lesser degree, but we are. one of the things that hits every president that is a two-term president. by the sixth year, there is a reason we call it the second term blues.

the base in the party gets arrested. barack obama -- rested. barack obama is seeing a lot of income from the democratic base their the president has the unit, though he ameliorated that now with his steps on climate change from environmentalists. what if he approves the keystone pipeline, you will see another it's lotion there. we have certainly seen -- explosion there. we see it now with tremendous blowback, left, joined by many on the right, on any military action, including drone strikes were a lot -- or airstrikes.

we see it on the suspicion obama might cut a budget deal that would include changes on social security and medicare. it does not seem to get the headlines as much. one of the things i will be writing about this week, and it has been out there a lot, the question of whether the polarization is asymmetric. we have a remarkable study from pew. you have at least part of it in front of you. that talks about dramatic polarization that has occurred at the public level. when you look more deeply, what you see is even that is asymmetric. while you have tension on the democratic side, we are in primary challenges to leaders as we have in -- seen with eric cantor.

a lot of challenges with the senate now, with real questions coming up in mississippi, chris mcdaniel. we have a challenge to pat roberts. we do not have those kinds of challenges to the vast number of democrats, including many who were more conservative to the parties ace who were running. no -- party's base who were running. you do not see the same kinds of things. it does not mean they will not be there. if you want to look at parties that careened out of the mainstream in the past, the democratic party in 1890's into the early part of the 20th century. it was the democratic party

again in the 1960's and 1970's as the vietnam war emerged. it can happen on both sides. the tensions are deeper and the radicalism is greater, as it has been for a greater time on the right and the left. host: that pew poll came out last week. the research center from the people in the press finding that parties the animosity has increased substantially in recent years. and most believe the policies are so misguided that they threatened the nation's well-being. 92% of republicans are to the to theim and 94% are left of republicans. plenty to get into on that poll if you want to check it out. going to joe and washington, d.c. on the line for democrats. good morning. on the careening out-of-control question, i consider myself a moderate democrat who is rooting for the nation. for thed i be cheering

republicans to continue to careened -- terrain because that will impact the national ticket in 2016 or is there actual hope of moderation and either party to bring the nation together? >> that is a really good question. i would say you do not want to root for the republican party to implode. that does not mean you cannot win, but it means the only time you would win is when things are so bad is it the perfect storm. for the political system to operate, it needs to vibrant parties to compete or the majority. that means those that can to broaden thegh appeal. does not mean it will be a progressive party or moderate parties. it will be a conservative party.

looking in the tradition of the way it is set up, looking to compromise to find common ground. the whole political system comes under challenge. that is a matter of some urgency now. no matter how partisan one maybe as a democrat, you do not want to see a republican party moved to the fringes. >> and individuals said please ask the guests to discuss the young guns packed started by a rich cantor to intervene in state party politics. what is young guns? guest: this is something tom mann wrote about in the book. even worse than it looks. the young guns comes from a movie. kevin costner as i recall. mccartney andevin paul ryan coming young emerging leaders on the republican side who in 2009 and 2010 with

democrats in control of torything started a process try to recapture a majority in congress and to emerge as the new leaders of the party. they did a book and promoted it heavily. as we mentioned, we did not even give a nod to john -- two john boehner who was the leader. being a driving force, they went out around the country before the 2010 midterms and encouraged and the bed mid -- abetted the tea party uprising that in the short term majority, an enormous amount. i think there was an expectation with the new people coming and they could co-opt them and turn them into a united force. now it is pretty clear who they were. have not guns disappear. paul ryan is in many ways a

driving policy force. extremely well respected and likely the next chairman of the ways and means committee. defined thehy expectations of many who thought the new leadership would be completely offended -- offended -- upended from the hold. will be a force outside. they clearly have not accomplished what they wanted to accomplish in terms of being the ones fully in charge. , erice of the young guns cantor has left before john boehner. surprised? do not think many people imagined that would be the outcome here. eric cantor among them. john boehner who a lot of people predicted what not last as speaker, my beef overthrown as

speaker would decide to hang it up because it was a very frustrating job. may still decide he will move outside the congress, but right now looks to be the speaker in there atd will be least through the congress and a pretty good chance he will be back next time, too. norm ornstein and thomas mann. going to georgia on the line for independence. good morning. my question is i keep peering -- hearing the immigration system is rope then. i want specifics. specifically what is broken?

into: i know you're going great depth on this again today, but several things are broken. for one thing, we have at least 12 million undocumented people living in the country, many of them working and quite if. but they are living in the shadows. we have cut back significantly on illegal immigration for those coming into the country and still have a lot of people , and that isegally not a healthy process to have either. we have something i alluded to just a few minutes ago, which is a flood of children coming across the southern border from central america. 90,000 at a time that we cannot accommodate. those are broken elements.

