coming up on c-span2 senator bernie sanders talks about his campaign for president in 2016 read in an interview with republican candidate senator rand paul of kentucky followed by a sitdown with potential republican hopeful donald trump. vermont senator bernie sanders announced he will run for president to supporters and journalists this morning. although he is one of two independents in the u.s. senate he is running for president in the democratic rye. here are brief remarks he made from capitol hill on his campaign agenda. >> thank you all very very much for being out here today. let me make a brief comment and take a few questions.

who don't have a lot of a lot of time. i've got to get that they let me just say this. in this country today has more serious crises than at any time since the great depression of the 1930s. for most americans their reality is that they are working longer hours for lower wages and inflation adjusted income they are earning less money than they used to years ago and despite the huge increase in technology and productivity. all over this country than talking to people and they say how does that happen? i'm producing more but i'm working longer hours for lower wages. my kid can afford to go to college and i'm having a hard time affording health care. how does that happen? while it's exactly the same time 99% of all new income generated in this country is going to the top 1%. how does it happen that the top 1% owns almost as much wealth as

the bottom 90%? my conclusion is that type of economics is not only immoral, it's not only wrong, it's unsustainable. he can continue. we can't continue having a nation in which we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any nation on earth at the same time as we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. so that is the major issue. the major issue is how do we create an economy that works for all of our people and the second issued directly related is the fact that it's the result of the disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united. we now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. let's not kid ourselves. that is the reality right now. we have the coat brothers and other billionaire families now prepared to spend hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars in the election stood by the candidate of their choice often extreme right-wing candidates. the former chairman of the -- i don't believe -- creates a situation where cleaners on the critical process. right now in terms of issues we have a republican party with virtually few exceptions that does not even recognize the reality of climate change let alone that it is caused by human activity level on the scientific community tells us this is a major global environmental crisis taking place. i want to see this nation lead the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels. real unemployment in america is at 5 .5%.

if younger people looking for work or people working part time looking for full-time work real is 11%. we need to rebuild jobs and the best way to do that is to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure creating 30 million jobs. in my state of vermont throughout the country young people bright young able kids cannot afford to go to college and others are leaving school deeply in debt. in germany and countries around the world they understand that if you give intellectual capabilities to young people and give public colleges free that's my view as well. there are enormous issues facing this country. let me conclude by saying this. i have never run a negative ad in my life. i have been in many campaign to in many campaigns and you can ask the people of vermont and they will tell you bernie sanders has never run an negative ad. i believe that in a democracy

when elections are about a serious debate on serious issues not political gossip not making campaigns into soap operas. this is not the red socks versus the yankees. this is the debate over major issues facing the american people honest people. my conservative friends differ with me and that's fine. i would hope that i would ask for the media's help on this, i allow us to discuss the important issues facing the american people and let's not get hung up on political gossip or the other soap opera campaigns. thank you. >> essentially without giving a detailed proposal right now i regarded as unacceptable that you have major corporations in this country who make billions of dollars in profits who did not pay a nickel in federal income tax because among other things they stashed their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and other tax havens.

the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations have got to join the united states of america. they have got to maintain and respect their responsibility. their responsibilities or not to ship jobs to china. their responsibilities or not to avoid paying federal taxes so we need real tax reform this is the wealthiest people and corporations have to start paying your share fair in texas. [inaudible] >> i owe my brother an enormous him out. i grew up in a family that did not have a lot of money. my dad came to this country at the age of 17 dropped out of high school and never made any money. my mother graduated high school. we didn't have a lot of oaks in the house which my brother introduced me to a lot of my ideas. i hope my brother does very well in his race for parliament in the u.k.. yes sir.

[inaudible] >> absolutely not. let's be clear to say that people disagree on issues, that is what a debate is about. that is what democracy is about so certain i will be doing that. what i'm saying is, you know this better than i do turn off these ugly 30-second ads and vicious attacks against candidates. i think the american people are sick and tired of it. let me tell you i run vigorous campaigns. i think what is more fair game for my campaign is the role of money in politics. where are the complex of interest when the koch brothers are spending $900 million on this campaign making a lot of their money from fossil fuels and having a platform which is i

understand calls for the elimination of social security and medicare and medicaid ideas which are increasingly palpable to our republican colleagues. the issue is not the clinton foundation. that's a fair issue. the issue is the huge amount of money takes to run a campaign today and let me say this and i say this to you honestly. one of the hesitancy that i had about deciding whether to run or not was obviously money. i'm not going to get money from the coat rather some i'm not going to get money from billionaires. i have to raise my calm pain contributions by small individual contributions. i seriously want that man is not just bernie sanders. in this day and age whether it's possible for any candidate who is not a billionaire or not to hold onto the billionaire class to be able to run successful campaigns. if that is the case i want you all to recognize what a sad state of affairs that is for american democracy.

[inaudible] >> it's too early. we don't know the stances of all the issues but this is what i can tell you and maybe let me conclude on this. i voted against the war in iraq and not only did i vote against it i help lead the effort and many of the things i said back then turned out to be true. the stabilization in the nation. i am helping right now to lead the effort against the transpacific partnership is i believe in continuous trends of horrendous trade policy which have cost us millions of decent paying jobs. i helped lead the effort for the keystone pipeline because i don't think we should be -- in the world and we have to be vigorous in terms of transforming our energy systems. so those are some of my views and we will see where secretary clinton comes out.

with that i've got to get going. last question. [inaudible] >> not at all. we are in this race to win. you have got to understand i have asked people to understand my history. you are looking at a guy undisputably who has the most unusual political history of anybody in the united states congress. it's not only the longest-serving independent in the country, i got 1% of the vote. i don't know if i should be proud of that but my last election i got 71% of the votes. that is not the right question. the question is if you raise the issues on the hearts in the minds of the american people, if you try to put together a movement that says we have got to stand together as people and say this beautiful capital our country belongs to all of us and not the billionaire class that's not raising an issue. that's winning an election and that is what the american people want.

all right thank you very much. [applause] surely after senator sanders remarks hillary clinton the other declared democratic candidate for president tweeted this message. i agree with bernie, the focus must be on helping america's middle class. gop would hold them back. i welcome him to the race. he responded, thanks hillary clinton. looking forward to debating the big issues income inequality climate change, getting big money out of politics. but for most candidates began announcing their presidential runs wmru-tv in manchester new hampshire sat down with some of the hopefuls on the series called conversations with the candidates. we began with their interview with senator sanders followed by republican candidate senator rand paul of kentucky and potential republican candidate donald trump.

