Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20150113

Evolved especially over the last decade or two. There are parts of this country where manufactured housing looms very large as a portion of housing stock. Particularly rural areas and some of the more difficult train of appalachian segments in Southeastern Ohio for example. But there are many of these around the country. And making sure that people are treated fairly in terms of being able to buy and finance manufactured housing is an important part of this spectrum. So it is something were going to continue to Pay Attention to. The white paper was represented as a pretty serious effort to lay some groundwork for people thinking about policy measures, whether its us or congress or others. And so it will continue to be a focus of intention for us because of the fact that it is such meaningful alternative for a number of folks. Especially on the lower to moderate income end of the housing spectrum okay. We have time for one more audience question. Thank you. My name is taylor with the new england council. I was hoping you can speak more about the first time home buyers and as the market recovers how confident are you with that aspect and whether you think the growth is coming and whether you are s unsfied with that growth. Thank you. We have to go back to the back drop of this. Everybody agrees although they have different accounts sometimes as the causation here. That it was the housing and Mortgage Market that broke and caused the financial crisis. And when there is an element of the economy thatt causes such a severe dislocation generally throughout the economy, it is almost inevitable that area of the economy will be the slowest to recover and repair itself. The damage was so deep in the mortgage and Housing Market that it just takes longer to recover. That has been our experience. Since the crisis going back to 2008, 2009. So, you know were talking five six almost seven years now. The Housing Market has lagged had recovery in the economy. Now, that also means that over time we may have pent up demand and were seeing signs of that, especially among first time homeowners. But what we dont know and the Federal Reserve had a great very succinct summary of eight or ten things weighing on the Housing Market that has achange were going to see how the Housing Market may change. When they talked about this in their open Market Committee minutes from june of last year. With first time home buyers what we dont know is whether theres been a temporary lull that will now lead to increased demand, or whether there is some sort of more permanent change going on here. The student loan overhang if it is not alleviated could be a somewhat more permanent change or at least temporary over a longer period of time. If attitudes towards credit and borrowing and home buying have changed among young people because they now view itni as a riskier market, that could be a dynamic that could extend for some time. And people are speculating about this now. We dont yet know. As i said earlier, Home Ownership continues for the middle class ine1 this country to be the single greatest engine of building wealth. Most of the wealth is tied up in the homes and over time they tend to build wealth most effectively by being a homeowner. So you have an significant segment of the young people who would miss that opportunity and miss the savings that come with that would be i think a negative for the economy and a negative for our society. So im concerned about that. And i think the people need to make good judgments about the possibility of Home Ownership and not shy away from it simply because they tend to be most focused on most immediate results that they saw in the recent past. So it is a market that is recovering. And i believe that first time home owners will begin to recover at greater pace. But we dont know that for sure and well all be interested the see how it develops. I had hoped to do more from the audience but i promised answer for staff. My answers were too long . Well i think the questions were too hard. Ive promised your staff that i will get you out of here timely. I had one more question that i wanted to pose to you. Ill ask you to answer for us. You gave your maiden speech as cfpb director here at brookings i think it was on your first day, or thereabouts 2012. We sit here now three years later. Can you quickly tell us looking back now over that three year old period what the Biggest Surprise has been both pleasant and otherwise of those three years as you thought it might have unfolded when you sat here three years ago. Well there was a pleasant surprise i hoped would occur when i was confirmed in the senate by a the in 2013. So that p÷ meaningful. What id said about the processes i encountered at the bureau. There are two things i didnt quite appreciate before i came. One is we operate in a space thats fairlycrowded with other policy makers. Congress is the primary policy maker in our country and thats a appropriate. But there are a number of agencies that have a different rules and we overlap and it takes real time and effort we all have to put in together. Weve been in a landscape where where he have received that time and effort from our colleagues and i think they have received it from us but who there is always the case it is not a given. The second thing i would say is i came to this job from the attorney general position in ohio, which is an enforcement position. I was not that familiar with the regulatory side of things. It takes longer than i would have wanted or expected tofa work through the thorough processes of, you know, these are complicated issues. You said there were some tough questions today. These are the questions s kind of questions were dealing with all day long every day and how to grade ate policy and balance everything and competingeing principles that are fundamental. And they take a lot of time and effort and require a lot of analysis of data and the like. So things move more slowly than i would like but hopefully they come out better at the other end. As you noted it is very very tough to set up a new agency. Not every new agency that has been. Set up has as happy a story to tell as the extremely successful three years that you have enjoyed. And were very pleased to have you here today. I can tell from the many hands that were raised that we easily could have gone longer. So id like to invite you back. To come and talk to us again and share your reflections. And let me just go back. I want to thank you again and all those who worked on doddfrank and continue to work on it and think about it. The fact that an agency like this was created, established, to look after the middle class in this country, the average consumer and to recognize they make choices every day that affects their lives. Some are difficult choices they dont fully understand. Some are choices they make all the time. To the extent we can help them to be in a position to do that better and improve their lives] financially. That is significant across this whole country. And we recognize that oz our mission and it motivates and makes it a pleasure to go to work every day. Thank you. Thank youtn for the work that you all your colleagues do. [ applause ] legislative work is under way this hour in the house and senate. The house wrapping up the building over haul for the federal process for regulations. Still to come the spending bill. The current measure expires in february. That may include language that would reverse president obamas executive action on immigration. Over in the senate they have greed to move forward on the debate of the key stone excel measure. Look for amendments to be offered and debated at least through the end of this week. Although the senators are out for Party Retreats tomorrow and thursday. Follow the senate over on cspan cspan2 cspan2. On cspan3 tonight the state of the state coverage continues. Well hear from Indiana Republican governor mike pence. Well have his comments just after 7 00 eastern here on cspan3. And up next remarks from kentucky senator rand paul on judicial restraint and the role of the courts. He spoke today at the heritage foundations conservative summit and this portion of that conference is an hour and ten minutes. Im very proud i supported him when it wasnt cool. I was told i was stupid. He couldnt get elected and im grateful he has proved all the critics wrong. Rand pall i think has been a fresh face on the political scene and i think very important to the conservative movement. I have said a number of times that the only majority that is left for freedomminded americans is a majority that comes from welding a lot of theq libertarian ideas with conservative ideas. I believe that the libertarian concepts of individualismht Self Reliance and free markets are certainly consistent with the foundation of conservative thought. And if we can weld with those libertarian foundations the conservative values that build a Strong Society and the guarantees of a Strong Defense that we will have the majority of american who is understand how do we build a stronger country, a Brighter Future and more opportunity for every american. Rand paul represents that in many ways and he easts shown as he goes around the country that folks are not particularly interested in politics are interested in a lot of things he says and talks about. Which is very important to our movement. Hes attracted millennial hes spoken on college campuses. Hes shown our ideas are persuasive when presented in a persuasive way. So we are honored and excited to have senator rand paul here at the heritage foundation. Hes been here many times since ive been at heritage speaking on a number of issues. And today i think hes here to probably stir you up just a little bit more than he has before. So please welcome senator rand paul. [ applause ] thank you. Thank you. Thanks jim. Think you are doing a great job and heritage continues to grow. I this i they sayo[ online weve got 20 maybe 25,000 people watching online. And i asked laughingly is this off the record and i can say anything i want. Can we just be frank. He said yeah nobody is going to be in there in the immediate. Here we go. Id like to make it a little more interactive. Were going to poll the crowd to begin with. Media and cameramen may participate also. Who in the crowd thinks judicial