and that's what sometimes washington forgets. lives and what you're going through day-to-day, the struggles, but also the and theities, the hopes good things that happen. that's more important than some phony scandals or the fleeting stories that you see. time.he challenge of our how do we make sure we've got an economy that is working for everybody. your part are doing to help bring america back, you're doing your job. imagine how much further along we'd be, how much stronger our economy would be, if congress job too. its [cheers and applause]

we'd be doing great. is if congressme had the same priorities that or did, that if they felt the same sense of urgency about the cost of college for increases in the minimum wage or how to make child care more affordable, if were thinkingey could have a lot more families. a lot more people would be getting ahead the economy would be doing better. we could help a lot more families and we should. we should be relentlessly focused on what i call an opportunity agenda. of the great jobs, what's

always made our economy strong. sure that we're on the cutting end when it comes to clean energy. making sure that we're rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, our ports, our airports. that advance manufacturing is happening here in the united states so we can jobs back.acturing research and science. that leads to new american industries. training our workers. trainingking a job program and using our community colleges in ways that allow to constantly retrain for the new opportunity that are out there. and to prepare our kids for the global competition that they're going to facial. making sure that hard work pays off with higher wages and higher

incomes. all these things, we're going to strengthen the middle help more people get boo the middle class. do better.will if folks have more money in their pocket, then businesses customers. businesses have more customers, they hire more workers. you hire more workers, you they spend more money. money, business has more customers that hire more workers. you start moving in the right direction. but it starts not from the top from the middle up, the bottom up. so far this year, republicans in blocking or vowing down just about every idea that would have some of the biggest impact on middle class and working class families. they said no to raising the wage.m they said no to fair pay, making

the abilitymen have to make sure that they're getting pay the same as men for doing the same job. for fixing our broken immigration system. inher than investing education. they actually voted to give massive tax cut to the wealthiest americans. and they've been pushing to cut the rules that we put in place financial cries is to make sure big banks and credit card koits wouldn't take advantage of consumers or cause another crisis. so they haven't been that helpful. ( laughter ) they have not been as constructive as i would have hoped. and these actions, you know, with a cost. when you block policies that would help millions of americans now, not obility are those

families hurting, but the whole economy is hurting. so that's why this year my wasnistration, what we said we want to work with congress, we want to work with republicans and democrats to get things going, but we can't wait. going to doe not anything, we'll do what we can on our own, and we've taken more actions aimed at helping hard working families like yours. [applause] that's when we act, when wheness won't. so congress failed to pass equal pay legislation, i made sure got more protection in their fight for fair pay in the workplace. that when women succeed, everyone succeeds. i want my daughters paid the your sons, for doing the same job. [cheers and applause] passess had the chance to a law that would help lower

interest rates on student loans, it. didn't pass i acted on my own to give chances of americans a to cap their payments, the program they -- i don't want our young people with debt before they even get started in life. [applause] the minimums to wage, last week marked five years since the last time the up.mum wage went you know the cost of living went up. up.mum wage didn't go so i went ahead on my own when it came to federal contractors, get a federalt to contract, you got to pay your workers at least $10.10 an hour. [cheers and applause] and i've been trying to work mayors, toors and businessome cases with owners, just calling them up directly, how about giving your folks a raise, and some of them have done it.

since i first asked congress to minimum wage, businesses like the gap, you got states and d.c., they've gone ahead and raised their minimum wage. difference in people's lives. and by the way, here's something interesting. the states that have increased their minimum wage this year, job growthn higher than the states that didn't increase their minimum wage. [applause] so remember, you give them a businesses money, have more customers, they got more customers and make more profit. they make more profit what do they do, they hire more workers. everybody.od for so some of the things we're doing we're doing without congress and making a difference. but we could do so much more, if congress would just come on and out a little bit. just come on.

come on and help out a little bit. [cheers and applause] stop being mad all the time. [cheers and applause] stop just hating all the time. come on. some work done together. [cheers and applause] you know, we actually, they did pass this work force training act, and it was bipartisan, there were republicans and democrats, and everybody was all pleased. a bill signing, they're all in their suits. and i said doesn't this feel good? ( laughter ) we're doing something, it like useful. nobody is shouting at each other. you know, it was really nice.

i said let's do this again. ( laughter ) more often. [cheers and applause] i know they're not that happy i'm president, but that's okay. ( laughter ) come on. i've only got a couple years left, come on, let's get some work done. then you can be mad at the next president. look, we've got just today and tomorrow until congress leaves town for a month. we still got some serious work to do. we've still got a chance to, to put people to work rebuilding roads and bridges and the highway trust funds are goting out of money, we've to get that done. we've got to get some resources

to fight wildfires out west. that's a serious situation. we need more resources to deal the situation in the southern part of the border, with some much those kids, we've to be able to deal with that in a proper way. [applause] so there's a bunch of stuff that needs to get done. unfortunately, i think the main vote, correct me if i'm wrong the main votemen, that they scheduled for today is not they decide to sue me for doing my job. (boos) all, here's something i always say. do not boo. vote. booing doesn't help. voting helps. [applause] think about this.

they have announced they're takingo sue me for executive actions to help people. they're mad, because i'm doing my job. way, i've told them, be happy to do it with you. so the only reason i'm doing it on my own is because you don't do anything. but if you want, let's work together. recognizes this political stunt, but it's worse than that because every vote they're taking like that means a taking tore not actually help you. taken 50 votes to repeal the affordable care act, could haveme that been spend working

constructively to help you on some things. [cheers and applause] know who'sway, you paying this suit they're going to file? you. no, no, you're paying for it. and it's estimated that by the time the thing was done i would already have left office. so it's not a productive thing to do. but here's, here's what i want remember, every single day. and i see the inherent goodness generosity of the american people, i see it every day. i see it in all of you, i saw it the four people i had dinner with last night. guyddition to victor, a named mark turner, he works with

high school dropouts to help get on track. used to be a successful corporate executive, decided he something back. singlegot valerie, a mom, engineer, owns a small doing greate's things. even though sometimes it's a struggle making sure that she business afloat, she's persevered, and is helping her his college education. and you've got becky forest, plug, she's president of the town fort creek association. she's got so many things going programs,chool mentoring programs, basketball of things atkind the community center, i couldn't keep track of all of them. listen to them talk, it made you optimistic. reminded you, there are good people out here.

everybody is out there trying to trying to look after their families, trying to raise their kids, trying to give withhing back, working their church, their synagogues, working with their places of faith. just trying to give something some meaning to their lives and they're all makele and we mistakes. you know, we all have regrets, peopleerally speaking are decent. so the question is how can we do of capturing that spirit in washington. in our government. people are american working harder than ever to important families, to strengthen communities. so instead of suing me for doing job, i want congress to do its job and make life a little better for the americans who in the firstre place. stop posturing. [cheers and applause]

there'she way, just, one place to start, i talked about this last week, but i want to talk about it a little more. there's a loophole in the tax code that lets small but growing group of corporations leave the country, say they declare themselves no longer to getn companies, just out of paying their fair share of taxes, even though most of here,operations are they've always been american companies, they took advantage of all the benefits of being but now companies, their account an has convinced maybe they can get out of paying some taxes. they're renouncing their though they'ren keeping most of the business here. accountingst an trick, but it hurts our country's finances and it adds to the deficits, and it sticks the tab because if they're not paying their fair share and stashing their money off shore, you don't have that option. it ain't right. it not right, it ain't right.