♪ >> good evening everyone and welcome to the latest in our conversation with the candidate series. i am josh mckelveen. our guests and dependent vermont senator bernie sanders. we will get to know senator sanders and where he stands on the key issues out there. i will ask the candidates questions then after that break we will have studio audience ask questions. before we start without let's get a quick look at the candidate's biography. bernie sanders was born in 1941 in brooklyn. he graduated from the university of chicago in 1964 and soon after he moved to vermont. sanders first elected position was mayor of burlington. the independent one that election by only 10 votes and i want to serve as mayor for four terms. in 1988 he launched his first run for the sole congressional seat for two years later sanders was elected to the first of eight terms in the house of

representatives and in 2006 he won a seat in the senate and was elected to a second term in 2012. 24 years of legislative experience is the longest-serving independent member of congress in the history of this country. he is focused his career in supporting a middle-class environment universal health care supporting veterans and is very outspoken about what he calls the influence of big money in politics. sanders is married with four children and seven grandchildren. with that out of the way let's introduce senator bernie sanders. it's great to see you. people ask a lot of candidates because you are independent, what party would you run in should you decide to run for president? >> one of the issues we are dealing with right now there is a lot of i think disappointment and disillusionment with both major political parties and i'm the longest-serving independent. on the other hand putting together a campaign in 50 states getting on the ballot requires a

lot of time energy and money. that is one of the issues we are wearing right now. >> is their preference? would you prefer to run as an independent? >> if i were billionaire --. >> the likelihood is that you would run as a democrat paid let's talk a little bit about some of the things of the benemann is. obviously the situation in baltimore and ice is garnering a lot of very good onions on how aggressive the u.s. should be providing -- >> let me start off by saying i was very disappointed by the letters of 47 of my republican colleagues trying to sabotage the effort of john kerry and the obama administration to reach an agreement with iran so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon but do it in a way that does not require a war. we have been in two wars over the last decade in iraq and afghanistan. i voted against the war in iraq.

i don't want to see another never-ending quagmire for troops in the middle east so i hope very much that agreement will in fact be developed. the second i will make is i get very concerned by countries like saudi arabia who literally border on iraq were isis is functioning and they say we want american troops on the ground. saudi arabia and people don't know this has the third largest defense budget in the world bigger than the u.k. or france. i think at the end of the day the war against isis is about a war for the soul of islam which is going to have to be won by the muslim nations themselves. we should support and we support air attacks and special operations. the day-to-day struggle will have to be won by the muslim countries themselves and i want to see them get more ball than

we are right now. >> so a more limited approach and no boots on the ground when it comes to isis. >> correct. >> the letters you are living to involve a nuclear program in iran. do you think the iran should we allow to have nuclear program? >> absolutely not. the region that is already extraordinarily unstable but it beat alternatives were negotiated i want to do everything i can to prevent the war and support the effort for negotiated process. >> would the think the u.s.'s role is in the middle east when it comes to these islamic terror groups that are growing in size and homegrown instances where they are able to recruit in the u.s.? >> i think we have got to organize and mobilize and support the nations in the region. i think along with the rest of the industrialized world we have

got to give them support in terms of airstrikes and special operations. we have been at war in iraq and afghanistan for well over a decade which is extraordinary for this country. the idea of getting involved in a never-ending war in that region disturbs me very much. at the end of the day the countries themselves with our support. >> you are aware that people will see that and say we are just burying our heads in the sand and by the time we did get aggressive with that they will be on our door and it will be too late. >> i don't feel that way. we have been in afghanistan and iraq and how did the war in iraq work out? i think it destabilize the entire region and cause many of the problems we are seeing right now. i don't think that the united states is going to win the war

for the souls of islam. the muslim countries themselves are going to have to win that war with our support but they are going to have to be -- >> how much does the immigration debate play a role in national security? >> i think that's primarily a separate issue. it's not a national security issue. >> while that issue is being debated in washington d.c. and what to do about it and a lot of people say we can't sustain immigration illegal or otherwise otherwise, where do you see this debate headed? >> i voted several years it a go against immigration bill because of the provisions that were in there which bothered me very much and that is right now real unemployment in this country is 11%. youth unemployment is 17%. african-american youth unemployment is higher than that. i don't think we should be

bringing in a lot of low-wage workers from other countries. god only knows we have a lot of people in this country you can do that work. on the other hand what i still believe absolutely as we'd need to develop a path for citizenship with the 11 or so million undocumented workers. that is we need to do. there needs to be a fix. the last bill that could support to get 1.5 william dollar provision amendment included which would provide money for you -- youth and employment opportunities which is a significant step toward. >> to beef up border security is that it prior to? >> absolutely. we have done that in a very significant way. >> will take a quick break and get your audience. stay with us and we will continue our studio audience conversation right after. stay with us. >> now conversations with the candidates continues.

>> welcome back to conversation with the candidates. our guest vermont senator bernie sanders. we will bring in questions from the audience and i will jump them but let's get to her first question coming from george sanders, no relation from claremont. >> thank you senator for being here. my question tonight is in addition to voting in each of our elections what can individual citizens do on an ongoing basis to hold this commerce markup above works dysfunction? >> thank you george. that is an extremely important question i think shared by millions of americans. what we have right now in this country is that congress which is heavily dominated a big-money interests and large large campaign to jupiter's. that's the sad reality. in the last term election the koch brothers another billionaire families and hundreds of billions of dollars. what do ordinary citizens do in

that context? number one we have got to address the issue of voter turnout. you are right in saying the very least we can do is vote but in the last election 63% of the mac and people didn't vote. 80% of young people did not vote rate low income people did not vote and billionaires -- that the first thing we have to do is create an environment which says american democracy is supposed to involve all and not just the people on top. second of all i think what we need to do is to develop a middle class agenda that says our main function in congress now is to stop the decline of the american middle class. it means raising the minimum wage in my view. it means creating millions of jobs that this country desperately needs. it means ask the wealthiest people to start paying their fair share in taxes. that is what the american people want and politicians in washington tell them thank you but no thank you your term is over.

>> thank you for the question. let's go to our next question from kathleen allen. >> thank you senator for being here. with the average social security yearly earned income of around $15,000 how do our seniors get the message accepted by politicians and the voters that we can't afford any cuts for social security and medicare programs whether by privatized nations are playing cuts? >> thank you so much for that question and i say that is the founder for the defending social seat 30 caucus in the senate page let me be very clear. if you see somebody getting up on tv and they say social security is going broke and we need to make cuts in social security they are simply not telling you the truth. today social security in this trust fund has $2.8 trillion to

pay out every benefit to every eligible american for the next 18 years. social security is not going broke and as you indicated the average person in the middle is getting $14,000 at their seniors in new hampshire vermont and in this country who are trying to get by on 11 12 $13,000. it is criminal, it is cruel to talk about cutting benefits for those people. i am leaving in the fight against efforts to cuts. what is the solution? 18 years we need longer than that. right now someone is making 10 million year and someone is making $118,000 a pair paying the same amount into the social security trust fund. he lifted that cap to $250,000 and you cannot only extend social security until 2060, you can expand -- i was at a press conference for the national committee for social security

and medicare. 2 million signatures from seniors all across this country don't cut social security. i'm the ranking member of the budget committee and i -- it's an enormously important issue. social security is life and death for so many for people. we have got to expand it and not cut it. >> he believes in a benefits for social security without means testing? >> means testing is a bad idea because develop the means is? it's not going there's. it's down to $4,050,000. we have an increase in poverty in this country among seniors. people are struggling to determine determine whether they are born to pay for their food their heat, their medicine and don't cut social security. >> was that our next question is when coming from field from franklin. >> senator if you are chosen as the next president of the united states that child on your

inauguration day would probably graduate from high school in the year 2035 and would probably retire from the workforce about the 2080s and i wonder if you could tell us your plans and policies that you would put in place to ensure that child is able to -- increasingly complex marketplace in the world. >> let me be very frank. my views are a little bit different than many of my colleagues. we treat children in this country a dismally. every american should be ashamed that we have a far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrial world. one out of five kids is living in poverty. second of all our childcare system is a disaster. people are finding it difficult

to find quality affordable childcare. thirdly if the kid graduates high school and wants to go to college as you indicated we live in a highly competitive world economy. why are we making it harder for kids to go to college because the cost of college is off-the-wall? and countries throughout the world scandinavia to know how much college costs? nail because they understand it is a good investment for the future of their country. i will introduce legislation shortly that will make public poll -- colleges and universities tuition free. i think it's a good thing for the american people and a good thing for our economy. making college affordable and the hour that so many people are struggling with huge student debt. all of this changes our national priorities. you don't spend more than you should on the military and say

to working families all of the country countries are your kids can go to college. i'm very much in favor of changing our priorities paying more attention to the needs of our young people. >> quickly, and we pay the bills? >> in the time we have wealth inequality with 99% of all new income today going to the top 1% i can think of many ways to fund higher education. >> the next question coming from social media coming from facebook. jim and beared of the strauss write over the years there has been a variety of labels placed on you not the least -- socialist. do you feel you are a socialist? >> if you ask me i'm a democratic socialist but it means that it makes sense to look at countries like denmark and norway in countries throughout europe who have accomplished some great things for working families. if you go to a country like denmark they don't have

discussions about whether or not people can afford health care. then up spending much less per-capita than we do. that's true all over the rest of the world. we are the only nation in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right and make up spending more than other countries. there is something to be learned from most countries. in terms of higher education is a huge issue in this country the cost of higher education. country after country throughout europe labor governments and social governments -- that make sense to me. and denmark do you know what the minimally just? the minimum wage is 20 bucks an hour not too bad. so i think as a nation we should learn from most countries providing health care to all people free college education and have a tax system which is fair and progressive.

