legislatively really i think anything coming together substantive potentially until next year. the ball is in the president's hands. he could do something as simple as extending the for action for parents of dreamers. it could go back and look at specific sectors of economy or just land so in between. they saw our conversations i don't think they have decided. i do think once that happens been the speaker, whoever the majority leader is next to innocent do have a big opportunity. the opportunity is going to be to pass legislation to make things permanent because whatever the president does it will be temporary. but on event and will address the needs and safety of potentially millions and millions of families in our committees. >> can you speak to the vote that was taken results were a handful of vulnerable senate democrats voted with the republicans, voted to end daca?

>> innocents. took a look at the politics of this right now is that in 2014 you've got the majority of the senate seats that it would take place in states where frankly the hispanic vote is not large enough to play critical role. louisiana, north carolina, arkansas, colorado you could make a case that will play critical role but to so many of the senators sided with republicans saying t through the continuing resolution funding for implementation of daca should be eliminated and that authority should be rescinded. the politics and immigration are pretty ugly redneck i think it's really important that none of the -- ugly right now. none urge congress to move forward. from our perspective after we're finding hope. over the last month or so we did over one dozen conversations with conservatives, faith, law enforcement and business

leaders. in south carolina we had evangelical pastors, business is a law-enforcement saying we got it going going. >> before we came on i mentioned the fact the presentation is given these had a little video clip of the cartoon, family guy. it featured a ranchers building a fence and there was hispanic i trtried to go to the offense and cross and the ranch had a gun, no. went to the right, no. tried to jump over, no. assigned to the one help building the fence? sure, come on over. that was a couple of years ago. we could have joked about in that sense but he hit on a point where you have to address the need for labor. do you see it as an issue -- it seemed to be more volatile. d.c. that as well when they talk about immigration reform that

there is no way for it not to be sort of -- >> there is a way. unfortunately, congress hasn't quite gotten there yet. congress tends to get stuck in the immigration forum for support could, the chicken and a question to which one comes first, and they keep debating the. the reality is this problem would be easy to solve in cooler heads would prevail if the focus on a different component and the most pressing need. we are seeing massive labor shortage across the country in a variety of industries. what we don't get coming out of congress, present company excluded, is the debate on what does our country need? we have countries like canada that don't put all their emphasis on law enforcement component. they put a big emphasis on recruiting. is facing recruiters all over the world because they need nuclear physicist, they need

rocket scientist, they need physicians, they need then the k layers and ago and find the best talent. we are in the global race for talent right now. but, unfortunately, our country is stuck on the chicken and egg question of immigration reform. >> you are front and center in washington, d.c., senator cornyn a couple of hours earlier said my party is partly responsible for all the gridlock. he has his fair share of criticism for the senate democrats and the white house but what is it from your perspective, what's going to happen or is there no hope likee you said maybe to after the election? >> one of my biggest disappointments was having, i've only been there, i'm in my first term but having watched public policy debates were longtime this is the first time i've ever seen that coalition of, you know, you're the employers and employees, the face committee, a law-enforcement committee, committee to everyone singing from the same hymn book.

that doesn't say good things our democracy because clearly people want to do. i think this is a country. this is the country is put people on the moon. we can to immigration reform but you got to take the politics out of it. so many people are focused on just the raw politics of it. and, frankly, people who drive the conversation are not from the border area to there from iowa were from new york or from different places. they don't really have -- what they know but immigration of is what to read about or see on the internet or whatever. it's not like they live it and breathe it the way the folks live along the border do. so they don't understand as well. >> the first conversation we had you said you got more done at the state level and that was shocking in itself when you make that comparison. senator, i want to ask you, whenever, like for instance,

what's going on in the valley, criticism saying they just want amnesty if there's some sort of immigration reform they would vote for the democrats or whatnot. d.c. a lot of immigrants that are here want full on citizenship, or to some of them just want to go to work and walk around and not, to live freely but not reached the status -- that's a key point i was not they attain that goal. >> first i think we need to get -- no one is i might amnesty. the other side is insisting what's being offered is amnesty, but we know the senate bill that passed has got a lot of conditions in including paying penalties and so forth. so it's not amnesty. secondly, we'll need to be concerned about the falsehoods, and misrepresentations that are consummate our state leadership in some the national folks up in washington about the reality of

the border and the conditions on the border. i think that immigrants have been in fact demonized over the years to the point where people have a hard time cutting through all of that rhetoric and getting down to the basic question she asked, what do they want? well, we know from history, we know from the studies up to the present, we know from anything the people who are coming over, all they want is an opportunity to have a good life for themselves and their families. they are looking for economic security just like all of us, and it seems to me that the studies indicate, including the latest report from the center for public policy priorities, that immigrants contribute to the growth in this country. that immigrants are key to the texas economy in the future. so there's no question they are coming here because they want to have the american dream for all of us have had come and what

this country has always proposed to people as a nation of immigrants. >> can i had to point to a quick? number one, it's not just immigrants. the border communities have been demonized as being unsafe. "usa today" did, released a study about six or eight months ago that said if you are within all the communities within 50 miles of the border were far safer than the communities that were further inland. point number one. point number two, to the aspect of, speaking about the facts, you know, it's unfortunate that we get stuck in this emotional bubble and people get stuck on this one, and debate. but the senator is exactly right. you got it down to what the real issues are edges all the real issues. >> there's also the argument the

border dignity or committees with large immigrant population from undocumented immigration published are safer because these people don't want to cause trouble because stuff has happened on the board. you were a former prosecutor. there is violence on the border by want to ask if you could speak to that. are these communiticommuniti es is safer because these folks don't want to get in trouble? it behooves them not to get in trouble. secured community uses finger prints this is so in these here in this country illegal. >> based on the data, outland gomez of "usa today" did an incredible said were dug into the department of justice data and found that i things up to 100 miles within the border the communities are safer. i don't think it's simple as people not wanting trouble. i think it's a fact law enforcement has a relationship with the immigrant community.

when you go across the country the law enforcement who like a joe arpaio in phoenix, when they are eager to enforce immigration law, the immigrant commute is pushed away. they don't trust the local law enforcement. they some local law enforcement will want to deport him. at a place like el paso, brownsville, laredo from those of local law enforcement agents have a relationship with those immigrant committees. so that when there's a crime the immigrant, documents or not, feel they can report that crime. and go for that going to be a victim of an unreported crime. as soon as a law-enforcement those but then they can pursue the perpetrator. that's tpp committee safe is if there's trust between the committee and law enforcement. >> if i could ask just to get a breakdown immigration reform, some aspects but if you could speak to the economic benefits of passing the dream act.

do not much of a boon to the economy that would be smart to point. first one to the question you asked the senator about, i think was not.org which is mexican american thinking together, they released a study that showed 65 so the people they interviewed in one state, i think the state of -- had no desire to seek u.s. citizenship. their families or their. they want to come in the. sometimes they forget to make the assumption if they come here that they want every benefit known to man and they want everything else here. >> couldn't and i very go by mexican state? if you took the same polling, as people on the border, there have different -- >> if you want to talk about this issue in a vacuum, yes, you

can discuss that but one of the parts of it doesn't get debated a lot is what's happening in mexico on the economic front. there are nation's number two trading partner. if you look what's happening into mexico, the mexican entry form area, my biggest fear is that these strong, good high-paying jobs are going to be created by the new reform and the people that are here and are looking for recent to get home are going to start leaving. that's going to cause massive issues are spent you already have net migration. >> we do. >> has that trend reversed? >> a lot of it is being precipitated by a lot of reforms that are occurring and the negative climate we have here in the u.s. >> but to your point about dreamers, the reality is i represent the private sector and here's how we look at it. who takes better care of a home? a renter or an owner?

the owner does. who takes care, better care of a company? is it an employee or an employer is also a shareholder in the company? so who would take better care of this country? someone who's just you're temporarily or someone who is a citizen for something invested in the country? so to all those people and to all the members of congress who see this as a negative, i would take a look back at our history in this country and see how this country was built on the backs of immigrants and all the contributions they've made. so there's a huge economic impact. >> i don't think there's any question that the more people who pledge allegiance to our flag, stronger our country is. i don't think there's any question that people are coming here because they want to work, that's the kind of people that our country needs. it is easy to get caught up in

all of the name-calling and finger-pointing and all those kind of things, but at the end of the day it is a simple -- one of the basic tenets of economics is supply and demand. there is a supplier jobs here. there is a demand for more people. there is a supply of workers over there and want to come and take these jobs. and, frankly, i represent a huge piece of the eagle ford shale area. it is common from my come had a restaurant from 1917-1997, for 80 years. this is a great time to open a restaurant in eagle ford shale. you would make a lot of money. the challenge is to run around strong you need a cashier and you need waiters and unique as washers and unique cooks. and you know, everybody who would normally have those jobs, do you know where they are right now? their outing eagles board shall come to make a lot more money, it's a we need employees.

