Up next a senate panel looks at the pros and cons of setting term limits for advocate. Advocates argue that term limits would allow them to spend time raising money for reelection. We hear from senator jim demint at this subcommittee hearing on the constitution. Good afternoon. This hearing is called to order. I apologize that we are slightly delayed. We had a series of votes on the senate floor. But it is good now to convene the hearing. Let me begin by thanking all of you for attending. And thank youing senator hirono oh efor working with plea and my staff to convene the hearing and bring the witnesses together. The topic before us is one, i believe, of great importance. The need for term limits for members of congress so that we begin to fix what is broken here in washington politics. Before i introduce our first panel id like to explain why weve organized todays hearing. The 2016 election, the American People made a resounding call to drain the swamp. That is modern washington. And
Weve organized todays hearing. The 2016 election, the American People made a resounding call to drain the swamp. That is modern washington. And sadly this is a bipartisan problem. The American People have lost confidence in washington and especially in congress. And it isnt hard to see why. Enmeshed in back room deals and broken promises, our capitol has too often become a political playground for the powerful and well connected. For members of the permanent Political Class looking to accumulate more and more power at the expense of american taxpayers. As part of his promise to drain the swamp, President Trump strongly endorsed and campaigned on passing congressional term limits. Though our founders didnt include term limits in the constitution, they feared the creation of a permanent Political Class that existed parallel to rather than within american society. As Benjamin Franklin observed, quote, in free governments, the rulers are the servants. And the people their superiors. For th
That growth and enforce policies that will do nothing to stop Climate Change. What would staying in the agreement lead to . The Heritage Foundation modeled the policies that would be required to meet the Obama Administrations paris commitments and found that by 2035, there would be an overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing. An average of total income loss of more than 20,000 for a family of four. And an aggregate g. D. P. Loss of over 2. 5 trillion and an increase in Household Electricity expenditures by 13 and 20 . My amendment would allow the United States to stay out of the unrealistic and overbearing agreement. I urge members to vote yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. I yield to the Ranking Member. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers i thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of his amendment. The Paris Agreement is an unworkable, unrealistic policy solution
Make sure i show up where i am supposed to be at any given time. For people who are watching online and have questions that they want to pose to our panelists, you can use the hashtag catofp to ask the russian on facebook or twitter. It is no great mystery what we are here to talk about. I will set it up by saying that we have the gop in the midst of a really meaningful debate on Foreign Policy. As the preeminent global power, it has some luxury of choice. It can choose more, less Foreign Policy, it can choose more Foreign Policy in one place and less in another. There is a lot of room to run in terms of choice. You can index the debate by looking at, for example, two leading president ial editor to represent two factions. One says the United States is overemphasizing europe, letting europeans live off of u. S. Defense exertions when they can and should be doing more for themselves. That aside frequently gets called isolationist, which is an ugly word. But in fact, that side of the deb
Less than five minutes in this first segment. John up very early in hawaii or a very late. Good morning. What are your thoughts on Government Spending . Caller i think we should be putting more resources into our own homeless we take you live now to a discussion of the Republican Partys Foreign Policy agenda, held by the cato institute. And the conference of oats to make sure i show up where i am supposed to be at any given time. For people who are watching online and have questions that they want to pose to our panelists, you can use the hashtag catofp to ask the russian on facebook or twitter. It is no great mystery what we are here to talk about. I will set it up by saying that we have the gop in the midst of a really meaningful debate on Foreign Policy. As the preeminent global power, it has some luxury of choice. It can choose more, less Foreign Policy, it can choose more Foreign Policy in one place and less in another. There is a lot of room to run in terms of choice. You can ind