if you have a lot of money we will ask you to pay your fair share so we can have a strong middle class. >> thank you for that question on facebook. bachelor studio audience and a question for my being brady. >> welcome senator. how can the clients i work with at a homeless shelter and soup kitchen be part of the political process when they are totally convinced that money buys campaigns and they are very discouraged and unfortunately i think it leads to the percentage that don't vote. >> that is an enormous one important question. i think it's not only homeless people and congratulations for your work taking care of the homeless and people in our society. it's not just homeless people that think that the deck is stacked against them. tens of millions of people who understand that while they may

have the right to vote billionaire spent hundreds of millions of dollars on politicians. changing that is not going to become easy and if i do run for president that is going to be a major mission. i would hope the political point of view whatever it may be, no american is happy when 63% of the people did not participate in the last election. what we need my view is to give hope to people and an agenda which speaks to their needs. what do low-income people need? they need decent paying jobs. so we have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. you have people in the state of vermont who make 25, $30,000 a year and don't get any overtime. you have women making 78 cents on the dollar compared to what men make tape that is what we have to change as well. in terms of the needs of low-income people we should pass

legislation to build low-income housing, low-income rental housing so people can live with dignity. we have a 45 million people in this country living in poverty. that's almost more than any time in the modern history of america and at the same time we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. that is the crisis we face and that has to change. >> let's go back to the audience another question from will andrews. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to be here. my question is does the united states consider i shall-ism not sending money overseas until we get our own va and social security taking care of? >> i'm hearing you say before you send billions more breathless take care of the needs of the american people. certainly as a former chairman of the veterans committee and the senate who worked in a bipartisan way to pass the trend

legislation which will significantly improve health care for our veterans clearly we need to take care of the people in need in this country. but i would also say we can't tear your heads in the sand. his dangerous world out there. i do not support sending american combat troops into iraq to take on the isis. that is primarily the job of saudi arabia qatar, the uae and both countries but on the other hand we can't be isolationist. but what we are really talking about is changing national priorities taking care of those people who are hurting and not giving more tax breaks to corporations who stash their money in the cayman islands. but let's get back to the question. why do we ignore the

middle-class and provide for the billionaire class and the power they have politically? that is what we have got to change. >> another question from the audience. >> thank you. senator sanders as president would you pursue a carbon tax to make -- and to give much-needed dollars to infrastructure projects? >> the answer is that is what i've done along with senator barbara boxer. she and i several years ago introduced the first carbon tax in the history of the united states congress. look let me touch on an issue that i know is controversial. i happen to believe and agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who tell us that climate change is real it is caused by human activity. it is causing devastating problems and if we do not get our act together the situation

will only get worse for years to come. i believe that we need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. it's unacceptable to me that you have coal companies and oil companies putting forth more of this carbon and not paying the cost. so the answer is yes. >> just to be clear when you talk about climate change being real in your opinion how far should the government go to deal with that? >> i agree with the role of the scientific community that climate change is the major environmental crisis facing us. there are estimating in this country the planet will become five to 10 degrees fahrenheit warmer leading to floods and weather disturbances coastal communities under water.

i think the government has got to be very bold along with governments throughout the world not only in america but it's an internet problem in transforming our energy system. it's a huge issue. >> let's go to another social media question coming from jeffrey flanders. he writes quote a couple of states legalizing marijuana and many considering it where you stand on it nationwide legalization of marijuana? >> that was a joke. it was more than one or two. it wasn't an issue that we felt was behind it in smoking marijuana. i am also on legislation and have cosponsored legislation dealing with medical marijuana. colorado is the first in the country to legalize marijuana and i want to take a good look at the pluses and minuses of

that. >> we have a couple of minutes. let's go back to the studio audience coming from gabe. >> welcome to beautiful downtown manchester. dealing with alzheimer's and other dementias that are rising alarmingly research prevents these debilitating diseases is definitely an adequate. would you support investing in high levels of funding for research to curb future costs that could bankrupt medicare and medicaid? >> the answer is absolutely and you are right. the projection is the cost of dealing with climate is going to be many tens of billions of dollars. it makes a lot of sense from a human point of view as well as a protective point you to try to find cures to the terrible illness. i certainly would have supported.

>> thank you senator and that's all the time we have right now. next in our conversation with the candidates as republican donald trump is going to ban the program. while we are signing up for television tonight the conversation with senator sanders will continue on line as well as their mobile app. check this out there. we will have 30 more minutes of questions to the studio audience. thanks very much for watching. have a great night. >> at evening everyone and welcome to our conversation with the candidates series. i am josh mckelveen and a guest six of kentucky. tonight we are going to be getting to know senator paul and where you stand on the key issues. starting the program asking the candidate questions and have the studio audience join into as questions in a town hall style format. if a restore without let's get a quick look at the candidate's biography. grandpa was born in pittsburgh in 1963. u.s. senator from kentucky is

the son of former presidential candidate and longtime texas congressman ron paul did like his father is a doctor who graduated from university school of medicine. rand paul was a practicing ophthalmologist for 17 years and founded an organization that provided i examine surgeries for the needy. he was elected to the u.s. senate in 2010 the vocal advocate for a balanced budget amendment and believes the country's debt is a major threat. he has been married for 24 years and has three sons. >> with that out of the way it's good to see you. welcome to the program. let's talk about 2016. seems like at this point the decisions are all made up. how close are you? >> very close. i've been traveling the country for the last two -- you're too trying to spread a message that is maybe not quite the same as people have heard from republican candidates to engage whether or not the message has resonated and whether the message has enough of a constituency to have a chance. >> poll numbers suggest that you

do have quite a bit of supported new hampshire as did your dad. do you think that there is a feeling there because how do you branch that out and bring more people into the conversation? >> i actually think the message i'm trying to put forward has not only a constituency in the republican party but a constituency among independents and some democrats. i'm one of the few candidates who is not only fiscally conservative and may be as conservative as they come in the senate but also reached out and worked with cory booker on criminal justice and kirsten gillibrand on sexual assault. it's a mixture of issues where people are. a lot of people are deeply republican are deeply democrat. some people say apparently of people are common. we look at statistics in new hampshire may be one third in new hampshire call themselves independent. >> a lot of people attached to

