it's a good thing to do i don't disagree that ted cruz may not believe in what he's doing either. they are acting not on the basis of belief but on the basis of a political calculation. and there's going to be those in everybody's eyes. nobody will do things just for one reason or another. but like bernie sanders, all the stuff he's done on income inequality and taxation and everything else i know he believes in it but they've also done a lot of polling to show that it's good politics with respect to the base. and i will give you one thing. i was a congressman and -- sorry, i have to pick on you. and so i voted in 1994 for the vertical gun control legislation

which put a ban on assault weapons and i was a pretty good congressman. i get all the right things, i had a big airplane district and i just i was an aviation not and i voted for this bill and i lost the election in 1994. now there are many reasons why i lost. but without a question that biggest factor was my vote on the gun legislation. and who did i lose in that process? i lost a lot of my democratic base, blue-collar workers who were nra members and and felt that my code was particularly wrong. out of that experience, i learned how hard and how difficult this issue is. it's a constitutional issue, a cultural issue, it's in many places a religious issue, royal versus urban, that is a big

factor in the stings. things. so the question while it is great, the gun issue is a complicated issue. out of that, you think we ought to be able to do some sensible things kind of of in the middle but again it's an issue where there is no space in the middle to do anything at least today. yes ma'am. >> my question is if the candidates such as donald trump and bernie sanders are calling people to vote for more polarized congress than in the future do you think there would be anything but a congressman could or not? spec is there anything congressman would be able to duplex >> we passed a highway bill earlier this year and we got a budget done. speaker ryan was able to get a budget in the last year in the national security space there is room to work together on. you know, so yes there are

things that our government can do that you can find bipartisan support for. one of the interesting things i've learned from my experience is an awful lot of people quietly once more bipartisanship even people more on the conservative or liberal side to want to work with each other much more. now the political system doesn't necessarily encourage that because the word compromise in some circles is viewed as a unilateral disarmament but i do think most members see the value in working together. >> john from the harvard extension. you mentioned that the campaigns are kind of run on the 20-yard line and it seems like good governance is that a 50-yard line and the air of the constant campaign is there space for

policy construction and if not, how is that dealt? >> there is some space for it, the word is leadership. it would be nice to see if the candidates actually show some leadership on some substantive issues. we have seen a little bit on that. you have to give the public some specifics so for example there's been some discussion about a national highway bridge, road, sewer infrastructure plan which would be a big issue or to dramatically increase the funding for the whole three search so we could cure cancer, alzheimer's, those sort of things. so you can pull people together but today most politicians haven't really focused on those things and that would be the kind of thing that could bring people to the 50-yard line. you have to find things the public cares about and those

would be two things i would encourage that encourage them to think about. yes ma'am. >> i am now looking at how i am going to get back the next half of my life and i'm very interested i am very interested in this question you asked about where is it in politics, is it in policy, is it behind the scenes in some way, i've been involved in local government and fascinated to find how it works in the committee level. i find that on the national level the discourse has become so polarized that it's difficult to have even a reasonable conversation among friends that rely on a national stage and i'm

worried that when you're talking about this anxiety, much of what he's done has created we've done has created a combination of economics and media that drives this sense of conflict in this i'm looking at the art of the bridge and where we can have more complex discussions and review layout local and national and regional politics. i think some of our politics now need to the global. i think we need to start thinking about how we work together and how we tolerate and not just tolerate, but embrace viewpoints and the different times that we stand there and say to each other i don't know, i disagree with you and i don't know how we get from here to there. ..combative place.

how is your group working toward that? we have had conflict in this world forever. that is a fact of life. you raise interesting points. in many respects a lot of the leading sportsur a lot of the leading sports figuresci comeau we are with each other all the time. attended to work very well. but let me mention one that i think could do much more.ba over a hundred million americans go to synagogue or mosque every week. i get the messages from folks who are not necessarily consistent talking about today, the

golden rule ought to prevail even people on fundamentally different sides of the aisle , mutual respect and biblical value. i think that the faith-based mission kind of let us all down. excommunicated from every church in america. >> they can also -- also be taught and ethical value, when we start looking for those shared ethics without referring to whether we require a particular belief system to sustain away every single human being, every single life. >> there are some, rick warren who wrote the purpose driven life, very religious

to minnesota treat people, listen the people. i'm of these to me you have simple reason. we don't learn that quite as much. trump,trump, maybe i can get him to do that kind of thing. >> hi, my name is colton from quinnipiac university. i go to school in connecticut. >> famous polling place. >> exactly. trump doesn't like us, apparently. but my school is about 30 minutes. we just went by the three-year anniversary of sandy hook. i'm sure everyone knows how severe it was. it was definitely the worst shooting, columbine, 99, some more than ten years ago. i was just wondering, number

one, number one, how much worse can make it to send it to get these politicians to realize. number two, how much of an influence is the nra and the decisions of politicians? >> again, i come from paris, so i will talk about it from my perspective. the nra, the politicians because of what they do and hear from their constituents. in many parts, you know, heavily in rural districts and smaller communities, but all over the country people feel very intensely on firearms, we don't need the government involved.

not even giving you the point you're talking about with sandy hook, columbine, a cultural issue. and so to overcome that there has got to be some tangible national discussion about these issues. they are brought in. maybe i am polyamorous about it, but i think we can come up with solutions without interfering. the issue is so polarized, dominates the debate. let me give you one example. when i ran for reelection, i voted for the assault weapons ban. general aviation in a lot of jobs, thousands. i went knock on the door

person, union member, democrat. the guy was so delighted, thank you for what you did for my job. i went right here. they can't vote for you. why? and so i started -- not arguing that discussing, i'm not going to take your gun away from you. there is what he told me, which was interesting. you don't understand, you come from aa family that has a lot of privilege, go on vacations and do what you want with life and educating and everything else. he says, i'm a working man. my hunting and fishing and sportsmen life are very much a part of my existence. i view you as an elitist trying to take that away.

