and 70-75% come for economic purposes based on economic need. canada is sophisticated enough to know where their shortages of labor or. wow, what a radical innovation to be able to know that. imagine we could probably figure that out with people in this room alone in the united states. if we had the same system, we narrowed family petitioning and expanded, call it an aspirational class for people to come and make an immediate impact on our economy, guess what. we are added more higher sustained rate. liberal or conservative or democrat republican would be opposed to that. >> let's talk education. frankly the last several years we have done this people in this room raise education a lot as a barrier to the economic growth. you have thought about this will prevent most people. in your estimation is the as education system go off the track?

and once, at 10,008 what's the way to get back in the direction you think it ought to go? >> i think we have a evolve away from local school districts being the governing model. i'm not suggesting he would've been. i'm suggesting getting rid of the monopolistic nature of them, the politicized, unionized, novelistic nature which then puts the economic interests of the adults in the system, which in many communities in this country is the largest employer, for those who don't live, you know, like washington or new york. if you go to tennessee or texas or florida, outside of the big urban areas the number one employer come in miami the number one employer by far and what is the miami-dade school district. it's got a big economic interests rather than focus on how to customize learning experience so a diverse group of kids again knowledge? the model is designed for the

adults rather than the children. and reforming it on the edges is going to change that. >> i've lost my patience on this to be honest with you because i do see the change necessary to get to the model that we did get to. we started from scratch, we wouldn't have this system. we would not unionize can politicize government-run monopolies as the means by which children learn. we would have something that would be customized for their needs and would use technology, not just kind of for vendors to sell computers to school this is, which is a great business if you can get it, but have be at the core of learning, where you learn at your own pace at your own time, where time is the variable and learning is the constant, rather than 180 days with a little but in the seat by being the means the school system is funded with you on or not. the constant is time and where the very bill is whether you

learn. that is a radical departure from where we are come and there's no place in the country has come close to achieving that. that's what we need to strive for, and yet now we have this weird coalition does protecting the status quo for different reasons, and outlines that is quite powerful politically that doesn't believe, doesn't agree on anything other than we shouldn't be able to dramatically change how we educate kids. there is a path, starts with high standards but it doesn't end there. it starts with that and empowers parents to make decisions for their children. it argues for the expensive to be completely customized where digital learning can occur which requires a big change in how we collectively bargained. because god forbid if the content is provided by someone in seattle for a student in miami. there's all sorts of changes that require big time fights

politically and there's not a lot of people on the frontlines right now. >> you have been willing to engage on two of those on the subject one and false common core stand at second involved testing. you have argued can continue to argue both those things are part of the answer. >> sure. common core standards or higher standard, so if the state wants to be honest and say that their standards are 10th grade level and the need to raise them so that, look, here's the deal. you all know this because you are concerned about it in your states where you work, where your employer's work, a third of our kids may be, 40% at best, and that's only because i'm going to be politifact did. 40% at best our college or career ready. we spend more per student than any other country other than two or three, maybe four at the best. we have those results in the

video beforehand. general dempsey talked about 25% pass rate. that's not just because of the test. that's also because of obesity and too many tattoos to be honest with you on visible body parts for people that are trying to get into the military, but the pass rate for high school level test to join the military is about 35% i think of or 40% at best. is our abysmal numbers. is are horrific numbers yet there's no one marching in the street. there is no one sang -- the fact is into this if you can't fix it. if we cast off large numbers of people, young people saying, well, it's their family circumstances, it's poverty. we validate this. we encourage it. we actually make it more real that it's going to happen more often. and it is a tragedy that i think

we should not accept. the non-measurement is a great way to make sure it doesn't matter. that kids can be cast aside. so the unions oppose, you know, the former chancellor of the nuke schools with a friend by. said republicans oppose national, national standards i guess even though these aren't national standards. they'rtheir common core standard democrats oppose -- actually republicans oppose a national and democrats oppose pandering. there's this coalition now that we want to keep what we have been the people cannot defend the results that we have. we have to figure out a way to create a new coalition, perhaps more radicalized and with a greater sense of urgency to get to a better place. because all the other things that are doable are not going to solve the problem of big social

strains that will happen with the haves and have-nots coming because children have again the power of knowledge. >> let me shift to the washington scene for just a second. we all gathered at a time of fairly significant change in the way is capital is going to work. what do you advise a new republican majority in congress to make their agenda? what should be on their list to do and, frankly, not to do? >> not to do is to focus a lot of energy on things that are not even, you know, are just going to create, make a statement, make a point. i think republicans have gained the majority an increased majority in the house. we don't have to make a point anymore as republicans. we have to actually show weekend in an adult like way govern,

lead. whether the president signs of what the republicans in congress offer up is up to him. it shouldn't be too much of a worry for the republican leadership in congress. they should lead. they should take the things that are possible to achieve. they should try to forge a consensus with the democrats in the congress and they should start passing bills. they were 360 or 70 bills that passed the house but never got here but it's not one hearing in the senate in the last person to end congressional cycle. it's unprecedented. it's never happened before that i'm aware of in american history where democracy was shut down in the senate. now i think republicans need to go back to regular order way to allow for bills to be heard, to encourage amendments on the floor, to allow for the debate to take place, to get back to the point where we are starting to complain that the sin is a deliberative body again. because right now no one could claim that.

no one could literally -- showing the adult centered kind of leadership where you start dealing with, even if it's not a huge big thing which require presidential action, but it could be the xl pipeline. it could be accelerating on energy, accelerating the leasing of federal lands and waters for exploration. it could be consideration of the lifting of the ban on exports on crude at the proper time where we don't have the refining capacity to take on the light crude that is being produced in a country. it could be accelerating the permitting process for lng plants to use the tool to create a better balance of payments situation, more economic activity for the billions of dollars invested and jobs created in her own country, and to deal with the problem of rush

as relates to its blackmail potential over europe because of natural gas. there's a lot of things the republicans can do. i don't think we should worry so much about what the president, how he will react to my guess is he will engage. if will engage. defeat us in, fine. that's his prerogative i think republicans need to show they're not just against things, they are for a bunch of things and there's a lot of things to be done. whether it's on internet protocol, net neutrality or patent protection, or toward reform. there's a lot of things the republicans i think have the ability to garner 60 votes in the senate on health care reform, not just to repeal obamacare but to replace it with something that fits the 21st century workforce that we now have. this should be a time of incredible possibility for republicans to be able to show what they believe in. >> you are obviously a two-term

governor. to a chief executive. you don't with lots of different legislative combinations. what's your advice to each part of this dysfunctional relationship in washington? the president on one hand and congress on the other as how to get beyond what a buddy agrees has been an unsatisfactory dynamic? >> i think the president has the upper hand here because the presidency are occupied by one person. the president to change the culture almost immediately if that was his wish. it would require -- it would require -- it's hard because he, the way i'm sure he'd use it is that he views it, everything he proposing, the republicans oppose and so i'm going to react to that. but he has the upper hand because this one person that could do it. the presidency still matters in

the country. so whether he does or not i'm certainly no expert. i think the leadership of the congress is on the right path, basil my conversations with them, to focus on things that can be done and do a budget. first time in five or six years. i know it sounds like a really radical idea, but i think they will pass a budget. they will actually go to committee. they will talk about the priorities and they will go through the regular order way during the next year, which will be quite hopeful that we get back to where people can have different views and they sort those things out through the process were a budget is created and hopefully with a less of a deficit going forward, and the president can respond to the. if he engages, i think it will help his legacy, be honest with you, but he doesn't it sets the stage for 16 election that's going to be different than the previous elections which was you, republicans, you are the

party of no. we are for progress. you can say that if you just opposed to any action that the congress takes. i think it's a huge responsibility and a great opportunity for republicans to show what it looks like if conservative leadership gets back into washington. >> okay. you did it to you said 2016, so -- [laughter] as you note i will have to turn in my white house correspondents' association card if i don't ask you this question. what do you think about 2016? >> me personally? >> you have spent 16 is like any other year. >> kind of like any of your. >> so i'm thinking of running for president on i will pick up my mind in short order. you know, not that far out into the future. i don't know if you have a timeline. it's the same decision-making process i've always had which is can i do it in a way -- do i have the skills to do in a way

