tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 18, 2014 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT
approach, there'll be a whole new class of cases, which is, if the stock goes up, their plaintiffs' lawyers will be able to argue, well, the fiduciary should have should have anticipated that, and the participants who were selling and deciding to move over to the s&p 500 fund, you let them sell their stock too cheaply, and that's a violation. so it's unworkable. we submit. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> the san antonio mayor, julio castro, and a talk of u.s. immigration policy.
>> thank you. mic on? oh, yes. sorry for that. i want to get started. we run as tight a ship as we can for world affairs. welcome to session 2164 of the conference of world affairs, entitled "the political crystal ball." how appropriate, given what is coming in the next couple years. today is tuesday, april 8, and we are in umc 235. -- ime is suzi addicks m
have the pleasure of moderating this panel today. we will have each of our panelists give some comments, roughly 10 minutes. them an opportunity, if they wish, to comment on each other's comments. up tonviting you to come the microphones on either side of the dais. we will give preference to students. if i see students in line, do not feel upset if i call them to the microphone ahead of you. that is the focus of the conference. i want to start this morning by reminding all of you to turn off your cell phones, any other elect rick -- electronic devices that you have. we do this out of respect for our panel and each other.
we do not want these things going off in the middle of our meeting. i am when to start by introducing our four panelists in the order in which they will speak. on this, socided there is no significance to be read into the order in which they will speak. our first speaker is to my immediate left, david bender. he is well known to many conference attendees for his involvement in public issues and political activities. he also has been a broadcaster and an author. one of the things you may not know about david is that his interest in politics goes way, way back. and he, in seventh grade, took a leave of absence to participate in bob kennedy, robert kennedy's presidential campaign. so -- [applause] [laughter] >> it is called truancy. [laughter] >> i was trying to be
diplomatic, here. leave of absence. second is mary hughes. mary is a seasoned political strategist and author, who has focused her efforts on increasing the number of women in congress and state legislatures, especially california. [applause] fromhould know that 1984-2008, in the nine bay area counties in california, they sent six women to the house of representatives, 2 to the u.s. many of us know, celebrated the selection of nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. mary had a hand in many of those campaigns, and she continues to be involved in working on an urging women to run and win. escalchi,have daniel od a known voice and face to many
who attend the conference. he is a political consultant and campaign strategist. he has worked in many emerging countries and tradition in transitioning countries, including eastern europe and the middle east. he also has worked on many political campaigns in the united states. he has a longtime interest in politics. when asked what got him into politics, he said, i was a somewhat nerdy kid, and i really loved politics. so thank you, daniel, for that. >> so glad you said that. i was afraid of what you were going to say. [laughter] >> i am trying to censor this just slightly. last but not least, we have ana a cnn contributor and political strategist with expertise on latin america and hispanic issues. [laughter]
>> sure you do. stop --ijacked it will it. >> she served as national chair of john mccain's hispanic advisory council in 2008. she has worked on several other state and national political campaigns, as well as serving as your -- as ambassador of the u.n. human rights commission. you can see we have a very versatile panel. david is going to pick us -- kick us off. >> thank you for being here. i also want to thank c-span for joining us today. i think c-span is probably one of the rare things i can say that has been great about television and democracy. let us give a hand for c-span. [applause] television in the era of the bysecond spot, funded
independent expenditures, largely undocumented money, has not done democracy a favor in recent years. inception, since its has done something incredibly valuable, which is to bring an unfiltered view of our government to people. that was the intention. a lot of people were terrified at what it would do. to this day, since it started, every day -- it may be boring some, but it is invaluable. i encourage everyone to make sure their local cable provider includes c-span, because it is important to all of us. having said that, let me say that -- this morning's paper asked all of us on this panel to comment on what we saw in the political crystal ball. the quote i gave is what i say to anyone who asks about forecasting the political future.
they usually will start off with some polling data which says, if the election were held today, always think, this person has never worked in politics. it is the election is never held today unless you are actually asking the question the first tuesday after the first monday in november. we have early voting, so extend that in some cases to october. truly, it is impossible. ask some of the former presidents, like former president, or former president , -- formernton president al gore, or former president hillary clinton, who wonthe popular vote, and the electoral college as well, but did not get to serve. nevertional wisdom is
what ends up playing out. we are sitting here in 2014 and are going to have a discussion, appropriately i think, about what will happen in these midterm elections in november of this year. still, a lot of variables. a lot of things will happen that we cannot forecast. people will tell you what they think they know is going to , but are smoking something that is not legal here in colorado. i will say there are some clues. there are some clues. what i am going to officially dug the sheldon adelson primary. it was held a few weeks ago in las vegas. you can tell by who chose to participate in that primary who is looking -- not necessarily who is favored, but who is looking at 2016.
these are people who went to a forum sponsored by the world's eight richards -- eighth richest adelson, whose principal interests are israel and the prevention of internet gambling. which will of course cut into the fact that he is the eighth richest man, largely based on casino gambling in las vegas and macau. the people who went to las vegas to see sheldon adelson included a man you may have heard of, chris christie, governor of new jersey. anyone heard of him? he has been out of the news a lot lately. i wanted to remind you he is the governor of new jersey, which includes part of the george washington bridge. of the george washington bridge, as my good friend points out. not the new york cap, which has behaved a little bit better.
a number of other people went to participate in the adelson pri mary. they included scott walker, the governor of wisconsin. they included john kasich, the governor of ohio. they did not go because they needed a trip to las vegas. and scott walker did not explain what the hebrew pronunciation of his son's name is because he was uninterested in sheldon adelson 's support. shamelessat we call pandering, which is what was going on in las vegas. but they understood that this was, as was the case four years visit when they came to donald trump, they needed, if they received the nomination for president three years hence -- they needed sheldon adelson's support. he almost single-handedly kept newt gingrich's candace's --
candidacy alive in the last election cycle through continuing to infuse money. he plainly intends to be a participant again. he is 80 years old. he shows no signs of slowing up. the sheldon adelson primary, to me, is some part of what we might call the political crystal ball, if we are looking for signs, tea leaves to read. the most interesting part of that, and i will look to our colleague on the payroll today, who has worked for former -- isa governor jeb bush the fact that jeb bush went and participated. i think that is a very interesting indicator. as a lifelong democrat, i will tell you that the person that i believe has the strongest possibility to both win the nomination and be elected president in 2016 is jeb bush.