the border clearly is not working well. you have a lot of people coming in on to her wrist -- tourist over there time. finding a way to accommodate the 12 million who are here and not going to something as mitt romney suggested of self deportation or deporting them, and yet, also finding a way to find the system works by having legal immigrants coming in. we have a major shortage of physicians, partly because of the way we handled the immigration pattern. people running the tech industry have a shortage of highly skilled workers. we have a broken visa system. some people who come here and work and do a very good job cannot go back home for funeral or wedding or anything else and

be sure they will be able to get back in. do.ave a lot of work to whatever you think of immigration. minutes left with norm ornstein with the american enterprise institute. a question over e-mail. divisions within the republican party are extremely interesting. should we be worried about the welcoming the insurgents into the party because they needed votes. the american needs the old republican party back. that is carly be. host: there is a lot of -- guest: there is a lot of truth to that. there was an attempt to take the anger out there, combined with the other forces and channel it 2010, and nowand

a lot of the forces are seeming to be not so easily controllable. i do think we need a republican party that is a vibrant conservative party, one that aims for a smaller government. a government that has to operate well with confident people in charge not moving for shutdowns, not losing the debt ceiling and full faith and credit of the united states. some of this is a tactical matter. other parts of it are ideological. the struggle is not going away. if you lived by this ward, you may die by the sward. that is part of the problem that led to the eric cantor's demise. >> one other e-mail.

exacerbates the risk of extreme results. aest: it definitely makes difference and in eric cantor's case it definitely did. his district was changed in 2010, ironically to make it safer. what it did is moved out from richmond into suburbs that were not so amenable to him and made it easier to get a challenge from an insurgent like dave racked. the region district and process is one of the things i get asked when i go around the country. there is no doubt we have many more safe districts in the fall they can only be competitive in a primary. you do not get disparate points of views. redistrict ring reform will not solve the problem. , 10,000he points made

respondents, very different from most studies that have been done of this sort, bill bishop wrote a book that is basically proven out by the survey. they are surrounded by like-minded individuals. if we are going to get insteadneous districts of drying them in compact ways, we may have to make the more ridiculous. host: going to claremont, california. don waiting to talk to you. caller: i am going to join the chorus and comments about how he is speaking about the liberal code list. keeping the one mentality going

where you have speakers that are talking head that the government .o who should be elect did $100 million to go from being nobody and take public service at $100 million. i am told she will help make the country better. the whole problem people come to mexico, why do i have to five -- fly them to guatemala to get them back? they should be taken on the bus the same day, and taken back to mexico and dropped off at tijuana or the biggest town they came from. know it is a 12 million votes they want. the reason in its -- is they are not citizens. host: i agree with him that

c-span is terrific. that is our point of agreement. i think what he said is so interesting. much of what we see as a populist movement. that would meet the one percent. the privileged. the people who go into government and enrich themselves. hillary clinton has gotten a lot of flack for saying she and her husband were dead broke of a merge from the white house. they have legal bills of $10 million and did not have enough assets to cover them. you emergeo true if as a prominent first lady or ex-president coming to think about and get 50,000 to $1 million for a speech and make a

lot of money. then you can emerge as a rich person. there is now a very strong backlash. sharp levels of inequality. is interesting to see is whether the populist movement thes as hot as it has if economy recovers. what happens as the economy recovers but the level of inequalities continue to grow? this is where the debate over the book is baked into the system. increased those levels of inequality. that may mean the kind of sentiments don is expressing on the left and right could emerge as the most potent force in politics. you mentioned hillary

clinton. do you think she will be the -- >> you can see all of this conversation at www.c-span.org. the u.s. house gaveling in momentarily for general speeches . back at 2:00 eastern. a bill that deals with postal facilities and the use of the capitol rotunda for presenting a gold medal to the israeli president. now to the house floor here on c-span. in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 17, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize

members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate ontinue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. like many americans, i was transfixed by the magnificent victory, not just in the final game five of the nba finals, but by every one of these magnificent games, a superb effort against a very good miami heat team, dominated by a person widely acknowledged to be the best player in the nba. now, as a life-long portland trail blazer fan and one who

remembers the excitement of being a long-suffering season ticket holder who had the joy of being in our coliseum when we won the nba championship more years ago than i care to remember, i appreciate the dynamic that is involved with this five nba championships over the last 17 years. i confess, i've also become a fan of the spurs. their organization, their coach, gregg popovich, but also their approach to the way they do business, and they have some important lessons for america. i feel very strongly that we on capitol hill and indeed most americans could learn a great deal by paying attention not just to the success but how the spurs became the most successful professional sports franchise in any sport. my son was privileged to play for coach popovich when he was