that tries to lift people's spirits and not get sucked into the vortex. it's easy to say, it's harder to do. do i have those skills? i've had to do a lot of soul-searching to really make that determination, and perhaps more important can i do it with a sacrifice for my family is tolerable. every person runs for office at any level, it's a big sacrifice because it's a pretty ugly business right now. i'm not saying woe is me, don't get me wrong but there's a level under which i would never subjugate my family because that's my organizing principle. that's my life. i think people kind of appreciate that. i'm sorting that out, and i don't know if it would be a good candidate or a bad one. i know, i kind of know how a republican can win, whether it's me or someone else, and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing

to be practical now in the washington world, lose the primary and win the general without violating your principles. not an easy task. >> it's a question that's kind of reverberated through the last couple of republican nominating cycles. are the things you need to do to win the republican nomination contrary to the things you need to do to win a general election? >> well, frankly, no one really knows that because it hasn't been tried recently. [laughter] i mean, my personal opinion is that romney would be, would've been and would be a great president right now. i honestly believe that. is a problem solver. his life experience was designed to compare is a problem, let's go fix it. put aside the ideological differences. let's forge consensus around this is a problem, how do we go from point a to point b. and fix a?

i can imagine lots of powerpoint presentations, point a to point b. and fix the things. that would be healthy but not because our government isn't working in a 21st century way. put aside democrat republican ideological challenges that there's a big gap. there's a big divide in our country. it's just not working. it's just not working at the level that you would expect. and it's because we've never transform how government works. everyone of your processes is radically different than it was two years ago, much less five years ago. get if you walk into the halls of government today in washington, it looks kind of like 1975. we've got to figure out a way to get to the point of beginning to fix this stuff. and so i think you have to take that risk. >> let me just ask you one last question and i want to open it up to these good folks for questions, but does your gut tell you that the 2016 election,

regardless of whether you are involved or not, is it about the domestic situation in the u.s. or is it going to also be about the u.s. role in the world? >> six months ago i would've said it might be a continuation of the focus on domestic issues because they're big and they're challenging, but i think there's a growing awareness that we can't withdraw from the world that there's an unraveling taking place and the contacts, much as our security interest but our economic interest as well. so i do think that foreign policy and maybe a reevaluation of what the role of the united states is in the world will become important. and there are competing forces in both parties to deal with this. i would argue that an engaged america is better for america than a disengaged america. i would argue that the president needs to speak a few words, but those words, they need to resonate.

they need to be real. they need to be taken to the bank by friends and foe alike are i would argue we need to rebuild our military and our intelligence capabilities, not so much intelligence capabilities but we need to persuade people that the intelligence capabilities we have keep us safe and they are important, that they're not a violation of civil liberties. they are a means by which we can be free from the jihadists attack that are happening and will happen at a greater pace if we continue to retrench. i would argue that free trade is part of a foreign policy arrangement. because people that trade together and become interdependent in a positive way economically, are less likely to create friction, you know, diplomatically or militarily. so there's a lot of discussion i think that needs to be had about what's the proper role for america. i would argue that the traditional role that democrats and republican presidents alike have had since world war ii,

which is an invigorated american leadership is the proper role for our country. but and i think that's probably could become a bigger issue. >> let me see who out there has a question that want to ask. right there. if you could wait for the microphone that would be great. >> thank you, governor bush, for your thoughts. trendlines, governor bush, just go back to the point you touched on, trendlines today seem to suggest a time of extraordinary opportunity to across all sectors of human enterprise. headlines suggest one of conflict. now, i think as you point out, american leadership is going to be pivotal whether through cooperation were able to capitalize on the trendlines, or whether we will give way or succumb to the headlines.

the question, i would be interested on your thoughts on can american leadership rise to that? >> absolutely we can. i mean, we've done it time and time again. i think the key to this, to make, you know, to get to the point where foreign policy were america's leadership in the world is accepted by a great majority of americans is that we are growing economically here first. and if you ask the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, or the current one, but the great threat for america is they would say the budget deficit. and the lack of economic opportunity for people. it is not that we are incapable of defending southeast asian which we have the capability of doing. we still have military superiority ideas, while under challenge, it's certainly second to none. and so if we started to grow again economically where instead

of having declines in median income which we have had, the first time i think in american history where we had a recession where we've had a decline in median income, instead of having had we had rising median income, with a middle class was more optimistic about their children's future and their future, i think it would be, not just an acceptance by and embrace of a more active, engaged american foreign policy. and i would do the world a whole lot of good. because but for us, who? i mean, who? who has the capability of providing security and stability in places that are being disrupted by all sorts of changes, cultural, religious, technological. the world is being disrupted, some in good ways and something really bad ways. and we are, but for us there is no source of stability that

allows the transmission to take place in a peaceful way. my hope is that people are much more optimistic about our role in the world because their life is getting better and that sustains a foreign policy that is more naturally suited for the united states, which is today still the only superpower in the world. and if we act accordingly i think we create a more prosperous world and a more secure world. >> right there. >> governor bush, you know, lately in the news some of the, some from the democrat side has start to question the focus of the political capital after the 2008 election. where the democrats focus their agenda after that election. you brought up the five areas because there are things like energy and regulation and immigration and tax and education. well, political reality limited

you to one or two, what would you focus on? >> well, i mean, the to these things, can we do it like so that you are successful and you can create a clever way to be more successful? can i change the question to do that? it doesn't work that way we are you're just not going -- you can't ignore these issues that come all of which need to be fixed. but i would say the two big things that would be the quickest way to jumpstart investment in their own country that creates higher wage jobs rather than lower wage jobs over a sustained period of time is an energy policy that celebrates this incredible revolution that has taken place that is something they should be marching band for rather than concerned about, which is the energy renaissance in her own country. and the innovation that is being applied each and every day to make it even more than beneficial. so i was a getting out of the

way of that and encouraging it to happen at a faster pace. and immigration reform which is something that if we could give people confidence we could control our border and shipped from a broken immigration system to one that allowed us to the first 250,000 or 300,001st round draft picks. the other issues become easier to fix because we are growing and it's not based on trying to do the up a smaller pie. so those would be the two things that i think are less politically, believe it or not, it would appear that way if you read the news, but those are the less politically challenging issues that allow us to get to a place to do with the bigger issues. now come in the interim the possibility of dealing with some of these issues on smaller scale everything that's what the republicans in congress will do. my guess is there will be efforts to reform corporate taxes, for example. might deal with the worldwide income challenge.

might deal with this reversion absurdity. if i could have an inversion absurdity and what ought to be the other way around to the absurdity ought to be that foreign companies are by u.s. businesses to relocate here. we should be the beneficiary of absurdity rather than suffering from it. and it could create the chance to bring back $2 trillion of cash, many of the companies in this room unsure has cash overseas where your shareholders would punish you. it might be that for your life expectancy might go to three, based on shortsighted policies. if you could go to a strategy that allowed us to bring back some of that money at a fixed rate, perhaps you could reduce the deficit and create an infrastructure fund that republicans and democrats would like, where you could match engine fund money and great half a trillion dollars of infrastructure money that could build -- now i'm just talking

out loud here, so just blue sky stuff. so what is going to tweak this or whatever, just caveat, please caveat this. if you had $500 billion you created 50 projects of national importance of infrastructure, don't you think that would lift the spirits of america? where bottlenecks would be resolved, where broadband could be brought to every school instead of taxing people more on their cell phones, which is the proposal that's in front of the fcc i believe right now. there are ways to solve problems in a bipartisan way, and get to the point with complexity of our tax code doesn't retard economic investment in our own country. that's a small thing. that should be done already. that should've been done, you know, three years ago. my guess is if the president wants to engage, that that's something republicans and he could agree on.

