community so we can identify and understand which of the threats are most important by community and then work together to abate them. ms. kelly: it seems it's the southern border. what are the percentages or -- mr. vitiello: our resources are dedicated to the southern border. that's where the activity is represented by the large numbers, volumes of people, volumes of things because of the nature of the real estate and the differences in both economies, etc. but we also have important work that we do with canada and we similar things as it relates to identifying where we need to be situationally where on the border, technology to help us patrol and monitor and then obviously the relationships are key in understanding the threats that are faced.

ms. kelly: ok. your testimony continues, quote, d.h.s. works with our federal, state, local, tribal, international partners, particularly canada and mexico, to address transnational threats. what types of help or information does canada and mexico provide that the u.s. would not otherwise have access to? mr. vitiello: so they -- at c.b.p. and it's true with other federal law enforcement is we help identify the criminal networks that are responsible for human trafficking, gun smuggling, illicit financing. what we do is we try to understand amongst ourselves with them and ourselves what the threats are and how to combat them and then help identify by network which are the most problematic criminal enterprises? ms. kelly: do you feel these partnerships have improved over time and you're getting more and more information or there's more of a comfort level with these other agencies? mr. vitiello: so it ebbs and flows as it relates to the international engagement. i think in canada it's been

stable and very well used for quite some time. in mexico it sorts of ebbs and flows with changes of administration, etc. they have been a strong partner with us, especially at the federal police level and their immigration authorities. ms. kelly: thank you so much. thank you, mr. chair. mr. desantis: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. mr. mica, for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this joint hearing. i think it couldn't be better time with the incidents we've seen most recently around the world relating to terrorism and our border vulnerability. i guess you can probably conclude our borders are porous, tens of thousands of illegals are coming across the border. would that be appropriate, mr.

judd, do you think that's correct? mr. judd: border patrol agents, these are very motivated individuals. they do the best they possibly can. mr. mica: can you describe the vehicle, cut the wires and came through, you don't know whether they were drugs, weapons, explosives, carried great quantity its across the border? mr. judd: it could be. el chapo, the noted drug kingpin and czar crossed the border and he bragged about it i guess after his capture, like he was coming on some regular vacation, journey to the united states. are you aware of that? >> no, i had not heard that. mr. mica: not only were we informed he was crossing routinely, now have -- we have

evidence that some of the weapons -- at least one of the weapons that was found when he was captured was from the fast and furious collection which is provided by u.s. government, you are not aware of that either? mr. vitiello: i did see that in media reports. mr. mica: ok. mr. judd, you gave some excellent testimony. you describe one of the issues and you said the border patrol due to d.h.s. prosecutorial discretion guidelines released more than 3,800 illegal aliens who were in our -- subject to deportation proceedings and were released because they claimed to be in the united states continuously since january, 2014. this amnesty through policy in short, the administration -- this is the president's policy of amnesty, is that what rules proceedings?

so we've allowed tens of thousands -- i saw an estimate of about 50,000 criminal illegals in the united states, a guesstimate. they're subject to deportation, aren't they? mr. judd: yes. anybody that's here illegally is subject to deportation. mr. mica: but, again, we've allowed millions to sort of waver and tied your hands which you put in your written testimony. not only the borders but the airports, people flying in, whether it's from europe, central, south america, around the world and there's a credential screening gateway system which is outlined in an i.g. report june 4, 2015. it says worker credentials.

first names with two characters or less, 1,500. what is this, 80,000 working -- 87,000 active and we don't have those records. are you aware of that, mr. vitiello? mr. vitiello: this is a d.h.s. inspector general report. it's not particularly my area but i'm aware of the reporting on that subject.

mr. mica: we have people working at our airport who is are aliens, who we don't know anything about. we don't have their alien number or passport number, is that correct? in my local community, the police chiefs -- we have a big drug epidemic around the in florida and around the world. they were talking about illegal aliens. they arrest them. they detain them, they call the border patrol and they advise them they can't help and they are often just escorted to the county line. are you aware that's going on in our local communities, our local jurisdictions and borders? >> i was not, congressman. what area was this? mr. mica: central florida.

>> we are not well staffed in central florida. mr. mica: they are dumping them back in the community and you all are refusing to do anything. maybe some of it is what mr. judd described. we led them through presidential edicts, stay here and not be accountable. thank you. i yield back.

how many border patrol agents are there now on the southern border? mr. vitiello: approximately 17,000. mr. connolly: how about eight years ago? mr. vitiello: about half of that. mr. connolly: so we doubled them. in the immigration reform bill that had been worked out in the bipartisan basis and the senate would have doubled that again, is that correct? mr. vitiello: i believe so. mr. connolly: yeah. are so we double the border patrol agents. deportations that fall into record lows in that eight-year time period, mr. vitiello? mr. vitiello: i think our activity overall over the last several years has seen a reduction with the buildup of resources that we've had? mr. connolly: is it not true that in this last eight-year period we had record deportations? mr. vitiello: i've seen various reports at the numbers and i think there was a time those numbers were higher and now dropped off commensurate with the reductions. mr. connolly: because we have a more effective deterrent.

ms. acer, deportations, were they higher than in the previous eight years? ms. acer: i believe they hit around 400,000 which was an all-time high. mr. connolly: all-time high in this administration? ms. acer: yes, that's my understanding. mr. connolly: not hiding by executive order and so forth, it sounds good but there's another record to be told. going back, mr. vitiello, to your point about secure borders, so you mean to say it's harder to get into the united states, the borders are less porous because the measures were put in place including personnel are in fact more effective, is that correct?

mr. connolly: mr. mica used the point -- he used el chapo, but we hear people that had been deported including bad actors, gang activists, gang leaders, especially from el salvador and honduras who multiple times deported and multiple times re-enter the united states, deportation is not for them sort

of some penultimate punishment or deterrence for that matter. can you comment on that? what are we trying to do on repeat entrance are in fact permanently barred and deterred and we're effective at it? mr. vitiello: we do track the number of arrests people have, both for the criminal and their previous immigration history and things like the consequence delivery system we target people who we know will be repeat

offenders or recross multiple times and then seek with the assistance of the u.s. department of justice, u.s. attorney's office locally to prosecute those folks when we find them. mr. connolly: do you have a special division or a special targeting task force or system with respect to gang activities? because certainly in a lot of our communities we're worried about people, bad actors who are vicious gang members often from central america and we don't want them in our communities and we don't want them in this country and we want them back home although that causes problems, too, we understand. but are you targeting that particular subgroup? in this context? mr. vitiello: so in the context of the consequence delivery system, anybody that's a repeat offender, we seek to use the maximum effect of federal prosecutions when they're re-encounters by our officers in the united states.

so what we do is we aggregate the data to understand when that person is in front of us and the agent is doing the booking procedure when they run the fingerprints, they'll have a complete record of their previous criminal and immigration history and those that tip the scale, if you will, toward gang activity or known criminal offenses inside of that kind of criminal activity, then we'll work with local -- local u.s. attorney's office to get them prosecuted.