now, i thought about it for a moment and thought, i quietly agree on some things we should do, but it taught me that this issue is so profound hopelessly and regionally and from where people come from that the folks who are on the side of the regulation on the gun issues have to understand. this is not an argument for not doing it. i am just saying, at its core, the nra is a little bit involved. and a lot of it is rural urban. anyway. >> people because in other words, the newtown example,

the gun belonged to the mother. she did not lock it. so it is not just guns, it is also mental health. you know your son is mentally unstable, you don't keep your gun unlocked or in his room. there is no question civil liability ought to come to the question. with the laws when it comes to serving people under age, we can hold people civilly responsible, not criminally responsible. there may be a lot of different ways to skin this cat. okay. yes. we will take you to end you. >> my name is mallory merit. andy mentioned before that our government to be a 1

foot on the gas 1 foot on the brakes. so with this kind of system in place, do you believe that the average american not really seeing a significant progress? >> some things, that's why i thought a major highway infrastructure, water system , something so that people can get to work and we can modernize all these would be certainly one thing. the folks have to see. there was an author years ago, a historian who came in to union station and said make no little plans that don't have the power to stir men's souls. big ideas, decided that i system can work to some

extent after september 11th we felt like we were responding to that. but that is what i mentioned , a big, major, national infrastructure program, a major effort to clear diseases like heart disease. some of these things would give you confidence. we are having this huge basically six to seven months state budget. it basically caused a lot of problems. also because i go to school and i rely on the money.

what are different ways that the average citizen can encourage -- politicians compromise. >> well, in some respects the local and state governments have done a better job compromising. they have to complete a legislative session during the year. a balanced budget limits, but i have seen more. a classic example of the state that is kind of incapable in many respects of resolving, the same issues that affect the national government agreeing toindia affects our sense as well. citizen action, citizen involvement, and in a democratic system there is no magic answer for people like yourselves to organize

and try to push. and then the media, academics. so you are still free to try to influence the system. let's see. last question here. >> similar state government. i study history. i do study the constitution. the 1st political party and basically they are government. i kind of wanted, which do you think is better, state or federal government for regular citizens of america? >> well, some of the same principles.

the closer the government is the better response. in college city council person up. there going to make decisions with the consequences the use citizen of trying to challenge. the further you get away. but the bigger the issue is the more you needed. you're not going to get the state of massachusetts to deal with that problem. national security issues. and largely, the constitutional rights of the country. a set of principles and that kind of thing. what worries me is that people trust in the national government to operate and then you have a system of many states, some do better, some viewers and the people unequally in the country

because the basic rules and principles are national, state. so that's why we have all powers reserved. anyway, i'm seeing a lot of nods. i appreciate your listening to me today. >> make sure everyone leaves a little flag. [applause] >> reports 1st cq roll call. its 1st full day of legislative is this of the 2nd session of the 100 14th congress.

starting out with obama care and planned parenthood. >> republicans move the legislation budget reconciliation process and they decided to hold it over the government funding legislation and now they are starting with that now for maximum impact to send it to president barack obama's desk so he will have to use his veto pen. >> the legislation will dismantle big pieces of the healthcare law including the penalties for the individual employer mandate which

requires healthcare coverage and those offering and also in 2018 would repeal medicaid and get rid of what helps people purchase healthcare coverage on the exchanges as well as a long list and the healthcare law. in addition planned parenthood, the bill would for one year block for the family planning organization and boost funding for community health centers. >> the funding for obama care. >> that's right. and some of those were actually defending year-end budget deal. there is a temporary suspension of that with high cost employer healthcare plans, temporarily

suspended. >> the house speaker tweeted on the president's desk the repeals obama care that is from speaker ryan. why is this effort on this reconciliation process different? >> sure. that health care law repeal efforts. block legislation from moving forward. for the 1st time since they moved it only requires a simple majority in the senate, and he has already said he will veto the measure. >> what about democrats, are they all in unison? she tweeted a new year with the same ideas to defund

planned parenthood which will undermine the affordable care act. >> democrats are characterizing this as more of the same, pretty much united. it passed the senate in december, only two republicans did not vote for and all the democrats voted against it. >> what about president obama's veto? when i go back to the house and senate? >> it is not looking like the house is able to overturn the veto. delivering his state of the union address so he would issue his veto threat before the state of the union, after the state of the union address, ten days before would automatically become law. >> thank you so much for joining us.

>> and that bill repealing the nation's health care law will be considered this afternoon. the live coverage beginning at 5:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network.

they include requiring all retailers to strengthen existing laws and increasing investments. here is ahere is a look at the event from the east room of the white house. [applause] >> i am in a room full of warriors. it is such an honor. on the morning of september 14 2012 my sweet little boy, my seven -year-old son, daniel among 21st graders shot to death

at sandy hook elementary school in the town connecticut. in the three years since those 26 precious lives are lost far too many more lives were lost to gun tragedies in this country. far too many people right now hearing these words are feeling the loss of a loved one. as a nation we must do better. we are better. in april of 2014 i have the honor of introducing president obama and the rose garden. fortunately that was to announce a proposal to close the loophole in the federal background check system for firearm cells have been blocked by members of

congress. the president obama delivered an address that day with genuine passion and commitment. the president made a promise to not give up. i remember standing there with my family, listening to our present speak and our feelings of despair replaced with feelings of hope and ii remember thinking who's going to help him with this? it's a tall order. since then i have comei have come to know and respect and learned from many amazing individuals doing good, smart work right here right now. many of the folks in the gun violence prevention coalition have had numerous meetings with vice president