the word libertarian when they talk about you but the definition varies a little bit. once you consider yourself a libertarian and two what is a libertarian? >> i like to use the word libertarian-ish. i'm a conservative republican but i'm also libertarian-ish-ish in the sense that i believe to the right and privacy and i think the government has no right to be looking at here records. unless it's a court order with your name on it a probable cause and signed by its judge. have a great deal of hurt objection to this bulk collection of your phonecalls. i don't know mr. verizon great mr. verizon has no right to release my phone records. if you want my phone records that the individual's name on it and what papers you want you should have probable cause. if a great deal of objection to privacy issues. also criminal justice issues. i'm one of those that i think

can attract beyond the republican party do not offend people and republican party. i think it to make a mistake with marijuana should go to jail and i don't think a kid that makes a mistake with marijuana should go to jail for 55 years. "rolling stone" had a series and they did an article not too long ago. a kid named timothy tyler was caught with lsd when he was 23 23 years ago. he is 46 now and he will spend the rest of his life in prison for lsd. i don't approve of that and i think lsd is bad and marijuana is bad for you but i won't put you in jail when these horrendous things happening when people are put in jail for per decade after decade but if you look at the statistics in jail disproportionately black, disproportionally spanish, disproportionately poor and you say is there racism involved? there's an inadvertent racial outcome that is coming from this but it is real. if you look at surveys of white and black drug use the whites

are using just -- drugs just as much as blacks. the way we do our policing police happen to show up in cities and urban environments so it adds up over time. we have a real problem with the criminal justice system. issues like this go beyond the traditional rowboat -- republican dealing. >> a recent letters that republicans sent a letter that you put your name on them later explained that you did this for all intensive purposes to help president obama. it raised a lot of eyebrows. explain what that meant. >> i'm a stickler for the constitution. the constitution gave the power to write laws to congress in execute the laws. i have voted for sanctions against iran with the hope we would negotiate. i don't want war. i think worse of tragedy and a

last resort. we shouldn't be eager for war. i also don't want iran that is nuclear that will threaten our neighbors as well as our allies. i voted for sanctions and the sanctions have been passed by congress. they are law. the president can sign separate agreement with iran and undo the law. yes ask for permission. the recently separated the colleague of branches is so they be checks and balances. no more branch of government would be too strong. we have had these debates with the present on whether or not you can amend the health care law whether or not you can amend the immigration law. now we can undo sanctions without our approval and also we have this debate over war. think war is the most important vote in a legislator ever makes in the constitution is very clear that war is to be initiated or declared by congress. the president agreed with me. he said no president should unilaterally go to war without

the authority of congress. that is what the constitution says and so i think the letter simply furthers what i believe that undo sanctions it will have to come back to congress and be voted on. >> i want to get your view on this and take a short break in a moment but not wanting something in preventing something are two entirely different things when it comes to a nuclear iran. how far do you think this country should go to keep that from happening? >> i think in order for diplomacy to work there has to be the ultimate threat of using force and so i think the iranians need to know that we are serious with this. the sanctions have worked and i've seen the sanctions as a way to not have war. i do honestly want there to be an agreement. when i said i wanted to strengthen the hand some people said how can that be? i do want a negotiated settlement but at the same time i don't want to see a nuclear

iran that becomes a menace to the world. >> center thank you. after quick break will bring our studio audience into the conversation so stay with us. we will be right back. >> now conversation with the candidates continues. >> welcome back to our conversation with a the candidates. tonight's guest once again kentucky senator rand paul and it's time to ring questions from our audience. i will jump in. let's get right to. her first question coming from lauren. >> what would you do differently than the current administration is doing with isis? how do you stop a terrorist group whose main goal is to destroy as much as possible and ultimately bring about mass destruction? >> i think only go to war we have to go to war in an orderly fashion and according to the constitution. the way the constitution intended was the legislature would initiate war and declare war and to emphasize his prerogative it is. right now we have been at war

for months and this president is doing this on as him. even when the present ran for office in 2007 he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. that is what the constitution says. i don't think we are doing it in the appropriate fashion create the president in august of last year came before joint session of congress and laid out the reason why i think isis is a military threat and i do think we have to respond militarily. i think we need debate over when america needs to be involved and where america needs to be involved for me it becomes a very personal debate. i have three teenage boys. i debate as if i were going to be sending one of them to war so it's a very important thing to me. with regard to isis what persuades me that we should do something is a very quickly took mosul a city with 1.5 million people and worth in eight days

march of erbil where we have the consulate. i've been critical of hillary clinton for not defending the consulate in benghazi and i think it would be inexcusable for us to do the same thing under our watch. we should defend the embassy in baghdad. it's time to do something militarily. i do tell people though that i am disappointed that we are fighting against our own weapons. many of the weapons that were sent into the syrian civil war simply went to isis almost without any hesitation. some of them were given directly and not inadvertently to isis. i warned against this and voted against sending those weapons into the syrian civil war because the irony is we will be back to find her own weapons within a year. a year after he voted against giving weapons to the syrian rebels sure enough now we are forced to go back over there and fight against our own weapons. there are times when intervention makes things worse. i think their intervention in the syrian war made things

worse. i think hillary's swore in libya made things worse. if there's one thing that is true in the middle east is that when we have toppled a secular dictator we have gotten chaos and we have gotten the rise of radical islam. libya is an utter disaster. there jihadist running amok in libya. gadhafi was a secular dictator. he actually suppressed radical islam. he is no great jeffersonian diplomat that he kept peace and order and he didn't allow radical islam. when he was toppled its worse for us now. the same thing in syria. assad is a horrible dictator who gases his own people but when president obama wanted to bomb aside i oppose that also. if we would have dislodged assad i think isis that they would be in damascus. i'm somebody who is not eager for intervention. i will intervene when an american interest is at stake

and when we have to think we'd have a strong military and strong military might to deter that and we should use it wisely and reluctantly and that is what reagan meant when he said these through strength. >> thanks for the question. we will go to another one for our audience coming from dean. >> senator paul you addressed earlier could you please address your priorities when you are confronted with an issue regarding the balance between individual sovereignty and government provided security such as law enforcement or national defense or any other contexts as well. >> mr. franklin said those who give up their liberty for security will have neither and i believe that. i don't think it is the trade-off that we should have to give up liberty to give security that i think we can capture

deter and protect our nation from terrorists and use the constitution to do it. the reason i'm hesitant to allow blanket surveillance or allow anyplace in america to grab people by the warrant bazzel we fought the revolution over. one of the things we objected to the british and the british soldiers providing their own warrants. under the patriot act we allow that in our country. fbi agents can write their own words about a judge signing the warrant. i think that's wrong that i want to have a separation between the police and the judge. why? because people in government aren't all perfect angels. i know you wouldn't do anything wrong but the reason i want you to call a judge is there was a time in our history particularly in the south were you might have had people who decided they want to go in the house because of

black person lives there or any jewish person lives there. i want there to be a separation between police and the judiciary so some sort of bias or ill feeling that someone makes it with an irrational hatred for some people could not occur with the person giving a warrant and writing their own warrant. there's a check and a balance. you have to call a judge on the phone. if someone in manchester today or tonight is accused of rape and they are behind the door you can go into their house and you are pretty sure they are in their police will stand outside the house, call a judge on the phone and you will get a judge's permission to go in. we need that separation of power power. why these checks and balances are so important to prevent abuse or bias. >> thank you very much. another question from the audience from barbershops. >> will you fix steps in corrupting influence of money in politics and if so specifically what would those reforms the?

