tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 17, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
where we have replaced the money that would be there if this was a privately owned property should be to get the money to a level near as possible an approximate 30 private taxpayer would pay. it does seem to me that level funding if everything else was level funding i wouldn't be complaining about this by the way. the priority here doesn't seem very high. then you take the payments, which is 67 million. a million of that goes to missouri schools and you put that in your own maintenance program. >> on the first half i'm happy to have that conversation. >> 12 buildings that these facilities that the money would go to? >> there's still 12 buildings and we like the local school districts to take these over, but some of the schools haven't had the proper maintenance, so we used the 67 million on the
property programs for the upkeep of building so that they be in good shape. >> and what do i tell the $925,000 that goes to really and almost all cases small districts in what they are doing without money. you take care of 12 federal buildings instead of giving them the $925000. >> we're trying to get rid of these to be clear. >> to be clear easier at the payments and federal property program and moved it to the facilities management program. that is typically what you did. >> the goal is to eventually move properties to local districts. local districts don't want them today. >> the other argument to the $67 million you might not agree with that, but the districts lost the property tax base their because of federal activities. those are one that have resulted
in a lot of kids going to school for the property tax bases reduce. would've supported the billion dollars for the impact aid program in the areas where they are having an impact on the student involvement. but what we understand as most of the schools that applied under the property program before 1970 did lose property tax revenue if they can charge the federal government. but they are not serving a lot of kids in those areas. you might want to ask there's an argument that developing future budget. >> there's a number of arguments. still have to run the long bus route to pick up kids in the middle of the area around the other side of the area. the fact that if the federal taxpayer wasn't there, whether they were kids or not somebody
would be paying a property tax. there are lots of arguments and i'll be surprised if that part of the budget is the way he submitted it. >> happy to have that conversation. >> all right. back two days readings program, which i'm glad senator lankford asked the questions he did to get information on that. i know i have one clipping in front of me now where you all put out a list of 56 missouri school in another people should be aware of under heightened cache monitoring. that is a trailing indicator. they are all two years old and a number of things that would indicate baby that is like i call these ratings may not be
all that good. sweet briar had the perfect score before they announced they were not going to be in business next year. they had a three-point euro. harvard dropped to 2.3 during the recession. i think a lot of these ratings are going to have the same kinds of problems. tom, you look like you would like to respond to that. >> i would say virginia -- [inaudible] but they did decide to close on the road. some of those management regulations are minor things that put out several different categories, sunday school student complete added on time. it wasn't a major problem for then. it was just some in the lookout for. >> at the major problem like the ratings will be a major problem if somehow your school is suddenly rated not filling out the form or something that
things, there's no whatever but for us to be withholding all this information from the public not to be transparent i think it really important role of the government is to be clear on these type of things and other public conversation and debate. but when we hold all the cards and don't share that with the public i don't think as a public servant we're doing a good job. and so and lots of these areas the more we can get honest good information out there and where we need to adjust, we should have to do that but i put us in this broader category, you may be disagree but i thought it was important to the public and the people are unaware we were looking at allegations. >> areas that might not be available, namely we are to talk to the accreditation process itself is transparent enough come available enough. >> i would love to the conversation. senator murray. >> mr. secretary, i was pleased to see budget proposed a significant increase to the office of civil rights we can
address this backlog of investigations and reduce the amount of time that it takes to respond to a complaint and keep up with increasing workloads and all things that make her college campuses safer. ocr receives about 10,000 complaints a year. that's up from 2010. its budget is to underfunded antelope priest sequestration levels. it includes sexual assault on campus which are complex investigations, they take a lot of time. i wanted to ask you today can you explain to our subcommittee have that increase funding will help reduce the backlog? >> this is an important issue. it is hard, tough discipline issues and given your honesty back a simple. we've gone from about 6000 complaints 2008 to over 1,002,016. i don't have any evidence to back that i don't necessarily think there are that many more sexual assaults happening.
i do think people know that we are open for business and taking this seriously and far too often victims don't know it would listen and pay attention to it was under the rug. those consequences are pretty devastating. so it is a good thing that people now know that we take this very, very seriously but it has created an extraordinary work load of our team and effect with less staff and when this started i think one thing we always universities and more importantly the individuals if you try to bring peace to a resolution as quickly as we can and this is traumatic both for the alleged victim and also for the alleged perpetrator. and if there was a real if something really bad happened we owe it to the victims not go through this two or three or four years. if the alleged perpetrator is in fact, innocent we allocate a perpetrator not to have them go through that trauma for a couple of years. so we are just trying to bring
these to a thoughtful but a relatively speedy resolution and we frankly can't keep up with the demand. it's as simple as that. i wish our budget for this was super i wish there were none of these cases. i wish we were not in his line of work. that is not the reality and we have an obligation to work as a fully, as consistently as honestly and as speedily as we can to try to deal with hugely dramatic issues. that's just the reality of where we are today. >> i can appreciate that there understand the need for additional dollars. we need to make sure those the victim and the perpetrator have an answer. what do you do at these colleges if you do find victims who rightfully need a remedy, what do you do at the campus is? >> i'm just so proud that i don't -- the osha has done an amazing job accusing this into the public dialogue. is seen as a magazine covers
where it was historically swept under the rug. using universities change their policies and practices. so i think there's been a sea change. there's a long way to go pickwick to keep learning, keep getting better together but you see more and more universities sort of embracing these difficult comics issues, not hiding from them and try to come up with policies and practices that again have a process that leads to the right outcome, whatever the fact, whatever the facts may lead. we've done some very, very significant were. i go back to my earlier point in fact we been so transparent on this has helped. there some challenges of their. it's created a huge amount of movement and not only young women, young men too but disproportionately young women and many more are feeling safe extraordinarily difficult situation to their voices be heard. and i think we owe it to them and to their families to listen
spirit this is correct, students leave called for a lot of reason. feeling insecure, and safe should not of them so thank you. one last question. last may during a budget hearing to make under 2015 budget we talked about the issue of sallie mae come alleged violation of the terms of the service member civil release. sallie mae settled in that situation you promised you would pursue every avenue if laws were broken and review all of your service providers for compliance for the law but it has been a year since our conversations i wanted to know what the result of that review our spirit center to come we are checking on all those reviews that looks like buy me one will be finished with reviewing and finalizing that agreement with sallie mae spent state to come next two weeks. >> are you confident the review is thorough and objective and will identify any issues on denial of benefits owed to our servicemembers and veterans speak what it looks like they've been very, very thorough on it
and they are putting veterans needs top of their list spin that if you at the work they did leading up to the announcement earlier this week, different issue but an institution they did very very there'll federal thoughtful cover into four. we don't rush to judgment in these issues come in a situation. they have a lot on their plate but they are working very, very hard. >> we look forward to seeing that very soon. thank you. >> i have two more quick things. one is on gain full employment. i think under the proposed can you estimate, the department estimates approximately 1400 career training programs serving 840,000 students would not initially meet the standard you are proposing. have you thought about whether patent means that standard, i think the standard is a career out of school standard.
what they need it if it was if i get out of school standard? are you looking at what point these many or most of these schools might meet the standard come or will they never need a standard? >> my honest take on this is that when we are clear and again i think this is not a high bar, i was a relatively low bar but when we are clear on that you see behavior change in significant ways and these are all projections going forward. thank you and we maximum transparency every institution has these facts and we think we will see more good programs grow and we'll see that programs either change or go away. we think all of those outcomes are more good programs fantastic. that programs it improved, fantastic or being eliminated, those are all positive outcomes. i'm pretty hopeful about where this thing goes. >> would you envision like a school financial officer would begin to say, don't major in art history?
