Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  February 18, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST

7:00 pm
weiner, newsmakers committee event coordinator, tommy burr, the president of club who you just heard from, and jamie horowitz, the chair of the newsmakers committee for inviting me today. i want to thank everybody who's here today for braving -- braving the weather and the rain to find your way here to the club. as bob mentioned, i was asked to speak today on governing during the 2016 election year and i'm excited to have that opportunity. but first i wanted to start with a quick word about the unfortunate passing of supreme court justice antonin scalia over the weekend. judge scalia was a brilliant jurist, a dedicated constitutionalist and with a unique sense of humor and knack for vivid language that made him a favorite of the conservative movement. his wisdom will to doubt continue to touch this country for years.
7:01 pm
i did not know judge scalia well. i only had an opportunity to speak with him at length once. but when i did, my lasting memory was that this conservative firebrand was such a gentle man. a gentleman. a person of clear faith who treated everyone he met with dignity and respect. judge scalia could be harsh in his o pinions but by his own admission, his favorite friend on the court was liberal jurist ruth bader ginsburg. and regarding the importance of civility, judge scalia famously said, "i don't attack ideas," -- pardon me, "i don't attack people, i attack ideas."
7:02 pm
if you can't separate the two, you ought to get a new day job. we celebrate judge ska caliscal. this town could use a big dose of both. now, turning to governing in 2016. new blood has rushed into the house over the last five years. more than 150 of the 246 members of the house republican conference have been elected since 2010. in the senate, more than half, 29 of 54, republicans, are in their first term. republicans, their first term. it's a bipartisan trend. all combined, nearly half of both chambers have been elected in the last six years and clearly this turnover has changed the institution. and even though speaker paul ryan has been around a little while, he is uniquely qualified
7:03 pm
to lead this group. in many ways, paul ryan is the intellectual hero of this new movement. he fathered the responsible budget positions that were the inspiration for those who built these new majorities by running in 2010 and wrond. this is not my first time being a part of this kind of revolution. in fact, i was part of governor daniel's sweep in indiana in 2004. governor daniels was a bold transformative conservative leader. the kind of leader you knew you better be ready to keep up with. the first day of the first session in 2005, i told a story, i later repeated a year ago as the new republican policy chair when i spoke to our joint house senate conference that we put together in hershey. it's one of the best stories on leadership that i know. it's a story that i've heard
7:04 pm
attributed to yogi bare ra, showed up as manager of the new york yankees in the 198 os. those days steinbrenner was known as being a captain hook. that year he had four managers in one year. when you came in to be the new york yankees manager, knew knew it was going to be a tough job. he showed up to work and had been left two envelopes by his predecessor, one to use in time of the first crisis and the second to wruse in time of the second crisis. they got in the middle of the year and lost ten games in a row. in those days, it might be enough. he hated to do it, but he had to open the first envelope. he opened the first envelope and it said, blame me, the prior manager. that's what he did. he called a press conference and said, hey, they left me no talent, these guys don't have much fundamentals, hang in here and we'll try to get through it. they started winning games, they got into september, then they lost and became mathematically
7:05 pm
eliminated from the playoffs and he hated to do it but he had to open the second envelope and he opened that envelope and it said, prepare two envelopes. right? and i think it's such an important lesson, you know, you can only blame your predecessor for so long. eventually you got to start delivering results. now, a little about my background. i was born and raised in greensburg, indiana, by a single parent mom who recently retired from the delta faucet factory. i represent my hometown and 19 rural counties in east central and southeastern indiana. i've been married to my wife, jennifer, for almost 15 years. we actually met on a blind date. and we've been together ever since. we have three great kids, ava who's with us here today, and their ages are 12, 11, and 8. two boys and one girl.
7:06 pm
two girls and one boy. forgive me. two girls and one boy. that's important we get that right for everybody at home. two girls and one boy. you know, like most american families, our weekends and evenings are occupied with homework, school music concert, ball practices and sports games. we're hoosiers, so we like basketball and to brag a little, last weekend our kids scored six points, ten points and 20 points. in their three games respectively. they're also all doing great in school. a few weeks back at the state of the union address it was a particularly special time for me because my daughter, ava, was actually my date and, of course, i also knew for certain that it would be president obama's last state of the union address. those experiences form who i am as a leader. when i approach the challenges we face as the country, i think
7:07 pm
from the perspective of a kid who was raised in middle america by a single mom on a factory workers salary. and from the perspective of a husband and a father who loves his kids and wants them to grow up in a country full of opportunity. and now i'm the house republican policy chair. so far, i've been incredibly impressed with speaker paul ryan's leadership. i agree with paul 100% that we must reinvent ourself as a party of ideas. as paul likes to say, we have to become a party of proposition, not just opposition. i'm excited by the environment of policy entrepreneurship that paul's trying to create in our chamber. this approach will be better for our conference and for our party and frankly most importantly, it will be better for the american people.
