Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140428

Periods. Quitetrue, they are gone a bit. Right now, they are really in the one solid work going to of the year, eight or nine weeks where either the house or senate or both are in session in washington. It is absolutely true they spent a lot of time not in washington. Guest i am sure a lot of them would argue that they need to spend time in washington not in washington, in their home district. It is an avenue of criticism that we hear. The president gets criticized when he goes on vacation as well. Im not sure it is fair to say that all those 137 days are not necessarily vacation. Thing, whenther they are back in their districts, they can do a lot of constituent work. There is not much happening in washington. When they are back home, at least they can help something. Host a related story in the washington post. They found 60 of americans say they are inclined to look around for somebody else in the midterm elections, including the majority of democrats, republicans, and independents. Is congress more or less unpopular . Guest it is always unpopular, but when you look at whether people get reelected, almost overwhelmingly, nine out of 10 people get reelected. Yes people are frustrated and they want to shop around, but at the end of day, they go back to the same store and buy the same clothes that they have been buying forever. In texas, the oldest member of congress ever, 93 years old, facing a a party challenger. He is 90, still kicking out on the trail, but perhaps it is time for another page. He may be retired later this month against his wishes, but he has been there for a very long time. It is gephardt it is hard it is hard getting rid of members of congress. Guest we talked about the rollout of health care earlier. That has had a negative impact on the president ratings. Even on his trip to asia right now, some of that political ph you needm politically and mystically is a challenge for him. I think they see a lot of possibilities this year, despite the fact that they are not getting a lot of support from or his ideas. I think they see an upswing because theust Affordable Care act is sort of rebounding, in a big and successful way for them. Guest one of those Great Washington moments a couple weeks ago, the president talking about the Affordable Care act, 8 Million People signing up, and at the same time in another state, Chelsea Clinton is doing an event and tells people that she is pregnant. And then people are buzzing, what does this mean for 2016 . Probably nothing, but it means that people are already looking ahead. That is a problem exercising power abroad. It is a challenge that he needs to look at ahead. Guest it is a challenge being named a lame duck, so early in the second term, but the truth is he has not been able to get much done in congress. If power shifts to republicans in the senate, he does not have that one chamber to wooster his priorities, so it will be very interesting, as we said before, to see how the white house works y completelyiall control republican congress. I read earlier that he may start to worry too much and give away the store, the issues that they care about. Hard to predict at this point, but definitely tricky for the white house, in that they still have two and a half years of governing and they are not able to get much of his agenda done. Guest and the republicans know this. If you have watched the nba playoffs, the team that is ahead and takes the ball and tries to run down the clock. This is what congress is doing. Will become a lame duck and the longer they can keep the ball away from him, whether it is immigration or unemployment insurance, they do not want to advance anything, they just want to dribble around in circles and run down the clock. Guest which is why the president is trying to use executive action to prioritize advance his priorities. We saw something on Climate Change, and we should see more in the next few months. The epa will be setting new standards for existing power plants, a missions of the Carbon Dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas, and that, as we think about his legacy, will be a big chunk, despite the fact that he cannot get much done in congress. Host next phone call is al in pennsylvania. Caller a couple of points about immigration. 7. 5 million Illegal Immigrants are holding jobs in our country. Over half of them got the jobs by presentation to their employers of forged Social Security cards, and then by perjurious as a station on the immigration form that they were able to work in the u. S. The key to Immigration Reform is to pass copper handset, for ally everify employers, so that illegal aliens cannot get jobs in the United States. Then they would not come over. Final point. Deportation numbers are grossly misstated in the media. Over two thirds of the deportations are those people caught by the Border Patrol at the mexican border, processed briefly by immigration, customs, and enforcement, setback. No Previous Administration were the sendaks call deportations. Deportations from the interior is less than one percent of the total number of illegal aliens in the country, a record low. It is interesting the last point the caller made about deportations. A white house is proud about a story that came out about a week ago that showed over all the statistics are moving in the direction of fewer deportations since 2009 when the front president first came in. Ify andgard to ever employers, that is a big question. Making sure and lawyers are punished if they break the law in terms of hiring immigrants, undocumented immigrants, but i think you would also here about those millions of people who are undocumented immigrants and hold jobs. They are doing jobs that other americans will not do or do not want to do. That is a critical question for employers and for the economy. What do you do if you cannot find people in, lets say, florida, early to pick fruit who need to pick fruit . That is a big question hovering over the immigration debate, one that will need to be addressed. And that is why the Business Community and congress have been pushing for Immigration Reform. They need a way to get those workers in the country. Nashville, gary is on the line for republicans. Caller i understand you all were very happy that the white house made the 8 million mark on , but how does the white house feel about the 5 million that were kicked off a private insurance . If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. How can they be happy about anything with the aca when it was all predicated on a lie . There are still more lies to come. Lets start by saying that we were not happy but the white house was happy. The evidence is clear about that, in terms of the president s comments, comments by democrats as a result of that. The point that you raise, in terms of people who were kicked off, for sure, that is a critical issue, and a concern for the white house, in addition to republicans and democrats running for reelection. You have seen the white house take measures to make it easier for those people who lost their plans, to stay on them longer. Even those measures have received criticism because of what republicans have portrayed as the ability of the white house to ride over the law and address these problems without actually making the fundamental changes that republicans need. There is the core problem. Guest the president was talking about what the law would mean. He kept on saying, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. That turns out not to be true, and it is clear from the get go, and it is also true that Health Care Plans change from year to year and get moved around. That said, the white house purposefully kept a line that was for them, politically pernicious, and not as specific as they needed to be. Guest that was troublemaking for them once the evidence showed that he was not able to keep that promise. It is something that is still dogging him today, as the caller rightly pointed out. Woodbridge, virginia. Charles is on the line for republicans. For taking myyou call. I am like the previous color of how much time do you have . Pipeline, i went online, i was curious. It was amazing to me how many pipelines are already in the u. S. That is political in asia get people to work. On the unemployment issue, what they need to do is, unemployment for the first 26 weeks is standard. Anything after that, you have to pay it back. Tongass would pass that in a heartbeat. Congress would pass that in a heartbeat. You cannot keep a tab running with no way to shut it off. When theseing, people try to make laws about business, when they have never been in business. If you raise the minimum wage to seean hour, you will never an 18yearold kid hired, a 16yearold. Coming into work late, being immature, helping them to learn to earn a wage. I can hire an, adult and not have to worry about that. This problem in france, where you have an Unemployment Rate of youngsters of upwards of 35 . What they need to do is leave that alone. The bottom line is not getting people more money for putting a hamburger at mcdonalds. It is getting the better jobs. In all honesty, if we have farms out there that need strawberries picked and you do not have a job , and these are jobs that americans do not want, sorry, you stop paying people and you will see them work the jobs. Level of the minimum wage, the 10. 10, which the white house has said, is kind of an interesting choice because it has a negative impact. The Congressional Budget Office and others say [no audio] will get a raise. At lower levels, it would not have nearly as bad an economic drag, so why did they pick 10. 