vehicles, we see folks that are trying to clone of the vehicles to make it look like it belongs in industry that really isn't an industry vehicle, trying to mask the fact that they're smuggling narcotics and more people into the united states. some of the commercial traffic is in the background are being exploited as well. .. ..

introduceed and a commodity may be broken down into four or five different trucks at this particular warehouse to go to distribution points throughout the country. that's just the way our economy works, and now our businesses are able to get the products that they're introducing into the country from mexico to different areas of the world and different areas of the country in the case of the united states. well, there are plenty of opportunities in that process after he makes his entry into the united states for that commodity or that truck to be used in a smuggling event. and so there is plenty of opportunities for either people and/or narcotics to be introduced into that commercial environment. so our checkpoints afford us the opportunity to screen that traffic once again before it's leaving the actual border area

and before it goes into the major highways and byways of the united states. >> so how are you going about screening here? what would a truck or noncommercial truck go through? >> so even these trucks and/or the passenger vehicles, actually, are being screened by a border patrol agent who actually talks to the driver. we may look at the bill of lading or where it is, the mod todays that they're -- commodities that they're transporting them, from and to. we also expose them to our k-9 units, and our k-9 units are designed not just to spot hidden narcotics, but also hidden people that may be transforted in these vehicles -- transported in these vehicles. if there is any suspicion, that vehicle can be secondary or put to the secondary inspection area we use non-intrusion inspection devices to be able to look at that truck's commodity and to be able to look at that trailer and

the frame of that truck to see if there's any anomalies within that load. we arrested over 17,945 people, and that's just from october 1st through march 31st. and so it is formidable. we talked about the fact that most of these folks are paying anywhere from $1500 to $50,000 for their smuggling event. that kind of adds up and gives you a better context of how much money there is to be made by these transnational criminal organizations. >> tomorrow "washington journal" will be live from laredo, texas. we'll speak to the managing director and editor for breitbart texas on illegal immigration in the area. also local immigration lawyer nelly vielma discusses immigration laws, and "dallas morning news" bureau chief alfredo corchado examines mexican drug cartels. thursday we'll discuss trade

across the laredo border. congressman henry cuellar of texas talks about how trade benefits texas and the country, and bob cash, a nafta critic, looks at the trade deal's impact on jobs from southern texas to mexico. "washington journal" live from laredo, texas, wednesday and thursday starting at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. and coming up in about 25 minutes, we go live to new york for a news conference from gop presidential candidate donald trump. until then, a conversation with gary johnson who was notch nateed this week -- nominated this week as the libertarian presidential candidate. >> host: joining us in new york is governor gary johnson, former governor of new mexico and the current libertarian presidential nominee. joining us to take your questions. governor, good morning. >> guest: good morning, pedro. >> host: first of all, tell us a little bit about your philosophy of governance, and what does it mean to you if you were to

become the president of the united states? what would you stand for? >> guest: well, i would stand for smaller government, for starters. the notion that government with is too big, that it taxes too much, and when it taxes too much, takes money out of my pocket that i could be spending on my life. when it comes to personal freedom and liberty, look, it should all be about choice. all of us should be able to make choices in our own lives that only affect our own lives unless, of course, those decisions put other people in harm's way. and then regarding military intervention, let's stop with the military intervention that has resulted in the world being less safe as opposed to more safe, the fact that we put boots on the ground, the fact that we drop bombs, the fact that we fly drones and kill thousands of innocent people, i think, at the end of the day have the unintended consequence of making things worse, not better. >> host: we had a viewer earlier on that asked as far as a question to you is how do you differ from the current

presidential candidates, specifically how would you differ? take a topic, and how would you differ, say, on hillary clinton or donald trump, say, on the economy?y? what would you do differently than they've already proposed? >> guest: well, i think at the end of the day, i think that government will grow under hillary clinton. i think taxes will rise, and i think that she has been the architect really of foreign policy in this world. so what changes from a foreign policy perspective, not much. government gets bigger, taxes get higher. look, with regard to donald trump, i think i'm 180 degrees when it comes to deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. they're not taking jobs that u.s. citizens want. don't build a fence across the border, i think that's a crazy idea' they're not murderers and rapists. statistically, they commit far less crime than u.s. citizens. he says that he wants to kill the families of muslim terrorists. he says he wants to bring back

waterboarding or worse. he says he's for free market, but in the next sentence he says he's going to force apple to make their ipads and iphones in the united states. he says he wants to impose a 35% tariff on imported goods.ak at the end of the day, who pays for that? well, you and i do. so a lot of differences when it comes to donald trump. >> host: 202-748-8000 for democrats, 8001 for republicans, and for independents, 8002. and if you're a libertarian, 202-748-8003. coming out of the convention, governor johnson, there were several questions about what separates you specifically as a libertarian rather than another form of a republican. in fact, there's a big philosophical discussion about the purity within the libertarian party of holding to its ideals. how would you define yourself? what separates you then, say, from a republican, and do you think that purity idea is going to be a challenge for you in gaining support?t?

>> guest: well, first of all, i think that there are tens of millions of americans who have no idea what it is to be a libertarian and yet are libertarians, they just don't know it. so speaking with a broad brush stroke, libertarian; fiscally conservative, socially liberal. i think most people fall in that category. i have issues when it comes to democrats, when it comes to spending and government being the solution to everything. i would argue that thehe government -- although well intentioned -- really doesn't provide solutions at the end of the day. it just taxes more. and then republicans, bent on this social conservative dogma that at the end of the day puts coople in prison for personall choices. a drug war being an example. mandatory sentencing. the fact that we have the highest incarceration of any country in the world. come on. people should be allowed to make choices in their own lives. >> host: as far as also your

running mate, william weld, tell a little bit about why you chose him. and there were some questions even at the convention itself whether he was a libertarian or republican. that -- and by the way, if you want to watch that convention, you can watch it on c-span. governor johnson, talk about your decision to choose governor weld. >> guest: well, bill weld has been a role model to me. he served two terms as governor of massachusetts, heavily blue state, served as a republican, served as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. mine, same experience. i served as governor two terms as a republican in a heavily blue state as a republican being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. both of us have labeled ourselves or considered it a badge of honor to have been labeled as libertarian. libertarian/republican. we've got a problem on the republican side when it comes to social dogma. both of us do. and i just think it speaks

volumes that both of us got reelected by bigger margins the second time than the first time. bill weld the second time by historically big margins. like i say, in an overwhelming democrat state by being penny pinchers and socially liberal,l, what does that speak to? doesn't that speak to potentially broad appeal? >> host: calls lined up for you, the first one is michael. i identifies himself as a libertarian from los angeles. michael, go ahead. >> caller: hi. governor johnson,n congratulations on winning the nomination. >> guest: hey, thank you.on >> caller: i just wanted to -- oh, you're welcome. i just wanted to ask a question regarding tax policy. i have seen multiple times including on the joe rogan experience, discussing the fair tax, how that might be a better system than income tax which i would tend to agree with. i just wanted to ask have you ever looked at a system of,t

like, land-value taxation as opposed to a consumption tax? economists like milton friedman have sounded that might be actually even a more efficient than consumption taxation and fairer to the general public. >> guest: well, first of all, if i'm elected president, just count on me to sign off on anything that would make things better. so, yeah, i am, i'm aware of how that would be a real positive to what we're currently doing.. i do advocate eliminating income tax, corporate tax. i think it is the basis for crony capitalism today.pi eliminating the irs. i think that pink slips would go out to 80% of washington lobbyists if there was no corporate tax. congress, i think it's possible that they could do that, with but if they did that -- but if they did that, they would replace it with something. i think that a consumption tax

is a lot more fair on how to accomplish a consumption tax, i've always pointed at the fair tax as a way to dot the is and cross the ts regarding how to accomplish one federal cop assumption tax. consumption tax. take away the irs. imagine life without the irs. imagine zero corporate tax and the tens of millions of jobs that would get created in this country as opposed to anywhere else in the world because the united states would have zero corporate tax. >> host: as far as monetary policy, governor johnson, a viewer off twitter asked if you would plan to keep the federal reserve. >> guest: well, as president of the united states, i'm getting elected president of the united states, not dictator. so with regard to the federal reserve, look, if congress were to submit legislation to abolish the federal reserve, they would replace it with regional banking. i don't think they're going to submit legislation saying abolish the federal reserve. if they did, i would sign off on that legislation.