mr. judd, let me kind of go a little different direction here for a moment. you've noted in the past some of the challenges of securing the border on federal lands. mr. hice: specifically, what sort of obstacles do agents face when access is limited? say, to endangered species or wilderness designations? but if you go and look at arizona, if an illegal alien crosses the border, i have to get out of my vehicle, i have to call somebody and they have to

get in front of me and there are few access roads that gets us ahead of the curve and it's difficult to apprehend those individuals on protected land. mr. hice: mr. vitiello, a similar type of follow-up with you regarding federal lands, you're aware of the permitting delays on federal lands, whether it's for road maintenance or forward operating bases, mobile surveillance system, what have you, what is an acceptable period of time for permitting to take place for your agency before you've lost your tactical advantage? mr. vitiello: so in the concept of when agents are in what we call hot pursuit, when they're actively following a trail, even in a wilderness area, they have the ability to continue on that traffic.

permitting, environmental assessments for improvements that we want to make to install surveillance equipment or to access roads, etc. mr. hice: but at some point your intel becomes irrelevant if permitting takes so long -- what kind of time frame is reasonable? mr. vitiello: as soon as we can do it, as soon as possible is the best time frame. mr. hice: are you receiving cooperation? mr. vitiello: the admiral provides a mechanism to start the conversation and then work through the expectations and milestones to get things accomplished that we need to have done.

mr. ting. mr. ting: i think it's very much related to the volume of border crossers that have to be processed. i mean, we're all aware there was a tremendous border surge in f.y. 2014, and preliminary statistics show that the border surge in the current fiscal year 2016 may exceed that number. i think when you have a historic border surge that obviously stresses whatever resources are available at the border. and security risks can take advantage and penetrate our borders. simply riding the tide of high volume of processing that has to occur. and looking at f.y. 2016, i think a lot of us think we're confronting that situation this year.

i know congressman connelly was involved of criminal aliens that come across and how do you keep them from coming back. the only way to do it is secure it. the way you do it is provide agents, technology, aviation assets and you -- unity of effort and work the type of programs that will deter criminal activity. that's the only way you can actually mitigate the risks. ms. acer: could i -- mr. chairman, could i just weigh in?

mr. judd, a constituent of mine who's a d.h.s. officer contacted me. he's been working on the border. he expressed concerns about a policy, a -- with california and mexico where individuals who crossed the border illegally cannot be sent home but are processed through and then released into the u.s. with court dates as long as seven to 10 years down the road. are you aware of that policy? the catch and release policy. it's one of the driving factors that invites individuals to try to break our -- mr. walberg: is it unique to california? mr. judd: it is not.

mr. walberg: are all aliens that cross the border given notices to appear before the court? mr. judd: no, they are not. let me take that back. i'm sorry. not all illegal aliens that we arrest are given notices to appear. and there are different factors that go into that. i would -- i would generally say that if we see somebody cross the border that that individual would be given a notice to appear. but not all illegal aliens that we arrest are given notices to appear.

all they need to do is provide us an address and it can be an obscure address. for instance, in the mid 2000's we were arresting a large number of brazilians in the sue son tucson sector. a large number were giving us the same address. mr. walberg: large buildings.

mr. judd: yes. we were releasing those individuals based upon the address they were giving us. mr. walberg: i assume it's frustrating to your colleagues. mr. judd: yes. we have a c.b.p. commissioner that tells us if we don't like it we can find another job. that's even more frustrating. mr. walberg: mr. mccraw, how are the administration's efforts or enforcement priorities and release policies affecting your organization? mr. mccraw: clearly we're concerned. the governor expressed his concern about the potential syrian refugees coming to texas. there's no adequate way to properly vet them and that's a concern from a national security standpoint. and he's made it clear. we're concerned to see transnational gangs, criminal aliens, cartel, cartel operatives and drugs, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine infiltrate texas and really throughout the nation.

you're not allowed to do what you're able to do and i would assume, mr. vitiello, as well? mr. mccraw: the problem is it hasn't been properly resourced over the decades. bottom line is border security hasn't been a priority, not been a concern as it relates to multiple administrations. in today's threat environment, you can't afford not to be concerned about border security. it impacts texas, public safety impact. it impacts us from a national security standpoint, homeland security standpoint and not just texas but the rest of the nation. 2014, as a result of the change in the president's policy on immigration in 2014, we saw a surge of minors crossing the border, is that true? mr. judd: that's correct. mr. buck: do you know the percentage of those minors, from contiguous countries? mr. judd: very few. the vast majority of those are from noncontiguous countries.

they're both populations would be screened to make sure they weren't victims of human trafficking. in most cases along the border with next could he, we can facilitate their return into mexico with the assistance of

their government. and so the logistics and the turning people over to i.c.e. or to be placed with h.h.s. doesn't necessarily always occur with folks from mexico because we have a friendly neighbor and they'll -- they will facilitate bringing their citizens back. repatriating them.

mr. buck: and that's individuals in noncontiguous countries? mr. vitiello: correct. mr. buck: but many of those noncontiguous countries use the term friendly in terms of our relationship with mexico. many of those noncontiguous countries we have a friendly relationship with also? mr. vitiello: we do. mr. buck: if the law changed, we could arrange in a situation where they are not victims of human smuggling or seeking asylum, we could arrange for those individuals to be returned without going through the five to seven-year hearing process that we now have? if we just printed more money,

increased our national debt above the $19 trillion, we could take care of this problem. much simpler solution, much less costly and frankly much more humane to the individuals that are coming into this country would be to change that law and allow those individuals to return to their homes and set up policy in this country, frankly, that doesn't attract juveniles like magnets and i think it would be more humane rather than putting somebody in limbo for five years whether they don't know whether they're in this country or not. i thank the chairman and i yield back.

i want you to compare it. i'm not a part san person. i'm not under the -- we didn't get a pass in the other administration either. let me change the question. how sincere has the commitment been, both in this administration and the last administration to border security, which to me is just a basic part of being a country? mr. ting: i was going to yield to mr. judd. how serious are they about border security? i think there's a lack of concern for deterrence. i mean, i think deterrence is an important part of immigration policy. we will never have enough resources. we will never have enough border patrol agents on the line if we don't deter people from attempting to violate our laws. and so i think deterrence is part of immigration policy which has been abandoned by this administration and not been a high priority of previous administrations. one of my colleagues said the poor people of the world may be poor but they're not stupid. they're as good of doing a cost-benefit analysis as anybody in this room. they can figure it out and they're going to figure it out.

mr. grothman: i don't mean to put words in your mouth but it seems to me that at least under the last two administrations, maybe the past three administrations, while the average american knows we have a border patrol and thinks we have a border patrol because we want to have our immigration laws obeyed, there's not been a commitment for many years in this country by powerful people who presumably ran and said they wanted to enforce immigration laws for whatever reason past administrations of both parties don't really seem to care so much for enforcing our immigration laws. i don't know what is going on in their head but you can guess it's an accurate statement? mr. ting: this is the first presidential campaign that immigration has been an issue. both political parties didn't want to raise immigration because it is such an emotional and divisive issue. and really for the first time this year suddenly immigration has popped up as an issue. now maybe it is the unusual situations we've seen at the border. certainly it's the national security concerns that we're all

feeling, but i think the american people are focused on immigration and are asking, you know, why are we having such overwhelming problems at our borders and wanting something to be done about it? but i think deterrence is part of it.