10 . I have not figured it out erie maybe it is a catchy figure, maybe it is something that will not go into law, so it is aspirational, but it is interesting they picked a number that has a downside impact. Certainly, but they would argue is raising the minimum wage would help create better jobs and would give people more money in their pockets to go out and spend which would help the economy. The president spent a lot of time going to employers like costco that have higher wages for basic employees and try to say, this has been good for their bottom line, this has been good for their business, good for people working there. That is their argument. It is clear, there are economic arguments against raising it to that level, and that is something that they are not really happy to talk about. They are much more interested in emphasizing the positive. The other point the caller made about keystone is worth discussing as well. The president has talked about the fact that this has become such a big issue for environmentalists and for industry that it has maybe been blown out of proportion by both sides, but it may create some jobs but not a number that industry says. It may be bad for the environment on some level in terms of the Climate Change impact from taking the oil out of the canadian tar sands, but not as bad as environmentalists say, because the oil will be extracted anyway. There are arguments on both side of the issues. I think we will continue to hear them for a while. Guest you watch the keystone debate and these folks have been fighting so hard and so long and the issues have been blown out of proportion on both sides, on job impact and environment. Comeare so desperate to away with a win. So much time and energy has been invested into this. Host a question from email. Sue writes in from new jersey. Guest short answer would probably be no. There is not a lot of anything forthcoming from this congress that is not necessary. It is something the republicans in the house want to talk about. They want to put together a package they can get through their chamber. We mentioned the memo that eric cantor sent out to the members outlining the next to the new months. A lot of talk about building an america that works, that is their catchphrase. That is very much about creating a jobs package. Their goal is to get 218 votes in the house. When they are doing that, they are not looking at the senate or the white house, not looking at making a law, but sending a message to americans who are frustrated. Look, the Republican Party cares about this jobs issue. Guest it is important note, despite the controversies over the other issues we have discussed, the Affordable Care act, keystone, the environment, the election will almost always come down to the discussion about the economy. You will hear both sides pushing their ideas about creating jobs, minimum wage, as we discussed, but it comes up to that impasse. He will not get a bill passed in congress that either side is particularly happy about in terms of generating jobs because of the requirements to get support from a Bipartisan Senate and house. Host columbus nebraska, sean is on the democrats line. Caller thanks for taking my call. ,y concern about immigration the immigration bill, is that republicans might go back to bill, is that republicans might go back to obamas campaign when he said [no audio] thank you for taking my call. Guest people they will backfire against obama, that he has not been able to do more on immigration. Certainly, activists are citing the same argument. You may promises to us and we are not seeing them get made. In 2012, you saw the president make some choices during the midst of his reelection, in terms of helping the dreamers, who are the younger children of Illegal Immigrants who came to the country when they were so young and grown up as americans, giving them more options to stay in the country. That ties into whether we could see a negative action on deportations. The truth is, the president would argue that he tried and that they worked very hard since he has come into office to do Something Big on Immigration Reform. He promised it again in 2012. It is absolutely on the top of their priority list, but he cannot do it by himself. Fairborn, ohio. Karen is on the line for democrats. Caller i have a couple of comments. Their,as congress and really, nonworking schedule, we should only pay them for the days they are working [no audio] you get paid for the days you work, and they do get many as their carsar being paid on their leases and stuff. My congressman, i could not tell you what he does, i never hear from him. He is never in the area, that i know of. Hink he worries more about then the rest of us. Guest who is your congressman . Caller i believe it is mike turner. Guest you are tapping into the frustration that voters have. Or is not a lot of action. Is there a jobs bill . Probably not. Immigration bill . Probably not. If you keep on reading this and you see they are not in town, you will get frustrated. Guest if you are not already seeing it now in your home states, these congressmen and women coming back pushing hard for reelection. That whole Campaign Season also takes them away from washington and away from the need to take votes and work on legislation and have some meaningful impact. Guest people talk about november is far away and giving up already, but so many important races are out there. May is a huge month for primaries. Which part of it will be in control of those in washington, if they take the senate and the house . That will be determined in the next six weeks. Key primaries in north carolina, kentucky, georgia im a that will determine who is not only in the senate, which parties, but what type of party. Retired,nowe, who is and ted cruz, that is one of the swaps that happened in congress. That is a dramatic shift in the makeup of the conference and the party and what happens in washington. Host one thing you mentioned is the Kentucky Senate race. Senator mitch mcconnell. Playrole does that race specifically, and obviously him as Senate Majority leader minority leader . A few weeks ago he stopped playing his role as public dealmaker. He stepped back a bit and let the senate work on its own. He was not taking a handson approach. It looks like he will be dispatched by his primary opponent. Mitch mcconnell has had a history of going aggressively after his opponent. He came out this last week and announced that he had to basically defend himself to say that he was never a supporter of cockfighting. He went to a few events when that was happening. To say that you have to do this, probably not a good sign if you trying to be erected reelected to a senate seat. He has a double take and that he has to face, a top two democrat in the fall. Mitch mcconnell is unpopular, too, but the question is, can he get through that . He is certainly the favorite in the primary and the general. His reelection is definitely going to affect washington. Guest the fact that he is vulnerable at all is making democrats elevate. That makes it a highprofile race, not only because the senate is up for grabs in terms of who controls it, but he is such a powerful figure there. We talked earlier about the president s trip to asia. One of the big things that people were watching about whether a trade deal would emerge. Given one that has not, has the trip been successful . The white house would say so. They bristled at some of the coverage from the media about the fact that it was not because of the trade deal. That said, there were expectations they would be able to advance this trade deal, particularly in japan even up till the last minute when theyre waiting for the press conference between the president and Prime Minister abe. They were hoping to have language to show specific progress, but they have struggled to make progress on that in asia. It is something that is very important to this white house. They think it would be good for the economy in the United States and in these countries he is visiting, and for the world economy. Another thing, shane might be able to talk about this more. They arehe push that using internationally, it also faces some significant resistance in the United States, and not where you might think. Coming from democrats in the congress. Guest it was one of the interesting things this year, after the state of the union, the president talked about moving this trade agreement about fasttrack through congress as quickly as possible. The very next day, harry reid was at the white house working hand in glove. Big al i normally. He comes and says, not happening, we are not taking it up. It was like the white house was taken aback. He took the entire took the entire wind out of his sails on that deal. It is one of issues that labor doesnt like, and the democrats the finale dont want to be on the wrong side of labor. Guest you would not be surprised to hear that the white house is not emphasizing that angle. They feel that if we can just get this through, get some sort of deal signed with our partners in asia, we will be able to tackle the opposition in washington. But they havent gotten that far in either place so it is still an open question. Host in delaware, bernard is on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. Soquestion is how is it quick that congress can help ukraine with aid to another country, and we the people in america are starting . The role for congress to turn the back for america. Incursion,r russias in nation, depending on who you ask, they tried to guarantee more loans to the country. There were some people who said that this is not a good idea, we are not going to get this money back, and tried to tap into that populist frustration across the country. Rand paul is one of those people. He is positioning himself as the menu doesnt want to give american money away abroad. That it makes you an isolationist amanda does put him out of the mainstream of what the parties doing. Guest its an interesting point that the caller raises. Both congress and the white house avenue 2 jobs in terms of domestic policy and Foreign Policy, and the white house would certainly argue that it is very important that ukraine feel the support of the United States both in terms of the Loan Guarantee but also just support dealinge of the u. S. With the challenges that russia is creating. The questions about if congress to move quickly on that but not on employment insurance or these other issues are fair questions. Host the president and nothing this morning that there will be additional sections on russia, announcing them later today. Explain to us what we are looking at, as much as you know, and for you, shane, im curious as to the response from members of congress. Guest you know, there is, again, different factions within both parties, but the real pushes that they want to send a tin and say this is not ok with the American Government. They