but regarding the federal reserve, we should audit the federal reserve, and we should get rid of the dual mandate that the federal reserve now has which is keeping inflation in check and full employment which i think are at loggerheads with one another. i think the mandate should be to reduce inflation. >> host: from lawrenceville, georgia, republican line. ed, you're next. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. yes, as you know, our military has been shrinking. now, if you were president, exactly -- what i want to know, here's my question. would you increase the amount of money we're spending right now, or would you lower it? and isn't it true that you'd like to basically get rid of the military? >> guest: well, absolutely not get rid of the military. i mean, look, if we're attacked, we're going to attack back. we should provide ourselves with an impenetrable national

defense. but not offense. and we need to involve congress in a declaration of war or a declaration of how we proceed in the middle east, something that they've abdicated to the executive, something they've abdicated to the military. we have 69 treaties in the world today where we are obligated to defend 69 countries' foreign -- their borders x. those treaties have not involved congress. congress has given up that respondent. i would not let congress off the hook. we need an open debate and discussion over military policy, something that is currently not happening. >> host: albuquerque, new mexico, libertarian. eric, hello. >> caller: good morning. governor johnson, i was at the convention here. you weren't there. i think it's more important that we grow the libertarian party than that you become president

by nominating yourself and governor weld, and neither one of you are original libertarians. i don't think anyone that was republican and became a libertarian can say that. >> host: governor johnson? >> guest: gosh, i hope i caught all that. sorry, a little bit of static in the ear. but by bill weld being the original libertarian, look, he was talking about things in the early '90s that nobody else was was talking about, gay rights, woman's right to choose, medical marijuana. i'll remind everybody that's watching right now that bill weld was denied the ambassadorship p to mexico, blocked by jesse helms because he was pro-choice, pro-gay right ands pro-medical marijuana. has anyone out there -- many of you, of course, weren't even born at that time, but looking

back to the '90s, have any of you done things in the '90s that perhaps you have different thoughts about today? bottom line though i always wore libertarian myself as a badge of honor. i remember a couple of months after taking office a headline in the albuquerque journal that said gary johnson's not a republican, a libertarian. like i say, something i just took as a badge of honor which,, broadly speaking, hey, i'm fiscally conservative and i socially care about people making their own choices in their own lives. >> host: new jersey up next, independent line. maria, go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning. i have two points to make and one question. i believe that if people would go to immigrationcounters.com, they have all the current statistics of the cost of illegal immigration and the real number is 26 million illegals of which 97% are from mexico. also with regard to a tariff

which mr. trump advocates, that was the way that we supported our country prior to 1916. and it would eliminate the irs, we would not need that. now, my question is this: if he is president and takes an oath to uphold the constitution and the law, how can he pretend that it's a right for people to stream over the border? and what is his definition of a country? should it be border, culture and language? thank you very much. >> guest: well, i think you knew out a lot there, but i think -- you threw out a lot there, but a big misunderstanding is the whole notion of immigration. ten, twenty years ago it was people here who were undocumented. but hard working people, cream of the crop when it comes to workers. i think it would be an economic catastrophe to send people back over the border. an untold story right now is president obama has broken up

three million families becausere of the deportation of parents that have now been separated from their families that are living in the united states. this is something that i don't want to engage in. i think that we should make it as easy as possible for somebody that wants to come into this country and work to be able to get a work visa. i think a work visa should entail a background check and a social security card that applicable taxes get paid. you talked about, let's see, you talked about tariffs providingta most of the income in this country. well, you know, let's see, prior to the prohibition of alcohol the number one revenue source in this country was the taxation on alcohol. gee, might we, might we look at the taxation on marijuana as an added source of revenue also and, hey, exclude revenue from legalizing marijuana, just look at the savings in law enforcement, the courts and the prisons.

i think the savings in those three areas dwarf the revenue on the legalization side. >> host: governor johnson, talk about your relationship to the company cannabis at tiva. you were a ceo at one time? >> guest: yes. and i viewed that as making thei world a better place. marijuana products directly compete with legal prescription papekillers, anti-- painkillers, antidepress santas that statistically kill 100,000 people a year. marijuana products, arguably just as effective. not one documented death due to the use of marijuana products. on the recreational side, i have a always viewed legalizing marijuana as leading to less, less overall substance abuse because people are going to find it as such a safer alternative than everything else that's outi there starting with alcohol. the campaign to legalizemp

marijuana in colorado was a campaign based on marijuana is safer than alcohol, and all of the, all of the statistics that were supposed to go south in colorado have actually gotten better. and i do mean driving incidents, crime, you name it, colorado's a vibrant place. does it have to do with marijuana? i think it has something to do with it. fact that colorado really is a, when it comes to personal liberties and freedoms, they're right at the top of the list. >> host: governor gary johnson, nominee for the libertarian party, joining us to take your questions. las vegas, nevada, independent line. jacob, hello. >> caller: hello, governor johnson. >> guest: hey. >> caller: you're really selling me on the libertarian party, but i do have one question. how will smaller government help those under the poverty line pay high medical bills?

>> guest: well, you hit on a couple things. high medical bills. i think medical bills are driven by the government. if we had a free market approach to health care -- and, by the way, health care right now is about as far removed from free market as it could be.e. but if we had a free market approach to health care, we would not have insurance to cover ourselves for ongoing medical need. we would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness, and we woule pay as you go in a system thatan would probably cost aboutt one-fifth of what it currently costs right now. we would have gallbladders r us, we would have stitches r us. we would have x-rays r us. we would have advertised prici'g for everything that exists in the medical arena, and we would also have outcomes tied to the costs. in other words, look, come get your x-ray for $40, and 100% of

our x-rays are readable and without mistake. i use that as an example. right now you walk into a hospital, you walk into a doctor's office, you have no idea what it's going to costha because you're not paying for it. your insurance is, and you know that the costs that actually are billed never really get paid. i think chief justice roberts was right that the affordable health care act really is a tax. my insurance premiums have quadrupled. i haven't been to see a doctor in three years. it's a tax for me. >> host: so would a johnson administration, would you advocate the dismantling of the law as it currently stands? >> guest: yes, i would.d. but at the end of the day, i would be president of the united states, and the reforms that are needed when it comes to health care is to genuinely make it more affordable, to genuinely make it more affordable you've got to allow for competition.

government could also get engaged -- government itself could actually involve itself in blowing the lid on the supply of doctors available, expanding medical schools, something very real. there are only a limited number of doctors. there could be a lot more doctors. government could play a role in accommodating that. >> host: here is mike from tampa, florida. go ahead.ik you're on our democrats' line. >> caller: yeah, good morning. given that we have a $19 trillion debt that was incurred by the federal government, how would the libertarians propose reducing that debt or even paying it off given the fact that we have necessary government obligations such as the defense department?rn thank you. den >> guest: well, first, hey, let's forget about, let's forget about paying it back because all we do is add to it. and currently 20% of everything that we're spending is really printed money, if you will. it's new debt.

so just, just the ability to put a lid on pending or to reduce -- on spending or to reduce spending even a little bit coupled with economic growth has a profound impact. so, yes, i'd like to turn it on its ear, meaning i think that 20% of government is actually government that doesn't need to exist. now, i'd be president of the united states. i'm not dictator, i can't wave a magic wand, but myself and bill weld, we would be, we would be suggesting right out of the blocks a way to reduce government spending by 20%, providing for a balanced budget. i don't see congress getting onboard with that, but maybe they do. but at a minimum, you put a lid on spending. at a minimum, i think that you can reduce spending, like i say, over a short period of time. that in and of itself has a profound impact on a healthier economy. >> host: do you advocate the dismissal of government workers

in order to achieve those goals, and if so, how many? >> guest: well, you can't wave -- you can wave a magic wand in many cases because so much of what has been implemented is executive order. take the nsa, for example, and the fact that they're spying on you and i as u.s. citizens. i mean, the satellites are all pointed on us right now. being monitored in everything that we do. that is an executive order 12333 from truman. in a very short amount of time as president of the united states, i could make sure that those satellites get turned away from u.s. citizens, something that i do advocate. come on, those are supposed to be to pointed at the enemy.. is nsa arguing that you and i as citizens of this country are the enemy? i hope not. >> host: from laguna woods, california, a libertarian. mike is next. >> caller: good morning, governor.

and congratulations -- >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i think the lp really chose well with you and governor well. governor weld. recently donald trump has seemingly endorsed vladimir putin's policy of assassinating critical reporters.re he said on -- recently, quote: putin's running his country, and at least he's a leader unlike what we have in this country, closed quote. however, president trump would not need to resort to such obvious criminal methods to eliminate critics. by signing the national defense authorization act of 2012, president obama provided the tools for president trump to, quote, disappear opponents quietly. mr. obama inserted a provision in that bill that authorized the president with indefinite military detention of civilians

including u.s. citizens without habeas corpus, without due process. one of the problems that you'll have, i'm sure you know this,oc that the national press really doesn't allow issues that are not issues between the two major parties.ar how would you get through that, sir?r? >> guest: well, first of all, you just, you laid the table perfectly, your question in a form of a statement, is a profound statement. that donald trump embraces or -- i don't want to say embrace, but points at vladimir putin who, in fact, does deal with dissidents in a way that we're not supposed to be able to, and yet donald trump is advocating first amendment assault on the press, making it easier to sue the press for statements. look, this country is a about our constitution first, second, last. it's all about constitution. it's all about the bill of

rights. and i think donald trump assaults the constitution starting with the first amendment. so thank you for your statement -- [laughter] and really not so much of a question, but really an accurate statement. thank you. >> host: governor johnson, he mentioned the media. what's your plan on getting involved in the debate process? >> guest: well, right now the only chance that a third party has of getting elected is to be in the presidential debates. i think that my name should be included in the polls that determines who gets in the debates. there's a presidential debate commission made up ofbe republicans and democrats which have no intention whatsoever of seeing another person at the table. there's a real justification that my name should appear in all these polls, because i'me going to be the only third party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. all of this talk right now in the media about a third party, if you had all the money in the

world, you could not get on the ballot in all 50 states starting tomorrow.. if you had all the money in the world starting tomorrow, it would be almost impossible, if not impossible to get on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected president of the united states. and by that i mean being able to garner 270 electoral votes. so for everybody watching, just a demand from the polling organizations that my name be included. i've been included in three national polls. 10%, 10% and 11%. but my name a appears in those three polls, there are another 40 polls that come out, national polls, that only show hillary clinton and donald trump. and when 50% of americans nowtr registering to vote declare themselves as independent, well, where is that representation? i happen to think that most people in this world are libertarian, it's just that they

don't know it. >> host: fairfield, california.i bill is up next on our republican line.e. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to find out the libertarian stand on the assault weapon bans and gun control init general. second amendment issues. >> guest: well, well, just that in my opinion libertarians' position, look, if you outlaw guns, criminals are going to have guns. if you outlaw the number of bullets in the magazine, only the criminals are going to havem more bullets in the magazine. if you eliminate -- if youle regulate the caliber of bullet, only the criminals are going to have the higher, you know, higher caliber bullet. so gun control sounds terrific, but at the end of the day i think it makes this country less safe rather than more safe, and let's not forget this is the second amendment. the constitution guarantees all of us the right to bear arms.