i just wanted before my final 10 seconds want to correct mr. ting. i think there are a lot of republicans who want to enforce the border and i think a lot of us are very concerned about what happened under president bush and don't want another person anybody like bush representing our party in the future. thank you. mr. desantis: the gentleman's time has expired. i want to thank the witnesses. i think that this hearing was important in flushing out really some problematic aspects --

my name is elise stefanik, i'm proud to represent new york's 21st district in congress. it is an honor for me to introduce my friend, speaker of the house, paul ryan. i first got to know him in 2012 when he was selected to be vice-presidential nominee. my job was to prepare him for his vice-presidential debate. as you might imagine, a national campaign takes you to far flung corners of the country. the first session was in bend, oregon. i'd prepared reams and reams of materials, after he reviewed my material, he said, we need to dig deeper on policy. no surprises there. over the course of many weeks of debate prep, i had the honor of watching how paul would encourage his entire team to understand the pow over ideas and to raise our gaze and work toward a brighter american future.

after the 2012 election, which was disappointing to our team, i went back home to upstate new york, discouraged about the direction of our country. but i thought about my time working with paul and how at the young age of 28, paul decided to run for congress. it struck me that someone so young could make such an impact on the discourse in public policy. i was 29 at the time and instead of complaining about the state of american politics from the sidelines, i started the process of running if -- running for congress. when the odds were stacked against me, 100-1, paul encouraged, stood by, and supported me.

they have to be hardworking, they have to have integrity and they have to have political courage to put forth innovative solutions. speaker ryan embodies each of these qualities. he is a happy warrior who understands the power of an idea, the power of the american idea and american dream. please join me in welcoming my friend and our speaker, paul ryan. \[applause] mr. ryan: thank you. let's hear it for elise stefanik. don't forget to go vote.

thank you for your indulgence and thank you for your patience. we have votes on the floor right now. i want to thank elise stefanik. she is inspiring. i also want to thank all of you for coming here today. i want to thank kevin brady, my friend, the chairman of the ways and means committee, for hosting us here today. i had the privilege of joining this committee in my second term. my seat was right behind these flags. and it's a perfect setting for what i want to talk with you today about. because it is here in this committee that we debate some of the biggest, most consequential issues. we debate our tax code, health care, trade, entitlement reform, welfare reform, this is a big deal to be on this committee. people have strived to get on this committee. understanding the privilege and responsibility that came along with it, we took our jobs very seriously here on this committee. and we always held ourselves to a higher standard of decorum.

we treated each other with respect.

trying to figure out, you know, where to take my own life. i would always ask older, more experienced people, what do you know now that you wish you knew when you were my age? well, here's my answer to that question. here's what i know now that i want you to know, that you cannot maybe see yourself today. and this is not just a lesson for young minds but a message for all americans.

we can acknowledge this. but we don't have to accept this. and we can't enable it either. my dad used to always say, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. one or the other. so i have made it my mission as speaker to raise our gaze and aim for a brighter horizon. instead of talking about what politics is today, i want to talk with you about what politics can be. i want to talk about what our country can be. about what our founders envisioned it would be. america. america is the only nation founded on an idea. not on an identity. that idea is a beautiful idea. a condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. our rights are natural, they're god-given, not coming from government.

it was a beautiful idea, it had never been tried before. early on, our founders fought to establish a suitable order. they decided that we would not maintain this idea by force. in the first federalist chapter, in the first federalist paper, alexander hamilton wrote that in politics it is absurd to aim at making congress by fire or sword. instead, we would govern ourselves with the people's consent. again, there was no manual for how to do this. that's why we call this whole thing the american experiment. it is still the american experiment. so they made each other and they made those who came after take an oath to uphold the constitution. every generation since has inherited this responsibility.

leaders with different visions and ideas have come and gone. parties have risen and fallen. majorities and white houses won and lost. but the way we govern endures through debate, not disorder. this is the one thing about our country and this is one of the most important things about our country that makes it the greatest on earth. i must admit, i didn't always find this idea so exciting when i was young. as i said, i came to washington unsure of what i was going to do with my life. then i ended up working for a guy named jack kemp. he went on to represent the people from western new york but he was a quarterback for the buffalo bills. one of the great quarterbacks of his time. and then he represented the buffalo area in congress in the 1970's and 1980's. he served in the cabinet under p.h.w. bush and like me he was

one of our party's nominees for vice president. i first met jack kemp exactly where you would expect -- at tortilla coast. it was true. i was waiting tables. like you, i had student loans coming out of school. i had a few jobs. i was a waiter and i waited on jack kemp. i didn't bother him that day but i told a friend, one day i would love to have a chance of working for that man. as luck would have it, such an opening came up. the thing about jack was that he was an optimist all the way. he refused to accept that any part of america or the american idea could ever be written off. here was a conservative willing, no, no, here was a conservative eager to go to america's bleakest communities and talk about how free enterprise would lift people out of poverty. these were areas in the country that had not seen a republican lead for the years, if ever. i accompanied jack on these trip, i saw how people looked up to him he found common cause

with poverty fighters on the ground. instead of a sense of difficult i at that time began to feel a sense of purpose. jack inspired me to develop my professional life to public policy. it became a vocation to me. ideas. passionately promoted. put to the test. that's what politics can be. that's what our country can be. it can be a confident america where we have a basic faith in politics and our leaders. that sounds like a long distance from where we are right now, doesn't it? it can be a place where we have earned that faith, all of us, as leaders. all of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and decency.

instead of playing to your anxieties, we can appeal to your aspirations. instead of playing the identity politics of our base versus their base, we unite people around ideas and principles. and instead of being timid, we go bold. we don't just resort to scaring you, we dare to inspire you. we don't just oppose someone or something, we propose a clear and compelling alternative. and we don't just win your support, we win the argument. we win your enthusiasm. we win hearts and minds. we win a mandate to do what needs to be done to protect the american idea. in a confident america we also have a basic faith in one another. that's one of the most important lessons i would love to confer to you. we question each other's ideas vigorously but we don't question each other's motives. if someone has a bad idea, we don't think that they're a bad person.

we just think they have a bad idea. people with different ideas, they're not traitors. they're not our enemies. they're our neighbors, our co-workers, our fellow citizens. sometimes they're our friends. sometimes they're even our own flesh and blood, right? we all know someone who we love who disagrees with us politically or who votes differently. but in a confident america, we are not afraid to disagree with each other. we don't lock ourselves into an echo chamber. we don't go into the echo chamber and just tell us what we want to hear where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. we dent shut down on people. and we don't shut people down. if someone has a bad idea, well, why don't we tell them why our idea is bet her we don't insult them into agreeing with us. we try to persuade them. we test their assumptions.