spent i think we have time for one last question. >> governor, maybe just a comment or two on the united states and china and how you see this playing out and what that relationship could evolve to spank it could evolve to a really ugly place, particularly if we pull back kind of in a permanent fashion. you know, the threat of that is there and we should be cognizant of it. it also could yield economic benefits if we are fully engaged across the board. i thought that hank paulson's efforts to create, and i think the obama administration continued to create constant dialogue by private sector as well as government, you know, secretary to secretary kind of arrangements where the

misunderstandings are lessened is hugely important. i've traveled a lot to china, and my last trip was last year. i actually didn't go this year. i went last year, and every meeting i had on the trip, i believe it was company was the second to last trip, it was right after the summit between president xi and president obama in palm springs, which by reading "the wall street journal," which is my newspaper over occurred -- >> didn't pay them to say that. >> it looked like it was pretty good summer. it looked like it worked out pretty good to me. generally the dialogue, every person not in that brought the fact that mrs. obama wasn't at the summit. it made no news here because, frankly, you know, so i've been thinking, she is imam. her children are in the white house for crying out loud. it's pretty hard existence.

maybe she had to do what we did for our kids in seventh or eighth grade. we probably had to do a science project within. there was normal motherly things that she had to do and that's the american way. but the chinese didn't do it that way. they viewed it as an insult to their very glamorous first lady. so when you have such big cultural differences, and if you expand in china you know this much better than me, you have to be completely immersed, completely engaged to eliminate the stupid thing from grading problems because there's going to be big thanks that are going to create problems. that they will disapprove our actions and we will disagree with him. i think about to be the first effort is to have full confidence of engagement. you can't ignore china as it moves, as it emerges as a world power.

and the second thing i would say that if you have reached the point where there's a level of trust that is high, not an expert in a where we stand today in that regard, the way to encourage china to take a leadership role in helping solve global problems. everything on their foreign policy can't be about some of the economic interests. that they need to play a constructive role in a lot of different ways that today they don't feel compelled to do. but i know for a fact retrenching will create misunderstandings that will create huge economic hardships for both sides. and perhaps as china grows militarily and asserts itself in the region, and something far worse than that. >> governor bush, we are out of time. we will let you get back home. i think this conversation and the one earlier with christine lagarde helped set up all the

conversations tomorrow, and appreciate very much you being here and we are grateful to you for helping us get launched. >> thank you for the invite. [applause] .. >> according to a rand corporation survey, reports of

military sex assaults are up 8%. today defense secretary chuck hagel holds a briefing on sexual assaults in the military. live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. ann compton, who recently retired as abc news white house correspondent, on her over 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. >> we sat and watched him, listen to a group of second graders go through their drill and andy card came in interrupted to the president and whispered to him. i was stunned. wrote it down in the reporters notebook, 9:07 a.m., nobody interrupts the president even in front of second graders. the president said he had to go and went into a side room. then we heard, we discovered that it was two planes down, two plane crashes in new york. ari fleischer came out to the pool. we were out in the parking lot outside of the school, said, stay right here.

the president will come talk to the pool. i said no, there are live cameras in the cafeteria. the president can speak there. he didn't want to scare the children. he went into the cafeteria. it was ap a parent terrorist attack. we must return to washington. we pushed into the plane, the door slammed and pentagon was hit. >> sunday night 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend, booktv. for 15 years the only television network devoted to non-fiction books and authors. brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on h. did, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> wednesday senator ted cruz, a member the armed services committee, spoke about the ukraine-russia conflict.

iran's nuclear program and the obama administration's foreign policy he was interviewed by "weekly standard" editor bill kristol at an event hosted by the foreign policy initiative. this is 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. welcome to the foreign policy initiative. welcome to a panel that should be at the heart of a issue for our conference today, a world in crisis for american leadership. great pleasure to welcome senator ted cruz for a conversation moderated by bill kristol who of course serves on foreign policy initiatives board of directors. in addition bill served previously in the executive branch as chief of staff to secretary of education william bennett, during the rage ban administration and to former vice president dan quayle. in 1995 he founded "the weekly standard," a magazine of which he is still the editor and i thank you so much, bill, for

joining us again and for moderating this conversation. >> thanks, chris. thanks senator cruz for joining us. very busy time on the hill. managed to get away for an hour. even in this hour god knows what his colleagues are doing up there in the lame-duck session. we'll have to end this very promptly so you can go back and keep an eye on the mischief. i don't think ted cruz needs much introduction. elected two years ago, very consequential first two years in the senate. before that attorney general of the state of texas. princeton college, harvard law school. won't hold those against him. and it is real pleasure to have senator cruz with us. member, active member of senate armed services committee. personally i moderated the panel with your soon to be colleague tom cotton and mike pompeii of the house and said earlier in my mind were very impressive because as new members they really grappled with national security issues, thought them through themselves.

same is very much true of ted cruz. a real pleasure to have you here for this discussion. we'll talk for half an hour, 45 minutes, take a few questions, let you get back there to the hill. there was controversy. i notice you put out a statement on the national defense bill which came out of committee. is supposed to come to the floor i guess tomorrow or tuesday or something like that. what's the story with that? >> well, thank you, bill and thank you to fpi for having me and thank you everyone for coming out. i will note you are referencing tom and mike. all three of us have ignominious distinction of being harvard lawyers which i think both of them can convey. when i was in west texas, people found out i went to harvard, immediate response would be i have a lot to apologize for. so with respect to the mdaa, armed services committee and senate worked hard on a bill. it is not perfect but a strong

bill that has a lot of good elements. one of the elements of the current draft of bill that i'm very proud of and i fought very hard for, concerned the victims of the terrorist attack at fort hood where nadal hassan murdered 14 people, injured 31. for a number of years now the administration has characterized that attack as workplace violence, instead of acknowledging it for what it was which was a terrorist attack by a soldier who was in communications with anwar al-awlaki, a known terrorist, asking about jihad against american soldiers and so the current draft of the the mda has an amendment that i authored and introduced to provide for the victims of that shooting should be eligible for the purple heart. that is something the

administration has resisted. very proud to see that amendment adopted. it was adopted unanimously. support i have a cross the aisle coming together despite resistance from the administration. senators on boeing sides of the aisle it was more than enough time and needed to recognize that. there were lots of other provisions in the mda that are good and worthwhile. what we have seen happen at end of the day is typical example what frustrates people with washington. we took a bill authorizing our defense budget. it has been hijacked into a lands bill and at the last minute some 70 odd different land provisions have been being tad on he, over 500 pages of legislation that was unfolded in the dark of night. doesn't have a darn thing to do with our defense budget, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. has to do with combination of number one, congressional pork projects for different people. number two, it takes, in the aggregate, north of half a

million acres. it restricts their access. takes it out of public use all together or restricts the access of over half a million acres. one of the things that i've done in the go years i've been in senate, it is moo view there is far too much land in this country that is restricted from the public, restricted from the american people using it and enjoying. so i have been pressing quite vigorously that we should be looking to move more and more of our federal land out of federal ownership and into private hands so that private, so people can live on it, people can use it, people can enjoy it. and yet because those bills haven't been able to get through on their merits, they're trying to attach it to must-pass legislation. i think it is abuse of process and it is wrong. a lot of senators who are concerned about it. >> so what do you think will happen? >> that is a good question. unfortunately, listen, there is

bipartisan blame for sticking this lands bill on there. there are pub you pubs and democrats in both the house and senate have their particular package or other's particular package, some of these to be clear, some of these provisions may well be good but they ought to be debated on and voted on and merits. some of them, there are provisions in this opening up for example, a copper mine in arizona. other provisions opening them up to development, to use that are beneficial. but as is so common on capitol hill, you see logrolling of some good provisions rolled in with a big mess. so i don't know. i mean, it is my intention to do what i can to block it because i think it is hijacking a bill that shouldn't be hijacked, whether, whether leadership is able to schedule it and force it through, that will depend on other moving parts right now. >> let's talk about the underlying issue there which you

worked on hard for two years on senate armed services committee which is the actual defense budget and defense programs. what is your view where we are, do we need more or different? what is the situation with the defense budget? >> we certainly need different. in all likelihood we need more. you see a consistency when you talk to our commanders, our generals, our admirals, that the impact of sequestration is having a serious dilly tear just effect on the ability to defend our nation. it is difficult sometimes to get a square answer to that because no one in this room will be surprised at the proposition that the defense budget is not immune from the world of congressional pork. there are some projects that have more to do with the particular member's home district than the need to defense the national security interests of this country?