>> [indiscernible] you will ruin his chances. >> it is an assessment. and if i can ruin his chances, i have more power than i think i have. i will tell you that out of respect i do believe he believes -- he brings the strongest credentials to the apparently weak field. but he would give a great run. whether he wants to run -- his brother has said, we have had too many bushes already. i will tell you, i think the fact that he went to las vegas shows he is at least looking at it. i do not think anyone, including hillary clinton, has made up their mind as yet. maybe a few have. maybe rick santorum knows what he is doing again in 2016. most people are looking at it, trying to get the lay of the land and figure it out, but it
is interesting to me that former , hasnor bush was present made some early trips. if you want to follow this, i will tell you -- follow the money. household broke famously -- hal holbrook famously said in the garage scene in "all the n," follow the money. see if anyone is locked up for a particular candidate. and follow the travel. ask people in iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina who they have met lately. that will give you some idea of how the 2016 field is shaping up, at least in the minds of people who think they are credible candidates. does not mean they will be. it means they are testing the waters. pointedlleague daniel out, if you were doing the same exercise early on, when then
former mayor rudy giuliani was considered the front-runner for the republican nomination, you would have thought he had it locked up. conventional wisdom does not exist in this process. we will prove that by sharing our unconventional wisdom today. thank you very much. [applause] >> mary, go ahead. >> wonderful to be with you. my crystal ball is a little bit error. it reads in headlines. i will share six this morning. agree that welso will see how it goes. the funny thing about predictions is, you help enough time has passed no one remembers them. we will see. i am happy, because as you might
guess, there are things that perhaps are things we might want to see, or some of us might. the first is, the northeast, which led in new england, in new hampshire, with a suite of women in all of its statewide offices again the will lead region in the renaissance of women governors. havehe last decade, we gone from nine women governors to the current five. lead states and one democrat, maggie hassan in new hampshire. pennsylvania, allyson inwartz, martha coakley massachusetts -- i think they will run strong. theink we will increase number of women governors significantly, and that will be a major story in the 2014
midterm election. the honesty's will be much in your headlines over the next -- dyanasties will be much in the headlines over the next year, and possibly for years. you will watch michelle nine in georgia in what is emerging as a very interesting race. she has a clear field against him unruly field of republicans who are repeating -- competing for their nomination. her father, sam nunn, search 24 with in the house distinction, an expert on the armed services committee. i would keep my eye there. well.dall -- you know him that is another one that people will be watching closely. sam pryor in arkansas. i think this is important, for reasons that have been alluded to. i do not know how much tolerance families tonvest in
lead us. and it is hard to know whether the value that we come to know about them are so clear to us that we have confidence and or whetheris earned, we are a lazy electorate and it is easier to go with the brand they know. i think this election cycle and the next one will put us to the test. aether you are looking for generational change or a shift in perception, some different approach to how we evaluate the generations that come after. and i think we are going to have an opportunity to do that. hampshire,o new where we all know all politics in america is rooted. contest in ther last 48 hours. scott brown moved into new hampshire.
let me assure you, jeanne shaheen will make short work of that. [applause] i can imagine no voters in the -- you, live free or die are going to come into our state, tell us you are going to represent us. i thought, really interesting. is --ot know what it >> i am sorry. it worked for hillary clinton. >> the one thing you want to watch about that move is, who is behind it? and for what reason related to the presidential election coming up? i think that is an important thing to watch for. my crystal ball stops there. , where theyor's race mayor -- it is unclear to me, from the left coast, what exactly was underneath this.
it always troubles me when law enforcement officers bring charges so close to an election. i think a lot of information came out late in that election. and a woman councilmember beat the sitting mayor running for reelection. in the lasteen, months, in various pockets of our country, prominently in my own, unfortunate scandals. not really scandals. just crimes. just people charged with crimes. i know the mayor of charlotte was indicted. we have a state senator in san francisco who was indicted, following the indictment of two other state senators for unrelated crimes. i do think we are reaching a tipping point. itask ourselves, what is that allows for this to go on and on and on. antidote?e
historically, the antidote to this problem has been elect women. i think you all remember, i arizona,the 1990's, in and the state of arizona said, are you kidding me? they had a governor who -- i think he was indicted. women swept all the top offices. we call that, in our work, the virtue advantage. it has prettyu, much -- as women have become more prominent as leaders, that advantage, in many ways, has fallen away. but in some sense, for some voters -- and voters skew older, as you know -- there is some vestige of it. whether that election heralds a trend -- it is not probably the beginning of a big trend. but i would ask you to watch how voters react in the next election to the issue of fast and loose.
point, to my colleague's , there is a great deal of foot with jeb bush. bush, and ih jeb hope ana will illuminate more on this point. but the one i am interested in and i hope heralds a good discussion for the country is the acceptance of immigration reform as something that we must do, that we should do for a host including a compassionate one to keep families together. i think republican congressional candidates will be grateful to 12, 24, 36is next , because the language the
debate has devolved into is divisive, and no one can move off their position. and he has come straight at it. he has said, we have to do this. we have to do it at her. there are great reasons for doing it. that gives everyone else cover to have a place to talk about the issues in a constructive way, and that is terrific. a simple shuffling of the lingo -- we end up in a highly partisan place on the issue yet again, with no progress. but a hopeful sign in the crystal ball. think the decision by the supreme court recently on campaign finance reform is unfortunate. , and here istent what i mean. thatu agree with buckley speech and money are the same,
this was a consistent decision. consequences of that decision, we live with in the concept forest mess between policy and money. it is unhealthy. it is unwholesome. legislations our -- legislatures and/or congress. i would just say to you, while i do not see in my crystal ball a short term solution for this, it is the one thing that will make a huge difference to the way we do public policy, and probably have a big effect on all of the other issues. so i will stop there. [applause] >> good morning, everybody.
i had a crystal ball and i was going to bring it with me this morning. as i was looking at it, i did not see a reason to. i saw marion barry and the mayor crack, and itking got all cloudy. it started to dissipate a little bit, and i saw a tweet from anthony weiner, who lost the primary to glossy oh in new york, and i was afraid to read it. so i am going to abandon that. however, i want to up broach this panel a little differently today. i know we have many panelists here who are going to talk about the candidates and the play-by-play. i am going to step back for a moment and talk about something that i feel is going to affect the midtermn, election as well as the presidential. and it is going to affect our
politics here in this country and abroad pretty significantly. and that issue is the fact that many americans today feel threatened. we feel threatened. are threatened. our standing in the world is threatened. realign notgoing to just the electorate, but how politicians react to this electorate. it, i think about actually worked for doc kaufman hoffman when he ran. he was the first tea party candidate. i saw, in a sense, a reaction to this. there is a fear among the elect a writ of where america's place is in the world today. its is going to have very --
is shifting the politics in this country. but i will also step back even further for just one moment. democracies and those countries that associate themselves with it, we are seeing this in those countries as well. hungary just elected a prime minister again and gave him a greater far right majority. we know what is going on in israel. we see this going on in france and germany, in the netherlands. people are feeling threatened. act to america. let us talk about how this is going to affect the politics, the politicians, and the policy they are going to start promoting and elections. spoke about the tea party panel yesterday. i do not know how many people were there for that. you already see that a lot of those pushbutton issues that
fomented the anger within the tea party more issues that are now being co-opted by the establishment republican party -- fiscal responsibility, school choice, issues like that. see thate going to major parties are going to start to adopt it, and so are the candidates. they are going to adapt a portion of that. it is very understandable. unemployment is still rather high. making a lot of money, because they are more productive. but they are being more productive with fewer people. they are not hiring back a lot of people we let go during the recession. on the economic front, how our candidates are going to address these issues is going to have a major impact. i am glad you brought up immigration. the immigration report --
immigration reform -- this is why you had people like john mccain. in the very early stages, all for the dream act. the establishment republican party, in many senses, was for it. a shift changes. , youl say that this shift cannot only blame the tea party. many conservative democrats also feel this threat against their jobs and their well-being. there is some cross party pollination on that issue. policy -- i know it is not a big motivator in the elections. but it is going to play a lot in the way the candidates coming forward are going to be handling our foreign-policy issues. how does everybody
feel about drone policy? everybody happy with it? you know why that is kind of all you hear about in our fight against al qaeda and many of the other terrorists? front, on the domestic obama can do that on his own. greater -- to have a toater impact in this fight secure our country against terrorism, we would need to do many of the elements we did during the cold war, where we use soft power. were aroundbassies the world, even in communist countries, were little springs authors, american music, american culture. none of that is around today in the countries where we need it the most.