and while we're at it, we test our own assumptions too. i'm certainly not going to stand here and tell you i have always met this standard myself. there was a time that i would talk about a difference between makers and takers in our country. referring to people who accepted government benefits, but as i spend more time listening, really learning the root causes of poverty, i realized something. i realized that i was wrong. takers wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, trying to take care of her own family. most people don't want to be dependent. to label a whole group of americans that way was wrong. i shouldn't castigate a large group of americans just to make a point. so i stopped talking about it that way. and i stopped thinking about it that way. but i didn't come out and say this to be politically correct. i say this because i was just wrong. and of course there are still

going to be times when i and you and we say things we wish we hadn't. there are still going to be times i follow the wrong impulse. governing ourselves was never meant to be easy. this has always been a tough business. when passions flare, ugliness is sometimes inevitable. but we shouldn't accept ugliness as the norm. we should demand better from ourselves. we should demand better from one another. we should think about the great leaders that have bestowed upon us the opportunity to live the american idea. we should honor their legacy. we should build that more confident america. this as much as anything is what makes me an optimist. in knowing that ideas can inspire a country and help people. long before i worked for him, jack kemp had a tax plan that he was incredibly passionate about. you have to remember this about jack kemp. he wasn't even on the ways and means committee, the committee here that writes our tax laws.

republicans were deep in the minority back then. so the odds of it going anywhere seemed remotely low, awfully low. but he was like a dog with a bone he believed passionately in his ideas even though the odds were stacked against him. he took that plan to any audience he could get in front of. he pushed it so hard that he eventually inspired our party's nominee for president, ronald reagan, to adopt it as his own. and in 1981, the jack kemp tax law was signed into law. all it took was someone to put policy on paper, someone willing to put an idea on paper and to promote it passionately. this is the basic concept behind the policy agenda that house republicans are building right now. as leaders, we have an obligation to put our best ideas forward no matter the consequences. with so much at stake, the american people deserve a very clear picture of what we believe, of what we would do.

personalities, personalities come and go. but principles, principles endure. ideas endure. ready to inspire generations yet to be born. that's the thing about politics. we think of politics in terms of this vote or this election. but it can be so much more than that. politics can be a battle of ideas, not a battle of insults. it can be about solutions. it can be about making a difference. it can be about always striving to do better. that's what it can be and that's what it should be. this is a system our founders envisioned. it's messy. it's complicated. it is infuriating at times. but it's a beautiful thing too. thank you all for being here today. really appreciate it. \[applause]

for the young folks in the audience, i'd love to answer some of your questions. go ahead. i can repeat it if you can't get it out. >> first of all, thank you for having this, this has been an awesome thing. i'm already geeking out over the fact that i'm about to ask the speaker of the house a question. so you talk about introducing civility in politics. is that more incumbent on the american people, the students, the candidates who is it more incumbent upon? mr. ryan: the founders created this new american idea, an amazing thing, unprecedented, never been done before. guess what, it's our job to preserve it.

so sometimes today we see a politics that is degrading a politics that's going to the base, the basest of our emotions of what disunifies us, not unifies us. here's our job. as leaders, we need to raise our gaze, raise our game, and talk about ideas and try to unite us. not prey on people' separations or identities. your job as a young person, finding your way in life, is not impugn another person's motives. it's to listen and to try to persuade. it's to accept that people think differently, they may have different ideas. they're not bad people. and that's unfortunately what is occurring all too often in our society today. so your job and each and every one of our jobs as citizens is to respect other people's opinions, be passionate about our principles and ideas and go and advocate for them without impugning another person's motives. our job as leaders is to offer a clear and compelling agenda, to talk about ideas and not to trade insults.

they think you need a mic. >> my name is justin, i'm from congressman greg walton's office. thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. you talk about confidence and optimism, i'm not going to ask you to name names or speak in specifics about the presidential election but just as our generation, how can we be confident that after this presidential election, that our generation can enter into an optimistic america, politically? mr. ryan: this is what inspired me to get into public service as a vocation, as i mentioned. i lost my dad when i was young

so i grew up with mentors. jack kemp was one of my mentors. what inspired me to public service, among other people, was jack kemp and his sense of passion and optimism for good ideas, for making a difference in people's lives and having meaning. that's what politics should be, what it can be, what it has been. and that's what if we all work together and focus on it it can be again. the point i'm trying to make here is that right now, our sense of politics, and this isn't just the right or just the left, this is happening all across our country. we are slipping into being a divisive country. we are speaking to each other in echo chambers where we only talk to those who agree with us and we think that there's something wrong with people who don't agree with us. we question and impugn motives instead of test theories and ideas. that is where it doesn't need to be and where it wasn't and where it shouldn't be. so the whole point i would make is, if we're going to keep this beautiful american experiment

going, we're going to have to stay unified as a country that does not mean we have to agree with the same ideas or polities or candidates. it means we need to raise our respect for one another, our public discourse, so that we can get a better outcome at the end of the day. our founders were very clear about this. they made us this beautiful system. the system only works if we participate in the system with mutual respect for one another. anybody on this side? how about over there. >> thank you for being with us today, speaker ryan. i currently intern, kind of like you did, for congressman walberg's office. my question for you is one of leadership and certainly with this most recent leadership role you've assumed confers a lot of

responsibility on you and your personal axiom to be part of the solution, not part of the problem confers even more responsibility on you. i think a true mark of leadership is learning from a failure. you speak of a willingness to be persuaded when your idea is perhaps not the best idea or the ability to persuade somebody when you think your idea is the better idea. so my question is, when has there been a moment in your career in politics or otherwise that you've been persuaded that one of your ideas or one of the things that you've done, perhaps wasn't the best idea and learned from that? mr. ryan: i can give you two examples. i mentioned one in the speech which was i fell into the trap of thinking about makers and takers in the wrong way. about people who are struggling and for a moment need to be dependent on government who don't want to be. i was callous and oversimplified and i castigated people with a broad brush. that's wrong. there's a lot of that happening in america today. i myself have made that mistake.

i think one of the policy examples of your question is, i spent the last two years touring poor communities around america. rural areas, inner cities, learning about just how people are trying to struggle with poverty. and one of the things i learned was, there are a lot of people who have been in prison who have committed crimes, that were not violent crimes, and who once they have that blight on their record, that they've been in prison, their future is really bleak. and in the 1990's, i came here in the late 1990's, we, i think, overcompensated on some of our criminal justice laws. i think we overcompensated on some of the laws where we had so many mandatory minimums and three strikes you're out that we ended up putting people for long prison terms which ends up ruining their life and hurting their communities where we could have had alternative means of incarceration, better means of dealing with the problem than basically destroying a person's life.

so that is why i have become more of a late convert to criminal justice reform. it's something i never thought about when i was young for the congress. it's something i thought just be tough on crime, be tough on crime. i think we as republicans and democrats kind of overcompensated on this in the 1990's. now that we see the path of the -- the pathology that's come from that, i think we have to go back and fix that. that's why as speaker, i talked to bob goodlatte about this last night, we're going to bring criminal justice reform bills which are now out of the judiciary committee to the house floor and advance this. what we're learning is, what i learned, i didn't necessarily know this before, is redemption is a beautiful thing. it's a great thing. redemption is what makes this place work. this place being america. society. and we need to honor redemption and we need to make redemption something that is valued in our culture and our society and in our laws.

and that is why i think criminal justice reform, something that i change my position on from learning about the power of redemption and the fact that our laws got this wrong, that's something we can improve, so that when a young man comes out of prison a person who is not a violent criminal, who did something where we he really needed addiction counseling, needed some other kinds of mentoring, maybe faith that he can actually go back and be a product i member of society, be a good husband and good father. make a difference. reach his potential. that's something we want to see more of and i think our laws need to reflect that. i think i learned a good lesson about that over the last few years. the guy with the bow tie. oh, by the way, if you're a michigan state fan -- yeah, so what happened? i picked them to win the whole darn thing in my bracket so my brackets are destroyed because of that. good grief.