talked about and eight bill being guaranteed. It looks like a nowin situation in the short term and they are happy to let the president take the lead on these issues. Sanctions we can expect to hear more about our additional asset freezes, additional travel bans for socalled cronies of Vladimir Putin and people close to him and the government. What we will not see at least not yet are what the white house calls rock, massive sanctions against specific parts of the russian economy, which could and almost certainly would reverberate against certain parts of the global economy, specifically europe. You are seeing some backandforth between the white house, u. S. Government, and european allies in terms of how far to go with those sanctions. The United States wants to show a united front between g7 countries, european allies, and the United States on the sanctions, and the fact that they are telegraphing it more is one way to try to show that. And there is no doubt that the sanctions will not be greeted in russia, but they will not go as far as they could. The United States is partially saying that this is how far we are going right now if you go and if you go any further in ukraine, we have more in our top drawer. Host virginia. Lowell is on the line for independents. Caller thanks for taking my call. My comment to this moneys about those who come to work for us. How can an individual who claims to work for us as a delegate, senator, congressman, take the amount of money that they take and then all the free things that they acquire, it just smacks in the face. It is unequal. It is not in relation to what the typical median group of people in the United States are capable of making on a regular basis. It seems terribly unfair, and all that excuse me all who you speak to, no matter how old ity are, wouldnt a huge portion of congress is new. The tea party waves in 2010, new districts are drawn in 2012. The majority of congress has not been here since the first room of the bush administration. A lot of his folks have not been here for a long time. Host go to houston, texas, where ashley is on the line for democrats. Caller good morning, lady and gentlemen. I want to speak about the Affordable Care act. I think it is absolutely absurd. I spent 42 years working in a hospital, 30 of them in the Emergency Center here. You wouldnt believe the people that are sitting there for hours and hours and hours because they dont have medical insurance. This is a county hospital. And they dont have medical insurance, and they are sitting there forever, and they are having heart attacks. Trauma means trauma, and that means accidents, it means shootings, it means Police Shootings welcome you to this conversation. We are privileged to have congressman back for one very and rick larsen with us. Mackenzie is joining me, we are going to ask questions and solicit a conversation on strategic and defense issues. Mackenzie is at the American Enterprise institute. Panel0 she was on a adjusting to quadrennial review. She has worked on the pill and at the that she has worked on the hill and at the pentagon. She has worked on the hill and at the pentagon. The two gentlemen to my right are young and experienced simultaneously. Congressman thornberry was congressman1994, larson and a 2000. They are among the senior members of the Armed Services committee. Intelligenceked on and asiapacific matters. We want to express a word of begin withn, i congressman larson, who has been right nextdoor to the district in Washington State that suffered through the tragic mudslides. We want to send our best wishes to the people of Washington State. Also to the people of texas, who together with folks in washington, have sent us these wonderful congressman. With someke to begin questions and then i will pass the baton to mckenzie, who will do the same. I will be in with china and the broader issue of the asiapacific region. I would like to first ask congress and thornberry, just back from china, for his impressions of how things have been. And i will ask congressman larson, who runs a working group on china in congress and has great interest being from Washington State in that country. Then we will go from there to a couple other subjects and topics. Welcome back. Welcome to both of you. I look forward to your impressions. Just came back from 10 days with eric cantor and others. We visited japan, korea, and china. I would say among my impressions from this visit are, number one, the nationalism that exists in all three countries. Partly for domestic political reasons. But yet, it creates some conflict or tension. Between japan, korea, japan and china, obviously. Secondly, we were able to meet with some of the top leaders in china, my impression is they see china as a rising power. They see the u. S. As a declining power. They have some historical grievances. Maybe that was the thing that concerned me the most. I kept thinking back to the history books and what things were like in germany before world war i. Of germany being a rising power but with historical grievances that they would soon be in a position to correct in some way. That does not mean conflict is inevitable. The tensions over the various maritime disputes and the other you really felt the potential for increasing amounts of conflict. You have been following this for a long time, your thoughts . The trip i took in march was my night trip to china between the u. S. China working group. It was a great quote i like to point out from a debate that took place between two people of letters well known in the d c area. They were arguing about china, one had been living there for a couple years and returned and the other had not. The guy who had not said the guy who had been there was too close to china. And he could not be objective about his views and the guy responded by saying surely there is a happy medium between having lived in china and having never been there at all. That put the guy in his place, he had never been there at all. I dont know if nine times is enough but i can tell you that the letter learned from going there every time is how much i dont know. How much things are changing in china. Posedestion you posed was about chinas rise. I would be concerned about chinas economic rise if it does not happen. That is because the imperative from the communist party is that if they do not grow fast enough, they will not be supplying Employment Opportunities to the people of china. That undermines the credibility of the party. Theiro not deal with environmental concerns, a report came out last week saying 60 of chinas groundwater is polluted. That is a cause of concern for chinese leadership. The vast corruption that exists from the top down is a huge credibility problem. The problem with all this is there is no jv, no Junior Varsity and the chinese government. It is the communist party or not. There is no Civil Society to it. In and replace they have to get it right and part of getting it right is insuring their economy continues to grow. The other side gets to what matt was discussing about the military side and the military rise. There are some rational reasons why chinas investment in its military, the challenges faces is that it is a poor job of explaining it everyone else. When they do explain it region for sets up a and possibletes conflict. This is not something i think china wants and certainly not something the u. S. Or other countries want. They are legitimate claims that many of these countries that are friends and allies of ours have in that area. There is some rewriting of history that goes on on the chinese side about historical claims. To solve them today. I think the u. S. Has a direct interest because of our friends and allies with a presence in the region to be part of solutions. If i could followup with a question. I would like to ask what you think the next steps are for the u. S. And for american policy. They be building on the president s trip he is now finishing. I am sure you have certain things you have been happy with and other things you might suggest. Im not trying to begin a partisan dispute. U2 are known for a very thoughtful and constructive cooperation. Im trying to think about where we go forward, this is a work in progress for the u. S. As we deal with a rising china. What does the u. S. Has to do next to build on whatever the recent trip as accomplished and deal with these crises and other concerns as their developing . Trip, we were ahead of the president by a day or so in japan and korea. Was, it was a bipartisan trip, our focus was to emphasize that republicans in congress agree with the president that we are going to stand by our treaty commitments. And there should be no dispute about that. That is kind of step one. Andsuring our friends finding new friends. For example, the agreement for bases in the philippines and other things are very positive steps. Allies notraging our to let differences between them divide us. That was a lot of what we discussed with japan and korea. I think number one is reassuring our friends and building new friends. Number two, we have got to spend more money on defense. Whether youre talking about china, russia, or other countries, what they respect his strength. What they respect is strength. Strength includes numbers of ships and a variety of other things. We have got to be strong. There is not another way to put it. Before we go to congressman larson. Clarify where you think we should be on the Defense Budget . There are a number of different baselines from which one could measure that we need to be stronger. Theres the possibility of sequestration that i am guessing none of us like to return in 2016. There is the president s current budget, a bit of a sequestration but less than he previously advocated. There is cumbersome and ryans plan there is commerce and there is congressmans ryans plan. There is the plan that governor romney and congressman ryan had a year and half ago that was more ambitious. Have a proposal you would advocate or do you feel that sequestration needs to be a voided. I voted for the house budget that passed a week or two ago. We have the number for this year that we are all moving to ward. Beincreases defense spending on that somewhat. I dont know that there is a or 5 number, 2 increase. I do know that