>> no, no, no. this is at the program level. and again there are institutions that are 50 or 100 programs so this is not and it's trying to say at the program level few graduates have a good chance at having a better financial future or to do battle with the debt they can't ever pay back? there's huge variation across programs and between schools and we're just right to make sure people again yours and mine come huge investment in tax dollars every single year often 90% or more of the revenue is coming from us. and using it for good rather than for just pure profit. >> i did also think senator capito's point for point we are to be talking about of the debt problem when you get out of that school. how much of that related to the actual cost of going to school and how much do what you thought you living standards should be. while you went to school. i'm pretty confident over the years that the student
expectations for their personal living standards at school often increased beyond where they would have been just a few years ago. >> i do know that the huge piece of the possible we should be looking at all of these things. i can happy to have a conversation and share our data. >> i think it may be a bigger piece of the puzzle that we think when you accumulate some of the debt at the schools that even don't have that high a tuition, number of books, number even an on campus living under. you still see students graduate with the debt that you wonder how that got a cumulative. the last thing i want to ask you to do is i'd like you to give me a year-to-year summary of marketing and advertising expenses for the department over the last three fiscal years as relates to topic i've been interested in whether we should specifically identify that this is a taxpayer-funded marketing effort and it would help me to know i needed that is if we knew
what your marketing, advertising expenses -- >> we don't do a whole heck a lot of that at all but be happy to provide that. >> chairman speak with nothing further. >> mr. secretary, thank you understood today and we look forward to working with you as you tell there's a lot of interest on this committee and what you do and it's important to the country what you do come and we're grateful to your time and your patience today. >> thank you for your leadership and thanks for the opportunity. >> the record will be open for any questions be submitted in writing come and the subcommittee will stand in recess. we will do the record open for one week for additional questions and we will stand in recess until 10 a.m. on thursday the 23rd of april. [inaudible conversations]
prospects are participating this weekend at a new hampshire republican beaten in nashua. it's the first such gathering this year in the first of the nation primary state. c-span will have live coverage beginning this afternoon at 12:15 p.m. each of your eric cantor now on the challenges of long-term political decisions. he spoke at harvard university at the institute of politics about 10 months after losing his congressional seat in a primary race. this is just over one hour. >> good evening and welcome to the john f. kennedy, jr. forum at harvard university. i maggie williams, director of the institute of politics. tonight our guest and visiting iop fellow is former congressman eric cantor. because it is as vice chair of the investment bank moelis company but until 2014 he spent two decades in public service, first serve in the virginia house of delegates and again in
2001 representing virginia's seventh district in the u.s. house of representatives. in 2008 he was elected republican whip, and in 2011 he was elected house majority leader of the 112th congress. known as a smart and pragmatic legislator, congressman cantor called for a vision of conservatism and i quote founded on decency come inspiration and a desire to let every american have a fair shot at earning their success at achieving their dreams. last january then congressman cantor addressing congress and the obama administration urged both to think about the 8 million children who will be born before the next election and for their sake, forgo short-term tactics that gain advantage for 2016 time and focus on where the agreed and
what they can do to create growth and opportunity. we are proud to welcome eric cantor back to the forum. [applause] are moderated for tonight's discussion is shira center the political editor of "the boston globe." she is an authority on congressional race and collection, then frequently as a political analyst on cnn, msnbc and fox news. shira as a former political editor of roll call and was a staff writer for both politico and "national journal" hotline. most importantly shira was an iop spring resident last year. welcome back, shira. [applause] >> thank you. and welcome to the forum, congressman. >> great feedback. >> terrific that i think anyone here probably knows how this works. were going to chat for about a
half hour and then take questions. start thinking of you very wise and smart questions right now. let's talk about your new job. what exactly are you doing and how does it relate to being the former house majority leader? >> well, first of all what i'm doing now is as make indicate i am vice-chairman and managing director of the moelis and company. we are a global but independent investment bank with 17 offices around the world about 600 employees, just went public last spring. what we do is we advise ceos, boards of public companies in terms of strategic decision-making whether it is for growth by acquisition whether it is merging with another entity, and just general decisions on how to conduct affairs. and so in many ways i'm in the business of giving advice and if you look to see what i did in my prior role as majority leader i guess one could say it was trying to offer advice in a very
friendly way, and if that didn't work get kind of serious. i am -- >> are you talking with the speaker or the caucus speak with just with members and general answer of cutting my teeth as deputy whip and then web trying to affect a certain outcome in one's voting, was there much about advise and about learning and helping the education process, advocacy of a cause in terms of a bill. it is those sort of the intersection i think right that if you look at business today the one who is allocating capital or any decision-making capacity has to assess risk. and, unfortunately, more and more sectors of our economy are being effected by government action which increases the unknown which increases the
risk. and so i see a real merging of the two worlds, and now seven months back in private sector. >> you spoke a little bit or you other to do this idf short-term when it comes to decision-making and making deals. what are some examples of short-term is am using government versus business today? >> i go back and look at sort of my career as an elected official in government. i have served for about nine years in the virginia house and then served for about 14 years in the congress. and over that. of time certainly what drew me to that service is i think what the kennedy school and the iop is about which is trying to promote public service, trying to promote student who are aspiring to make their way in the world and also make do in terms of the conduct of our government and our country some
very, very supportive, delighted to be because i am so energized no matter what side of the philosophical spectrum or party you are in. the fact that you care enough to want to influence the outcome of the country and its future is really, really a calling that i spent a lot of my life pursuing. but what i saw in that time in government is although one offers himself up for elected office does so with a long-term vision in mind to affect some good. there are forces at work in our electoral system that tend to be much more short-term in nature. just a very sense of a two-year term as a member of congress tends to be something that is countering aspirations towards a long-term view or a long-term goal, and i think similarly what
you are seeing today is increasingly with the technology we have, the availability of information about the performance of a company if you are on the board of an office and a publicly traded organization, all of the sudden orderly reports mean a whole lot. and wall street are going to look at you in terms of your performance in that light here that has to have some impact on decision-making. and one who is in a leadership position in the company i think it is imperative for that man or woman just as it is for one in elected office to be very definitive in his or her long-term view in order to navigate the short-term pressures that exist both in the business world as well as the political arena. i think that's what largely shapes what leadership is about today. the ability to maintain a strong
view of the future and long-term value while at the same time having the practical ability to do your day job and navigate the short-term pressures. >> but in government specifically in congress were there certain issues you think suffered more than others? >> on both sides of the aisle because i think that there's equal opportunity on this. on my side of the aisle immigration has been something that has evaded a lot of, solutions have evaded come and we as a republican party have not had a unified position saying hey we want to fix this and here's how. so i took the position early on that it is anything comprehensive in nature in terms of the legislation, i'm sure you know this there hasn't always worked out well in washington. there can be a lot of unintended consequences. by consuming of instances in life perhaps maybe it's so complex maybe you need to break
it down into parts and accomplish getting across the goal line if you will one by one. so i for a couple of years felt very strongly that although we couldn't come together on a comprehensive fix that what you could do is to do with that which we agree to which should be decades. it should be those drinkers, the kids who were brought here by parents in many cases unbeknownst to that child that they were brought here where raised in this country committed no any other country ever at home. to me it would make sense to give them citizenship your what else are you going to do? so i felt very strongly about that and wanted to go about passing legislation to that effect. i have a lot of difficulty in convincing some of my colleagues on my side of the out that it was something that we should do. i believe the reason why that they were such resistance is because there was short-term pressure from many interest
groups on the right which said even that given with the kids when they themselves did not commit any wrongs, didn't break any law, that somehow confer citizenship on them was amnesty. and the assignment of short-termism, the incentive to respond to that there was a lot of there for folks to say right i'm not taking any risk i don't want to be accused of amnesty. i'm staying away from even helping the kids. and i would say on the left there is a real commitment on the part of some on the far left to say hey, this system of ours is rigged against us and that means that the big bad corporations, and they say that in just the visible i believe the attitude is on the left to say, the bad corporations, they are getting theirs while you are not getting yours. so what is the bill that is purported to be that which safeguards and puts those big
banks and corporations in their place? what the left will say it is its dodd-frank come and we can't touch a dodd-frank because that was designed to protect the little person and to put that big banks in their place. honestly there is no perfect law or legislation. anything can be improved and there were instances where one would want to improve dodd-frank to make it work better, but yet someone the extreme left would say we are not touching it, it's a sacrosanct. very analogous to what the situation on the right was with his amnesty question when you did with kids who didn't break the law themselves. so those are two examples i think i'm short-term slogans which many any advocacy community put out of their as a line not to be crossed but forging into and what is beneficial to everybody on the immigration side, to say we're a