biden and president obama and their top advisers to address this issue. we cannot do it alone. the president cannot do it alone. the thing is, every related death. and we need your help. made a promise is elected official that he would do everything in his power curve the loss of life. today we celebrate another example of president obama and vice president biden. it is with such great honor that i introduce to you the president of the united

states barack obama, vice president joe biden. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you, everybody. i want to thank you for your introduction. i still remember the 1st time we met. in the conversation we had. and that changed me. and my hope earnestly. five years ago this week sitting member of congress and 18 others were shot at at a supermarket --

supermarket in arizona, the 1st time i had to talk to the nation in reference to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. binghamton, aurora, newtown, the navy yard, santa barbara , charleston, san bernardino. too many. thanks to a great medical team my dear friend and colleague, gabby giffords survived. she is here with us today.

[applause] thanks to a great medical team who, by the way, a small aside, you may know marks twin brothers from outer space. how often are you talking to him? well, the call was coming in right before the meeting. i may have not answered his call. which made me feel kind of bad. that is a long-distance call. i told him he should take it in the ringer off.

i was there with kathy and we did not think necessarily at that.she was going to survive. and that visit her perform more, about an hour later. i know the pain she and her family have endured and the rehabilitation and effort to recover from shattering

injuries. and then i think of all, every single year more than 30 thousand americans have their lives cut short by guns. 30,000. suicides, domestic violence, accidents, hundreds of thousands of americans bury their own children. many have had to learn to live with the guilt or without the love of their life. a number of those people here today.

they can tell you some stories. in this room right here there's a lot of heartache. there's a lot of resilience and strength, but there's also a lot of pain. and this is just a small sample. the united states of america is not the only country on earth we are not inherently prone to violence, but we are the only advanced country on earth with this kind of mass violence to erupt with this kind of frequency. it does not happen in other

advanced countries. it is not even close. and as i've said before somehow we have become numb to it and start thinking it's normal. and instead of thinking about how to solve the problem this has become one of our most polarized despite the fact that there is a general consensus which is part of the reason on thursday going to hold for gun violence. bring good people on both sides of the issue together. i am not on the ballot.

it's nothing to score points. i think we can agree without people's motives are without being disagreeable, but we do have. doctor king's words we need to do something now. they no longer suffice. got to debate the last mass shooting but to do something to prevent the next one.

[applause] who the vast majority of americans, even if our voices aren't always allowed us to most extreme, enough about a little boy to come together, take commonsense steps to save lives. i want to be absolutely clear, i said this over and over again, this also becomes routine. the ritual. i believe the second amendment, on the paper that

guarantees the right to bear arms. people try to twist my words i know a little bit about this. [applause] i get it. but i also believe that we can reduce gun violence consistently. i mean,, think about it. we all believe in the first amendment, free speech. we accept you can't yell fire in a theater. we understand for some constraints on freedom in order to protect innocent people.

we cherish our right to privacy but accept that you have to go through metal detectors. it is not because people like doing that. but we understand that as part of the price of living in civilized society. and what is often ignored, the majority of got over -- owners actually agree. the majority of gun owners agree they haven't irresponsible lawbreaking few from inflicting harm. today background checks are required a gun stores. father was to teach his daughter had a hot,, go to the gun store, get a background check, purchase the weapon safely. this is not seen as an

infringement. contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents of said the 1st step in some slippery slope. contrary to claims before the meeting this is not a plot to take away everybody's guns. some gun sellers have an operating. a violent felon can buy the exact same weapon. no questions asked. a recent study found about when three or looking to buy

and dad criminal records. what 30. we're talking about individuals convicted of assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession for people with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons. and this was just one website so we have created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by different set of rules that are responsible gun owner and subject themselves to a background check. which does not make sense. most americans and gun owners agree. and that is what we tried to change three years ago.

including 20 children two united states senators, joe mansion democrat west virginia, both donors, a grades from the nra work together in good faith consulting with folks like our vice president that was it. pretty common sense. 90 percent of americans for 90 percent of democrats the senate voted for it. they failed. his 90 percent of

republicans voted against it. republican president george w. bush once said i believe in background checks to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of people should not have them. john mccain introduced to address the gun all -- gun show loophole. explaining this very obvious loophole. even the nra is to support expanded background checks. by the way, most of its members still do.do. republican voters still do. how do we get here? how do we get to the place where people think a background check is taking away.

each time this comes up the excuse that commonsense reform by background checks might not have stopped the last massacre of the one before that will for that. why bother trying? i reject that thinking. [applause] [applause] we know we can stop every act of violence. but maybe we could try to stop one active people, what act of violence. some of you may recall, at

the same time sandy hook up and they disturbed person took a knife and trying to kill lots of children in china. most of them survived. just as we don't prevent all traffic accidents to try to reduce traffic accidents. as ronald reagan once said it mandatory background checks a more lives will be worth. the bill before congress that that test.

unfortunately too many senators failed bears. [applause] in fact we know after connecticut passed a law requiring background checks gun deaths decreased by 40 percent to 40 percent. [applause] meanwhile since missouri repeal the law requiring comprehensive background checks than the seven increased and that almost 50 pee national average. one study found unsurprisingly criminals have easier access to guns. and the evidence tells us law-abiding americans don't find it harder to purchase

guns whatsoever. that is just the information we have access to. you can further improve gun safety, reduce traffic fatalities enormously. do research so that we make them safer. you know what research, science, as of the things. the think about this. when it comes to an inherently deadly weapon no one argues that guns are potentially deadly. weapons that kill tens of thousands of americans every

year, congress voted to make it harder for public health research and gun violence. made it hard to collect data develop strategies to reduce gun violence. even after san bernardino made it harder for terror suspects for me can get on plane with the semi automatic weapon. that is not right. that can't be right. we do not have to accept. [applause]