the world is watching what we do. If china, putin, whoever, things we are not capable of increasing defense, of having the capabilities we need to deter them, then they will be more aggressive. You get intohen specific programs you do have to talk dollars and cents. What i am focused on here is what is the world seeing now of us. I worry about that. And so, showing we are serious about putting our money where our mouth is in defense as a strategic imperative, regardless of the specific number. Congressman . Question . Go on asia should policy and if you want to talk about the budget. I think the president s trip was largely successful in times andssuring our friends allies that the United States is going to be a pacific country. The rebalance is real. The president is putting some reality to that. It goes beyond, in the Defense Community and other communities, it is about us. Defense folks think about defense, healthcare folks think about health care. If it is not about that, it is not about everything. Rebalance is not about defense, it is about defense, trade, Economic Security all those things. The effort to pass the Transpacific Partnership is part of that effort to show a commitment to the region. The average we have done with a,e countries, opening up burm that is a very important aspect. As well as continuing to reassure our friends and allies. That is what the rebalance is, it is not one part of what the government does. It is about many parts. Look at it in that context the rebalance is a work in progress. But it is work and it progresses. With regards to the broader today, as weon, sit here, i have very little Hope Congress will readjust the sequester when it returns. That is today. I expect to be at some point sitting in my office at midnight sometime during the end of some year in the future about possibly voting on a change to that. Nothingt is that focuses a mind like a mans hanging, to paraphrase what Samuel Johnson said. We will approach that point in the future, but right now Neither Party is willing to make the concessions in a negotiation tolift the sequester caps or get rid of it altogether. I would note our Ranking Member adam smith has said this clearly. I am asked to do this, close to adam smith as anyone in congress. [laughter] i am funnier. Say, if we are going to deal with the sequester, we have to deal with 100 of the budget. No one gets carveouts for any reason. Dealing with the sequester is about discretionary and mandatory spending, not just discretionary. That is the challenge that we face in order to do it right. There are tougher choices but ones we have to make for the healthier longterm prospect of the federal budget. One more question on this part of the world and then i will wrap up and handed off to mckenzie. Congressman for very, you mentioned tree obligations you mentioned treaty obligations. I know this is a delicate subject, explaining this in advance has a downside but i would like to ask if there is anything you can say about a hypothetical, if we wake up ing one ofomorrow tak the uninhabited senkaku islands, what do we do . Little the question a bit more fair to you as a member of congress, to we have to have a military response . Whoe was a marine general said if china does that we have to take them off. I am wondering if that is the automatic answer or if there are a range of answers, some could be quarantines or sanctions or other, nondirect but firm and resolute responses . Do you have a view on that . My strongly held view is that clear that we will stand by our allies according to the treaties that we have with them. Whether we are talking japan or south korea or whoever. Countries around the world need to know that the United States is a reliable friend. A newspaper article this morning, it taught about the military preparing options for a range of possibilities. That is what we expect a military to do. To give policymakers those options. Until we know the situation and so forth, i do not think we can say what option is the appropriate one for that situation. I do worry a little, i do not mean to shift subjects, the ofwly ratcheting up sanctions as were doing in ukraine does not seem to be particularly effective. It is important for the president and all of us on a bipartisan basis to make clear we have a full range of options show a country decide to take some aggressive action. Can i add one other thing . Is right about the multiple dimensions of our relationships in asia. The Transpacific Partnership is very important for us to move ahead with. It is not just military it is economic and a variety of things. On a bipartisan basis it is important for the countries in that region to understand there is support for that in congress. On the general question, i have to agree with mac on how to approach that. It is premature to say we should do one thing if another thing happens, there might be a whole slew of options to choose from if something happens. It would not all the military. That theg our allies mean something is important. Our tree allies would define what they believe we ought to do as a result of any action. We might have different ideas about what is the most appropriate thing to do. It is negotiation that takes place between the u. S. And our allies. We have done several things in europe, for instance, to reassure our friends there deployment to poland, deployments to the Baltic States. Course the new sanctions announced today. Sanctions targeted at the right folks. There are not many folks who run russia, they are all friends of a leader there. President putin. Going after those folks is a great start, it may not end there, it is a great start to let the russian leadership know there is a penalty to them. Also, the experience of taking over crimea might be a great nationalistic thing for russia to do, but so far it has been a disaster for crimeans and crimean russians as well. There might be a selflimiting factor on how leadership in russia sees the rest of eastern ukraine. Thank you. I handed over to mckenzie from the American Enterprise institute. Thank you for having me and hosting this event. Thank you for your time. Just to getting him off just getting off the airplane. About, that is a theme here. Americans are increasingly concerned about u. S. Foreign policy, about what they perceive as growing numbers of challenges and threats. Not necessarily what they perceive, also what is coming out of washington. Theyone from the gni to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff we have a lot of challenges. The riseionage due to of china, north korea, ukraine, etc. Egypt, turkey, iran, etc. Are these concerns justified . I assume you share them, i am not sure. Do you think the American People are getting the same sense that you possibly have. Changinglitics of this itif they are justified may be time to rebuild u. S. Military strength . Something you raise, congressman thornbury. It is not a fait accompli or a godgiven birthright. Ing given that congress can support this. Beyond members who think about defense every day like you. I might have a different view on this. It has to do with the fact, one, we are making investments on our military. Itshould not characterize that we are not, that is not the case. Were making investments in things our military that we no longer use or are no longer effective. As some point, in order to make the investments for the future, makeght make sense to not investments in things we had in the past. It is difficult for a lot of reasons, one of them is congress, one is the bureaucracies within the services that want to hold onto things. One of the things i want to point out, i want to be sure people knew about the three most important things about the Defense Budget. Be, will it beit big enough to maintain and operate, third, hows it going to impact my district . Those are the three things that every member of congress asks. There is a good side, sometimes members of Congress Know their district better than the Defense Department have a better feel the capabilities and the commitment that takes place on the ground from folks. By the same token, we tend to get wrapped up in our districts and try to preserve things that maybe ought not to be preserved. No specific example today but it does happen. I have been here for 14 years and that is a lesson from this. I do not think it is correct to assume we are not making investments. I do not think it is correct to assume, this is where mac and i would differ, that a bigger budget is better. There has been a lot of waste and fraud in the Defense Department during the 2000s, when it seemed there was not a limit on what the department got. I would like to see them do a better job of knowing what money they have, how they are using it. By completing a clean audit we have been begging for for several years. So we have a better idea of where the money is going, how it is being spent, and whether it can be reinvested elsewhere in the budget. There are a lot of things we can callsore we respond to for a bigger budget. Finally, i do not think Vladimir Putin has a concern about what our Defense Budget is going to look like two years from now. I think he is concerned about how we are going to use it today. Persuaded that it is certainly true that we have a greater number of complex threats, challenges facing us now than perhaps ever before. You listed and a lot of them. Lots of things around the world as well as new domains of warfare. Space, for example. Al qaeda has not gone away. As the dni and others have testified, we have a tremendous number of threats. At the same time, under any scenario, we have a limited resource to deal with those threats. Part of ourge challenge. I dont know that i disagree with what rick said. Part of what Congress Needs to do to work with the pentagon is to get more defense out of the money we spend. There is a bipartisan effort with senator levin, senator adam, and the chairman of the house side, cutting overhead in dod. We absolutely need to do that. On a bipartisan basis, working with the pentagon as we go through regulations. That govern acquisition. There is work that needs to be done. I fully agree it does need to be done. Not going to do enough to solve all those issues. To do a lot of acquisition reforms to get another carrier or even