way to go onions, there's not a lot of americans who are standing in line waiting to pick onions when it's 125 degrees and the sender knows that will be he and i represent that county. it's an issue of, we've got judges somebody has to fill. that stuff has to make to our table some of. >> on the flipside you are seeing a lot of people who are here illegally, they won't do the job not because it's a tough job, backbreaking, is because of wages. there's any truth to that? do they bring down wages? that's true, that's a fair argument. >> look at the flipside of that. we believe that if you bring everybody to legal status, and everybody can be at the same job in the same which. into carbon fiber the only pursue his winning is the unscrupulous employer.

you pass immigration reform, there's all of us on a level playing field everyone compete for the same job at the same which. oftentimes people look at it as a negative, will wages be pushed down? yes, wages are being pushed down because of that employers are exploiting a broken system. so let's fix the system level playing field. >> we often fall into, i don't want to say trap, the conversation at least in texas, a valid point, we begin with mexican migration and made a loud america. can you speak to what other, where people come from other than mexico and central america? senator cornyn says he is a website in for five languages. he mentioned the indies and chinese. can you speak to the demographics of other countries coming? >> this is the amazing part. yes the majority of the immigrant population is hispanic or latino by and large from the mexico. when you look across the

community you are seeing great diversity from asia, great diversity from south asia. not you're saying i think the fastest growing population in the country is actually the asian population because that's where the influx of immigrant community. from our perspective it's not just looking at issue, it's an issue that's important for us of the country and you're talking a little bit about the changes in the economy. we'll start looking at the health care economy. three of the four fastest growing on the patients are helped occupation. nurses, health care aides. there's opportunity in the health care sector that could for not only immigrants but also the rest of us. however, is the immigrant community have the skill set to take events of those opportunities? when you look at the foreign-born population there more likely to have a high school diploma or less. in order to drive healthy economy, the foreign-born skill set needs to be picked up. you look at status, if you meet -- move people from undocumented

illegal, it's between five and $15,000 improvement. opportunity, skills and status is what we believe is important for not on the country success but for individual immigrant to reach their full potential. and that applies whether the person is from mexico, from china, from australia. >> congressman, you are in first -- very well versed. is there a pathway to legal status for us it seems like this military service, the pride they take and serving, at least that one issue both parties can agree on. so is there any, it might not seem with most traditional way to address immigration reform but what's going on with that? >> it's one of the things i work on the horse. i was disappointed we didn't get to the immigration reform part because for me, for example, you

need a sponsor as innocent become an american citizen. if you're an american soldier and your spouse as a noncitizen and your country ask you to go to afghanistan or anywhere in the middle east, in the worst possible start happens and that is that your spouse is killed in the line of duty, a grateful nation then would deport your spouse. because your spouse has now lost their sponsor. and, frankly, that's an asinine conclusion. and so the idea, that's one of the things that i worked on really hard and were able to convince through an executive order actually, the president made an exception for military families. because that's the core part. i know people who have gotten their american citizenship, who've gone on to go to law school and be successful in those kind of things who start

off by starting off by serving in america noted. that's an important pathway and needs to be recognized as such. >> i would add to that there's a coalition started veterans for reform, looking at the military readiness and the constitution of immigrants to the military. across the country found veterans who served, and their families, spouses, extended family, parents were undocumented. so this is an individual point of life on the line for the united states of america, however the united states of america was unwilling to legalize the status of the family. so they would tell their story of pride in their service, but incredible frustration, anger that the family had to live frankly in the shadows. >> senator rodriguez, i said on the earlier panel does on border security, a few years back you take the two issues individual and that seems like it's getting harder and harder to do. i'm not saying you agree that's

the path but that's the way to address one issue and the other, what in your opinion can be done at the state level to soothe the fears, not getting too much in the misinformation about isis and things like that but have a dialogue on what is needed if anything at the border for one to take place individual fall in line with the other. >> the problem is in the difficult is you can't separate the rhetoric. in order to be able to address it in a good, sound way, you have to address the false rhetoric. it's, frankly, overwhelming the discussion regarding what makes a safe border but nobody talks about what the message should be. privileges as we need a border security before we have immigration reform spent i think i would agree she will not have 100% security but what message

to everyone? >> let me finish by saying this but i think the comprehensive immigration reform is a key part of border security. i think once we passed comprehensive immigration reform, you will have a more secure border. you will have people come out of the shadows, have people that are going to be openly cooperate with the police, people who are more likely to report suspicious activity. as simple as that. and so, you know, we need to get away from the border security and focus on what's already been discussed here, is the pressing need for comprehensive immigration reform. it makes sense, right? from an economic standpoint, from a humane standpoint. and for purposes of the growth of the state in this country, we can't do without the immigrants. it's as simple as that. we cannot do without the growing latino population along our border community, both state and

national to we got to educate them, provide health care, and we are not doing the. we are not doing that unfortunately because i keep going back to the lies, these falsehoods, these misimpressions that are being put out there by state leadership and national leaders better using the immigrants just as a political pawn in their partisan approach to public policy. >> i want to take his comment one step further, because we can never achieve border security without immigration reform. the analogy i use if you have a pipe that burst in your kitchen, descended more mobs or do you fix the pipe first? we keep sending in more mobs because we can't aa, tripling the guys at the border. the way to solve the problem is to disincentivize the reason to enter the country illegally. the way to do that is we have a need for have them in low

skilled workers in this country. why you only get 5000? u.s. in a border patrol agent on the southern border, especially in texas, was the answer. i remember one agency, she the t kind of set of the river. can you tell me if he's a brain surgeon or landscaper? i said no, i can't. he said i can't either but by law i am required to chase them. my biggest fear is taking a landscaper when something needs national editor the question. the other, the senator made, we have had some state leaders have made comments recently. we the people to shut the border down. we've had people say they want to restore law and order to south texas as if it doesn't art exists, and women of the comments as well. we have to get away from that. >> another policy question, what he said about the visas, you know, you are the expert but from what is in the same amount

of these is that are applied, work visas applied for mexico writer and other countries around the world, santa cruz offered an amendment that would've done away with that can be a need base. is there an appetite for that? that seems to be something where there could be support for both parties. >> there is a balance here between a family-based immigration and work-based immigration. a lot of people say go to canada and you will be able to get to canada because they sunnier skill set, the more skills you have, the more likely you are to build good obesity but a candidate for any other country. the fact is that america is unique to our values come our history space on the balance between family immigration and work immigration. so yes, we can shift that balance and i think the senate bill passed last year took a very, very important step in that direction. they established a system that work-based immigration and

different sectors, agriculture high school, low skill would fluctuate according to the economy. but oversimplify as unemployment itself, the number of work visas would increase. go figure, supply and demand. those senators are so smart. but i mean, that's the challenge. we have to figure out that balance. we do not think that our immigration system should be work-based only. there always has to be this balance between family and work-based. >> congressman, i will ask you along the lines i asked the senator, this debate earlier, if you were able to these fears about unsecured borders and to have comprehensive immigration reform, i'll go back to that you represent 29 counties to the largest swath of the border of i think any congress session is set in texas or the countries because of the u.s.-mexico border the digit is about 42%. i had the biggest chunk of the

u.s.-mexico border, more than anybody else. >> the argument often made is that texas doesn't have enough, as many border patrol agents per mile. i think that's one thing that can be validated actually measured when you look at the numbers. what can congress do to put more boots on the ground? is this a funny thing or something that will never get anywhere because of partisan gridlock? >> i wouldn't be running for congress if i wasn't optimistic about something getting done. i think at the end of that something has to get done. it's just frustrating for me to watch because of the fact of all of these outside interest to really as indicated earlier don't understand the border. i will tell you having grown up along the border and representing more than two-thirds of the texas mexico border, you all want to sleep well. we all want to sleep safely in our beds. i do know that one of our panelist but i know three of us are parents. we want our kids to be safe. and so i think you start from a

position where you take these common interests and you move forward from there to edit think you can have a law-enforcement presence. i think a law-enforcement president is very important, but at the end of the day you also have to worry about the impact on business. because, frankly, if you look at the delays, time is money, then the delays in crossing bridges is pretty significant to as a kid you would go and, haiti would go -- eddie would go and have lunch and you come right back. >> not when i was 12. 13. >> now you can't do that anymore because it take you so long to get back to answer you have to design a system i think that is practical and that is realistic and is designed to fit the lifestyle of the border has become accustomed to. we are business partners and we

are family, and their summit of us who have cousins on one side or the other and did this on one side or the other. it's important that we recognize that as opposed to the concept we need to build this wall and separate ourselves from the folks who live on the other side of the river. >> the other thing, you know what? we don't need more boots on the ground. the wilson center which as you know is based in washington, d.c., it's nonpartisan, that's excellent scholarly work on latin american issues. they issued a report called the border, and that report, it gives you the data of the numbers of apprehensions along the u.s.-mexico border. to be getting simple -- to give you an example, for 2013 we had four and a half apprehensions per agent, four and a half for the whole year.