there are provisions, we had couple hearings this year focused on, where i took the opportunity, we had one hearing in particular where secretary hagel, general dempsey were testifying and i asked them about the alternative fuels budget, $7 billion all together. one of the programs i focused on was the navy's algae fuel program, a program to fuel ships using algae. costs about $160 million. if we had used conventional fuel it would have cost about $40 million. so $120 million in my view wasted to see how much we can run ships based on algae. the air force had a wind farm that they built up in alaska. unfurther natalie they built it in an area where the wind doesn't blow. i raised these examples, in time of austerity and secretary hagel

and again dempsey talking about the burdens protecting our nation from limited resources, i said what about these programs? why was were we spending money on these programs? interesting, secretary hagel said those programs were quote, luxuries, that led to the obvious follow-up, if they are luxuries and money is so scarce and you are saying we're enganging national security of this country, have you considered eliminating those luxuries before you start forcibly retiring soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines? i'm sorry to say, the answer was no, we haven't considered that. it was a saddam hussein mission of the political process in washington in the senate armed services committee. i introduced an amendmentment to say that $7 billion alternative fuels budget should be needed if

provided for men and women of our military and provide for our national security needs. unfortunately voted down on straight party line. so the democratic majority voted that down. we need to have a serious examination of how money is being allocated. we need to be allocated far more money to actually defending this country, rather than to bureaucratic overhead, rather than to congressional pork. we need to look also, there is very good case to be made sequestration has begun to cut into the bone and that we should not be holding military spending hostage to efforts by the administration to jack up non-defense spending. >> republicans will control the committee next year. senator mccain presumably be chairman. you will be in the majority. >> i keep trying to encourage senator mccain to come out of his shell and express his views. [laughter]. >> i'm sure he appreciates that. he needs that a lot actually. you travel with him, right to

halifax for that conference just a couple weeks ago? >> just a couple weeks ago we had a bipartisan delegation went up. 60 nations were in halifax for a defense conference. we had defense ministers, foreign ministers, heads of state. it was really a terrific conference. >> any particular takeaway? >> what was striking was the unanimity of perspective among our allies. we did a number of i-r bilateral meetings in the margins, typical at these conferences. one after another the allies would look at us in as ton meshment and say, where is america -- astonishment. whatever the challenge was. whether it was standing up to isis. whether it was standing up to iran. whether it was standing up to russia and putin's aggressiveness. one after another of our allies would say, if america doesn't lead, the world is a heck of a lot more dangerous. it was striking, you could almost hit play and same message would come from one ally after

another after another. we need american leadership back in the world. >> as one of the first issues come up before senate armed services committee in the new congress, will be confirmation, i guess it isn't official yet, i expect it to be, nomination of ash carter to be defense secretary. do you have view on him, a, personally and b on whole question of leadership of defense department over the last six years and over two years you've been there. >> well it is not encouraging that in six years now we're on to our fourth secretary of defense, particularly at a time where the world has gotten more and more dangerous. the fact that this administration has been up able to keep steady leadership at the helm of the defense department is not good and it is even markedly worse.

detailing the political fecklessness of this administration. what is striking in the two accounts is both driven by political operatives out the white house and not having a serious focus on the national security interests of this country. and, to see, two defense secretaries write the book. don't any anybody would be surprised in another year, third defense secretary joined that cadre writing what i suspect would be a very similar book. that starts to be a pretty consistent. that is consistent pattern. mr. carter, i don't know him. i have a he has a good reputation. it was disquieting in the process to see several prominent candidates publicly take their name out of contention.

it is not a good thing when serious people are saying, heck no, i don't want to be secretary of defense. starts to suggest the way the administration is treating the defense department is not a pattern of behavior, behavior that inculcates strong serious leaders focused on defending this nation and now we need exactly that. it is my hope that that mr. carter demonstrates a seriousness of resolve, and willingness to speak the truth even if that truth may be inconvenient to political operatives in the white house. >> you were a critic of senator hagel. other important issues in a second. senator hagel was nominated and curious what was, oversight responsibilities, dealt with quite a lot over last two years. what was your sense how we did and how much ability to really

shape policy as opposed to one gathers one sort of overridden or told what to do by various white house aides? >> look in the process where he is stepping down i don't know there is a lot of value to join in piling on. and it is not necessarily easy to parse responsibility, by any means. this administration's foreign policy has been a manifest disaster. it is been, if you look across the globe, it is difficult to find a region the world that is not materially worse in the last six years. i mean, you know, seems the whole world is on fire right now. and there is a reason. the strategy of leading from behind doesn't work. that is a euphemism for not leading, for running away, for withdrawing and when america recedes from leadership in the

world that creates a vacuum. into that vacuum we've seen nations step like iran, like russia, like china, and that makes the world much, much more dangerous. and look secretary hagel was certainly part of that team. but as is secretary kerry, as was secretary clinton. but at the end of the day, you know, as harry truman famously observed the buck stops here. at the end of the day it is the president who is the commander-in-chief. it is the president who is responsible for laying out foreign policy. it is president who is responsible for leading the efforts to defend this country. and for six years, we have seen a feckless and ineffective foreign policy. because they're focused on the wrong things. in my view, our foreign policy should focus like a laser on protecting the vital national security interests of the united

states. that is the most consistent failing of the obama clinton foreign policy that it doesn't key off of as its touchstone our national security interests. instead, it seems to be focused on photo-ops and press releases and international law and international norms and almost everything except what is in the vital national security interests of the united states. >> i suppose at same time, you're considering ash carter's nomination, the senate will also be considering the question of iran sanctions. there will be two big foreign policy and defense policy issues front and center early on. where are you on -- they have announced a extension. what should be done. what can and should congress do? do you think congress can actually do something. >> i do think congress can and should lead on iran sanctions. i hope that is very high on our agenda in a new congress. in my view the threat of iran

acquiring nuclear weapons capability is the single gravest threat to u.s. national security across the globe. and the policy direction we're following right now is fool heart he hadly, fool hearted and catastrophically reckless. in my view, we are repeating the mistakes of the clinton administration with respect to north korea in the 1990s. the 1990s, the united states led the world, relaxing sanctions against north korea. billions of dollars flowed into north korea. they used that money to develop nuclear weapons. we are repeating that same mistake right down to the rather astonishing fact that the obama administration has recruited the very same person, defend did i sherman, who led the -- wendy

sherman, who led the failed north korean negotiations under the clinton administration to come in to be the lead negotiator with iran to repeat the same mistakes. and with respect to iran, i think we can expect the same outcome if we continue on this path but we can also, mistakes are qualitativelily higher. with north korea, kim jong-il, kim jong-un, they're radical, they're extreme but they're fundamentally meg low maniacal narcissists. both father and son. which means some degree of rational deterrence is possible. both father and son actually understood if they actually use ad nuclear weapon, that day their regime would end. the danger with iran and khomeni and mullahs, when you have leaders that are animated by religious extremism. by an embrace of a fanaticism that welcomes death and