[applause] now, i want to be clear, the folks in this room will not rest. [applause] because once congress gets on board commonsense gun safety measures to reduce gun violence a lot more. but we also can't wait.

until we have a congress that is in line their actions within my legal authority to help reduce gun violence. actions that protect our rights. after sandy hook joe i work together with our teams comeau whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules. but today we wants to take it a step further. let me outline what we are going to be doing. anybody in the business selling firearms, background checks are be subject to criminal prosecution. [applause]

does not matter whether you are doing it over the internet, at a gun show. we are also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals by hiding behind trusting corporations. they are also taking steps to make background checks more efficient. under the guidance of jim komi, the fbi, atf, hire more folks to process applications can bring the outdated background system.

and the steps will actually go through the process for law-abiding, the process for gun dealers in a stronger process for protecting the people. that is number one. number two, we will do everything that we can to ensure smart an active enforcement which means you will add 200 investigators require firearms dealers to support lost or stolen guns. we are working with advocates to protect victims were too often, too often people are not getting protection. number three : will do more

to help those suffering from mental illness get the help they need. high-profile mass shootings. mentally unstable people. two and three gun deaths that aa lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves. made sure the treatment for mental health is the same as treatment for any other islands. expand access to treatment.

and federal health records should be submitted. if we can continue to destigmatize and fill gaps in the background, more families can be spared the pain of losing a loved one. and those in congress is so often rush as a way of avoiding action on guns, your chance to support these efforts put your money where your mouth is. number four, we will boost gun safety technology. many gun injuries and deaths are the result of guns that are stolen or misused.

in 2013 alone more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents including children younger than five years. and the greatest most technologically advanced, no reason for this. make them safer. can't unlock your phone unless you have the right fingerprint. why can't we do the same thing for gun. [applause] if there is a nap that can help us. [applause] we can do it for an ipad there is no reason we can't

do it. if the child open a bottle of aspirin we should make sure the campell a trigger on a gun. [applause] we are going to advance research call work with the private sector, update firearms technology. some gun retailers are stepping up to finalize a purchase a by refraining from selling, high-capacity magazines. i hope that more retailers and manufacturers should care as much is anybody. i make this.because none of us can do this alone. made the.earlier.

all of us should be able to work together to find a balance. the rest of our rights are actually important, second amendment rights are important. there are other rights that we care about as well. because our right to worship freely. that right was denied in charleston south carolina. and it was denied jews in kansas city, muslims in chapel hill, they had rights to. our rights to peaceful assembly, that right was

robbed of moviegoers and aurora. our unalienable right to happiness of those rights were stripped of college kids. from 1st graders 1st graders every time i think

about those kids. and by the way, it happens every day. so all of us need to demand. the gun lobby's lives, stand up and protected citizens. governors and legislators in business, they had to make our community safer. we need the why majority to agree with us every time this happens, feel like your views are not being properly represented demand something better. [applause]

[applause] and we need voters who want safer gun laws and two are disappointed and remember come election time. [applause] some of this is just simple math. yes, the gun lobby is loud. hence making it effortless. you know, the rest of us, we have to be just as organized. this is not that complicated. the reason congress brought the laws because they want

an election. and if you make it hard for them to win an election they will change course, i promise. [applause] and yes, it will be hard. and it won't happen overnight. it will happen during this congress. it will happen during my presidency. but a lot of things don't happen overnight. a woman's right to vote did not happen overnight.

the liberation of african americans did not happen overnight. lg bt rights was decades worth of work. so just because it is hard, that is no excuse not to try. and if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that 1st heard -- fierce urgency think about what happened three weeks ago. a sophomore at fulton high school in knoxville, tennessee. played football, beloved by classmates. his own mayor coleman one of the city's best. the week before christmas he headed to a friend's house

to play video games. he was not in the wrong place at the wrong time, did not make a bad decision. he was exactly where any other kid would be coming your kids, my kids. and then gunman started firing. and xavier it was in high school had not even gotten started in life, fell on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. the girls were spared and he was shot in the head. he gave his life to save theirs. an act of heroism, more than anything we should ever expect from 14 -year-old. greater love hath no man than this. lay down his life for his friends.

we are not asked to do what he did. reaction that quick. i'm not asking people to have that same level of courage sacrificial love. we love our kids and care of our problems, we love this country and care about our future we can find the courage to cut through all the noiseç and do what a sensible countries.ç we should do more. we leave behind the nation that is inherited and worthy

of the sacrifice of the young man leg xavier. thank you very much, everybody. god bless. thank you. [applause] [applause] ..

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [applause] joining us to talk up the presidents executive action on guns, do you -- correspondent for usa usa today would spend every action especially the house speaker paul ryan and

other republicans in the house and senate? >> the reaction is that he would anticipate the divided party and democrats of course are saying the commonsense efforts to fight gun violence. republicans are saying it is a continued assault by the president both on the second amendment rights of americans and on the congress is proud to regulate this stuff. their argument is obama is overstepping authority. >> what were the plans as far as republicans are concerned with legislation what do they have planned for this year i had? >> guest: the bill has been the primary talking point for republicans and the bill on mental health issues. every time one of these comes up the past six months or so, they talked about this bill that would be sickly expanding resources for people with a mental health crisis which allowed democrats to think it's