right? and so we've gone from literally, what was it, 2500 agents to 22000 space is that the total space that's in the southern border. so to say we need more boots on the ground in order to secure the border is nonsense. sheer, utter nonsense but you asked earlier what does it take to secure the border? well, you know, those of us who live on the border like the congressman said, we feel safe. we are the safest communities in the country in terms of murder rates, in terms of robberies, assaults, and in the. we are the safest communities. so we feel safe and that's my criteria. i don't feel threatened. there's never been terrorists coming in from the southern border. we don't, you know, running to immigrants that have been classified by the homeland security administration coming in from mexico that are security

threats. so, you know, to keep talking about securing the border is just a distraction from addressing the real issue at hand which is comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] >> you want to add something? >> i think he made, he made the point. the reality is, again i just want to go back to the notion that if you want to look good and feel warm and fuzzy, sure, hire more border patrol. if you want to solve the problem, then let's set the visa limits at we need both for workforce and family issues to allow the people to come in here, get a comic in border patrol agents will tell you, find out if we have a job for the person and that person is willing and ready and able to work, then send them down there to the bridge, process them, and put them come if there could in

no grow tobacco, then let them in. if we have a need for the labor and to help our economy run, then great, do it. and by doing that than you lesson incentivized people to come in the country illegally. we are interested to do with it major intercity highway. i know downtown austin, you can go very fast, but on the outskirts of austin begin. what would happen between san antonio and round rock if you set the speed limit at 20 miles per hour? you would have a lot of people violating the law. so is the hedgehog more troopers? no. the answer would be to set the speed limit that allows the traffic to flow. that's what we need to do. we need to set these limits that allowed people to flow. >> i like the family guy clip better but that's a good narrative. i want to get into the valley and how much that might affect the future policy. i guess the first question i will ask her, how much are the

admission policies, are they at all to blame for the? they were lured over to because they had expectations the tax -- -- >> are you talking -- >> i edited some of these women and they did say, i thought i would get the visa. i wanted a better life for my daughter or son. but they did say that that once indicated they would be given -- >> deferred action for children, doctor, -- daca, brought in the summer 2012. that is fully two years ago. and i would imagine that is the assumption that daca was going to be the ticket into the country, then we would've seen a surge, let's just say last summer, 2013, so i don't buy this idea that once -- what the administration did lead to this

influx. as i talk to researchers and others, and even government officials in central america and mexico, the difference is that once the drug cartels realize they can make money off of trafficking people got off of smuggling people, that's when you saw the influx. wind that coyote was all of a sudden getting paid by the drug cartels, and could say giving $5000 don't get your kid into the states, that's when we saw the influx was once the cartel saw this as a moneymaking venture. i've seen reports where the cartels were pretty darn happy. because not only were they making money but they were taking cbp, dea, other federal law enforcement officials, instead of going after the drug cartels, they were chasing an eight year old. >> and to the point, i think you're right. granted this was in interviews they would say leaving honduras,

paying the smuggler there and he in turn would bribe mexican border patrol law enforcement. then there's another payment to whoever gets on our whatnot. amazing thing is you didn't see a lot of these, like the mass kidnappings of years back because in every was making money. >> these kids were on buses. this was a criminal enterprise. >> senator, i would ask you, how much do you affect the attention will affect proposed legislation when you guys capital back in? it's going to happen now? you had i think more than 100 bills filed in 20 live in the some of those were filed before you guys get backing to how much

will that affect politics and how much will pass? you will have a major shift so what you see in the future? >> well, i certainly expect to see more and the immigrant legislation being introduced as we saw in 2009, over 100 bills as well. in 2011, at least a few read the rhetoric being put out by the candidates for senate, governor, and down the line, everybody is in lockstep about having to seal the border, having to do with this immigration invasion, having to deal with the issue on their point of view, and so i have no doubt that it is coming back as well as some other draconian anti-immigrant legislation. >> will it pass this time speak with you know what, the last on your right because the construction industry, out of houston, the folks in other places, the business community had a big impact but it wasn't

just a philanthropic organization. it was the faith-based and including evangelical, latino churches spill law enforcement. >> law enforcement, my own sheriff, sheriff from houston, all the major cities said that they don't support it. it's going to impact what he was saying earlier about undermining community policing. people are not willing to cooperate with police. and so we're going to have to fight very hard. that's all i can to be. i tell people, you need to be prepared to come in and storm the capital. because otherwise there's no question. looked, the majority has got the vote, right? and just like they did last time. because of the pressure the unrelenting pressure from the business community and

faith-based organization, the immigrant rights advocates, the social justice network, all of that cumulatively i think it impact of not passing the law at that time, including some of the other bills. and so i am fully expecting that you'll see the capital flooded windows issue start coming up in the next session. >> this 2008 provision to the at a traffic ago, the issue probably not go away so how do you see that playing out? will there be some deal made? you have a humane act. you are opposed to as well as a logger collects but how does that play out in the future? was the most likely have to get both sides to agree to the watered down version? >> i think like many thing that depends largely on several factors. it depends on what happens on november 4, and particularly on the senate side.

it depends on whether there's a good faith effort made to negotiate with the administration because truthfully right now, the house has never really even negotiated between republicans and democrats. the house hasn't really dealt with the senate. neither house really deals well with the white house. so a lot of that depends on what is, is there a good faith effort or is this more political chester county where nobody really wants to reach an agreement? that's what i've seen so far is this idea that this is a great issue for november, let's keep it alive, let's keep it going. there hasn't really been a good faith effort to fix. i will take your the prosecutor in me, when i prosecuted, to use domestic violence because we just celebrated the anniversary

of the domestic violence act, but i knew the worst thing you could do with the we came together was a victim of domestic violence was to put them back in the same place where they had come from. and that law that was signed by president bush, that was the premise of the entire law is to make sure that in these certain situations these people were not automatically repatriated to a place where they're going to go into the same condition as before. and i don't know that that's changed. i think after india people to figure out are you here because you want to be an american citizen and you want to live the american dream? if that's the case then there's a line over here. but are you because you're running for your life and if you go back someone will kill you? and maybe you qualify for refugee status. that's a different category. i think the law recognizes that applause but. >> -- [applause]

>> i'm going to start asking questions if you could start lining up spent it's not just the repatriation issue. you're right about that, but you also know for example, in the county attorney's office we focus on doing a lot of community educational domestic violence and encouraging them to step forward to report the domestic violence. and so if you have law enforcement going around on the century city's asking people for their status, unite going to have women willing to come forward. and reporting the crime in the first place. nevermind then down the line the repatriation that actually occurs to a dangerous situation at home. so it's also getting the cooperation of the victims and the testimony of the victims to do with domestic violence.