7:08 pm
so where do we start? from my perspective, there are two defining challenges facing america. first, we must win the war on terror. whether we like it or not, we are now locked in a battle of good and evil against islamic extremists who want to destroy our way of life. this is the cold war of our time, and as british prime minister tony blair has said, we have to be both wise enough to understand the true breadth and depth of the challenge we face, and brave enough to build the intelligence, military, and political capabilities necessary to defeat it. the second major -- the second major challenge, shrinking paychecks. and that's where i want to focus
7:09 pm
my remarks today. the left speaks a lot about income inequality, but wage stagnation for middle income workers is the driver causing the collapse of the american dream. and i also believe it's driving the angst that you're seeing in the american electorate. now don't get me wrong, american life has improved a lot over the last 50 years. we have hundreds of channels on cable tv, where in the 1960s, you only had 12. your cell phone that you carry around now provides more information than there was in the public library when i grew up. cars and consumer products are safer. the environment is cleaner. major medical devices keep us all alive and healthier. but when it comes to economic security, for low and middle income workers, we flatlined.
7:10 pm
in fact, paychecks for most workers have frozen over the last 30 years. according to the bureau of labor statistics, since 1964, purchasing power for the average american worker in 2014, real dollars, increased by 84 cents. 84 cents over 50 years. i applaud efforts by speaker paul ryan and others to address poverty. paul is right. the old approaches are not working. we've been fighting poverty for over 50 years and trillions of dollars later poverty is winning the war. we should seek ways to better lift folks out of poverty, but with all due respect, where i live out in the middle of america, middle-class workers are worried about falling into poverty and they want to know what's our agenda for them?
7:11 pm
people in the middle of rural indiana used to live under the premise that they may not retire and go to the beach, but they could at least buy a boat, drive to the lake for a day and come home. now they worry that they may never get to retire. and they worry that their kids and grandkids may never have a chance to live the american dream. a year ago, no one would have believed a reality tv star and a socialist would be the presidential candidates leading in polls across our country. like it or not, the american people are sending us a message. it all reminds me of a 1980s sports book you may remember called "a season on the brink "", it's a book about bobby knight and the indiana hoosiers. the middle of the year darryl thomas who was the hoosiers' power forward complained because coach knight was yelling at him
7:12 pm
and one of the assistant coaches told darrylin more or less a quote, darryl, sometimes you have to listen to the wisdom of what coach knight says to you and ignore how he says it. today establishment washington may not like how the american people are sending this message, but the message is clear. the american people don't like the product that they've been receiving from their leaders in washington. wages have flat lined over 50 years. folks want opportunity. they want their borders protected. they want their kids and grandkids to grow up in an american that they know is safe. to me, it seems pretty simple. the american people want their leaders to focus on them. their hopes and dreams. several of the presidential candidates are channeling this anger, but frankly, anger is not a strategy. ultimately, we need solutions to
7:13 pm
the challenges of our day, keeping working people out of poverty. no american, no american, should work a 40-hour workweek and live in poverty. so how do we do that? well, let's start with the third rail of politics. america's most successful anti-poverty program, social security and medicare. i make no apologies for working to protect and preserve social security and medicare. these programs are vital to keeping middle and lower-income class americans out of poverty. if these programs collapse, the social construct of the last 50 clears wi years will collapse with it. we can't let that happen. fixing these programs with i s heavy lift, but fracnkly, the american people are far ahead of
7:14 pm
their leaders on this topic. entitlement reform is really just the beginning. washington has a long way to go to recognize today's economic angst and reconnect with the american people. in the spirit of paul ryan's culture of policy entrepreneursh entrepreneurship, i offer five modest ideas that would help make that happen. first, school choice. i serve on the house education and workforce committee and recently helped lead an all-too-rare committee hearing on school choice options. simply put, this is the civil rights issue of our time. school choice gets to the very essence of the american idea that we are are all endowed by our creator with a god-given right to pursue happiness and -- pursue happiness and live our own version of the american dream. that starts with a high quality education. we should not rest as a nation
7:15 pm
until every child in america has an opportunity to go to a great school. i'm not suggesting that we somehow create a federal department of school choice, but we can take existing federal dollars and empower parents to decide how best to use them. and by the way, for my conservative friends, empowering parents is an unassailable way to devolve the federal department of education and restore local control of our schools.z÷-z next idea, something i want to call the rights act. i'll be releasing legislation soon and here's the premise. republicans have long talked about the rains act, a macroeconomic policy that says if a regulation has more than $100 million impact on the american economy that congress should have to approve those regulations before they have the effect of law. it's great policy. it's something i support. it's actually authored by my colleague, todd young, in the house. but the people i talk to in