those are places where they do not like us. this has an impact in the sense are, let us say, the arab world -- the only things they see now from america or drones. they do not see the writers. they do not see the progressives. they do not see the culture of women. they do not see our music as much. even though the internet is there, it is not coming through our official modes of communication. and why is that? domestically it is becoming very difficult to find those things. you do not see an immediate impact from these. and congress is going to have a difficult time, with the mood of the electorate today, with the sense we have as americans, to fund these things. you are going to send my money over there? so those countries can read about our authors? but we need
that money here. that is the sense we are having. but this dynamic of the threatened american is playing into our elections very much, and is going to affect the way the candidates move forward. this is not going to be solved in an election. ofm not a big proponent another bush-clinton election, i have to be honest with you. but whoever the candidates are, these issues are going to live for a while in our nation. they are not going to be solved quickly. candidates that can navigate these waters are going to be the most successful. the ones that can give america a sense of confidence to move forward, and a sense that it is not over. thank you. [applause]
>> i think i am on the far left in order, but i think i might be on the far right when it comes to this panel. a few things that have not been mentioned, and then i will talk about some of the things that have been mentioned. in 2014. it may seem to some that we are in 2015, because everyone is focused on the presidential race is already, and who is in, who is out, who is meeting with who. but i think 2014 is something we have to focus on. and that is going to have a lot of effect on what happens vis-à-vis 2016. tony 14, most experts, most people conclude that the republicans will keep the house. i think that is true. but the question when it comes to the house becomes, what
happens with john boehner? if the republicans keep the house, who will be the next speaker? i think that will have a huge impact on legislative agenda in the coming years. i happen to think john boehner still has fight in him. and i happen to think he is going to do it again. but i think he does not know yet what he is going to do. also, we have had on enormous amount of retirements. some house veterans, including committee chairs in the last couple of months that have been announced. we are going to have an entirely new makeup in many committees. we are going to see some pretty ferocious dogfights as to who is going to be the new chairs, the new ranking members in the house. it is going to be a new world order in the house of representatives. we have the u.s. senate. ago, theew months
basic consensus was the democrats had a lead and were likely to keep it. that has become less of a prediction in the last several weeks. republicans have been able to field some pretty good candidates this year. and people who can win generals. there is a lot of red state concerned,hat are that are in races that are running as far away as they possibly can from president obama. will not be seen in public with him, no matter what is offered. i think that is something that we are going to have to watch very closely. and it is going to tell us the effect of obamacare. i do not think it is going to be nearly as bad and all about
obamacare as a lot of my republican colleagues believe. but i also do not think it is the panacea and the utopia that a lot of democrats want to paint it as. we still have a lot of information when it comes to obamacare that needs to be dissected. of the 7 million that enrolled, how many have paid? how many wereey, pre-insured? there are a lot of things that need to be known before we know if this is going to work, how it is going to work. there are a host of exemptions and delays that at some point are going to have to be resolved. at some point, that is going to have to be confronted. i think the social issues are very interesting as to how they are shaping up. there are several states, including my state in florida,
that have the legalize marijuana issue on the ballot. what we are seeing with the gay rights movement -- there might be a majority of states that allow gay rights and gay marriage by the time 2016 rolls around, not because of the political front, but because of the judicial front. how much of an issue will that still be in 2016? another very interesting aspect in 2014 is going to be the overall shape of the republican party. 2010, we saw in 2012, a lot of veteran mainstream republicans frankly get caught asleep at the wheel. i call it getting lugared. they never went to home states. they did not have houses there.
they became washington commodities. they did not work as hard. they did not raise the money. they did not spend the resources. they did not eat the rubber chicken. that is not happening this year. have a lot of veteran mainstream republicans that are being challenged in primaries, and they are winning. primary, mitch mcconnell, wiley as he is -- i predict he survives. i think lindsey graham is going to do just fine. i think we are going to see a the mainstream republicans come back, fight hard, and shake up the branding and definition the republican party has been in the last couple of years. that, in turn, is going to have an effect in 2016. let me talk a little bit about
the quote unquote sheldon adelson primary. there is something called the republican jewish committee. it has been around since 1985. it is an important organization. it goes above and beyond sheldon adelson. lawmakers,can candidates, have been showing up not to kiss the ring, but because it is an important issue, the same way many republicans and democrats show up every year to the aipac annual conference, and the same way that many democrats trekked sabano the haim
conference, a very wealthy billionaire jewish contributor. you, everybody from president barack obama to president clinton to secretary of state hillary clinton trekked to his conferences. it really is, i think, demeaning which is a well established an important organization, to claim it as the sheldon adelson primary. that does not mean the money is not important, that sheldon adelson is unimportant, that important, that visa bond checkbook is not important. but let us remember this is an -- entire organization that has existed and will exist before and after sheldon adelson. , you all want to long-term, he is a friend of mine. he is also my tenant.
i saw him yesterday, in fact, at lunch. >> was he in new hampshire, by chance? >> he lives in coral gables, florida. -- i suspect that is part of what shapes his immigration views. the fact that it is an immigrant community. and a lot of times, the immigration debate can be about faceless government statistics, how many people cross the border, how many children of undocumented born here. it can be all about faceless numbers. you speak spanish fluently, live in an immigrant community, watch spanish tv, you know these stories. you know there are people, who get raped by human smugglers when they are crossing the border. , maybe, their lives
swimming across a river, or taking a raft to the united states. and a lot of times lead children behind that they may not see for a decade. and it is in the hope that they can come here and find work and help support those families and loved ones they have left behind. have they broken the law? absolutely. is it an act of love? it is hard to argue when they tell you their circumstances that it is not an act of love for those families. i think where he is, where he lives, the story shapes some of perception. i do not think you have to read many tea leaves when it comes to jeb. i know it is surprising. he pretty much told us what was .hinking he is a pretty disciplined guy. he will stick to his timeline
when it comes to his decision-making process. it needs to be ok with his family. by that, i do not think it means mama bush as much as that means the woman he has been married to for more than 40 years now, and his children. running for president today means doing it as a family. it is not one person. it affects the entire family's life and privacy. he has also said he wants to be able to do it joyfully. he wants to be able to offer a positive vision. he wants to be able to offer solutions. he has said he will think about it over the summer. -- i know him. he means what he says, and he says what he means. we have gotten accustomed to politics as the art of the political piece, people who are
trying to promote the sale of a get onr maybe trying to cable news, which is not a bad gig. get themselves on "dancing with the stars" -- who knows? trying to find some relevancy. i do not think jeb bush needs that. various -- a very serious guy who is doing well, businesswise. he has a fulfilled life. he has a vocation for service. is it the right thing for the family and the country? we will know. i get calls about this all the time from reporters, from donors, from everybody. in fact, my least favorite calls are the ones which ask me, what happens if marco rubio and jeb bush runs?
