personalty on the citizen of west virginia is entitled to exactly the same protection that any other person of the possession of a person west virginia and therefore state law has everything to do with what is protected under the fourth amendment, isn't that right? >> i think that's right. clearly the court has articulated it better. >> let me follow up on that too because i think there is another right, and you mentioned the words of second amendment. yet there is a string of cases that is increasingly allowing the citizens to possess guns and to invest them in public places that are full of state laws that have expanded on this right saying the citizens have this right, so where we come to now is, what happens when citizens exercise their right to carry a

gun that we called the interest that they make the person dangerous? that's the connection here. the armed and dangerous. what is a dangerous? the the person is armed to the also dangerous. i'm not so sure but it seems to me that if we go in the direction that were headed and it seems like we are worse and that individuals with a gun, by definition earn dangerous persons. that has implications beyond this fellow who is carrying a gun. it deals deals with everybody who exercises a second amendment right. if it doesn't, i like to know how we are going to carve out a section just for this incident. every person that has a gun, doesn't matter if you're in the home or wherever it's armed and dangerous if we go that direction. >> i agree. >> i think they didn't walk up

to mr. robinson because he was carrying a gun, that's another issue of suspicious activity. and stop and frisk for that action along his initial stop which is not pretextual. it seems be the compromise here is yes the citizens of west virginia are entitled to exercise or second amendment rights. and police officers officers cannot stop them personally doing that. if they do something else warrants reasonable suspicion and reasonable cause and it seems to me that police officers ought to be assured that if they conduct a spot and find an individual who is armed, that is a result of that they are entitled for protection. wise and that a reasonable compromise? >> i also want to add the factual scenarios not just an

officer riding down the road seem to see belt violation. he is going going because he has been told this man has a gun and let's look at the reality of what's happening here. they stop this guy because they got a tip. a tip of what? just that they got information and they track him and i and everybody here knows that if you want to find a reason to stop a car, you might cross the line or you can this is the thinnest of reason to stop a car for a seatbelt violation is of a tip. but i want you to answer the question but we cannot force the fact from the case. >> your honor the response - make. >> the fact is not relevant. he conceded the legitimacy of the stops of those facts are not relevant. all we are here to decide is if it's legitimate to frisk him

after he is legitimately stop. >> yes or, we have conceded that. i think they're correct in that. >> why did you can see that this was not a contextual stop. the officer said i stop the car to investigate that gun tip but i also had a seatbelt violation. >> perhaps i miss understood. it is a pretextual stop because of the sea, i'm sorry think my time is expired. >> you may proceed. >> i think judge windmill is correct that my answer to you in that it was the, it was the panel majority addressed it it

was the seat belts that got him to stop at the whole reason officer hudson and the captain left the station the first place was because of the gun. the officer took the call and testified at the hearing that no legal activity was conveyed to her by this tip. they left because of the gun. the left because of the gun in the panel majority talks about how you're sort of in this weird red and. >> because loading a gun in broad daylight in a high crime area. not just the gun. >> none of that is illegal activity in west virginia. loading the gun. >> it doesn't have to be illegal activity. if it is activity of suspicious behavior that would indicate a person is dangerous. >> it doesn't have to be illegal, can be perfectly legal. and this is what i'm concerned about is that you're trying to deconstruct and the supreme court has told us not to do. don't deconstruct every fact in

the case and say that doesn't matter. it's the totality. it is the facts taken together. the testimony was that this is a high crime area, drug activity, persistent in the area and this man was loading a gun and concealing it. in a parking let. why isn't that objective evidence of suspicious behavior bearing on the issue of dangerousness at the time that he validly stop the vehicle? >> when you're considering the totality of the circumstances, i think the officer can consider those factors when determining that this individual is dangerous. i think. >> wise and that objective evidence that a dangerous activity, loading the gun a parking lot in the middle of the day where there are drug deals going on? >> we don't know if they're going on at the time but were

saying there's a history of drug dealings. >> there should be something that could activate the officer's concern. >> you might be something for them to consider but there was no drug activity going on at the time, it was daylight, not night. there are two individuals in the car, not four, six, six, or eight, there's one-to-one ratio between officers and individuals in the vehicle. the loading of the gun and concealing it was not an illegal activity. yes they described it as a high crime area, i don't mean to sort of -- that. we hear high crime area all the time. and officers have testified that all of jefferson county is a high crime area. ransom is a particular high crime area. 7-eleven is. 711 is a particular one, we could get to the point where you're at multiple tiers of high crime and the officers just describe the entire state of west virginia is a high crime area. that gets to be a point where i

don't think the high crime area. >> well loading a gun in the parking lot, your there's a guy in the current to, you know, and someone is loading his weapon as you go in for your drink, on can you really objectively say that's not suspicious behavior? >> i was saying suspicious. >> the state of west virginia says you can carry a gun your person, doesn't talk about what facts are suspicious in their totality. but it sounds like we disagree on it. >> well even so it seems to me that they forget go in that direction i don't see why we should tack it with high crime area. it seems to me someone who goes to a church picnic and pulls out a gun and starts loading it is a pretty dangerous person to me so i don't see the

reason to cabinet. we have to just call it what it is and not just what we call high crime areas which definitely typically means a particular type of neighborhood. >> yes sir, i agree. >> thank you. >> mr. boot. >> under pennsylvania, the please make a valid traffic stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist or the passengers are, they also have reasonable suspicion that he is dangerous to justify a terry frisk. they stated when the officer noticed a boulder representative weapon he properly included and i quote, he was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the savior of the officer.