restraint is a great philosophy versus judicial activism . Who in the cloud thinks legal philosophy would be judicial restraint . [ hands ] this is going to be a tough sell. How many think judicial activism is the way to go and that is really what we should have as an activist court . Nobody. This is really going to be a tough sell. Dune why Justice Roberts did not strike down obamacare . Jushl restraint. I guess everybody here is for obamacare. Thinks the courtnr should stay the heck out and obamacare is just find because the majority wants it. And thats what Justice Roberts said. Wenr should not get in the way of the majority. Do you know where that comes from . Oliver wendell holmes. In the lotner case. He says the court has no business getting in the way to what the majority will is. We should leave it up to the majority. So if you are for judicial restraint, i guess then what happens when a legislature does bad things . Says, well were going to pass jim crowe throws through the 19th nicentury, most of the 20th century century. Should we have an activist court that comes in and overturns that. I wont bore you with slides but we have oneqn slide. Where is it going to be . I cant see it. Thats not going to help me any. We have a time line. We go back and start in 1995 with lockner and go through the way through obamacare. In each of the case who should conservatives be for is the question. Restraint oar activist. We go back to lockner. State legislatures were becoming more progressive and were restricting the right or the liberty of contract. So what happened is you had an activist court in the lockner case that rules 54 says states cant interfere with the right to contract. So are you for activism or restraint when it is with regard to State Governments interfering with the liberty to contract. We move on a little bit later and we get into the new deal. Here it is not state but the federal governments. They are passing all kinds of laws assuming new powers that werent essentially in the institution. So you once against have an activist court in the beginning until fdr got his way you have an activist conservative court who overturns federal laws one after another. And until finally a majority of the fkr apainoinpointees who say no judicial restraint is the way to go. Then you move on longer and you come out the depression and were look at the brown vars the institutionalized racismzci or separation or segregation. What is the position of judicial restraint . It says let the states do whatever they want . Is that the conservative position . I think its not my position. I think if the states do wrong that we should overturn them. That there is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice. The 14th amendment gives the Supreme Court, it gives the federal government a role in saying the states cant do certain things. There is a book called the conscience of the constitution by timothy because he talked about it in if we were to say well gosh if we just believe in states right federal government has no role in the states could you be in favor of john calhoun. He spot not only supported slavery lu a tierneyearni tyranny of State Government. They could do whatever they want. Do we believe so much in a small State Government that we have no belief in nationally government. Im a traditional activist when it comes to lockner and when it comes to the new deal. But im also a judicial activist when it comes to brown. Thinkty federal government was right to turn over State Governments saying separate buzz equal is find. Pressey versus ferguson is restraint. When we get to brown im an activist. What is the next one in activism versus restraint . It is griswald. And you9 say why are we even having this discussion. Any of this have anything to do with the Current Events . They ask what do you think about grizwold. A lot of people didnt know what it was probably. But it had to do with Birth Control. State government said you cant sell Birth Control to women. So if you are a states rights person you say i guess hands off. If you believe in judicial restraint, you are like let the states do what they want. That is a state right. Or you might say well individuals have rights also and states cant tread upon individual rights . V9 . And then you might say maybe i am for griswald or for over turning the sysy say yooss you cant have Birth Control. And it led to rowe also. You have a competition of rights between a mother and a child. So it is a little different than just whether or not you are restricting someones liberty. Because i think thr are two individuals involved. Why is this rz pertinent . Because we move all the way up to obamacare. When we get to obamacare, whether he believes it or not i dont know. But justice report roberts laid down the gauntlet and said judicious restraint is why the government can do whatever they cnp r t hahp hc want. Not only, but if there are two equal arguments for whether its constitutional or unconstitutional we just have to accept that the presumption is of constitutionality. This kind of gets back to this idea of restraint. If we rebelieve in judicial restraint we presume the majority is correct. We presume that laws are constitutional until we can prove otherwise. Now there is a school of thought that thinks differently. Ran dibarnett rights about something o. This he talks about the presumption of liberty that maybe we should start with the presumption of liberty. I liken it to sort of saying well maybe we should be presumed innocent until found guilty. Maybe we should be presumed to be free until we are restricted. [ one person clapping ] yes ive got one con convert. Yes. My point is to think about it. I think it is not as simple as we make it sound. We say we dont want judges writing laws. I dont them writing laws either but do i want them to protect my freedom and take an active role in preserving liberty . Do i want the burden on the government to prove constitutionality. I think this is important and becomes so with regard to the obamacare. In that Justice Robert says it is not his role to replace the majority will. Some might say im still for judicial restraint. I dont care about any of these cases. We just need a better majority. That is an argument. But the question has to come also if you dont have a better majority. If you have a jim crowe majority in the south, does the court video have a role in overturning something where a persons individual rights are at take . I think so. I think it is 3x debate because ultimately ideas are important. Victor hugoo i think stayed ideas are more important than a strong army. They are the presupposition behind all this that pe seed all this and impower all of us. I think whatever kind of government we want, what kind of role the judiciary has, it is important to decide and examine ourselves with regard to the restraint or activism with regard to the court. Another issue we have is on separation of powers and i think this is an equally important question. It is legislative question and possibly a judicial question as wells. There is a professor from tufts who wrote recently and said the separation there is an equilibrium that is supposed to be there between the different branches, but were having a collapse of the separation of powers. Were having a collapse of this equilibrium. Our Founding Fathers talked about their being sort of an ambition that we would pit one ambition against another. An ambition for the legislature should be an ambition that is pitted against the ambition of the presidency. The hope was and many times in our history this ambition was i think beyond party label. Unfortunately i think now things are so partisan that if it is a democrat president usurping authority all democrats will support them. But if it is a public president you superusurping and taking on power. All republicans will support him. Instead and these ambitions would be pitted back and forth the ambitions would push us forward to more equilibrium. It isnt just on immigration the president has usurped and recreated and brought on the executive branch hour that is not there it is also in obamacare. But it is also on the power of war. The power to declare war was absolutely and without question given to the legislature. Weve been at war now for five months and no vote in congress. So before christmas i decided i would jrp declare war. And i would declare war on a water bill. And people are like why is he trying to declare war on a water bill . I say well it is my only avenue for having any power around here. Im not the committee. I dont get the decide the agenda. They have been working on this for six years. And as jim suggested you will get pretty annoyed if you amend something they are trying to do it. I amended with the declaration of the war to isis. I think they are a threat to. Bag dad and the consulate in erbil. And they are killing americans frankly. And there shouldnt be a debate. The president shouldnt do this alone. So these debates have to go on. And for me i thinkd important than belonging to one particular party or another is the ideas of the constitution and how the whole goal of the constitution is in limiting power and trying to not let too much power gravitate to onew3 body or one person. While im here in washington in the future as long as im here that will be my overriding goal is oto try to limit power and to gravitating to one person or body. And i think this is above and beyond all partisan politics. And i will continue as long as im given that privilege. Thank you very much. [ applause ] and i would ask people to raise hands if i converted you from restraint to activism but im afraid to. Well take some questions. Yes, sir . My question is very simple. Why wouldnr why is she obsessed with you . I ask this question to former israeli prime minister. [inaudible] he didnt answer in public. But ifn you want to [ inaudible ] im a sunni muslim. My question is very simple. If i want to die how smart is it for you do pick a fight for me . Muslim they are sadist they are irrational. They dont [ inaudible ] i guess the way i would look at it is and i say this often. Because i think it bares repeating. I think there is a long war going on. The long war in some ways is sunni versus shiite. But also in the islamic face there is a war between what i call civil and barbaric islam. And some people like to