7:16 pm
middle-class america are not focused on the macroeconomic implications of federal regulatory policy. instead, they're worried about what happens when the federal government shows up on their doorstep to close their business, trample their freedom, or otherwise take a wrecking ball to their life. times have changed. this is not your grandfather's federal government. constitutional lawyer jonathan turley recently pointed out that a u.s. citizen is ten times more likely to be tried by a federal agency than by an actual court. in a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 hearings including trials, remarkably, federal agencies complete more than 939,000 proceedings. these agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process with one-sided presumptions and
7:17 pm
procedural rules that favor the agency. and my idea is really pretty simple. every american should have the same rights in a federal government bureaucracy proceeding that they have in federal court. the right to counsel. the right to discovery of evidence against you. and the right to not self-incriminate. third idea. expand use of the earned income tax credit. it's a far better way to help low-wage earners than hiking the minimum wage. despite some of the heated rhetoric on the left, minimum wages reduce opportunity and they eliminate jobs. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimated that president obama's proposed $10.10 wage hike once fully implemented would, and i quote, reduce total employment by 500,000 workers.
7:18 pm
cutting jobs is no way to help low-wage workers. instead, let's expand the earned income tax credit and incentivize work by releasing the eitc in every paycheck as opposed to a once a year lump sum. we should also consider expanding that tax credit to childless workers. both policies may cost money, but work is a blessing and encouraging work makes a whole lot more sense for the future of this country than wage mandates that end up cutting jobs. fourth idea, allow every american to pay for their health care with pretax dollars. for policy reasons rooted in world war ii era wage and price controls, we don't tax employer-provided health care. on the other hand, if your medical premiums come out of your own pocket, you have to pay for that with after-tax dollars.
7:19 pm
that's not fair. particularly in an era when so many employers are dropping their health care plans, i believe, because of the president's health care law. this policy change is easy to understand and it would save thousands of dollars for many working families all across this country. fifth, eliminate marriage penalties. a generation ago, federal tax policy was changed to eliminate certain marriage tax penalties, yet today federal agencies maintain dozens, if not hundreds of policies that penalize americans for getting married. for example, many federal benefits are immediately cut if a srecipient gets married becaue their income is deemed to have gone up. as a result, many folk s keep their benefits and delay getting married or don't get married at all.
7:20 pm
frankly, this policy doesn't make any sense. one could argue that marriage is the best anti-poverty program ever invented by man. we should not be discouraging it. in fact, the centrist brooking institute says if we had the marriage rate today that we had in the 1970s, there would be a 25% drop in poverty. the details will matter, but we should make it our goal to eliminate every federal government marriage penalty. it's the right thing to do. i recognize these ideas will cost money, at least some of them. several of them may not be purist republican doctrine either, but the common thread in all these ideas is policy consistent with conservative principles that will impact everyday americans in the real world where they live.
7:21 pm
frankly, this speech hasn't included many of the big-ticket items that also have to be dealt with. balanced budgets, enhanced energy production, border security and immigration reform, health care, trade, financial service reform. each critical to our nation's future. but if we're going to reestablish trust with the american people and continue earning the right to lead this country on the big issues, we must start by offering ideas that reach everyday americans at the kitchen table. and that's what we'll be working on in the republican policy committee. now, one last thought before we get to questions. a vision for america's future. you know, when i speak to students, i often ask them if they've ever seen someone get to a pinnacle moment in their life, won a grammy, won an oscar,
7:22 pm
maybe an olympic medal. invariably, they come to the microphone and say something like, you know, i never dreamed this was possible. the young people typically nod. i say, let me give you a little secret. either that person is incredibly lucky, they're exceedingly gracious, or they're just not telling you truhe truth, becaus the reality is your dreams are a cap, a limiter what you're able to achieve as an individual. i believe the same is true for a society. if america is going to maintain its position in the world and succeed in the long run, we have to be dreaming bigger dreams for this country than the people we're competing against. now, don't get me wrong, i understand the pessimism. to paraphrase harry truman, a recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours.