country large come country immigrants on the dodd-frank financial services side say we had the most successful, deep, sophisticated capital market in the world which helps to fuel the growth in our economy spent want to ask you one question about immigration reform. when you launch a primary some people in my business wrote that immigration reform is dead. what's the prognosis in your opinion? how can house republicans confront this issue in a successful and productive way? >> i really think that one needs to take a step back and see what it is that people can agree on together rather than simply gnashing of teeth and not get anywhere. the immigration of peace is as i said before there are short-term pressures against doing anything for fear that someone will be accused of implementing amnesty. so if you know that to be the case, that is the short-term
pressure. the point is incrementally what can you do ultimately to get to a solution where both sides will have to give? so it goes back to the sense although it has a long-term view how do you get to that long-term goal? how do you incrementally make progress? i think that is the key. my sense is right now very little prospect of that happening until there's a presidential election. >> and when you say incrementally can you give an example of one of the starting points? >> that kids. why not start with the kids? and the notion is if the criticism on the right is amnesty, these kids did not break any law put it was to their parents. if you want to get to the issue company with the ones in search of a better life. they were the ones who came here who overstayed their visa that brought the kids in. we've got a traditional of law in this country to impact its
biblical as well. we don't hold kids are liable for the illegal acts of their parents in america. you can counter the criticism on the right, and at the same time those who back what the president is trying to do, you can get one step there with that getting everything. i think both sides have to give a little bit. you can get everything on one side and you're going to have to start making progress on the other side. >> let's talk a little bit about the president. he's just a even been a critic of him in the past. you've had a couple of african nations within. for example over the stimulus and the debt limit. did you learn any lessons from these experiences at all when it comes to negotiating and dealmaking? second, do you think the president suffers from short-termism? >> first of all the example of the stimulus debate is actually a pretty instructive about where
things have gone since then. it's been well over six years now since that debate occurred. remember what was going on at that time. this was a historic election the nation's first black president. he was extremely popular at the time with over 70% approval rating, had everything going for him. in addition the fact that country had just suffered a tremendous setback which almost a crash of the markets come and this was all supposed, the mortgage crisis, aig and lehman brothers and the whole thing. so the president was there to be in a position to bring the country together. right before he was sworn in he asked then leader boehner and i toto a meeting with the other members of the leadership and he was president-elect. and i recall reading in the lbj room in the senate. he came over to us and said the
president said, president-elect said i'm really curious about working with you. i wanted to work together to bring this country back so we can move forward. and he indicated that we should bring him our ideas about what should be and what was reported to be coming which was the stimulus the pixar after the swearing-in we all went to the white house and met in the roosevelt room. i was like as i was hopeful at the time i brought a white paper to show the president. he said bring your ideas and i did that. the president look at it and nation and said there's nothing unreasonable, nothing crazy in your i think he said. and we were very careful not to be crazy in this white paper. because i know that what the assumption was what republicans wanted in connection for and stimulus was not ever going to so with -- >> and white papers essentially a policy memo. >> and unfortunate what happened was the items on the white paper never made into a stimulus
proposal. and for whatever reason the white house wouldn't explain the what should or shouldn't be considered a republican position in the stimulus bill. on the paper was there. and in the end the white house did not get any republican support all. however many we were strong at the time no republican voted for the bill. remember this is when the president had a 70% plus approval rating. there was every indication that we wanted to work together that he wanted to work with us. so i think when you ask was there any education, wasn't there a lesson learned there i hope that the white house would say, and i believe this if they had taken the time to engage, to interact on a personal level, i believe they could have easily gotten republican support. maybe not the majority of republicans but they could've gotten republican support to get off on a much more bipartisan
basis. and i would think you carry that through the last six years there is something about human interaction that tends to take the chill off if he will or break the ice. and i would jump up and down and tell the white house, i don't care how rock red river republican district one would have come if you invited to the white house to have dinner with the president and the first lady, an and intimates that interview that he believed that that member of congress and his or her spouse is going to be there and will want a picture with the president of the united states and his wife. so that to me shows you that the power of the office unfortunately that has not been used to leverage what it is that needs to get done on a policy basis. >> if you were to give the president at grade between a and f. and its relation to congress -- >> i think he is doing pretty badly can i do. >> joe biden --
>> joe biden and i come to the point, as i have a very good relationship with him and i cringe every time i say that because i to call him and tell him i hope i didn't hurt you by saying that. but again we were brought together during the debt ceiling debate and the president have asked the vice president to sort of host a commission that lasted for about seven weeks, three times a week, two and half hours every day. and the speaker boehner asked me to go sit with the vice president and his team and others in the cabinet who were there, and members. we actually developed a relationship and it was a recognition about the political sensitivity. my wife and he and dr. jill biden have seen each other and gone out to dinner social at those kinds of things. based on that experience. but that's what's missing. it's the human element. above all else come at the end of the day to forge or pump some of it there at all reasonable into solving problems, risking
taking steps that may not be totally what one would want but in the end of the day could bring people together and that's what i believe is missing. >> reporters on capitol hill realize the white house, the president has always been the best in reaching out to members of congress. what do you think it is about him? do you think it didn't pashtun because he didn't serve in congress as long as joe biden speak with i'm a lawyer, i'm a real estate developer, i am now an investment banker but i'm not a psychoanalyst. i don't know. i think that again the human element is very much missing. and look at that congress had developed a lot into that as well. there are not enough opportunities to interact with one another. without cameras being in the way or that. and in committee and subcommittee with cameras on
actually you do get a chance to get into others and maybe the more intimate setting ethic in the room could help facilitate that but it is probably worth some thought. >> let's talk about 2016 because we are on the theme of the discussion is about short-term is an. is there anyone in the 2016 field that you think has proven ability to prioritize long-term decision-making? you said before you have four favorites among the field, right because i think the 2016 election on the republican side, and i think even the german election, hopefully we'll be able to result in the election of an individual who can demonstrate that type of leadership which says, one, i've got a few. i know what i want this country to go. people have elected me to do that. and number two back to this other discussion what's missing at the white house i've got the
ability to practice on a day-to-day basis conduct my day job. you know, to make it so that i can get along with people and get things done. and so i do think on the republican side, i said before there are really four people who i believe will be one of those which would suit our nomination. >> and those were just bush, chris christie marco rubio and scott walker. which one of those four did you last speak to on the phone speak with either going to get me to say something. >> sorry. once you are a reporter, always a reporter if i have spoken to all of them recently. i don't want to say which one more recently. something will be taken from that and it's not true. >> fair enough. let's talk about dealmaking and did they give right now in the news, john kerry's negotiations with iran. do you think the framework they put outcome if you think this is
a deal for the long-term? >> i'm really worried about this deal. i'm really worried about the framework that has been proposed and, obviously, the meat on the bones comes by june. several points that concern me and whether you can sort of count on in the long-term, i'm doubtful. one is the whole question about iran's breakout capacity and what and when is about what is it and what really can be verified about that, and clearly to allow iran to have a breakout capacity is a danger to us all. so i think secondly the nature of the inspection regime, there's a lot been discussed in the media lately about snap inspections. what will be the inspection regime cracks and how do you
resolve -- the inspection regime cracks and how do you resolve disputes that there is a perceived violation? perhaps iran the country is sympathetic to iran to give up to block any kind of u.s. response? and then what is what is the response to what is the nature of the position of sanctions come how quickly are sanctions going to be lifted? another question that needs to be asked. and i'm thinking in the end this agreement as the president himself and his administration keeps saying, it only deals with the nuclear question. what about all the other destabilizing things that iran has been undertaking over the last decade or more? hamas, hezbollah. what's going on in iraq and syria. what's going on recently any given. all of this can be attributed right back to tehran. so if you're going to lift sanctions because somehow there is a determination that iran --
to give tehran that much money more money to go but destabilizing and doing all they can to reject hegemonic goals in the region. i'm very, very worried about this deal. i know those who are proponents i think it's a good long-term thing and a long-term benefit. i'm worried about it. >> at the time were when you in congress, you are the sole republican in congress. i think assess it into watch republicans, especially when john boehner asked bibi netanyahu to come speak to the chamber. what do you think, what do you think the relationship between the house and senate republicans and israel is headed at this point, compared the other party? >> there's a question veterans on the republican side of the aisle has been clearly on the upswing for the support of
israel. i think we were down to low single digits for those who would not necessarily be there on every vote to support israel. i think the trend is the opposite on the democratic side of the aisle. there's been a lot of sympathy towards those who would claim, you know, the palestinians should right now be given safe coming boycott the vestige or in sanctions against israel. who support the u.n. going after israel. i think all of that exists on the left. you are not seeing that on the right. there have been on the right indicators that some would say we don't need to be so globally engaged. we don't need to be spending money on foreign aid, et cetera not interventionists. i do don't think it's anywhere near as common on the right as others on the list. i'm much more concerned about what's going on on the left.