>> i agree there's a lot of what i would call phony distraction talk about securing the border. and one of the things that is surprising to me, i heard a number of years ago that a large percentage can get my behalf, it might be more than half, of the people who who are here illegally right now come here legally. spent they just overstayed their visas. >> exactly, but my question is how come we don't hear more about that as a way of just admitting what's going on? and also as a way of getting away from some of the phone edges of securing the border. because we could have a law, 3000 feet high around our borders and let nobody in but still good coming in on the points legal. but if you're a system that doesn't work, people will evade it anyway. driver wants to answer that. >> why is the attention shift -- spent again having just come to

congress and not having much in the way of seniority there, but i am appalled that that happens. you would think in this age of computer technology that you keep track of people who are here. he would note who is here and who is a. but apparently they didn't and they can't. and so one of the things that i think we need to look at is the technology requirements for an immigration system. because, frankly, i will say that the technology systems that we have, especially along the border, are antiquated and not really, it's not giving the folks on the front line, they don't have the best tools available to them and that's something we should look at. >> we can put a man on the moon, we can find ways -- >> we can fix it. >> everybody has mentioned this before. so much of the border debate is dominated by people who have never been to the border. it's pretty stunning.

i've got to give a lot of credit to eddie. is brought people to the border. two-seat, expensive. one thing, if you want to invest resources in corsica, -- border security, department justice points to the fact of the guns, drugs, points to ports of entry. it the other ports of entry the procedure, you would see trade counter to the cost of trade decrease. you would see the ability to confiscate drugs, money and trucks increased and would see a much safer country. but instead you got politicians are never been to the border ranking and raving about, again, a really, really safe community that is overwhelmed by nothing more than 22000 -- >> to give credit to local communities there is an effort in el paso, a public private partnership to hire more cbp

officers. will have the same infrastructure that sends out radio. >> i will challenge you on that one. the reason there's public-private partnership is because the federal government is underfunded by five, $6 billion so the community and others decided to come together to try to make something happen. the reality is we never should've reached that point, but to everyone's point on the panel, you get stuck on the enforcement side. so to ali's point, all the money goes to border patrol. >> last week or we can have ago we had a hearing on the joint committee on border wait times. that was one of issues we talked about. clearly we have been talking about this for years about if you want to address problems at the border you need to put more customs inspectors in our ports of entry rather than more border patrol boots on the ground as they are called. there's no question that there is this misunderstanding about what really can make the border

safe. you know, think prosecutors can you and i know most of the drugs any illicit activity takes place on the international bridges. >> quickly to add to the senator's comments, if we stay on the path that we are on we are approaching a point where you won't be able to cross the border in a day. if you go back to the 9/11 commission report, one of the things that were singled out by the commission was do not focus and become obsessed with security so much that you cut off your own economic -- >> but the frustration for me is that if you were demanded for security the most, they are not the guys -- i mean, there's machines now, the technology is there for scanners that are much better than anything we have ever seen. and yet we can't, i mean, there are struggles every day to put one in brown so. we don't have them. i mean, how can you tell me you

want a secure border on the one hand and then vote against the funding and i want to do the money to give us the equipment and the technology that we need to do the job? that's frustration. people talk of both sides of their mouth. >> you guys touch base on the cartel and the violence, and i understand that the violence has been exaggerated a lot but being from brownsville i've personally seen, and the like family has been kidnapped and like i've lived through this, but through comprehensive immigration reform, like what are your plans on working with the mexican government to try to work with them to maybe -- how do i say this? to work with them to fix the cartel backlash that's going to come with them losing their money on the drugs and their people paying them to get them imported in your? like it, how would you fix this

cartel backlash, like worked with the mexican government speak with the u.s., as a presence, giving bush a bit of done on more can be done? >> i would say it is an unfortunate fact of life that come if we're talking economics, if one product on the so, you start selling another one. and so i think what is happening with the cartel is essentially they have become businesses. and so they've expanded their range of products that they offer. and so if there's a demand for something else, they will move into something else. i'm really passionate, frankly, about the law enforcement community because i spent time as a prosecutor here but apple took a relationship with mexico, and always use improvement but it is better. when i prosecuted years ago, there was some people who were

rafting in the canyons of the rio grande and a shot at some rafters from the mexican side of the canyon, all right? and in those days if you need witnesses, even the defendants, he couldn't extradite them to mexico wouldn't give you any mexican citizens. a wooden handled anybody to be prosecuted and you know what? that's not the case today. now there is relationship between the mexican law enforcement and the u.s. government where there are instances where their folks have been extradited to face trial and use. there's a more cooperative relationship now. doesn't need to be better and are there other issues on the mexican side? apps alluded to one of the things i would suggest though, one of the reasons that you see a slow that i think, to go from south america are coming in but not as many mexican mexicans asd to have and is because mexico's middle-class, mexico's economy

is clicking along at a faster rate than the american economy is. while america's middle class is shrinking, mexico's middle-class is actually growing. and so you see less and less mexicans who feel the need to leave the family. if we could do that, if we could be of assistance, we spent so much money as a country dealing with other parts of the world. but if we could spend some and in our own backyard helping small businesses grow through small business development center's like the one in san antonio, and did a phenomenal job, it would help people rebuild their economy, and i think it's a slow down because people want to steal the i don't think people want to leave spent with mexico allow that? >> i think there's always somebody issues. and i'm not advocating, but i think, you know, mexico has been willing over the course of the last few years to come to an

agreement with the u.s. and now, frank, we need to expand that, that range of negotiations with some of the other countries and latin america. because it wasn't, the outcome in mind, were to mexicans, okay? we need to have -- the unaccompanied minors weren't mexicans. we can help them, instead of at least in my view because that's my backyard obviously. i want to spend the money in my backyard. >> one other thing in terms of the relationship between u.s. and mexico law enforcement, there's an or position called the western attorney general's. that established the u.s.-mexico task force where you have states attorney general working with their colleagues in mexico helping them define and refine the criminal justice system. someone would've gotten to know is indiana attorney general, republican attorney general. you spent an incredible amount of time not only in his own

state by sharing information best practices with his cover in mexico. that's made a tremendous difference in mexico but also a tremendous difference for general zeller because in a more informed advocate for immigration reform. >> i recognize this might be outside the scope of this discussion but think it's important to ask all the same. a lot of people come to this country because they aren't safe in their own countries or they don't feel safe. what could we be doing in addition to changing immigration policy internationally to help with this problem? i know this is disputed i think it just touched on on the mexican side. like you said, your own backyard. can you expand that? >> i think we need to help people grow their because -- economies. the world is a great place if you don't help. and, frankly, people will tell me, some of the members of congress had a conversation

about how they had never seen anything like this with the unaccompanied minors and what kind of a parent would send their child, would allow their child to leave? i said in front of the conversation with us in conversation because i said, yeah, you have heard that story before. and i said, because i know that you often just as the congressional bible study at that you all have read the story of moses. moses mother, when she puts moses and the basket just know i to whether the basket will sink, if the basket will get eaten by lions. she has no idea what's going to happen to her son. the only thing she knows is that what's ahead of him is better than what he is leaving behind. and so i think we've got to do something about what they're leaving behind the we've got to hope but i think you can help develop trading relationships. i think you can create commerce with different countries. we've done it.

frankly the situation in colombia is now much better than it used to be years ago and that was with american assistance. i think you can do a little bit of that at a time to help essentially create more stability and more prosperity in latin america. we are very good at making money in the u.s. >> when joseph and mary bertelli, i'm glad they were with three wise men and not three minute men. [laughter] >> 's talk about the economy and the traitor we should but recently, they start to incorporate the money for social services, for education, rebuilding schools, for giving hope to young people in mexico and the same thing applied in colombia for that but at the and they can apply in of latin america and central america. so begin people when i get involved with the drug cartel so that i stated recruit message and because of the factors that were, or so education, that there's all of these things

lacking in their country. along with the trade and commerce you have to incorporate some assistance for social change in the communities in order to lessen the threat of the cartels. >> and it doesn't have to be government money. we can get private investment to go to let america with a lot of country to want to, a lot of businesses that want to open up new markets for the business in latin america. we can help create those markets. >> time for one last question. >> what i've heard isn't like this panel is particularly sensitive to the diversity of the foreign-born population in the united states to the inaccuracy of these overblown violent reports of border committees. and to the importance and complexity of economic relationship to the united states and mexico. and so i wonder for all of the panelists, if you could speculate about your sense of how much come to extend how much

the immigration debate in the united states is derailed by historic misunderstandings of the mexican, mexico and mexican populations in the united states? >> you know what? there is some of that, but from my point of view, we talked earlier the people are not from the board and did understand, i've taken some senators to the border and nevertheless they still advocates of these draconian measures. from my point of which have employer is this fear of latinos in general and the growing political presence of latinos in this country, and so that, there's no doubt in my mind that the question of immigration reform, border security, all these other measures that you see, you know, photo id, voter suppression measures, they are

all connected to the fear of the growing latino political, which is inevitable in which is something that instead of being accepted and being appreciated and being in fact embraced is causing this resistance to all of these kinds of laws that would make it better for the latino community. >> thank you, folks, very much. we are out of time. appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] >> here are just a few of the comments we have recent received

from our viewers spent i really appreciate the area of all these debates. h. really given me insight as to the diverse views i guess of the other representatives, you know, candidates for the u.s. house. the other states and other districts, i really enjoy to see the different viewpoints the conference and from parts of the united states and it's a great thing to be able to watch them. >> watching the debate, i think it was on c-span2, paula bradshaw. that's what i want to hear, politicians to say the things she said. i we should put that on prager c-span about 6 p.m. at night. please put the program on a six, 7:00 every night until election day so we hear the truth about things. >> i just watched the debate from west virginia, and i am so tired of this campaign.

i am so sick of these politicians who cannot help the truth. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at (202) 626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org, or send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. joe nasise in conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> and now live to london for british prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons live wednesday mornings here on c-span today but also in october discretion via twitter using hashtag pmqs. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. and now live to the bridgeport of the bush house of commons.