[applause] i hope everybody is clear on the distinction there. are some right.that are not and then there are such things that just ain't right. [cheers and applause] this ain't right. havenow, i mean, you don't accountants figuring this stuff out for you, trying to game the system. shouldn'tanies either, and they shouldn't turn their back on the country that made their success possible. by the way, this can be fixed, for the last two years i've put forth plans to cut corporate taxes, close loopholes, make it clear. and to republicans i say join with me, let's work to close this unpatriotic tax loophole, let's use the savings that we get from closing the loophole to invest in things like education that are good for

everybody. don't double down on top down economics. let's really fight to make sure that everybody gets a chance. and by the way, that everybody plays by the same rules. we've do so much more if got that kind of economic patriotism that says we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. and that's what victor believes. you know, when victor wrote me he said i believe regardless of political party we can all do something to help our a chance at a job, have food in their stomachs, and access to great education and health care. that's what economic patriotism is. should all be working on. instepped of tax breaks for them, let'sn't need give tax breaks to working families for, to help them pay for child care and college. don't reward companies shipping jobs overseas. let's give tax breaks to companies investing right here in the midwest.

let's give every citizen access to presciel, college and affordable health care, and let's make sure women get a fair wage. let's make sure anybody who is working full-time isn't living in poverty. these are not unamerican ideas. these are patriotic ideas. how we built america. so just remember this. the hardest thing to do is to bring about real change, it's hard. a stubborn status quote. and then folks are focused on but your concerns. and there are special interests, they're paid to maintain the status quote that's working for somebody. on youy're counting getting cynical, so you don't vote and you don't get involved, people just say you know what, nothing is going to make a difference. that, thene you do the more power the special

interests have. more entrenched the status quote becomes. cynical. afford to be cynicism is fashionable sometimes, you see it all over culture, all over tv. everybody likes just putting being cynical and negative, and that shows somehow that you're sophisticated and cool. what, cynicism didn't put a man on the moon. didn't win women the right to vote. a civil right act signed. cynicism has never cured a disease, started a business, cynicism has never fed a young mind. i do not believe in a cynical america. i believe in an optimistic is making progress. unyieldingve despite opposition, there are workers right now who have jobs who didn't have them before because of what we done, and folks who

have health care who didn't have work that of the we've done, and students are going to college who couldn't before.t and troops who have come home after tour after tour of duty we have done.as we don't have time to be cynical. a better choice. that's what i need you for. thank you very much, god bless you. [cheers and applause]

live coverage of the house energy and commerce subcommittee 9:15a.m.ght begins at eastern time. palestinianormer prime minister fayad on the

fighting in gaza. begins at 3:30 eastern on c-span 3 and c-span.org. in an interview with the science monitor, house budget committee pair paul ryan talked about this year's elections, the 2016 presidential race, reform,ion policy, tax and reaction to his proposal to fight poverty. he also comments on house republicans' lawsuit against the president and talk of impeachment. this is an hour. >> starting a yoga program and have to get a new host to do it. >> what's that?

? you're doing it? that's good. here we go, guys. thanks for coming. our guest today is representative paul ryan. chairman of the house budget committee. his last visit here was in february of 2012. we thank him for coming back. he showed an early interest in politics working as a staffer for senator bob kasten while he was still in college at miami university in ohio. after graduation our guest was a speech writer for jack kemp and worked for kemp's empower america think tank. kemp later told washingtonian magazine that ryan's strength is that he is "an activist conservative, not a stick in the mud conservative." according to the almanac of american politics, while representative ryan worked on capitol hill, as a legislative director for sam brownback, he also moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer. in 199 , at the ripe old age of 28, he was elected to congress and became chairman of the budget committee in 2011.

has all but -- all but the terminally obtuse will recall he was the republican party's vice-presidential nominee in 2012. so ends the buy graphingal portion of the program and now the ever so compelling recitation of ground rules. we're on the record here. please no live blogging or tweeting and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. there's no embargo in the session ends. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge we will email pictures of session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know if you like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal. and i'll happily call on and all on the time we have available. we will start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments and then we'll move to questions around the table. thanks again for doing this, sir. appreciate it. >> my pleasure. thank you. and doing a around-the-world of all the issues, how about i talk about what i recently proposed with our upper

mobility project. and it's an opportunity plan, i spent the last year and a half or so touring the country, listening to people who are doing a phenomenal job fighting poverty and learning about the different ideas that are out there. scrubbing the federal government and its programs, looking for any kind of evidence or studies of success. and then conducting around half a dozen hearings in the budget committee on the current government's positions, programs and the war on poverty. the thinking was that this, the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, where we still have the highest poverty rates in a generation, i'm going -- the highest deep poverty rates since we've been recording it, my thinking was we had to do something different and better. and when you take a look at it with the 30,000-foot view, i will argue we've more or less measured success in the war on poverty based on efforts or

input. how much money we've spent and how many programs we create. not on results. not on outcomes. how many people are actually getting out of poverty? and so when you take a look at it, i think the reforms that we're offering are more focused on outcomes. they're more focused on success and they're focused on putting the federal government in its proper place and advo kaying what actually works. the biggest policy is what we call the opportunity grant. the opportunity grant gives states the ability to conduct innovative reforms in ways to get people from welfare to work. it consolidates up to 11 different programs into a single funding stream. it's not just a loose string block grant. it is as the states have to do a few things. number one, they have to target the money to people in need. they can't use it to pad budgets in other areas. like roads or bridges. number two, people who can work need to work. and work works. what we've learned is moving

people to work is the best way to get people out of poverty and the bridge to a better life. number three, families in need need to have choices. you can't just use a government monopoly to provide services. of all the things we have learned there are phenomenal groups at the local level who have done a phenomenal job of actually transitioning people into self-sufficiency and lives of opportunity. we worked with groups like catholic charities, lutheran social services, america works. so you have to break up the monopoly of service and give families in need a choice among providers to get their benefits. and number four, you need to test the results. that's the one thing we don't really do very well is determine whether or not what we do is actually effective, is actually reaching its objectives. you need to test the results. case management is one of the things that we recommend. not mandate. because i think that that is extremely effective. because what it does is it makes a, localize, customize, personal, direct.