they are both friends of mine, so at that point, i will go into a fetal position and just cry. hyperventilating and having anxiety about jeb bush, marco rubio, marco rubio versus jeb bush, i have decided there is not a thing i can do about it all stop i think the decision comes from within them. i do not think it is about who else is running. for the meantime, i am going to be in colorado talking to all of you. they will tell me what the hell they are going to do. i will go from there. [applause] this is my last point. the person who has not been mentioned, in terms of political crystal ball, is hillary clinton. i think everybody assumes she will run, and she has frozen the field.
anything, there is more pressure on her to announce a decision quickly, -- i will say the donkey in the room, because i do not want to call her the elephant in the room, because she is a democrat all stop what she has basically got the entire democratic field frozen. i suspect we are going to hear and should hear from hillary clinton shortly after the 2014 elections. if she is not running, and everybody else -- a lot of other people give it as a fact that she is going to run. i am not sure. guess what? she does have a book to sell. presidential circulation is good for business. making 10clintons are event appearances in the next four days in eight states.
folks, that is not for free. presidential speculation has been very good. they do not need the money. i know and like bill clinton very much and can tell you, clinton has never met a dollar they have not liked. and more power to them. a republican, i am all about capitalism. >> i hate to cut him, but i want to make sure there is an opportunity for the panelists to comment on the comments of their fellow panelists. i would invite people interested in asking questions to come up to the two microphones. as soon as we hear any repartee, i will open the field for questions. >> this is her second round. very well deserved. that the mostna important thing is bourbon or scotch. it is here. i have started already.
that is the only way to get through this. .here are a couple of things i want to surprise some people and say i agree completely with ana on obamacare. call the affordable care act, which was painted as obamacare in order to demonize it will stop you do not hear social security called roosevelt security. this was done delivered late. as is often the case, the right-wing succeeded in branding some in order to demonize it before it even had a chance to go into effect. that isaid that, i agree do not think it is going to play negative. inevitable in many of these competitive wees -- i will say i think are going to continue to see
this as one of those issues that some democrats shamefully, shamefully are running away from , when if they stood up proudly and said, i cast that vote -- people, more than anyone else, can sense the progress he, cowardice. se $.10 hyp -- can sen hypocrisy. backpedal, voters say, i do not care what your position is. i want you to stand up for what you believe in, even if i disagree with you. we will see where people are and whether they are willing to own their position. i also have to respectfully disagree on how to characterize the jewish republican event. if sheldon adelson was not the centerpiece of that, those people would not have shown up in the numbers they did, and it would not have had the attention it got. >> we have been going every year. it is an annual event.
i was at it. >> i know that, as a jewish democrat. say, the difference here is, the people who came, came with an agenda. they came with an agenda to be noticed by one particular individual. and they achieved that. >> it is kind of funny to me that when one of the largest democrat donors has a middle east conference which is named after him, and he has a middle east center named after him -- >> he also has power rangers. >> power rangers and univision. he has a lot of money. when he has a conference and people like barack obama and bill clinton show up, that is about politics. when the republican jewish committee has a conference, that is about money. >> how much money does he get? how much money does saban give?
ofhe gives many millions dollars. >> does it ever go into the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? >> it probably is in the tens of millions of dollars. >> lifetime, but not in a cycle. it does not compare to sheldon adelson. last had nobody to give to time. he is a hillary clinton person, not a barack obama person. >> this could go on for a long time, and i want to make sure the other panelists have a chance to comment. >> turn the microphone back on. >> mr. chairman, i paid for this microphone. want to request that our panelists not interrupt each other. that they give each other a chance to speak, but they not interrupt. [applause] david, do you want to finish? >> i yield the floor to my colleague. >> i will let david and mary have a comment if they want to. it is all comment is,
about money, and this is the tragedy of stop if this is what is in our crystal ball and it is all about money, let us get back to square one. know, and loveou me for it, i am a republican, although i have to -- it is going to kill me. i have to agree with david. -- newt gingrich was one of my clients his last presidential run. and the candidates do go there for money. i have to be honest with you. i do not find anything wrong with that. presidential races are expensive. candidates on both sides do this. that myot pretend candidate -- they all do it. that said, i just wanted to touch on two things. the establishment republicans are making a comeback. that is granted.
i talked about this a little bit before. they are starting to co-opt many of the messages that the tea party had that were more normal, if i could use that term. clinton, thisary is a phenomenal act we are seeing right now. if she does not run for president, the democrats are going to be in a freefall for a while. and it will be very interesting to see, on that side of the aisle, what happens. >> young man, are you a student? go ahead. >> thank you. >> get close enough so i can be heard. ironicrs to me it is that with a great lawyer as a powersnt, chief justice is the card up the sleeve of politics.
he is an ied for the people's vision of democracy, because he keeps the money flowing. du have a question? >> do you see him as an device,ed explosive detonating the democracy? >> money in politics, are you right? >> he has a job for life. he is in a sweet spot. he speaks as a controller of the rest of the justices of the supreme court. i am very glad that chief that justiceurg -- ginsburg is there as an opponent. my question is, his power is there to undermine -- >> roberts. >> is roberts there to undermine the democracy he is supposedly protecting? >> i would just say this. i am going to not really address the question head-on. but if you really wanted
campaign-financeeform, how about this for an idea? you allow anybody to donate as much money as they want to any candidate you want, but you do it transparently. in 24 hours, it needs to be online. that would tell you more about a candidate than any 32nd -- 30 second commercial you will ever see. how is that? but it isds great, unfortunately inadequate in an era where you have independent expenditures, where the money does not go to the candidates, where that is allowed to remain private, and more of that money is in the process than money that goes directly to candidates. >> you are correct. when campaign finance reform first became an issue, molly ivins was still alive. we debated that very issue. to say,sultant, i have in the interest of transparency,
i make a fortune on these. i was recently subpoenaed by the moreland commission in new york for not divulging who the donors were to one of these organizations. that said, i have to agree. would prefer to see a world in which they do not exist. allow people to donate as much as they want to the parties and to the candidates, and make that totally transparent. put it online. as i said before, it will tell you more about the candidate than anything else. thank you. >> first of all, i look at the political scene, and i am reminded of richard hofstadter's "anti-intellectualism in american life." au spoke with praise about governor as a powerful woman in politics. are you equally enthused about governor nikki haley and governor jan brewer? >> no.