>> host: anthony lives in puerto rico. independent line.line. >> caller: yes, how you doing? how you doing, mr. johnson? >> guest: good, thank u. >> caller: listen, i got a question. now, big concern in this country right now is our national security. and what i would like to know, how could you expect us as american citizens to take you seriously as a candidate when a you are for open borders? when our national security on the line here, okay in a lot of people don't talk about this. our national security, our security for our children, our families are in, on the line. so how can you expect us to take you seriously as a candidate when you are for open borders?fa thank you.f >> guest: well, first of all, it's just greatly misunderstood. what i'm for is an easy way to obtain a work visa. make the line moving to be able

to get a work visa. and a work visa should entail a background check and a social security card. look, right now border patrol has to deal with illegal immigrants that arguably contain some criminals, but the majority of those illegal immigrants are just hard working people that want to get over into this country and work. it's women with kids, and they're wading the rio grand, and the border patrol has to deal with those women and children right along with, arguably, some bad components. well, what if you made it easier, easy for the mother and her children to come over here and work so that the illegal crossings, so that border patrol could identify basically the fact that anybody that's coming across the border illegally is somebody to be reckoned with. i don't know if i would call that open borders. i would just think that would be prudent, prudent management over

something that can be done muchu more effectively. and like i say, dot the is and cross the ts about everything it is that we care about. look, we don't want criminals working in this country, we want immigrants to pay their fair share when it comes to taxes recognizing that we are a country of immigrants. and that immigration is really a good thing. >> host: and so, governor johnson, on that front the fronp page of "the new york times" takes a look at the obama administration's effort toss settle syrian refugees, hopefully 10,000 of them. is that something you would endorse and continue in your administration? >> guest: yes. i think we bear a responsibility for the refugee crisis and that we should be taking on our fair share. now, what is the mathematics of having disrupted 11 million syrians out of half the population? well, when it comes to the united states, i think that we can deal with this effectively.

should it be carte blanche? well, perhaps not, but it seems to me that we can have a systemu in place to accept refugees r right off the bat. other refugees may be questionable backgrounds, whatever, but hey, we're smart enough, and we've directed enough of our resource on the military side. i think to deal with the refugee side of this humanely and in a way that reflects what america is all about; opportunity, freedom, liberty. you want to come to the united states, work hard, be honest, you're going to get ahead. >> host: libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson with us, former governor of new mexico. harold, westwood, new jersey, republican line. you're on next with him. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, thank you. gary, you make a lot of sense. you really do. and you make a lot of sense on not one issue, you make a lot of sense on a lot of issues. but there's really one thing. you apparently ignore a part of

the constitution in regard to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. would you give money to planned parenthood in and additionally -- parent hood? and additionally, do you believe that our country was founded on the value that god is father of all? god loves all, god said the golden commandment, love god and love your neighbor as yourself. gary, i would vote for you. i normally vote for the constitution party because i believe in the constitution. but if you would stand for what our founding fathers worked so hard -- and cleverly, month after month, i think you're as smart as them, and i think if you were there when our constitution was tarted, would

you then believe in life? god loves us all. god -- now, do you -- the one other thing that the reality, gary, the reality is we are by nature fallen people. the devil is also active tryinge to stop you or anybody else that wants to do really, really good things.is so i will pray for you that all the libertarians would love life, because life is so precious.ns >> host: harold, we'll let him answer the question. governor johnson, go ahead. >> guest: well, harold, you touch on a number of things there. first and foremost, abortion. how can there be a more difficult decision in anyone'' life? but me, look, it's the woman involved that needs to make those choices. and i fervently believe that. when it comes to planned parenthood, look, i'm looking to

reduce the size of government. i don't want to target planned parenthood as something that i would not, that i would notvent fund. would i propose a reduced expenditure to planneded parenthood? yes. just like i would propose a reduced expenditure to --pe >> we're leaving this conversation now with a reminder you can watch it online at c-span.org, and we're taking you live to trump tower in new york for a news conference with republican presidential candidate donald trump. >> we have gotten the nomination, we're going to have an incredible period in cleveland. we look forward to it. we've started working already on the convention. and lebron, good luck in the series, because we're going to have a series which, of course, the longer it goes, the less time we have, but that's okay. and it's going to be very interesting to see what happens. but as you know, they're playing the basketball championships partially in that arena. so i think it'll be very exciting. it'll add to the excitement in cleveland, and that's good. that's what we want.

because it's going to be an exciting period of time. we have, we've done some awfully good work. i was just informed, it was certified out, that we've gotten more votes than anybody in the history of the republican primaries, and we still have i guess six or seven locations to go, states to go. and in the history -- think of it. in to the history of this great party, we've gotten substantially more than anybody else, by millions. by millions more than anybody who's ever run. when you think dwight eisenhower and ronald reagan, everybody, we have the most votes by far. that's something, to me, that's very exciting. and overall it's just within a very exciting -- been a very exciting process. i think we're going to do very well. we have no idea what's going to happen on the democrat side, but they're certainly having difficulty. i don't like to see people having difficulty, but anybody has to have it, let it be them. [laughter] and it's going to be very interesting.

but i'm very proud to say we've gotten the most votes x. also if you look at the overall primary, the amount of votes cast, that's also a record. so we've broken a lot of records in terms of the voters. our polling has come out, and the polls are doing very well. as you know, we're pretty much even and in some cases ahead of hillary. and i think we're going to have a very, very successful number of months. and i think it will all culminate in november, and we're going to make america great again, okay? so that's the way it is. does anybody have any questions? yes, yes. >> [inaudible] the last four months about questions -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] who got that money? >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> okay. i'm glad you asked the question, because i have to tell you, i have raised a tremendous amount of money for the vets, almost $6 million, and more money is going to come in, i believe, over the

next little while too. but i've raised almost $6 million. all of the money has been paid out. and i'm going to give it to you in a second. in fact, i brought a list just in case that question was asked. but the money has been paid out. i have been thanked by so many veterans' groups throughout the united states. one gentleman called me up recently crying that out of the blue he got a check for $100,000. but i've been thanked by so many groups, great veterans gripes. outside you have a -- groups. outside you have a few people picketing, they're sent by hillary clinton, and they're picketing that the money wasn't sent. the money's all been sent. i wanted to keep it private. if we could, we wanted to keep it private. because i don't think it's anybody's business if i want to send money to the vets. i raised close to $6 million. it'll probably be over that amount when it's all said and done. but as of this moment, it's $5.6 million. when it started, this started with a speech in iowa when i said let's raise some money for

the vets. and it went up from a million dollars to $2 million to $3 million. and it now adds up to be almost $6 million and, again, i think we can even do better than that. but i will say that the press should be ashamed of themselves. and on behalf of the events, the press should be ashamed of themselves. they are calling me x they are furious because i sent people checks of a lot of money, and i'm going to give you the names right now which is what you want. and instead of being like thank you very much, mr. trump, or trump did a good job, everyone said who got it, who got it, who got it, and you make me look very bad. i have never received such bad publicity for doing such a good job. so i will give you the names because that's what you want, right? okay. are you ready? i brought them here. it takes, because you have to vet -- you know, much of this money was paid out very early. but you have to vet all of these different groups because these are many different groups. you have to go through a process. when you send checks for

hundreds of thousands of dollars to people and to companies and to groups that you've never heard of, charitable organizations, you have to vet it. you send people out, you do a lot of work. now, most of the money went out quite a while ago. some of it went out more recently. but all of this has gone out, and i'll give you the names. are you ready? do you have your pad? and, again, i really think the press -- look, the media, you know my opinion of the media, it's very low. i think the media is, frankly, made up of people in many cases, not in all cases, are not good people. but i think this is an example. and i just on behalf of all of the folks that have worked hard on this and all of the people that have made contributions including myself, i gave a million dollars, but i just want to tell you that there are so many people that are so thankful for what we did. one other thing that's important to know, it's zero dollars have been taken out for administration. you know, when you go to a lot of these different groups, in

this case zero dollars have been taken out for administration. so a lot of these companies that make a lot of money with doing the administration stuff. is so no money, it cost zero dollars to accumulate all of this money, okay? so you have 22 -- [inaudible] and that's $200,000. you can call these people. that was another thing. a lot of the money when it was sent out, different people would call. i can tell you i'm not going to mention anybody specifically, but there were a couple of people that were really disgusting. they'd call, and these vet groups, they don't get a lot of calls from the press x. maybe some of them would keep quiet, or they didn't know, or they didn't want to talk to the press or they didn't feel comfortable. so if they didn't say they got the money -- which they all did, 100%, all certified checks if anyone wants to see the certified checks. but rather or than saying could i see a certified check, they're not people that always talk to

the press. many of them do talk to the press. i guess you found $2 million or $2.5 million. well, the number is $5.6 million, and it's going to possibly go above that because i believe some other people are coming in. ready? 22 kill got $200,000. now, these are checks that have been delivered, that have been cashed, that are now being used to help the vets. achilles international, great organization, $200,000. much of this money was paid a long time ago. american hero adventures, $100,000. americans for equal living, $100,000. america's vet dogs, the veteran k-9 corps inc., $75,000.