>> i think it's a good idea and we have tried in the past to do campaign finance reform. it's been struck down by the court as an infringement on the right of people to buy a speech. hate speech is a type of speech. i think there's a way that is consistent with the constitution that you could limit the effect of special interests. money has too much influence in washington. one way of trying to fix fix it that i think would pass muster with the supreme court that i've been thinking about if only give out contracts let's say you come to government and we give you a bill in dollar contract, when you sign a contract i think you could put limitations on in the contract that says you agree to limitations on using any of that money to lobby government for more money. the thing that makes me the messages you have a go in dollars a contractor gets it really in dollars they take our lobbyist and come back and ask us for more and it's a vicious

cycle. i think what we do is we wouldn't preemptively say you can't do this. we say you can contract this. there is a precedent for this. if you are an active duty military you are not allowed to run for office and military. if you're a federal employee the hatch act says you can't campaign. we are to have the limitations you voluntarily agreed to. by joining the military i signed a contract with them and i'm limited in what i can do campaign wise the same way the hatch act limits federal employees i think we should do it for contractors. the only way you would ever give it -- get a past is you have to include business contractors in unions. it does were limited equally and you had it built into the contract so there's a government union that has 2 million people working porter 500,000 people they would have the same restriction that a big contractor would have to get both parties to agree to it.

i am in favor of doing something. >> thank you senator. let's go back to the audience the question coming from mike. >> senator paul good afternoon. as president how would your address our energy economic and climate security? >> i think the main thing we need to do is to become energy independent and one of the good things that have come from a technical logical advances we have now is we are getting to the point where we can export oil. in the 1970s we pass a law with opec and the embargo that we would have no export of oil. now we have so much and so much natural gas but i think we are the greatest may be the largest producer in the world. i think we have come a long way towards energy independence. i think you can have both a clean environment and have economic growth but i think you have to have a balance of both.

i have been one to say the epa the balance has shifted to one direction we need or balance in the environment and a robust economy. i will give an example of how sometimes we have gone too far. the clean water act says you can't discharge pollutants into a navigable stream. i agree with that. i would have voted for that but somewhere along the way over 40 years of rule after rule after rule we have now defined dirt as a pollutant in my backyard in a stream and that is wrong. the government is wasting so much time harassing her property owners they're not doing what they should do. someone is dumping benzene in the ohio river. put them in jail that don't come to my backyard because there leads that have plaque on the bottom of them to determine if my yard is a wetland and i'm not

making this up. ken lucas from southern mississippi went to jail, 70 years old 10 years in jail and his crime was a conspiracy to violate the clean water act rate he was putting clean dirt on his own land to raise the elevation. so i think we are doing better as far as energy defense goes. >> how much of an issue to believe the topic of climate change should we invest? >> i think there needs to be a balance and we shouldn't be alarmist about things. we have rules and this is where everything in washington gets dumbed down. you read either for the environment or you are against the environment. you can be with the environment and the economy at the same time. when we look at the environment and this is a great question and jon stossel has done this question on this program where he asks do you think the environment is cleaner now or cleaner in 1960 and they're like oh my goodness the polar bears are drowning.

it's got to be a lot worse now. it's a lot better. have you ever seen pictures of pittsburgh in 1919? i'm sure manchester in 1919 the walkout at noon in pittsburgh in 1919 and a white shirt would be completely covered in soot. we are doing better than we have ever done. there have been rules on emissions for smokestacks probably since the 30s but really since the 1960s. it everything that comes out of coal-fired smokestack has gotten better over the last 40 years. sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide have been gradually trending down. writing people have gone too far on the other side is they want to make the rules so low that you have no business. right now 40% of our electricity comes from coal. i come from a coal producing state so i have a little bit of interest in this but we shouldn't just shot them all down but have reasonable rules where we can still have electricity and the only other

thing i tell people is to think about the balance of this. the countries that produce 10 largest amounts of electricity versus the countries that produce the least amount of electricity the top 10 live 25 years longer than the bottom 10. what we need to do is not be so alarmist that we don't want pollution in our cars when we tried it out with the environment and civilization. >> thank you senator and thank you for the question. we will switch it up and go to a social media question coming from facebook. ron gardner asked where do you stand on gun control? >> i think i'm control is a freedom issue. it's in the bill of rights. we have to change the bill of rights if we want to have gun control. i think we have had some terrible tragedies and very emotional debate about this and i can understand. if my kids were shot at school i

would be very emotional too so i understand the emotions of it but the thing is we do have a problem. there is mental illness or spiritual illness young teenage boys primarily committing these sorts of crimes. the interesting thing you will see about everyone of these crimes not one of them happened at a police station. these kids are crazy. they are mentally ill or whatever's wrong with them but they don't try to shoot 20 policemen. the policeman will shoot back so what we have done in our society as we have put a sign on all of our school saying there were no weapons here. much like a sign to a crazy person, and shoot our kids. we should put aside every school saying we have an armed security guard where the you too were killed or our teachers will have a gun locked in their desk. i think we should send the other message to crazy kids that you don't get a free shooting spree if you show up in school but above and beyond that the second amendment is in our bill of rights and the people want to change the constitution i'm a

big believer in the freedom in and the right to bear arms. >> we have to limit the answers to a couple of minutes. >> senator do you think the hobby lobby decision was a net win or loss for liberty? >> you don't have to shorten the answer. the thing is is that religious liberty is important. it's very important to me and it was a bizarre case and that people were trying to insist somehow, think they were 50 forms of birth control available at hobby lobby. a lot of these decisions should be outside of the governmental ground. ..

good evening everyone and

welcome. are guest this evening is real estate developer donald trump. i'll be asking the candidate some questions and then after the break will have our student audience studio audience ask questions. let's look at his biography. he went to the school of business at the university of pennsylvania. he continued his family business in his name headlines places around the world. he has luxury properties including golf courses which are his passion. many people know him best as the

producer and star of the apprentice and the role in the ms. usa pageant. he received a star on the hollywood park walk of fame. he is married and resides with his wife. this week you announced you are officially exploring the presidential candidacy which is a step towards this. lotta people are asking why. >> you're right, and i'm giving up a lot. i love my life. i've building a beautiful building in transylvania avenue. we have a great plan it's going to be a a wonderful thing. we are doing so many wonderful things all over the world. i'm giving up a tremendous amount of things that i love doing to do this but our

country is in serious trouble. we are being led by people who are grossly incompetent or don't knew what they are doing. i look what's happening with the debt deals i wrote a book about deals. we have to bring back our jobs and money so we can save social security d, save medicare and medicaid. every other candidate is going to cut medicare and cut medicaid and it's unfair. we take back the money they are stealing from us including china and mexico. if you look at the wall street journal they talk about mexico taking jobs from tennessee because mexico has incentives and we give them incentives to move to mexico. on top of that, the border is a disaster, how people are just flowing into the country through mexico.

we have to and that. it's tough business and it has to be done because our country is going to hell and politicians, i've dealt with them all my life and get along with them well they're all talk and no action and that's why i'm doing this. >> what would you do differently in the white house that others haven't in the past? >> number one when was the last time you heard something good about our country? we never have a victory. we used to have victory but we never have victories anymore. a year ago china became the number one economic power in the world. this was unheard of ten years ago. people would've laughed at you it was on possible impossible. they're taking our jobs, they

taking our money. where building their country. look at apple. they may get all their product made in china. china is the beneficiary of that. i would turn that around and if you look at what other countries are doing, china japan, they are cutting currencies and devaluing their currency that all of the sudden you can't buy certain things that are made there because they're being assembled here in the us. there are so many things we could do to make our country rich again and make our country great

again. >> will talk more about the economy but i want to talk about foreign policy. you said if you were president _ what makes you qualified to make these decisions? >> i don't want to say what i'm going to do. the president gets up and says were going to attack them in two weeks. we say in two weeks we expect to go on attack with isis. were going to drop bombs and go here and goat there. what is this? were telling them what were doing. why would we tell them what were doing. doing. we tell them are going to attack at a certain day and time and we go and hurt other people instead of them. i think it's very bad. i think when you are fighting you're supposed to fight and not broadcast it for political

reasons all over the world. i can only say this. i would be very death on isis and they would come to the table very quickly. that whole situation would end. what's going on in the middle middle east is a travesty. i did say when you broke up a rack if you go after them take the oil. what are we doing? we spend $1.5 trillion in iraq thousands of lives lost people don't talk about them and the vets in new hampshire. they don't treat them properly. by the way new hampshire you don't even have a hospital dedicated to that. you have to go to another state.

there are so many things. were going to leave iraq and iran and by the way aranda is now taking over -- >> is there any way you would engage in diplomatic talks with iran about their nuclear weapons. >> i'll tell you this iran cannot have nuclear weapons. we have to preserve ourselves and we have to preserve israel. they cannot have nuclear weapons. there were two countries of equal strength that fought for decades and decades. it was equal. we obliterated iraq and now iran is taking over iraq. i said that five or six years ago and i said it consistently. >> were going to take a quick break and be back with our studio audience.