[applause] >> good answer. >> of coarse not. >> but why? >> for different reasons. disagree with the on which they have run their states. it is pretty fundamental. my feminism is very broad. but it is not without an underpinning of clear values and priorities. to ana i love what she does on "meet the press," because it is good for all women that she is as capable as she is.
but i also enjoy, from my couch, disagreeing with her. that is how i feel. >> i agree with her. i think the end of sexism and the definition of modern feminism is having the freedom to choose, based on qualifications, based on character, they stunt experience, based on the person. not based on gender, not based on race, not based on those issues. that is where we have made progress and broken the ceiling, when it is a freedom to choose. >> young man over here, are you a student? you get to go first. sorry. we will come back to you. we are not going to go away without you getting to ask a question. go ahead. >> first off, i want to say thank you to all the panelists. it is always good to hear a nice debate. being a student who has canvassed on local issues and registered voters, i am always struck i the disillusionment, as
well as the frustration. young voters and the millennial generation on the federal government. going forward, looking into your crystal ball, how do you see young voters playing into the political atmosphere? you can look at this in a variety of different ways, such as a shift of focus from all the frustrations about the federal government to seeing more progress at the state and local governments, as well as the increasing price of education. fromu have graduates college that are really educated, versus a number who have not gone to college, i think you can kind of look at these issues in a few different ways. i am interested to hear what you have to say on this. >> can i come back with a question to you, if i may? did you vote in the last presidential election? >> yes. >> you do not have to answer --
did you support the president? like i did at that point, yes. so many young voters played a part in helping to elect barack obama in 2008 and reelection in 2012. when he was reelected. in a quiet and stewart three years i definitely have become more aware. a completely i was educated voter. many voters can be swayed easily with a couple of sentences. that has to play into it as well. degree topoint, the which millennial's going to be involved in the process going forward, we so the drop off in 2010 from 2008 among young voters. that explains in great measure
by republicans did so well in the last round of midterms. the young voters didn't come out when the president wasn't at the top of the ticket. a lot of young voters are also now incredibly disappointed that the world has not changed dramatically because he was president. i share their pain. in the words of bill clinton, i feel their client -- i feel their pain. i thought we would have a transformational shift. i believed it was possible. the problem we've got is the shift and change happens incrementally in the system, slowly. you do not get immediate results. if young people are expecting electionsone round of to another they are inevitably going to be disappointed. that is a problem and a challenge for people to say we have to be in this for the long haul. to his credit, the president
from day one as a candidate in 2007 said this is not me, it is about you. i cannot do this. we have to do this together. yes we can. not yes i can. will millennial's adopt that view? we have to do this ourselves? i don't know. >> i can't fault millennial's are any age group for the disillusionment. the dysfunction going on in washington dc is depressing for everybody. you have a congress that cannot work with each other. you have a president that can't work with congress. is, very little that affects our lives in a positive way is being done. the american people perceive that. it is felt by people of your age group, not to mention
unemployment in people in your age group. when you voted you had two more years of college now you are needing a job. voter too.a dismayed >> as a republican i would love to say to be young and not be liberal is to be without a heart. to be older and not conservative is to be without mind, but that doesn't apply here. [laughter] this goes back to the point i was making. there is an economic shift globally right now. the u.s. losing its status in the world. ed is affecting us in job markets. that is not just because the u.s. is losing its stature because china is coming up. there are technological reasons. our globalization reasons. i used a bad analogy.
when we have the industrial revolution we did the shift from an agrarian society to an industrial one. we displaced a lot of farmworkers. to ban farmed sharing to protect farmers. we are looking at a similar situation. everything -- everyone thinks washington should have a solution. there is going to difficult to situation atcal this moment. we have technology moving ahead so quickly it is creating productivity in the marketplace without the need for people. a lot of people are being displaced. this is not going to be a solution we will have a solution for -- this is not going to be a problem we have a solution for quickly.
i see the frustration you are going through is going to be similar no matter who is in office. until this shakes out. is guiding hope here somebody like one of these brilliant entrepreneurial minds finds a way to make technology work for the less skilled person. a lesko person using technology can have a higher skilled position and we can create jobs in that way. to look at washington, to blame obama entirely for this, to is thehat a tax fix panacea, it is not. these are difficult changes -- it is going to be difficult to see how any party looks to solve these. >> just one thing. generational look at this. first of all, the dip in the
midterm elections in 2010 more as much a result of the failure of unmarried women, who had voted at an extraordinarily high rate, to not vote in 2010 10 as it was your generation. your generation, any generation of college-age tends not to vote in midterm elections. is a function of community. when you are immobile, and this is the danger, when we are unconnected to each other, our activism is diffused. we can't do much as a society. the thing that is on you to figure out, how you integrate a communal aspect of activism where one person has a conversation with another about what is best for the community or the country, and not displace it with your online attachment.
the disconnection that comes online,x activism signing petitions online, that will not do. that won't do. thank you. [applause] short statement. >> please go to a question. >> i would like david and daniel to answer. it is a question about your comment about americans have here. -- have fear? that fear.ing it is coming from one side of the political spectrum. >> you have asked your question.
>> koch. >> it is coming from a grassroots movement. people, republicans or democrats, have felt the pain of not having a job. not getting rehired after the recession. -- certain something candidates think they have a solution. that is fair. ,f i believe i have a solution and my jobs program, and my tax plan, i have every right to speak about that. regardless of what side of the aisle. i don't subscribe to the fact that this is being stoked by a party. this is a problem we are seeing a respective of demographics. it's at the top of the scale. they are not really feeling this
prayed most others are. >> please. agree that the fear is real. there is no question about it. they were afraid during the cold war. the bombs were about to drop. fear has always been good politics. not necessarily good democracy. that fear is in fact being stoked by americans for two peoplestaying -- whose combined wealth is $80 billion. they are not sending checks out. they're writing checks to consultants. they are spending a fortune to impact the electorate, which benefits of their bottom line. it is not creating more jobs, except for consultants. have, thehat people
loss of jobs, israel. asis being inflamed and used a political weapon, as a tool. it is shameful. if these people had any shame, and they don't, one of the brothers wrote an editorial saying he resented being attacked for what he is doing. just this last week. poor man. he resents being attacked. he better be willing to be attacked for doing what he has done. and continues to do. he has put his name out there am i he and his brother. if they are doing what they doing, they better be able to take the heat. they deserve it. [applause] >> my question is for misuse -- ms. hughes.
mentioned the renaissance of women governors in new england. we arefrom texas where in a gubernatorial race. the democratic party is running a big promotion to turn the state into a battleground state. a purple state. their nominee is wendy davis. what you believe are her chances ? a woman in texas. do think this will be a successful movement? >> her chances are zero. short of greg abbott being caught. it could happen. [laughter] think -- >> i actually think wendy has a shot.
i think it is uphill. she has demonstrated she is an extraordinary person. , the evaluation we would make, we have elected any democrats statewide in texas in a long time. that isis a state constantly changing. it's electorate is changing. there is a movement which is different than a gubernatorial campaign. the movement is what is in portend, and what will be there , orelp wendy make that build something that will help in the future. i think there is a shot. there is no doubt it is tough. i would say we will have to see how much that movement carries. >> don't give up on texas.
>> it is changing. it is going to change in the near future. the next 4-6 years, statewide. i promise you that. -- democrats will be elected. i promise you that. >> a quick question over here. , washingtonon is has become so hateful. it is trickling down into society. when in your crystal ball will we see the democrats and republicans begin to work together so that we can fix america? and we can have an intelligent debate about criticizing and demeaning each other? [laughter] >> politics is a pendulum. i think we are on the far edge
now.civil discourse right i am an optimist. i do think the pendulum will swing back. it will be in voters start demanding it. what i tell people is, get out of your comfort zone. don't just listen to people and speak with people and lead people who think just like you. you can have a republican friend. have a democrat friend. wantl my gay friends, you to get this issue moved, befriend an old, white, straight male. show them it is not contagious. we all have to do our part by getting out of our comfort zone. engaging with people different than us. celebrating diversity of thought. demanding it from officials.