head coach of the pomona sage hence. in fact, they had to put two colleges together, pomona and pittser, to form one team. his values forge a small but excellent college athletic program that's very much in evidence in the spurs today. first, they look for talent wherever you find it around the globe for right talent. it meant players not just from the united states but i think there are eight different countries represented on that roster. there is a respect for each of them having a role as a team member. their commitment to the larger concept of winning for the greater good. isn't it interesting that their postgame interview i think is in six or seven different languages, that these players have been able to come together and meld into a unit. the leadership of the coach is very much in evidence when you

watch him in action. coach popovich is not a celebrity vying for the spotlight. indeed, you could barely see him in the postgame television interviews of the players. it was focused on the team. today, americans are facing challenges that sometimes feel like they're beyond our capacity. they're certainly beyond our capacity as individuals to deal with. we're facing a challenge that is similar to the rigors of a long 82-game basketball season and interm nable playoff schedule. our challenges of reducing gun violence, of saving the planet from even greater carbon pollution and disruption from global warming, empowering our kids to protect them from the scourge of illegal drugs, rebuilding and renewing a country that is falling apart. these are challenges today that actually we know what to do

about. they are all areas where progress is vital. now, they seem to be intractable but all could unite americans to deal as a country on things that individually we could not make progress. these all have characteristics in common with the success of coach popovich and the spurs. these are long-term issues. they require careful thought. they require hard work and investment and most of all they require working together with an eye on our ultimate goals. i would hope that in the midst of the partisan ranker here in washington, d.c., and the deep divisions among our citizens who learn for simple answers to complex problems which politicians are all too eager to provide that we can think about the spurs' success of visionary and patient coach, bringing people together to work a maximum effort, dealing with the fundamentals and not quiting. that's what america needs

today. congratulations to the world champions spurs. let's try your winning formula on america's problems. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. mr. holding: madam speaker, the foreign affairs committee heard last week about the tremendous challenges that remain in order to verify iran's compliance with any possible final nuclear agreement. should a deal be preached, the most stringent compliance verification and notification standards must be in place, including regular reporting to congress. as i've said many times on this floor, i firmly believe iran has no inherent right to enrich any nuclear material and that any deal should be complete -- should completely dismantle their nuclear infrastructure. a potential agreement, madam speaker, would likely be hailed

by this administration, an administration that puts politics before policy as a foreign policy victory which leads to an important question. can this administration be trusted to uphold any compliance regime and fully inform congress and the american people of even the smallest infraction by the regime in tehran? madam speaker, if iran commits even the smallest infraction, such as installing one centrifuge above the deal's limits, will this administration blow the whistle and jeopardize a deal in which they have invested so much political capital? this administration has shown most recently with their taliban prisoner swap that they have no problem flaunting their responsibility in a -- to timely inform and consult congress with their actions. but with the deal like the iranian nuclear negotiation that has far-reaching national security implications, this administration must not leave

the people's representatives in the dark. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, for five minutes. mr. sherman: i rise to address issues in the middle east. the president has been criticized for the fact that we do not have a large residual force in iraq and that we do not have a status of forces agreement with the iraqi government. let us take note that it was president george bush who installed prime minister maliki in may of 2006. president george bush's decision to allow maliki to take power and to allow him to keep power is directly responsible for most of the woes facing iraq today. maliki was so ma left nent that throughout -- malevolent that

throughout 2007, 2008, he refused to enter into a long-term agreement with the united states and with president bush. he insisted that any troops that remained in iraq after 2011 would be subject to iraqi kangaroo courts and could be executed ford trumped up charges. obviously we -- executed for trumped up charges. obviously we couldn't be in iraq. it is his problem and it is president bush to be the source of maliki. to say that president obama should be able to negotiate a long-term agreement with maliki when mr. -- when president bush was unable to do so is utterly absurd. as to sergeant bergdahl, it's important for us to note that while we are releasing five prisoners or have released five prisoners from guantanamo, president bush released over 500 from guantanamo and

virtually all of them were dangerous. over 100 of them are on the battlefield, and we know where on the battlefield they are, waging war against the united states and its allies. most of the other five of the 500 are also waging war against us. it's just our intelligence isn't good enough to say exactly where on the battlefield they are located. as what did president bush get for the release, not of five, but 500 dangerous prisoners from guantanamo? nothing. except a thank you from their native governments. now, on legal issues, we are told that section 1035 of the national defense authorization act required president obama not to release the five prisoners until 30 days after he notified congress. even if he had followed those exact words, then instead of releasing the five a few hours

after sergeant bergdahl was in our hands, we would have released them a few weeks after sergeant bergdahl was back in our hands. hardly of great significance. but more importantly, the president has the constitutional right as commander in chief to engage in prisoner exchanges. in fact, the last republican attorney general of the united states, michael murkowski, said that very thing just recently. so the president was on firm legal ground in deciding that he had the authority to take this action without a 30-day notification of congress. that being said, it would have been preferable if president obama had in fact discussed the matter with key congressional leaders. america is strongest when the president uses congress as a source of counsel, a source of advice rather than a group of enemies to be notified only when such notification is