>> shifting gears quite a bit but i would like to get your thoughts on indiana governor mike pence and the religious freedom law that passed in indiana. the governor fisher former colleague andy house of representatives for a few turns. has received a lot of backlash from a lot of backlash from businesses about the law think you might have a unique perspective given your industry. first do you think it was a good idea for mike pence to go back and make changes to the law or try to make changes? >> i think the fact that changes were made so quickly probably reflected the fact that those who supported the law didn't realize how violent the backlash would be. i am always concerned when there is some sense of exclusion that comes out of a public act. we are a country that should be tolerant and is based on tolerance. again as you say shira, i am a
member of a minority religion and i grew up as a minority in every that didn't have a lot of jewish people. and so i understand what it means just in terms of sensitivities where if you're any situation and have a religious service at a school you attend, and all of a sudden you're the odd one out. and again but we as a country have come along way we are not perfect and is and certainly we are don't built on the assumption that you the ability to practice your religion and is the imposition of a state religion we also the country that protects people's rights. the question at the heart of this debate of the indiana law which is some would say tracks pretty closely and i've not read the law to see that attracts close to do what president clinton signed and what 20 some other states have, i think some would say that it is licensed to allow people to discriminate
based on their sexual preference, and i think that that's wrong. you should not allow anybody to do it. i can't say that that law is or isn't it i think the evidence is in the court. would have the courts than to say that there is a law in place that is needed to protect one's religious right's? or as a court and becoming instead, this law is unduly burdensome to one's ability to practice their faith? and i just don't know again with the examples are the say that a court would ever come down and say that you shouldn't or you are not compelled to serve someone because of their sexual preference. now, i do think it's a question of a ceremony and the photographer and the intimacy of the ceremony, this is were i think one would, once on the religious freedom side says well don't make we do that. i'm not so sure i court agrees
with that. i'm really not. >> i mentioned that indiana businesses were quite angry with the governor pence about the law. the lines between business and the chamber of commerce and christian conservatives many who backed the law is precious to the republican party. do you see that coalition at risk or threatened? you also dealt with this somewhat in the house where he had a lot of the libertarian leaning members at odds with the chamber of commerce. is the coalition at risk? >> the coalition between? >> between chamber of commerce, pro-business and christian conservatives in the republican party spirit i'm a conservative and i'm jewish so i was able i guess -- but i don't think there's necessarily a bridge has collapsed. i do think on there are some
issues and remember what we are surrounded a lot of the shutdowns and a lot of libertarians a lot of libertarians come it was less libertarian and more fiscal hawks who said we needed to shut down the carpet because unfortunately the country has grown so bad in the wrong direction we needed to do something extreme. and you saw that basis of community get really upset at the hands of republicans and some our utah the shutdown of government. an agenda i was very much in opposition to shutting down the government. i don't think it helped anyone. i do think it helped the conservative cause that all. i don't think it helped even in limited government cost to do that. it is about leadership. i don't think it is any permanent frame of this coalition that makes up the republican party. but if you go back to even the politics on the democratic side on the left just like the republican side, there are different interest groups.
there are things you have in common. on the republican side what we have in common i believe strong is individual and public on individual rights. it's not as if the democratic party does not stand for that as well. we just get there a different way. to focus on opportunity afforded through upward mobility. to need long-term that's what's needed more than anything else is economic opportunity and growth. it's going to take a leadership so we get out of these discussions about framing here and fraying there. i need to be a long-term vision and i do think 2016 gives us the opportunity. >> so there's only 21 question about your primary and this is it okay? looking back is that anything you would've done differently in? >> sure. i think that the mistake made in my primary was the assumption that we have republicans only voting.
virginia, there can be there is an open primary law in virginia and the democratic candidate did not have a primary that day. and, in fact it was later uncovered that microphone in the primary was actively engaged in recruiting for democratic voters and the postelection polling that was done indicated i think almost 23000 democratic primary voters came into my primary. where as i still received a majority of republican votes, i didn't receive anywhere near as much as i used to because of a lot of issues we talked about my stance on immigration my stance on keeping the government open, my stance on making sure we didn't go into default as the federal government, my stance in passing a part bill. all the things all things that i feel should have been done and i wouldn't have given where i was in those instances
would've taken the same votes now if knowing what i knew then but again i think the fault within the political calculation about who the voters and who are really coming out to vote that day. >> do you miss congress at all? >> i miss the people. i really do. you think about being in a place where you work for 10 years and you get to know people and you work and you convene meetings day in and day out. you grow really attached working with people. i had a great team of people that it worked with on my staff as well. some of whom are here today. one is a fellow beer, matt who is leading up the digital efforts in terms of the digital age in politics and business -- fellow here. john murphy was a former fellow also is here. so i'm able to go and at least continue the contacts and
relationships i've got. >> fun question for you and then we'll go start with questions from the audience. i'm going to make the assumption that you're a little more free time now than you used to, maybe a little bit. have you picked up any hobbies? are you doing anything fun or new? do you have a favorite show you watch on netflix other than house of cards? >> i'm traveling a lot. moelis cup is a global basis so when i'm traveling after more than a used to travel. because if you recall as majority leader you the ability to help schedule before and you knew when i did in washington and in you when you weren't. now you are really at the call of the clients and businesses that you work with. so i will say that netflix house of cards show is probably the number one question that i asked. and especially 30 countries in asia and elsewhere who are
watching this show thinking wow and they always ask him exactly like that? but no again i think enjoying my new, my next chapter in life. >> terrific. well, we will start with questions now, and it just a couple groundrules comp reminders for the questions. all questioners must identify themselves. one brief question per person. no speeches, please. you've heard enough of those in congress unsure. please in your question with a question mark as an editor i very much appreciate that but let's start over here. >> my name is joe marcus. i had a question, just about your thoughts about the citizens united decision. around 9:30 millions -- i'm wondering for the typical everyday american can that be vanessa showed typical but a person from a socioeconomic disadvantaged background, do you
think people still have an opportunity to the vote to count even though there's so much money that goes on in politics now? >> i'm going to give you my view on campaign finance first and then we'll talk you out of it about what you allege in terms of the brothers and influence is in politics. first of all i've always taken the position -- koch brothers be given out to be transparent in terms of political donations. i am one who believes strongly that what you do with your money is a lot about sort of their constitutional rights is your position. but if you're going to do that you have a duty in our country and our system to disclose that you were doing it. and, unfortunately, the evolution of the campaign finance laws mccain-feingold what is done is it has increased the capacity of the system. so that people are able to give money and hide behind these organizations so that the public doesn't realize it was funny
them. you cite republican donors that are involved in this most of the public doesn't know that so they're just hearing things blindly. so i do think that there is a problem with a lack of transparency. but when you say should millionaires who happen to be republicans have the ability to do that and does that unfairly advantage of them over the working people of the country? remember, you know, the press, and no harm intended the press has a total license to view and opine with whatever they want on politics. and as we know them and i don't think i'm crossing any unchartered around here, most of the press self identifies as liberal. okay? i don't know, shira comp the latest polls i've seen most will self identify comp more than half. >> those who participated. >> right.