a good idea there is bipartisan support for it and debate on the margin about what it should do in fact there's a provision that would require basically were expand the opportunity for the court required treatment of people with severe mental health kind of outside the mental institutions there is some dispute over whether that is a good idea or not but that is the sort of only gun control measure that has any kind of traction in the republican congress and there's a question about whether that can get past. >> about some of the passed legislation, like to me manchin. they came together to work on legislation. what happened to it? >> guest: president was saying in his presentation that after one of the shootings there was a big cry for the gestation and a major effort to broker a deal with a whole bunch of gun provisions ranging from as i recall there was some stuff on

the buyers of guns and the purchase across state lines and all of it was on this major compromise on expanded background checks. but ultimately for the part because there wasn't enough republican support to pass it and so the bill died. that has been the last move for any broad legislation. >> what about the democrats are they in line with the executive actions and what else have they proposed? >> guest: i think you will notice that there wasn't a great deal of breath to the action. they are tinkering at the margins of the existing law and that's part of why the conversation was turned to appeal to congress to do more and there is a whole bunch of things the democrats are urging whether it is banning people who are listed on the terrorist no-fly list for owning a gun, whether it's expanding background checks more broadly,

whether it is as nancy pelosi was trying to do to a loud buzz centers for disease control to do more research, all of that is stuff congress ultimately has to do and the president is announcing today and will still have to act on them to fight hundred million dollars he wants for mental health care assistance. that stuff he can't do by himself so ultimately they will have to take up some of the stuff to get it done at all. >> host: how about on the campaign trail how is this working into what they are saying? >> we've seen a lot from the republican candidates for president obama doesn't respect the second amendment rights, that he's trying to undermine the rights of the law abiding americans in the part of the topic today among a lot of the speakers including paul ryan is what obama is doing now is

bullying the law abiding citizens the law-abiding citizens would be the sort of additional positions at just tester or those that are following the law instead of going after actual criminals. >> host: is that issue resignation with voters? >> guest: this is the whole question. no one has had to cast a ballot yet. we know that it is a regular theme of the republican primary campaign stop that obama doesn't respect the constitution, doesn't respect congressional authority over writes on everything ranging from immigration to guns. i think it's been sort of the more active topic on the campaign trail. but it certainly appears the republicans belief it is a very successful issue for them with their voting base. we will see when they have to cast a ballot which hasn't happened yet. >> usa today dc correspondent thanks for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me.

>> we elect to replace him as to have the trust and confidence of the american people people in custody on matters spoken in public and private. private promises and statements to the american people being the same and it has to be for all our people. >> a look now about how economic policy was developed during the

presidency of george w. bush. the panel of administration advisers from the economic council, the treasury department and the council of advisers discussed the president's response to the economic crisis and his approach to issues concerning immigration, trade, tax policy and the national debt free at hofstra university hosted this event part of a conference examining policies and the bush presidency. hello, ladies and gentlemen. i am in the school of business here at hofstra university. welcome to the plenary session on economic policy in the bush administration. working with me today at the session is the provost who will be asking some questions and we are happy to have three presenters although one is still

at the airport and hopefully will get here in time but if not people still have two magnificent speakers who can give us some insight on how economic policy development was in the bush administration and you can then extrapolate how it may have been in other administrations. our first speaker today is a currently vice president and senior accomplice at the federal reserve bank in dallas. a labor economist working a regional account growth and demographic change she manages to reach a bowl berth in the dallas federal research department and is executive editor of the quarterly publication southwest economy. her academic research focuses on the labor market impact of immigration on authorized immigration and u.s. immigration policy. she is a co-author of the book beside the golden door u.s.

immigration reform in the new era of globalization. affiliated with several academic institutions she's a research fellow at the tower towers center for political science at southern methodist university and after the institute of labor in germany as well as a visiting scholar at the american enterprise institute. she's also an adjunct professor at baylor university where she teaches the executive mba program. she was the senior economist of the council of economic advisers and the executive office of the president and washington, d.c.. in 2004 and 2005 where she advised the bush administration on health and immigration issues she holds a phd in economics from the university of california los angeles and a bachelors degree in economics and spanish from the university of illinois nevada champagne.

our second speaker is philip swagel and advisor to evenflo macro and contribute to the firm's economic and political policy analysis. mr. swagel is a professor at the economic policy center university of maryland school of public policy. he was assistant secretary for economic policy at the treasury department from december, 2006 until january, 2009, serving as the chief economist for secretary henry paulson. he was previously chief of staff at the white house council of economic advisers from 2002 to 2005 and an economist at the imf, the international monetary fund, and the board of governors at the federal reserve. at the treasury, he was involved in a range of policies including t.a.r.p., housing, energy, environment, pensions and macro

analysis and has been especially involved lately in the policy efforts concerning housing, finance reform and broad financial regulatory reform three of mr. swagel received a phd in economics from harvard university and a bachelor of arts in economics from princeton university. marc sumerlin. even if i was founded by mr. marc sumerlin and he spent ten years as the managing director of the lindsey group of global economic consulting firm. during that time he traveled extensively to japan, china, great britain, france, italy and switzerland. from the 2001 to 2002, mr. sumerlin served as the deputy assistant to the president for economic policy and deputy director of the national economic council. in that capacity, he helped the the president of the united united states develop and implement his economic agenda and he also worked as an

economic policy advisor for the george w. bush president after he started his career after the u.s. senate budget committee. mr. sumerlin was a master of arts in applied economics from johns hopkins university and masters of public policy from duke university where he was the senator's fellow. he graduated from georgetown university and currently serves as a board member as a affiliate based in kuwait city and is on the part of the virginia hospital center medical brigade. so, thank you and i will now -- mr. swagel will start with his remarks and we also have mr. speaker of's remarks that he doesn't get in time and then doctor pia orrenius will present her remarks and then we will have questioning. thank you.