explicitly compelled by constitutionally valid statutes. whether this deal is a good deal, well, time will tell. it was a judgment call. but the president could have benefited from the counsel of congress. it is particularly insulting for some to say that congress is not a source of counsel but just a source of leaks. keep in mind that 16 congressional leaders knew that we had ascertained the hiding place of osama bin laden and that information did not leak from congress. i hope in the future president obama and future presidents consults key members of congress when making a difficult decision. we are told that we don't negotiate with terrorists. nothing could be further from the truth. president bush negotiated with each and every terrorist regime , each and every identified

state sponsor of terrorism. cuba, iran, sudan, syria, north korea. the bush administration paid a ransom to an al qaeda affiliate people.release of two secretary colin poul said the afghan taliban was someone authorized for legal negotiations. now, it is also said that a prisoner exchange alerts our enemies to the fact that we value our prisoners, that we will not want to leave anyone on the battlefield. as if this is news disclosed to the world in june of 2014. the fact is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sherman: we have always valued those detained by the enemy and the enemy has always known that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, for five minutes.

so much, o: thank you madam speaker. i rise today to take note not only of a wonder of victory but of a great example. the most popular nba team in the 23rd district and one of the most popular nba teams in the entire country, the san antonio spurs, are now the nba champions for the fifth time. the drive for five. you know, there's some interesting things that congress and the american public, the american people can learn from the spurs. it is the most culturally diverse team in the nba. there are in addition to americans, there are folks from canada, argentina, brazil, italy, australia. tim duncan, who has spent his entire career with the san antonio spurs, started out

playing basketball in the ninth grade after he wasn't able to swim anymore because the swimming pool in the virgin islands that he used was destroyed. none of the players are among the highest paid in the league. in fact, tony parker is the highest paid player and he ranked number 37 in the nba. five championships, some heartbreakingly close calls. in fact, last year they lost in the very last minute but they never gave up. they continued working. they came back and this year they won it all. the spurs have the greatest coach in the nba. . coach popovich has been in san antonio since 1996, the lodgest active coach in all big sport leagues, and the most consecutive winning seasons, including playoffs, of any coach in the nba -- 17. the spurs have so much they could share. their cultural diversity is

their strength. they won because they played together. and they played as a team. they trusted each other. they worked together. they didn't care who got the credit. one second you would be watching tony parker on a drive. the next minute somebody -- second somebody else had the ball. and the next second they scored. all of these examples working together, teamwork, understanding and knowing that cultural diversity is a strength, all of these things, that drive and that determination, that practice every day, day in and day out, all of those things are examples that are well suited to those of us who served in congress and well suited to the american public at large. never give up, never quit. that patchwork quilt of a basketball team is the same mosaic that represents all of america. you know what? they weren't arrogant.

they weren't hard core. they come across just as they are, as humble, decent, good-hearted human beings. they are clearly the 23rd district's favorite basketball team. and in fact, i have the privilege of representing several of them who live in the 23rd district. but i think the more that america gets to know them, they will soon be america's most popular basketball team. congratulations to each and every member of the nba champs, the san antonio spurs, their coaches, their staff, their owners. and congratulations to each and every one of their fans. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m.

>> quote, i've got the number one miracle in a bottle, to burn

your fat. it's razzp berry ketone. ote, garciniacambosia, the symbol you may be looking for to bust your foddy fat for good. i don't know why you need to say this stuff because you know it's not true. why, when you have this amazing megaphone and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that? >> if i could disagree about whether they work or not, and i'll move on to the issue of the words that i used. just with regard to whether they work or not, take green coffee ben extract as an example. i'm not going to argue it would pass f.d.a. muster if it were a drug seeking approval. among the natural products out there, this is a product that has several clinical trials. one large one, good quality one, done the year we talked about this in 2012.

>> i want to know about that clinical trial, because the only one i know is 16 people in india paid for by the company that was, in fact, at the point in time you initially talked about this being a miracle, the only study that was out there was the one with 16 people in india that was written up by somebody who was being paid by the company producing it. >> there was no one paid for. i have the five papers, plus the series of basic science papers on it as well. senator mccaskill, we could spend a lot of time arguing the merits of whether coffee bean extract is worth trying or not. many of the things we argue that you do with regard to your diet are likewise criticizable. low-fat diet, low-carb. i spent a good part of my career that folks have a low-fat diet. we have come full circle and no longer recommend that. it wasn't working for our patients. it is remarkably complex, as you know, to figure out what works for most people even in a dateary program.

even the practice of medicine evolved by looking at new ideas, challenging orthodoxy and evolving them. when i hold clinical papers, we can argue about the quality of them. very justifiably. i could pick apart papers that show no benefit as well. at the end of the day if i have real people having undergone trials, in this case i actually gave it to members of my audience. it wasn't a formal trial. it was -- >> the trial you did with your audience, you would not say it would ever pass scientific muster. >> i would never publish the paper. it wasn't done under the appropriate guidance. the purpose was for me to get a thumbnail sketch. was it worth talking to people about or not. i don't think this ought to be a referendum on the use of alternative medical therapies. i have been criticized for having folks come on my show talking about the power of prayer. again, as a practitioner i can't prove that prayer helps people survive an illness.