glorifies suicide. the ordinary cost benefit analysis of deterrents doesn't play out the same way. in my view the odds are unacceptably high. if iran ever acquired a nuclear weapon, that it would use that nuclear weapon either in the skies of tel aviv or new york or los angeles. and, if iran were to use a nuclear weapon over tel aviv, it would murder vast numbers of palestinians and the danger is that the iranians would find those perfectly acceptable collateral consequences to further their stated be a objective of annihilating the nation of israel. look, nobody here knows the exact odds of that. you can't place a precise figure on that. it is unacceptably high in any measure, but if that doesn't happen, the alternative, if iran acquires nuclear weapons capability, we siahnouk clear arms race throughout the middle east. we see the other countries in

the middle east immediately going to get the same capability, to counteract it, we see proliferation throughout a region that has never been characterized by stability. we see iran strengthened as a hegemon in the region. the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism using its nuclear power to increase that role. that, bill, is the thank god scenario. that is the good outcome. and, yet the administration seems hell-bent on pursuing a foolhardy deal just for the sake of a deal. it is extraordinarily dangerous. it is my hope and belief, that the new senate sworn in you will see real leadership from the senate to prevent a bad deal from iran. >> i pose the question, how many democrats might join in such an effort? i mean, you have reputation,

well-deserved, being strong conservative, willing to fight for your own party and obama administration and democrats and you worked with democrats on several issues. worked with senator schummer on issue of iranian ambassador. senator gillibrand on questions of, military questions. do you think democrats might break, enough democrats might break with you? the obama administration indicates they want -- >> right. >> just curious as what do you expect over the next two, three, four months, in terms of your democratic colleagues? >> i am hopeful and optimistic on that front. i think foreign policy is one area that has particularly ripe opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. you know, in the last two years as you mentioned, i've been involved in a number about different pieces of legislation, with democrats and we've enjoyed significant success, actually have had, more legislation pass the senate as a freshman senator, than most of the other

senators. and, that is as a freshman senator in the minority party. so as you noted, some months ago, when iran named as their ambassador to the u.n. abolabi, a known terrorist, participated in holding americans hostage in 1979 and 1980. that was intended to be, it was in fact a slap in the face to america. folks in this town were wringing their hands what can we do to stop it? there is nothing we can do. well, we introduced legislation to prohibit known terrorists from receiving visas to come into this country and barred him from coming in. it earned support on the floor from senators as varied as chuck schumer, lindsey graham. when schumer was praising it on the senate floor i went up to him, chuck, you better be careful, lightning is going to strike you. it passed the house 100-0. the senate, 100-0 nothing.

passed house 435-0. and president obama signed it into law. in fact a couple weeks later he was at one of these black tie dinners in washington where politicians try to be funny and, and the president stood up and said, you know, couple weeks ago ted cruz introduced legislation and i just signed it into law. here is the picture of the signing ceremony. he put up a picture of him, the me and devil of hell freezing over. there are other examples. for example, senator bob menendez and i together introduced legislation providing for a $5 million reward from the state department for information leading to the capture of the terrorists who kidnapped and murdered natalie frankel, one of the three israeli teenagers captured and murdered. she was a u.s. citizen. that passed the senate unanimously. when it comes to iran, you foe

for a year from now, we had a bipartisan supermajority on kirk-menendez legislation. i'm a original sponsor of kirk-menendez. it would have passed many, many months ago, exempt for one thing, harry would not allow it to come up with a vote. we had the votes to pass it and in fact votes to beat a filibuster if only allowed to come up for a vote. the reason it didn't pass is because harry reid wouldn't let it happen. i am confident when the republican majority we'll see a vote on either kirk-menendez or other legislation focused on iran sanctions. now in my view kirk-menendez doesn't go nearly far enough. i mean i joined as an original cosponsor because i think there is value having a bipartisan repudiation of the foolhardy path the administration is on. but, the proper preach in my view would have a lot more stick and a lot less carrot when

dealing with nation like iran. i introduced my owner ran sanctions. kirk-menendez lays out sanctions in the future which sanctions would be reimposed. the legislation i introduced on my own would immediately reimpose sanctions. would ratchet them up to make them markedly more punitive. then lays out a clear path iran would follow to lift the sanctions. . .

i don't know what the new senate will do by do think there's real potential. i think a lot of democrats in the senate are uneasy about the past -- the path the administration is on with iran-contra figures we'll possibly for bipartisan cooperation. >> the lack of path perhaps with respect to putin and russia. isn't that the case? >> very much so. and i'll tell you it is striking, you look at, i don't think putin is a complicated man. he is a kgb for -- thug. he has said candidly in his you the greatest geopolitical disaster of modern times is the

dissolution of the soviet union. and in my view, putin is trying to do everything care to reassemble as much of the old soviet union as possible. and if there's one principle for time and the more it is the bullies in -- don't respect weakness and don't respect a piece and. a piece it doesn't work. you look at ukraine, for example. you know, ukraine, when putin invaded crimea, president obama said publicly, it seems to me his lawyers are telling him something different from my lawyers are telling me. that is utterly incoherent. this is not a debate between lawyers in a law school faculty lounge. >> i have quite a bit against lawyers to be very spent its

fundamental misunderstanding problem. this wasn't a question of international law. let's be clear. america undertook a treaty obligation to stand with ukraine to ukraine have world's third largest nuclear arsenal and willingly handed it over. gave it up and we sit in exchange for handing over your nukes, we will help defend the territorial integrity of ukraine. i guarantee you anyone else with nukes across the world, the looked at that and they're saying i ain't giving up mind. that didn't work out because suddenly when putin came into ukraine, europe and america made a little noise but didn't do much of anything. and outs and in terms of democrats. it's interesting some of the closed hearings of the hearing. the closer new talk about ukraine and the administration since witnesses come it is striking how there is virtually

a single senator on the entire committee who is supportive of what the administration is doing. those hearings basically consist of 20 some odd centers say one after the other, what on earth are you people doing? i mean, look, the ukrainians back in may i visited ukraine, visited with president poroshenko. we became editors of the joint session of congress, gave an incredible speech must have gotten 20 or 30 standing ovation from virtually every member of congress, republicans and democrats, house and senate. i think the most powerful on president poroshenko said is you cannot fight a war with like it's alone. we appreciate the blankets but the ukrainians are defending themselves with hunting rifles against russian tanks. and this doesn't make any sense to the people of ukraine, they

want to be with the west. they want to be with europe. they want to be with america. they are fighting to defend their own nation and not asking us to put americans in harm's way, but at a very minimum we ought to alter our treaty obligations and how provide them with the military aid so they can defend themselves. and the administration's response to this is incoherent. >> one more intimate to take a few questions. the country is not asking for americans to put boots on the ground august of israel. you've been critical of the administration's advance towards israel. talk about that but what again can congress, is congress doing some things in the next year or is it basically urging the president to change his mind to? >> look, i think it's a great deal congress can and should be with regard to israel, with regard to all of our allies. i think what we're going to see

the next two years is a formal assertive congress with regard to foreign policy. because the failures of this foreign policy are profoundly dangerous. when it comes to israel, and i'm sorry to say this is the most hostile administration to israel we've seen in modern times, and it has manifested over and over and over again. i remember some months back when israel was facing rocket fire from hamas, and the faa banned flights into israel. now, when that happened i went publicly and raised a few questions. i asked, as this administration just launched an economic boycott against the nation of israel? and i pointed out that the faa does not been flights into pakistan, india men, into

afghanistan -- into yemen and. it doesn't been flights into much of ukraine that even though of ukraine you will recall how just a couple of months earlier, separatists had used a missile to shoot down a commercial airliner. and yet much of you train to shut much of ukraine flights are allowed. and yet because one rocket have fallen harmlessly from one of the safest airports in the world, the faa had shut down every american flight into israel to end it had done so at the exact same time that john kerry arrived in the movies with $47 million for kosovo independence of hamas. while the administration was pressuring the israeli government to stop acting to take out the rockets, to take up the terror tunnels that were being used against them. now, there is power i think to