[laughter] >> my name is jim betancourt i'm with representative steve king and trent franks. my question is, you talked about poverty and helping people rise up. how does your faith impact your role as speaker and when you assumed that and i heard that you were in a duck blind and i hunt -- mr. ryan: deer blind. deer stand. >> was it your faith that just said, yes i should do this? or how did you -- mr. ryan: catholic guilt had a part of this. to be very clear, i'm catholic. you can't in my mind separate your faith from your daily walk in life. from your personal, private, public life. it's one and the same. so in my -- i'm a christian who chooses to practice christianity as a practicing catholic. and we have certain principles

that i think are very important that apply very well to what we do in public life as lay catholics. and that is the principles of sincerity, solidarity, preferential option for the poor. what it means is, people. people are the solutions. it's one of the reasons why i'm a conservative. one of the reasons why i passionately believe in the constitution and concept of federalism. it's in perfect keeping with my tenets of my faith, which is, whether it's fighting poverty eye to eye, soul to soul, groups on the ground, poverty fighters, or making sure that we don't have a big, arrogant, paternalistic, condescending government that is taking power from our lives, power from our communities and displacing, it gives me a sense of philosophy that's grounded in my faith but also a sense of how i should conduct myself personally and publicly. i think they're inseparable, number one, and number two, you're always going to fail.

and when you fail and after you failed you ask for forgiveness and try to pick up and improve yourself going forward. to me, it's an inseparable thing. first i'm a husband and father. then i'm a public servant. that's just the way i order these things in my mind. using these principles, i think, gives me a sense of how to conduct myself. i'm going to do a bad job all the time but i'm always going to try to improve upon the mistakes i've made. any ladies? right there. >> what role do you think members of congress have in bringing our nation together as it seems so divided? mr. ryan: i think how we conduct ourselves personally is very important. i think we set example and lead by example. but also, you have to understand who we are, especially here in the house. we are the part of government that's closest to the people. we are the part of government that is up for election every

other year so we're closest to the people and we are the voice. what we have to remember is, as representatives of the people, we're also leaders. we serve in a constitutional republic. and that means members of congress, i think, need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. this is what we're laboring to do here in the house republican conference which is, we see problems in america, we think the country is headed in the wrong direction and as members of this congress we believe most people agree with us by virtue of us being here. i think polls show seven of 10 americans believe america is headed in the wrong direction. ok, then as members of congress it's not our job to just say, we're as angry as everybody else, or to just put gas on the fire. it is our job to channel this concern, this fear this anger into solutions. into ideas on how to fix it. this is what our job as members of congress is if we don't like the direction the country is going if we don't like this particular policy or that trend, what are we going to do to fix it?

how are we going to be part of the solution? if we in congress can't get that right, how can we expect the people that we represent to do it as well? if we can't raise our gaze, raise the tone of our rhetoric, the tenor of debate and offer real, concrete ideas and solutions to fix our country's problems, then how can we expect anybody else to do the same? so that is why through leadership by example i think members of congress need to be part of the solution by putting an agenda out there that says, america, we have problems that we can fix and we need to do this together, we need to unify. what really bothers me the most of politics these days is this notion of identity politics. that we are going to win an election by dividing people, that we will win an election by talking to people in ways that separate them from other people rather than inspiring people on our common humanity and common ideals and common culture and things that could unify us.

we all want to be prosperous. we all want to be healthy. we want people to reach potential in their lives. what do we do to get policies that achieve that? liberals and conservatives are going to disagree. no problem. this is what that is all about. of hasot a contest better ideas and why. that is the things we're trying to do. how about over there in the sweater? >> aside how changing approach -- aside from changing people's ideas, what other changes can we make to get rid of legislative gridlock. it is opening up the

rule process. i made a decision not to determine -- nothing at the leadership determine the outcome of everything. that is what happened. i came in 1998. more measures of congress could bring things to the floor. , in we lost the majority think they consolidated power greatly. i remember sitting here on this committee commiserating with democrats with how the legislation was losing power to shape their ideas in legislation. when we retook the majority, i don't think we decentralized power enough. i think we kept that consolidation of power. what i am laboring to do is change the culture of this institution to decentralized power so ideas are done in committee and brought forward by members of congress.

that cultural changes going to get a better result at the end of the day. perhaps a less predictable result, but a better job. most people who become speaker work their way up leadership ladder, which is a fine path to take in congress. i never saw myself doing that. i saw myself as a policymaker hoping to be a chairman of this committee. you spend your time in congress focusing. trades,re a jack of all you make yourself a mile wide and an inch deep. that is not an effective way to be an effective policymaker to make this a good location. you need to specialize. what you do? you go on the committee in the area that you care about the policies. this is why i think these committee should be the one writing the policies. if you care about these policies , you should do something about it by having an amendment on the floor.

if leadership consolidates the power and short-circuits that process, i feel like this institution is short-circuited. this institution does not function at its full potential. that is one of the reasons why i decided to take this job, because i want to see that kind of leadership change occur. it is not easy to do. change in culture is hard to do, but we have made a great deal of progress. the last five months, we got the biggest transportation bill we got since the mid-1990's. the most comprehensive rewrite of our k-12 laws in 25 years. we rewrote customs and border thaton international trade we have been trying to change for decades. we had a big medicaid problem that 17 times, we kept patching it. we finally permanently fixed it. by letting policymakers right

policy, we have a better result. 120 minutes to the highway bill. i have no idea what the outcome of the highway bill would have been. we ended up having over 300 votes. by loosening control, decentralizing power, subsidiarity, so to speak, letting people do their jobs, i think you get a better outcome. the tenor and quality of debate improves as well. [applause] they tell me i have to go. thank you very much, everybody. enjoy your time here. i hope you are learning some good lessons. thank you very much. appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up tonight, the records and on homeland security and counterterrorism. the house foreign affairs

hearing on closing the u.s. detention facility at guantánamo bay, cuba. on thenian secretary president's budget request. that is followed by the nasa administrator on his department's 2017 budget request. tomorrow, it is russian activist iliya onrushn under president putin. vice president biden delivers a ofeech on his support supreme court nominee merrick garland. >> the need for horses on farms

began to decline radically in the 1930's. it was not until the 1930's that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on the tractor. 1930's and 1942, they had almost a complete replacement of horses as the work animal on farms. bookselieve in one of my on horses, we had something like a horse holocaust, that the horses were no longer needed and we did not get rid of them in a very pretty way. discusses hison book "the rise and fall of american growth, which looks at growth and the standard of american living between 1870 and 1970 and questions its future. >> one thing that interests people is the impact of

superstorm sandy on the east coast back in 2012. that wiped out that the 20th century for many people. the elevators no longer worked in new york. the electricity stopped. you could not charge your cell phone. you could not pump gas into your car because it required electricity to pump the gas. electricity and the internal combustion engine to make modern life possible is something that people take for granted. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. attackswing the terror in brussels, hillary clinton had inpeech on counterterrorism stanford university. she denounced the attacks and reaffirmed her support for nato. this is about 45 minutes. pleasees and gentlemen,