>> hard to buy prayer. >> yes. prayer's free. that's a very good point. thankfully prayer's free. i see in the hospital when folks are feeling discomfort in their life, a lot is emotional, when they have people praying for them it lightens their burden. my show is about hope. as you very kindly stated, we have engaged millions of people in programs, including programs we did with the c.d.c., to get folks to realize there are different ways they could rethink their future. that their best years aren't behind them they are in front of them. they can lose weight. if i could just get across the big message, i actually do personally believe in the items i talk about in the show. i passionately study them. i recognize oftentimes they don't have the scientific muster to present as fact, but nevertheless i would give my audience the advice i give my family. and i have given my family these products. specifically the ones you mentioned. i'm comfortable with that part.

i do think i made it more difficult for the f.t.c. is intent to engage viewers, i use flowery language. language that was very passionate but ended up not being helpful but incendiary. it provided fodder for unscrupulous advertisers. so that clip you played, which is over two years old, and i have done hundreds of segments since then, we have specifically restricted our use of words. i literally not speaking about things that i would otherwise talk about. there is a product i never talked about in the show i feel strongly about because i know what will happen. 'll say something--- i did a show, there was a south american root that had a big study published on it. i think a very high quality study, where they showed not only did it help people lose weight, but help their health. done on women who were diabetic. done by an academic center.

i used as careful language as i could. still there was internet scam ads picking one or two words. of course i support them i wouldn't be talking about them. >> listen, i'm surprised that you are defending -- i have tried to do a lot of research in preparation for this trial. the scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products that you called miracles. when you call a product a miracle and it's something you can buy and it's something that gives people false hope, i just don't understand why you need to go there. you've got so much you do on your show that makes it different and controversial enough that you get lots of views. i understand you're in the business of getting viewers. i really i am plor you to look at the seven -- i would -- implore you to look at the seven -- the seven list the f.t.c. put out on the gut check. it's very simple.

causes weight loss of two pounds or more a week for month without dieting or exercise. causes permanent weight loss like you said looking for to bust your body fat for good. if you just look at those seven, and if you spend time on your show telling people that this is the seven things you should know, that there isn't magic in a bottle. that there isn't a magic pill. that there isn't some kind of raspberry keytone that's going to all of a sudden make it not matter you're not moving and eating a lot of sugar and carbohydrates. do you disagree with any of these seven? >> senator mccaskill, i know the seven. i say those things on my show all the time. >> why would you say that something is a miracle in a bottle? >> my job, i feel on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience. when they don't think they have hope, they don't think they can make it happen. i look, and i look everywhere,

for any evidence that might be supportive to them. you pick on green coffee bean extract. with the amount of information that i have on that, i still am comfortable telling folks if you buy a reputable version of it, i say it all the time, i don't sell it. these are not for long-term use. the green coffee bean extract. it's one pound a week over the duration of the different trials that have been done. that happen tonight same amount of weight lost by the hundred or so folks on the show who came on. we got a placebo. we got fake pills. gave it to half the people, real to the other half. it's the same thumbnail. if you can lose a pound a week more than you would have lost doing the things you should have done already. if that trial data is what's in your life and you get a few pounds off, it jump starts you and gives you confidence, and you follow the things we talk about every single day including those seven items, i think it makes sense. >> officials with the federal trade commission and better

business bureaus also testified at that hearing. we'll show all of that to you later today at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. president obama is on the road to pittsburgh, then to new york city to address a lesbian, gay, and transgender guolla hosted by the democratic national committee. we'll have live coverage of that at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. today sometime we may hear from the president about the reported capture of the libyan militant aused in a deadly attack on americans in benghazi. he's reported in -- reportedly in custody. t is said -- admiral kirby the pentagon spokesman saying he's in custody in a secure location outside of libya. we'll hear more from admiral kirby at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a pentagon briefing. that will be live over on c-span3. a couple of tweets from members of congress, a couple of

senators commenting on the capture of him. lindsey graham saying we are very pleased our special forces have detained him. good news a benghazi terrorist has been captured by the u.s. hope he is being fully interrogated. that news briefing coming up this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> religion is a powerful identity forming mechanism. it's part of human society is figuring out who is us, who is them. who is my group, and who is the out group. religion answers that question easily. if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same church as i do, then you're us. if you don't, then you're them. and you can see very easily how that kind of us, them, in group-out group mindset could very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization.