utmost will self identify. and you are human beings. so why is it that when industry has unfettered ability to push out online through ink every day whatever it is he or she may feel but not necessarily one of us a company, someone who's wealthy, someone who is poor, right? no one says that. that's what i conducted this. and not to mention, there's this whole debate about corporate america on the republican side and the union and labor movement on the democratic side. they have all kinds of constitutionally being the rights to organize their members and communicate with their members, unlimited. so it's unfair to single out and say hey, we've got a billionaire republican with and in distant undue influence. there are a lot of us have disproportionate influence compared to you and me.
so i think the best, sort of the best in low our message should be that everybody get what they want but just disclose it. let people see who is behind a particular candidate and then they can draw the conclusion. >> next up. >> my name is peter i'm in the physics department. thanks for coming. in hitting your marks are basically saying it seems like a, find ways to cover much with immigration and you can be both sides and look at common ground and in that hyperpower session for separation positions due to short-termism. what happens if it impacts the opposite? i will give the example of governor walken the idea that the labor movement comes in and to try to enshrine the rights and there's a scorched earth about adelphia and the result is that republican or the conservative position as one with wisconsin and michigan being right to work states and that's enshrined in their constitution quite a long-term solution. there's a case for hyper
polarization led through a scorched earth which will be about as permanent as it can be on the state level. i am wondering what you think about it that is relationship sometimes come from a month ago but sometimes hyper polarization might get the policy go you want in a permanent way. >> i'm not so sure i would qualify the rightward movement has hyper polarization and that's essentially what scott walker was about. and gather site was about in michigan was to reinstate the right-to-work law and the state. it's sort and not in my region in the country what i see there's a lot of incentive, and i think to the detriment of the right to work movement, haven't been very engaged politically. endo stitch they were. a lot of it has to do with the alleged abuse that was taking place in a public space with the union movement, and there was a backlash. when we talk about, so i do think, i agree with you, right to work is not necessarily
and it's the short-term sort of saying we are there for you. don't worry. we will badge at balance the budget in 10 years and so that raises cynicism and that also is actually gets in the way of long-term if the goal should be the reduction come you do that much more effectively through economic growth and why can't people rally around the economic growth rather than stay out here fighting on the pole between balancing the budget within a year and never balancing the budget. >> we are going to go up a level. >> leader cantor, thank you are speaking to us. my name is alex jürgen from a student and the harvard kennedy school business program until recently copresident of the
republic. my question raised concerns your home state. the commonwealth of virginia talks about republican trending blue, but for many people surprised it at the last fantastically against mark warner in the last election. if you can peer into your crystal ball, what d.c. is the future of virginia? >> i think virginia being a native, lived there all my life it is still a center right state. it has benefited from a lot of growth not just in the northern virginia suburbs, but the two metropolitan areas downstate, richmond and high water. the state population is about 20% northern virginia and the rest of the state. you have a fairly significant downstate minority population that tends to go democratic.
so if you run statewide in virginia, ed gillespie was a candidate that really has not been tarnished by any record or statement he made in the past that offended the assertive suburban families out there that make up most of the electorate in these major urban areas. unfortunately was unable to get over the line. i think mark warner you know, if you remember, he campaigned as a quote, unquote radical centrist and that again, you know, a lot of what about the statewide electorate is. unfortunately part of the analysis looking back is awesome to say warner was unable to generate enthusiasm and the democratic base was because he didn't go off into the extreme. you listen to the extreme populism we talked about before in terms of the dodd-frank
insistence and the big bad corporation in front of you. you didn't hear mark warner saying that. maybe there is some sense that that is what generates enthusiasm on the base of the democratic side. i don't know. the fact he stayed on the census also reflects his notion of what that is and really if a center-right candidate and affects his performance in that way. >> hello, congressman. thank you for joining us. i had a question relating about the future of the republican party. specifically what you think it is and what you think it is regarding social issues. while the line be such that integration for lgb tbyte blur between parties on their current views or will they be dragged by
court decisions. >> i would say first the immigration issue and i'm not so sure the court is going to be able to resolve that. my sense is they will be resolved at the next election. i think the time has come and it will be resolved and again for a lot of the reasons we talked about earlier. i'm a question of gay marriage in particular, the courts have advised the republican party back to the state level and those issues pretty much been resolved at the state level. i would say there is plenty of room for diversity in both parties and just to claim there is a mono list republican division, i am not so sure that is the end of what will be because there are some very nice issues on abortion.
is similarly heartfelt religious convictions that a lot of us have on either side of the issue that you're not going to deny people those convictions. again, i think it is a question of tolerance and a question of the culture and how that sort of intersects the policy. but no question when i was majority leader i spent a lot of time focusing on the question of the women participation supporting the republican party as well as minority participation of support. >> hi my name is sally. i'm a freshman at the college and i'm wondering piggybacking off the question, what is the greatest strength of the greatest weakness of the republican party going into 2016? >> i think it is the republican
party's ear the race to lose. i think the country, we esteem and there is a president in office for eight years whether it's this president or the prior one, the country gets kind of tired of it. you know, i think there is a lot of weariness right now if things had have gone on with the administration that america likes the change. you know some in the republican circles say we tried that. look how that works. but i do think this country does look forward to it and likes to change the new generation. i think there was a lot of sense right now and a lot dry. so there is a strength elect to early. there has been a real collapse in confidence on the part of the working middle class of the country who's been well reported. you look at the lack of wage
growth as we begin to see a little bit of economic growth, although there is a hiccup in the last set of numbers. you really haven't seen the kind of wage growth that we need for the low skilled and out in terms of the wage earners. so there is something advantage gained by the republican party to say we've had in place one party for eight years and look what is happening. there is no wage growth. let's try it our way. so obviously the weakness and where my party has to focus is how do we go about an electoral college map with very large space that is impacted by minority voters? we've not been very successful over the last couple of cycles and i think some of the candidates mentioned before actually have the ability to appeal to those constituencies.