shining light, to asking questions. because within a few minutes of those questions being raised, the state department found themselves being asked those same questions repeatedly by members of the press. and shortly there after former new york mayor michael bloomberg got on a commercial airliner into to tel aviv flying through europe which was very beneficial, and the combination of the light and attention made the flight then indefensible. and within 36 hours the administration lifted it. listen, we saw just a few weeks ago jeffrey goldberg wrote a piece with some rather stunning revelations from the administration where you will recall that the most titillating was an unnamed senior white house adviser referring to prime minister netanyahu with an appetite for poultry mess. now, that got a lot of noise. in many ways i found that

particular news unsurprising because the treatment of the israeli government has long demonstrated that was the view of the administration to the israeli government. they simply said it out loud. the most damning part of that article was not the profane insults. the most damning part of that article was another quote by that same senior advisor, saying that they consider it a great victory that they have delayed israel from acting, vis-à-vis iran, so long that they could no longer prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons arsenal. now, that is a quote from a senior administration official in the white house who thinks it's a good thing that israel didn't act to stop a round from acquiring nuclear weapons arsenal, that that is extraordinarily dangerous. and i will mention one final

thing on this. the misguided iran deal not only is dangerous to the national security of this country but it also has resulted in the administration being almost oblivious to other national security threats. so it's about a year ago that the administration completely failed to perceive the threat, number one, of putin in getting ukraine. caught them completely by surprise. and likewise completely failed to perceive the threat of isis. indeed, the present same only invited him as the junior varsity. and you know, part of the recent comments are interesting in january of 2014, ben rhodes, deputy national security advisor told a group of activists that the nuclear deal with iran was going to be the quote obamacare

of the second term. this was going to be their singular accomplishment, nuclear deal with iran, and they would be presumably seated in the faculty lounges across the globe. and that is a focus on political objectives, political objectives frankly driven by naïveté, driven by a failure to perceive the manifest danger of a grand. but it also resulted in this administration not paying attention to the of the threats and being caught completely unaware. >> shuddering at the image of faculty lounges across the globe. i don't think it would be very good for america. why do we take a couple of questions and maybe i could has people who haven't had a chance to be called on before -- i will try to call on you now. over here. a couple of people have

questions. there's a microphone coming. >> senator, what's your take on what's happening in tunisia in terms of the arab spring in the recent elections and success of writing a constitution? and which is support more maybe aggressive are more support to tunisia in this endeavor as long as it stays on this course instead of just rhetoric that's coming in tunisia is doing great but nothing in terms of real support, especially economic? >> i think we need to be focused on standing by governments and leadership that will be allies s to america, that will stand with america. in the course of the arab spring one of the things, so-called arab spring, one of the things that was dismaying was seen the administration eager to stand

with, for example, the muslim brotherhood in egypt. toppling mubarak who needless to say was a flawed leader, and yet have been a pretty consistent ally of america. and by any measure the muslim brotherhood was not. in contrast, when you saw the potential for revolutionary change in iran, the administration state all but silent. when there was an opportunity for the people there to topple a regime that has the greatest anti-american animist, perhaps of any regime on the face of the planet. the focus i think should be standing with our allies and preventing radical jihadists from seizing power. i think that should dictate american foreign policy with regard to nations across the

globe. >> another question. over here. >> i am author of dark forces them the truth about what happened in benghazi. a quick question about the iran negotiations. there's been a lot of concern that the secretary of state will not submit that agreement to the senate. how do you propose to force them to do that? and have you looked into the caselaw, senator case of 1972 which doesn't that require the second of state to spend all documentation on all agreement, not just treaties, to the united states senate's look, it is a very good question. there was a meeting of congressional leadership with the president shortly after the election with the topic of iran came up, and the president was asked will you submit it to the senate? he said, we will brief you on it. but their attitude is it's sort

of an informational briefing rather than respecting the constitutional authority of the senate to ratify treaties. in my view, and this is actually an area where i hope there will be a potential for bipartisan agreement. i think there are both republicans and democrats who believe that any deal with iran needs to go through the senate. needs to be subject to scrutiny and oversight. there are a number of conversations ongoing right now about precisely the best mechanism to ensure that happens. i intend to do everything possible to prevent a bad deal with iran, and one of the key ways of doing so is forcing the administration to seek senate approval. >> didn't secretary kerry say, reassure -- i can't remember. of course congress will have a say on this.

>> and, you know, the second estate whenever be for something before he was against it. >> good point. >> sorry. >> i'm with the george mason chapter of the alexander hamilton society, and i just had a question about america playing a leading role in unmanned aircraft. using drones. do you think that, like, what is your take on increasing usage of unmanned aircraft and influences it might have on other nations building up their programs? and then kind of a second part to that question, do you think the u.s. should take the lead and push for international policy regarding the use of drones before other nations develop programs similar to our? >> look, it is a great question and it is one of the realities of change in warfare is drones

have changed how combat is conducted. it's changed our capacity. to our advantage to that and the risks to the. drones it seems to me are a tool. a tool the clinic in a beneficial impacts, in particular online as to project force without risking u.s. soldiers. but there are dangers as well. i am concerned, a, domestically about the use of drones here at home and the particular we had fairly lively disagreements with the administration a year ago asking very simple question about whether a drone can use force against a u.s. citizen who doesn't pose an imminent threat here at home? and the administration repeatedly and to my mind inexplicably refused to acknowledge the constitution prevents the federal government

from using a drone against a u.s. citizen at home if he or she doesn't pose an imminent threat. i think that's a real concern. there are civil liberties concerned to american citizens at home and privacy concerns that trouble me. there are also concerns from the perspective of national security. no administration has use of drones -- has used drones as aggressively as has the obama administration. and i'm worried about what i would call videogame warfare, that, that -- and part of this seems to derive from an ideological and somewhat irrational animus to guantánamo,

to detainee foreign terrorists, to interrogating them. and i have to say i find it a curious chain of reasoning, that the administration has expressed civil liberties concerns about to interrogating foreign terrorists. i don't quite understand the reasoning that says we respect the civil rights of a foreign terrorist so much that we're going to drop a bomb on you from the sky and blow you up, instead of apprehending you and interrogating you. i just, well, i've judges if i were that person i would much rather you respect my civil liberties a little less and not balmy. like that, but yet it's cleaner and more antiseptic. i worry from a national security respect of just how much intelligence we are losing if someone is, in fact, a series of terrorist, a terrorist leader. there are significant benefits if it's possible to apprehending

that individual and interrogating them, finding out who else there working, what plans are in place, who their contacts are. and if we are mistaken, intelligence can be mistaken if someone is not a terrorist and a true benefit to apprehending them and discovering that. when you send a drone out and just push a button, both of those benefits are lost. and so yes, i think we need to have a lot more thinking about the proper use of drones as a tool in warfare. look, i think if you have a terrorist and a distant location we can't get soldiers in easily to capture them and you got strong intelligence, that they are a series national security threat to the dreaded, yes, we should use of drones to take them out. but i do have real concerns about it being seen as so easy that it prevents us from doing the hard work of apprehending the bad guys, and preventing future terrorist attacks.

spent let me ask the final question. it's been a very unusual conference. we have the governor bobby jindal. the drones remind me of intelligence, reminded me of the debate of last year with the nsa. like pompeo ali on pretty much defended congress programs. you been more skeptical of them. how do you think, give us a bit of an are you on the but also how to think that works out? there's a summer deadline for reauthorization of the legislation. where do you think that ends up? >> you know, i think it is possible for congress to walk and chew gum at the same time. i think it is possible for us to respect and protect more than one value. we have a responsibility to protect the national security interests of this country. we also have a responsibility to protect the civil liberties of our citizens.