after all as i remind people, religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as powerful is violence. how do you know who is up and -- us and them? if you're fighting alongside me, air us. if you're fighting against me, you're them. far from religion violence being the two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, they have as everyone knows throughout history been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious scholar and best-selling author reza 5 aslan, he'll take your calls and comments for three hours live starting at noon eastern sunday, july 6. in the months ahead, august 3, former texas congressman and republican presidential candidates, ron paul, and september 7, the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights and children's rights advocate, mary francis berry. this month in in our online book club, "the forgotten man."

start reading and join others to discuss the bourque. book tv, television for serious readers. >> president obama today reportedly will designated the largest ever ocean sanctuary. secretary of state john kerry yesterday called for a single comprehensive global strategy to protect the oceans. said climate change is the biggest threat facing our ocean and the entire planet. his remarks, talking about state department owe shubs conference on the impact of climate change in rising seas on the u.s. and central pasifpblgt -- central pacific. >> welcome to the our ocean conference, hosted by the u.s. department of state. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the secretary of state of the united states of america, the president of the republic of kirabas and undersecretary for economic growth and the

environment. [applause] in >> good morning, everyone. president tongue, secretary kerry, ministers, ambassadors, and other distinguished guests both here and joining us online, i am delighted to welcome you all to washington and to thank you for all the work that you are doing to advance the cause of ocean conservation. participants from more than 80 countries are here today, representing foreign, economic, and oceans commin industries, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, private companies, the scientific and research communities, and ordinary citizens. this diversity reflects one of the central tenets of this conference that the solutions to the challenges threatening our

ocean require commitments and contributions from everyone. we chose the title our ocean for this event to communicate a fact ocean scientists understand well. the water covering 2/3 of the earth's surface is really a single interconnected global ocean. because there is only one interconnected and interdependent ocean, pollution or unsustainable fishing in one quarter of the ocean matters even to those of us living thousands of miles away. and mile the p.h. of ocean water may vary slightly from one place to another, rising levels of ocean acidfication threaten ocean ecology everywhere. along with the atmosphere, our ocean is the greatest of all of our shared assets. it performs a critcreel of cycling water, carbon, and nutrients throughout our planet. millions of people depend on it for our livelihoods, but our ocean is also uniquely

vulnerable to collective damage from the behavior of billions of individuals, each of whom may be acting rationally from his or her point of view. over the next two days we'll exam three critical issues for ocean health. sustainable fisheries, marine pollution, and ocean acidfication. we'll review the science of the challenges we face and the way they have impacted communities around the world. despite the real and growing challenges facing our ocean, practical and effective solutions exist at every level of our society. there is a role for government and we expect some impressive announcements of new initiatives over the next two days, but there are equally important roles for civil society, private companies, fill pan thropic organizations, and individuals, and most importantly for collaborations between these groups. collective action is critical, and so is individual action. for at the end of the day, it is

individuals who have the power to change their behavior and behavior of their government. as we plan this conference over the last few months, we have been overwhelmed by the enthusiastic support from our partners and individuals around the world. this support has bloomed online. just a few minutes ago the department of state's first thunderclap or coordinated social media burst reach over 5.3 million people. all from individuals and organizations adding their voices to this cause. i encourage everyone here to reach out to your networks and spread the news about this conference. we look at this conference as more than a two-day event. we are committed to working together with all of you to catalyze new initiatives, raise awareness of the ocean's challenges, and step by step advance a concrete plan on the steps we must take to conserve the ocean. it is now my great pleasure to

introduce the inspiration and hopes of this conference, the 68th secretary of state, john kerry. [applause] >> i have to advocate for him a little more before he talks. secretary kerry has been a passionate advocate for ocean conservation since his childhood in massachusetts, through his 28 years in the u.s. senate, and during his 18 months as secretary of state. he has integrated oceans, climate, energy, and other cutting-edge environmental issues into the mainstream of u.s. foreign policy like no other secretary of state before him. with great pleasure, secretary kerry, the floor is yours. >> kathy, thank you very much. welcome, everybody.

distinguished guests all. we have many government leaders, many people as kathy mentioned from foundations, from n.g.o.'s, from various interest entities. we are really delighted to have such an extraordinary expert, concerned group come together to discuss this really critical issue. i am personally very, very grateful to the leadership of our terrific undersecretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment. it's a big package. who has been working diligently to put this together. you can tell from the surroundings this will be interactive. there will be a lot of visual input to digest. and a great deal of science to document what we are talking about here over the course of these next couple of days.