>> all the five parties are engaging in the talks process i would encourage us to continue to take this very stressful but it is critically find a way forward on these matters but i wholeheartedly condemn what's going on in the audible legs constituency not just over the last two days but over a series of weeks. ..

i reflected that this government is the third since the 1920s that resided over a transformation in average wages for its people. is this record of failure, mr. prime minister, in the united kingdom? >> what we have actually seen under this government is a record fall in the number of unemployed people over the last year. also you might want to make reference to that this morning the office of national statistics has produced figures to show the number of work in households going down by 671,000 in our country. the number of children growing up in a home where nobody worked is down by 387,000.

what that means is all those children growing up seeing one of their parents going to work, putting food on the table, providing a role model for their children. that is a record to be proud of. >> thank you, mr. speaker. nicholas sturgeon this morning has called for scotland in the event of the e.u. referendum, will the prime minister refused her request for demand and will he condemn the liberal democrats for what appears to be a veto over armed referendums? >> we are one united kingdom. there will be one referendum that will be decided on a majority of those who vote. that is how the rules will work. i am disappointed we won't be able to take forward the

referendum bill in this parliament. is not possible to get agreement on a money resolution. if they want a referendum there is only one way to get it. that is through a conservative government. [shouting] >> mr. speaker. a vital tool that brings murderers, rapists to justice is european arrest warrant. why delay having a vote on it? >> i am not delaying having a vote on it. there will be a vote on it. there will be a small matter of a negotiation take place within europe adjusting the spanish have been talking. the spanish will shortly remove their block and at this moment we will be able to have a vote. >> we all know the reason we are

not having a vote. it is a violation in russian food, paralyzed by fear of another rebellion in europe. i want to make an offer. we have a labour opposition day next week. we will give him time for a those on the european arrest warrant and we will help him get it through. >> there's only one problem with his second question which is we are going to have a vote. his questions have just collapsed. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. [shouting] >> all i can say is i look forward to walking through the lobby together to vote for the european arrest warrants, two parties working together in national interests or maybe mr. speaker, 1-1/2 parties working

together. turning from the home of incompetence can the prime minister explain what a number of asylum applicants awaiting a decision by 70% in the past year? >> that me add some details. this is an important issue. what we have achieved is the biggest transfer of power from brussels to britain as we have opted out 100 measures. it is important we take action to keep britain save particularly from serious criminals and terrorists and european arrest warrants, and i would stress to those who are concerned about this the european arrest warrant is very different from the arrest warrant first introduced under the last labor government. you cannot now be extradited with something that isn't a crime in britain, judges are

able to reject european arrest warrants and have done so in many cases and you can't be extradited if there is going to be a long period of deep tension. these are all important considerations but i am sure he is looking forward to walking through with somebody because he has had a lonely week with the loss of scotland, shambles in yorkshire and all the other problems he has got. the next best thing was asylum and immigration. let me say this. we inherited from labor -- and computer programs and an immigration system that was a complete mess and before he answers his next question he might apologize for the mess he made. >> on this day of all day is only one person should be

apologizing for immigration and it is him, his total failure and he is not putting it right. he is making it worse. the backlog has gone down, they wasted a billion pounds on fails i t projects that have not tracked 50,000 people and what was his comment before the election? he said he would reduce net migration to 10,000 a year. what is their migration now? >> net migration is down a quarter under labor and net migration from outside the european union is down to its third level since 1998 but he talks about records and under labor net migration quadruples, 2.5 million extra people came in to our country. in 2004 they give unrestricted access to our labor markets to eight noon european countries.

he forgot to mention immigration in his conference speech all to get there and there is that remark by peter mendelssohn, the last labor government sent out search parties to look for extra migrants to bring to this country. get up and apologize for your record. >> couldn't tell us the figure, he made the promise of tens of thousands and it was 243,000. he published his contract with the british people on immigration and he said this. if we don't deliver outside the bargain, in five years time. why doesn't he just own up? he has broken his promise. we cut immigration from outside the e.u. by two thirds and close 700 bogus colleges and introduced new rules from benefits but all of this

clearing up a shocking shambles at best led by the last labor government. one e shoot, in 2004, the decision to all-out every single new members state to britain was a catastrophically bad decision. we opposed it at the time and when you apologize for that appalling decision. >> prime minister for 4-1/2 years and is the worst non sector. on immigrations this government combines with incompetence. they -- a factor for immigration but they are so incompetent they can't deliver their basic promises. one of just admit on immigration he has failed. >> on immigration we inherited the biggest mess this country has ever seen. immigration from outside the e.u. down, benefits restricted,

proper rules for new members joining the european union. all of that clearing up the mess made by labour and what we had today was not a single -- to look for more migrants. the british people know we're making every effort to control migration but no effort at all because he has got no leadership. >> andrew george. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister, the referendum, all he needs to do is demonstrate the engagement on money resolutions. the prime minister proud of the fact that his party is abusing the privilege of executive power and denying clear will of this house by denying the money

resolution to fail to protect the vulnerable from attack. >> i am afraid the problem with the point is his bill is literally a bill. it would cost over a billion pounds for the british taxpayer and that is why it wouldn't be right to give it a money resolution but if the hon. gentleman believes in democracy he would recognize the e.u. referendum bill passed for a massive majority, we should reintroduce it as a government bill. that is what ought to happen. >> attacks cut calculated as a massive cut from 9.3 billion pounds even a quarter of which would transform public finances but -- 11,000 since 2010 and failed to close the tax gap. sweeping the countries and wages, protecting the fat cat

billionaire -- >> let me tell you what is happening, and kate 3 million of the lowest paid people lot of tax altogether. and his top 1% of taxpayers paying and did the labor govern. >> more british money for brussels is a small part of a bigger picture. the big picture is the euro zone is failing and threatening global financial stability. and higher unemployment, and grows in a higher risk of deflationary. why should britain be paying for the failures of the euro zone and the denial of european leaders of the reality of the euro zone is into the european he version of the emperor's new

clothes. >> an important point, there is a risk that the year rose alone could go into a third recession in six years when you see how low growth rates are and we are not immune to it. and about the issue of migration where the victims of the success of our economy and its growth in comparison with the arrows zone. on the issue of the 1.7 billion pound bill is worth recording with the dutch finance minister said yesterday, he said i must be able to defend it in front of the dutch people and parliament. as long as i can't see the numbers i can't defend it and won't pay before december 1st. i think he is right. >> mr. speaker, i am sure the prime minister cares about families under stress, and great stress. up and down our country there are stressed families with the

challenging -- cannot obtain any help from mental health -- shows that access is not there not in three month six or in a year. and how to stop this -- >> i agree with the hon. gentleman about the importance of mental health, and important steps forward giving parity, in the nhl as constitution and recently announced additional money. and mental health services, and how many are in need of these services and held them and prevent being further pressures on dhs. >> and important -- public helping, to evaluate options for

global response and diseases and persisting with their recommendation to take it elsewhere. to discuss this matter and to ensure the future of public health, and the taxpayer and public health england. >> thank everyone for the vital work they do on these, and testing for ebola because it is we need brave and courageous people. and health secretary, very happy to discuss in detail this issue and see life sciences, and an important role to play. >> thank you. and immigration the last few weeks and it is clear the people in dudley don't think it is fair