and i believe both are possible. one of the consistent failings of this administration i think is they repeatedly have failed to distinguish bad guys from good guys. so to give a couple of examples, when it comes to surveillance, they are sweeping in cell phone metadata. they've been sweeping in e-mail information from law-abiding citizens all across the country, and yet when you have real-life terrorist threats which take for example, the talus on, i major in the army communicating over e-mail -- nidal hasan. we had the committee tuition back and forth inquiring about the permissibility of jihad, it somehow they failed to connect the dots and stop the talus on from turning up the act of terrorism. likewise, bizarreness brothers

who committed the boston bombing. we knew in that instance the russians had told them, told us that they were radical islamist terrorist. we have got to interview him. they went back to chechnya, yet apparently when the elder brother posted on youtube i think it was a video calling for jihad, we were focused on that. and we didn't prevent that bombing. and one of the problems with that administration's approach that is sweeping in every law-abiding citizen, there's so much information, there's too much to distinguish good guys or bad guys. and i think we can maintain tools to protect the national security, to monitor and surveil foreign terrorists abroad while at the same time listen, you know, the expansion of big brother is always justified as

it will protect your security. and it is a perfectly normal american reaction to say we need to limit government power when it comes to u.s. senate. that's what the bill of rights is all about. i think we can protect both. unfortunately, this debate is often framed in black and white terms. you either monitor and surveil everything, or if you do nothing and remain blind and can't stop terrorism. i think, i'll give an example. i'm right now the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee and in that capacity we put out a series of reports on the lawlessness of this administration. two of those reports have focused on cases before the u.s. supreme court where the obama administration has argued for expanded federal power here and boy, this administration likes

to expand federal power. 22 k. support its are different expanded government power where the u.s. supreme court has unanimously rejected it. not closely divided but 9-zero, including justice sotomayor and justice kagan. president obama's appointed to one of them was a case out of maryland and this goes to the privacy point. where the obama justice department went before the supreme court and argued that law enforcement could place a gps on any american's car with no probable cause, no articulable submission and the fourth amendment says nothing about it. now, that is an astonishing proposition. that ought to scare the heck out of any american citizen that right now if you parked out on street the governmengovernmen t could put a gps on your car for no reason other than they don't like the color of your tie.

and get the obama justice department stood for the supreme court and argued that. thankfully the screen court unanimously 9-0 said that is not consistent with our bill of rights. the government doesn't have the power to monitor citizens. i think we can do both protect both eyes and think we have to do both. >> i think we got the headlines on this pelican ted cruz praises congress. can walk and chew gum at the same time. that would be impressive. thank you very much for joining us, senator cruz. [applause] >> thank you. >> in some professional sports leagues maintain films sell out, that games are not viewed in the game market. that's at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> according to a rand corporation survey, reports of military sex assaults are up 8%. today defense secretary chuck hagel holds a briefing on sexual assaults in the military. it's live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend with partner with time warner cable for a visit to waco, texas,. >> as we begin to receive the vital to be digitized to be saved, we begin turning over the sides of the 40 fives that we received. first off, gospel music does not just that was not widely in the white community. it would only be paid if the. but the flipside will be heard even less. what we discovered quickly was how many of the flipside were directly ready to the civil

rights movement. sensor very few databases and of them complete, all gospel music, didn't know that if we did know the shoe number of songs that have very overt songs like there ain't no segregation in heaven. at a time when possessing some of the songs much less sing it one of the very dangerous things in the deep south, there's a lot of things in the deep south but suing that sort of song out loud, that's a risk spent that texas ranger hall of fame was set up in 19,764,175th anniversary arrangers. and honors at this .30 rangers who have made major conjugations to the service or data lives under a rope circumstances. we have paintings of portraits of all those ranges. they really began with stephen f. austin. austin was for a successful with his rangers. they thought not only, managed to make the area reasonably safe

for settlement from indian raids but when the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence by staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to build their own army and build a strategy. and as a result texas became its own independent nation, the republic of texas for about 10 years. >> watch all of our events from waco saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv on sunday afternoon at 2 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> today, senate session is about to begin with a first round of confirmation and procedural votes on judicial nominations and energy department nominations at 10 eastern. another round of vote is scheduled for 1:45 p.m. following afternoon votes come west virginia democrat jay rockefeller who's been in the senate for 30 years will give his farewell speech. is retiring at the end of this

session. in the house members will be voting on defense programs and able to block the president's executive action on immigration. live coverage of the house is on c-span, and the senate is here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

today's opening prayer will be offered by dr. calvin v. frefnlg, pastor emeritus, community of christ church in washington, d.c. the guest chaplain: shall we pray. almighty god, we come as children in our father's house, asking that we may envision the same spirit of our founding fathers - that we are one nation under god. may this oneness of spirit and purpose prevail that our legislation will be seamless. the challenges we face are difficult, but we turn to you asking for wisdom to interpret rightly the signs of our times. through our prayer, o god, in

our search for understanding, we repeat our solemn oath of office: "so help me god." we remember those who have served in this chamber who soon will be leaving. grant to them peace of mind, joyful hearts, and hallowed memories, reminding them that when they were in the service of their fellow beings, they have been doing your work. in this advent season, may we be comforted by the words of isaiah 9:6: "the government shall be upon his shoulders and his name shall be called wonderful counselor, the almighty god, the everylasting fearnl, the prince of peace." may this council guide us as we do our work this day.

in the name of the prince of peace. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge f ahi janes. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 4, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john e. walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i

would yield to my friend, the senior senator -- the junior senator from the state of iowa. harass mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i would just hike to take this moment to introduce and thank our guest chaplain today. dr. calf vin french, pastor emeritus of the community of christ church here in washington where he served that congregation for 30 years before retiring. he has served as a pastor for 60 years of his life. considerably more, i would note, than my 40 years here in congress. dr. french is a native of iowa. he holds degrees from the university of iowa, graceton college, and drake university. in addition to his graduate studies at harvard and princeton. for the past 25 years, he has represented the parent church of his denomination in governmental

affairs, providing liaison service to the various agencies of the government as well as to the u.s. congress. i personally have known dr. french for -- well, i guess almost going on over 50 years now. when we first met in iowa, his now deceased wife was a great friend of my wife's. they were lawyers together in iowa. we were close family friends, and this just brings back so many fond memories of our times together in iowa and later on. i would note that dr. french's daughter and son-in-law -- his daughter kelsey and her husband vince, are with us and also his two granddaughters, and one is 13 years old today. so she got to be here to see her grandfather give the opening prayer of the united states

senate. i would also note that in 1975 when i first came to the house of representatives, i invited dr. french to give the opening prayer in the house. so now almost 40 years later, i am privileged to have had him here to give the closing prayer before i retire from the united states senate. dr. frefnlg, i wouldr. french, s someone i have admired for his commitment, not toll his church but the broader commitment he has had to humanity, to all that he has done to infuse an all-around spirit of kindness and generosity, a spirit of understanding that while we may be different in so many ways, we're all the same in our humanity. he is just one of the most wonderful human beings that i've had the privilege of knowing and being with in my lifetime.

and i say to my good friend, dr. calvin french, thank you. thank you for all your pass storal work -- pastoral work, ad thank you for all the guidance in my life. with that, i yield the floor. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will proceed to executive session with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 10:00 a.m., the senate will proceed to five roll call votes on franklin orr, joseph hezir, gregory stivers, joseph leeson, and lydia griggsby. mr. president, just a brief wo word, i was struck this morning by looking at the newspapers and

listening to the news. spending on health care in the united states grew in 2013 at the lowest rate since the federal government began tracking in 1960. it was the fifth straight year of exceptionally small increases in the closely watched indicator. the data defied critics who had said such low growth would not continue for long since the recession ended in 2009. health spending was up last year but only.6%. it is really -- but only 3.6%. it is really remarkable. this increase is the lowest on record going back to 1960. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to pay tribute today to a truly outstanding senator who will soon retire from this body after more than 30 years of public service. of course, i'm speaking of

senator mike johanns. mike has had a remarkable career. is a thhe's the only current mef this body, besides senator alex an did he, t -- senator alexando have served as senator, governor, and cabinet secretary. and yet for all he's accomplished, mike isn't the flashiest senator. he doesn't hold the most press conferences. he doesn't yell the loudest. you never have to worry about him knocking you over to get to a tv camera. but in his steady and determined style, mike has proven himself a remarkable -- remarkably successful member of this body. that was true in his successful battles to defend nebraska's rural communities against government overreach. it was true when he worked with the late-senator byrd to sync a national energy tax that threatened his constituents.