>> welcome back to our conversation with the canada, donald candidate, donald trump. it's time to bring in the audience for questions. let's get right to it with our first question. >> mr. trump your business experience is well known. how do you take that and move to a place where you will have a lot of differing opinions and get these folks to work with you? >> it's about leadership and you have to get people in the room and learn to lead. obama can't get along with netanyahu or the republicans or the democrats and so he starts signing executive orders because i can't do it, i can't get along with anybody. that will end up in courts for years and years. if they do the right thing it will be totally unconstitutional what he's done.

he doesn't lead. i don't think he works very hard, frankly. i don't. i don't think he works hard. people in the senate never hear from him even in his own party. you have to be able to lead and work hard. one little thing that took place on thursday that i thought was horrible it wasn't that significant but it was significant in terms of what it represents. the president goes to california on air force one. his wife goes the same day around the same time. they're both going to burbank going to the same studio and they go in separate planes. and they say well that was how it was scheduled. scheduled. i can guarantee you alan did generous and jimmy kamel would have come to the white house or they could've at least taken one plane. but they take two massive boeing planes and it's the same location and the same city.

so that's the way the country runs. whether it's that or five billion-dollar websites for obama care that don't work properly and still don't work properly. there are so many things you could do jim $125 billion in waste that they can find. somebody like me would do a great job. believe me. i'm an outsider and the republicans and the insiders don't like that because they want to have the politicians. i've dealt with politicians all my life. they are really easy for people like me. look they're all there all talk they are no action. what they are good at is self-preservation. they preserve their own job. that's all they want but they don't help us. it's about time we had an outsider going in and i could do one hell of a job. if i a job. if i decide to run you will be very happy. >> thank you for your question.

>> i have to take care of my household and keep us out of debt. why doesn't the government have the same idea? how can you get us closer to being out of debt in the u.s.? >> our money is being drained by foreign country. every deal we make is a bad deal and these are massive deals. in a way your situation is tougher. if you had so many as a president who knew what he was doing, that's easier then straightening out your situation. but i would right now the big situation and your situation would follow. in a country that's a country that's in trouble, it's very hard for the people to do well. when the problems are solved _ china is draining us and japan is going to start draining us again because they started

cutting their currency like crazy and they're selling things like they've never sold before so japan will be going after us big time. mexico is a disaster for the united states and i'm not just talking about the borders. we have to build a wall like you've never seen before but beyond that they're taking our jobs and they're out negotiating. we are negotiating well with anyone. if we did this country would make a fortune. fortune. social security could stay the same and people could keep their social security, medicare medicaid and all of that. no that. no politician is going to be able to do that because they don't have the confidence. remember this, all talk, no action. it's about time we had an outsider. >> thank you for your question. >> small businesses are the

engine of new hampshire's economy but they can't afford to invest millions of dollars to fund election campaigns and higher lobbyists like big corporations do to maintain political input. how would you prevent corporate cronies from corrupting our government? >> a lot of the people you think are representing you aren't because the lobbyists have them under control. i've always wonder how they could get away with this and they had every lobbyists in washington and the senators were afraid to go against them. they were big campaign contributors and you couldn't even get someone who wasn't representing opec. opec. you couldn't find someone to go against them. there are other industries like them. somebody like me, i don't need money. i have my own money. we've got to do what's right for this country.

it's all about the small business they are so important not only in new hampshire but all over the country. the small business owner is being crushed and it's being crushed by bad trade deals that were making with other countries. you go to new hampshire tennessee with what just happened moving to mexico and what happened in iowa. they are moving out of iowa and into another country. we actually gave tax incentives to these countries. if someone is in small business and there's nothing closer to my heart than small business, i started as a small business and i built a great company. last time when i was when i was thinking about running, and i have to say i was very disappointed with mitt romney

because in the end submit failed. he should've been able to get there and beat obama. something has to be done for the small business person and something has to be done for the middle class. the middle class in this country are being absolutely crushed. >> have you identified if or how much money you would spend on the campaign? >> probably mostly my money. i got a check from a woman the other day for $10. she was 79 years old and i'm desperate to see this country get right again in this is all i can afford.

that was a beautiful check from a beautiful woman who loves her country and said you're the only one who's going to do it. i watch these people all my life and you're the only one that's going to do it. the last thing we need is another bush. we've had bush, we've had clinton and the last thing we need is another bush. it will just be the same old deal. you don't need it and i don't need it. it's probably going to hurt me to say it because of someone gets in there not to love me. who cares i want this country to be great again and it's not going to be great if we have job at books with his immigration policy. do you remember his statement of love, they comment for love. what was that all about? i don't even think he knows what it's about. then about. then you look at education. he wants education to be run by the federal government. education should be a local standard. the parents, the teachers they should be setting the policy. they know more than someone sitting in washington picking up a paycheck not knowing what they're talking about. job is in favor of federal government running education. this is not what i want.

>> hears a social media question on a social issue. this a social issue. this comes from tom riley who writes how do you feel about gay marriage. >> i said i'm a traditional person and i'm for traditional marriage. >> will leave it at that. >> i will says republican ivan getting that question more and more. it is a question that a question that the republican candidates are being asked mormor. it's an interesting question. >> how would you fix the countries broken taxes. >> it's too complicated, it's too big, and were paying too much. this is the great secret that nobody knows about. we have court prorations leaving this country because of the tremendous countries taxes.