that people get to the u.k. to be unemployed, and claim benefits as soon as they arrive or as he proposes after a few short months they think people should have to work and contribute and they certainly don't think it is fair that people should claim child benefits for children living abroad. when you sort these things out. >> i don't want to be and charitable, the question is reasonable but i remember the years when he sat behind -- i don't think he seems to whisper any of those things into his ear. quite a lot of other things into his ear by the way. i absolutely think we need to deal with this issue, we lengthened the amount of time people had to be here before they claimed benefits and go further on that. the british people are watching, they want this issue sorted and

is not simply about people coming to abuse the system. is the pressure on education. i know with this body we will address it. >> thanks, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the prime minister for discussing this. is the prime minister aware of half a million pounds last year, it has taken that money to therapy. can i ask about this and put that money back? >> i enjoyed my meeting with her, she is doing excellent work particularly on these innovative radiotherapy treatments that should become more widespread. the case is extremely powerful. in terms of the overspend, that

is not some sort of administration. it is because more cancer victims want more drugs and under this government they're getting those drugs and not disadvantageing others, but look carefully at what she said and make sure we do make sure these treatments, had. >> given that the prime minister said the formula is here to stay is it not high time to give whales something with our friends in scotland? once and for all, give their funding to wales? >> what i said about the formula, get away from that. what we need to see in wales is a real debate about what i would say is a double yes, yes to another referendum on tax raising powers, and the welsh assembly has greater responsibility for raising and spending more of its own money. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

because it was never a major hospital in montgomery, constituents have access in england and a minimum of 26 weeks and close neighbors living over the border and, with a maximum of 18 weeks. does the prime minister think that is fair? >> there are some real issues of fairness here and many more patients traveling from wheels to england than from england to wales and the waiting lists, the waiting times are quite different. if you take the average waiting list for things like a hip replacement, you wait to decrease 70 days in england but 170 days in wales. this isn't right and frankly the opposition has gone at it both ways. they want to blame the politicians in england but take absolutely no blame for their appalling state in wales. >> mr. speaker, i young science

teacher, husband and father pleaded guilty to terrorist offenses. like hundreds of others, there was poisonous ideology. the home secretary promised in her conference speech to prevent the statutory duty of all public sector organizations and canceled extremism to tackle all forms of extremism. when will the prime minister take action and make the resources available necessary to implement that promise? >> as the hon. lady knows i have great sympathy with her views. cross party agreement between me and her and the importance of combating not just violent extremism but all forms of extremism. you'll be delighted to know the home office is drawing up the strategy and we had our first discussion in the extreme is in task force, progress is good and we do want to make these arrangements on a statutory footing. there are territories coming before the house and i want to make progress on all these

issues. >> what my hon. friend agree with me that the tower of london is a stunning and those who lost their lives in the first world war and would he also agree with me that it serves as a timely reminder that in any conflict there can be a terrible loss of human life? >> i think my hon. friend is absolutely right. is a stunning display an extremely poignant and reminds people of how many people gave their lives not just in that conflict though obviously the slaughter was horrendous but in so many conflicts since then where armed services personnel were defending our freedom and way of life and that is particularly poignant this week when we think of the final troops returning from afghanistan, we think of a 453 service men and women who were lost and the many hundreds living with like changing injuries the we must look after for the rest of their lives.

>> heidi alexander. >> thank you. last week figures showed that the four hour waiting time target has been missed for the 65th week in a row. does the prime minister honestly think this is acceptable? >> we want to meet the targets every week of the year and that is our aim and why we are putting in $12.7 billion extra in terms of the nhl as and if you look at the emergency there are 800 more nt doctors working in our emergency departments and there were when i became prime minister but one of the questions we face is 1.3 million more patients every year going into accidents and the emergencies said to deal with this what we need to do from across the other side, we might start with our own gop contract. you might think about that. what we need to do is in these

services put the resources into a andy, improve public health, help with our frail elderly. all the things set out in this excellent plan that needs to be backed by the money and successful economy this government is delivering. >> more people live in ethics than voted yes in the scottish referendum. we need persistence in all parts of the united kingdom. will the prime minister agree that what scotland gets so should the people of essex? >> this is something of a theme in my friend's question. the best answer i can give is if we are and i believe we should keep all our promises to the people of scotland in terms of additional powers to the scottish parliament including powers over tax raising powers that we must make sure members of parliament for ethics and other counties in england have the ability to focus on these

issues as they affect england in this house and my concern is the labor party has completely given up on this issue. their habitat and all party agreement when it comes to scottish power. their habitat on all party agreement when it comes to wells power but for some reason when it comes to england they have nothing to say. >> could the prime minister explain why in scotland more than ireland and wales is possible to reach a settlement on the question of pensions and retirement yet england where the new minister was having constructive discussions last week somebody above her said that no more. and we face a four day strike. would the prime minister intervene, lined the table and sort this because it could be sorted tomorrow. >> i hope the hon. lady is right. every one wants to see this sort out and buy many other members we all met members of the fire

brigade union and constituencies and listened to their arguments but this does in the end have to be settled by the employers and the trade union and the trade union will listen carefully to what she said. >> is the prime minister aware of structure's economic success? for the last few months we have seen more jobs created than before. since the last labor government office. it is up 46%. and the long-term economic plan. and the claimant count in his constituency is down by 40% in the last year alone regarding 2

million more people employed in the private sector since the election. these figures for work less households where no one has been working including of those homes of children this is not just a statistically important fact but a socially and morally important fact that children grow up in homes where someone is working and we look at learned parent employment, the lone parents employment rate has gone up, labor party does not want to hear good news but because our long-term economic plan is working we getting the british people back to work. >> i know that we are fully committed to the full implementation of the military complement. why his government failed to keep records of those 30,000 people who served in afghanistan, great britain, came back with injuries, injuries that should have been given priority for treatment? can the prime minister confirm what steps he will take to

rectify that situation? >> as the hon. gentleman knows we want to see the military government's -- covenant honored especially in northern ireland. on the issue of how we keep in touch with the veterans we have made some breakthroughs. the veterans information service contact all those who have been discharged the year after they left, this was something that was set out by my hon. friend in his report, being from the best countries around the world about how we help our veterans, and a multimillion pound funds from the city and putting them into veterans charities. there is real money to support our veterans. >> does the prime minister agree with senior u.s. officials who said catarrh is still a committed jurisdiction for terrorist finance? will he press back to the house and what action is being taken within qatar and those individuals named on the u.k.

sanctions list? >> i will be talking to him shortly and we will discuss all of these issues particularly in terms of how we can work together to combat extremism. they introduced acts to make sure charities are not abusing charitable states and giving money to inappropriate organizations and make sure this is working properly but i commend my hon. friend's assistance on this issue and is import we work with all our allies to make sure extremists and terrorist groups are not getting the support they seem to be. >> research shows there are at 5 million workers stuck in low-paying jobs. women's wages are lower than they were a year ago and the gender pay gap is rising. we have been clear how we strengthen the national minimum wage. what is the prime minister going to do to make work pay? >> what we need is more jobs which we are getting, we need to

see the minimum wage increase which just had an lift people out by raising the tax threshold and we are doing all of those things. on the minimum wage we got 16 pounds 50 but what i see from the labor party plan is a plan to put it up to eight lbs. by 2020 but if you make reasonable assumptions about inflation it would get past that level by 2020 so fees geniuses fought all summer about what would be a really good plan to help people and decided to cut the minimum-wage. no wonder, as they have a crisis, nobody trusts the shadow chancellor, nobody believes the leader. it is a complete and utter shower. [shouting]

>> 20 members will mark through to -- lessons for all. members of both houses find time to join me and thank them for all they have done. >> i certainly encourage all hon. members to do this and i will examine my own diary and see if there's a chance i could come along too. we should take every opportunity to thank our armed services personnel particularly for what they have done in afghanistan. for 14 years we served, many people have been once, twice on runs three terms and they deserve our thanks and congratulations for their service and courage. >> my perspective. >> the prime minister was asked

why 16 health organizations, doctors, nurses and patients, health and social care services in england, that is what he is responsible for out breaking point and made a lot of allegations about the position in wales. is this an english question? >> what i would say to the hon. lady is of course there are pressures but it is worth listening to the new chief executive of national health england, someone who worked for the labor party, and the hhs is remarkably successful treating millions more patients than five years ago. dhs has become 20 billion times more eat fish and and those are things we should recognize. of course there are pressures but what we need is to see improved e efficiency where we can make sure we get rid of

unnecessary demands by investing in public health and money is required but as i've been -- simon stevens points out you get more money if you have a successful economy. as you said a tax funded health service requires a healthy u.k. economy. we have not held the u.k. economy and we will have a strong and h s. >> thank you. a recent taxpayers alliance study revealed the amount of taxpayer money that has been spent on union office space are equivalence of 27.4 million pounds of market value, equivalent of the size of the kremlin. my right hon. friend agree with me? >> it is necessary to cap that donations to parties and it comes up with an ingenious idea.