to refuel the one that is halfway through its lifespan that was a topic that has come up a lot in our recent trip. Need to do both, increase spending on defense and work to get more defense of the money we spend. There is a value in another itself to numbers of ships and airplanes and ammunition for them. There are some shortages there. Point is not that there is a magic number and if we meet at we are safe. The world is watching, the world has some doubts about us. Through a series of events, including our own budget mess and things that have happened around the world. Clearer message to mr. Putin and the chinese and the North Koreans and the iranians, go down the list, when we make clear on a bipartisan basis we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and our allies. Importantge is really right now when we have so many things going on. Has just want to note, mac not given himself enough credit on the acquisition reform effort. He is leading that. Thankless and a tough job, he is a great guy to lead it. You have worked hard on this issue and will continue to do that. I second the gratitude. One quick question before we open it up and wrap this up. The president himself think we on defense. D more his budget comes in with basically two budgets, actually three. He is admitting defense is underfunded because there are 115 billion extra over the fiveyear spending plan. That is a pretty strong statement that we can all agree on that it might not be a lot more but we know more is required. I would think i dont know perhaps thats not true. Growing the of Defense Budget have changed. The president , in recent years, congress has been going along in some cases and not in others. Has it become a deal where a to defense,r increased in if you agree it has to be a dollar in nondefense. There is an artificial firewall that puts all priorities on a the same level. I dont think hud is as important as the Defense Department and the protection of our way of life. That is what that implies. Andhe president is right the Defense Budget needs to grow beyond the levels of the bba, the balanced budget act, yanmurray. Y r how do you get there, does it have to be linked to a discussion about nondefense spending, is that appropriate . For fiscal year 2015, the budget is set. You a that, i could give more informed answer if i knew how the elections were going to turn out. If they are right and the senate switches hands, that could change the dynamics. Like you, i believe that the first job of the federal government is to defend this country. I think you can make a pretty good case, whether youre are talking about the medical research or a variety of things that in the domestic discretionary area, there are areas that could use well. Additional funding. Two thirds of our budget is entitlements. Until we deal with that, we will not be dealing with our budget issues. Regardless of how the selection comes out or the next election. We have to reform entitlements. The only thing i would add is that we have to keep in mind i think i just saw a number, an estimate that Russian Defense spending has increased 80 in the last 10 years. Chinas Defense Budget is growing. 10 per year. It is not like this is all just about us. We have to see what is happening in the world. Other Defense Budgets are growing. Not to be too pointed about is but i asked a veteran who homeless and using the hud Program Using vouchers to get housing. If he or she thought that hud funding was important the issue of whether it is 1 2, there areor important things that we do that have a direct impact on people who represent individual districts and the country as a whole. We should be looking as well at with the transportation investment is. Or basic research in universities. What we try to do historically especially after world war ii, from a federal government perspective, we have pour the foundation well. Then the market takes it from there. So this foundational thing goes up in transportation. Defense, we have done really well. We have gotten away from that in both parties for a number of reasons. Both of my books explain that. We have gotten away from the while other countries have not. They continued to do this foundational things to set themselves up for better economic growth. Fortunately, russia is not one of those countries. They are stagnating and not doing very well. The chinese economy is growing 7. 4 year over year. But it is not all that great for china. Bases, i stick to our think we will do all right. We will now go to you. We will ask that you wait for a microphone. Identify yourself and ask your question. We will start over here ian, then george. Thank you. I am a fellow here at bookings. Brookings. With the advances in commercial i. T. , i wonder if the congressman could pose a little more detail about plans for the acquisition or thinking about legislation on the hill and how that will play out. Absolutely. Sure. First, i would like to thank you for everything you have done. Second, for everything the congressman smith did. One of the questions i got it was about a year ago, with congressman smith over in dei. He said as much of the supporter as i am of the department of defense, i go back to my district and my constituents. They want to hear about problems with Social Security, medicare, retirement accounts, infrastructure. , what is happening in the department of defense well, briefly on acquisition reform i wont spend too much time and go into it. This is been tried a number of times before. The question i most often get is what makes you think it will be any different . I guess a couple of answers is one, completely bipartisan. Whatever gets by with the pentagon and congress. We have reached a point where everybody agrees. These systems not only cost more money than it should, but it is too slow. We have information that china can knock out a ship every 36 months. We are not in that ballpark. Neednk there is inherent given the budget issues we have talked about, to do better. I. T. Is a terrific example. If you think about how Technology Changes and how slowly the federal government responds, it is inevitable that by the time the government procure something, it is out of date. One of our challenges is listening to ideas about what we can do. Maybe we need a special acquisition for i. T. There are a number of ideas coming out. That is the stage we are in. Things thatentify everybody agrees on, we will do tit. The earliest would be next year. Were not talking about another 2000 page bill. A lot of this is not necessarily legislation. It is the kind of oversight we do. It is about working with the pentagon through the regulations. So, there are a number of aspects. At a deeper level we do not need another Oversight Office or another law to solve our acquisitions. We incentives in the system, need to understand those. Go ahead. I did not get to that. It is true people in our country feel relatively safe, you worry more about the things that affect your life. Jobs, economy, health care. I do think that part of her job as leaders is to remind people of whate fundamentals it takes to keep the strongest country in the history of the world we cannot worry about the kids education and things that occupy our daily life. Securing the fundamental aspects of that. Id are member who said it, but they said it may be true that security maybe 10 of the solution. If you do not have that, then the rest is worthless. Leaders is tob as help remind people, and educate people about the multitude of threats that we face. It is challenging. What the media does is focus on one intensively. Then they focus on another and forget about the first one. Keeping with so many things at play, keeping them broad range of challenges before us is a big part of the challenge. One note on commercial i. T. Acquisition. One area that i know is going to be discussed p, we come up to this marku it is the use of Cloud Computing and use of storage and the conflict that exists between d. O. D. Controlling that versus going into the commercial world and using Cloud Services for a much less expensive way. Dodconflict exists because would argue that they need to have the highest security possible. That sets up hurdles and barriers. That same principle is applied in these commercial i. T. Parts and services as well. We have to find a way for that. We have to get around it. Story fromquick several years back. There were some currency manipulation to be. We were talking to the American Chamber of commerce in beijing. To is it that leaders come leave d. C. Everything is ok. Then you go back to d. C. And get belligerent again. The only person who can go to d. C. Is Eleanor Holmes norton, because she represents them. Everyone else goes home to their districts. , or were here at home are not hearing certain things, that is part of performance. What folks are saying a home. Were hearing other things that tends to have an impact. We have to sift through a lot of this, knowing that a lot of the stuff is generated at home. Some is generated in our offices because of emails. How deep is this . How real is this . Where does it fit in the department . Something is going wrong, but it is not with congress. Major Security Issues are at home and that is a concern that people have about nsa as opposed to anything else. That is not their fault, i would argue. That is the nsas fault. That are of the kind of things that you hear. We will go right here to the gentleman in the third row. Then the woman in the far back. Byron from capital partners. Could you be more granular on how tensions with russia could impact us . Do we need more money with intelligence . Will there be any change at all . Hello, thank you very much for being here. My question has to do with dod. Hold them responsible for this path that is supposed to be on track for 2017 . Had we support them to ensure that they have the goodwill they need to get their job done . You. Will start with on russia i dont know that i have any more to say about it. I think that nato deployments are an important signal to our allies. And i assume to russia. The alliance is important to us and our partners. They do need to consider that. I think that the nonlethal aid and the National Support to ukraine is important. On the to move faster association agreement. I