7:23 pm
folks are struggling, but we have to keep perspective. this is not the most challenging time in our nation's history. we've survived two world wars. a great depression. cold war. civil war. and a revolutionary war. each with bleak moments where the future of our country legitimately laid in peril, yet generation after generation, americans came together to meet those challenges and leave our nation better than we found it. we can do it again. there are some young people in this room, but there are others i know who would remember 1979. double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, polyester suits. there were a lot of reasons to be pessimistic. russia was running all over afghanist afghanistan. iran had our hostages. japan was the world's rising economic power. in 1979 it seemed impossible that just a decade-plus later,
7:24 pm
the berlin wall would come down, the soviet empire would collapse, and we'd be in the midst of a 25-year economic boom never seen before in the history of mankind. yet with leadership, that's exactly what happened. it wasn't obvious, but the american people picked their leaders and figured it out. they'll do it again. in many ways, we've come full circle. america's middle class is now in the midst of a new economic malaise. iran recently took hostages. russia is reasserting itself in the middle east. china is the world's new rising economic superpower. and the war on terror is this era's generational war. yet despite all of our challenges, we stand on the cusp of never before seen opportunity. in 1979, it would have seemed
7:25 pm
impossible the wall would fall and we'd be in the midst of an economic boom. today it seems just as impossible that washington will somehow get its act together and right the ship for the american people. but with leadership, it can happen and i would submit to you it has to. and so that leaves us with the biggest governing question of 2016. who will america pick to lead us into this next great generational challenge? for now the question remains unanswered. but unlike some of the pundits, i trust the american people. their collective wisdom has served us well so far. thank you very much. appreciate the opportunity to be here. glad to take questions. yeah? >> okay. we'll moderate the questions. >> of course. >> you stay right here.
7:26 pm
that's great. >> yeah. >> that was a great speech and great explanation of the philosophies that you have and that could well be the majority republican philosophy. so thank withdryou for that. i haven't heard an acknowledgement of the fact that we have so many other challenges in our history that are greater than the ones we claim are the greatest ones now. that's a candid statement when you talk about world wars and the civil wars and the revolutionary war, what we faced in the mast to show the perspective of what we're doing now. and, so, i'm glad that that is part of the framework that you work from. i'd like to open the questions with a question that my wife asked me, and you mentioned it a bit when you talked about the republican policy committee. what does the republican policy chair do and how do you formulate these policies and do
7:27 pm
you have meetings of your committee, who's on the committee? what's the nitty-gritty of how you determine these policies that you've just come up with? >> the republican policy committee is designed to be the engine of ideas for our conference. what we tackle don't fit neatly into one or another, there's cross jurisdiction. we work to coordinate those efforts as well. you're a member of the house elected leadership, and i think in this era where fall ryan has very clearly said we have to be a party of proposition, not just opposition, it gives us a real opportunity to go out and try to define the ideas that the republican party can -- is for -- republican caucus is for that actually touch the real lives of american people. as i mentioned in my remarks, i think the average american looks out here at washington sometimes and we all sound like the adults on charlie brown. we're kind of wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, and, you know, that is
7:28 pm
not touching or reaching anybody and, frankly, if you ask me my opinion of the president and has policies, i think often the president is talking about the right problems with the wrong answers. part of his success has been that people understand that they have challenges in health care or that their wages are frozen. unfortunately, i think the president's ideas aren't going to help solve those problems. >> okay. one other then we'll turn it over to questions. so, with america college completions having fallen from first to 15th in the world, and with that as such a huge issue for millennials in this election, i didn't hear you talk in terms of what can be done about college costs and what the congress might do to address college costs which is the basis of the reduced college completions. >> well, i actually spent a lot
7:29 pm
of time when i was a state legislator on high school completion and programs we were able to pull together in indiana have helped contribute to enormous success there over the last ten years, indiana's high school graduation rates have gone from 70% as a country basically the national average, or 70% as a state, basesically the national average, to now almost the 90%. we're now in the top ten. i think we got to rethink what we're doing with our federal high eer education programs. they were designed over a period of decades based on the premise of access. that essentially if we could -- if we build it, they could come and that decades ago the truth was actuarially that just access to college made you economically better off. if you had some college, wyou would have higher wages in your life. today that's not true. today if you don't leave college with a skill that adds value in the marketplace, you wages won't be any better off. some college does not make
7:30 pm