criticize the president and say oh why is he being so nice. I think whats trying to do point out a paint with ap, brush. I think that the vast majority of islam is peace loving and civilized. But if its 5 or 10 of islam, that is a lot of people and that is a big problem. The long war is not only sunni versus shiite but also a long war between a barbaric form of islam against mainstream islam and against the west. If i think no matter what we do with we have to defend ourselves. So, you know printing cartoons shouldnt engender people murdering you. So we do have to defend ourselves. France has to defend themselves we have to defend ourselves. We also have to defend our dmikt Diplomatic Missions around the world. I put a blot of blame at the feet of Hillary Clinton for not defending the embassy or the consulate in benghazi. I think she did a terrible job. And i think its inexcusable basically when you are asked for security that you not provide it. That is the job for the command ner chief and the job for the executive branch. Same for erbil or baghdad. While i dont want to be in the middle of a long war and much of this war should be left to fought by the middle east, at the same time we cant leave our emesis unprotected. So we either come home completely and bring everything home or defend our embassies and our interest i. I think at this point we defend our interest. But that doesnt mean we have to be involved in every war and skirmish. And if there is any one true thing i think is really unrefutable and the facts really support is every time weve gotten involved to topple a secular deck at a timer its been replaced by chaos and the radical islam. Hillarys war in libya and thexd republican war in iraq. So there is no counterbalance in iraq snoim the rise in iran. Some of these problems are insolvable. The only thing i think we have to know from our perspective is we should defend our country and our people. Senator paul makes an important distinction. As something weve looked at a lot at heritable. There is political islam welding itselves with the powers of government and perverting the basic religion itself and there is a more civilized i guess religious islam. And making that decision is very important i think in solving the problem itself. Some other questions for senator paul. Yes, sir. While i agree with your definition of an activist. [ inaudible ] to your point about separation of powers and the intention of the Founding Fathers how do we get that into a pop culture or an everyman definition that we can understand . Because it does transcend partisan. Some people dont understand that and we fall into the democrats are nice republicans are mean two seconds and end up in this mess. How to do we get more grassroots. I would say unelected do you recollects should write laws. But who are the unelected bureaucrats working for . Thats the policy issue. Rehave advocated our role against congress. Obamacare is 200 hun00 pages lock. Long. Regulations are over 2,000 pages though. Defunding the immigration and the executive order. Im all for how to. However im all that for about a thousand other things on every bill. I want a thousand people say oh you are just trying to tie the hands of the president. That is our job. I dont care if it is a republican president. The power of the purse. Those are instructions. Weve been writing outlines of the bills and sending them to the president and as a consequence they do whatever they want as a consequence they do many things we didnt intend. I think regulations that are written that are very expensive over a hundred Million Dollars ought to come back. The reigns act. Says that any legislation written by a bureaucrat by another branchxd of government that is very very expensive has to come back to be voted on to become law. That would go a long way towards reasserting our authority and reasserting the balance of powers. Senator pooulaul, i you four was one of the big found ores of the Libertarian Party and one of the main thrusts was you were against regulations and the are you for regulations in a constitutional way rather than just, you know, more red tape . I thought that was absolutely. Ill give you an example of that. We passed a law that the clean water act. That says no one can discharge pollutants in an advocatable stream. I think you have benzene and you are dumping it into the ohio i river. Not only should you be punished but you probably should be in prison for do inning that. Im for that regulation. That was a federal government regulation. It was passed in the 70s and it says dischargeing pollutant into a stream. Over time dirt has become a pollutant. And stream. So there is a role for government in communal property. But p weve gone way too far in what weve done to individuals. One quick example. Ken lucas cut clean dirt on his own land to raise the elevation to sell lots in southern mississippi. Hes been in prison for 10 years. He was 70 when he went to jail. Hes 79 now. That is a crime and the one who put him in jail is the one who ought to really be in jail. Limited government and they were making a the libertarian case against tpa, that it was seeking too much power to the president. The you agree with that . I have mixed feels. You are talking about the authority that is given for the trade agreements. And what is the tpa, what does the actual acronym stand for again . Trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority. This is an argument to be made my some on the separation of powers by giving this tort authority to the president that you have taken power from the congresses. Theres the other argument these ought to be treaties. Im also a big believer in free trade. I think it is a good thing. There have been libertarians or libertarian conservatives, my father included who voted against some of the trade deals because they felt like they gave up sovereignty to international bodies. I think that is a valid point. I have voted for the trade deals though because like a lot of things in washington, ive weighed had good and the bad. And i think the good of trade has caused me to vote for things that i think arent perfect basically. I think the perfect by is we lessen trade bearers and do that through the sovereignty of the congress. Unfortunately i think what weve been offered to vote on has not exactly been that. But trade has helped people and trade helps even the poorest among us more than anybody else. The average person whoshot shops in a walmart type store saves about 900 dollars a year because of the free trade. Lets thank senator rand paul. [ applause ] thank you senator paul. Were going to switch topics here for a moment. Jim bridenstein, in the conservative movement here. He hassen wanted mires throughout the policy world and determination not to play the washington game commitment to represent the ideals and values of the constituent who is sent him here in the first place. Speaking of those constituents one thing i love about him is hes been so close with the people who sent him to washington. As you know the Heritage Action has what we call a Sentinel Program where around the country we have activists in different districts who commit to holding their members accountable and helping them when they do the right thing to withstand the political heat. And we have some of those sent sentinels in the crowd today and were proud of that. And one of the things i love about congressman bridenstiebein is the way he interacts with with his constituents and making sure they are a part of the legislative process. Today he is going to lay out a conservative division for National Defense to. Secure liberties from foreign threats and ensure our ability to live this peace and security. At heritage were three legs of the stool conservatives and were happy to him senator bridenstein to share this with us. Please welcome the congressman to the stage. [ applause ] thank you for having me. Im a navy pilotalb,d as a lot of people in this room now. I can tell you firsthand there is a reason Aircraft Carriers when they are sitting in the persian gulf have targeting solutions on them by terrorist states and there is a reason these Aircraft Carriers dont ever get targeted. It is because of a strong deterrent. People know there will be a response. It will be lethal. It will be decisive and quick. And were not going to call and ask for permission. That is what deterrence is all about. And thats why im honored to be here to talk about National Security and the implications for our country going forward. Id like to start by thanking mike neatem and Heritage Action for the great work they doo. We have from time to time in congress dealt with issues ranging from cutting Aircraft Carriers to providing Foreign Terrorists more Constitutional Rights than we as american war fighters get. Heritage comes down on the right side of the these issues every time. They hold members accountable for their votes and certainly it is important groups like Heritage Action do this kind of activity for the benefit of i our nation. Yesterday diplomats from france germany, russia, ukraine canceled peace talks. There were going to be peace talks today. The United States was not involved in those peace talks. But they got canceled. I would attest that if the United States had been involved in those peace talks, they might not have been canceled. When america leads people follow. And when america isnt present things fall apart quickly. In this particular case these people fell apart. The annexation of the crimea is not even on the table in these peace talks and certainly any peace talks happening up till now there are always cease fires but they very quickly break down when the separatists in Eastern Ukraine once again resume their activities. The question is, how do we as america view ourselves when we outsource our diplomacy to berlin and paris . Which is what happened in this particular case. And when you look at our european allies, they are understandably right now distracted. Of course what is happening in paris is a distraction. The financial crisis in the euro zone is a distraction. And yet kiev is calling out to the United States asking for help, asking for support and the Obama Administrations response has been silence. Last september a joint session of congress listened as ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko pledged for america