and that means each person has a different problem. poverty is very complicated. and having a system of accountability, having a system of customization, where someone works with a case worker, actually really helps get a benefit system that customizes their needs and put together a plan, and it's -- it's the best way of getting a person on to a better life to where they want to go. that to me is one of the best things that we can do. we stop short of carrying these kind of reforms on after we did welfare reform in 1996 and another round of like budget reforms are really in need. there are a number of other things we propose and other ideas that others have proposed that we think are smart. criminal justice reform. reside sism reform. -- recidivism reform. higher education. sources of tuition inflation. i think with respect to -- a program that is in need of reform, eipc and the ways and means committee should look into that. wow, good breakfast.

thanks. we propose a number of spending cuts of programs that are wasteful or fraudulent or ineffective. to try and pull young adults into the work force. among the problems we have in our labor force, people who have stopped looking for work, it's very acute among younger people. d i think by raising the cliled to adult -- one of the programs that really helps pull people into the work force. so there are a number of ideas that we put out. the whole point of this was to start a conversation. not to say here is it, take it or leave it. it's to start a conversation, so we can focus on solutions. with an eye toward actual objective results outcomes. and that means if we're going to invest all this time and money, let's do it in a way that actually works with local charities. that works with civil society. that doesn't displace and recognizes that the boots on the ground that people are actually on the front lines, may know a thing or two.

we shouldn't frustrate, complicate, displace or micromanage that. we should get behind that. and test results, test results, go with what actually works and is effective. i think that's the kind of conversation we want to have. and if we can have that kind of conversation which is what we're trying to start here, we can start putting in place solutions and making a difference. that's just -- i'll leave it at that. because that's one of the issues that i've been working on and i assume you want to talk about other things as well. >> let me talk to you about your plan for a moment. and ask you about how you assess the response to it which seemed to fall under several different categories. r the merkel policy -- the mechanic center for budget and policy priorities, raises the number of objections that one of them is that over time, hings that are block grant light, typically shrink and often very substantially, they cite the home investment

partnership program, down 60% since its inception. social services block grant down 87%. so there's that objection. another objection comes from people who feel that giving greater power over pourt assistance to states that haven't been shown to be particularly warm hearted might be a problem. charles blow of "the new york times," says some of the republican s have and can representatives goofs and some friendly fire from fellow conservatives, michelle malkin says "representative paul ryan has wrapped himself in a cloak of compassion putting a cheesy taylor swift hand heart around conservative tism by proposing government life coaches for those in poverty." so how would you assess the response, is there any chance of getting anything done before the 2016 election in your view? >> i'll just start with the last one.

[laughter] ok. first of all, i think hard-working taxpayers deserve some accountability. people are generous with their tax dollars. and i think it's wholly right and appropriate to expect something in return if they're going to spend their money helping people out of poverty. there's nothing wrong with having some accountability. so that people use their generosity as a way to get out of poverty. so having accountability for the kind of assistance that people are getting, it's wholly appropriate in what the taxpayers would want. it's -- we're not talking about government service provided. where talking about breaking up the government service providing monopoly. so that groups that are very successful already can help get eople from where they are to where they want to be. and so i would argue that this is basically an extension of

the principles we used in welfare reform. going to point two, the guy from "the new york times" you mentioned, going to point two. it's an apple and an orange. suggesting that states that didn't take the medicate one size fits all, top down, expansion. which is going to be an unfunded mandate is the same thing as not being able to help poor people in your state is completely misses the point. and i think it adds an insult to the whole notion here. my state did a phenomenal job of welfare reform. we started with waivers. tommy thompson had welfare to work. and it was extremely successful. moving people from welfare to work and on to a better life. these are the kinds of proposals we're talking about here. and it's the opposite of the medicaid obamacare expansion which is top down dictated by the federal government. we're trying to go with a bottom up approach. which is go with what works. respect local people. respect other groups like nonprofits, for profits, people who are aimed at actually getting people onto their feet again. and so the whole point here is it brings accountability to the taxpayer by saying to a person

who is receiving the benefits there's something that's expected in return. we expect that you're going to use this assistance to actually work or go to school or treat your addiction or deal with the problem you have. and so that there's accountability for these dollars which in many ways is not there today. and i believe by giving local groups and states the ability to customize and tailor make need or aid, you actually do a far better job of fighting poverty and getting people onto a life of self-sufficiency than the status quo which i would argue is indefensible. and in the first point, the first time c.b.p., we've had differences of opinion on issues. as far as the budget is concerned, you can fund these at any level. i didn't want to get into a funding debate over proper funding levels of the staft us kuo. -- of the status quo. that's beside the point. the status quo is not working, work how to reform it and the funding level to fund at and

have that conversation at another time. >> there's a lot of talk obviously about your deliberations between running for president or leaving the ways and means committee that has an impact on so many of the about. issues you care where do those deliberations stand? >> there really aren't deliberations. i'm doing my job. focusing on the here and now in 2014. the problems that are facing our country that i've seen in front of me now. i've decided not to think about my personal visions or personal areer moves or how i can think about something after 2014. the fact of it is i'm focused on policy right now. the problems we have in front of us. and in 2015, at the appropriate time, jan and i will sit down and have a proper deliberation and conversations that are necessary for that. but right now, we're just focused on what i can do in my job today. i think that's -- that's a better use of my time. and it's more faithful to the people i represent. be

>> we will start with craig bender, damien pole poletta. >> one of the reactions to your it was fundamentally off budget. [inaudibl [inaudible]. [inaudible] and spending way. -- has your thinking about the budget side of things all?ged at >> i tried getting at this last point, craig. if i just went into another budget conversation all we would numbers and not reforms. we could have another debate quo and funding of the status quo i think that

is a side step. really another point. et's talk about how to reform programs with an eye for results. the fact of the matter is, these reforms could occur under any spending level and we ould have that debate at the proper time. i am proud of our budget. i'm behind the budget. very important for economic growth and upward obility and future of our country away balance the budget and pay down the debt because we heading into a debt crisis. this debate i'm trying to start to reform bout how and make these programs work and can e beginning of it you fund at any level. let's talk about how to fix these broken programs. people back , are there hearing? >> yeah. >> thanks. > can you explain in a bit of

detail a real life example how a parent who is working 40 hours a week at one at wo minimum wage jobs poverty level. your plan going to help them? > in case management that is something we recommend. in racine oung woman her he became homeless in teens. her parents more or less abandoned her. sharon, wisconsin, a rural town in the middle of district i represent on the illinois border. in had some other problems her life with respect to addictions. charities did ic is sat down with her and put together a life plan and looked the needs she had and problems she had and aspirations

she had. chosen profession she wants to get into in the medical field. basically helped her find a minimum wage shop but helped a rdinator fate her benefits lot of which were catholic charities. aside from government assistance g.e.d. and job training and now she's got a job getting to school and married and she's putting her life together and studying to go chosen profession she h had. and if it were not for that a person sitting down and understanding all of her a blems and helping her with plan she would have remained homeless in her words and now getting tting married, the profession she wants and she is a happy person who is life for fulfilling herself. >> is she at poverty level wages? >> she has a low income job but