you -- does not raise your earnings. so we've got to drive folks toward college completion. i'm actually conducting a series of hearings with a millennial member of congress from new york and our next one will focus on, i think it's in april, right, april 14th, we'll have a hearing that focuses on college completion. there are some ideas, i think we have to at least keep track of all the billions of dollars being spent on pell grants and whether those are driving graduation -- graduations in college. i think we need to examine whether we have the appropriate throttle on the number of credit hours attached to full federal grants because some of those efforts might be able to help us get closer to college completion for kids. and it makes a big difference because today, again, if you leave school without a diploma and tens of thousands of dollars in debt, you're worse off, not better off. >> okay. now, identify yourself by name
7:31 pm
and organization and we'll lead with you. >> sure. my name's clohloe johnson, i'm from "bloomberg" news. i have two questions. my first one is about the rights act. i'm curious of the timeline of when it's going to be introduced and is it aimed at a specific federal agency, s.e.c. or another agency in particular? >> yeah, so it should be released within the coming weeks. it is not focused on any particular agency and i think it's all rooted, as i described in my speech, the fact we have to rethink the approach we're taking with the federal government. you're ten times more likely to be drug into a federal agency proceeding. you hear stories back in my district of folks who have been drug through processes that can take years, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and basically bankrupt folks. and, you know, i understand there may be some dollars associated with the cost here, but you ought to have some very basic rights if you're in a
7:32 pm
federal government proceeding. the right to discovery, the right to not have to self-incriminate, and frankly maybe even the right to a lawyer. >> sure. okay. i also want to ask about todd young and his senate race. there is his -- his place on the ballot is being contested right now as i'm sure you're aware of. any word on that, that process, how the race looks to your perspective. >> todd young and marlon stutsman are running for senate which you're referencing there. there are questions surrounding the signatures. frankly my honest answer is i'm not an election lawyer so i don't know the full implications there. both those guys are my friends and my colleagues and i frankly hope both of them are able to qualify for the ballot and have an opportunity to have a contest through the primary and then i'll be supporting -- i've not taken sides in that senate race, but i'll be supporting whoever is our nominee as they work to help maintain a republican majority in the fall.
7:33 pm
thanks. >> chairman horowitz, anything you'd want to ask? >> actually, i would. well, first, thank withdrew fyo coming today. congratulations. my question relates to education. i'm a father of three teenage sons here in the district of columbia, and we have quite a bit of school choice. charter school system, one of my sons goes to a public school that's adjacent to george washington university and shares a lot of space and programs with them, takes advantage of the city. residents of d.c. are largely opposed to vouchers, and a big part of essa was less federal control, more control back in the districts and states. isn't this a double standard that to impose a voucher
7:34 pm
system -- >> yeah. >> -- on the district of columbia, shouldn't we have the same kind of rights and local control that others in education have around the country? >> well, you know, i would tell withdrew that every poll i've seen shows the support for vouchers continuing to increase. 75% of the african-american community, 75% of the latino community, 75% of latino -- of the millennials all support school choice options. and what i believe is that this should be a combination of the legislation that i've authored would be legislation that would create local control that would allow local communities, local states to decide how those dollars could be spent and empower parents in the process. i'll tell you this, though. i had an opportunity to attend the basis charter school just last year, and amazing group of young people who were attending that school. and i can tell you, when it came down to ask questions to the congressmen, they asked some really tough questions. their number-one question was this. why can't every kid have the
7:35 pm
same opportunities we have to go to this great school? and my premise is this. you want to figure out the best opportunity for a child? ask their parent. empower that parent. let the parent decide where their child should go. in indiana, we've seen this program expand. there's 300,000 now -- 300,000? 30,000 families that are now on vouchers, 200,000 hoosiers, hoosier families who are engaged in some sort of alternative school option. and yet our public schools are thriving, too. and so i think what we've got to move away from is this sort of false choice and i think the best way to make sure we give kids a great opportunity is to let their parent decide. >> maureen, you were where? >> right here. >> we'd like to call on you from "the indianapolis star." >> hi. i'd like to ask about what might actually get done. you know, we're hearing that even in your own caucus, there's
7:36 pm
a dispute about whether to stick with the budget numbers that were agreed upon or whether to try to cut more. so i wanted to ask where you see that going just the basic requirements of passing the budget. is even that going to happen within your caucus? is there going to be agreement on that? then the larger picture of this agenda that you laid out for anti-poverty, do you see anything happening this year on any of those things or do you think it's more of the party coming together and sort of putting together their contract with america type election statement and this is just leading up to people debating this at the ballot box about what agenda they want? and how complicated is that -- are you going to be able to do that if your nominee is someone like trump? >> so, there's at least three questions, maureen, so let's try to take them one at a time. first is will we pass a budget? we will pass a budget. there's still yet some debate what that number will be but we'll come together as a caucus and pass a budget.