to stand up to Vladimir Putins war machine. It was an amazing speech and one of the times i got to tell you it was awe inspiring for him to stand up and plead for america to stand up to Vladimir Putins war machine. He called for america to quote be equal to its natural and manifest role. He called for america to be equal to its manifest and natural role. When you think about americans today, we dont hear ourselves talking in this way. Yet here is a leader of a foreign country calling on america to be equal to its naturally and manifest role. Can a commander in chief whose definition of engagement is leading from behind even begin to grasp that . The question is how did we get here . The Obama Administration simply does not realize what many in room realize that weakness is provocative provocative. On the one hand weakness discourage ours allies and forces them to search for more assertive and reliable partners. On the other hand weakness encourages adversaries to continue bad behavior both abroad and at home. The root cause of the ukraine crisis lies in the president s failed reset policy with russia. It goes all the way back to the reset policy. In fact the day after president obama got elected, russia announced the deployment of mobile theater Ballistic Missiles into kaliningrad between libya and poland. After pledging a world free of Nuclear Weapons president obama signed a disastrous Nuclear Arms Control treaty with the weapons. New caps on Strategic Nuclear war heads and launchers are low enough to force the United States to divest weapons but high enough for russia to continue to increase its operational stockpile. We are drawing down. They are plussing up. Russia has taken advantage of new starttm to launch a fullfa Scale Nuclear modernization program. Russia is fielding next generation icbms and new submarine launched missiles carried aboard brand new nuclear submarines. Russia is also violating the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty, the inf treaty. In 2008 is when we first started hearing about this in open press reports. Yet new start was ratified in 2010. So we knew the russians were in violation of a treaty and yet we signed yet another treaty that strengthened them and weakened in 2010. The Obama State Department conveniently waited until just last july to declare the russians were even in violation of the inf treaty. Ive received numerous briefs on this issue and i can tell you all of us are terribly worried and alarmed about this issue. In over four years the administration has done nothing in response to these Violations Including provide political or other command to europe or nato. Obamas weakness has provoked russian aggression. In september 2009 the president caved to russian pressure and canceled Strategic Missile defenses planned for poland and the czech republic. The president canceled long range standard missile three intercepters in europe. That was in 2013. In 2012 when he met with medvedev, wait until after my next election. Ill are the flexibility. What he was talking about is the fleck flexibility to bring down those long range missiles. Its a long and oppressing list. If you look at the russian invasion of georgeia you still have areas occupied by russia. They are building a the berlin type environment where people cant travel back and forth inside the nation of georgia. They are now9 going to be permanently separated regions. If you look in azerbaijan here is another stale conflict where the russians are involved intentionally creating the tension so they can control their former soviet state states. Estimates are as many as 80,000 troops in armenia. Go to poland and the czech republic. They had a Missile Defense shield planned. Russian generals threatened nuclear war. They are threatening nuclear war against our nato allies. You rook at the baltic states. Latvia lithuania and astonia. These are countries that want their independence. They enthusiastically joined the European Union and nato. And in response russia shut off their energy. Shut off that you are natural gas in the dead of winter. And friends when you do this people suffer and die. The list goes on. Central asian states from developing closer ties and relations with the west. If you look at mall dove have a, estimates are over 2,000 Russian Troops in the transnistria region creating a the frozen conflict. And the question is what happens next . Are those russian speakers going to be protected in the same way the russian speakers were protected in crimea . And what does that mean to the worlds stability . It is the Obama Administrations repeated demonstrations of weakness from new start to that created had conditions that ultimately let to crimea. What should congress do . With the russian economy floundering, congressional action could help strengthen ukrainian resolve, reassure nervous allies and friends and deter further russian aggression. Sanctions are important. But they offer diminishing returns. We need to be honest. The collapse in oil prices has caused far more damage to the russian economy than sanctions ever could have hoped to accomplished. The worst thing congress could do is split the nato alliance. We need to keep it together and strong. And we dont need to push moscow intow3 the arms of beijing, with whom russia just signed major natural gas deal on terms favorable quite frankly to china. We need a more comprehensive National Policy to change russian behavior without damaging our relationships or making russia into chinas junior partner. In fact some would arguexd that russia could very well be becoming a client state of china. Congress with also help strengthen ukraines position by authorizing loans necessary to reestablish basic Services Within territory retaken from the rushbacked separatists. So when ukraine does make progress and take back territory the United States could providedxr r t hahp hc loans to the government for purpose of building the infrastructure in those areas retaken by ukraine. The imf resigned off on a 17 billion dollar offer. Congress should sign up to build support for the government in newly taken areas in ukraine. And relief for the freedom fighters. Putin will only back off if the military balance turns decisively against separatist. U. S. Non lethal aid is not enough. As president poroshenko told congress, blankets and nice night vision goggles are important but one cannot war with blankets. Russian activity is scaring allies. From a ureassuring standpoint, the best thing they can do is reduce dependence on russians energy supply. Russia understands that and they have been using that. The baltic states, our nato allies rely on russia for 100 of their natural gas. Many other european friends rely on russia for half. I will be reintroducing the American Energy renaissance act. And streamline the process for exporting coal. Given the european preference for natural gas, i have introduced hr89 in this process. A bill that solely deals with ramping up natural gas exports. This exact billa5 passed the house multiple times in the last congress. Finally i intend to introduce a resolution showing congressional support for americas continued article five commitments under nato. If you attack one of us you attack all of0;rrkz little green men. Finally finally. Unless response to all of this activity, nato wants to establish a new readiness to reinforce deterrents. Congress should use the ndaa to push european command, specifically cyber offense and defense. They are uncomfortable with president obama as a global super power. He does not understand that america must lead where ever and when ever our allies and friends are too distracted, intimidated, or unwilling. It is a consequence of american weakness. So is the instability now stretching across the greater middle east, into the asia pacific and into central and south america. In every case a series of weak responses have compelled allies to question our commitment and adversaries are pushing the envelope further. We must send a message to president obama and the world. The American People and their representatives are unwaivevering in their determination gnat government will provide their obligation to defend. And will lead the free world from a position is of unassailable strength. Thank you for having me and im looking forward to questions from the panel. Thanks. Thank you congressman. We have the director of douglas and Sarah Allison center here at the heritage foundation. Steve will be the moderator for this discussion. Over to you. Well try to do this quickly to get you out in time for lunch. We have culley stemson, he is manager of the National Security law here. He is a reserve navy j. A. G. Corp officer. He was a military judge, specializing in sex crimes and homicides. He was the number two guy in the revere corp j. A. G. Core. Next we have our budget seep your policy analyst for defense budgeting. She came from us from a leading independent management and consulting firm. I was an army green beret, i was involved in home defense and i got involved in Cyber Security. Im the director of the allison center. We do defense Homeland Security latin america, africa, and the middle east. Were each going to talk three to five minutes to give you a quick blurb on our subjects. I have been asked to speak about Sexual Assault in the military and the right policies. We produced a special report here at heritage on that topic. It is available online, but downstairs in the lobby. I sat with a rape victims, male and female as a local and state court prosecutor. I have helped them know their rights and get justice. I have defended people accused of rape. And i have been the deputy chief judge for the last fourandahalf years. Most of the cases are Sexual Assault or Sexual Assault related cases. I have seen this problem up close and personal. We wrote our paper to educate congress on the differences between the military Justice System that is unique and the civilian Justice System which is you name. To accomplish the mission, leaders must ensure that those that serve under them are combat ready and combat effective. Maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces is essential to accomplishing that mission. Contrast, of course, the mission of an elected da in a county. She, once elected is charged with enforcing the criminal laws of that state in her courts through her