she has job training benefits she is going to school and has a very good opportunity to get the degree she needs to get good career to give you are upward mobility. > is it is not that there is a silver bullet that gets people out of poverty. the question is can you help themselves out of poverty giving them the tools they need. problem with all the programs you pile them up and in peopleys they discourage to go to work. they give people rational if i go ive that says to work which is less secure i on the e as much as 60% dollar of benefits. that ed to have a system uncourageous work, that helps it is understand that always a good -- it is always he right thing to work and customize benefits to the particular needs. killed son might need care or education. some person might have an

addiction and have character where they have to lready about they may have to learn about the skills to hold a job. some may have a temporary family, death in the layoff and quick helping hand. they are all different. e should respect those differences and come up with more customized aid that can people where they need to be and measure results, hold accountability and transparency. that is a far better plan going forward. paioint.the boothe camp in indianapolis with high crime, high murder rate. he has a boot camp where he is bringing young men, many out of prison, where they are learning about the things they need to be providers, good family members, productive members of society and he is working with employers to help them get

good jobs. it works. successful. et's help encourage more of these good works from a philosophical point of view. cases the many federal government in the war on overty has inadvertently displaced civil society, crowded ut good things when it should support them. t should be not dictating the front lines and it has given there notion that this isn't taxes, blem, pay your the government will fix this. the government fixes poverty. that is not true. we need to break those notions so that everybody gets involved working something whatever way they can to make a difference in this area. of the emergencies we need to pound over and over again if we are going to be reintegrating poor and helping people get from where they re to want to be. you referred to

test several times in describing programs programs. sometimes it me, s perceived as less than compassionate. once the parameters are done to seell be moons tested those genuinely in need that get the service. targeted.to be the state can't just spend it on other items. they have to go toward the poor. point number one. two, we just measure success paced on inputs. how much money are we throwing a problem. we are tphnot measuring success based on outcome. are we getting people into work and good careers. not just a job but careers. rhee we lowering the unemployment rate and increasing economic mobility? we need to test and measure these things so that we can

replicate successful outcomes. so that we can scale things up. that is the whole point. we just fell into the trap all the great idea come to a new ton and create program and have a bureaucrat dictate the terms when that is there are so d many things in the state and communities that can be laboratories of great ideas many of which already exist today but difference.ig [inaudible]. >> there are some requirements we require. to policeman in need. work. who can work need to and work means work at related activity. work, work training, work search. number three, break up the monopoly providers and give amilies a choice among providers so they compete based upon outcomes for people's needs. have an independent third party that is created by

federal government that provides the resources and state trackments to measure and outcomes and keep it honest and transparent so that we cannot have accountability but measure outcomes so we can find works well. >> mike pend earn from bloomberg. are there any reforms of things that would get your vote to reauthorize? i have heard that conversation before. we asked them to reform years so.and they didn't do o, we have had a debate about reforming their activities and in many cases they failed to do reforms.these f.m. bank e that the is representational of some of t the capitalism in washington.

business ment and big joining in a common cause it hand out preferences. as i believe that we republicans should be pro market, not necessarily pro business. hat means pro market is fighting for equal access to opportuniti law, unities, the rule of self-government and fairness. mostith the x.m. bank when of the money goes to large or a lot companies goes to one company, that to me is not the quality of the law. that to me isn't free enterprise. ust because other countries do it does not mean we should do the same thing. why do we focus on free enterprise. why not focus on a good energy olicy or regulatory policy or tort reform or tax reform. encourage more businesses to be created instead of propping up and subsidizing those that already exist. it is the economic equivalent of giving the key for

pull stle of the kings to the draw bridge. let's keep the draw bridge down bring people into the economy. i think it is representational that economic philosophy roduces less new businesses, upward mobility and free enterprise and economic growth. opinion.my could it be reformed? of course. would that be better than the status quo? yes. but at the end of the day there re so many more things to dedicate taxpayer resources than handing to select companies. there anything [inaudible]? when i see it. >> the immigration debate [inaudible]. ncluding that healthcare implementation.

where it ] two years might support some immigration over haul overhaul? > it is hard to see in this climate. it really is. i think that we need to -- we are going to do this thursday -- i think we need to deal narrowly with the border crisis. but, because of the demonstrated istrust of the president in enforcing the laws it is hard to see how republicans can come with a solution that we expect the president to enforce the laws. you know that i'm a fan of immigration reform. favor of n in immigration reform many years. that e a broken system needs fixing. law and economic security and national security ut there is no faith that the president will faithfully discharge his duties in

laws ing and obeying the as written by congress at this time. chairman, you talk about young to deal with problems see before you. if you see a problem with the environment and change ally climate issues? and what kind of conversation do country needs to have about that subject? >> i come at the issue more as skwrooutdoorsman who believes conservation and preservation, wetlands, habitat. ut when i see the debate about khaoeup climate change come down to taxes or reforms or

policies that won't even solve the problem all economyis make the u.s. less competitive, taking jobs and they are extremely regressive. they take money away from low ncome people who depend on disposable income for their lively lose. hen i see the new coal regulation from the administration which i believe is outside of the confines of see ideas for new cap and trade policies or taxes, they don't even move the needle o much of a degree -- no pun intended -- to solve the purported problem. solution.t see a i see an excuse to degree slownment, raise taxes and down economic growth and put us t an even more competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our international competitors who their ver do this with economy. >> you say a purported problem.

a real t see it as problem? >> some of theories like cap in lower -- move the about one degree in 100 years. that is what i'm talking about. climate change occurs no matter what. he question is can the federal governme government, can and should the federal government do something with all nd i argue the tax and regular to your is hurt our t does ountry, our people, especially low income individuals. >> next to robert schlesinger. stipulate hraeuing that the no part of ants impeachment and all the talk is what did m democrats you make of the poll a ubstantial majority of republicans favor impeachment?

look, i see this as sort of a ridiculous gambit by the and his political team to try and change the narrative, raise money and turn out their base for an upcoming election that they. not going to go their way and -- at that.it a >> kevin hall. two-part question. the rownback is under microscope for reforms he enacted that are viewed in some proxies. would you weigh in on what you faces the choices he this tells whether us there is a change of your perspective and clarification on the x.m. you used the terms propped up and stkaoeutzed. to be propped up and subsidized. >> that is one of the company.