amvets, $75,000. just so you understand, when i didn't do the fox debate, the one fox debate because i didn't think they treated me right, but actually they've been extremely fair over the last three or four months, i have to say that about fox, but when i didn't do that one event, the debate, i gave a speech. i didn't have to do this with the money for the vets, but i decided to because i thought it would be a good idea. and i had some very generous people, carl icahn gave half a million dollars, phil ruffin gave a million, ike perlmutter gave a million. we raised a lot of money, and i didn't have to do that. it would have been easier just to give the speech. and the problem with the press, what they do is they convince people like me not to do it, not to give money to different thing because it's a lot easier that way. armed services, ymca of the united states, $75,000. bob woodruff family foundation inc., they do a good job,

$75,000. central iowa shelter and services, these are all vet-related, $100,000. connected warriors inc., $75,000. disabled american veterans' charitable service trust, $115,000. fisher house foundation, great people, $115,000. folds of honor foundation, $200,000. foundation for american veterans, $75,000. freedom alliance, $75,000. green beret foundation, $350,000. hire heroes usa, $75,000. homes for our troops, $50,000. and just so you understand,

we've got a long way to go. this money was raised during a little speech that i made rather than doing a debate. the one debate i missed. it was the lowest rated debate, by the way, but i won't say that. [laughter] honoring america's warriors, $100,000. hope for the warriors, $65,000. intrepid fallen heroes fund, $175,000. k-9s for warriors, $50,000. liberty house, $100,000. marine corps law enforcement foundation, $1,100,000 i gave a million dollars to them. they're a great group. navy seal foundation, $465,000. knave marine corps -- navy

marine corps relief society, $75,000. new england wounded veterans inc., $75,000. operation home front, $65,000. partners for patriots, $100,000. project for patriots -- and we're still vetting them, by the way, the check is ready to to go but they don't have all of their appropriate, in fact, we have down here will be released to them upon the receipt of the irs determination letter, it's the only one or, which we hear they're fantastic, but they have to give us that final document. this is what i mean by vetting. you have to have all the documents, otherwise you can't give them the money. project for patriots, $100,000. puppy jake foundation, $100,000. racing for heros inc., $200,000.

support zooland soldiers, $100,000. task force dagger foundation, $50,000. the mission continues, $75,000. the national military family association inc., $75,000. veterans airlift command, $100,000. veterans count, $25,000. veterans in command inc., $150,000. vietnam veterans workshop inc., $75,000. warriors for freedom foundation, $50,000. and i believe we're going to have some more coming in. some friends of mine, some more coming in. and that adds up to $6 million -- well, let's see, that adds up to $5,600,000 total -- [applause] and we're going to have some more coming in. so that's it. [applause]

now -- thank you. thank you. [applause] every one of those checks has been passed other than the one check which is being held subject to their getting a final approval from the government. but every one of those checks has been passed. this is my check for a million dollars. we have many letters from the different groups thank us very much for the money. and they didn't ask -- and i didn't ask people to be here today. i could have asked every one of the groups, unlike hillary who asked people to stand outside and say, oh, donald trump didn't give the money -- nobody gave this kind of money. so i gave $5,600,000. more is coming in, probably tops the $6 million number. i never thought we were going to raise a million dollars when we started, and we ended up doing almost $6 million. so i have to tell you, the press is so dishonest and so unfair.

a lot of the people behind me and some of the people over or here helped in vetting the various requests for money. and i justin want to thank all of -- just want to thank all of these people. yes. >> [inaudible] how did you prioritize -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> how did you work through that? >> i wasn't too involved in picking the organizations other than i gave a million dollars to the marine -- the law enforcement. they are fabulous people. they honored me last year at the waldorf astore ya. i knew them. i was going to give to three groups, and we couldn't vet them quickly enough. so if you look at that number, the marine corps law enforcement foundation is a fabulous group. and i didn't have to go through a big vet aring process with them because -- vetting process with them because i was going to split the million dollar check up among three or four different groups, and in the end i just

didn't want to go through the process of having to vet all those different groups. >> [inaudible] >> because i wanted to make this out of the goodness of my heart. i didn't want to do this with the press is all involved and all of a all of a sudden everybody's going who did it go to, how much was it. we gave -- look, when this started, i think you were there. i said if we could raise a million dollars, that would be good. and we ended up raising almost six million. and i'm going to have more coming in over a period of time -- >> don't you believe you should be accountable to people? >> oh, i'm totally accountable, but i didn't want to have credit for it. actually, what i got was worse than credit, because they were questioning me. and this is money -- and, by the way, most of that money went out very early, just so you understand. but a lot of these groups getting vetted by, you know, when you pay the money out, they need government documentation, plus, we want to find out is it a good group. i had teams of people reviewing statistics, reviewing numbers and also talking to people in the military to find out whether

or not the group was deserving of the money. we have given to groups that are unbelievable groups and, honestly, i wish you could hear the phone calls and see the letters. they are so happy. and i'm happy to do it. i didn't want the credit for it, but it was very unfair that the press treated us so badly. yeah, go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> well, generally speaking, that's 100% true. >> i disagree with that, sir, and if i can ask you that question, it seems as though you're resistant to scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that comes with running for president of the united states. >> i like scrutiny, but you know what? excuse me, excuse me. i've watched you on television, you're a real beauty. [laughter] when i raise money for the veterans and it's a massive amount of money, find out how much hillary clinton's given to the veterans. nothing. and then i see a few guys standing out there, they don't even know what they're there for. they have no idea. they're there because hillary clinton's campaign sent them. and, actually, i think it was you or one of you that found out

they actually were with hillary clinton's campaign which was interesting, but i wasn't surprised. i don't, i don't want the credit for it, but i shouldn't be lambasted. and remember this. so out of the almost $6 million that was raised, not one penny did i take for administration costs. that's unheard of. okay -- >> why do you continue to -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> in all fairness, you talked about not wanting to get credit for this, you did host a very public fundraiser -- >> how else am i going to raise the money? >> sorry? >> how else am i going to raise the money? >> [inaudible] >> sure. >> [inaudible] >> sure. i would have given, i would have given -- just so you understand, until i was criticized. so i took, i'm only one in the world could raise almost $6 million for the veterans, have uniform applause by the veterans' groups and end up being criticized by the press. yes, i made a speech. and during my speech i said let's raise a little money for the vets.

it turned out to be a lot of money, not a little money. i thought if we could get to a million dollars, it would be great -- >> [inaudible] that you raised millions for veterans. >> that's right. i do raise millions. >> [inaudible] >> no, i don't think so. i don't think so. >> mr. trump, writing a million dollar check -- [inaudible] >> no. i raised almost $6 million. some of it didn't come through. the number is probably going to be when we finish over the $6 million. >> why exaggerate it? >> yeah, go ahead. >> [inaudible] you do realize that -- [inaudible] the democrats are raising questions about money -- [inaudible] also reflecting what your opposition is saying about you. it's not just us. >> i don't mind it coming from the opposition though, carl. what i do mind is when i raise

all of these millions, and when we started out, nobody ever thought it was going to be over -- >> [inaudible] answering the question now that we had back then. >> all right, so look. here's the story. >> [inaudible] >> i think, and i've been dealing with the press a long time. i think the political press is among the most dishonest people i've ever met. i have to tell you that, okay? be of course, you're excluded, carl. >> [inaudible] >> but i think the political press -- huh? you're in the middle. i think the political press, i see the stories, and i see the way they're couched. for instance, i went down this weekend to do rolling thunder. i was invited. i didn't have anything to do with it. we had a tremendous glatterring of people -- gathering of people. many thousands of people. and i joked, oh, i thought we were going to go from the jefferson memorial to the lincoln -- i was joking. they said donald trump was disappointed. everybody knew i was being sarcastic and joking. they said -- some of them. they said donald trump was very disappointed that it didn't go

from jefferson to lincoln. you know, millions of people. i was joking. i said, oh, i'm used to watching it -- i was joking. so they put it down as serious. they know i was joking. i'll give you another example. we had a certain -- same event. it was roped off where you could only get so many people there, and there were a lot of people. i don't know, 10,000, 15 -- maybe 25,000. i don't know, it was a lot of people. all the way along, gene washington, a man i like, wrote an article like there was 5,000 people there. there were many times that, and you weren't allowed to have any more people. and all of these people were with their motorcycles in parking lots all the way. they're waving to me as i'm going by. wait a minute. the point is law enforcement, these people didn't allow you to have any more people. i think the press knew that. i had a tremendous crowd. but it was the biggest crowd you could have had because it was all cordoned off. they weren't allowed to have any more people than they had. so instead of saying trump made