prosecutors. She has nothing to do with the training and equipping of citizens in the county. She just vindicates the rights of those brave enough to come forward and for those that are prosecutable, many of which are not. Incidents of actual assault are real in the military and the civilian context and its a real problem. We saw the recent bogus Rolling Stone article that is not true, but on campuses theyre usually acquaintances and there is usually alcohol involved. Our military Justice System is a well developed and integrated criminal Justice System that handles thousands of crimes a year from petty theft, drug and Sexual Assault. Congress has to realize it is fundamentally different from the civilian justice similar. And this is where i think the scream is bad policy. Commanding officers in the military have a wide range of tools available to enforce good order and discipline. This including informal counselling, formal counselling, nonjudicial punishment and you can also fire people. If they commit misconduct. But the ultimate is to refer a case to a courts marshall. Now you hear them say we need independent prosecutors in the military, not a hand maiden of the Commanding Officer. That shows a gross lack of understanding. I bet that she and no one that supports her scheme has been to a court marshal. They are independent. Taking the power away and giving it to a sold called officer eliminates an indispensable authority if we are to demand accounts from commanders. This notion of accountability i think, is probably somewhat obscure to people in the civilian community that have not served in the military but those that have completely understand it. Under the current systems they have the legal responsibility and they do so sometimes against the advice of their j. A. G. Lawyer. The reason is simple. In the civilian context when i was a prosecutor if a victim came to me through the police and said she was raped, i can only go through with that if there is a lnlreasonable likelihood of success. On the military side, a Commanding Officer, say he was a Commanding Officer now, not a congressman, he is not a lawyer. All they have to have is probable cause that that person committed that crime against that person. If they say they there is probably cause to believe the crime was committed they refer that case to a Court Marshall and it is transferred and they do the best they can. I can tell you that if the scheme became law, and what would result, is fewer courts marshalled, and more victims. It sounds good for soundbytes, but its terrible for the victims. Congress did a good job reviewing the military Justice System. Key reforms were put in place. Many of those reforms have not even taken effect. So now you have senator jillibrand looking at divesting responsibility to commanders. But the laws that werethey were passed. Ill leave it at that. Thank you i think this sets the stage well for a discussion on the defense budget. I think one of the ligest droughts will be finding a way to decrease spending. It will return to the budget control act levels this will have serious implications for our already degraded military. I will just touch on thee quick points. And second returning to leveling of spending, its just bad budgeting in my opinion. Lastly in terms of fully funding defense, i think it can be affordable if you pass proper budget policies. Starting in 2010, we cut defense spending by 25 from 757 billion to 565 billion. The amount that you got in such a short time frame and the fact that the budget environment has been extremely uncertain for the past several years has had significant impacts on the military. Ill leave you with one example. The military uses a two war concept to determine how large the military should be. Under this concept the u. S. Military should be able to fight two wars in two separate geographical areas. It gives the military and the president some flexibility and deters aggress i have actors from taking advantage if the United States were to engage in war. This construct has been used since 1991 at the end of the cold war and every administration has relied on it in some form or another. In order to absorb the reduction in defense spending, they have had to cut the side of the military. So army navy, air force, and the marine corp. Today it is not large enough to meet the two war requirements. Returning to bca levels of spending is just bad budget policy for the defense department. At this level we would be holding the defense top line flat for three straight years in a row. Unfortunately programs and people increase had real cost growth in the military. In order to maintain a flat top line, you have to continue internal cuts. This means additional reductions and the navy recently said under bca levels they would go to a ten Aircraft Carrier size, and this one would undo many of the recent gains. Simply put, the military would begin become a hollow force. I also know that bca became law in 2011, but since then a lot has happened. To give you additional examples, the growth of isis they will have to address more one way or the other. By returning to a budget level that we set in 2011 were creating a greater mismatch between what is required of our military and the actual resources were willing to give them. Lastly on the issue of affordability. Since 1948 the military spending as averaged 5. 8 of our gdp. Under bca levels that would be 2. 6 , nowhere near what we have historically spent. We have a spending problem we have 18 trillion in National Debt. But it is not possible to fix our spending problems on the back of defense. The main driver of our National Debt as you know is entitlement spending. We could zero out defense funding entirely and we would still have a problem. Because we have not passed any substantial entitlement reform, all of these cuts that the military had to endure gets us very little in fiscal responsibility. So all of this taken into account, fiscal 2016 is really the time to increase the budget and i think congress has a great chance tos do so next year. Thank you and thank you congressman for covering an issue that i want one of my specialists to deal with, nukes and Missile Defense. I will talk quickly about Cyber Security. It is a real issue. We just had recently the sony hack, and now the centcom twitter hack. Action is required, our legislatures need to do something about this. Very quickly keep in mind that Cyber Security is not a partisan issue. Every bill that has come up has had strong bipartisan support. Every bill that has come up has had slightly bigger opposition. The main problem that were running into is folks that think a regulatory solution would work. That does not work. It doesnt work in most situations, it darn sure will not work in a field as dynamic as Cyber Security. We just have this wonderful desire for one big comprehensive bill that fixes everything. It is really hard to do that, it covers so much ground. We really have to break it up and get it in more manager pieces if were going to get legislation in a beneficial nature. We need to get better information sharing and still protecting Civil Liberties and privacy. We ahead to to encourage and build an Insurance Industry that will drive our personnel of corporations to make Business Decisions to improve Cyber Security. We have to fix our supply Chain Security across the board. The Global Nature of the cyber fly chain stuff gets built everywhere is not going away unless you want to bay 10,000 or 15,000 for an iphone. We dont want to go there. We need to add a capability for some degree of active defense. In other words they can fight back. They can only defend themselves right now, if they fight back at all its against federal law. It needs to be not a free fire zone, but we need capability to do that. We need to improve the awareness and training of our entire nation from the 5yearolds who are already on the internet using mobile devices to our grandparents that access their benefits from state and local institutions all online. We need to find a way to build a sufficiently robust Cyber Workforce. We have a problem with that now. There is a lot of people that we need in that Cyber Workforce that we cant get because they cant get a security clearance. They were looking at someone elses grades in their High School Computer when they were 18 and now they have a problem. There is a lot of nonstanderard folks. And we have to have Effective International engagement. I will be honest with you, i didnt like that when we first put it in our documents because there is a strong component in our government that thinks we should have cyber arms control. Just make an agreement with other countries about what we will do. It will never work with cyber. But we do have to have some sort of engagement on an International Level because if you dont we will allow china, russia, and iran to define what the internet will look like. We dont want to give up the freedom and access that the internet provides to us that fuels our economy to put it under that kind of regime. With that i will stop and we have a few more minutes to take questions before tim will wave at me and give me a hook. Please stand, identify yourself, i will acknowledge you and you can ask away. Any questions . Im brian. I think one of the Big Questions right now within the conservative movement is if were going to remain a three legs of the stool movement. Or if we will go in a more lib tear direction. How do we, and we have talked about this and been promosting this. We want to be lib tear in our rhetoric, there isf mp libertarian flavor to it right . It is not three legs of the stool, it is completely consistent with our philosophy. Can you talk about how we reach out and make sure we dont shatter the movement around these lives . When i talk to constituents and theyre concerned about defense spending it is not the department of defense per se it is the deficit. The idea that for four years now we have been printing catch to buy american treasury bond. This is a what america very, very concerned. The people paying attention. Theyre not just buying american Treasury Bonds and Mortgage Backed securities. So we see that we have deaf sis and have deficit problems. When it comes to National Security, when you look at whats happening around the world today, the more we wait the more costly it will be in the future