welcome to the stage michael mcfall, and hillary clinton. [applause] >> welcome to be freely spoken nonpartisan interdisciplinary research institute. tragically, as we were reminded in brussels yesterday, countering terrorism remains one

of the biggest security challenges of our era. dedicated to -- in the future we look forward to hosting other candidates and advisors.isor i first met secretary clinton as when she delivered her daughter to the farm, as we call it here, as a freshman. she won't remember, but i told her to have her daughter take my course on russian politics. i joked that it was an easy a. chelsea never did take my course. [laughter] years later, i had the opportunity many times to discuss all things russian with her mother. washington, moscow,

st. petersburg, and vladivostok. it is a true honor for me to welcome back to stanford university secretary hillary clinton. [applause] ms. clinton: thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you for the introduction, but more than that, for your service to our country and our partnership during the four years i served as secretary of state. what happens and vladivostok stays and let a stock -- stays in vladivostok. i am delighted to be here at stanford. i will never forget the day we first brought chelsea here. i brought her to visit when she was thinking about school, but i knew as soon as she saw stanford

where if she was fortunate admitted, she would choose to come. when bill and i brought her here to begin the freshman year and the dinner for parents that mike is referring to. back.a great treat to be now that my daughter is a mother herself, you can imagine there is already talk among one or two numbers of our family, since her alum ad is also an stanford, how good charlotte would look in cardinal red. [laughter] i am delighted to be here with some very distinguished guests. secretary scholz, secretary. -- secretary perry.

thank you for being here with us. to bereally a great treat not only at the university, but at this particular institute as well. you have really made stanford a national security scholarship. that is the principal reason why i am here today. yesterday's attack in brussels was the latest brutal reminder that our fight against isis and radical jihadist terrorism is far from finished. more than 30 innocent people are dead. men and women are hurrying to catch a plane, waiting for a train, or meeting a loved one. hundreds more are wounded, including three mormon missionaries from utah, a u.s. air force officer, his wife and four children, and other americans.

it is understandable that americans here at home are worried. the face we threat -- the threat we face from terrorism israel and knows no boundaries. even as brussels greaves, the memories of paris and san bernardino are painfully fresh as well. on saturday, a bombing in istanbul killed four people, including two u.s.-israeli do citizens. africa.nd west beaches in tunisia a russian jet in the sinai. genocide ofmpting a .eligious and ethnic minorities it enslaves and rates women and girls.

walls cannot protect us from this threat. we cannot contain isis. we must defeat isis. this will be one of the most important challenges for our new president. our commander in chief will walk into the oval office and find a world of hard choices and complex problems. that president will sit down at the desk and start making decisions that will affect the lives and livelihoods of every american and people around the world. the stakes could not be higher. today, i want to emphasize three points. first, we face an adversary that is constantly adapting an operating across multiple theaters. our response must be as noble and far reaching. to defeat this transnational

threat, we need to reinforce the alliances that have been core pillars of american power for decades. third, we need to rely on what actually works, not bluster that alienates our partners and does not make us any safer. let's begin by being clear about what we are facing. shrinking buta still sizable territory in iraq and syria. it leaves a far-flung network that includes affiliates across the middle east and africa and sells in europe, asia, and even in north america. it is also part of a broader ideological movement that includes other terrorist groups. we need to do battle on all these fronts. , in speeches in new york in minneapolis, i laid out a three-part land to defeat isis

in the middle east, around the world, and here at home. recent events have only reinforced the urgency of this mission. we do have to take out isis' stronghold in syria. we should intensify the coalition. we should step up support for local arab and kurdish forces on the ground, and coalition efforts to protect civilians. strategy aimed at iraq's sectarian divide. second, we must dismantle the global network of terror that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters. this means targeted efforts to deal with isis' affiliates from libya to afghanistan. it means going after the key enablers who facilitate illicit financial transactions and help jihadists to arrange travel,

forge documents and evade detections, and it means waging online battles with extremists to discredit their ideology, expose their lies and counter their appeals to potential recruits in the west and around the world. third, we must harden our defenses and build our resilience here at home. we need to counter each step in the process that can lead to an attack. deterring would-be terrorists and discovering and disrupting plots before they're carried out. our enemies are constantly adapting, so we have to do the same. for example, brussels demonstrated clearly we need to take a harder look at security protocols at airports and other sensitive so-called soft sites, especially areas outside guarded perimeters.

to do all this, we need an intelligence surge and so do our allies. we also have to stay ahead of the curve technologically. that does mean work can go with the brightest minds here in silicon valley to more effectively track and analyze isis' social media posts and map jihadist networks online. when other candidates talk about building walls around america, i want to ask them -- how high does the wall have to be to keep the internet out? and we also have to tackle a thorny challenge that is top of mind here in the bay area. navigating the security and civil liberties' concerns surrounding the encryption of mobile devices and communications. impenetrable encryption provides significant cybersecurity advantages but may also make it harder for law enforcement and

counterterrorism professionals to investigate plots and prevent future attacks. isis knows this too. at the same time, there are legitimate worries about privacy, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors, including terrorists, can exploit. there may be no quick or magic fix. in the app case, the f.b.i. may have found a work-around. there may be different be challenges. so the tech community and the federal government has to stop seeing each other as adversaries and work together to protect our safety and our privacy. a national commission on encryption, like senator mark warner and congressman mike mccaul are proposing could help. and our security professionals could use the advice and talents of technology professionals to help us figure out how we do

stay ahead of the terrorists. our fight against radical jihadist terrorists will be long, and there is very real risk of future attacks here at home. but pursuing this comprehensive strategy will put us in the best position to defeat isis and keep our families and communities safe. you know, this is a very personal issue for me. having served as a senator from new york on 9/11, having seen the horrors that were produced by a well-planned and executed attack on our country, knowing how important it is that we do stay ahead of those who wish to do us great harm without panic, without paranoia but with resolve, not to give in to the very behaviors that the terrorists are hoping to

engender. we can't let fear stop us from doing what's necessary to keep us safe, nor can we let it push us into reckless actions that end up making us less safe. for example, it would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the middle east. if we've learned anything from iraq and afghanistan, it's that people and nations have to secure their own communities. we can and i argue must support them, but we can't substitute for them. it would also be a serious mistake to begin carpet bombing populated areas into oblivion. proposing that doesn't make you sound tough.

it makes you sound like you're in over your head. slogans aren't a strategy. loose cannons tend to misfire. what america needs is strong, smart, steady leadership to wage and win this struggle. to do that we need to strengthen america's alliances in europe, asia and around the world, and that is the second point i want to emphasize. on 9/11, nato treated an attack against one as an attack against all. on september 12, headlines across europe, most notably in limon, proclaimed we are all americans. there were very few planes in the air that day but one was a british jet carrying the u.k.'s top national security leaders to washington to offer any help they could. now it's our turn to stand with europe. we cherish the same values and face the same adversaries, so we must share the same determination. this is especially true at a time when europe faces multiple overlapping crises.