were the most heavily taxed nation in the world. one of the problems we have that's too complex and has to be changed. there are many procedures you can use, all of which are better than what we have right now. right now we have a system that is so complex -- i have the biggest firm and i spend millions of dollars just for preparation of massive tax returns. you get deductions for this and penalized for that -- you have to hire these people in it cost you a fortune. other people have to go out and higher. i want to put h&r block out of business because there's no reason you shouldn't be able to do your own tax return and we have to make it simple. we have to make it much more fair than it is right now. >> inc. you for your question. >> the recent threats to recent

ambassadors in asia proves that we have a problem overseas. how do we strengthen our image overseas to protect our financial and social issues here at home. >> what they did was absolutely disgraceful and that's really a lack of respect for our country. it's a lack of respect for our country and that's going to change. it all starts at the top. there are those that say hillary clinton was the worst secretary of state in our country and now she's running for president. she's going to do very well despite the e-mail scandals and the polls cam out and she still the most popular. she's not

going to be challenged or significantly challenged. it all starts at the top. people don't respect the united states of america anymore. they used to, but they don't anymore. were not the same country. if you had the right leader, it would stop. >> let's go to another question. >> i work at a local soup kitchen and homeless shelter. what do you see as the best way to solve the problem of homelessness. >> it's a tremendous problem a tremendous problem and more so in some states. if you look at what's going on with the food stamps and so many other things, there's never been anything like it. we've never hit the numbers that were heading right now. so if you're looking for a job and you stop

looking for that job, they consider you unemployed. you know the unemployment numbers are a total fraud and a total joke. the numbers are not 5.6%, the real number is probably 21% or higher. 21% or higher. that's why you're asking this question because the unemployment in this country is unbelievably high. those numbers that they come out with every month are totally skewed because they want to make the politicians look better. we have to put our people back to work and that's the way you get rid of people who want to work. they want to work they want a job. unemployment has probably never been worse. now you have another new phenomenon caused by obama with obama care. everybody is becoming a part-time worker because under obama care that is the cheapest

way to do it. obama care is absolutely a disaster. this whole thing has to be changed. another phenomenon you're going to see and remember obama care doesn't kick in until 2016. in the meantime, 2016. in the meantime, our people aren't going to have it, senators aren't going to have it and people who are supposed to be dealing with this problem they're not doing it. when obama care kicks in in 2016 wait till you see the catastrophe that takes place in 2016. drs. are leaving their profession because they say they can't do it. it doesn't work for them and they have to hire more accountants. they accountants. they use to hire nurses and now they hire accountants because it's so complicated. obama care has to be ended and jobs have to be produced. if we have the right leader,

leader, jobs can be produced. we have to take it away from foreign countries. >> you brought up public health. a big problem in this state and other states is heroine addiction. what would you do at the federal level to combat that? >> that's a that? >> that's a very big problem because heroine is very addicting. i would say in terms of health and marijuana you have people dying because they don't want to give it up. you have to help people. heroine is so addictive that when they take those shots of heroin they can't get off it. something has to be done and you have to come down very slow on that. it starts at the border. people are flowing into this country. people in many cases, who are

very bad. they are sending their criminals and they are not going to help us. i'm sure there's going to be some wonderful people, but for the most part those people are not going to be helping. we are getting criminals, gang members the worst of the worst and were just letting them flow right in. and now they're going to be voting? the democrats like this and they wanted to help. these people are going to be voting a hundred% for democrats. >> that's all the time we have right now for television. coming up next is senator rand paul on the program. this conversation with donald trump will continue online and with our mobile app. there will be more questions coming from the audience. thanks for watching and have a great night.

coming up on c-span2 homeland security department looks into favoritism in a visa program. the supreme court will hear a program about gum gun crime and excessive prison sentences. they will look at how to combat prescription drug abuse particularly pain relieving medication. officials from the national institute of health and the

center of disease control. in a hearing live on ten eastern on c-span2. the pentagon's latest report on sexual abuse in the military will be released. she embraced the role of first lady and looked like a queen. hosting afternoon parties to help her husband's political agenda. in 1812 she is credited for saving the portrait of president washington. dolly madison on c-span's first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays on eight eastern on c-span three.

as a complement to the series the book is now available, first lady. it discusses the lives of 45 iconic women. it creates an illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read. it's available in your bookstore or favorite online bookseller. >> a report alleges special access was given to the visa program in homeland security. here he testifies on the alleged favoritism before the homeland security committee. from capitol hill, this runs two hours.

>> the committee on homeland security will come to order. the purpose is to receive testimony regarding the immigrant investment program known as the eb five program. i now reckon eyes myself for an opening statement. on march 24 the department of homeland security inspector general released a report detailing allegations that relate to secretary mallorca's time in the program. the ig office conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed more than 40000 phone records and more than 1 million paper records and emails. there were more than a dozen whistleblowers that came forward to the office. the findings are troubling as they made some very serious charges against him. face dated he used his position.

special access. their allegations were unequivocal. he gave special access and treatment to individuals and parties. political favoritism -- we received complaints from employees at the application for politically connected centers and they received extraordinary treatment as a result of his intervention. these applicants were prominent. traded or went around established processes. he was in contact outside the normal adjudication process

either directly or through senior dhs leadership with a number of stakeholders. according to the employees his actions the staff should've decided these matters differently. misplaced priorities -- he focused on a few applicants and steak holders with particularly troubling given the massive scope with his responsibility. they heard hearing and testimony. from the report, they found he appeared to pay place favorites and insert himself improperly that influence the outcome of cases. cases. these are very serious allegations. if they are true they should not be ignored.

although they did not allege that these acts were criminal in nature they without a doubt raise questions about judgment. this is not the first time the inspector general office has reviewed allegations. in a separate report in late 2009 they placed pressure on career staff to reverse the outcome of a petition filed by a university that he was connected to. he wrote a memo that said each year employees have a duty to add impartially in his or her duty.

any favoritism can call into affect our inability to fairly honestly and properly carry out our duties. he has repeatedly violated his own policies through his actions as the director. as chairman of this committee and a former federal prosecutor of the department of justice, i take the oversight responsibilities of this committee under the constitution very seriously. after looking at the testimony, i felt obligated to examine the accusations made in this report. we have analyzed since our first

hearing and after reviewing the report, i have more questions. did he knowingly or unknowingly violate the policy to deny special access to those prominent and politically connected, and overrule career staff decisions in these cases? does the lack of judgment shown raise doubts about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of deck it deputy secretary. why has he not been held accountable for his actions? a cold according to the 2010

policy that he has signed, failure to adhere to the standard and guidance set forth in this memo, the subject will be up to and removal of employment. they should not be immune from accountability when warranted. the people's representatives deserve to hear the truth. however there is no place for presumed guilt before innocence. he is allowed the opportunity here today to defend his actions. i look forward to giving him the opportunity to respond today.

we can never forget that public office is a public trust and with that i look forward to hearing from him. this program better known as the eb five program accounts for less than 1% of all visas issued by the united states citizenship and immigration services. given the program's potential as a job creator, it has great visibility to congressional leaders from across the political spectrum.

i do not take issue with the decision to limit his review to questions regarding mayorkas involvement. however i'm disappointed after spending months of resources to investigate these cases that inspector general produced an incomplete report. i can only address the allegations made by the personnel about contact with prominent democratic parties given the false impression that there were no republican parties involved in these cases. at the time he testified mayorkas only heard from democrats on these cases. when i asked inspector general

about others on these three cases he was nonresponsive. after further engagement with the department, i learned that prominent republicans contacted deputy sec. mayorkas and asked him to give his personal attention to these three cases. given that this review has complications for deputy secretary mayorkas representative reputation to complete a complete picture of mr. mayorkas involvement in these cases.

i learned that secretary mayorkas was directly contacted in these cases but not only by democrats but also republicans including members of this committee. not committee. not only am i disappointed about the incompleteness of about the inspector general's review, i found it appalling that he would not provide testimony too late to rest questions of actual wrongdoing or impropriety despite the fact that the report did not find that deputy secretary mayorkas involvement was inappropriate. the report was that of an activist management that demanded reform and responsiveness from his agency. if we want to have a comprehensive examination of mayorkas leadership style, we should look at his actions as a whole including in his current capacity as deputy secretary. under deputy secretary mayorkas leadership, we have made great strides in some areas and remain stagnant and others.

as a result a result of these efforts they recently acknowledged improvement stating that dhs has demonstrated exemplary commitment and support on department management challenges. the deputy secretary is also working closely with the secret service director on reform. there is a lot to be done to improve the performance and long-standing issues. equitable treatment of secret service personnel is also a matter of a racial discrimination? action lawsuit that has dragged on for 15 years. also we have not seen many of the recommendations issued by departments including bringing someone from outside the agency into its leadership.