when we do engage. The concern is not so much about whether or not we should be engaged in the world, protecting american interest, it is about the debt and the deficit. It was correctly identified that we could eliminate the department of defense and still have a deficit. That is a fact. The reality is what we need to do is reform entitlements. These are the programs that ultimately, if we do not fix, will bankrupt our country. The United States is not immune to the same types of problems that we have seen in europe. We have to be very careful about managing our budget. Part of it is to make sure that as aggressors in the world become more aggressive, theyre thwarted early and often. I think we have time for one more question. There are long standing problems in the department of defense that has not been addressed like acquisitions, base closures, since the Eisenhower Administration we have dealing with these problems in the department of defense. Absolutely. From my perspective, certainly i used to do acquisitions as a military guy. There are a whole host of things that we do that are not competitive in nature. And ultimately serve the war fight everyer better. Those interests include an army of acquisition professionals, contractors that come alongside the government to purchase things and contractors that sell things to the government. So you have this very immobile bureaucracy that is very difficult to manage. Ultimately this is the kind of thing that is going to have to be reckoned with by the United States congress. Certain things that we can do for example, is increase competition. One thing i have been working on, i am on the Strategic Forces committee, instead of a model honing and operating them in the department of defense we moved to a model where were purchasing imagery and data from the private sector. Were drying down the cost where imagery is available to corporations that share the cost. So they are sharing in the risk. So the more we can move towards a model such as that, where were partnering with the private sector, in ways that the d. O. D. Look the d. O. D. Was involved in the creation of the internet. So we got to a position in the department of defense now in a we use Internet Networks managed by a prooifs Company Private company. Satellite communications are the same. Its not driven by those who have an interest in maintains the status quo. We have to drive down costs and benefit the war fighter. Thats where it is going to happen. With that i unfortunately have to cut it off because you only str 15 minutes to eat before things start again. Thank you very much and lunch is being served out in the lobby and well be available. [ applause ] the house is debating a Homeland Security funding bill tonight. A number of amendments would reverse president obamas executive action on immigration. We spoke to a reporter about the legislation. A congressional reporter with politico, and she is talking about the amendments as far as immigration is concerned. How and why is all of this coming up now . So it is coming up together right now because the funding for the department of Homeland Security runs out on february 27th. It is only mid january and republicans are working plenty ahead of time to make sure that the Homeland Security agency is funded because they want to attach these controversial legislative language that got. It is very impossible to get 16 votes in the senate. So lets see, five amendments and one of them offered by House Republicans. He sent out a tweet about his amendment. Most important requireties in funding executive amnesty will get a house vote this week. What would this amendment do specifically. It was hard to see how the debate moved to the right. The conversation originally dpan last week looking at overriding the executive actions that the president announced just last november. Now they are sweeping and they could affect up to five million people. But what other members wanted to do was attack older executive actions including what they do as the deferred action for childhood arrivals. The dreamers brought here at an illegal age. They got work permits from a 2012 program. They want to override that and a series of memos baiting as far back to 2011 that set the administrations priorities. What about the other four amendments, what are some of the details . The one being offered had a similar affect. It says no they cannot take any new applications or renew any applications. Right now the dreamers under this program only have two year work permits, so that makes hundreds of thousands of young immigrants eligible again. People immigrants accused of Domestic Violence or sex offenses have a higher level. And it is a symbolic resolution. What about funding . Is there anything in those amendments that would affect the funding and how that would come across . Basically when people say theyre blocking the implementation, theyre using the power of the purse saying congress that directs basically how the federal government controls the money that is what congress is trying to do. Theyre trying to let the can implementation stop, a lot of the programs are fee funded. The latest kpektive actions that the president announced in november will be run by Immigration Services that is under dhs. That agency is almost entirely fee funded. So its been a little bit tricky trying to figure out how exactly you will defund an agency that is not actually funded by congress. But the republicans think the language they put together, saying no money, not even fees can be used, they think they found a way to do it. At the same time president obama is sure to veto this. What about House Democrats nancy pelosi any democrats supporting these amendments . I spoke to a few lawmakers and aides today it seems unlikely. It is likely to be just a couple at most. A lot of very conservative house kms that volted with republicans in the last congress im thinking about former congressman, they lost their reelection bids and are now no longer an office. You mentioned a potential veto here what is president obamas thoughts on the under lying bill here the Homeland Security spending bill. He is opposed to it why, and could this lead to a government shut down . Or at least of the agency come february 27th . The white house and the department of Homeland Security, secretary jay johnson express support for the bill. It is funding for the Homeland Security department that runs through the rest of the fiscal year. It funds immigration and it is a diverse allegation that has to many different operations. Theyre find with the different spending levels they set for the various agencies. Its really those immigration amendments theyre taking issues with. If those get attached to the under lying bill, everything will get vetoed. Thank you for your time. We will be following you on twitter and youre whiting at politico. Com. Thanks a lot. Thank you for having me. Tonight, cspans state of the state takes you to indiana with governor mike pence. His remarks are scheduled to begin just after 7 00 eastern. Well have it live here on cspan 3. From ver were back with representativive peter welch. L for lets talk about house action this week. On the floorpubl isdo the spending bill for the Homeland Security t or a defense department. Ga what do you make of what theyre trying to do here, how Many Democrats do you think will vote bill is for or against it . None. Continua it is not really about Homeland Security it is a continuation th of the act that the president is making on Immigration Reform. What the republicans have done use th on this is dodged healing with Immigration Reform. The bill is about unraveling every executive action that the president took. Ch pushing us back from where we kn are on the immigration issue which has to be faced, and sending a bill you know wont pass to the senate. Igra it wont pass because a lot of the Senate Republicans know that we have to pass an imkbragsmigration republic reform bill. It is a bill that has no chance of passing with the republican controlled senate. So the date of the confrontation they will have has been. Ssman postponing. So i dont say think much of it. Bill flores was saying he thinking some House Democrats will not vote for this. There may be a few, but it wont be much. Here is what im saying. Blican this is a strategy that is about the republicans in the house essentially appeasing the most get ardent antiimmigration folks. They know this bill will not get through the senate. It will get through the house. I dont know if there will be it lit democrats that vote for it or not, it unravels everything the president did. And keep in mind that the Senate Passed the strong bipartisan imfwragsim Immigration Reform bill. E last there is a lot of contentious take a issues, and we have to do something. The house last year failed to take any action whatsoever. So the bottom line, i find this to a bad step because it is not thething House Republicans who we need to work with, coming together on something that moves us forward. How will you counter on the floor . We have to get something done. The legislation was pretty good,ust ge it was passed with people like john mccain. T will the make a difference for america. In addition to your role as chief deputy, you serve on the sort oversight and National Security and sub committee. What are your thoughts on what happens in paris and what sort how c of threat is therean for the United States . Two things, number one how can any of us not be totally st fra horrified on what happened in partly sunny paris. And it just shook europe to its foundation. The possibility that a loan wolf, orwolf he ity lone wolf or group can do so a much ppdamage. I think our Homeland Security folks have been vigilant one oft is the apprehensions we have rightly so about whats going on in the middle east with radical islam, is that some home grown the terrorists folks that came from u. S europe and. Got trained, or from the u. S. , will so the monitors that Homeland Security has been doing, and what the fbi has been that doing to prevent travel to those areas, we have to maintain that vigilance. It could happen. Ility to also, another threat that presented itself yesterday was about isiss ability to hack into the pentagons youtube and twitter pages. How concerned are you about this . Im very concerns act it, and all of us should