think there is only one way that the government has handled that, not towards russia. As well, they are not asking for my advice, so i did not give it to them. Any time the prorussian asaratists take osc monitors hostages, that only helps the United States. Andhows how uncoordinated amateurish and reactionary those folks are. Russiat imagine that sees that as positive either. We need to leverage that in the court of Public Opinion. Hange theto move and c facts on the ground. On russia, i think it is a big deal. It is major change. Not of us, and i would except myself, have basically thought the cold war was over. Brazeness of this aggression, similar to tactics we have seen in history i think it is somewhat startling. So, one conclusion that one could draw is that it expands the range of military options which have to be prepared. Thought those kinds of conflict were in the past. But maybe that is not true. As we prepare for everything, from relatively low level Ground Combat to cyber and space and all these things i think it just adds to the collective number of National Security challenges in place. I think it is a pretty big deal. I do not think things will go back to the way it was. It affects all of us in congress. I think this is very important. What ever we can do to encourage or push and shove we need to do. The stories today about ammunition being wasted because we can keep track of what we have or when we got it is just another example of that. I get pretty frustrated. We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago. Again, on trying to get dod medical records to talk to the va medical. The country has to have electronic records that are compatible and portable. Yet, billions of dollars and to get oneequired department to talk to another department. It is just unbelievable. You talkration, when to members about auditing and other changes, i know they are hard. Still, we have got to figure out a way to cut through stuff. Even if it means getting outside of your comfort zone. I would like you to follow up on russia before we go to the audience. You talked about some of the broader responses and issues. At what point is there a case for rethinking u. S. Force posture . Permanent force posture in europe . To we go back to germany or some battalions in the Baltic States . Or is that an option you do not think we need to start . First, let me clarify i am not encouraging more monitors. It happens to play in the favor of the west, for those taking notes. I do not know that it is too early to talk about this. If we are going to use the model of the past they would not be as useful in the baltics or poland. They would be in the states as close to russia as possible. I think the actions and decisions of the leadership in russia they are only doing one thing in congress, which is creating this conversation. It is a conversation russia does not want us to have. I am ready to talk about it. I think we have to. Going back to the previous question, what are the implications of what has happened in ukraine . Part of it is, is nato worth anything or not . What will it amount to . Purpose, and what is the value of that alliance at this point . Situation,ts this which is what it was crated for. There is a lot of soul searching that needs to take place on the part of our european allies and others, about how we stick together and mute this aggression. Lets start here in the front row. Thank you. Thank you both for your bipartisanship. It is very much needed. I do want to emphasize that in china, they are still thinking that they are rising, and that is why there is rising tension. Security affect our and jobs. I am asking if you would bipartisanly make a stronger message so we can reemphasize our leadership globally. Especially in the south china sea. Ow we treatout hw allies. As a global leader, we should be accountable for international law. For countries that are not other, we need to hold powers accountable to observe international law. That is the case of russia in crimea and i would hope it would apply to china, in invading smaller countries. I hope that you would make it clear that any country, not just allies it is very important. Theyre looking up to the u. S. Leadership so they can unify and form a Good Partnership with the u. S. Would you somehow, from the house, up to the senate, from congress, make a clear statement to clearly define the leadership, the global leadership, of the u. S. . And expect rising powers to observe this . Yes, i am with the american league. I learned a lot from this discussion. My question is relatively different. On chinaave an impact and that region. As well as russia. The u. S. Foresees nato forces are already given a date, a month, a year, to drawdown from afghanistan. If the arrangement does not because it collapses, the rate is very high at this time does the u. S. Have a contingency plan . How will they deal with the implications of a failure of the agreement . Whoe are many countries feel that we are behind in afghanistan. What do you think you will hear from the administration about it . We cannot quite hear you. Please wrap up so i can get to one more round. Is a good . Thank you. I will just say that the majority leader made it very clear in all of our meetings that we expect any territorial disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international rules. And it was very explicit. It was in every meeting. That message that you talked about, applying to all countries, was made very clear. Obviously we are now having the runoff for the president ial election. Trust that hope and the United States will continue to have a presence after december of this year. That we will be there to continue to provide support of various kinds, for the security situation where afghans are taking the lead. I think it would be a terrible mistake for the situation to get to the point where we have a complete withdrawal. That would increase the dangers to us, the dangers to pakistan. Problemsincrease the that many countries face. I hope we will have a continuing presence and i think we should. With regard to afghanistan, i unoff,tand that in the r both sides signed the vice ateral security agreement. It would be unfortunate if they did not. There is no longterm part left for a longterm presence in afghanistan. If congress will be more comfortable in supporting that, we need the new leadership to say yes to the bilateral security agreement. I will be very important. It makes it easier for me to go home and say, what is 10,000 or 5000 . It will be easier to go home and say there is an agreement to protect us. When it to do our, but we also need to continue the investment in the National Security forces taking control on behalf of their civilian government. We cannot and will not be afghans longterm. We can be asserted army a s urrogate army. We just wont. I hope the runoff maintain that. On your point, i will make two points. I fully agree that it is not just friends and allies, is everyone in the region. We want to settle diplomatically. I will make one correction. The house never sends things up to the senate. We sent things over to the senate. Well set. One last round of questions. Thank you for that. We will go to these two gentlemen here in rose or and five rows 4 and 5. And then conclude. Good afternoon. My name is ali shiraz. I am from afghanistan and also the United States of america. I am the president for a coalition in afghanistan. I have been involved in affairs for 40 years. The last 11 years have been spent in afghanistan, working with the tribes. Im quite happy to hear that the United States is unable to take a position to show the world that they are the leader. It is a difficult job for you and i know that you do not have to share the burden. You have friends around the world who will support you. Those friends have to know that you are there to stand by them. The problem in afghanistan this has to be a question. Have established a National Army for afghanistan. Nato and the united dates are leaving this year. The afghan National Army has been left. They are being left arm less. The arms that they have our machine guns. We would like to know, what kind of equipment will you leave the military to defend themselves against invaders or aggressors . To defend a mountainous region like afghanistan. We do not have tanks or helicopters or the right equipment. Gentlemen behind you, please. Hi. I am peter. I am a student who came to be here. Today know that . I will tell the one them w hen i come back. A lot of americans do not know about history. International history and things like empires or isolationism or expansionism. Isnt there a problem with the formation of an American Public opinion . A lot of americans think that what happens overseas is not important. They think they are in an empire that could go either way. Isnt it dangerous for americans not to know enough about history . They will not be able to tell their congressman or senator. They cannot make informed decisions about things like National Security or budget. They wont be able to make the right sacrifices or be prepared to think about Foreign Policy in the right sort of way. Isnt this a serious problem . Let me stop you there. I want to keep things moving. Um yes and no. I represent people are pretty busy in their lives are now. Getting up in the morning and making sure their kids get to school. Getting a lunch made for them if they go to school are paying for college are going to work. To add this to their list is their choice. Not my choice to add to their list. Everybodyt expect that i have an honor to represent to know everything that they that i think they ought to know. That is like a recipe for not being able to represent them anymore. If i tell them their job they are supposed to tell me my job. Most folks respect a member of congress who has thought through issues that they have not been able to think through, as long as the member gets back to them and tries to explain why they did x, y, or z. We have a responsibility toward our folks first, before they have a responsibility to come up with an idea that is as well thought out as you might find in an academic paper. Youll not find that. Folks are busy living their lives. We have to be responsive to that first, in my view. Next, we can