a speech in front of a packed crowd, they said trump was disappointed because i didn't have millions of people going from jefferson to washington. i mean, give me a break. it's just, honestly, it's dishonest reporting. yeah, go ahead. no, no, go. >> [inaudible] how are veterans -- [inaudible] >> well, the veterans, believe me. let me tell you the veterans, why they believe. and i have -- one group was here that i gave -- is al here? maybe you want to say. this is a group i gave money to. he just showed up. i just saw him. but i could have asked all these groups to come here, and i didn't want to do that. i'm not looking for credit. but what i don't want is when i raise millions of dollars, have people say like this sleazy guy right over here from abc, he's a sleaze in my book -- >> [inaudible] >> you're a sleaze because you know the facts, and you know the facts well. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. trump. first of all, for the record,

i'm a state representative from new hampshire, ten years on the veteran affairs committee, 22 years in the marine corps. what i want to clarify here first of all, i would never, ever in a million years put my name on a candidate that did not from his heart look me in the eye and say he's concerned about veterans. that's donald trump. i met him over a year ago. i've been involved in many fundraisers. he did the right thing by vetting these groups. some of the groups are giving 20 cents, 40 cents on the dollar and spending the rest for, you know, their nice, lavish trips. he gave 100 percent. the liberal media is the only ones that have been calling me on the foundation, all right? i've been dealing with this stuff for years as a veterans' activist. stop using veterans as political pawns. you've got a guy outside, mccoy. go do a google search on his facebook. he's out there, his picture is with the clintons.

they are using veterans as political pawns, and it must stop. donald trump is doing this for the heart. you're all focused on the way he's raising money, and you're not looking at the 22 veterans that are killing each other every day. you're not concerned about the thousands of veterans that are on wait lists. look at his plan on trump's win site. he talks about medical cards, he talks about fixing the v.a., he talks about competition. i think the liberal media, and i've been dealing with you for a long time, need to get your heads out of your butt and focus on the real issues. thank you. [applause] ..

i received phone calls with people crying. i have received letters from heartfelt letters, and you know, it really, the bad part about the dishonesty of the media is that people like me will be inclined not to do anymore. why should you raise 5.6 million come at a think apple go over 6 million pretty easily. nobody said we store this out as a smaller project was less than $1 million because just kept mushroom and building but nobody talks about that. so we raised 5.6 million the. we have so many happ happy grou, some unhappy veterans and that i see these guys, hillary clinton people outside. of courseoutside. of course, they don't know the extent. they probably figured based on reading the press that trump didn't make, didn't raise this kind of money. we raise a lot and i will be raising more and we'll be

sending it to other people as we get along. [inaudible] >> it's a complicated process. [inaudible] >> no, it doesn't. it really, you know, the government sort of approves different groups for a lot of reasons. and so it really does, in more than anything else it's also speaking to other veterans. we have a circle of veterans and who's good, i do want to send a $250,000 check to group that doesn't do good work. it's called bedding. -- vetting. [inaudible] >> i-4 card for the veterans. as you give them a lot of money and raise a lot of money for the veterans. i think when the press portrays

it differently the press is being dishonest i don't like the. i don't like dishonesty. not you. go ahead. >> jeff sessions. [inaudible] jeff sessions is a fantastic man. jeff sessions is one of the most highly respected people in the united states senate. jeff sessions is the person i believe that ted cruz just has the most respect for. and i think can't thought you'd get an endorsement. jeff sessions has never endorsed a presidential candidate before. as many years as his been in the senate. jeff sessions sort of some of the i would consider, absolutely. he's a fantastic person. yeah, go ahead. [inaudible] >> i think it's a very tough call. it was amazing because there were moments with the guerrilla the way he held a child it was

almost like a mother holding a baby, looked so beautiful and calm. and there were moments where it looked pretty dangerous. i don't think they had a choice. i mean probably they didn't have a choice. you have a child, a young child who is at stake. it's too bad it wasn't another way. i thought it was a beautiful to watch that powerful almost 500-pound gorilla the we dealt with that little boy. but it just takes one second. it's one second that it's not like it takes place over welcome is going to do in 30 seconds from the. it just takes one little flick of his finger and i will tell you they probably had no choice. [inaudible] >> go ahead. [inaudible] >> i'm in favor of fixing the health care. be a is one of the great catastrophes in this country can what's going on.

you look at what's happening in phoenix in different places throughout the country where they're catching people stealing and they don't even fire the. where people are waiting five days, six days, seven days online. they are dying while waiting of what i'm in favor of a detected to adopt within a reasonable period of time to go see a doctor and country is going to pay for it. they will go to a private doctor or a public hospital or public dr. bliss a place that can take care immediately. we are losing thousands of people waiting on line. and the veterans administration is run by obama just as incompetently as his running our country. you look at the tsa. you look at what's going on at the airports, and you look at that i'm okay? just take a look at the. that's like the veterans administration. nothing in our country works anymore. it's a mess. and maybe that's what i'm doing so well in the polls. yes? [inaudible] >> no, it doesn't have to be privatization.

when somebody is online and they say it's a seven day wait, that person will walk across the street to a private doctor, be taken care of, we will be the bill. that will be a lot less expensive and will check it out and be careful but that's going to be a lot less expensive than what's going on. these people are living in a. and hillary clinton said the veterans administration is working just fine. and ahead of it, said last week waiting is lined up and. look at disney world, okay? these are the kind of people we running things. it's ridiculous. dave? [inaudible] >> i'll tell you what. that's their choice. yeah, they party called the democrats, and they are going to have to make that choice. i think it's probably going to be hurt because it is rigged. i think he did was on the we came up with the term rig.

i use it myself except i won by such a big markets, the fact the whole system is rigged on both sides. same with republicans, just less obvious. the democrats with the whole superdelegate thing, it's ridiculous. so i think that they are going to have to make that determination to either ask me who i would prefer running against -- >> do you think she committed a felony speak with i think we should it was very bad. i think a lot of people have done a lot less than her and our lives have been destroyed. [inaudible] >> i think that's fine. i think that's fine. go ahead, go ahead. [inaudible] >> the judge has been very unfair comcast.net a good job. he has been a very bad joke. he has been very unfair.

i will win the trump university case. because i don't care. because you know what? why am i antagonistic works because i don't care. i prejudgment very, very unfair. you will see it in court documents but have a judge who is very, very unfair. he knows he is unfair, and i went the trump university case. i could settle that case. i could have settled. i just choose not to. they said why did you settle? i don't want to. you know what? because i am a man of principle. most of the people that took those courses have letters saying they thought it was great, essentially. it was good, it was great, and you know what? when they are on the stand agency how can you sign a letter sent the trump university was so good? how come you signed a letter? the woman that was the original plaintiff in the case, they went to the court and the judge allowed her to get out of the case. the case should up and dropped. they wanted her dismissal from the case. do you know why? because she was deposed.

she was such a bad what is that we win the case easily. she signed a letter and she is on tape like these cameras saying unbelievably good things about trump university. so they didn't want her anymore because she's a disaster for them. so they went to the judge and they said, your honor, we would like to effort not be a participant, not be the plaintiff in the case. and he said that's okay, she's the one that started the case. now they don't even want her to testify. they don't want her to do so because she's a disaster. she is all sorts of beautiful statement about it, and importantly she's on tape saying how great it is. they don't water. i wouldn't want her either. i could have settled that case. i could settle that case. i don't want to. i will go to the process. we had. [inaudible] -- go ahead. [inaudible] >> because we are down the line. because we are down the line and

the fact is you can't win as an independent. for the most part you can't even get on texas and various other states now so texas is out. what happens is you will not have and very importantly do not have supreme court justices. you could have as many as four or five. that's over. now, crystal is the one he's the last one. he said trump will never run. the guy is not a smart person. he said donald trump will never run, remember? do you remember? i plan you. why do you put the sky and television? i see whatever shows. he's got no credibility is that i won't run come if i run it will not do well. if i do well, this and that. he looks like such a fool. i saw him on when she was practically crying because he can't justify. now he comes out with a tweed over the weekend over memorial day weekend. it sounds like it's going to put somebody out. i thought they will find some indie. now they come u out with somethg singer was almost, almost getting. okay?

let me tell you. these people are losers. he is trying to make you come is trying to try to get a little bit nuts. if they do in india, assuming ititto be so what you don't thik anybody with a record he would have because it will look like fools, of which are going to do is you lose the election for the republicans and, therefore, users the supreme court. therefore, you will have a group of people put on the supreme court we are this country will never ever recover. it will never ever be the same. [inaudible] >> no, no, i didn't say that. i said bill kristol is a little. i'll tell you what, karl. he, take a look, on the come is going to lose this state. i went in a landslide. i didn't say everybody. many i didn't say everybody. wait, wait, wait. bill kristol is a loser.

his magazine is failing as you know. it's going to be down, i don't think it even survives. he's getting some free publicity but bill kristol go i've been watching this for two years. trump isn't going to run. and i go into a race. we go into new hampshire. he's not going to inaction. i went in a landslide. do you think maybe he doesn't like me? okay. how about one or two more? go ahead. [inaudible] >> it's wrong. karl, i didn't get 30%. my last one was 78%. i didn't get 30%. [inaudible] >> i don't know. [inaudible] >> no.