>> he should be here in the next couple of minutes and if not i have hairs and i can talk about this role as well. at the end of the administration as the assistant secretary for the department presently for secretary hank paulson. as confirmed by a voice vote in the senate just before the senate flipped in december of 2006 i just want to change to that. back then the noncontroversial nominees got approved routinely and that's different. i previously served as the council of economic advisers and also that when he was a deputy and i've been here twice first in a nonpolitical position the last six months of the clinton administration first six months

of the bush administration working on trade policy and during that leave for the monetary fund went back to the front and came back a year later and the political position of the chief of staff. so, we'll tell you later about a campaign that i would preemptively confirm something that i know he's going to say in the campaign policy planning and the way that affected the economic policymaking in the bush administration. so i was there the first day as a nonpolitical appointee and he was very typical in the meetings early in the bush administration to hear discussions about how the proposals, how did that line up with what was discussed during the campaign. the campaign promises that the governor were taken seriously which was fascinating and i would suspect quite different than the other administrations.

and it worked on a range of issues. it dominated much of my time in tragedy that worked on social security, integration, healthcare, energy and the environment and i think all these areas are ones which the bush administration has serious policy proposals that would address the serious challenges facing the nation and deserve consideration on their merits. but my sense is especially after 2006 starting the new congress in 2007 they didn't receive the same consideration. that is just a fact of our polarized political system. so that's the way congress worked then and over the last couple of years. so we talked a little bit about the financial crisis in the last couple of minutes here that i want to talk which obviously is at the center of what i worked on in the treasury department

and i try to use that to illustrate more broadly the way that economic policymaking works in the bush administration at least as i thought. as a treasury throughout the administration and the white house and the housing and urban development and other parts of the executive branch, we were well aware of the billion dollars and the problems in the housing sector and the economy more broadly. if you look at swagel financial crisis, you will see that. maybe it's my fault that you will see what i've written. so the policy responded and the white house especially efforts were made to come up with policies to lean against the credit availability in a responsible way so there were discussions on what is the role of the government and the

barriers to the spread of credit why is it that creditworthy people were getting credit and mortgages before maybe too easily but now they can't and what was the role of the government in addressing that and are their proposals from the federal housing administration in other parts of the government to address this not assuming the markets are perfect and saying there is a role for the government but high marks to avoid positivity of unintended consequences. compared to other administrations there was nice but not the sort of caricature. so the crisis now was in august of 2007 into the focus was how

to make the market adjust. the treasury proposal on what was that a liquid assets and proposals about how to avoid the preventable foreclosure so the bush administration didn't propose taking taxpayer money and saving people from for closures but the focus was it is costly. it costs the bank money and the family involved personally and financially so there should be a way for the parties to work things out and it just wasn't working very well so the administration and treasury secretary personally were very engaged and getting that process to work better. what's interesting in my mind is these efforts were then later used as the basis for efforts in the obama administration. of course they put their money into it with a lot of criticism.

why am i paying taxes so they can have a couple big screen tvs? the policies are more effective than people think for the administration but they should get a lot of criticism. there is a part in the book about the crisis that makes this connection that calls the approach to housing the plan that is meant as a pejorative but obviously i was on january 20 of 2009 at the plans had nothing to do with me. okay. so, very briefly the way that i think of the crisis is three phases. from august of 07 to march, april was kind of the normal policy response. i told you the treasury at the administration, they were during its normal policy response lowering interest rates and then of course it collapsed. so in the acquisition is

signaled this was no longer a normal slowdown and in the moment the administration changed the work was being driven out of the treasury department and and it's appropriate i speak about it was very well coordinated in the administration. it's the way the policy process work does not the national economic council or the deputy is beginning in the administration would coordinate a policy process and bring in the other parts of the administration that were naturally involved in this. so, the financial crisis response was typical and unusual in that the way the process worked and continue to be processed as people talk about at the beginning. but by the end of the administration, the process -- the work would be heavily driven out of the treasury department.

but it's natural given the nature. >> so the second change was coming up with a plan and if you do the search you will come up with some memos written about the potential government plans. third was with the failure and the way that i think of it people would say that it's really tough to do this with the bailout company were to take action to invest three into $50 billion of taxpayers money and his response was it's not a hard decision it is just unpleasant. he said it's the right thing to

do. i know it has to be done. i don't like doing it but it has to be done. that was the approach. i suspect that would apply to president bush as well where he has a set of core beliefs i think mark will talk more about. but addressing the crisis, a very pragmatic man and administration so i would look into the work that was done during the financial crisis as following the script exactly. to me what is fascinating is that the new administration starting in january, 2009 continues to work with essentially superficial changes, the people working continued including the head of the t.a.r.p. can treasury secretary was one of the architects of the whole thing of the crisis response and so there is a great deal of continuity in the financial crisis response

between the two administrations and none of us were happy about getting to this point but i think the administration's record could be comfortable and clear that the response ultimately was effective so one last thought which is obviously the economic policy at the end of the administration was dominated by the housing response and of course there are things left undone. president bush started on the climate change agenda and gathered to finance reform, social security reform, tax reform and a host of other issues but that is just the way that it have to be. i will stop there.

hispanic thank you for having me. i'm sorry for coming in late. being 15 minutes late would have been grounds for termination back when i worked for him. [laughter] i started working with governor bush in june of 1999 during the campaign and i worked until year after 9/11. the bush administration average day in approval rating in the polls are my perspective is that my perspective is different and it's often there's a cycle to the presidency working at the beginning of the administration was different than working at the end. he will probably tell you those were the good old years but when you are running for your life they don't feel like the good old years and that if you look at the head of any president we have every single day is hard and you can see whether it is good times or bad at times.