a big portion of x.m. bank. i think boeing can do well i think and i . believe that any of the companies can do extremely well their own and i would rather advocate rorplts like krepbs tax regulatory reform, reforms that make the can american economy more our titive so all of companies, not just some ball of to are better positioned compete in the global economy. i adore sam. he is one of the most people i have ever known in public affairs. he is a great conservative. the specificst on of what the state has done because i'm not well-versed on the tax reforms bills have done. i think sam will be re-elected. i know a little bit about

things within kansas politics and he is a great kevin ough reformer and i'm excited to see the reforms he's done. >> what i'm really more is cutting taxes raises revenue and that hasn't happened. in don't know the story kansas. -- there who try to are some redefinitions of supply ide economics that i have noticed. not all tax cuts are the same. i'm not commenting on the kansas stories. don't know the facts there. but not all tax cuts are the same. that is why we've economic modeling that shows that, say, reductions produce more economic growth than say tax credits. so, it is very important that understand the economics in my opinion rm properly structured tax reform economic y increase growth and job creation especially at a time we are

companies at much igher statutory tax rates than competitors are taxing theirs. it puts them at a disadvantage rates clearly x increases economic growth and revenues.g more so every tax is different and the way to view these is to run economic models and see which ones work the best. wonder if we n, i could go back to the lawsuit. you said it is a ridiculous president.the how would you characterize bit -- gambit's bam the ving forward with lawsuit. did you think it has a chance aof succeeding and he has opened a pandora's box? i think it is a -- first of all i won't comment on what do. court is or won't i don't know so i won't project what that will be.

he constitution gives the legislative branch avenues to check power. hey gave us the separation of powers to check each other. unfortunately, the primary power the constitution gives the legislative branch, the power of he purse, is being denied because the senate has chose to stand up for the executive branch. frustration number one. -- er two, the constitution there is a great idea about the constitution is it is under the rule of law. that means a government by consent. best way the he constitution gives us to express and government by consent. that to me is another very important tool that the us.stitution gives what john is diagnose is we essing frustration that are not using the power of the

purse so he is trying to stand p for congressional prerogatives. that is why the lawsuit has merit because we tonight show we are not going to down, that the g president is issuing executive orders and regulations that parameters of the statutes that give the authority in the first place and it is decision. to make that that is why aware both working kwhy we are both for the cause i stand with speaker thinking that the president has exceeded his authority but there are many ways and avenues. let's make sure we don't serve the tfrp station that the is the final arbiter is this is superior branch of government. necessarily the case. that is what i said before, which is we have other avenues to be pursuing. unfortunately hear reid is not -- unfortunately harry

reid is not letting us do. [inaudible] the third time we waited on this. this looks like [inaudible]? comment onlying to that we are all as conservatives swore an over the to protect the constitution the ed a the extent president has again to circumvent the constitution. let's make it very clear there are a number of avenues that the frameers in the peopleution gave us, the and the legislative branch, to deal with this and many ifferent avenues are being pursued because we are concerned exceededexecutive that his power. >> you talked about a onversation on poverty and addressed some of the criticism. the course of this conversation that you want to

have has there been a criticism you have offered where you said hey, that is a good wrong or that t is an interesting idea but in yes that is what i am for.ing >> so far it has been pretty good responses. i ould say that occur before wrote this. for instance mandatory minimums. from just my t travels around the country that our ex-cons alf of go back to prison within three getting out of prison the current system is not orking and that the mandatory minimums i think we had a policy overcorrection that needs to be dialed back. need to give ou judges a little more discretion. lower the saying ceiling but lower the floor because there are better ways to the debt to society but being more productive

of society once they pay that debt. i look atsome self -- some of my own positions in this rena before putting this plan out there and this plan reflects that. as pe to do more of that time goes on but some reporter was asking if i'm drafting a on introducing it tomorrow. no, the whole purpose of this to get a conversation going to get feedback and input and do legislation. we are at the beginning of the process. from hope to learn constructive criticism. floored to members on the about some of their ideas about ow to pay for it and do accreditation reform which is really important. and some of these things are not noteworthy like licensing uniform. that is not federal but could be an entry of people getting into careers.

i'm struck by some of the strong language that you have used here. you say the president is trying to circumvent the constitution confidence that he will faithfully execute the laws. haven't other presidents done this? s i remember during the bush dministration president bush signed defense bills and he said this.ot going to do so, what is so different here? really as bad as your language suggests, why impeachment rt proceedings? it sounds like you have a case. the high crime and mis-diener level. there is a huge difference of that can be litigated through the court of opinion hrough elections and should be litigated through congress through projections and power of

the purse and there are other pursued.eing but in this particular case i think the president has exceeded boundaries that are written in the laws. health care is a perfect example there are executive orders that are within the boundaries of statutes to implement and laws.te that is one thing. but when you do things the and executive orders that exceed the statutes, the clear letter of the law, that is making. and the law making occurs in the live pwrfrpbl, not the executive branch. >> you mentioned the result of elections. in this election in 2012 produced a democratic president large vote and out.blican when the public wanted get ently you all to together and do something. what sign is there that this has of representatives shown any interest in doing that

the goal, why don't you try to pass bills in with a coalition of democrats and republicans rather make it a majority and which means no means nothing. >> the agreement i reached a which r budget agreement brought us together prevented future government shutdowns and process e projections back on for the first time in a thumb of years. nfortunately the senate has chosen not to bring a single appropriations bill to the floor a numbergh away passed ourselves. so, we haven't seen to esponding willingness legislate on the other side of the rotunda in the senate the bill we had an issue last time in the senate but the house in a bipartisan with a reform to prevent the trust fund from dry in august. if you look at the votes in

ongress, a lot of bills that pass through congress come by bipartisan support. the skills act is another example. fighting for job training reform for number of years because we believe that job ederal government training has not measured been redundant, about 49 dustin programs over noon agencies so we worked with colleagues in the senate and democrats in the house to come up with common sense solutions focused on getting people the skills they need to get the jobs they want and we job training legislation that has pass and law.g into so there is example of example of us making government work, of us reaching compromises where we are not asking the other side to proe principle and getting things condition. i think a lot of people want to fight butnly where we ignore where we get things done. >> roy montgomery. democrats want to solve this

problem right now and can't wait agreement on tax reform. house republicans have so far we n the position that no can't did a patch, we have to get corporate tax reform and do corporate let's tax reform. republicans say no we have to do individu individual. the question is do we need to do immediately to keep this from going overseas? what? if not is there any chance you on set aside the gridlock individual and focus on corporate? conversation yesterday so i guess we will repeat. it was brief. > first of all, we have been dealing with inversion for years. it on 2003, 2004,