here's the way i look at it. we need somebody who's not on my side, okay, by the way, i've gotten great applause from the press in terms of as and she did because the republican party is winnable unify. we have come up, people that you would never have thought possible are nosing i support from. so remember that. we don't talk about that too much production last week the big stories of as the republican party is healing. it is a healing process. it was a rough camping. i don't know fred. i can say this. the real story is how fast we are getting together. if i have republican that's not on my side, i'm not going to go why should i be particularly nice to the person? i'm going to go after them like they would hillary or crazy bernie. but why should i be nice to the person? if i have a person is not going to support me, i have no obligation. politically i may be right, i maybe wrong but that's what you. i am a very honest person. if so it's going to a little bit

or a lot negative about me and if they happen the republican i may choose to have him back. not always, not always but i may choose to get them back. [inaudible] >> what? [inaudible] >> i'm not a fan of mitt romney. mitt romney lost an election that he should wonder if you read the front page of "the wall street journal" about mitt romney, he looks like a fool. no, i'm not a fan of mitt romney. just a you understand, i raised a lot of money for mitt romney. i made robocall scum i make speeches for him. he let us down. if you read the front page of the wall street of this weekend, mitt romney looks like a fool. by what is it good about mitt romney? [inaudible] >> she was not nice and i was fine, gentle bit of a jam. to think i'm going to change was on the quidditch each concluding with her.

go ahead. one more, one more. [inaudible] >> bob dole is a fan of mind. of don't endorse me so don't tell me about bob dole. [inaudible] >> terry johnson got 1% last dime. i watched that whole situation. it was pretty disgraceful. i think it's a total french didn't i think is a french candidate, you want to know the truth. i watch them and to watch his motions and to watch what he says. i think it is a fringe candidate and your second, well, we do a lot of research on that i think it's not going to be a factor, okay? [inaudible] >> i think he set a new bar today. [inaudible] no, not all of you. just many of you. not you, david actually. [inaudible] >> it is. let me get you something. i'm a person come it is going to be like this, david. if the press writes false

stories they did with this, because half of you were a maze i raise all of this money. if the press writes false stories like that iran wanted to keep a low-profile, i didn't want the credit for raising all this money for the vets. i was looking for the predicate and by the way, more money is coming. i was looking for the credit but had no choice but to do this because the press wors was acted raise any money for them. not only did i raise it, much of it was given a long time ago and there is a vetting process and i think understand that. what i raised almost $6 million, probably in the end will raise more than six because more is going to come in at his come in, but when i raised 5.6 million as of today, more scum in, and this is going to phenomenal groups, many people betting the people that are getting the money and working hard, and we have to read, probably libelous stories, sort a close in the newspapers and the people know the stories are false can't go to continue to attack the press.

look, i find the press to be action to disarm. i find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest. i will say this. okay, thank you all very much. thank you. thank you very much. [inaudible] [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> with congress out of this week we are featuring a tv in prime time begin each night at 8 p.m. eastern.

>> here's a look at trade across the border. >> the field office, $166 billion in goods imported in fiscal year '15, over 3 million commercial conveyances. here at the laredo border entry alone, a little over 2 million trucks, $115 billion in trade. that translates here. that translates your where we or acted a little over 6000 trucks a day are coming to this lot. customs and border protection employees have laid enforcement strategy that involves the advanced information that is transmitted to us. we use that information to identify high risk conveyances that we want to dedicate our resources to. it's also, really it's about

even before the shipment gets to the border. it's about working with our stakeholders, our older -- other government partners, our trusted trade importers, custom trade partnership against terrorism partners to make sure they are employing very secure controls throughout their import process. and then the shipment gets your to the compound. we risk ssa, determine what needs to be examined. the shipment is released, and even after the shipment is released our job has not ended. we still continue to look at paperwork after the fact, posting a review commission we're collecting all of the proper revenue, making sure that those are in compliance with all u.s. government world and regulations. cbp enforcers the laws and regulations of 40 other federal agencies. last fiscal year barredo field

office, $271 million in duties collected. >> are user fees different? >> they are a separate fund, and that goes, the master of the conveyance, the trucker will pay and that has, that goes into the general and of our general fund. it helps to pay, offset the cost of our exams and otherwise come out operations. >> that goes to the treasury? >> goes to the treasure, that's correct, the general coffer. >> we see a lot of different commodities. a lot of our highest volume automobiles, automobile parts, medical devices, computer equipment, telecommunications equipment. i would also point out we are seeing more and more agricultural goods throughout the field office for special event in the rio grande valley in laredo as well but we see a lot of perishable fruits and

vegetables coming across as well. textile products as well. so we see quite a bit. but the automotive industry and parts support the automobile industry are our largest commodities by volume coming in, and value. >> does it ever slow down? >> not really. there some seasonal peaks and troughs but it's pretty steady throughout the year. when the holidays roll around, everybody kind of takes a chance to take a deep breath, but i was here, reported last summer, and even over the christmas holidays, we still had significant volume coming across. a sickly 365 days a year operation. >> tomorrow, washington should will be live from laredo, texas, and we'll speak to the managing director and editor for

breitbart taxes on illegal immigration in the area. also local immigration lawyer discusses citizenship and deportation laws. and "dallas morning news" mexico city bureau chief examines the impact of mexican drug cartels. thursdays focus is trade, san antonio express reporter will discuss trade across the laredo border. talk about how trade benefits the laredo area and the country. and bob cash looks at the trade just impact on jobs from south texas to mexico. "washington journal" live from laredo, texas, wednesday and thursday starting at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span your. >> i think that they would in effect sort of ketchup with a 20th century, we've been the invisible half of the congress

the past seven years. we've watched our house college with interest, at least i have an interest, and the tv coverage of members of our colleagues in the house. >> today as the u.s. senate comes out of the communications dark ages we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and technological advancements in communications through radio and television. >> fifty years ago our executive branch again appearing on television. today marks the first time with our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that medium of communication to which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> the televising of senate chamber proceedings also represents a wise and working policy. broadcast media coverage recognizes the basic right and need of the citizens of our

nation to know the business of their government. >> thursday season marks the 30th anniversary of our live gavel to gavel senate floor coverage on c-span2. our special programming features key moments from the senate floor from the past 30 years. >> i would show to the body of evidence from this question. do you trust william jefferson clinton? >> and we've just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. the change of power during a session of congress. >> what the american people to understand in this bill is there's three areas in this bill that and the next five years of what the government in charge of everybody's health care. >> plus an interview with mitch mcconnell. >> i'm sure i've made a number of mistakes in my political career but voting against, having c-span televised visit was one of them.

spent watched 30 years of u.s. senate on television beginning thursday on c-span. to see more of our 30 years of coverage of u.s. senate on c-span2, out of c-span.org. >> this week "the communicators" goes to the intx show in boston. the internet and television expo sponsored by the national cable and telecommunications association. we interviewed four fcc commissioners. aspect this is a special taping out of c-span's communicators program. we thank intx for providing us this opportunity. all for commission chair at the want to start a little broad and let's start down at this end, commissioner rosenworcel. as a regulator and as a consumer, what's your view of the cable industry? >> guest: wow. first of all thank you for having me here.

it's a treat to be with my colleagues. and back into england. i'm a native, so it's a real joy to be a blue come back to boston. the cable industry strikes me as supply some our nation's most important infrastructure. it's not just traditional video but broadband. and it's clear to me that the broadband they provide is a market leader, and it's now gone from just luxury to necessity in all of our households which is an essential part of what we do everyday track you thanks for having us. thanks for intx for giving us this opportunity. deputy editor with our colleagues. committee cable industry has helped drive the digital revolution. i think the broadband networks we enjoy today that created the internet become is the envy of the work i do know small part to the fact that cable companies large and small in cities big and small have taken the risk

for next-generation networks and that didn't have to be risk. those investments didn't have to be made. that infrastructure did not have to be deployed. the fact it is a vaccine americans to the individual opportunity didn't have before is due in part to your members efforts. house of representatives commissioner o'rielly? >> guest: i look at the cable is as a dynamic one, of its challenging other technology in the space to meet consumer needs and demand. i think it's a success story, and america's successor but which are able to do to serve the consumers and the communities throughout america and i think you have a number of challenges you're faced with how technology is changing and also what we are able to do. >> guest: it has totally changed the landscape when it comes to content. as a former, well, current tv junkie, one of the things that i know is that now i don't have to watch key hawk at seven. that's how was when i grew up.

now i have so many more options and opportunities by way of programming that speak to my background and the interest and the like. so when you talk about content, the sky is the limit in terms of options and opportunities. for me as a consumer of entertainment, it is taking to the next level and that's a great thing. >> host: to use it as a technologically advanced competitive industry at this point? >> guest: absolutely. you are driving, they are leading in so many ways your i do want to get too techy. we are talking about 3.1. what that means is again a sort of when we talk about the internet of things or the internet of everything, it is pushing my way and recognize that content is the driver but also that the platforms are increasingly becoming agnostic and you're meeting people where they are. if i'm mobile only come if i'm

fixed in terms of come if i stay home a lot, no matter what it is, there's a device or an infrastructure conduit that cable is helping to provide that when the beware i am. am. that's a phenomenal thing that it didn't have at 10 years old watching hee haw at 7:00. >> host: let's take that question around the horn and then lydia beyoud will take it over. >> guest: assistance have upgraded to meet the consumers to been. that's what you really want from industry. my conversation with industry leaders and what did investigate to what they're trying to do going forward, it's a longer just as my colleagues indicated it's not just about video. it's also about wi-fi. is also about how to meet the future unlicensed devices that will come on board. they are trying to meet all of the spectrum of ideas and needs. that's a very, it starts with a very advanced platform.