and do what the government is doing and make additional space available to entrepreneurs, more starbucks, more enterprise that the trade union could make. >> can i tell the prime minister that my constituents, by f. football club's costs, he was discharged home only to be told about a eight week waste. can the prime minister set out how the government will ensure there are communities, specialists, speech and language teams giving the right community task force than anyone in england. >> the hon. lady is absolutely right. we need to do better in terms of treating the consequences of a stroke. the na chesney big improvements

about diagnosing stroke victims and we have seen that with better arrangements for hospitals that had that expertise and what is now required is more effort to make sure you had someone who had a stroke have a better quality of life. more search, and that particular case. >> order. mr. john -- >> you're on c-span2 we believe the british house of commons as members move on to other business. you have been watching prime minister's question time heard live wednesdays said 7:00 eastern when parliament is in session. you can see this session again sunday night at 9 eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to view every program weird since october of 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via

twitter using the hash tag p.m. qs. the c-span cities to work takes booktv and american history tv travelling to u.s. cities to learn their history and literary life. we partner with comcast for a visit to colorado springs, colorado. >> in 1806 montgomery pike was sent to the southwest to explore the region, very similar to lewis and clark who were sent to the northwestern part of the newly acquired louisiana territory. pike was sent to the southwest part of the territory and from his perspective, he ripped off of the map. and was then known. >> when pike first sees the peak he thinks he will reach the top of it in a few days to approach.

and shortly believe about mount rose of. and pike wrote in his journals and given the conditions and the equipment they had at the time, no one, pikes peak inspired the poem that became america the beautiful by kathie lee bates who came to colorado springs to teach a summer course in 1893 and the review to the planes from the top of the mountain inspired the poetry and inspired the images captured in that poetry of the united states. >> watch our events from colorado springs saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span

is3. >> george's wealth congressional district, john barrow is against republican rick allen. is a recently met for a debate in atlanta. the political report and roll-call leaned democrat curtis of the atlanta press club. this is half an hour. >> the 2014 atlanta press club debate ceres brought to you from georgia public broadcasting. now the race for the twelfth congressional district. >> moderator: i m brand means, co enter of wj b s. we welcome you in our live studio audience to the atlanta press club debate ceres originating from the studios of georgia public broadcasting in atlanta. this is the debate between the candidates for george's 12

congressional district. the twelfth congressional district is in southeastern new georgia. the larger counties include richmond, colombia, burke, lawrence county. let's meet the candidates. they are in alphabetical order, rick allen, the president and ceo of our w. allen and associates construction corporation in augusta, georgia and incumbent john barrow, currently serving his fourth term as congressman from georgia's twelfth congressional district. now let's meet our panelists. meredith anderson is an evening anchor for news 12 in augusta. walter jones is a political reporter and news analyst from morris news and michele worth is a reporter for 90.1 w abb. this will does consist of three rounds. for more information on the rules visit atlanta apressclub.org. in the first-round candidates

will be asked one question from a specific panelist and one question will be posted both candidate liz walter jones, you get the first question for john barrow. >> good evening and thank you for participating. mr barrow, an issue in this campaign has been the percentage in which you have voted with the democratic leadership of your party. what is the correct percentage as more importantly, you have said independent -- what is important to you is not telling the line of either party but how can voters be assured of that as long as there is a deep behind your name. barrow: none of the percentages offered about reliable guide as to how you of those cherry pick statistics to say almost anything. when my opponent says i vote with president obama 85% of the time he is not telling the whole truth. use counting votes in some years and not counting votes in the years, treating small that the

plaza agreement the same as be points of disagreement is that is why people who watch congress for a living never rely on this aggregate overall agreement statistic because they know it is meaningless. when it comes to the president's positions i oppose him on obamacare, gun control, immigration reform. that is why organizations like the chamber of commerce, national federation of independent business and national rifle association are endorsing the. if they agree with rick's position the would be endorsing him. they are not endorsing him. they are endorsing the. would he says about my record just isn't true. allen: i'd like to respond to is that. >> moderator: go ahead to be fair to mr. barrow. there will be opportunity for statements and rebuttals as we go forward. allen: i can't rebut it. >> moderator: that is fine. michele worth, ask rick allen a question. >> please tell us what you think of what mr. barrow said about his voting record.

allen: what we were referring to and what we put with our ad was a letter that mr. barrow wrote two years ago in that cycle and he said -- told his supporters he voted with the president 85% of the time. i don't understand why you would write a letter telling your constituents you are going to -- he voted with the president 85% of the time but then in this cycle you tell something totally different. i can tell you is this. i will not be voting for the president. >> moderator: meredith anderson, your turn to ask a question and you get to ask one of both candidates. >> i work for news 12 in augusta. most of your voters are viewers because we are from that arianna and i want to point out to the people who will be voting for either of you, and the whopping majority of those two who

reached out to me wanted to know about the ads. they say negative, negative, negative, y? they wanted both of you to respond to that. >> moderator: john barrow, you get the first. barrow: i'm not responsible for the ads attacking my opponent. there about what i stand for is what i accomplished but i share a lot of concerns people have. my opponent made his outstanding record as a private businessman, his sole qualification for office. naturally people have a lot of concerns that turns out you made a fortune from dealing with a small number of repeat customers, people are more concerned when some of these contracts are set aside in courts of law because they were illegally entered in the first place. here is where i go. when everything my opponent says about my record which is a matter of public record, everything is a question is something they can't find out about at all he wants folks to take his word for it and everything is on the up and up but when everything is said

about my record -- i am not buying it and i don't think anyone else is either. >> moderator: rick allen, you get to respond to the question about negative ads. allen: there's some reason barack obama and nancy pelosi are raising money and spending almost $7 million trying to trashed my business. the biggest issue is not bad. the biggest issue is jobs, the economy and this deficit. why in the world is that the biggest issue would you try to take down a small business? we are one of the most trusted businesses, i am proud of the business. i am proud of the fact is they have been able to find one owner, one employee or one subcontractor they put up on television and talk about how bad we are and furthermore that he is talking about, he is talking about the lawsuit.

the low bidder was awarded the job. is the total lie and i am sick of it. all of it is a bunch of lies and they're doing it to keep their boy in washington. >> moderator: that concludes the first round. candidates get to ask one question of each other. each will have 30 seconds to ask the question, 60 seconds to respond, thirty-second for rebuttal. rick allen, your question for john barrow will leave this off. allen: you are a harvard educated attorney, and i got to give you a lot of credit. you talk a good game. you confuse me a lot. but the bottom line is you have been in congress for ed decades. in that decade the budget of this country has doubled. the deficit has more in doubled. we have got all kinds of security issues. you can't keep your doctor.