2005. i don't remember the year. is cheer the solution is tax reform because if we try a hort-term patch we will just accelerate the trend of foreign u.s. companies and make problems worse. we will make it worse off and companies..s. live in wisconsin and miller brewing which is a proud brand where we come from, it is not a based u.s. company any more. ask the folks in st. louis. a belgian company. on and on. so, all you will see is not ecessarily this inversion of u.s. companies buying, you will see fortune companies buying u.s. companies. don't want to accelerate that dangerous trend. the only way to address this is tax reform to a more international competitive system. be more sympathetic to he criticisms if we saw a

sincere effort earlier this year from the administration on tax reform. th there was an heroic effort to aisle to do the comprehensive tax reform with who is now in china. i don't know why to china but administration we had no follow-up or constructive the issue in tackling of tax reform. so, this is not for our lack of issue of tax the reform dealt with. it is for lack of a willing partner excluded, who wants to help do it. something tells me there is more politics lined this than an actual attempt to fix the root cause which is a broken tax system. >> i have a two-part question. the president has goals to do

that as well. this approach and where do you difficult? >> i don't know the answer to the question because i haven't specifically what he has. been the bill that has put together. i think it is the lead bill in the senate. i have looked at and i think that is a good piece legislation. i think that recidivism reform is very important and should -- which is awigs helping peopleto earn time in different custodial by getting job g.e.d., counseling and the rest, which are proven programs and proven track record to reduce recidivism. nd while people are serve ing time better themselves so they can be more productive members society. i'm not as familiar with all the

as with the bills in congress that are before us that deserve support. >> a quick follow-up, what are you will did some welfare reform? >> i assume this is a next issue and the reason we are putting them up now is to have a good conversation. i always find you get people feedback and start putting pen to paper and my mind on which i, in is next session. > in 2016 the social security disability [inaudible] is an opportunity to do something. >> we will have to reform that session.xt we have had talks in the ways and means committee. e need to have conversations with the disability community and make sure we can revive the make sure fund and the program is working as it is intended. >> we have about 10 minutes and wanting questions so -- >> i will give quick

questionses. >> i'm just telling them why we everybody.questions. >> i'm just telling them why we with get everybody. >> we have heard you are trying plan.a republican when are you going to have some discussion draft? >> i am. in 2009 with tom this is to thers so the my first time putting out kpre alternatives. it is more dictated by scoring than anything. keeping met has been from putting something out. like to make sure when i put something out i have good numbers behind it. have been working on healthcare reform proposal which isn't the republican alternative republican list of turns. there are some bills out there.

coburn and oren have a bill. price has a bill. o, i plan on adding, contributing to that debate but it will have to be later in the -- done.i'm con i'm still writing it. restoration of voting rights? >> i think that is is something look at. i would like to see the bill. scrubbed the bill as clearly. >> [inaudible]? but i think that didn't rand have a bill? but i'm tate issue endorsing licensing but

omething i think we ought to tackle. i think that is something. the way i look at this is we encourage the notion that people should be able to chanced deserve a second in life. that is how you help people get to therom where they are better life they aspire for themselves. that should be something we champion in society. i think this is an issue that ought to be considered. [inaudible]? >> i won't comment on that. becker. >> inaudible. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. plan, every overty person who is a recipient of ood stamps has a case manager [inaudible] inevitably this will expensive it will kroutd what previously went to put poor people's pockets. >> we have looked at that point

quite a bit. the wrong way to look at there money just the federal and assume some cost for case how it nt and that is works. no. the point is to do this in with the private sector, public sector, sector.le leverage other dollars out there federalat odds with the government to work alongside so we are all pulling together. the problems i see in disjointed. it is you have for profits, not for charities, local governments, federal governments all going in different directions. we try to leverage the best ideas to move in the saw im direction and combine those dollars. you can combine dollars from the or other local governments with the federal

funding streams to achieve the to achieve trying here and what we are saying is we are not mandating case management. this is one thing we recommend but give the states the act it try different ideas. when we've done that or it has een tailored and focused outcomes based it works pet well. having work requirements and with customization and leveraging other sources of that it me is the most effective approach we have to take. to broaden your understanding of the proposal before you look at notion, the alternative argument is stick with the status quo. the status quo isn't working. >> we have time to two last questions. meg shreve. >> [inaudible]. where you any avenue could [inaudible] and move back?

>> i do. course and i the think this is something for the next session. there are reforms needed but i believe -- and i want to make right.say this almost 20% of young people from are either not working or not even in school. with have a real problem labor force participation rates among the very people we want to life.oing in that is whiening this idea, which does have success, it does improve rewards it work and get prime minister people in the -- it does get poor people in the workforce. whether debate about it is possible. let's find spending that we can or corporate ful welfare and that is an area i have had very productive conversations with democrats.

it is a plan i think we can make a difference on. >> last question, susan. >> [inaudible]. >> i don't want two give a time the because i don't know answer. issue ou think about the ?nd [inaudible] go back to immigration for a brief moment. if we are actually starting to bird, if measures are being put in place an federal is doing its job then maybe you could have confidence building measures to improve the outcome but that is not where we are right now. on gun legislation i think our focused on better treating mental ill believes. has done a murphy heroic effort at trying to bring

reform toomprehensive ow we treat mental illness in society. that to me is where our efforts ought to be placed than laws more restrict the second amendment right of law abiding citizens. is the issue ignored too much. it has been made partisan in the one reason i don't understand and we ought to move he murphy legislation that has had got bipartisan support that deals with the real root problem which been experiencing is mental illness improperly treated or improperly identified. >> we've got a minute or two left so we will go to mr nicholson. the st trying to take poverty discussion out on a basis you talk getting people out of poverty.

up the ladder. he administration has been talking more about income , ality, raising minimum wage working on the spread between rich and poor versus the in poverty. why do you think it is so important to work on income income equality? >> because i want economic growth. a faster greg e economy and most of those ideas n my opinion will serve slow economic growth. hrough job creation that reduces income mobility. differently.maybe if you are going 30,000 feet our goal shouldn't be to look at economy as a fixed slices ie where the should be spread more equitably. it should be to grow the pie so e can have more economic mobility and job creation and end updeas in many cases doing more harm than good in

that they slow down economic creation and job that does nothing to help people n the bottom rung of the economic ladder. we should focus on helping rise, focused on opportunity, focused on removing barriers that make it hard are people to -- harder for eople to improve tv lives and there is no substitute for economic growth, no substitute for pro growth policies that faster economy that produces more opportunity for everybody. frustrate , i think, that idea. >> you reject the criticism that in inequality, the growing inequality has hurt economic growth? >> no, i reject the solutions people say are necessary lake -- like new taxes or aising minimum wage that could cost a million jobs. think that is a much smarter reform than minimum wage.

a lot reform 2.30 is smarter than raising taxes on businesses. >> thank you for doing this. my apologies for the people we didn't get to. we hope you come back. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] yesterday the house authorized a lawsuit against president obama over allegations that he abused executive power. the minority whip steny hoyer and house speaker john boehner debated the resolution before the vote. hoyer.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. it is somewhat ironic that the republicans want to sue the president for enforcing -- not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. how ironic. but it is frankly a demonstration of their frustration that they had been unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. and they therefore repair to the wasting of time by this congress and the wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack against the president.

one that is meant to distract from the pressing issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising the minimum wage or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for those seeking jobs. while the majority of americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, house republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the american public do support, make it in america jobs bills, export-import bank re-authorization, terrorism risk insurance, voting rights act amendments, continuing resolutions and appropriation bills. all of these the american people want to see us do, but in polls they show they don't want us to be doing this. they think it's frivolous.