i feel very strongly the policymaking in the bush campaign was more serious. there was a flat tax or gold standard for dynamic scoring for universal healthcare they were all very pragmatic but not as a universally popular. we would produce the policy books these are things we haven't seen in the recent campaigns and we have an actual scored budget and the proposals on the taxes that we had scored by the official scores at the point of the election in 2000, everyone knew how much the bush tax plan would cost. they knew the distribution also

were going to the rich and the poor. it was a very honest way of saying it and things were out of there so when we started, governor bush had gone on for things in one of the biggest was cutting taxes so that was something he be the 20 part of the campaign for what he did is assembled a team of ten come in and outside economists and included two chairmen, former federal reserve governors, and charged them with developing a tax plan that was is both something that could eventually become law but also something that would be bold enough to

survive the challenge during the campaign season. it seems a little crazy in 2015 to imagine people in 1999 to be scared of steve forbes that he's come off the campaign as being one of the leaders on the right so we started a process that went up from about six months and within the ten groups of economists there were different reasons but he wanted to be ended and the tax plan and above more philosophical conservative started on the premise that government was in a surplus that goes to the people who earned the money and therefore part of it should be returned to them and that is the philosophical point idiot people don't often realize this we have a number intergroup id for them to focus was they were starting to get long in the tooth.

we would make it without the recession and it seemed not consistent with history. this was something that governor bush was very sympathetic to having started off in the oil patch in the 80s. any texan is sensitive to the fact there is a pronounced business cycle than then we also had the group that was a big supporter of reforming social security and they wanted to use most of the money for causes like that and therefore, one of the smaller tax plans that operated in the end president bush decided on a plan that would stay in until the late reductions over five years and interim only, we had discussions about how it how it begins and that would be available to speed up to provide more demand support. so, then we get past the election and come into office

and there's always a little bit of tension at the beginning of the administration and there's a particular one with the treasury secretary treasury secretary and some of the new members of the team who wanted to start clean and say okay the campaign is over and now we have a new set of bigger people let's start from scratch. governor bush have a very different mindset which is that elections matter and he was planning to govern on what he campaigned on to use the theme developing on the campaign to become law so i was part of a three-person negotiating team on the hill over five months and it became law in may of 2001 and one of the lessons i learned in the negotiations is that in the supplies to all presidents past and present is a member of the congress isn't going to take a political risk the president himself isn't going to take and

so i could talk about any economic argument or tax policy argument that the end of the day with the number one here was everything about the tax plan was out in public and the point of the election and the president had survived and he had taken the political risk and it wasn't that hard to get the vote. when the bill bill went before the senate by 63 votes. it was pretty democrat-controlled senate including the chair of the finance committee. at the time and time again and that is a part of the affordable care act when there wasn't a single republican person who votes for it and it's just going to keep coming up and up and up.

in the first quarter they contracted one point for present and another 1% in the third quarter of 2001 and after the events of 2007. you can actually see these things before the data starts to move pretty decisively. the only party could get accelerated with the low-income party. the data got so bad for a couple of months that it either helped a little bit or it didn't help at all between 2002 to 2003

before going to war. and as for the president the president made his decision to accelerate the marginal rate cuts and was able to get through congress and in may of 2003 the full tax plan hit for the first time. the first quarter of 2003, the economy accelerated by 6.9% in real terms and over the two years after the tax plan took effect is accelerated by 3.8%. these were the best couple of years for the presidency, and i think with the historical lesson from president kennedy and president ronald reagan the tax cuts that are permanent has more powerful economic sanctions than those that are temporary. they have a bigger cost but you have to decide whether it is worth it or not for their effect on the economy.

>> i will go ahead and stop there and turned it over but i want to give you a little flavor but the policy was like and then we can talk more about how the council works during the questions were other things like that. >> i wasn't a political appointee was on the council of economic advisers. i would say it was the most exciting year in my career so far. i have three chairmen in my one year which might be a record i came in under greg an amazing professor at harvard and then after that it was harvey rosen for a period of time so i just had amazing chairman and i had a amazing years surrounded by the brightest economists i've ever

met. the reason i think he hired me is because in january of 2004 as described, we were coming out of a recession in 2001 and the jobless recovery for two years with a little over two years so immigration which is my field had been taken off the table. very soon in his first term he began talks with the president of the immigration reform and the plan with mexico so although you know and immigration agreement is imminent before 9/11 and then of course after it wasn't mentioned for two and a half years for obvious reasons but we could work on immigration and the reform we were sad about

9/11 for many reasons but that is another reason because that reform was crushed and an important opportunity was lost. once the president's new term began, we started talks in the white house and i thought we made a lot of progress. he worked mostly on the temporary worker program which was going to be sort of the hardest part of the immigration reform and something that congress hasn't hammered out yet so it was nice to work in the field and topic where president bush had strong guiding principles and felt very strongly that understood it very well having huge hispanic support for republicans he had

done very well and was close to the electorate and the issue and provided great guidance so it felt very strong working on it i felt like we knew what we needed to come up with. of course immigration reform never did work out. the bill eventually passed the senate but it didn't pass the house of course and never was taken up by the leave and the house house in 2007 would respond with the border security act. if you see president bush today i think he will openly say his big rig crash was after being elected in the beginning of his second term focusing on privatization of social security

instead of immigration reform and he will tell you that and he means it because it is an issue close to his heart. that concludes my remarks and i'm happy to take any questions. >> we will ask a number of questions and we welcome the audience to ask questions. i guess the question to start with all three is what would be the long-lasting effect of effects of the bush administration economic policy? what does the test of time do tax >> i cannot think of two can think of two things. first is tax policy and i delay saying this the tax cuts are now permanent so it's a delight to say that because there are people did wake up in the morning before brushing her teeth but think about how terrible the tax cuts were and obama for a year or two extended

all of that including the state tax and everything and sort of just acknowledging the positive impact and the negative ones from reversing them and then made permanent the vast majority of them including venerating -- the guiding structure. number two i say with a little bit of a smile is the polarization we can't be playing the decade of the current time for the social security and health care and other things that should have never gotten consideration into the sort of debate was symbolic and this is for everywhere all around that continues and so that is also a

long-lasting impact of the administration. >> from my time when i was there, history doesn't give them enough credit for how shallow the recession is but that was the time we had a massive collapse of the stock market bubble that there were truly and it was low for a member so after 9/11 and that is the period the economy could have seized up. for a number of reasons if you go back and look at the data it was extremely small. and the economic performance over the first term was actually pretty good.