explain why we do the things that we do. Get their feedback as well. The afghanistan question . On the afghanistan question, i agree it is important for us to ensure that the Security Forces have the weaponry and equipment appropriate for their circumstances. I think were doing some of that. We are buying some russian aircraft for them. We will leave some of that is controversial, buy the way. We will leave them some of the equipment that we have. It may not be everything that they want, but those are part of the discussions. Think the bottom line is that we must and i think we are, absolutely committed to doing whatever we can to support the afghan Security Forces being able to take care of the needs of afghanistan. Whether that is equipment or training or whatever, we need to assist them. That is in our national in terest. I completely agree on history. We are not as good as we should be in educating folks about what has happened. I am continually struck by how globally interconnected this world is. Part of this is generational. Again, just coming back from china and going through all of the economic interconnections between us and china we really have not talked about that much today. We focused on security and trade. Theres a whole other dimension to that relationship that also plays in. A think that is not exclusive to china. It is true around the world. Well i agree with you on history, i think that the interconnectedness of our world today is truly astounding. When you start to go through stepbystep some of that may be a doubleedged sword, but it is reality and it will only grow more so. One final point on that. To give you a flavor of how Public Opinion has shaped in china, three weeks ago, we met with a number three the chairman from they National Peoples congress. He came up to us. The number one question on his staffs minds reflectivef cards of congress and the American Public system . [laughter] our culture is infiltrating their public system. They care less about what we are really like and how we are on tv. We are undercutting their view of us as well. Glad you can see what theyre really like. It is good. Please join me in thanking the congressman. [applause] when youre living in a world where you do not have monopolies and you have multiple Companies Competing for a consumer for their options on tv, that really does not work. Is one of the reasons why consumers do not have as many options as they could have and why the prices are still going up for your television and video service. They should be going down. There is a whole lot of competition between different kinds of companies. When youre getting Internet Access in your home or watching tv. They used to be that you watch tv or had a cable provider. Now there are cell phone providers offering Cable Services and satellite services. So, there is a lot more consumer choice. Consumers are the winners at the end of the day. We need to have an antitrust up approach. What we want to do is make certain that the fcc releases all of their information in a timely manner. Were going to go through an entire process of fcc reform t his year. We think the agency should be more transparent. They should focus on what they are doing with spectrum and licensing. That is their core mission. We do not want them getting off into Net Neutrality and trying to have governance of the internet. Privacyt want them in and data Security Issues. That goes to the ftc. Is time to narrow their focus and get them back to their core mission. The Telecommunications Issues that congress is considering the session. Tonight at 8 00 on cspan2. For over 35 years, cspan brings Public Affairs of and from washington directly to you. Putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. And offering complete gaveltogavel coverage of the u. S. House. All of the Public Service of private industry. We are cspan, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to it as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Its funin hd, like facebook, and follow us on twitter. Politico is reporting that was hit with a 20 count federal indictment today. Those allegations against him are related to his ownership of a restaurant in manhattan. 2006 and ownsi in this place until he was elected to the house. He is in federal custody. Theu. S. Attorney for Eastern District of new york had these remarks earlier today. I do think it is a sad day when someone who is a former marine, who is an attorney, is an accountant with an accounting degree, deliberately chose to turn his back on his oath and obligations. It is sad and it is an example of another public official that we have seen who has let their greed and their personal life applique their actions even after they have taken office. This did continue into his time in office. When politicians who have outside businesses have not businesses there with any degree of responsibility that you would expect, not just from a public official, but from an average citizen the obligation not to lie under oath is everyones obligation. It does not get stronger when you were in congress, it is the same. The indictment today includes a long list of criminal charges, including mail and wire fraud, filing false taxes, hiring undocked. Workers, a congressman in advance macallisters office says he will not seek reelection. Macallister intends to complete his term. A video earlier this month shows him with an aide in his office. The aide resigned and and other aid later resigned. He is a married father of five and has stayed out of public sight. He could not immediately be reached for comment today. It is a cloudy afternoon as we look at the u. S. Capitol today. Congress is returning from a twoweek holiday recess. Both parties will gavel in at 2 00 eastern. In the senate, lawmakers will consider several judicial nominations. Coverage of the senate on cspan2. The house will begin considering nine suspension bills. The roll call votes will happen at 6 30 eastern. Watch the house live here on cspan at 2 00 eastern. Before the house, a look at a book delving into executive power in American Government from todays washington journal. Is frankme now buckley, professor of law at George Mason University and the author of the book the once and future king. Thanks for joining us this morning. Guest thank you for having me. Host what made you decide to write this book . Guest i came here from canada and i expected to find a country that was different from my former country. Instead, i found one that had a fair bit of monarchy built into it, curiously. It is a country which was founded by very smart, eminent, wise people, and what they wanted most of all was a country that would not be ruled by one man alone. Increasingly that is what we are moving to. Host i will read a quotation and you can break it down for us. Host break that down for us. Guest what i didnt say was george bush or obama. This is not really a partisan point. It is a constitutional point. We have slipped off separation of powers. When americans think of their constitution, i think what they primarily think of is separation of powers between equal branches. But i dont think they are equal anymore. I think most of the power resides in the white house and i dont think that is going to be changed. When people look at the country 40 years from now or 100 years from now, they will see this time as a point of reflection of where things have changed, and where the separation of powers, instead of something which prevents the acumen nation of power in one party, in the president , it instead immunizes the president from criticism. Host why do you think we have drifted further away from the separation of powers that the founders set up . Guest well, what the founders didnt want was for one person or body to have all the power. That is more basic than separation of powers. They came up with a scheme that was, frankly, a little messy. They had power diffused allover the place. What they didnt expect is that we would end up with a president who cant make laws by the cat, make e who can who can laws by dictat. It is not about bush or obama committees about the modern presidency. I dont think it is going to change. I think what we will see is a gradual realization that the can pretty much do what he wants. If there is a gridlock problem, he can cut through it as he seeks to do in the present. We look increasingly to him as a person who will solve the countrys problems. That, i think, can be dangerous. Wrote in your book that president ial systems are bad for liberty. Guest United States has had a pretty good run and no one would say that this is anything but a free country, but the American Residential system did not export well. What did export well is the reddish system, the mess the british system, the westminster system. If you compare president ial regimes with parliamentary regimes, president ial regimes in other countries are not conducive to political liberty. America is a free country in spite of its constitution and not because of it. Host our guest is Frank Buckley, a professor of law at George Mason University. To join our conversation this morning host i want to ask you about more details in the book. You say that separation of powers is not the best idea. Nt thewell, it wasbn primary idea between behind what the framers wanted. To imagine what it would be ,ike, imagine the 2012 election with the election thrown to the house of representatives. Different president. They thought the president would be more accountable to congress and they didnt expect the rise of the great federal state. They didnt see the great regulatory state in the offing. They thought the executive would be thin. The executive would be charged with defending the country is invaded, but not a lot more than that. The government has changed, and the institutions, the presidencies change with it. Host first call is nancy in los angeles on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. Guest hello, nancy. Caller hi, how are you . Guest good. Caller i think the congress has ceded power to the president. What do you think . Guest i think you are absolutely right. Amongst conservatives there is some criticism of members of congress. I think they are acting to the voters. John boehner does not want to take on president obama could he is