from president putin's aggression in ukraine to the massive influx of refugees to continuing economic challenges to the rise of right-wing nationalist parties. we have made so much progress together toward the goal of a europe that is free, whole and at peace, and we can't risk letting it fall apart now. for decades, republican and democratic administrations have understood that america's alliances make us stronger. secretary schultz compared the slow, steady work of building diplomatic relationships to gardening. he knew that when you cultivate effective partners you can harvest real rewards. allies extend our reach, sharing intelligence, provide troops in conflicts like afghanistan, offer bases and staging areas

around the world for our military and serve as a partner against competitors like russia and china. and by the way, both moscow and beijing know our global network of alliances is a significant strategic advantage they can't match. nato, in particular, is one of the best investments america has ever made, from the balkans to afghanistan and beyond, nato allies have fought alongside the united states, sharing the burdens and the sacrifices. in the 1990's, secretary perry helped guide nato's expansion based on the alliance's core tenants of collective defense, democracy, consensus and cooperative security. they became known as the perry principles, and they're still at the heart of what makes nato the most successful alliance in history. turning our back on our alliances or turning our

alliance into a protection racket would reverse decades of bipartisan american leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike. putin already hopes to divide europe. if mr. trump gets his way, it will be like christmas in the kremlin. it will make america less safe and the world more dangerous. when it comes to the struggle against isis, we need our allies as much as ever. we need them to be strong and engaged for they are increasingly on the front lines. london, paris, madrid, brussels, istanbul, they've all been hit by terrorism. and as we saw when a terrorist cell in hamburg carried out the 9/11 attacks, what happens in europe has a way of making it to america. so it's essential that we have strong partners who can work

with us to disrupt plots and dismantle networks in their own countries before they lead to attacks in ours. america needs european intelligence services working hand in hand with our own, including where they may have better reach and expertise, like in north africa. we need european banks to stop terrorist financing. we need european planes flying missions over iraq and syria, and european special forces helping train and equip local anti-isis forces on the ground. we need european diplomats and development experts working to improve governance and reduce the appeal of extremism across the wide arc of instability that stretches from west africa all the way to asia. together we can do more and more urgently to support moderate voices and stand with tunisians, libyans, kurds and others in the region who are trying to do the right thing.

and as we should, of course, be closely consulting with israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, we also have to extend our consultation to arab partners as well. all of this will make america safer and help defeat isis. there's much we can do to support our european partners, helping them improve intelligence and law enforcement, facilitating in information sharing, working more closely at every level. there's also more they can do to share the burden with us. we'd like to see more european countries investing in defense and security, following the example germany and others have set during the obama administration. the most urgent task is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the middle east. thousands of young recruits have flocked to syria from france, germany, belgium and the united kingdom. their european passports make it

easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home. radicalized and battle-hardened. we need to know the identities of every fighter who makes that trip and start revoking passports and visas. stemming this tide will require much better coordination among every country along the way. right now, many european nations don't even alert each other when they turn away a suspected jihadist at the border or when a passport is stolen. turkey a nato ally, still has , work to do to control the border where most foreign fighters cross into syria. after the paris attacks, france and belgium pledged to move forward together with reforms but that's difficult without the , european union. in january, the e.u. announced a new integrated counterterrorism center but intelligence cooperation still lags.

and the e.u. keeps delaying a vote to share traveler information between member states. it's actually easier for the united states to get flight manifests from e.u. nations than it is for e.u. nations to get them from their own neighbors. thanks to an agreement that the united states negotiated when i was secretary of state. there also has to be a special emphasis on identifying and investing in the hot spots, the specific neighborhoods, prisons, and schools where recruitment happens in clusters as we've seen in brussels. and it's time to make good on the promise of establishing a new unified european border and coast guard, to strengthen the continent's external borders which are under unprecedented pressure from refugees and migrants. now this is a heartbreaking crisis.

last year, the world was horrified by the photo of a drowned toddler lying on a turkish beach. in the months since then, hundreds more children have died trying to reach safety. we've seen europe and syria's neighbors in the middle east struggle under the weight of this challenge. it's too big for any one country or even continent to handle alone. i'm glad that the e.u. and turkey are now working closely together and the united states should do whatever we can to support that. the only truly effective answer is to go to the source, end the conflict that's displacing all these people. so we have to support and maintain the cease fire in syria and we should work with our coalition partners and opposition forces on the ground to create safe areas where syrians can remain in the country rather than fleeing toward europe. in the meantime, it would be

wrong to shut our doors to orphans or to apply religious tests to people fleeing persecution. that's not who we are. but of course we have to be vigilant in screening and vetting everyone. we can't allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and humanitarian obligations, but we also have to be smart and vigilant about how we process people into our country. it would be doubly cruel if isis could not only force families from their homes but also prevent them from ever finding new ones. and that brings me to my third point. in our fight against radical jihadism, we have to do what actually works. one thing we know that does not work is offensive inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all muslims. there are millions of peace-loving muslims living, working, raising families and

paying taxes in this country. these americans are a crucial line of defense against terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the warning signs of radicalization before it's too late and the best positioned to block it. last year in minneapolis, i met parents, teachers, imams and -american the somali community who are working with law enforcement professionals and others to intervene with young people at risk of being radicalized. efforts like that deserve more local and national support. since 9/11, law enforcement has worked hard to build trustful and strong relationships with american muslim communities. as the director of the f.b.i. told congress, anything that erodes that trust makes their job more difficult. we need every american community invested in this fight, not fearful and sitting on the

sidelines. so when republican candidates like ted cruz call for treating american muslims like criminals, and for racially profiling predominantly muslim neighborhoods, it's wrong, it's counterproductive, it's dangerous. as a spokesman for the new york police department pointed out last night, that kind of blanket bigotry would treat the city's nearly 1,000 muslim police officers as threats. it's hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement, he said. commissioner bill bratton of the nypd was even more blunt this morning. he said, senator cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. demonizing muslims also alienates partners and moderates we need around the world in the fight against isis.

there's been a lot of talk from both republicans and democrats about building coalitions with muslim nations. having actually done this, i can tell you, insulting allies and partners is not a good way to start. another thing we know that does not work based on lots of empirical evidence is torture. many intelligence, military and law enforcement experts have attested to this fact. it also puts our own troops and increasingly our own civilians at greater risk. i'm proud to have been part of the administration that banned torture after too many years in which we had lost our way. if i'm president, the united states will not condone or practice torture anywhere in the world. even when we're up against opponents who don't respect human life or human rights, torture is not the right choice.

as senator john mccain has said, the high standard to which we hold ourselves isn't about our enemies. it's about us. it's about who we were, who we are, and who we aspire to be. america is a great nation. and this is time for american leadership. smart, strong, steady leadership. no other country can rally allies and partners to defeat isis and win the generational struggle against radical jihaddist terrorism. only the united states can mobilize common action on a global scale. in defense of our people and our values. america doesn't cower in fear or hide behind walls. we lead and we succeed. throughout our history, we have stared into the face of evil and refused to blink.