tried to i think anybody who uses the phrase dump pipe has to account for the fact that 3.1 a future setting the standard for high speed connectivity. after their for the fact that cable is been leading the charge for the next generation of wi-fi, five gigahertz spectrum. they have to account for the fact that cable simply what comes to delivering affordable access to income communities across this country. the notion that at least of a dump pipe is completely belied by the business practices i think that i've described, that cable has been leading an effort to deliver benefits to the american people in the digital economy. >> guest: i think i just couldn't repeat what my colleagues have said, but i will point out communications industry is changing at a rapid clip and the cable industry within a. what used to be the place that we went to watch video content when it was on, on a single screen has now morphed into a

broadband industry at a think mobile industry as well. the cable industry's contributions to wi-fi have been flat out amazing and it changed the way we access content were ever we are. >> guest: and it has redefined what the word bundle means. it's been a driver. once upon a time bundle then something very bundle. very constricted. now when we talk about bundling because of the options and building on meeting knowing people want a one stop shop when it comes to their services. i have to admit a cable has been a driver, talking about triple play and now talking about quadruple play in some instances when you talk about service delivery with utilities. there are some relationships that have been forged offering, whatever you define as you could only, and i know there's going to be, when i sit that way, but

what if you think it is a necessity in your home, in some markets there is, you write one check and you have the capacity to get all of your services that come through the home, and that is what is being enabled by this industry. >> host: lydia beyoud? >> speaking of changes we seem to have crested a wave in cable consolidations and some are predicting the interest is good looking more towards content and bundling the content with their conduit. as regulators what we be looking for in industry practice and new service offerings in terms of how some providers might try to leverage their status with her offerings to try to get a foothold in the marketplace? commissioner pai? >> guest: what we see is a great deal of expectation in the market place. cable providers are can't figure out as our programs and others

what the business model is that allows people to supply these content that everyone's to see over the networks that everybody wants to flourish. my view is that the fcc should take a more restrained approach, but this experimentation happen. not go any particular business model in or out preemptively based on an ideological predisposition but is to try to figure out what is going to be in consumers welfare. to me the current digital expectation we see him on cable providers and others. everybody is time to figure out is it a bundle of services that makes the most sense with is a skinny bundle, a standalone, and over the top? consumers are the beneficiaries of that experimentation but that will only continue so long as the fcc sticks wit with invalida lot adheres to the basic principle of consumer welfare. >> guest: the letter to the is evolving and changing.

sometimes it's a capital and sometimes it is a small. so consumers have an expectation that their regular agencies are going to be a backstop when markets are less efficient. we have to keep all of that in mind, that we think, competition is part of our middle name. we want to be regulators that our partners in terms of options and opportunities and stimulators of growth and the like. it's really important but it also is important that the consumers are not left on their own if things are less than perfect. so we have to keep in mind that we are there for them if markets are less than perfect. >> guest: i think we should start with the idea the market is inefficient or less than perfect. i think we want to understand what's happening. i don't want to predetermine what may be something beneficial to the consumers come if it is partnering with content or what he was trying to get the best

price for content in different spheres. that may be more beneficial to consumers. cable is i cannot rest on its laurels. they're trying to figure out what is the future. how do we change? that's a good thing in my opinion for what can be beneficial to consumers. >> guest: i think the answer to your question starts and ends with consumers. we want to make sure consumers can get the content they want when they want it anyway they want it. that's the wonder of the internet age, editing as public officials that something we want to make sure our markets actually accomplish. >> host: yesterday in his speech to intx, michael powell said the sec is conducting a relentless government assault on cable. >> guest: that was subtle. [laughter] >> guest: we all have our role to play in this sequel. i took an oath to ensure that

whatever comes over by desk promotes what we all i think want in terms of the public needs and necessity of consumers. i keep in the front of my mind's eye want options and opportunities. i want competition to all of these things i want, you know, and consumers want them. my fellow citizens want them. i don't come from a posture of regulation first and being in a vacuum. that is truly not what i'm saying. what i am saying is it's affirming what my roll is here is, to be that person who watches, who listens and who is there if you need us. >> guest: when i look at the items that come across my desk i would say that michael powell's comments are not too far off the mark. we are imposing new burdens on the cable industry but i would say to be fair, it's not like the cable industry is alone in the. you can look at other sectors

that are facing similar type burdens and similar type obligations that come from the federal government. i think that's problematic going forward. it adds cost to the service and that cost is passed on to consumers in one form or anoth another. >> so speaking of some of the consumer issues with the cable industry and this idea of the regulatory onslaught, the set-top box proposal from one of the most recent one of those i think one could argue, and is there a way for the sec to thread the new energy the consumer benefits that it says is possible while at the same time protecting the copyright and many of the piracy many of the other things that cable and content providers are concerned about? >> guest: call me and eternal optimist. i happen to believe that nirvana exists and i think that we can

get, what is exciting is what having this conversation. we are document content and opportunities. we are talking about a robust ecosystem. i really think, especially when we see certain milestones, when we get to certain places in our evolution we need to have a conversation about which erection to go. while i know there's a lot of emotion and people and fairest side of the fence when it comes to this particular issue, the fact that we are having this conversation and not immediately passing down in the edict really speaks well for what this an active process. it's a notice, proposal making that we're putting forth we are everybody has an opportunity to weigh in. i think it's healthy at this point of these conversations and i'm looking forward to what i

know as michael powell all recent will be a interesting and a dynamic exchange. >> host: ajit pai can be you a great transfer i would take a somewhat different view. this example is that of the crossroads the sec status of the. the our two approaches. on one hand you can take a forward-looking do with him workplace is going, try to encourage technological innovation that in the benefit of consumers or you can look at the steps of workplace that is yellowing with a divided double down on yesterday's paradigm. and set top box was it is a classic example. you don't have to take my word. take the word of literally over 100 again states house of representatives, republicans and democrats, who said across a variety of different issues what is copyright protection or other issues that the fcc's proposal to solution that will that work and so there it is in search of a problem that is not working is

about in the market place. why the fcc which use with all the other issues on display comforts of broadband deployment across world america, et cetera, to focus on something that is increasingly fading into the background is something that is beyond me but nonetheless we are going to be spending the next couple of months debating this issue despite the fact that both the private sector and congress has told us it's a misplaced priority. [applause] spitted you think the fcc has a duty to listen to congress? the 3-d with your prior experience, does the fcc have a duty to do the studies as some lawmakers have called for, others are saying these are delay tactics and the proceeding needs to push forward with what is your stance on the fcc responds. >> guestresponds? >> guest: i the great

privilege years ago working for the kind of senate's i know deep in my bones we have to respect the laws that congress has placed before us and asked us to do with it. we a section of the statute that speaks to the competitive availability of navigation devices, which is legalese for current set-top box will make you giunta goes out to be mindful of the conurbations of congress and letters in our conversations back and forth. we are wrestling with all of that information right now in the proceeding we have before us. >> guest: we are a data-driven agency and it really think this exercise which i often refer to notices of this type as, i really think it is healthy for us to pause and look and weight in. these are important serious accomplish this you were talking about. we are talking about consumption habits of our citizens. i really think it's important for us to look at the entire

ecosystem, how they did information, the platform to better use. i just don't think it's an unhealthy exercise for us to look. every few years when we talk about with a significant issues and challenges that we have, to have a conversation, gather data and make a decision if we deem it necessary in order to improve, encourage and sometimes to push these dynamic ecosystems that we have. >> guest: i appreciate your comments but i would say like if that's the structure that we want to understand an updated we should do and notice of inquiry. we shouldn't put forward specific rules. to answer your previous question, is there something the commission can do? i would take the current proposal and throw it in the garbage. that's where it belongs. we have an opportunity to embrace what the cable industry has offered. that is to get rid of the set-top box, eliminate it from the consumer some.