>> we are accused of recruiting when we do that. that is the problem. to that point, i associate myself with what ana says. lower than five percent approval for the congress. most democrats and republicans -- by the way, this is not my feeling about republicans. my friend gooding. i don't think republicans are demons. i don't think conservatives are inherently the enemy. i will tell you, that was a strategy put in the place by my good friends, newt gingrich, when he came to the house of representatives. he used language. he said language is going to define us. he said when we take back the house, we can't just defeat democrats.
we have to destroy them. it changed the tone. revolution set the bar, lower the bar for the discourse. is willing to accept responsibility. it was tactically smart. it polarized things. it took a very entrenched democratic house majority, turned it upside down, and the republicans did win. of problem with the politics polarization and demonization is they often work. to say why it is hard there is going to be an end. voters are not outraged by it. >> nixon was the one that started with the southern strategy. to say when this is going to end, the voters need to feel better about themselves. ofht now, we do a lot
polling. i see this. there is a trend behind that. threatened,e feel voters are going to be argumentative as to how to solve it. part of this comes from the voters. the other thing that troubles me , when i got to washington, republicans and democrats would buy each other drinks at the monocle. today that is so infrequent. one of the factors you see, a lot of congressman are almost ashamed to say i live in washington. there is a factor that did. they were together because their wives hung out together. their kids went to school together. connection.ocial
there was social fabric there. today i keep my family back in the district. i sleep in my office. you don't have that. [applause] >> i have to make one quick comment. when you leave the room, exit by the right door here. there is a crowd of people coming in here for the next session. >> you can jump in. i watched every one of the republican debates in 2012. almost entirely for the entertainment value. in 2016, will republicans allow a panel builder that entertaining? or is there a method to screen out the fringe candidates?
know, we live in a country where the constitution allows anybody who is a natural born citizen to run. about whogoing to be we we doubt. can they run? yes. resources toe the be will to sustain, that is the question. the rnc has made an effort and is making an effort to try to bring some sanity to the debate process. we shall see if it succeeds. >> last comment. i want to leave you on a positive note. example in washington. group of legislators who do what they have described. the 20 women in the united states senate. [applause]
we have legislation in this country, a budget, protections for personal safety because they work together. athout holding you, it is lovely note to end him. >> let's thank our wonderful panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] 4] castro and haley immigration about policy. then a previa the president's upcoming trip asia. >> it is my privilege to present
[applause] you, my colleagues. thank you, my colleagues. thank you, leader boehner. mr. speaker. in thet this gavel spirit of partnership, not partisanship. i look forward to working. [applause] i look forward to working with you, mr. boehner, and the republicans in the congress for the good of the american people. >> find more highlights on our facebook page. cable, gray by america's
companies and brought to as a public service by yokel cable or satellite provider. >> a discussion about immigration with julian castro, the mayor of san antonio, texas and former mississippi governor haley barbour. the examine the issue from issue of civil rights. this event was a part of a summit commemorating the civil rights act. [applause] >> let me say, it is a pleasure to be here today as part of this historic event here in austin.
very thrilled to be on the stage with governor barbour and mayor castro. we will talk about immigration, one of the vital immigration -- by the vital issues facing our country today. home,'re watching at expand the audience and bring more people in to watch the event. let's start quickly with the bill that governor barnes has mentioned. the 1965 bill. it changed the quota system that had been in place for a long time referring to the national origins act of the 1920's. one of the things that president johnson thought that as a southerner, he was often looked down upon by the rest of the country for having been a southerner. he thought that this law that had been in place for so long did the same thing. it had strict limits on immigration from countries in example,pacific, for and that what we're doing was
looking down on those countries and wanted to change that. he said at the time to the speaker that there was no bill before the congress that was more worthy of passage based on a decency and its equity then this immigration bill. president johnson, having the signing ceremony on liberty island, something we have come to expect. let's start there. in terms of the notion immigration as a civil rights. a lot of people agree with, other people may have a harder time with that. let's start there. how do you size of immigration? is it a civil rights? >> thank you. for me, 1965 was the i graduated from high school. i'm glad you didn't ask me to comment on the policy. country, wen our
have always been a country of immigrants. my great-grandfather came here from ireland. we can look around the city mississippi. we don't have the kind populations of today. , we hadugoslavs lebanese and syrians who have fled the ottoman empire. christians who had tried to escape and ended up in our neck of the woods. he couldn't get in new york. they came in new orleans and cap river. -- and came up the river. the purpose you talked about is obviously something that has to be part of immigration policy. it has been mentioned, i cochair the immigration reform task force for the bipartisan policy center. equity is what this has to be about.
that is with president johnson was trying to accomplish. as we have immigration reform, as i believe we will in the future, it has to be equitable. >> we want about where we are with immigration reform. we will talk about the gang of eight. that is an excellent direction to move in. let me talk to you, mayor castro. in terms immigration as a civil right. is that the way that you see it? as you're talking, you have a pair before congress, no pork with president obama on this issue. how do you see it in the context of the 21st century? >> i see it in a similar vein. as you look at our nation's areory, what we see different groups. when they live in the united states, we are seen as other and treated that way. benjamin franklin and his
remarks about the germans ruining the nation. you can go on along the lines of folks who are different and who were new. when we think about the civil rights movement, that is what it was about. people who were seen as different, and whether they would be treated equally are not. immigrants have had, throughout the generations, in that sense, a similar experience. i also believe that when we think of it as a civil rights, you can say yes in the sense that you have not only asked folks were not citizens yet, but impacts folks who are citizens. are oneance, there million folks in our country who have a spouse who is undocumented immigrant. we talked with the importance of marriage as a fundamental right, and being able to be with the person that you want to be with, and that you love.
maybe the best example are these dreamers, young people brought here through no fault of their own for all intensive purposes, they are americans. the united states is what they know. the question is, are they going to be able to have the same opportunities and being treated equally? i see it in the same vein as the civil rights movement. >> give the bill now in congress that relates to that defense appropriation in terms of those who have been here through no fault of their own. would they be able to achieve , andlevel of legal status that is being held up as well. immigration is a broad thing. that is the right way to talk about it. we are talking mutt to different types of immigration. the legal immigration system, which ever but he believes is broken. that let'sgree with talk about that. and in legal immigration.