they think it is without merit. they think it should not be done. all the bills that i referenced they think ought to be done. how sad it is that we come here and do things the american people thinks are a waste of time while not doing things americans think are very important. none other -- i tell my friend from texas, and he is my friend, none other than justice antonin scalia said that the judiciary traditionally hear cases of political disagreement between the other two branches. in fact, he said in united states vs. windsor, and i quote, a system in which congress and the executive pop immediately into court in their institutional capacity whenever

the president implements a law in a manner that is not to congress' liking. . scalia felt that was not justified. we believe this legislation is not justified. we further believe that the american people do not believe this legislation is justified. we do believe that the base of the republican party that tried to defeat president obama in 2012 voted against him in 2008 and disagreed with him on the issues think this is what is available to them. it is wrong. it is a waste of time. it is a waste of money. it is a distraction from the important issues so important to our people. this lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the republican base and for some , for some, it doesn't go far

enough. under president clinton, republicans' playbook was shut down and then impeach. under president obama said that if the affordable care act were not repealed, not that they wouldn't sue him, they said they would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. they didn't get their way and they shut down the government. could i have one additional minute? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: they threatened to shut down the government and they shut down the government and the american people said that's not what we want done. again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve through their political process the ends they seek. they have voted over 50 times to repeal or undermine the

affordable care act. they do not want it implemented. now they want to sue the president because he's not implementing it fully and now they are suing and refusing to say that impeachment is off the table. in fact, their newly elected whip, mr. scalise, declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four separate occasions last weekend. my friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what might follow, congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here to do, reate jobs, invest in an economy where all of our people can work hard and make it in america. reject this waste of time. te no on this unjustified, impractical, losing proposition

from ohio, the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank my colleague for yielding. i also want to thank the whole house for its work on -- to address the american people's concerns about jobs in our economy. all told we sent the senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a bipartisan way. from the first day of this congress, i said our focus would be on jobs and it has been. but on that first day, you may recall i addressed the house about the importance of our oath of office. i know that the same oath we all take that makes no mention of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. the oath only refers to the constitution and our obligation to defend it. i said that with moments like this in mind, i said that knowing there would be times when we would have to do things

we didn't come here to do. we didn't plan to do and things that require us to consider interests greater than our own interests. i have to think this is why on several occasions members of the minority party have taken a similar step. in 2011 some of them filed litigation against the vice president. they took similar steps in 2006, 2002, 2001 and so forth, because this isn't about republicans and democrats. it's about defending the constitution that we swore an oath to uphold and acting decisively when it may be compromised. no member of this body needs to be reminded what the constitution states about the president's obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our nation. no member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust that have been frayed or the damage

that's already been done to our economy and to our people. are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our founders have built? think not only about the specific oath you took but think about how you took it, as one body standing together. that's all i'm asking to you do today, to act as one institution, to defend thec-spa.

>> on wednesday morning the israeli military shelled a u.n. school in gaza killing 16. the white house condemned the attack and called for a renewed ceasefire. the united nations deputy secretary general also can condemned the bombing. this is 45 minutes. about conditions in gaza. this is 45 minutes.

>> good evening. thank you for coming. e are joined by our deputy secretary general and the director of operations. here it talk to you about the current situation gaza. you have the floor. much.ank you very ladies and gentlemen of the friends, , dear sometimes you run out of words. thinking of how to start briefing. withfraid we have received shock and dismay the news of the a u.n. this morning of

esignated shelter in a school killing at least 16 civilians and ding several children .njuring more than 100 people they were there under u.n. rotection, under our protection. after warnings from the israeli forces, who had at umerous times been informed about the presence of over 3,000 , the ans at this location exact location was communicated israeli defense forces as 20:50 hours, 8:50 p.m. last night. our initial assessment and all that it was an hit the rtillery that

scho school. n israeli spokesperson has fires had hat mortar been coming from militants in and aven't of the school that israeli troops had fired response. that was a quote from an israeli spokespers spokesperson. general, an hour upon ade a statement arrival in costa rica condemning thetack on the -- attack on elementary girls school. he made that condemnation in the strongest possible terms calling unjustifiable nd and made the point it demands accountability and justice.

he called on the parties to stop the fighting and to agree to an unconditional cease-fire. we will expand on some of the related to the humanitarian situation but as a secretary of internal worked with aving this add a few points on the situation for the people in gaza gaza. has shelter ed altogether schools 000 people in and other shelter buildings. of gaza strip is 139

square iles, 360 kilometers. since aware in the united states comparison.some it is about the same size as detroit, tan areas of of philadelphia, or las vegas. has more than 10 times the population density of washington, d.c. o, when the israeli defend forces ask that the population there est or inform that might be military activity where do they go? few places to go in goes. another terday was human on added to the time phraoeurt, namely the solar power f the

plant in gaza. wool have that long-termmid term and effects on issues that are the survival of the stppb been legislation. gaza is depending on pumping and pumps will not a very limited way. the ill need water for people who will need to come out for their children and for their survival in fact, they have to go out in the streets when trucks go there if -- if possible to tkhrufr water. run a hospital without clean water? food if you eep

have water. everything we take for granted is gone. so, we have a hugely dangerous from humanitarian perspectives. we need more ink reminders of the importance of horror. this see the end of fighting. that restraint is shown from all sides. artillery ing about attacks and we must talk about he rockets going into israel and attacks through the tunnels. yes. you see the result of the violen enormously is disproportion thaeut effect of that violence. all would hope that

parties000 really put the human and see whatcenter price is being paid and effect n, what horror going opb would be the short-term and both from human terms and political terms. o we hope that the proposals from various sides is not just secretary general will be taken seriously. -- because it is needed immediately. pause as an idea of a which we understand has not been fully and we need to ave that pause so that we can discuss more durable cease fire underlyingome of the issues. but for me this is a moment here you really have to say

enough is enough. you have it search for the right words to convince those .ho have the power to stop this john, please. you.ank thank you for putting the focused on uarely the human beings that are caught up so helplessly in this tragic situation. just to give a sense of the scale of the horror that they enduring, 5,750 of been homes have now destroyed. hat is why you have over in these ople temporary locations. e call them internally displaced. he schools ple in t and they are seeking protection d.s.g. has lighted.

but these locations are not safe. is safer. 33 schools have already been or fire from g conflict.lved in this of dramatic e that parents are seized with, it is mortal fear. fearhey are right to be in because the casualty rate continues to go up. communicating to you for the last number of days that a child per hour that is being killed. so every hour this conflict goes on another innocent child is killed. the casualty rates continue to grow. now the number is very palestinians