they were on the right side of immigration and they were in a temporary working out of period for the party and then hopefully it will go back to a more welcoming stance. one of the things i tell politicians to make it simple when they are thinking about immigration policy there's only one measure of the country economically over time and that is our people trying to get into it or out of it and so if you tell me the biggest problem the united states faces, they are trying to get into it from all over the world i start to worry about something else and i think that this debate hopefully if the panel on the candidates and the republicans next year is that people might bookmark timely back on president bush for having been on the right side of that debate. >> i think the legacy will be

bringing the education policy back into the federal government and i think that no child left behind although i'm not sure the state finds itself there at the moment but one of the policies policies but maybe hasn't carried over into the obama administration but this idea that president bush had even in texas and education reformer he took this with him to washington and he had very high -- i think it says a lot about him first in terms of his political philosophy coming coming and retarded because earlier in the session today. i think that it is a president that he leaves the government can be very purposeful and it had a purpose in education and the role in education and i think that the conversations i got to sit in on a found fascinating because the high standards they were setting which i thought were unrealistic but it was great the foundations

upon which no child left behind were controversial i still think that those foundations have transcended the accountability that are important and i think we will never go back. >> you indicated clinton and bush have strong principles on immigration. what else have strong guiding principles when it came to the economics of the country? >> he definitely believed in the principle that taxpayer money first and foremost goes to the person that heard it and that is something that isn't very widely held in washington at all so when you sit down to have a discussion about what to do in the budget for the higher standard to have the spending but he also believed very much at the end wasn't economic growth that economic growth was there to serve the people who needed it the most.

and you have to have policies like education policy that would be kind of the backfilling along the way so if you have the economy would had the economy would have everyone participating in it or slightly. >> lets see if there are questions from the audience. >> i want to ask is the moment for immigration reform gone, was there that a brief moment of hope in the beginning of the bush administration and is it in our future attacks >> that is a tough one.

it is a huge problem out there that has to be addressed. i wonder now if it will get addressed in the next administration because obviously if it could have gotten any -- we thought it was bad but it got worse in november with the executive action in the obama administration something that was extremely controversial already became even more controversial and not a whole set of issues have been titled on and so now it is about the overstated what the limits of executive action are in everything so that is thrown into the debate on top of everything else but i think that the way to do it is out there and we know how to do the reform and i think that we have come a long way in that.

after i left -- when i was in the white house no one would have ever suggested that undocumented immigrants might get a temporary status and not a pathway to citizenship. everyone was sort of still thinking along the lines of the 1986 immigration reform control act as some people call it and we all thought that these people should be made permanent and have access to citizenship and so forth and i think it was after i left it was karl rove who brought up the blue card and that was for the first time somebody raised the possibility that would bridge the divide thinking about immigration reform if we might offer these people a temporary status. that may be unfortunate but you can't get everything you want perhaps still that is a step to begin bridging the divide and moving the debate forward and finding solutions that are going to work for everyone so -- send, we know how to do it and i would

argue we know how to do immigration reform and how to do it right now it's just getting the politics to work. >> i have two thoughts on that about the politics. one and 2007 and one from 2014. so, 2007 at the treasury it's a little bit of an immigration discussion and the discussion then at least just the part i participated in for the entire discussion was about members of congress to the right of john mccain so what can we do to make them feel better about supporting the proposal so that was aimed at that border security and people here illegally and getting mike. so it seemed politically skewed and wondered action. and of course one could look at that and say president bush at the time said before the surge

was working and needed the support against the critics in iraq. so again it's before the policy work in iraq. 2014, what fascinated me president obama paused the executive action to allow the democrat senators to have a chance and it didn't work out well. but he paused if there and didn't wait long enough for the new congress to have a chance and to understand politically she might have said the speaker can't control it, there's no point in waiting but he didn't give him a chance to fail and that's too bad but i agree it's

going to happen we are just in a little bit of a politically induced timeout and we will just have to wait until it ends. >> the 2001 tax cuts have been the subject of much debate in the long-term effects. certainly the short-term effects were very strong for the majority that is the question of equality in the united states and if the tax cuts meant less money for the government when it came to wage the war in iraq so it meant more money for american

families, less money for some of the foreign policy and also more infrastructure questions so. at the numbers for tax cuts costs 1.3 chilean dollars over ten years it's the same about the cost in one year and so it's not sometimes the rhetoric doesn't always match the reality. also the biggest by far differences in what happened is the surplus was more based on changing economic performance than if you could throw in a recession or two it's much more than anything else you see a huge decline in the income and

capital gains and so i don't think the tax plan in any way restrains the cost on the spending of the spending that seems to go on on its own trajectory but yet there is a choice between the government finance infrastructure spending and tax cuts just like we have a choice between tax cuts and any type of government spending so that is a government decision. i would just point out that we have the data on what happened after the tax cuts happened that make it a decent argument for why they should have occurred. one thing is the growing wealth inequality and what play to the tax cuts play in that. mathematically the biggest contributor to the wealth gap is the federal reserve policy and such