and it was true when he led the first successful legislative effort to revisit obamacare, working with many democrats to repeal the so-called 1099 provision. mike is never looking for drama. he's always aiming for results. so it didn't take long for people around here to recognize that mike was more than just another freshman in the minority. he became the guy you'd turn to if you wanted to get an amendment up to 60 votes. now, that's truly remarkable for a first-term senator. it's especially remarkable when you consider that mike came to the senate at a time when republicans were deep, deep in the minority. but then again, mike is a pretty remarkable guy. county commissioner, city councilman, mayor, governor, secretary of agriculture.

you name it, mike's done it. and that was before he even set foot in the senate. some think mike must have a secret that allows him to assemble bipartisan coalitions on conservative issues. but really i don't think it's much of a secret at all. mike works across the ism he work--mike works across the ais. he withou works in good faith. absolutely no one can outwork him. mike makes sure of that by getting up earlier than anyone else. he learned that growing up on a farm in northern iowa. he'd get up at 5:00 a.m. every day and then from age four he'd work, he'd shuffl shovel muck, d fill the hog tanks.

he'd even deliver piglets. mikalong with his strong catholc faith, these are the tax rates that still define him today. but they don't paint the whole picture. because mike johanns may be an accomplished man, he may be one of the smartest and most capable public servants you'll ever meet, but he's absolutely putty in the hand of his wife stephanie. she's always by his side. she's his best friend and they complement each other perfectly. their idea -- listen to this: their idea of a perfect night out is a night in together. they're both husker fans. and as mike put it, stef is

almost never in this a bad mood. she jumps out of bed. she has a smile on her face and she thinks this is bound to be the best day of her life. it's a personality perfectly suited, as you can imagine, to the campaign trail, which is a good thing because the two of them have logged tens of thousands of miles together campaigning across nebraska, usually in matching t-shirts. sometimes in a beat-up old corsica. they've got plenty of stories from the trail, too. but one from mike's run for goafgovernor stands out in particular. here's what happened. the johanns were driving home one evening after a long day of marching in parades in the hot sun. they passed a barn on the way, assuming it was a cattle sale. figured they'd drop in and press a few palms.

stephanie parked the car. mike opened the door. and dozen -- dozens of well-dressed nebraskans' eyes fell on them. the johanns, in their sweaty t sht-shirts had crashed a wegd. -- had crashed a wedding. they made the wes best of it. mike ended up dancing with the bride and of course he went on to win the election as well. months later, here's the scwel: months later at an inaugural ball in lincoln, two uninvited guests shoipped. i-- guests showed up. it was the bride and her husband. they had a simple message: you crashed our wedding, governor. now we're crashing your inaugural. soy the senior senator from arizona may like to brag about his hollywood cameo with vince

vaughan, but our colleagues know the truth: senator mike johanns is the original -- the original wedding crasher. mike and stephanie certainly have traveled a long and interesting road from when they first met while serving on the lancaster county board in the 1980's. when mike would draft up walking lists on an old type writer and they would go out and campaign door to door. a lot has changed. but one thing, mike isn't a democrat anymore, but much is the same too. mike still cares deeply about mental health issues. it's what brought him into politics in the first place. it's what he considers his crowning achievement as governor. and he still has loyal fans on staff who remember all of his efforts on the issue. it's prely a rare thing -- it's

really a rare thing, the loyalty mike inspires in people. this is a senator with staffers who have been with him for many years, some since his days in local politics. and here's what they all say about mike johanns. senator johanns is a man who cares. he cares about his family. he cares about the people who work for him. and he cares about his constituents. that's why he's given his cell phone number out to half of nebraska. he's made his mistakes, of course. as mayor of lincoln, he had to cancel halloween one year, but that's old news. to many nebraskans, he's still governor. to others, it's simply "mike." but whatever nebraskans call mike johanns, they respect him and i know they're going to miss

him, and so are we. at least retirement will give mike more time to do his hobby. we hear his a voracious window washer. he's even been known to pull out windex on his vacation. whatever he does we know this is a retirement well earned. he's dealt with bird flu, deficit reduction and about any issue you can think of over a long and distinguished career of public service. we all want to thank senator johanns for his loyal and dedicated service to the senate and to the people of nebraska. we wish mike and stephanie the best as they look forward to their next adventure together. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would join in the remarks of the distinguished republican leader but add to that stephanie is one of the

funniest people i have ever known. she has a great sense of humor. the republican leader laid out his perfectically -- speech perfectly stept this lady has a is sense of humor that is quite remarkable. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you. mr. president, just a word to both leaders. thank you so very much for your kind words. i also want to say thank you for mentioning my wife stephanie. this has been a remarkable partnership for a lot of years, and i could not do what i did without her. so thank you to senator

mcconnell. mr. leader, thank you. it's been an honor to serve in this body. i'll have more to say next week in my farewell speech, but i did not want this day to go by without expressing my appreciation. thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to

speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of energy, franklin m. orr, jr. of california to be under secretary for science. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, the holiday rush is underway and millions of americans are decorating, shopping and preparing to spend christmas, hanukkah and kwan disa with their loved ones. i want to draw attention to one woman from illinois who is doing something different. janet teasely is a registered nurse in chicago. she has volunteered to spend her holiday season in blear --

liberia treect -- treating patients with the potentially deadly ebola virus. when she told family of her plan she said she encountered resistance. one doctor told her half kiddingly he thought she was crazy. once he realized she was serious he told her he admired her. it is estimated nearly 16,000 people contracted the ebola virus. nearly 6,000 have died. today it is estimated that 7,000 people in liberia where janet teasely is volunteering have ebola. she is helping some of the neediest patients in that country that's been the hardest hit by this disease. although ebola has been contained so far here in the united states, the outbreak is still raging in parts of west africa. teasely is part of a wave of

u.s. health care workers recruited to stop the spread of the disease in africa. teasely got involved through america cares which is one of about 150 nonprofits working through our government to recruit workers nationwide. teasely has been a nurse for 17 years working in emergency care and infectious disease units most recently at holy cross hospital in chicago, a hospital which i know well in the inner city which serves some of the poorest families in our town. now she's going to spend eight weeks in buchanan, liberia, training and treating the patients. she explains -- quote -- "i came here for a purpose. i want to see it through. i honestly believe no man is an island. each man's death diminishes me. that's why i became a nurse." teasely's daughter danica miller, wasn't surprised by her mom. she said for leisure her mom doesn't read novels but pores over books about infectious

diseases. teasely is conscious of the increased risk she faces. many of those who have fallen ill have been health care workers herself. teasely is sure she is not going to be one of them. she says she is confident in herself and her team and she'll be able to come home safely. to stop this epidemic we need many things. first and foremost we need more people like nurse teasely. the federal government is seeking medical professionals to work in the 23 ebola treatment units being established in liberia. while the number of volunteers increased steadily this fall, it didn't drop off when there was confusion over quarantine policies for returning medical workers. with time that confusion seems to be settling. illinois brought its quarantine policy in line with the centers for disease control. with the scientifically grounded and carefully measured approach the hope is health care workers with the same passion, dedication and courage as nurse janet teasely will volunteer to help those in need. i met with tom free den,

director of the c.d.c. a couple of weeks ago. he and the members of the public health community maintain the way to contain the spread of ebola is to contain the virus at its source, to prepare for the possibility of ebola patients here in america and to help with containment overseas, the obama administration has requested $6.18 billion in emergency funding, including $1.83 billion for the c.d.c. i support the president. janet is a commendable part of thissest. i hope people will hear her story and support the united states' efforts in liberia. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: question now occurs on the orr nomination. is if there's no further debate, all those in faff say aye. all those opposed, say no. the