7:37 pm
we always have. i'm confident we will, again. i believe we'll move through an appropriations process based on that budget. the real question is then what happens from there and that i think is as of yet undefined. second, you know, my hope is we get as much of our agenda through the house chamber as we can. our founding fathers set up the process of making laws to be a complicated one, a cumbersome one and frankly it's hard to pass laws. it's mparticularly hard to pass laws when you have the president of the other party who has a different philosophy on many issues. i don't think that diminishes the importance unless laying out our agenda. so my guess is that some of these items will make it through at least the house chamber. some of them may just be offered short of that. but i think it's important to remember that, for example, paul ryan's first draft of his budget had eight co-sponsors in 2008. eight. eight co-sponsors.
7:38 pm
and yet today we've been governed by that -- at the time the budget was released, people said it was a campaign document that was so fanciful that it would never happen. and we've been governed by essentially that budget for the last five years. in the discretionary areas of the budget. because he didn't just draft a budget, he went out over time and made the argument and we convinced the american people in policy change. i think it's the same approach we have to take to some other big-ticket items. i isn't tsuspect the answer to a little bit of both. now to the third question i took, is that complicated by the presidential election? yes. it is complicated by the presidential election. but i don't know a better way to figure it out than the approach we have which is to put it in the hands of the american people, let them and their collective wisdom decide what's best to lead us. as i mentioned in my remarks, american people are sending a clear message.
7:39 pm
they're tired of the status quo. they don't like the product they're receiving from their current lead ers in washington and they're going to speak louder and louder until people here start to listen to them. so, but we're -- this is a process that is still early and i suspect in the end, we'll have a nominee that makes sense. >> just a by-product of that, am i wrong that we've heard that the earned income tax credit proposals, and maybe even the marriage penalties reductions that you're talking about, those would have great bipartisan support? and i think -- i've heard that the earned income tax credit expansions that you're talking about actually could be something that could be inacted and worked on as part of tax reform and supported by both sides. am i wrong about that? >> i think that's right. i think sort of the unfortunate game of washington has been to stuff ideas in with bipartisan agreement and other ideas where there's no agreement at all. the key to getting some of these
7:40 pm
things done would be to try to get closer to single subject matter bills where you're able to move them. i also think hope springs eternal and there's still opportunities to tackle, you know, the kinds of reforms that are needed in social security and medicare. that's going to require presidential leadership and compromise, and folks would have said six months ago that passing an education bill was impossible. so who knows what we might be able to get done this year. >> on social security and medicare, that's a touchy one and trump says no candidate that goes there can win. i mean, he's been saying that. huckabee said the same thing. i just don't know where that takes you given that it was pepper and o'neal and reagan that forged the deal that keeps social security solvent through the 2050s and everybody seems to have forgotten that's actually still in place. so how do you cope with that? >> well, one, i mean, if you say it's solvent, you have to rely
7:41 pm
on the ideas of the moogy-foogy accounting of the social security trust fund. now these programs are now flow. they're able to be funded if we take the money back we borrow from ourselves and pay for them. the model is the one you just described. it's going to require presidential leadership and then folks who are willing to reach across the aisle. i can tell you this, though, i think the american people are way ahead of us. i talk in town hall meetings across my district, i've done hundreds of events in the last several years. i've not been in one room where folks in the room believe our social security/medicare programs are in perfect shape and didn't need to be changed. in fact, i've taken to asking a rhetorical question to every room i'm in. i say very simply, hey, how many of you would give up 10 bucks a month if you knew it went that your kids and grandkids would be able to have social security and medicare? everybody raises their hand. i say, how many of you trust if you gave up 10 bucks the federal
7:42 pm
government would spend their money that way? so the challenges, whatever the right answer is, it's not a challenge that the american people aren't willing to do what it takes to get this done. it's frankly a challenge of leaders who are willing to spend the time and energy it takes to persuade the american people about what needs to happen. >> okay. let's -- right over here on the right with the computer. and identify yourself. >> hi. we've been hearing a lot now. you talked about scalia at the begins after mitch mcconnell and others want to try to push that off until after the presidential election to give the american people a chance. you talk about how your followsy proposals would be impacted by the presidential election. this policy, that it's going to be harder to get things done, maybe it would be better to wait until -- you talked about in some ways the election being a referendum on a lot of these ideas on a new policy that you're presenting.