be. This is an area where i think rity, there isan a potential for real bipartisan support on just cybersecurity. Our mel tear has superiority in just about any engagement it gets involved in. When it comes to cyber we dont have superiority. Some of those criminals are hacking into target or jp morgan. So its an economic throughout. Some are trying to take steps that would erode our National Security. Thats an example that you just mentioned. So the president is going to be proposing Cyber Security efforts. And i think youre going to see from there will be a lot of cooperation because we know from an economic standpoint and a system National Security standpoint wes have to do the best we can to make certain that our systems ming t are safe and protected. What type of proposals are you talking about . Could they come to the floor . Our there there is real bipartisan support. Fred upton is our republican chairman and he has been authorizingtivityeing activity on this. Some Companies Share information with respect to systems so that we would be able to take better steps and earlier steps to prevent hacking. Another element will be to try to protect the privacy of your data and mine. Secu we have to have Data Security privacy as well as secure data ng networks. Democrats this week also you wi having your annual retreat in baltimore where you discuss the agenda and priorities. I wonder if there will be discussion at that meeting about how democrats talk about wall street. Therewall appears to be a division you within the party about how they how the party talks about wall street. Do you agree . How should the party address it. Sion on there is division on how we talk about the economy. I what you have seen with wall street is that they have done well. We went off of the cliff in 08. Mostly because of final manipulation creating enormous wealth for some of the folks and and the banks on wall street. Result o we then had the bailout. Folks the American People were pretty livid that the result of the d bailout was the folks that caused the problem are now doing better than ever. All of the rest of the folks have stagnant wages. So for folksdr striving to get into the middle class, their wages have not kept up. If you work hard and play by thewe rules, you should be able to pay your bills, get ahead and make your kids better off than you what i were. Well bee gr talking about this, but i think what the democrats have to do is what is a growth agenda. What are tax policies and budget the policy b thats will help spur up but growth and wages. The big divide in our economy iswe wil profits are up, but wages are not. So thats the big challenge for us and we will be talking about that. The Division Within the partyprovis seems to be playing out about what to do about dodd frank election. Do youd up ease up on some of the provisions or not . Was that a good decision for him every to withdrawal from being t him considered for this post . Everything in a i understand a lot is that he was an exceptionally positive person that did a lot of positive things. , from s senator warren just didnt think he was a good nomination. Yes, i think he was symbolic of wall street getting their people back into high level policy positions. Any and what mr. Weiss has done is taken another position that mation doesnt require Senate Confer ration. So we will see. Al quest its not just the individuals. The real question here is we have to help our main street ot have banks. We need a strong Banking Sector. But a good Banking Sector makes its money and makes its happ contribution by lending to the am ban real economy. That is what is the best thing en it that can happen. Comes our main street banks did that. And you asked about dodd frank. What i would like to see us do is give some relief to our smallnd main street banks that got swept up in dodd frank regulation and bare significant cost. No those banks have been keeping tron our localg economies going. Re so im for strong dodd frank on the big banks and giving a lot of relief to our smaller banks. Were going to get our viewers involved in the conversation. Were, talking with peter welsh. Taking your phone calls. Tic call well goer to larry first, south memphis, tennessee democratic caller hi larry. Good morning. I am a 58yearold black army veteran, and the republicans booed a gay soldier and they oba clapped and cheered when a man died because of the lack of health care. , if o they say obama wont work with them. No the republicans, whatever their for, if obama is for it, theyre against it. Thats their idea, obama care is a republican idea. With im tired of hearing them say he wont work with them when he larry, you broke up, i think we got your point though. I tend to agree with you. Obama care was modelled after mitt romney and their health care in massachusetts. Senator mcconnell said his job was to make sure that obama was a oneterm president. Th we have to put that behind us. The democrats are in the ountry minority now. What we have to do is find a way to Work Together to make some progress for this country. I know that president obama believes that and will go more than halfway. Ose from rose, a republican hi rose. Hanks hi, thank you for taking my call. Congressman cor welch, i would like to correct something that you and other democrats always say about republicans. You made the comment and its that i not s true. That republicans are antiim antiimmigration antiimmigration. Its a great talking point, itsery been permeating by democrats throughout the press and every bu time a democratic speaks. The truth of the matter is we are republicans and conservatives ounded are not antiimmigration. Thos were antiillegal immigration. Were all descendents of immigrants, but they came legally. They didnt sneak over our borders and im tired of the en. Democrats highing about what republicans believe and what conservatives, especially would like to see happen. For im mi okay congressman . Some republicans are for im immigrationse reform and some are not. Senator mccain passed a means bipartisan Immigration Reform bill. Im for Immigration Reform but that means there has to be legal immigration. And a big element that i would support is making our border the secure. There has been massive alo increases and resources along the southern border to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. We have a real problem here. We have all of these young people who through no fault of their own came here when they were three or four years old, cont and now theyre 25 and theyment to be contributing members. S to dea i would like to see us do it in the house. Are no it is a very devicive finish. The steps that were required toprac take for our country to daem with some of the realities caller continues to be a big division. Next to stan in connecticut. Crat caller i would like to ask why the democrats cant here. Understand illegal is illegal they and they should not be rewarded for staying here. I dont know why, not to let them be here. Here is the i hear you on that. There is a principal that youre enunciating that makes sense. Cision on the other hand you have a child who is brought here, had r thre nothing to do with the decision. They were two or three years old, and now theyre 20 or 25 we ta should we separate that person from his whole family . Take them out of their job . And beco deny them an opportunity to get a Higher Education and welcome a contributing member to the nse, economy . Dont think thatwh makes sense. I think that is what were struggling with here. If we are just going to deport everybody no matter what the circumstances were or no matterhe cou the contribution they made while theyre here, that will be devastating on the country and some of the families. Crats, f kiki is on our line for democrats, good morning to you. I hav caller good morning this is kiki. Im a exmilitary, army, military navy. My sons quit. Visas, they need to decrease the wages that a College Education gets you. When we arrest the illegals arrest the employers. If you confiscate marijuana have another thing, my sons from beeni am s fighting and you know who were i fighting for . The the bush family. Im sick of it and i want to es per follow the ymoney. Gues you better prosecute war crimes. All right kiki. Mes, t congressman . If theree were crimes they s should be prosecuted. Are i dont think the bushs are the ones profiteering. I disagree with president bush going into iraq, i thought that was an error that had grave consequences for this country. Vy, for i want to thank your sons for their service. New jersey paterson new jersey, on the line for republicans. Good nkmorning, thank you for taking my call. Hing when the democrats control the senate and the house, they did contro absolutely nothing to pass an immigration bill. Proble now that the republicans are in control, they want to just throw this problem into their laps and try drk i dont think it is fairat are there are companies here in new jersey, that are on hold hiring employees, waiting for this bill to pass. Mocratic i hope and pray that africanamericans wake up and stop going to the Democratic Party and look into the your republican party. I think your point if i understand it is that we have toi pass legislation for Immigration Reform. Itsld needed and its overdue. I hope we are able to do it, theside, senate did pasths it and i think t to they would again. O, the challenge is in the house on the republican side there is a real split about what to do, if anything. So what were seeing ask the house passing this homeland thing security bill that rolls back so everything the president did and ignores everything that the senate did, its just postponingoing t for tomorrow a problem that we have to addressican today. Again that confrontation is coming and it will be one where the house c republicans face off essentially against the Senate Republicans. Could there be compromise on education . This st the Washington Post this morning. Keep annual tests, add preschool funding. Arnie dunkin spoke about adding funding for preschool, and maintain the federal mandate that says states must test students every year in math and reading. There is potential in in ea anything we can do. Congratulate and post graduate education. I think it is terrible were so l. Stalled in the testing issue nap has become extremely controversial. For met,to its