reading probably correctly what the voters want of him. Host lets go to a tweet now. Host do you agree . Guest not really. They certainly went after nixon posteryou want to pick a child for the imperial presidency, nixon is a pretty good place to start. It has continued since then and has accelerated in recent years. Host another quotation from the book. Host kind of a fun one. Guest just for fun. I think it would be nice if we could somehow, though we cant emulate the british system where we could toss out up prime by simpleivil vote of the majority of house of representatives or house of commons, there is one other ht hing, too. In america, the head of government is the head of state, whereas in britain, you have the queen who is head of state and the president as head of government. That is dangerous. It is not just dangerous, it is not even really healthy. So much emotion is wrapped up in , whereas in a parliamentary system, politicians are figures of fun, they are buffoons. Lets laugh at them. Host if someone were to take that suggestion and play it out practically, do worry about a president on the world stage dealing with other nations . Guest not really. I think america, though forceful of the moment with respect to russia, is not been especially forceful in recent years. I dont know that i would worry terribly about it. There are people both on the left and on the right who are great fans of strong president ial government. On the right, for example, john yoos name comes to mind. These are National Greatness people who worry like you about protecting american might around the world could i dont know if who you would be worse off if we projected less american might around the world. Host keith is on the line for republicans. Caller how are you doing, maam . I like theou and conversation. I think the media matters. The media belongs to one side versus another site is the critical balance that our founders even overlooked, you know what im saying . Whoever controls the media same with when bush was going to war and they were dogging him so doggedly on everything he done cap him in check. The same cant be said about obama, when he does things can you imagine the president doing as many blunders as he has done and nobody attacks . He gets away with a lot of things that other president s dont get away with. When the powers of government are uneven in that way and one president has the media on his side, that gives an unfair advantage to him. Guest keith, i think you are making 2 really good points. The modern media has a lot to do with the rise of president ial power and a lot to do with the rise of executive power generally. You see the same phenomenon in a parliamentary government where the Prime Minister is the most important figure. The other point you make is about the partisan nature of the press, which somehow doesnt have much of a parallel and other countries. The press is sharply divided between people who support, well, a large number of Media Outlets that support the president , roughly, and a Smaller Group that doesnt. The ideaisan bias, that you have to take sides in defend your own if you are in the media, that is really dangerous. Ted in New Hampshire on the line for independents. Caller yes, hello. Guest hi, ted. Ifler i have a question you could explain like in a ntype intype algonqui government . Guest im sorry, i missed that. Algonquin . Guest that is probably the word, i just dont know it. Is beingust the way it run as change from the usual way we do things. I have heard it used on cspan before. But im not sure the exact explanation of it. Guest well, i tell you, if youre describing the rise of president ial power, i couldnt agree more with you. One, forve you instance. Amongst the democrats there is a concern that too much money is flowing into the coffers for hillarys campaign in 2016 and congressionalshe this november. But think about it for a moment the power is all on the other end of the building avenue then all that really matters is who will occupy the white house, not congress. Imagine if republicans take the senate. Ifld that change things . Youre a donor, the rise of president ial government changes your strategy with respect to whom you support and were seeing that now. Line forllis is on our democrats. Caller hello. My question has almost been answered. Do you think theres any chance congress being able to Work Together enough to balance the president ial power in the future . With well, i do come up one suggestion, and by the way, a lot of people are right about the proposed constitutional amendments. I think that is just nonsense and with all due respect to these fellows, and they are great scholars come it is so difficult to amend the constitution i just dont see that happening. What i did suggest, however, is this if you wanted to strengthen congress, there are a couple of things to do. First, clean up its act. Is an unequal contest because on the one hand you have the president , on the other hand you have 435 fracturous people lead in the house by a speaker from some place in ohio which was never heard of unless you are from ohio which you have never heard of unless you are from ohio. It is no contest. If we had a National Referendum on some issue like the budget, that might strengthen Congress Hand to propose a change in contrast to whatever the president wants. Host ask you another question is moaning about a quotation from the book. Guest thats right. Well, again, if you look at president ial regimes in other countries, they didnt fare so well. The countries that have fared better typically have parliamentary regimes, and the reason is that there is more accountability in a parliamentary regime. That is really important. There are president s for life. There are no Prime Ministers for life. Host Frank Buckley is a George Mason University law professor and the author of the once and future king. Massachusetts. Linda is on the line for independents. Caller good morning. Guest hi, linda. Caller i had a comment and then a question. I find it extremely deplorable sit thereny democrats and cheer on and encourage this president to continuously write executive orders. I just cant even get my hand around it head around it. Thats my comment. My question is at what point do they stop this . I understand that they are gridlocked, i understand there is a problem. Isnt it true that the theandtake think if president has to give them ,omething, they give something sort of a mutual agreement saying, and that is how these things get done . Thank you. Guest well, those are good questions. I think if you are the average voter there would be more cooperation. But if there isnt cooperation right now, it is because you are not the typical voter, and i think most voters are happy with the direction the country is going with obama and his executive orders. Im not blaming obama in any way. What i see him doing is working at the logic of president ial government as we have seen in other countries, and i dont think with the new president we will ever go back to the way it was. Host a question from twitter ash a statement, rather a statement, rather. Guest well, its more than a suggestion. Correct, oraller is the tweet is correct, then i think you have to look to the institutions themselves. Here is an example. The tarp bailout of 900 billion was meant for financial institutions. But both bush and obama wanted to direct money to the car manufacturers. 80 billion of that. That was not authorized by congress. Nothing is more basic to the constitution that you cannot send money unless it is authorized by congress. This wasnt. It was an 80 billion oversight. I dont know if you remember the protests about that, because i cant remember. In short, Congress Went along with it. If you want to blame the system, blame everybody in it. Republicans,e for in water flat, michigan. Caller yes, can you hear me . Host we can. Caller im so glad to hear this whole conversation because im just horrified of this oversight that is going on in the white house right now. I Wish Congress would be strong and take the power of the purse. I would love to read your book because i think it would be something that would be helpful for me to campaign and spread the word to everybody that we all have to take part and say this has got to stop, this tyranny. Guest now, there is a caller i like. [laughter] i couldnt agree more with the caller. It requires a change, not just the institution, but a recognition that realization amongst the voters that things have changed and we dont necessarily like where they are heading. Host sacramento, california. Robert is on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. Guest good morning. Caller i have a question for you guest regarding does he agree that all politics are local . Secondly, the gerrymandering that is taking place last few years does he think that affects the way the separation of governments are the way they are today regarding the president ial executive . Guest welcome i think politics are local when you get to congress. They arent local when you go to the presidency, for obvious reasons. But i also couldnt agree more about gerrymandering. It is really destructive of the workings of congress and of ordinary civility because it tends to produce people who are hardcore on one side or the other, and these are exactly the people who dont cut deals. Now, cutting a deal may not be what you want, but at the same time, i think we would have a much more civil conversation if one had to talk to people on the other side. You are more likely to do that when voters arent concentrated. The will ofs congress changed and what could congressional lawmakers do to compete with the executive power that you say has expanded . Guest well, you need a united. Ront of one party or the other as it happens right now it is the republicans in congress, but imagine a republican president and the situation reversed. What you would need would be Something Like a Newt Gingrich nine bills on the calendar today, mostly noncontroversial. Now live to the house floor. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. The clerk the speakers room, washington, d. C. , april 28, 2014. Hereby appoint the honorable thomas petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. Chaplain conroy let us pray