7:43 pm
do you think you should wait until after the election to do that? >> well, i think passing policy is really complicated, and it's vin virtually impossible when you haven't taken the time to persuade the american people. that's why i 100% agree with speaker ryan that we need to put forward bold, clear policies now. we need to make this election a referendum on two very different visions of where we go next as a country. and, frankly, when you do that, you earn the right to go make those policies a reality. i learned this in indiana with mitch daniels. i mean, year after year after year we would put forward bold proposals. year after year after year the hand wringers would say, well, you can't be that bold and win elections and yet we won elections and we moved policy forward for our state and i'm just absolutely convinced we can do it here, too. but we got to get -- but the
7:44 pm
sooner the better. we got to get busy making the argument. >> sorry, so you would want these things to happen? even if you are expecting your party will earn the right to do it in november, you still would hopefully want to get some of this done before the election? >> i think there's a practical reality that we have a big philosophical difference with this president and so many of the proposals we would put forward are not proposals that will become law under this president, but i don't think that's an excuse for not putting the proposals forward at all. does that make sense? yeah. >> okay. press club member. blue shirt in the back. identify yourself. >> hi. i'm with politics indiana. going back to the indiana senate race, what do you think of marlon stutsman joining the challenge with the democrats to todd young's ballot count controversy? do you think he should have jumped in and had his staff also recount those ballots?
7:45 pm
>> make sure i understand your question. are you saying he has formally joined the complaint or he filed that, too? [ inaudible ] right. is that right? you know, i'm not an election lawyer. my hope is they'll figure it out. again, both of them are my friends and they're my colleagues. i hope they're both able to qualify for the ballot and let the voters of indiana decide. at the same time, i mean, i think it's, of course, important that one complies with indiana election law as in the filing requirements. so there will be others who better understand the details of what the right decision is there. >> and we're a little off the subject of what we're talking about -- >> from indiana. that's fine. >> in the back? and identify yourself. >> yeah, peter with capital intel group. my question is, we have the primary. we seem to have protests voice
7:46 pm
drowning out everybody else. how will you get the republican reformer message out there during the primary? there's a lot of reforms you have in congress, lot of the leadership. that seems to be drowned out. do you have a strategy to get past the noise and get your message across to the voters before cleveland convention, how will you be doing that? paul ryan, you have a lot of stuff on the plate. none of that seems to be getting out. maybe it's our fault. >> i don't know that it's your fault. it's mostly our fault. it's our job to deal with -- make sure to make our case and persuade the american people. it's natural that the focus of the american people over the next several months is going to be on who our next leader should be. and so almost by definition we're going to do our work here. it's going to be a challenge to have that break through when all the noise is surrounding the primary. i do believe, though, that the competitive primary makes it all the more important we put forward a policy agenda now because, unfortunately, what tends to happen in primaries,
7:47 pm
every primary i've ever seen, the issue differences tend to be very small to the focus of the debate tends to be on personality and all kinds of things that don't have very much to do with policy. so we see as a house republican conference one of our jobs to lay the policy foundation that then can be adopted by the presidential nominee that comes out. and who knows, i mean, you ask me today, i think it's certainly possible that that nominee is not selected until a convention. i'm sure that will be the tv stations will be glad to see that because viewership, i think, would be up significantly if that were the case. but what i'm convinced of is that i trust the american people to figure it out. and, frankly, whoever our nominee is, we'll come together in july and we'll put forward an agenda that helps us win the fall election. thanks. >> do you really think that with
7:48 pm
some winner take all states after march 15th if someone gathers a rising storm and comes in with 40%, that person wouldn't be the nominee? >> well, now, there was two different assumptions that you said there, i think. one is the question of will someone get to 50% because of the winner take all states that come in later? i am absolutely convinced that if someone gets to 50%, they will be the nominee of our party. i also believe that if -- it's hard to sit here in the world of conjecture because we don't know what would happen, but if someone gets pretty close to that, it's also very likely they will be there. the question is, though, it could turn out nobody gets very close at all and if that's the case, then the convention may be a little more interesting this year than it is most years. >> okay. go ahead. maureen again. mike.