you can't keep your health care plan. >> moderator: what is the question? allen: tell me when you are going to go to work. barrow: the reason the budgets have exploded is congress has no discipline, and an incentive to pass partisan budgets that are not going anywhere and don't deserve to go anywhere. that is why i support no budget no pay legislation that would prevent congress from getting paid unless they do their most basic job which is an act through congress a spending plan for the next fiscal year. that is congress at number one responsibility. as long as we are on automatic pilot deficits will possible. that is why i support a balanced budget amendment, no budget, no pay, real no budget no paid. this is why things haven't happened. it is happening because they're too few people like me. no one thinks the reason congress is on this path is because they have too many bipartisan folks willing to work with folks on both sides of the aisle. they have too few of me and too

many like my opponents. >> moderator: rebuttal. allen: the no budget no pay is politics as usual. we had our own no budget note a bill, my opponent voted against that did. a terrible lack of consistency fair and that is very disturbing but furthermore these are real issues. the jobs, the economy and deficits. there are folks having a difficult time out there and they want a congressman to grow this economy and get things done. >> moderator: barrow gets to ask mr. allen a question. barrow: one ad is one that criticizes me for voting against that so-called low-budget no pay law. your ad goes so far as to accuse

me of lying when i cling to support no budget no pay but i voted against it when i had the chance to go so. direct and simple and straightforward would you have voted for the new budget no pay lie you criticize me for voting against? how would you have voted, yes, no war present? allen: i would have voted yes for that. >> moderator: you can rebut that. allen: let me tell you what that bill did that you voted for. allowed congress to not adopt a budget. allowed congress to keep getting paid and allowed the debt ceiling to increase. that is what the bill was about. you just endorsed as your first official position of bill to raise the debt ceiling without anything to show for it. we need members of congress who are paying attention, not paying games and independent enough to do what is in the best interest of the district. >> moderator: if you are just joining us this is the debate between candidates for george's 12 congressional districts. we go to the third and final round. our panelists will question

candidates until we run out of time. meredith anderson, you get the first question in this round. >> my question is for congressman barrow 11 from david in the agusta. one of our viewers reach out and said with a recent gallup poll showing 70% of americans support term limits both members of the house and senate why are you running again? barrow: appleby in the term limits are framers gave us which is two year terms, they wanted to be closest to the people. that question with arbitrary term limits, a will solve the real problems making congress has not represented as it is. congress is not unrepresentative because of too many folks getting elected from the same place. those folks to a good job representing their districts. their districts don't do a good job representing the country as a whole. that is why i endorse and support redistricting reform. if we had more districts we have more members of congress who

look at the national interests and local interest when dealing with things nationally. that is what framers intended as what we need to have is a system where people choose their leaders rather than politicians choosing their voters. that has to be fixed in any case and nothing will solve the problem with the house of representatives until we do that. >> moderator: walter jones, your turn to ask a question. >> mr. allen, one of the first opportunities for debate your opponent was organized by muslim senator and you refuse to participate in that than you. does that portray a religious bias or prejudice on your part? allen: no. we never refuse to participate in that debate. >> but you refuse to participate in that location. allen: nothing that came from my mouth or the campaign that refused to debate john barrow anywhere anytime. >> what happened at the islamic

center that day? allen: all we did was we got a call that said we are moving and steve crawford said he was not going to be part of the debate so we said what do we do now? and fe said it is going to be at the columbia county, i said ok, we are fine, we will be there. >> moderator: michele worth, your question for one of our candidates. >> mr. barrow, you said you would repeal parts of the affordable care act. which parts would you repeal and how would you improve the law? barrow: lots of ways. if my opponent tells folks i voted against repealing it 24 times he is not telling the whole truth. more than 50 votes to repeal bits and pieces of obamacare and i voted to repeal half of them. my policy is to repeal the parts that are not working and keep those that do work. for example i believe we should end the employer mandate, the individual mandate, that tells

the irs to decide what your insurance will cost and what it has to cover, these are all provisions i voted to repeal or endorsed repealing. the parts i want to keep our things that do some good for folks like the ban on preexisting conditions. i don't think we should go back to being discriminated against on preexisting medical conditions. i would support repeal of the bill if it can be replaced with what kids insurance reforms will need and want, even ones mitt romney said we ought to keep that gets rid of the rest. that hasn't changed one bit. >> nick anderson, your turn to ask another question. >> this one's from martin. what would you do to help veterans. >> we have a strong veterans committee in the district and in fact i spoke at the veterans convention on saturday morning, and we talked about the shoes that are facing them. i have actually been down and

had a briefing at the agusta the a and the va in dublin and the problems there can be fixed. they need a certain amount of autonomy to operate. it is like all government is top down and we need the decisions to be made locally. we need to give our veterans every option for good care and our governments have our party system upside down. barrow >> moderator: at your turn to ask a question, walter jones. >> the democratic party in georgia sent a mailers that he essentially said if you don't vote there is going to be another ferguson incident in georgia. a lot of observers have said that was a baleen race card play. what is your feeling about that? do you agree with that?

barrow: i do not. i thoroughly disapprove of it and i'm disgusted by its tone and implication. i did not have the opportunity to approve it before hand and i did not confirm it afterwards. i talked to voters in a special way to bring people together. whether it is on issues as divisive as gun-control or immigration reform, i bring folks together. that is what is needed. you can't do that unless you work in a bipartisan fashion. i don't approve of it or condone it. >> moderator: michele worth, another question. >> opponents that he can and has worked across party lines. are you willing to do the same, what are the issues you work with democrats on? allen: we know how to grow the economy and what worked in the past. i believe we need to be idea driven and if we are idea driven we can solve these problems in the country. right now, i can tell you what

is happening as far as bipartisanship. there are 372 bills on harry reid's desk. that is the problem in congress. these are bills we worked on to help the economy, energy bills and so forth that stopped at the senate level. harry reid knows his own people will vote with us on those bills. harry reid is a member of the democratic party. john barrow's party. john barrow has no influence over harry reid 0 we would get something done over there. >> moderator: meredith anderson, your turn to ask a question. >> this is to congressman barrow from john in augusta. you want to know your position on marriage equality. barrow: i believe marriage is between a man and woman. is a religious institution first and i adhere to that position and always believed that by agree with ronald reagan who says he didn't believe in discriminating against anybody. the state for its purposes is

going to make use of a religious institution for the government's purposes and they don't fit is the government's obligation to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the faith community, not the other way around. that puts the odds with a lot of democrats out there. i believe it is my job to tell them what i think and i tell you what they think. >> moderator: another question from walter jones. >> mr. allen, you have put about $1 million of your own money into this campaign and some observers might say couldn't that many benefit the district more if you have given it to a food shelter or church instead of what looks like sort of an ego trip? allen: let me tell you about that. that is a great question because i have worked out in the community. we are sold in lots of community problems with the united way,

christ community health services, the heritage school. i tell you what i found out, we cannot solve our problems in the community as fast as washington is creating them. i always believed you have to go to the root of the problem and so i focused totally on trying to do something at the washington level to stop this government from creating the problems we know how to solve in the local community. >> moderator: another question from michele worth. >> exactly how would you go about reducing the nation's debt? where should be cut? barrow which identify wasteful spending and reduce or eliminate it and get the budget in balance. that is why i support and voted for a balanced budget, the constitution. we need tax reform of the kind that is recommended in the simpson-bowles commission. everybody in the same income

bracket and the same rates, we should lower the rates for everyone. that is one of the recommendations of simpson-bowles that i absolutely support and i think most importantly we have to work hard to make sure the regulators out there in the executive or independent agencies are not smothering private business with a whole bunch of high cost extremely low benefit ratio regulations. we need to make sure the job creators are not smothered by regulations that prevent them from growing or hiring. >> moderator: time for another question from meredith anderson. >> my question is for mr. allen from andrea in martin, what your views are on gun-control, concealed carry. allen: i believe in the second amendment. our forefathers got that right. i lifetime member of the nra and i believe in concealed carry. as citizens we must protect ourselves and it is a dangerous

world and i will work to continue to uphold the second amendment. >> moderator: time for a question from walter jones. >> i would like to hear from both of you. we begin with a question about these ads. a lot of these ads have been produced by groups from outside of georgia. i would like to hear each of you talk about one of these ads that has been produced by a group supporting you, making a claim that you repudiate, that you don't stand by. start with you, mr. barrow. barrow: i said i don't approve of the content of any of the messages i haven't put out but i can't say it is my sole concern about my business record especially since they raise questions about serving in congress. i don't know the message. i am responsible for what the message is that i put out and i say i approve this message and i can say you can verify the

messages i've put out talk about what i stand for and what i accomplished. the only exception are responding to false charges made about my record from the opposition and that is the way it ought to be. if we didn't have all this outside money would be much clearer who is running a positive campaign and to is not. after two months of solid dashing from my opponent i haven't mentioned my opponent once in a single ad. that is the gold standard for deciding what a positive campaign is and what a negative campaign is and that is to run a positive campaign. allen: the outside ads, pitting one against the other. as far as the ad basically that was run, the fact is john barrow has only gone one bill for the united states congress and he has been there for a decade and that was to rename a post office. i think that is shameful. >> moderator: that is all the time we have for questions.

candidate m-60 seconds for closing statement. by random selection rick allen make the first closing statement. allen: thank you so much and i think the atlanta press club for having us again. ..