6,233 injured. hat is reflective of the real danger that faces the population inside gaza at the moment. 21% of those casualties are ndeed children, 249 children have lost their lives so far. so, the number one issue here is protection protection, the mortal fear that population.the they are being told to flee , but to t out of areas where? where should they go. appears for the them on that. -- we don't have the answer for them. if they had the conflict elsewhere they would have the border and crossing seeking sanctuary in neighboring countries. they don't have that option in particular indication. the second challenge is for operate.ians to

that the e the danger relentless nature of this for ict creates humanitarians just to get out there and do the things they need to do. obviously, on a daily basis the eachitarians need to go it of these schools where you have 200,000 plus people with water food. these are just schools. thousands of people in classrooms. the sanitation facilities, they are wholly and totally number of for that families to be in these locations. we have to bring water every day and bring food every day and so forth. d.s.g. has said the humanitarian crisis of ordinary power plant at the has been shut down because of the last round of shelling it, is that no wart is being pumped into houses means

people have to come out to get just drinking water. where are they going? they are basically waiting for ater trucks from humanitarian ohs ohs -- organizations to go straight. this again operationally without in the violence is next to impossible in too many areas. the scale of the urgency of the risis now for ordinary people cannot be overstated. this t also remember that is an aid dependent population huge percentage. over 70% of the population of food need assistance. population that like any population anywhere in the world needs daily health care. 23 of the medical facilities across the gaza strip have been now oyed to the point of

being out of use. where are people to get their medication? pregnant women and so forth. are desperately short of medical supplies. said that the list f essential drugs are at zero or close to zero in terms of stock levels. critical. very so, everything that is required life-saving support to the population in terms of supplies and how to get those to the people has do me next to impossible to what we are expected to do. and the level of frustration population to us is very high at the moment. they feel that the world has ost its humanity, its sense of realization of what they are going through. there is the most intensive

conflict that they have ever experienced and this is a through manys gone rounds of conflict. if you go back to the last round f conflict it is more times more people displaced in schools than last time around. thank you. thank you very much. >> pat. , deputy fternoon secretary general. and mr. ging thank you for the briefing. question is about the school attack. out to be turn israel, what is the accountability is this a war crime, and is there some plan short of a cease-fire to protect schools in gaza? thank you.

>> on the second part, we have asked for protection of all the sites where we are sheltering now internallyre displaced. basically you go back to the geneva conventions about protection in all its aspects and this goes particular for installations like hospitals and schools. not at a stage where we can take that second step. we have just made initial what i quotednder to you and we will take it from there.

>> on the possible protection of [indiscernible] civiliansprotecting with our own staff. there are people sleeping in the same schools. >> several staff members were killed, correct? people, butost six -- this for us is an act of solidarity with the people we were trying to protect ourselves. i think of all the people i have seen the last year during my travels to afghanistan, to i, where themalle conditions are so enormously dangerous. i don't want in any way to bring thatr staff, but we notice

we are being criticized. why don't you do more? ownnow that we have our people there sometimes sacrificing their lives. it's extremely difficult. we have no other protection facilities in our own staff to do the work there. >> president abbas has asked in generous terms for the union to provide some kind of protection for the people. the secretary-general and the u.n. has not responded to this request. what does it take to do that? and there is this general feeling in the arab world that israel can get away with any war crime or crime against humanity. is it true or not?

>> on the situation in gaza, there was a proposal yesterday which was supposed to be supported both by the political authority, plo, and hamas, but it turned out that there was not full unity around that proposal. i think your question goes to the broader issue of protection of palestinian. that is a very serious issue. we have received that request and we have discussed the issue with the security council. it's not an easy thing to think about how that protection could work. from east timor and from kosovo and we have looked into that. we are looking at different forms.

beyond thes goes gaza situation. it's a sign of desperation that president abbas has suggested that we look into the u.n. providing protection from the occupying power. i hear the same thing, and for us it is important that we don't have double standards. that we do everything we can to that we don't work along the road of double standards. >> a comment from both men if possible. the link between increasingly missiles founded in schools run -- in schools and attacks on facilities, and do you think it is putting the u.n. personnel and gaza citizens at ,isk by missiles in the schools and what is the latest on early

investigation into why this keeps happening? reacted very strongly against that and are investigating it. john, you have more. >> we need to be crystal clear here. the schools where rockets have been found have been schools that were abandoned by the u.n., due to the intensity of conflict in those areas. the rockets have been found by the u.n. when i went back to recover those schools come and that is due to due diligence and very good investigative approach they take to make sure that when they are in control of the beool, they can actually sure it is free from weapons and that nobody with arms is allowed in that school. obviously when you abandon a property, it's out of your control. both the militants and the israeli forces have occupied those schools in the past that

have been abandoned by the u.n.. we cannot control that. what we can control is the schools that we are in control of, and as i say, in each and every case where schools are under you and controls, there is a very careful inspection regime to make sure there is no armedions either by people coming in are that there are any arms hidden in those schools. that is done by inspecting the schools on ongoing basis and particularly when recovering a school that has been abandoned. school that has been sheltering people or under the un's control have there been found. there is no excuse to say that there are weapons in the schools that are under the u.n. control. >> there have been several cases

, at least one case yesterday in which an italian reporter who said that the fire at the refugee camp came from within gaza. the same situation, there is no clear conclusion yet as to who hit the power plant. there is no clear conclusion yet today.ho hit the school it is interesting, the conclusion that it was israel very quickly as opposed to the situation with the schools, which is still investigating where those rockets went, did they go back to hamas or not? there are all kinds of conflicting reports on that. and one more general question,

senseat is, is there any that in fact the situation you , you mentioned how small the gaza strip is, but thomase any sense that as a fighting force is endangering -- that hamas is endangering the population by continuing to fight? and just one more thing. >> just two questions, thank you. >> there were more clear indications this time than they had in the first case. the confirmation by the spokesperson of israeli defense forces said in fact, as they claimed rockets were sent from the area that they returned

fire. there must be other elements that i don't have in front of me , but he is extremely careful with his judgment. since gaza is this limited size, every military action will be close to the civilian population. .hat is a fact of life >> a couple of clarifications. you said discussion of the protection of the palestinians in east timor and kosovo, that you have been looking at that. has this been going on for a

while? are you asking the security as far as take action targeting the schools? if this is a war crime, what are you meaning to do about it? you are only saying we would protect palestinians with our own staff. how long is this sustainable? do you need something from the security council in order to give protections, and then you could discuss the long-term. proposal has this been around for some time, but formally communicated to us at the beginning of this recent crisis. but it has been under discussion for some time. protection of the .alestinian state

it is a very difficult issue. it has been discussed most recently at the security council luncheon this week with the secretary of general. we are looking into the different alternatives. we will see what will happen on that, but that is the sequence. question whether alternative protection models are possible. , what we areing is region -- in the works very hard with all the includingconcerned, secretary kerry worked very diligently on this. we are aiming for a humanitarian cease-fire. involves some type of monetary, we are willing to look into that.

it does not answer the question whether this is considered a war crime and whether you're acting for condemnation by the security council. report, we will see what steps we will take. the security council has already asked for a cease-fire. response to the assertion from israel that they were responding to a rocket that a school, androm secondly, does the u.n. have any evidence that hamas is using civilians as shields during their operations? >> well, we received this news this mor