7:49 pm
>> two spending questions related to indiana. attorney general zeller was just out here and he said that indiana could use federal funding to help with the opiate epidemic to funding for treatment because they're going to be overwhelmed with the need for treatment and the funding isn't there. the president has proposed an increase in spending for the opiate epidemic. there's been legislation moving through the senate, but not necessarily money moving through the senate. so one funding question for you is whether you see congress passing money to help states with that issue. and the second funding question the president also has proposed letting states that didn't expand medicaid right away get the full three years of 100% funding. so for indiana that would mean an extra year because indiana didn't start in the first year. is that something that you can support increasing funding for medicaid expansion for states that didn't do it in the first year so they would get a full three years or 100% federal
7:50 pm
funding? >> yeah. my answer to both, yes, the details matter. conceptual i'm open to both. we're in the midst of an opiate epidemic in indiana, it's an th. scott county in my district, also an aids outbreak connected to the transfer of the -- related to drug use, and it's crippling for these communities. i agree with attorney general zoeller that we're going to have to look at a comprehensive way to tackle it as a nation, and that's going to include some money. make the same on the medicaid expansion. indiana's had some obvious successes there. again, the details matter, but i'm open to considering that. >> i think the president's plan is $12 billion for dealing with the opiate issues? >> yes.
7:51 pm
i'm willing to find a compromise on the proposal. >> zach hornbrow. you mentioned financial services reform, and i know you've had success recently moving that through, can you talk about what other policies you would expect house republicans to try to move this year, and how is that discussion impacted by the lingering anger toward banks and wall street coming up in the presidential election. >> a lot on that question, i would say as a financial services committee you can count on us to inputting forward bullet proposals that make clear what the house proposal is. we get all the way to looking at
7:52 pm
dodd frank repeal and replace legislation that shows our vision of what we think would be a better regulatory approach, as you mention, the environment and the committee has changed a little. we were able to pass a little change in the regulations that changed the way that municipal bonds are treated under those regulatory standards, there was bipartisan consensus there, a few years back, it was hard to get any changes through. you're starting to see some of those changes and you're absolutely right. i mean, the american people are furious. the climate here is one of being tougher on wall street, frankly, not being easier, i think one of the challenges we have on the house republican caucus within the committee. we have to help the consumer
7:53 pm
understand how this regulatory abyss is making their life tougher. for example, one of the fallouts of 2k0d frank is the free checking has disappeared in our country. you're able to help them think through why we need to change t it. >> time flies when you're having fun. i can't believe it's 11:00. let's say one or two more questions from people who haven't asked first. anyone who has not asked? and otherwise we'll -- mark, why don't we let you have the last question then your rights act bill. you said it doesn't target a specific agency, to what extent is it inspired by the investment
7:54 pm
advisers who have filed lawsuits against the sec's administrative law judge process. >> it would be inspired by them, by farmers who have dealt with the department of labor. folks that have dealt with the irs. you get out there in the middle of america, people fear they're federal government, they're worried about what happens when they show up at your doorstep. they're treated fairly. when you look at the rules and procedures surrounding administrative proceedings, it's not even close. i think in a -- our federal government has grown in a way that even decades ago would have seemed unimaginable. i think we have to respond to that with simple solutions like the rights act. >> let me ask the last one,
7:55 pm
which is something we talked about right before you came in, infrastructure, cbo and crs say with a major infrastructure jobs program there would be a million more jobs a full percentage point unemployment. since that is a major criticism of the economy now, what will the congress do and can we get to the point where we reach what europe has, which is my wife and i were on 200 mile an hour trains a couple months ago. what gao reports, 50% of the bridges are dangerous in america. what can we do about that? >> clearly, i was glad we were able to pass the transportation bill last year. that's an important start. clearly this is one of the opportunities for bipartisan consensus if there's a fundamental function of the
7:56 pm
federal government, there's an area where there ought to be broad consensus. what i learned in indiana, the answer is to be bold. he moved forward a program called major moves, where we leased the state's northern indiana toll road and we were able to fund infrastructure in our state for ten years our state is now in the midst of what we're going to do at a state level. i think those kinds of answers are what we have to look for some of that is going to cost money and take real leadership. i think there's opportunity for bipartisan compromise here it's going to take presidential leadership that explains the breadth and depth of our challenges much of our infrastructure is not safe. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and we are now adjourned.
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
next, road to the white house rewinds. a look at past presidential rices, we begin with president bill clinton's 1992 speech. then a look at some of the campaign ads from that year. after that, barry goldwater's 1964 campaign film. and later a 1980 interview with candidate ronald reagan. each week until the 2016 election, road to the white house rewind brings you archives of the presidential races.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on