we should embrace that, forget what's the right time one whereby the are no set-top boxes. embrace was happening in the marketplace, embrace applications of what consumers are doing today. you don't need to thread anyone that put out the platform for us to look at. >> guest: if i could just add to that, what is happening at the sec not just in terms of the set-top box proceeding but privacy and special access is not a conversation. its dictation. it's the house and wonderful beuerlein -- that's alice in wonderland. it goes through the formality of havinhaving this process what yu receive public input but the decision has already been made. they are not open to different points of view. that's part of is why so many people have been speaking out. in terms of the set-top box proceeding and in particular the writing was on the wall when the download security committee

said, there are two distinct approaches. and app space economy, the other proposal that the commission ultimate adopted. one would think it was a genuine conversation the agency would say there are two proposals, the american public, tell us what you think. instead insist this is our proposal and the proposal advanced by the cable industry, here are a couple of paragraphs your it would be terrible for america but tell us what you think it would. that's not an open and fair debate i don't think. >> guest: it allows the opportunity for people to weigh in. i guess what i am saying here is you have, if you do not agree with, i'm embracing what you said, if you do not agree with originathe original premise, yoe an opportunity waiting. i think it's a healthy way, if you go around the world and see the regulatory dynamics, even when it's less than perfect, you

will find out or get affirmed that this allows consumers at all interested stakeholders completed all of you in this audience, the opportunity to weigh into it there's a better mousetrap so to speak wit, we he an opportunity to use that. and again i think that allows the type of process and that type of interaction is healthy. we all need to bring our best case for word, i believe, including regulators in order to make the consumer experience more robust. i think it is a healthy way of doing this. >> guest: first of all my mind is open to i don't want my colleague to suggest that it's not. we have the proceedings and thousands of pages of information before us, and i cannot claim to have read every single one but we are going to try. because we want to make sure that we understand the consequences of our proposal. i've already said this is a

market that could use competition but we also have a proposal to force that is very complicated. there are issues of copyright, privacy, diversity that all need to be addressed. we are looking for that input to make sure that we address them as we move forward. >> host: commissioner rosenworcel, i think i saw the 394 page opinion on section 620 not on the set-top boxes. is that something that you will have time to read, or what your staff read it because we will make sure that my office takes a good look at everyone of those pages. i will not and i will read every single one of them but i guarantee that i will spend some time with a filing. >> you raise the issue of the complexity with this proposal. my to be easy to break apart into multiple proceedings and try to achieve the commission's aim that way or is that not

feasible? >> guest: i don't know that i have an answer for you about that at this time. we are still waiting for a the comments to commit and i think i want to assess those before we decide precisely how to proceed. >> guest: this is an interactive process, and what things are proposed it doesn't necessarily mean that edward is adopted. so that is why we have this interactive process. it informed the commission, hopefully, to put forth if it is necessary in any case really solid regulatory glidepath that will enable all of the things that we see on the showroom floor and more. >> guest: i appreciate my colleagues openness. i do believe what they say. but that's not what the chairman is global and that's not the direction of where the commission is going. this item is already being written. it was written probably at the time of the npr and.

so that's what's going to be voted on in a matter of months. i predicted this in october. i think it's pretty much done. it's a book at a don't see it changing. i appreciate we will have colleagues looking at comments that we will not just all the mature but at the end of the day the proposal put forward will be the one that we will vote on. i just don't see, i'm happy to that anyone in the but it's going to be different host to the fact that all for your essay on this station is this an official meeting of the fcc? [laughter] >> guest: i think is enough advertising in quote-unquote noticed that think we are in good standing. >> guest: i will make sure all inquiries from ethics council are directed to one peter slen. [laughter] post but couldn't afford you do this at the fcc building, sit and have a chat without notice? >> guest: isn't that crazy? it seems to me that the supreme

court can get together and hash things out at the moment of all eight of them come and members of congress can get together, have discussion. people get together in board rooms and try to come up with solutions for the companies and institutions. i think that we would be better off if we had the ability to visit with one another and speak often and more candidly about how to manage the issues before us. >> guest: it's one thing if we are on the cusp of a final decision. i can understand that. that makes perfect sense, but commissioner rosenworcel and i both shared a joint board, intersect of the federal and state commissioners. and it's like musical telephone chairs. you've got the three of us that are members, and at 10:4:51 of us has to sign off and another one has is another we document a process that does not a final

say-so when it comes to our deliberation. so it's very cumbersome. it really makes for disjointed conversations and i think, we've been talking about it for years but i think of something we need to look at. it really just, it kind of promotes this kind of exchange or interactions that we have. it absolutely makes no sense. >> host: let's see if the republicans a great. >> guest: congress establishes over four years ago and the sunshine act would be up to congress to change the law. in the meantime there are so many more important process reforms that we could and should about. commissioner white and i talked about for example, the radical notion the fcc should problems when it is proposed to the four votes on it and allow the market people to have input. we should allow every commissioners office to have a full after opportunity to make their views known prior to a

commission for. there's basic process reforms that they would go a long way toward promoting openness transportation and accountability but, unfortunately, the traffic leadership is denied those proposals at every turn. >> guest: i agree. this is for something for congress to decide i congress to decide that congress to decide i is given then the mice used to the extent that asked them. i don't have a problem eliminating or removing parts of the burdens on sunshine band that prevents us from getting together and talking about thing. the spirit that stat is prevent the majority of getting together and decide where exactly things are going to go. i'm not as worried about that. i'm happy to have if that's the case am happy come with circumstances that it occurs so that to me is not in violation but as circumstances put out the with. i'm fine if that's the case. i'm happy to all my colleagues set the record i think we would have a full some conversation. to my colleagues the second point, that is we put forward a number of process reform ideas. i was counting some of between

24-25, to improve the fcc operations without undermining the chairman's authority or the majority's authority. so we can improve our process for the american people without harming the process of getting to that can. i think it's something we should spenspent a great deal more tim. unfortunately, chairman has set up a task force that has succeeded yet. and then i know of reason is that he is more traditionalist and, therefore, the process should stay as it is. >> so you'll have raised some issues related to privacy, the internet of things. imaging the internet of things. so with the growth of the connected devices in that ecosystem were looking right at on the horizon at a lot of industries including the cable industry look at this as a new vertical for them, what role do you see the higher level is the fcc lincoln regulating space to

go with regards to privacy and the order of magnitude more consumer data that will be collected? what should you be doing or what policies should you be putting in place now to help them flourish? >> guest: i think first and foremost recognize the reason the fcc is injected into the space is a result of the reclassification of all broadband providers as common carriers which then leads to the as is having to make determinations about what privacy restrictions should apply to internet service providers in particular. my own preference and what you those regulations be, to the maximum extent possible we should harmonize our privacy rules with those promulgated by the federal trade commission which like everybody else in the internet ecosystem to the worst thing the government can do in space and generally any other is seven on level playing field where one set of regulations applied to one group of companies at another set of regulations applied to another group, even though they're

competing essential in the same space. i think it's important for the agency not to but the ideological ends the router to make sure that consumers are protected in a way i think generally was widely done by the ftc. have a baseline level of privacy protection based on the unfair trade, unfair practices authority, and a level, less stringent protection for some of the proposals, some of the information consumers which are based on the ftc's deceptive practices story. that would be my preference. >> guest: you asked about the internet of things which is one of the more exciting developments in communications policy as the lansky before us will include sensors that start relaying an infinite amount of pressure that makes us much more efficient and effective with everything we do. and a lot of that covers it in her airways will take place over unlicensed spectrum, something the cable industry has been at the forefront of them to do with

his work on the five gigahertz band. i think would forward the internet of things will be for issues, not all of which are under fcc purview, but the first is, that spectrum and freeing up of our airways for licensed and unlicensed use to support the internet of things. the second is privacy which my colleague just touched on. we also have to think about cybersecurity with all of that connectivity. and, finally, making sure that we don't exhaust ip addresses. i think all of those things into the internet of things i will be really important going forward. >> guest: the fact of the matter is you've got to agencies primarily in this space, and with this being the expert agency when it comes to telecommunications, the platforms and the like. we have to recognize and i believe that's the way the world is evolving. once upon a time, you two are

still wedded to paper and i am. i'm surprised i don't have it in front of me. that's where our information was stored. now most of our information is not. so when you talk about these companies that have access to your personal information come it seems like there's every hour we are doing about a data breach. it is important for us to keep this working relationship with the ftc and other agencies to ensure that there is a seamless line or means of protection for consumers but all of the agencies that have either influence or impact here. we are the expert agency when it comes to commit occasions agencies. there is section 222 that speaks to that. we have an item that is being key data that we will review, and i guess from her eyes that i look at i want simplicity and

administrative ability, if i said that correctly. and so this is when looking at but this is a vital. this is your very personal information that i know you are protected and we want to protect it. there should be no disconnect along that plane when it comes to your personal information, and that's what i think competition is important for us to have. >> guest: your question got to the internet of things. my answer is what the commission to of a small role, that we have, that we haven't agency and congress has not changed our authority in the meantime to give us greater role over the internet of things. i want to ftc to do what it does best and if it is doing, if it is not insufficient work faster congress to review. that's not for me to judge. there are some subsets and? >> guest: and i've been working hard on the unlicensed issue trying to provide more unlicensed spectrum, 5.9 has been a passion of both of ours. but beyond unlike -- unlicensed

spectrum and approval of certain devices, i'd want the commission to have a heavy role. we have a site ourselves in certain roles because of our interpretation of certain things as my colleague, because of what our decision we know so we have statutory authority to do certain things on privacy, and the amazingly we are in data security, cybersecurity not mentioned in the statute at all. i have deep concerns with where this commission is going in terms of exceeding what congress has asked of us. >> guest: when you haven't rules and regulations and laws, the are snapshots in time. when you have regulatory authorities, and this process, i believe that we are interpreting things based on a car framework or you cannot talk about a law that might be 20 or 30 years old and expect for you to anticipate what all we see on a show room floor. what i always say is, again, a law or regulation is a snapshot in time and what we are charged

to do is interpret that through two days into this current lens. >> guest: privacy is a cherished principle. we all understand that. but it's also evolving. let's be honest. the way we access information or changing the pew research center has found that nine in 10 of us think it's really important to control where our information goes. ..