whether it was fascism, the cold war, or hunting down osama bin laden. and we will defeat isis too. no enemy or adversary should ever underestimate the determination of the american people. i will never forget what it was like to arrive in brussels for the first time as secretary of state in march of 2009. i was on my way to nato. nato headquarters was buzzing. hundreds of young people at the european parliament had stood and cheered, not for me, but for the idea of american leadership, for the promise of an alliance that delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity on both sides of the atlantic. that's what we need to remember today. americans cannot and i believe will not turn on each other, turn on our allies, or turn away

from our principles. we're in it for the long haul and that means we're going to work together and we're going to prevail. this may be another one of the long struggles that we have confronted from time to time in our history, but like all the rest of those, we can forge a bipartisan consensus, if we can bring our people to understand what this struggle means to us, if we can maintain our alliances and our partnerships, we will be successful. and that will benefit not only our country but the world and that, when you boil it down is what american leadership has to be about. thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> i think the most important issue in the campaign is the mentoring crisis in syria. it is our duty as a privileged people to help those in need. >> i think the most important

issue should be the national debt and how they plan on recovering from the recession. i am really excited. i am not sure who i like yet. i'm anxious to see what happens. >> cut policy is the top of the agenda for the national lieutenant governors association this week in washington. lieutenant governors from across the country take part in panels on the relationship between their states and the federal government. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span2. the supreme court heard oral argument today in a case challenging the hope care laws lawsadict -- contraception

deal. >> i am reverend rob schenk, s-c-h-e-n-k, president of the national clergy council. thousands of evangelical orthodox, church leaders. we signed onto a petition supporting father frank pallone and priest for life because two questions are at stake here. religious freedom and the right of conscience are at stake in this case and father pavone will make comments of what we observed in the courtroom. >> national director of priest for life of the 37 petitioners in this morning's case, we were the first ones to issue a legal challenge to the h.h.s. mandate. and part of our case is dr. king, the niece of martin luther king jr. she is a petitioner this morning because this is about freedom.

this is not about us imposing any kind of restrictions on our employees. this is not about us denying them anything. this is about insisting that the government not impose its pressure on us to violate our faith. a believer should not be forced by the government to have to choose between following its faith and following the law. i was very encouraged by what i heard inside. the chief justice pressed very hard, acknowledging that what we're saying is that the government is hijacking our insurance plans. it would be the very same plan that we are offering our employees now that would become the vehicle for the contraceptive and abortion coverage. that's the point. it's our plan. it's not a different plan, and the chief justice pressed that point very hard. even justice kennedy referred to the word hijacking. he said, is this not hijacking the plan of those who object to

these services? it's very important to understand, it is not the government that is the judge of whether our religious beliefs are accurate or valid. this court has said that many times. we're the believer who is the judge of that. our listeners and our people now enter into a period of prayer and we launched a major prayer campaign, supremecourtvictory.com and we're going to be following up on this. bottom line, we will not obey this mandate no matter how this court rules but we believe, based on what we just heard, it's going to be a split 4-4 decision. thank you very much. i'm father frank pavone of priest of life. >> i'm with the beckett fund for religious liberty and we represent the little sisters of the poor. right now we'll have mother loraine mcgwire give a statement. it's loraine l-o-r-a-i-n-e, maguire, m-a-g-u-i-r-e. thank you.

>> hello. my name is sister loraine marie claire. the lord gave me a calling. that's little sisters of the poor. we are a group of women who make religious vows to god and we dedicate ourselves to serve the elderly poor, caring for them regardless of race or religion, offering them a home where they're welcomed as christ, they're cared for as our own family and we accompany them until god calls him home to himself. you know, we've done this work for over 175 years. so, you know, now we find ourselves in a situation where the government is requiring us to make changes in our health care -- our religious health care plan to include services that really violate our deepest

held religious beliefs as sisters. you know, it's hard for us to understand why the government is doing this. there are 1/3 of americans in our country that are not covered by this mandate, and, you know, there is large corporations such as visa and exxon, pepsi that are fully exempt from the mandate but yet we are threatened. the government is threatening us with fines of over $70 million a year. so you know, it's such a privilege. it's a privilege for us to care for the most vulnerable members of our society, serving them, comforting them, just being a loving and healing presence in their everyday lives, just being their little sister every day is our joy. and really that's all we want to continue to do.

that's our motive is to continue our work as we've always done it. so after hearing today's hearing, the case, we are hopeful for a positive outcome today. and you know, our mother's founders taught us and said the work is god's. he will help us. so we put our trust in him. he'll be there for us as he's always been for 175 years. so thank you very much. thank you. god bless you. >> gretchen, vice president for reproductive rights and health with the national women's law center. we filed a brief in this case on behalf of 68 organizations. women deserve insurance coverage of birth control no matter where they work. this birth control benefit has been a game changer for women. it has advanced women's health, advanced women's equality and saved women over $1 billion in one year alone. these employers want to take that benefit away from their employees. the alternatives that

they proposed in court today are unworkable and frankly insulting. if their view prevails, they'll return their employees to the battle days of sex discrimination in health care. if the supreme court follows its own logic in the hobby lobby decision, the outcome is clear. no boss's religious beliefs will trump a woman's access to essential health care. thank you. >> miss, before you leave, a question? one of the arguments they give is they can get this insurance through the state exchanges. why isn't that a less offensive alternative? >> i think there's two things. one, there isn't an insurance plan expressly for contraceptives and secondly, that's treating women different than anyone that has a service. that's in essence saying other health care insurance is through this one plan but if you want

contraception, you have to go out separately and buy a separate plan. that's like saying women have to go through the back door in order to get the care we want. it's offering an alternative that's fostering discrimination in response to something that is meant to address discrimination. >> and you are, ma'am? >> i am -- i'm louise from the aclu. i'm the deputy legal director of the american civil liberties union. we filed a brief in this case in support of the government. you all know we stand up, we defend religious exercise, but the arguments in this case are arguments we can't abide. we're just focused on one thing that justice breyer said in the case. justice breyer was asking over and over, how do we think about the line, the line between religion and its intersection in secular society? he talked about how quakers have to pay taxes even though they're opposed to war. how jehovah witnesses have to get health care for their children even though they're opposed. he talked about people having to

clear a sidewalk outside abortion clinics even if they're opposed to abortion and said, what's the line we should draw here? i think we can look to hobby lobby and we can look to other sources to say the line is to say that religious liberty doesn't mean the right to impose your views on others or the right to discriminate. if the court takes away the court says this accommodation is not permissible, the court will say this fosters discrimination. thank you. >> we will have audio from the oral argument in the little sisters of the poor supreme court case challenging the contraceptive coverage mandate this friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. for this year's student cam contrast, students produced documentaries about the campaign issues a wanted discussed. the economy, equality,

education, and immigration were top issues. thanks to the students and teachers who competed and congratulations to our winners. every day in april, one of the top 21 winning entries will air at 6:50 a.m. on c-span. tomorrow, it is russian activist at a talkcian ilia hosted by the atlantic council in washington. nooncoverage tomorrow at on c-span three. vice president joe biden delivers a speech on his support of supreme court nominee merrick garland at georgetown law tomorrow. we will have live coverage at 12:30 eastern on c-span and c-span

radio. >> this committee will come to order. race to emptya's the guantanamo bay detention facility is on. in recent weeks and months, many hardened terrorists have been released. many of them have been sent abroad, and according to the president post closure plan sent to congress last month, another 35 are said to be transferred this summer. many ofately, we know the recipient countries don't have the desire or commitment, or even ability, to monitor these dangerous individuals and prevent them from returning to the battlefield. countries like