>> so because there's a bulge in someone's pocket is a reasonable suspicion. >> you have asked two distinct questions at the heart of this case. what reasonable suspicion do you need to have to make a stop? and what reasonable suspicion do you have to make a frisk? >> the recall pennsylvania was none open carry state at the time. >> you're absolutely correct about that. so let me then i'm going to continue the rest of that argument in a minute. but i didn't want to get to the point that was raised by some of the judges. >> is there now? >> the question is what is the impact of a state law that allows for the open carry of a firearm in the context of a terry frisk? my answer is, nothing. the reason is because the supreme court has said twice, both in adams versus williams and again in versus long that

the validity of the terry frisk does not depend on whether or not the state gives the individual who has been stopped a right to carry a firearm. >> and in this case the officers simply [inaudible] >> again i wanted to differentiate between a stop and frisk. >> so [inaudible] >> while the reason i believe that it doesn't change the calculus is because again the supreme court has said twice, adams versus williamson-micah doesn't make a difference. >> [inaudible] and adams council the question was given numerous -- of great suspicion. the middle the night guys sitting in car by himself, they

have reasonable suspicion that he's involved in drug offenses. and he has a gun. under those circumstances there's a possibility the gun is illegally own and suspicion to make all the rest of it evaporate. the answer is no nobody's arguing about that in the case. everybody agrees on the facts of backs of adams that there is a reasonable suspicion that gun in the person with a gun presented a dancer and he refused to cooperate, he would not talk with the police officer. here the question is, not the gun itself illegally possessed gun make the owner of a gun a danger to the police if he's not sitting by himself, is not doing drugs and is not refusing to cooperate with the police? >> will the answer to that is adams versus williams when it didn't matter whether the state a lot because connecticut did allow it. they said it did make a difference. so let's assume okay and adams

versus williamson let's go back to mission michigan versus long burke so my answer is the supreme court having said that twice it's up to the supreme court to decide whether or not, in the wake of health come state laws that allow individuals to carry firearms in public. it is up to them to decide whether that makes a difference. >> let me of this. do you think any of the factors in this case are necessary for your argument, other than the belief that there is that gun present? in other words, does your does your argument rests at all on loading the weapon, high crime area, or any of that? or is it just the presence of the weapon that authorizes whatever you propose? >> we have made two arguments. our first primary argument is that under pennsylvania versus mims, valid traffic stop,

reasonable suspicion to believe that you are dangerous, no further facts, no further evidence of dangerous is required. however if the court. >> just answer the question, yes is the presence of it enough? >> yes, if, if you are arms your thus dangerous. but our second argument is that assuming the court does not agree with our submission of the control of this case that are secondary argument is that if you need proof of case specific dangerousness factors. in this this particular case you had. >> to think under the law you don't need anything other than the presence of a weapon. >> the presence of a weapon in the reason why mims equated being armed with being dangerous is because it reflects the reality that traffic stops are inherently dangerous. >> with a slight variation on

his excellent question. counterfactual he, let's assume they were wearing seatbelts. contrary will use hypothetical, then another touch the lines they never exceeded the speed limit. no traffic offense that even the best officer in the work could come up with. it was an honest officer who absently testified i stop the car because of the anonymous tip that there is an armed individual in the car. would your argument be exactly the same? because really that's what he's asking you. what else do you need to succeed >> to stop her frisk be messy that's the point. there is no evidence of a reasonable suspicion of a crime until you get to the seatbelt violation. >> that's correct. >> so what he's asking you is as i amended his question, take the seatbelt violation out of the

case, do you have reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offense. >> for purpose of the stop, no. >> no. so if he had not come up with the seatbelt violation, the mere fact that the government's position is that a high crime area in the middle of the day in the 711 parking lot a man had a weapon put it in his pocket got in the car, that would not constitute reasonable suspicion to affect the stop. >> most likely, yes. likely, yes. i mean we have conceded that. >> there to. >> judge, so that means that situation you would not regard the person is armed and dangerous? >> is exactly the same situation except there's no pretext to the stop. >> the armed and dangerous formulation comes up once you have a valid stop or valid right. and you have reasonable suspicion that is armed.

again as i was trying to ask lane to the judge really when he asked about that, there's a fundamental difference in the in evaluating the significance of an open carry provision in dealing with whether an individual can be stopped for an offense. >> are you saying that, are you saying that it depends on whether or not the facts require an encounter? for instance under judge proposed set of facts you could see a man with a gun in a parking lot get in a car in driveway but once you have the seatbelt violation in the stop that brought the two together and created the danger? as a part of your analysis be my guess. in other words what happened. >> i'm really not asking for agreement i'm asking for an assessment of whether, how can that be?