but i'm really grateful to my team here at the state department it has worked overtime under kathy's leadership to help bring everybody together here today. and i thank you all for coming. i welcome you to the state department, to the loy henderson conference room. particularly those of you who are representing countries from around the world. the private sector, civil society, academia, as well as many, many people joining us online via live stream through state.gov. i hope many more people will join us over the course of the next two days. convening a u know conference like this has been a priority of mine for some period of time. i really started thinking about this when i was still in the senate. and we wanted to try to pull it together and then last year we did, and as you know we had a

political moment here in . shington polite diplomaticese which prevented us from going forward. but it came out because it gave us more time to help us make this conference more effective and how to maximize what we are doing here. a commitment to protecting the ocean which we all share has really been a priority of mine for a long time, as kathy mentioned a moment ago. literally from the time i was growing up as a child in massachusetts when i first of d my toes into the mud buzzard's bay anti-cape and was introduced to clamming and fishing and all those great joys of the ocean, i have had this enormous love and respect for

what the ocean means to us. i went into the navy partly through that, and i had the pleasure of crossing the pacific both ways on a ship and passing through many different parts of he pacific ocean region. it's been mydown dfpblet my mother's family was involved way, way back in the early days of trade through the oceans, and indeed my father was a passionate sailor who, in his retirement, found a way to sail across the ocean. several times. so i learned very early on to appreciate this vast expanse of the ocean. so vast that 3/4 of our planet is really ocean. someone might have called our planet owe shin, not earth, if it was based on that, but obviously it is not. stewardship of our ocean is not a one person event, it's a nation event.

it's a country event. it's a universal requirement all across this planet. and i tried very hard when i was in the senate, as chairman of the senate oceans and fisheries subcommittee, where we rewrote our fishery laws on several different occasion, created the sanction two wary, coastal zone management act enforcement, flood insurance, rethinking it. all these things that have to do with development and runoff and nonsource port solution and all of the things that concern us as we come here today. and that is the concern that i bring to this effort as secretary of state now. the reason for that is really very, very simple. and for anyone who questions why are we here? when there are so many areas of conflict and so many issues of vital concern as there are, and regrettably because of that i

will not be at every part of this conference because we have much to do with respect to iraq and other emergencies that we face. but no one should mistake that the protection of our oceans is a vital international security issue. it's a vital security issue. involving the movement of people, the livelihood of people, the capacity of people to exist and live where they live today. the ocean today supports the livelihoods of up to 12% of the world's population. but it is also essential to maintaining the environment in which we all live. it's responsible for recycling things like water, carbon, nutrients throughout our panet, throughout the ecosystem. system is an important word. so that we have air to breathe. water to drink. and it is home to literally millions of species.

protecting our ocean is also a great necessity for global food security. given that more than three billion people, 50% of the people on this planet, in every corner of the world, depend on fish as a significant source of protein. the connection between a healthy ocean and life itself for every single pesh on -- person on earth cannot be overstated. we'll hear from scientist who is will talk about that relationship in the course of the next hours and days. the fact is we as human beings shared nothing so completely as the ocean that covers nearly 3/4 of our planet. and i remember the first time i really grasped that notion. it was in the early 1970's when the first color pictures of earth from space were released. the famous blue marble

photographs. when you look at those images, you don't see borders or markers separating one nation from another. you just see big masses of green and sometimes brown surrounded by blue. for me that image shaped the realization that what has become cliched and perhaps even taken for granted, not perhaps, is taken for granted, is the degree to which we all share one planet, one ocean. and because we share nothing so completely as our ocean, each of us also shares the responsibility to protect it. and you can look at any scripture of any religion, any life philosophy, and you will draw from it that sense of responsibility. i think most people want their children and grandchildren to benefit from a healthy ocean.

the same way that we have been privileged to. and they want to do their part to be able to ensure that that is the case, but here's the problem. when anybody looks out at the ocean, we are all guilty of it one time or another, when you stand on the beach and you look out at the tide rolling in, you feel somehow that the ocean is larger than life, that it's an endless resource, impossible to destroy, so most people underestimate the enormous damage that we as human beings are inflicting on our ocean every single day. when people order seafood from a restaurant, most of the time they don't realize that a third of the world's fish stocks are overexploited. too much money tracing two few fish. nearly all the rest are being fished at or near their absolute maximum sustainable level on a

planet that has six billion people today and will rise to nine over the next 30, 40, 50 years. most people aren't aware of something called buy catch. where up to half or 2/3 of the fish in a particular catch are not actually what the fisher was looking for and they are simply thrown overboard. when people go swimming or surfing along the coast, often they don't realize that pollution has led to more than 500 dead zones in the ocean, areas where life simply cannot exist. .

so that we could convince fishermen and convince countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we hear, well, we don't really see that or we don't really feel that or when i hear from captains of the boats, when i go out and fish, i see plenty of stocks out there.