>> hi mr. cantor, thank you so much for coming to speak with us today. we know a lot about short-term and long-term politics. so as you saw your next chapter of wall street, what is your personal short-term and long-term goals? >> most of the students and my long-term goal and i've been in public office for a long time in a career oriented person as far as the future sustainability economically by families. i'm engaged in that effort.
but i think long-term i care about this country. i care about the role the country place for all of us, but also the role the country plays globally. as i've mentioned before a travel like internationally and i see from a business is as well as the geopolitical perspective a real need for american leadership. look what is going on in asia right now and the competitiveness and the environment there with china on the rise and the prospects for increased interaction between that region of asia pacific and where we are in europe, what kind of rules and the norm are we going to abide by and that is why we care about the trade issues and nothing is more important right now didn't he see a completion of trade agreements so we can establish some type of international law
and norms that we are used to the other countries where allied with are used in terms of conducting business and write. human rights as well as every other right. i plan long term to be engaged. [inaudible] >> you know i would say i've been given a great opportunity to join a firm that is very new. a firm i've joined is almost about eight years old. very entrepreneurial, very much about trying to solve problems. you say wall street, that this firm is the essence of what i think makes our economy what it is. it is entrepreneurial. so i look forward to the opportunity of being the
investment banks, helping people grow their business, expand business and ultimately go to an economy that helps everybody. >> up there, please. >> hello, name is patrick. if you could require president obama to read one book what would it be? >> wow. i was going to say one but i'm afraid of the interpretation. >> say that one. that's when you go with. i'll say it. the fountainhead by ayn rand. i have read ayn rand, all the books, back, atlas shrugged and there is a sense in those books that i think somehow could do a lot to bring the philosophy a little bit back the other way. i would also ask and probably
took a retail card idea how to win friends and influence people. >> already. >> wires so quote unquote concerned about the democratic initiatives represented by the bbs initiative come a long attempt for justice for palestine. it's a very welcomed democratic initiative isn't doing the utmost you can to effect aipac candidates in congressional districts? >> now i disagree wholeheartedly. the media movement is absolutely misplaced. i think it is wrong. i think for one, it does equate what is going on between israel and the palestinians and somehow
equate the possession of when you've got rockets in coming killing innocent people. you know, there is a saying that says if the palestinians put down their arms there can be peace. if the israelis put down their arms there would be no more israel. it is as simple as that. prime minister netanyahu is in a forceful way saying if there was a partner in peace we could make some progress. but you don't have in the palestinians anyone willing to recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state. that is the problem. you don't have anybody than recognizing their existence. how are you going to get agreement? that's what i've been such a strong supporter of the security of israel. until there was a time of a partner for peace on the other
side of the table, the american people will back the position i take. >> sorry, one comment. thank you for your question. >> by name is rachel. i'm a senior at the college. there are a number of skier from the class about the political divide between the left and right giving your long term income have you noticed the divide growing and if so how is that major job more difficult and what strategies have used to combat the growing divide between the left and right? >> good question. very apropos. i had a discussion. the dean here is that it's great to be part of an institution whose initiative is to solve problems. so yes i think the divide has intent to fight. i think some of that i'm not going to lump you into that. some of that is hardly do the fragmentation of the prize, the
ability for all of us to access the kind of news we want and the ever want to hear and in many cases, constituents of these members of congress choose to watch news or read news that match their own views. so if you take that how much are you going to have in common with one another? i think there has become -- the game has been up in terms of advocacy and a lot of times advocacy is confused with the news. and how do you go about combating not? that goes to the topic of today's discussion and the leadership committed to a long-term goal that we often get around. i used to start weekly caucus meetings with the republican congress and i put a slide up on the screen which would ask the question, how is what we are doing this week on the floor in
the chamber helping the people who sent us here? if both sides could agree that should be the goal we can all day long the different methods of health. but at least we are saying we are here to reflect that notion of helping people in terms of being elected leaders. so i do think it takes leadership committed to the long-term view. i think it takes a practical ability in your day job to understand when the pressure's column but not succumb to the fire in succumb to the siren of short-term as them. >> time for a couple more questions. >> i'm braynon from the business school across the river. he mentioned one of the reasons is that obama had what you perceive as a lack of the personal touch. but then almost unanimous rejection of most of the
policies put forward suggested even dale carnegie would be hard-pressed to have dinner with that many people to build those connections. i was wondering if you have any advice. perhaps they find ourselves in a situation facing people objecting to our policies are advocacy is, maybe not solely on the merits of a perverse incentive structure. >> you are absolutely right. the response in time of what has happened as republicans in congress took the view that they motivated more than anything else and i know that. i saw that. there is nothing more galvanizing in many instances for a party than to be against what the president is the reason for. i think the point is well made. but i don't think it's hopeless because i do think starting today if he were starting to invite members one by one, four
by four to try and make something work whatever 16 months of his term he ought to be doing that. so you say what do you do when you are faced with someone who is just going to reject for who you are. it is tough. but i've also seen the difference in the business world is people are less quick to adapt that kind of mentality because you have a mutuality of interest in trying to do a deal and trying to close a traction. and everyday life you will have people a lot more reasonable because they have a shared and peered in the political arena we have got to work to sort of create the shared and again. >> thank you very much for your service and being here. >> would you please identify
yourself. >> i'm sorry. my name is jim sherry at and i am a fellow in the advance leadership initiative. going back to your theme of short-term versus long-term if you look at so many of the long-term challenges we have come a social security forum medicare reform, with our current form of government are we ever going to be able to solve it or is it time to actually call a constitutional convention and do something more radical to fine tune our constitution to work better on long-term issues? >> first of all take note of the law of unintended consequences of constitutional convention. but i think that there will be some prospects after this election. the problem has been in washington, there really are two fundamental differences that the divide has not been bridged and how they fund the government
taxes and how you expand or spend it be entitled that money. i'm the one hand the tax question has been the president feels much like this populist notion that you've got to raise taxes and republicans made no new taxes. and then on the side of spending the disproportionate cause of the deficit because of the demographics in the country and the republicans have always said since 09 that the transition from a benefit plan to a more defined contribution plan. not just as a government or taxpayers do. democrats responded say that changes the nature and were not doing that. so those two things when you can
get agreement over the deficit, things like the transportation bill coming out. unless you decide to fund a and incur more debt like they did with the sgr billy couple weeks ago, the health care reimbursement of unless they do that there's a short-term band-aid fix. but i think over time it's been about six years since the ride budget was first put over. over time there's been some willingness from democrat to listen to it ipad some republicans willing to listen to closure of the loopholes on the tax issues. over time we will get there. it is frustrating and it got to be patient and i am not patient. i understand why the frustration. >> up there, please. >> by name is scott. thanks again for coming tonight and spent tonight and spend time with us in the foreign. i'm a master's candidate with
the business school and kennedy school and a former military officer. my question involves leadership in the private and public spec your and specifically any differences you see keys to be an effective leader to connect my question what advice would you give based on your experience in washington and on the flipside what advice would you give your former colleagues in washington based on your business experience. >> it is the most obvious example of what is different. you are a leader of members who have basically their own at home. each member of congress represent 750,000 people. although you had hoped you had a friend that if they go to washington and are able to accomplish something they can go back and sort of explained what happened for the benefit of the
people coming there. often because of the short-term pressures and rewards systems developed, there was not as much incentive. there was a stronger draw to go up on their own and to buck what it is leadership says they should be doing. whereas in the private sector, you have direct accountability. people don't have the incentive. act, a huge disincentive to not follow what the leadership has sat as policy in the firm if you want to stay there. that is sort of the difference. why would my colleagues and partners about the experience i had in washington one of the
things -- i hear so much in terms of our clients and others with disbelief about the lack of functionality. you know it's almost as if i want to say look let me try and explain it to you. they are not all dysfunctional. there is so much better. the complexity that is gained so much ground on the got to be patient. don't give up. don't give up on this decision because i haven't traveled a bit, there is so much good about this country. don't give up. that's the advice i would give. for my former colleagues i would say within before you talk because you know, what i've seen
and i was there for 14 years and i've now been there since september. i have the rhetoric down pretty good. i was an entrepreneur and businessman and i understood what it meant to go would literally be the entrepreneur to sign in to the bank bank and have to make the repayment and it payroll and pay taxes and benefits. so i get that. but it is so easy for the better to fall off the toe and geary versus what really happened to make things work in practice. i probably knew this band, but just not as clearly as i know now. listen before you talk. >> i have a question. >> thank you for coming. many coming. many of his rave song and i am a harvard graduate. you heard me express for president obama several times
during this forum a congressman since the year 2001. my question to you, is there anything the bush administration for the republican party in general could have done to have won the election in 2008 and therefore obama would've never become president in the first place. >> you know i think i alluded to this before. the biggest challenge for the republican party has to be one of exclusion not exclusion and welcome a diversity of demographic into our fold. that means we've got to stress policies that speak to a broad swath of the public. that means we have to be sent to did those who may not feel they are necessarily welcomed in to the mainstream of this country. i think that is probably what she could have done early on. it still remains even more important today.