a portfolio not ecific just a specific test, measuring the progress that students make. And i think it makes some sense. All students are a little different. Do you teach to the test and what are the consequences there. Rma i think what the secretary is ere pointing out is there can be testing but through is an norm advantage to our country if we can have aha robust Early Education program that will giveand midd our kids, from poor and middle class and wealthy neighbors a real shot at developing the talents they have. The leader of the page on education, former education secretary, according to the Washington Post considering ending the federal testing mandate. It has prompts school crickets to pile on more tests to see if students are ready for the exams as years end. It would evaluate students once in grated three through five, middle school, and high school. We can argue about what the best way is. The bottom line for me is we need good teachers and good principals. When i think is about my own education, and we go through an inter testing, what makes a difference is when you have a teacher that takes an interest in you and gift gives you a sense of the world on thats out there if you engage your mind. My focus is almost always on how do we help teachers become successful. Phil, on our line for democrats. Caller good morning. Its darrell but thats okay. Good morning representative welch. I am familiar with you i have seen you many times on television. I wanted to talk about keystone, the xl pipeline debacle. I, like so many other individuals here in america that understand what filthy oil can do to a landscape b dont understand i completely do not understand how you can allowour a company in canada to use our the central part of our country as ourfi essentially gutter for the filthiet oil on the planet. The president is going to have to decide what to do. What is kind of strange about this in addition, i agree with you, but in addition to th e questions about the pikeystone and the pipeline, the legislation here, number one, gave a special exemption to transcanada. A Foreign Company making it so en they didntvi have to pay into an environmental clean up fund the ld we way our domestic producers have to contribute. How in the world do we have a ange i special exception for this Foreign Company . S change is real, and the Tar Sands Oil provides about 20 to 40 carbon emotion emotions. That oil is going to go through our country not to our country. Its going to be refined for export, not do anything right here thats going to immediatelyd for affect gasex prices. The good news is theyre coming down already. James good morning to you, welcome to the conversation on our republican line. Good morning, thank you for taking my call. Youre welcome james, go ahead with your question or comment . Caller i remember back when nafta was pass eded and my father called me up and told me about it he was like, say goodbye to the United States as you know it he was right because it went from free trade to exporting jobs to other countries to importing immigrants for cheap labor and that is what the whole effort brings back manufacturing jobs. Job creation, i dont know where that comes from, that word. You say job creation, its like let saying lets reinvent the wheel gave we did job creation and we gave it away. And thats just the thing i dont understand. James, well have the congressman respond. I share your concerns about 1 to2 tarks we have to figure out how to revive manufacturing in this country. There are signs of life there, st the Energy Advantage with the low cost of energy in our country, how thats been coming down. Werey. Basically starting to export energy. Giving thats giving our manufacturers some advantage over our. Competitors abroad. Were going to have a number of trade agreements that are under r consideration. And the bottom line question from my perspective, will those trade agreements make our labor ronger force stronger or will it make it weaker . Will it result in us being able expo to produce more products at home offer export or export jobs, not all trade agreements a lot are o the same. After a lot of bad provisions in ininer nafta that will deal with what you described. Em its split in the democratic side because of the concerns he mentioned. I suspect ifha they had a trade agreement on the floor, they would have a pretty good chance at passing it, you have the president and the republicans in agreement, the clmic side are split many of us are looking at the final details before we make any decision. Theres an enormous amount of ages a weariness about what this will do to wages employment we have seen that trade agreements when they increase the gdp its stic good, if they cost us jobs and keep wages down, thats bad. How do you get to a trade agreement that has a net benefitsue for the country. If the party is split on that issue, does that hurt the party . I think its a separate ate debate than the president ial race. The trade agreements have some split within the republican side as well, because you know theres a lot of not all trade agreements affect all america the same way. You get some agreements where it will help certain sectors of the economy and not others, theres an enormous amount of concern at the congress ap district level about how will this im particularly trade agreement impact the people i represent. Nd indep lafayette tennessee. Jerry, an independent welcome to the conversation. Caller yeah, i got a lot of questions. Already i want to ask if we already got jerr Immigration Laws okay jerry caller yeah. We already have an Immigration Law and what else . The president , dont he swearn to uphold the law instead of change the law . Okay. The answer is yes, the president does swear to uphold the law not change the law, the i th president has Certain Authority that any executive has, whether its president nixon, president be bush or president obama, and if a president goes beyond the executive authority that the that t constitution gives him, then the courts will hold them back, thats the way it works. The assertion that just was the ent president is taking action isnt based on legislation just denies the reality that an is executive has Certain Authority its limited but the president can act within what authority he has. Raliegh, north carolina, r next c charles, democratic caller. Caller i hope i get a chance to get my comment across. I would like to see the democrats fight harder for income equality. Another thing i would like to see the democrats do is to make sure that they fight the president on 2 pp. Make sure that theyre not going to let that pass its a bad idea. Another thing i think they ecurit should strengthen Social Security make sure the republicans do not mess with Social Security disability, ne pip also they should make sure the Keystone Pipeline does not pass, see the this is the final thing i would like to see them do. I would like to see democrats fight much harder and support during the time of the midterm, learn to express themselves a little better and never shy away from the president , no matter what the polls say, support the president. Okay. Well thats pretty good advice,i do thi weve been hearing that from a d. Lot of people i think we should fight hard, we absolutely should be will fight hard, we have to be te. Willing to cooperate with the republican majority because they have the votes, the question will be, this is really a question for the republicans, are they going to try to reach out to find some w things that we can do together. If we want to do things like energy conservation, or get our inst budget under control or improve funding for the National Institute of health. If were going to do some of e wi these things, i think democrats have to be willing to try to work with republicans. On the other hand if its these message bills that are going to be vetoed and we make no e progress, thats going to be badl arou all aroundnd. On our line for republicans, ed in winstonsalem north carolina. Go ahead with your question or comment. Caller caller good morning. Theres a lot of subjects i could touch on as i sit on hold d earlie listening, you mentioned earlier that a lot of these illegals came as children. I think you said two or three ose pe years old and are now 25. How many of those people when they became 18 years old had made an effort to correct their illegal status by going through the immigration system properly . Now, if you have that answer it would be a good thing for pugh to do the research. Theyve been pushing for years now sealing the border the democrats oppose this for some reason, they say theyre for it but they dont do anything about, and really neither do the republicans. But whats going to happen when somebody the big ebola crisis we just had what if they decide te to get infected come across our southern border and walkthrough some malls and movie theaters and touch as many people as they can, or a terrorist we smuggle many people smuggle millions and millions of tons of drugs into this country. They cant smuggle in millions of bounds of explosives. Po terrorists can move across the border just remember whose blood the american bloods, the hands are on you guys who dont seal the borders. Okay, ed. Gues two things number one, the child that came here at two years old and is now 18, now youre proposing selfdeportation, it will never happen. If you selfreport and then selfdeport, that means you are literally asking people to up end their lives, the only life ere. They know is living here. Theyre contributing citizens, secondly, sealing the border there has been such a huge hu increase of resources along the border, that both sides have acknowledged that its important for us to do everything we can to seal it is it possible to literally have an airtight an a border where theres no possibility that somebody i do n somehow some way will sneak . . I dont know that thats possible. I know the resources are there where the focus on having that will border controlled and at the preventing people from coming innd pre illegally hasve been a bipartisan a. M. Proech. Lumberton texas bet i it, good morning to you. Caller hello how are you ques all today . Doing well. C that my question is on the illegal topic that youre speaking of i want to know what you all are going to set in place to make sure that that we leaving this