there's no reason to be restricted. we need science. and globally we could put our heads together and our governments together and come up with both the budget and the capacity to deal with it to do what we need to help convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use gear and techniques that dramatically reduce the amount of fish and other species that are caught by accident and discarded. a plan that ends subsidies to fisheries which only serves to promote overfishing. a plan that makes it near impossible for illegally caught fish to actually come to the market anywhere. whether you are in boston or beijing or barcelona or brasilia or any other city that doesn't begin with a b. let's develop a plan that protects more marine habitats. we'll have an announcement regarding that.

i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today less than 2% of our ocean is considered a marine protected area. where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem. less than 2% of the entire ocean . there isn't anybody here who believes we can't do better than that. let's start by finding a way to perhaps bring that number up to 10% or more as soon as possible. let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of plastic and other degree from entering into the ocean. everybody's seeing that massive array of garbage in the pacific and elsewhere. we need a plan that helps cut down the nutrient pollution that runs off of land and is miles from the shore and it contributes to the dead zones that i mentioned earlier. i learned about that back when i was running for president out in iowa and minnesota and

mississippi and missouri rivers. you learn about the flow of the nutrients that go down the mississippi and out into the gulf and we have a big dead zone as a result. we need to develop a plan that gives you a better understanding of the acid if iization effect that carbon pollution is having in our ocean. we know in the antarctic, for instance, there was a regurgitation of carbon dioxide. have we reached the saturation point? i don't in a moment i know it's a question that's critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and maintain the oceans. we ought to know where it's happening. how quickly. so we can find the best way to slow it down. we need to push harder for all of us, for a u.n. agreement to fight carbon flution in the first place because the science proves that's the only way we'll have a chance of reducing the impact of climate change which someone of the greatest threats facing not just our ocean but our entire planet finally, we

need to develop a plan that not only lays out the policies we need to protect our ocean, but that also considers how we are going to enforce those policies on a global scale. because without enforcement, any plan we create will only take us o far. i think it was back in the 1990's when i recall correctly that ted stevens and i joined forces to take drift net fishing to the united states. we have become aware of literally tens of thousands of miles of mono fillo minute netting dragged behind a boat that would literally strip mine the ocean. with vast proportions of the catch thrownway, and clearly not sustainable. senator stevens and i managed to go to the u.n. ultimately it was banned by the

u.n. guess what? there are still some rogue vessels using driftnets to strip mine the ocean because they get more money, it's faster, and there's nobody out there to enforce it. no one out there to enforce it. so, we need to change this. that's our charge here all of us. over the next two days let's put our heads together and work on a plan for how we can preserve fish stocks, manage coastlines, protect ecosystems, a way for us to try to preserve fisheries, a way for us to come to a common understanding of our common interest and find a consensus that we could take to the u.n., take this plan to the u.n., take it to other international organizations, all of us begin talking the same language off the same page about the same objective. if we make this a plan that all countries must follow by helping

all of them to understand that no country can afford not to. whether you are on the ocean or not on the ocean. i know all of this sounds pretty ambitious, it's meant to be. i know that some you probably are thinking, what did i get myself into here? look around the room. every one of you is here for a reason. we have government leaders from around the world at the highest levels, including three heads of state. we have experts from international organizations, world bank president, others, we have private sector leaders committed to other ocean's future. people like bumblebee foods, best ocean scientists in the world are here. all of us can come together. each can help the other to ensure every solution we discuss is directly tied to the best science available.

ask yourself, if this group can't create a serious plan to protect the ocean for future generations, who can and who will? we cannot afford to put this global challenge on hold for another day. it's our ocean. it's our responsibility. so i hope that over these next two days we'll maximize the time we are here. i am really delighted that you-all came to be part of this. i hope this will be a new beginning, new effort to unify and to create a concerted pressure which is necessary to make a difference. it's now my pleasure to introduce one final speaker before we open the program up, and there's going to be a great deal of information coming at you in short order, but is one of the loudest voices, clearest voices in the world in the call for global action to address climate

change. there's a simple reason why he has a special interest. it is because climate change is already posing an exy tension threat to his -- extension threat to his contry. he's also one of the greatest advocates for the ocean well beyond his own country. under his leadership they have established one of the largest marine protected areas in the field in the phoenix islands in the pasifpblgt it's an honor to have him here to share his thoughts with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, president tong. [applause] >> thank you, secretary kerry,

and of course our gracious host, today over the next couple days, i wish to acknowledge contribution this morning. thank you very much for that very inspiring statement. excellencies, friends of the ocean, ladies and gentlemen. let me begin by bringing the greetings from the people of kiribati, young, old, and on whose behalf i'm very honored to be here to address this conference. in my country we usually begin all formal addresses by conferring blessings on each other. so let me do so to each and every one of you this morning. it is an honor, indeed, and great pleasure for me to be a part of this, so let me begin