[inaudible conversations] >> here we go. i am dave cook from the monitor. i guess this morning senator mike leigh. it's a time to spend time with what the senator's new book called the compliant press corps all too willing to blame republicans for anything and everything. a unique childhood between utah and washington where his dad served as solicitor general under president reagan. starting at age 10 he began attending supreme court
arguments. harry reid was a friend of david family and as the story goes mike leigh in the garage. overcoming any psychological scars that experience cause senator lee earned his bachelor somewhat his bachelor some law degree at brigham young university after graduating from law school clerked for several judges twice for samuel alito once volume is an appellate court judge and later when justice alito is on the supreme court. our guest was in private practice in 2010 when he started the political establishment at the feet of robert bennett for the gop senate nomination from utah. the almanac of american politics that he was the youngest senator when he took office in january 2011. the senator's new book is called the lost constitution the willful subversion of america's founding documents. it is a second look. the first was the freedom agenda white balance budget is
necessary to restore constitutional government. now the mechanics as always we are on the record here. please no live blogging or treating at short. no filing of any kind of the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. knowing her go when the session ends. to help you resist the rwanda search, we would e-mail several pictures to blog reporters here as soon as the breakfast and. as regular attendees know if you'd like to ask questions, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nod threatening signal and i will happily call him one and all in the time available. we'll start back for nick is the opportunity to make opening comments. thanks again for doing this sir. >> thank you very much. a pleasure to be here with all of you. to talk about my book. it's been an interesting book project and i've enjoyed it immensely. i wrote this book for the simple
reason when you talk about the constitution abstract, if it's a little bit easy to make a boring. we talked about the constitution routinely around the dinner table. as my wife explained to me a few years ago as i was trying to get young children interested in the constitution she said whether you're talking to your own children or two friends or people of any age, make it more interesting if you can tell it in the form of a story. if you can tell the story behind something that makes it not only more palatable, it makes it interesting. i wanted to tell a few of the stories behind the constitution, stories that inform us as to the reasons why certain provision were put into the document in the first place and also tells some of the stories about how some of the same provisions have fallen into disrepair or at least volunteered. he and how they can be restored.
one of the stories i've really enjoyed the book is a story about how alexander hamilton opened the advocate for a monarchy at the constitutional convention in 1787. he did so at his own political peril. a lot of people believe this may have had something that sunk in a presidential he might have otherwise had. his idea of the monarchy was of course reject dead by the convention and with good reason. they were very concerned first and foremost about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of view are the hands of the wind. that's one of the reasons i focus on the fact that the little i've gone back with consolidated so much power in the executive ranch in modern times. we've done so moreover in a bipartisan fashion. it's not than one party or the other that is sadness. nor has it been the executive
listed received all of its power. congress has been all too willing and eager to relinquish it. it's an easy way for congress to avoid accountability for making laws. an easy way for congress to accept all of the glory and none of the blame when identifying certain broad policy aspirations but not having to actually do the dirty work of setting the policy. these are some of the things i discuss in the constitution talking about the legislative powers clause, with the other instances they talk about the erosion of other things like the origination clause and other aspects of the constitution i consider important for far too often neglected. with that, i look forward to your questions. >> will go to eric watson, burgess averitt, phil rocker, sue davis and lisa ms. cara to
start. let we do a constitutional question or two in the thought that my colleagues may have other topics in mind. as reid wilson recently noted in the "washington post" legislators and 27 states have passed applications for the constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment and proponents in nine other states are pushing for passage. to support the move to a convention, a lot of people think there are dangers as it is not clear how it operated what subjects they could deal with once convened. >> i'm one of those people who thinks that there are dangers they are because we followed one procedure where congress proposes in the states ratified. the alternative proposal is where two thirds of the state call for congress convening a convention and proposing amendment were they become effective if the states
ratified. i was always taught growing up by my late father that there is great risk in this because we never had a constitutional convention at least not since 1787. last time we came up with something altogether different and at least my dad's view was let's leave good enough alone as far as calling for another convention. he's been dead 19 years and some other you in this 19 years a lot has happened to suggest congress can't be counted on to propose amendments we need and if the american people pretty overwhelmingly support the idea that balanced budget amendment to the constitution. my pressure that is still continue to push through congress, which is where i served my ability to control. if the states want to call for a convention i suspect they will continue to do so. >> i do great things other than the "washington post," that
there was a fascinating column by robert samuelson on the idea of balancing the budget. in a sense the argument was that neither party, it's very hard to do without either party having to swallow a fair amount of ideology. republicans need to admit without tax increases, big and dangerous cut our inevitable. democrats see all the spending for the elderly also a choke when i say that as you see the color of my hair. what is your view about the level of hypocrisy involved in calling for a balanced budget amendment when we know the voters want more spending said they are willing to pay for? >> i don't know if it's fair to call it hypocrisy. these are difficult questions
and may also involve an overarching question that looks at the amount of data we've accumulated about $18 trillion. we are paying $235 billion a year in interest on that debt. the scary part is we had the same about 20 years ago when our debt was a small fraction of the current ties, about a fifth of the current size. eventually the artificially, historically low rates we are paid on treasury instruments are likely to return to their historical average. assuming there's not a rebound above the historical average. it won't be very long after that before we pay something closer to a trillion dollars a year in interest on our debt. that will threaten all kinds of things. in addition to the fact it has been said our national debt may
well present one of our biggest single threat to national security, it also presents one of her biggest single threat to everything else we do. >> are you worried about tying the hands of the government at a time when you might need to prime the pump? >> idea. i also worry about the government not having its hands tied to make sure it shores up the programs important to shore at. [inaudible] there has been some discussion on the right. can you explain a little bit why that makes sense from a politics point of view and do you think senator rubio should and can win the nomination?