-- and illegal immigration. people who come here on their own. one umbrella to you? course, there are distinctions. it does count whether someone follow the legal process are not. that is reflected in what is a punitive aspect to legislation that was passed by the senate and is now part of the house of representatives. we want to encourage him more legal and active immigration system, first and foremost. we also denies that for a variety of reasons, usually to make a better life for themselves, we have 11,000,000-12,000,000 people who are here, you legal, undocumented, whatever word you use. folks who came here as students
on a visa, and they got into the country, legally, and then overstayed their visa. they have been estimated at breezes -- ranges between 15-40%. >> governor barbour? mentionedastro over stayers. people who come here on a legal visa and i'll go home when they're supposed to. i am on a high-end of the estimate. i think more than 40% of people here illegally actually didn't cross the border illegally. they came here perfectly legal and justin go home. 4-5,000,000 of the 11 million. i hope when we talk about border security, which is something the american people are concerned about and want to make sure they don't have happen, what happened said woulden they
control the border, and we haven't done it. when we talk about that people also think in terms of people who came here legally on a visa, and overstayed. you have to solve those issues together, not separately. -- put me down for endorsing with the mayor said. had a long tha career. do you feel personally that your views on this issue have changed over time? was there a place that you were years ago that now you have come to it? or places where you see the party has changed in a way that you have approved of or disapproved of? could you talk about that over time? this issue has become more and more heated. >> being honest with you, i didn't have much in the way of
views on this growing up. 50 years ago, this wasn't much of an issue in mississippi. nothing like texas or border states. i was raised to believe we are a country of immigrants. my own family. we are better for that. we are a better country for that. my party is a big party. remember, the two-party system, both parties are broad coalitions. broader than people would like to admit or give credit for. there is a diversity of views. i have to say that my views about immigration policy are just pure and simple. it is in the best interest of america, economically and other reasons, that we have immigration reform, and that we take the 11 million people that
are here and given the opportunity to be here legally. so that they get out of the shadows. [applause] anyway, those used in change. a lot -- i didn't have any. of the 2012f election year that the republican party needed to stay the course on its core values. it did need to change its thinking on immigration. do you have leaders pointing in the right direction? they have proposals out there. they have the opportunity to move this forward. like speaker boehner clearly wants the house this session, this year to pass immigration reform package. it is not going to be the senate. it is not going to be one bill.
it is immigration reform package he presented to the conference a few weeks ago. which i'm comfortable with. i don't claim to agree on every thing. i think they're going to try to do that this year. they don't have the votes now. they are to try to get the votes. i think it is in america's best interest. set aside politics. we are in a global battle for capital labor. not just h-1b labor. we need essential labor in a lot of areas. we can going to that longer. they are trying to do the right thing. not easy. certainly not unanimity. >> mayor castro, back to you on that. the same question. has your personal view of immigration, the complexity of the issue, changed over time? how do you see that reflected in
your party question mark what leaders are you looking to better carrying the torch the right direction? >> i don't know that my views have changed on the. so much as, i have learned more about the issue. going up to testify on washington, watching unfold a few years ago, and now today. it is been a process of learning more about the issue. been folkshere have on both sides of the aisle who have been good on the issue. we are going to have one of them as a speaker, george w. bush, governor ofhere as texas. he set the right tone and a good job on this issue particularly why it is important to bring folks into the fold. president obama has done a lot -- erms of
trying to sure that he has done administratively what he could. congressman gutierrez has been a champion for dreamers and the undocumented. getsg to ensure that this a vote on the house floor. >> if we take a look at the issues that are facing us, it would be nice to take the politics out. that is where we end up in terms of a logjam in congress moving forward. there are things that are worth discussing. have enforcement on one hand. you have legal visas. with otherissues things related to security, economic freedoms. people being able to come out of the shadows. what are the number one things that you are hearing that are the bases that are giving people the most pots on this subject? -- most pause on this subject?
things are you are hearing people are struggling with the most in getting behind some form of comprehensive we lookedich is what like we were going to get out of the senate, to a piecemeal fashion assuming anything goes through. >> first of all, the american thele demand we secure border. they have been promised that once. nobody believes that actually happened. the recession was the great border security. not anything the government did. no administration of any party, my party or the democratic toty, has ever done anything enforce visa laws. sieve.been a the american people generally offer immigration reform. the status quo is about the
worst thing we can have. immigration reform, they don't want to go through this again. they have been promised this once. for me once, shame on me. foam and a second time. -- full me once, shame on me. it is important to people. secondly, people want to be assured that it is an economic and fiscal plus. which i'm comfortable that it is. this is good for our economy. it is good for the treasury. if we do this the right way, deficits will be smaller. we will have more revenue. we will have a stronger economy which gives you more revenue. those are the first two big things. then you have the underlying issue that has to be dealt with. that is americans don't want people to be rewarded for breaking the law.
how do you do this at an appropriate way that recognizes that somebody has broken the become, allows them to to be here legally, any probationary way to my base -- they pay some sort of penalty. great-grandfather, they never threatened to send him back to ireland the cuts he had whiskey during prohibition. [laughter] .t was against the law if somebody wanted to find him. but, at has to be dealt with. that can be dealt with in an appropriate way. equitable to people. i mentioned prohibition because when we are not enforcing the law at the border, we are not laws, it isr visa
partially our fault. the two big issues that i mentioned, and the underlying issues that you have to deal with, you're not rewarding people raking the law. back in be done anyway that is appropriate and right. >> one of the underlying fundamental challenges has been, often times the issue border security, one of the problems is that people say border security, rarely is that defined eerie what does that mean? are we ever going to get the number of people who crossed the border down to zero? no. are you going to get it down to a thousand, 10,000, 100,000? that has not been defined in the policy debate. folks are able to use that politically in a way that in the
discussion. i think governor, you are right, it has prevented one of our political parties from taking this up on the floor of the house of representatives because people don't feel like the issue border security has been dealt with. maybe it hasn't. we haven't even defined what border security would be. i saw one number that was thrown out. i care member who threw it out. i am turning 40 years old. i'm starting to forget. [laughter] i have a long way to go. >> you will be fine. >> a person said 80-90% reduction in the number of folks coming across would be a secure border. well, go back 10 years. 10 years ago to where we are now, i don't know if it has been 89%. it is been gigantic.
the governor points out that a lot of that is due to the fact had a higheras growth rate than the united states. during this recession we have seen was people coming over here for opportunity when they can find it over there. challenge ofe the how do you define an acceptable level of border security. we double the number of agents on the border. we've built out the fence. that was envisioned 10 years ago. andave deployed technology more manpower to go and try and secure. we are looking for drug tunnels underground along the california border, and the other parts of the border. how do you get to the definition of border security? >> that becomes the thing that we hear as part of the magazine.
that is something that they feel strongly about. so strongly about it they feel that it needs to be the critical first step. it is difficult to define. let me throw numbers at you as you think about that. with mexico. miles texas has -- that. we have fenced off 100 and miles with mexico. areas in big bend where it would make any sense. 2001, we've increased the number of border patrol agent's along the rio grande by 117%. 9000 order patrol agents to above 21,000. that is for the entire border. it does show how things have changed.