these outstanding issues undermine -- and demand thoughtful attention. the well-documented morale problems they have of their own according to the 2014 best places to work in the federal government, they come in last four diversity fairness and effective leadership. they have spent millions of dollars to improve this. i'd like to hear from the deputy secretary mayorkas on how his leadership in substantial improvement can be made. mr. chairman as i understand much of today's discussion is looking backwards, i hope we will seize this opportunity and also look ahead. deputy secretary mayorkas is the

highest ranking dhs official to be able to be with this committee and we should be able to seize this conversation and have meaningful discussion. this committee works well when we can work in a bipartisan manas or manner to achieve the shared goals of advancing the department of homeland security. i want security. i want to make it clear, i did not create or generate the inspector general's report. it has been completed and i had a role under the constitution and that is what we are doing here today. we have heard from the inspector general and now today is your opportunity to hear your side of the story. with that i want to thank you for being here.

under the nature of this case today i would like to swear in the witness. if you would please stand and raise your right hand _ do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? i'd like to recognize that he has taken the old. >> i really don't understand the necessity of swearing in the secretary when we had the inspector general to never be sworn in. i find it unusual and unnecessary given this high appointed credentials and i just want to state that for the record. >> i appreciate that point of order, i suppose.

you say the committee and house rules provide for the swearing in any witness of the chair being appropriate. given the serious allegations in the report it wants the swearing in of this witness and again i am giving the witness an opportunity to explain his side of the story. >> thank you but may i just say that the reason we are here and what you are relying on so heavily and his report has caught caused tremendous turmoil and you didn't feel the need to swear him in. i think this is an unusual situation and i want that made for the record. >> this is the witness today that is responding to the

serious accusations. i think they are serious. we talk about ethics and integrity policies that can have an impact on our nation's security. but this swearing in is perfectly up appropriate. i want to say that it's important that this midi exercises its oversight responsibility and let the witness know how serious these accusations are by the inspector general. therefore, i think it's entirely appropriate. not only is it important it is deemed under the house of representative rules and this committee's rules. unless you would prefer that we not exercise these rules.

>> thank rules. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate your consideration of my concerns. i certainly want to exercise our responsibilities under the constituted constitution. i look for fairness, justice and equality as we undertake those important decisions and issues. >> i stated the purpose of this hearing is to hear his side of the story. given the serious allegation and nature of misconduct involving foreign nationals, the swearing in of this witness is appropriate and the responsibility of this committee to do so. as we go forward this with this investigation those investigations may require the swearing in of witnesses as

well. i don't see any reason why this committee, the homeland security committee could advocate its responsibility and knots wherein witnesses and just given over to basically say give an oath. >> it is inappropriate for me to get into this discussion with you. i'm just looking for consistency >> i don't think there is any reason for you to be concerned about drying the distinction between an assertion that the inspector general made an incomplete report.

now now we bring the number two person in the department and swear him in. that obviously that obviously is a rule, but she was just saying, in her view it was inconsistent. it has no nothing to do with terrorists or form procedure. she only spoke to swearing in the witness. obviously we can do a lot of other things but i think she is within her right as a member of this committee to voice her concern and observation. let's not take an issue that he can't do it but it's inconsistent. she is within her right to do so. >> i most likely will have the inspector general back. i think this committee should exercise its right to have

witnesses sworn in beforehand. this committee has not done that and i think it should. i think that is a responsibility. >> just a point of clarification for me, is it common practice in hearings and courts to swear in the prosecutor or the judge? the inspector general is not under scrutiny. he is the one who offered the report. we report. we are trying to get to the facts and it seems to me it would be inappropriate to swear in the inspector general in this case. it it just doesn't seem like that has been the normal case of events and any other similar circumstance notwithstanding. so i just want to make that point from my view. >> he raises a very good point. the. the allegations are there in the

inspector general's report and the witnesses here to respond to those allegations. all i'm trying to do by ensuring the swearing in of the witness that he is telling the truth about the allegations made against him. i don't think it's in the witnesses best interest not to tell the truth. >> i think the point being made is, i don't have any doubt that our witness will answer and i think we elevated the issue by swearing in but we had by our own inspector general a report that is incomplete. it made serious allegations but it was incomplete report. to bring someone before this committee to respond to an incomplete report. >> we do not swear in witnesses

but if you want to do that in every hearing i'd be happy to do so. this represents a very significant case for the number two person in the department of homeland security where the allegations are very, very serious. we haven't had a case like this in a long time come across this committee. therefore i thought it was appropriate in this case to have him sworn and because of the allegations being so serious. we can attack the report or deal with it as it is. the fact of the matter is the report has very serious accusations about mayorkas' exit ethical behavior. i believe that swearing the witness and was entirely appropriate in this case, and i don't think the american people would think it was not. i think the american people

respect us from our government officials at the highest issue to be sworn in and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. i believe mayorkas himself agrees with that assertion. i believe he will tell the truth that this hearing. >> let me, for the record, indicate that it's illegal to lie or make misrepresentation to congress whether you're sworn in or not. so mayorkas is a witness and as i said i've not known witnesses to come before this committee and do anything but tell the truth. he's operated for a long time in a professional capacity and i'm convinced he understands it but

i look i look forward to his sworn testimony. >> the gentleman is correct, under the federal law it is a crime to lie to federal congress. nobody knows that better than we do. this committee has an investigative role and i do not think we have done it enough. we must recognize them portions of the testimony that's being offered. without further discussion we'd like to recognize mayorkas. >> thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address you today and answer questions you might have. i have looked forward to this

opportunity. the use it the work of citizenship is casework. the agency's primary responsibility is to decide immigration cases according to the law, and a way that safeguards are where nations security and our immigration system. the agency decides millions of cases each year. we are fortunate to have a great workforce here. dedicated and hard-working servants. after i became a director and had a top to bottom review of the agency i found they did not always provide the services needed to meet the needs of the american public. there were gaps and inconsistency in the legal guidance that governed adjudicators in their review of cases. consequences were serious. the agency was too often misapplying the lot law. they are an adjudicative body and i learned of these policies

when individual cases were brought to my attention. cases involving the rich and poor alike came to me from a variety of sources including agencies members of congress, other members of congress and members of the public. my involvement depended on the complexity and what was necessary to resolve them. i became involved in many cases of all types throughout my tenure because it was ultimately my responsibility as the director to ensure cases were decided correctly under the law. congress is only too familiar with the severe consequences to an applicant when a case is wrongly decided. legal and policy challenges we face were great.

it's the most complex program we administer. there are complicated business and economic analysis. whether the metrics used to predict future job creation are reasonable. there are different stages of agency review and often include thousands of pages of legal and business documents. the program was underdeveloped when i arrived in august 2009. they only had nine adjudicators. the agency did not provide them with the needed economic business, or law expertise they needed.

the agency's agency's national security and anti- fraud screening needed to be strengthened. there was no comprehensive policy document but rather a series of memo issued over the year that i learned through my review that failed to address many critical issues that applied to our everyday work. as a result, we were administering the eb five program poorly and that was the view from every court order. :

dwarfing the number of communications about any other program usda acid minister. individual ultimately responsible for a uscis administration the program i became increasingly involved in resolving the eb-5 legal policy issues that we as a nation confronted. the issues came to major cases for which the agency is responsible. i became involved in many eb-5 cases three of which became the focus of the opposite inspector general and i became involved in the very same way that i became in other cases at the best of my own employees members of congress come government officials and other stakeholders. as to the three cases, the office of inspector general found