>> as to the first part of the question, here is what we are trying to accomplish their in addition to other features of the tax plan you know we are trying to eliminate the tax penalty. the child tax credit to refer to is directed at the parents tax penalty. i think it is a significant feature of our existing tax code that has the effect sort of taxi and american parents twice. one than they pay their taxes on the individual side in the payroll side and again as they incur the substantial cost of raising children. according to the u.s. department of agriculture costs about $300,000 to raise a child to maturity. today's children will become tomorrow's workers. tomorrow's taxpayers will pay the social security and medicare
benefits that the retirees. relative to our programs, hard-working parents get hit twice. imagine two hypothetical couples. imagine for tax purposes they are virtually identical paired sets of twins. similar incomes patterns similar mortgage interest reductions. except couple a has four children, couples he chooses to remain childless. while raising their children, couple a one per $1.2 billion on average in child-rearing expenses. couple people have the expense. couple a has produced for future taxpayers who will shore up the senior entitlement programs for everybody else who retires at the same time. the child tax credit doesn't upset the disparity altogether but it's meant to soften the purpose. as to the question of whether senator rubio could win on the tax plan attacks than in
another south is going to win at the white house, i don't think anybody's going to win the one trick pony. i think it is a good plan and i think he is a good candidate should he get into the presidential race is going to do well. [inaudible] such a tax to basically shut it off. was that your experience and if so, is that something ongoing or is it pretty much petered out by now? >> shut off funding, i don't know. he's a more prolific fundraiser than i am. and so he may have felt a difference of the time than i did. you'd have to ask him. i'm not aware of any conspiracy
to shut us out. i'm not aware of any one person or one group of people who voted to do that. >> senator lee senator paul has the legislation to implement their own medical marijuana laws to bring federal law basically making them no longer federal laws. is that something new is support on the judiciary committee? what is your stance on that? >> i want to make sure i know what you're talking about. is this the one he's running with senator joe grinned. i had a long conversation with senator joe legrand the other day. having reviewed the text of the legislation, but as i recall it would move marijuana from a schedule one to the schedule two. is that right? [inaudible] >> yeah. one of the reasons for doing
that senator joe legrand told me about some states in which there are researchers anxious to do research on cannabinoid oil as a treatment for epilepsy and other disorders than they are currently unable to do. anyway i'm looking at the legislation. i haven't made a decision on it yet. i [inaudible] >> as a matter of original principles, i think you can state a strong argument constitutionally that the state ought to be able to allow for the intrastate production and use of a particular medical treatment if the state deems that appropriate. that is of course not the system we have now. so it is tough to ignore the
realities of the current system. but senators paul and joe legrand -- i haven't decided how i'm going to come down on it but it's an interesting question. >> salt lake tribune. >> thank you. a couple questions on the good but kind of royalties and did you have a ghost have a ghostwriter, write this yourself? related to this or three best friends are running for president. are you trying to keep neutral on that? any advice you give a memo which one are you going to back? >> good questions. i wrote it on my own time. i don't discuss the particulars of the royalty agreement although i'll be required to disclose on an annual basis in the world to use i receive so
you will see that when that happened. yeah, i do have three friends in the senate, three of my very closest allies in the senate who all appear to be running for president. you know, it is a tough thing to have three of your favorite coworkers who all decide to run for president at the same time. the first time it's ever happened to me. i hope to be as supportive as i can of all three because i really genuinely like all three of them. for that reason i am not inclined to endorse any one of them at this point because i can't endorse one of them without sort of un- endorsing one of the others and at this point i don't see any reason to do that. [inaudible]
>> i will be on the ballot in 2016 in one state and that is in your state and my state, utah. >> tommy pays extra to ask you tough questions. a recent policy among registered voters showed 37% of voters wanted you as the gop nominee in 2016 while 30% shares josh romney. you came to office knocking off an incumbent. you expect a primary battle in 2016? >> i don't know. that is about a year away and i'm getting ready for anything that might come my way. preparing for the worst hoping for the best. >> we are going to fill rucker of the "washington post." >> about the 2016 presidential race, what are you looking for and what kind of nominee to think the voters in the republican party want to see?
they've had john mccain in 2008 and that romney in 2012. what are the qualities important now? >> i've given several speeches on this and i would like to see a candidate that's principled and positive improving. it's a bold means someone who is not afraid to admit why he or she is a conservative. not afraid to demonstrate that commitment to conservative principles by embracing a proactive conservative agenda to explain how it is the conservative principles can be used to promote economic mobility in america, to help expand the middle class, to help those who are unemployed or underemployed expand their
opportunities and somebody who's got some kind of track record somewhere in proving a commitment to these things. i think we've got a pretty strong field of candidates so far and it may well continue to grow at this point. the more the merrier. >> how many of the business leaders and many folks in the party seemed to be rallying so early around jeb bush. >> does it concern me? no. i'm not terribly surprised by that. again, we are still in the early stages of this so we are waiting to see who is going to pick up and who isn't. >> next to michael warren, alex bolton, rick kline and meredith shiner. that should take us into the hour. francine. >> without violating your reluctance to endorse anyone,
could you give us a sense of these three candidates what their strengths and weaknesses are in the race. >> you had to go with the weaknesses part? [laughter] let's start with the strengths at least. so we will go in order of when they announced i suppose. crews got in first. ted cruz and i both come from similar professional backgrounds. so you know we are both appellate litigators by training. they both served as law clerks at the supreme court. we tend to approach issues particularly constitutional issues in a similar way. ideologically i share a lot in common with ted cruz and i like his passion and i like his dedication to conservative
principles and his willingness to fight even when it's hard. i have an enormous amount of respect for him. some of those same characteristics have also been characterized by some as a weakness as an achilles' heel for him. we will see how the primary election voters feel about that at the end of the day. rand paul announced next. we have been friends ever since we're both running for senate in 2010 before it ever even met rand paul i read a column by george will says that if mike leigh and rand paul both manage to get elected they will become fast friends. that turned out to be true. i have always enjoyed my
association from almost the very first moment we were headed to the senate floor within our first few weeks in office and he asked me how i was going to vote on a particular bill. i told him i thought it would go for it and he identified some fairly technical constitutional concern. i didn't share his concern but i was impressed he was willing to do the work to find it. i still vividly remember the moment he went to the floor and decided to speak for 13 hours at a time in one sitting on drone strike. that was exciting. some would say that the achilles' heel for him would be on matters of foreign policy. but there again, others would view that as his strength. with rubio -- i also met rubio pretty early on.
i met rubio desantis the earliest in 2010 were both running. i saw him speak at cpac that year and i was immediately impressed with his speaking ability. the least among the current field of presidential candidates, i don't know if we have any other candidates as good as rubio waves at communicating at delivering a speech in inviting the audience into kind of an emotional journey as he speaks. he is one of these guys who can bring grown men to tears very quickly with emotion from a speaking about his great love for our country. he's got great vision and he's an outstanding communicator is one of the best natural athletes in political terms that we have got today. for those who are still critical
of him for his involvement in the gang of eight gratian bill a few years ago, but on the other hand, that was a few years ago and it is just one issue. [inaudible] you are one of the group of senators whose only served in the minority until the new congress. i was hoping you could reflect a little bit about what the majority has been like and how that has been different for you in more broadly, your take on how republicans in congress are doing so far, what has been the head than would've been the mrs.? >> the biggest single difference by fire since we took the majority in the senate has been that we are voting. we are voting a lot which is what we are supposed to be doing. i always think the more votes we
can be casting, the better. that is what we are here to do is to consider debate and ultimately the non-pieces of legislation and whether they pass or not we need to be voting on them. we cast more votes within the first six weeks maybe seven-week of the republican majority then we had cast in the entire previous year. in fact within the first eight weeks we may have cast more votes than we had passed in the previous congress in terms of rollcall votes on amendments on the floor of the senate. that is a good thing. there was a lot of frustration not just among republicans, but among democrats as well in the past two congresses over the fact our previous majority leader had been fairly reluctant
to call votes to allow votes, to allow amendments on legislation. when you don't have an open amendment process the legislative process itself is thwarted and it can't proceed as it should. that has been a rewarding thing. then you ask for the highlights. one highlight was passing out a budget just before we left for easter. that was a good thing. you know it has been about six years since congress has passed a budget and it was good to have gotten that when dad. it was good to get the keystone xl pipeline. it was unfortunate the president vetoed it and also unfortunately were not able to override it. >> coral from "the l.a. times."
[inaudible] >> -- or three really good friends. i was curious when you look at their potential paths what do you see for each of them their biggest challenge in moving forward and completely separately you mentioned in the introduction that you are family knew senator reed's family growing up. just wondered if you tell us what it was like growing up with senator reid. >> sure, sure. the biggest challenge that each of them is likely to face in his potential path to the white house ,-com,-com ma to the nomination let's just say. with -- so ted has a really strong loyal following. as i talk to people around the