this new package coming through, we are continuing to hear the phrase boots on the ground. more boots on the ground. are we comfortable with that? is that the right direction to be running in? if so, how do we find the gap in terms of measuring progress on this? is it something that gets thrown up on this issue that is perhaps not achievable and forestalls any progress? >> the american people are willing to spend money to have a secure border. billnk the senate unfortunately is all about spending money. on theor touched critical thing. what is the standard? we have to set a standard. it isn't going to be zero. anybody in his right mind doesn't think it's going to be zero. the senate try to talk about
that. what the mac people want is, set a standard. -- with the american people want is, set a standard. then mean it. they don't want you to spend x million dollars, put boots on the ground, balloons and drones and whatever. they want to work. they're willing to pay something for it to work. that is where i think the senate bill misses the point. it says we're going to spend this money and then we are going people don't want a commission. people want a secure border. [applause] >> folks want a secure border. we have to define it. there is no different way to approach that. you can define it in terms of progress over a certain number of years instead of a distinct
number. we have seen apprehensions at a four-year low. we have seen a lot of progress. its causes are a matter of debate. i do think it counts for something that we are spending more resources on it. we need to show those results. the government point that we haven't done much about people who will overstay their visas. to trackwe have a way who comes in and whether they leave in an efficient way is up or didn't -- is an important part of this. i can tell the people who are serious about the policy and the folks who are using as a political wedge issue. the people who are serious and actually care about the issue always speak to the issue overstayers. -- onlys using it as talk about securing the border,
and we need to do their, and ignore the fact that 40-45% of the folks have nothing to do with actually crossing the border. >> spending some money on looking at people with expired visas or things like that. is there way that you make people feel better about the problem. >> i think so. sure. the senate version of the legislation does address that interior security. justin people's minds, that has not occupy the same specter and cause the same fear this issue of folks coming across the border has. >> it is under covered by the press. he would hardly know the huge percentage came here illegally. you asked the question. should that be part of it? you bet.
if we don't do that we are kidding ourselves. we are not making any progress. i think everybody understands that now. i want to make sure the audience knows when i use the word border security, i include these a security -- visa security. tell about where things stand now. people talk back to the immigration reforms that took place under the reagan administration as one of the last big serious approaches. we might spend a minute talking about what it looks like back then. the country was a different place. partisan passions are much higher now than they were back then. you were at a moment where you have a second term president coming into the last midterm election with a divided congress.
which sounds familiar to what is happening today. on howe is a can't agree to pass the time of day much less comprehensive immigration reform. up the help us size opportunities for movement on this issue if any exist? coincidentally i was at the white house in 1986. while i wasn't deeply involved, i was aware of it. don't think it was easy. simpson would tell you if you were sitting here, it was pronounced dead. who saved it, he called the white house. reagan would say don't worry about my staff. get this done. let's go another step. try another thing. the president very much was behind it.
had it not -- you had a lot of disagreement. that is the way of the world. the president was very involved directly with the guys at the top. it wasn't easy. it was as close as you can get to amnesty. they didn't have the kind of robust and rigorous requirements of people that are expected under the senate bill. in my opinion, the house bill will be to the right of the senate bill. the package of bills. it will amount to a comprehensive package of bills. it will be further to the right in what you have now in the senate. 1986.n't easy in it wasn't like everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. clearly it was not as well done as we would have liked we would
be in the shape we're in right now. 11 million people here illegally. >> you think starting at the white house and working our way down to the leaders of both parties, are they pulling enough, or the content? to beat the issue as a campaign idea than to come together to solve it? >> if you look at the speaker of the house then, he had opposition from the unions. the unions were very concerned about this. agriculture tended to be more public and. .hey were always more for this it was my bipartisan opposition in 1986 than it is today. speaker o'neill wanted it done. he and reagan could work together. they finally got it done. speaker boehner wants it done just as much. -- forariety of regions
a variety of reasons. democrats,ad 280 boehner has 230. if he loses 15-16 republicans he doesn't have a majority. there were huge democratic majorities back in those days. it,st think if you look at boehner is being honest when he says i don't have the votes today. i think -- i am trying to get there. paul ryan is working on it. so are others. you mentioned gutierrez. there is a guy who gets rave reviews from both sides because more important than politics to him is getting the job done. that is what got the job done in 1986. there were a handful of people who were determined to get it done. hopefully we can have the same kind of result this time but
with a different future than that one. >> are you optimistic for movement this year? you testify before congress. never worked with president obama. had you size up with the potential for movement is? movement.timistic for i was in junior high 1986. [laughter] i can't speak to 1986. let me speak to 2014. i think the governor is right. in that process, what you need are folks able to work together workingworking toward based off a set of principles. there are enough of democrats and republicans were willing to work in that way on this issue. i'm hopeful there are, in terms of the mechanics, as we get past these republican primaries, that may make it easier as folks get
, they may have feared getting the primary. that is no longer a concern. there are is some daylight between the primary and the general election or the end of the year, i do think there is hope. if it doesn't get done during this calendar year, it is going to get done before the 2016 election. the stakes go up higher and higher. i am a dreamer. we need to act now. will you fight with us? stand up with our families. >> ma'am. thank you. we're trying to have a civil conversation about this. let us continue.
>> thank you for your perspective. >> we are in the middle of this panel. watching, ile incurred you to let us continue and shall respect to others. thank you. [applause] the big issue people are going to be talking about, which is in addition to border security, which has been the thing that has been vexing people, if we do have 11-12,000,000 people who were here living in the shadows, whatever term you want to use, if that is one of the major stumbling blocks to something moving forward, whether or not there is amnesty, which is strongly rejected in certain areas, whether or not it is a pay a fine, make restitution, go to the back of the line, start over. what is the best case individually you would make to an opponent who is concerned
about immigration as to how to address that? what do you do? how do you solve this problem? one of the two main things that so really made this issue political dynamite where people are unable to talk about it. >> you start from the perspective of we are dealing with people. too often times in this debate we forget about that. we're are dealing with people. these are people who, although they may have not come over to the united states through the legal, usual way, they have built a life here. they have sons, daughters, spouses who are american citizens. we can craft a law that recognizes that we are dealing with people whose lives are they contributing to the progress of the united states and still also ensure that they have to earn
citizenship. i do agree, and the governor mentioned in addition to border security, i hear it all the time it robs people the wrong way folks who entered the country illegally, now you are letting them stay here. what a jihad and go back to their country and then we talk about in the coming citizens one day. i believe that is not realistic. it is not practical. you can given the opportunity but also have them shoulder responsibility for the opportunity to become a citizen. >> governor barbour? do you agree? [applause] we're talking about 11 million people. millions have been here for years and years. stay isage time of lengthening all the time. mississippiple in who have been in our community 20-25 years.
people who have children here. large number of these people are children. families some of these , a lot of the children are citizens. you are not just talking about dreamers who have been brought here by their parents through no fault of their own. they are actually citizens of the united states who were born here. families. anybody who thinks we are going to send 11 million people back to where they came from, if they tell you that, they will lie to but other things. [laughter] that angered happened. -- that ain't gone a happen. it shouldn't happen. they are the same people that have the same jobs for decades. the stupidest thing we could do is make them leave. we don't have anything to replace them with. impracticality of sending
everybody home should be obvious to everybody. what are other choices? our other choices,, with a system that doesn't offend make somebody admit they have broken the law, that they deserve to pay a fine. put them on probation for a time. and then let them have a chance to live a regular life and be a productive citizen of our country. , we helpeconomically our selves so much by doing that. in the process, we stopped and put an end to the failed system that we have now. if i didn't know anything else, i know that anything is better than what we got. what we got is a