driving away with your seatbelt on makes you armed and dangerous >> no you're not armed and dangerous if you do that but if you don't have a seatbelt on you are. >> that can't be your answer. >> but it is. >> so hypothetically now remember, robinson is a passenger and so if two blocks down the road the car pulls over he gets out and walks away, can the police stop him as a pedestrian? >> know there would not be an offense. >> so he is no longer is and dangerous or armed thus dangerous, he's armed other reasonable suspicion level but he's no longer dangerous because he's a pedestrian. it is a passenger in a in a car stop for a seatbelt violation he is armed

and thus dangerous under the government. >> and the reason for that is judge davis is that i'm trying to explain is that the supreme court has said that traffic stops are in here intently dangerous. as said they are especially fraught. >> but you can also treat a passenger with the same level of suspicion from the protection of the officer. so in terms of the danger of a traffic stop it doesn't make any difference whether as some motorist himself or herself or the passenger. but the critics say you can order a passenger out of a vehicle just as the officer did here, treating the passenger just as you would treat the motorists when it comes to the dangerous analysis. but your submission is once there are pedestrian are connected to the vehicle then there no longer dangerous.

so to believe that he is armed is exactly the same. >> what if he was a chain walking pedestrian? what if he stepped off the sidewalk, that violates municipal ordinances in a lot of places. >> so then you become dangerous again. >> judge, my submission would be even in the case of a municipal ordinance, if you have a valid stop. >> if you have a valid encounter. >> it nothing like a consensual encounter, first were talking only in this case with a terry stop so there has to be a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. our submission goes will go further to say that in that situation even if reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime even if it's admissible ordinance and you have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed, he is dangerous and you can frisk him. >> with that takes we from your

traffic stopper that takes way from the rationale that you just said a traffic stop is inherently dangerous. while the level of dangerousness in traffic stop far exceeds. >> and over that was your justification in your answer earlier. i think your position might well be that a valid stop and an encounter or stop or whatever you want to call it justified interaction with that person who you have reasonable suspicion to believe he is armed my creative dangerous situation that would allow. >> it's reasonable suspicion of not just criminal activity but you're talking about reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous. could you make that assessment and a valid stop if you're just walking down the street, be an armed would not be enough to stop. but your use in the justification earlier that the traffic stop is merely dangerous. >> as i said earlier i'm trying to make, maybe i'm not succeeding as well as i would like to be.

>> there is a difference in the reasonable suspicion calculus in deciding whether a stop is lawful. >> i'm talking about, you are saying that the calculus on reasonable suspicion for armed and dangerous is a large merger you get the benefit because the supreme court has set a traffic stop is inherently dangerous. that's what you said. >> but the scenarios scenarios we could come up with others when it has nothing to do with a traffic stop. >> but your answer is the same. >> and my answer also applies to for example in terry versus ohio which did not involve a traffic stop but involved a burglary robbery and in that case the supreme court basically said the same thing that you are armed. >> so you just think those are the facts of this case.

>> so this is a traffic stop. >> i know under man's the danger inherent in a traffic stop is exceedingly high. >> so my question is do you think in this case we have the law in the traffic stop which justifies the patdown and these facts. but but you don't think you need that scenario with the exceedingly dangerous situation of a traffic stop. you think, i think you're saying this that just a lawful encounter includes reasonable suspicion would be enough for a patdown. >> now that's not what he said. >> if the driver of the vehicle was the one that have the seatbelt violation and not defended your answers the same. >> i'm sorry could you repeat. >> in other words to the defendant had seatbelt violations but he stopped the car because of that but the driver of the car had a seatbelt

violation not the defendant the answer is the same. >> he's armed and dangerous because the car has been stopped. >> anytime you have a traffic stop. >> did you understand my question that's either yes or no. >> what if the defendant into anything wrong. he's wearing his seatbelt. >> what if he is wearing his the driver is not. the car stop by the officer. same scenario,. >> in the event that you have one person does not have the seatbelt and if it's a violation of west virginia law the officer can stop a car or if the passenger. >> it's either yes or no. i understand the explanation. >> the answer is if anybody in the car is reasonably suspected of being armed you can frisk him. >> okay so what about the case where he got out of the car? all of the same facts, the drivers driving along, he sees a seatbelt violation violation but

there's a couple blocks ahead of him, our defendant here gets out of the car and starts walking down the street. >> if the officers making a traffic stop in a situation. >> five months later he stopped the car but the defendant is no longer in the car. >> if he has just gotten out, that's a tough question if he just got out of the car. >> the problem there, if you have a problem with it i suggest if there's nothing about him concealing the weapon that makes it armed and dangerous. >> at any time you have a traffic - mac anytime in the car, well if you have an individual in the car who is suspected of being armed and he's in a car and there is a legitimate stop. >> is no longer in the car. >> so of course the evidence in this case was that it was a male who had the firearm, not the female. so the government the female,

the driver could have been frist under terry because there's nothing to believe that she was armed. >> understand, but you understand, they stop at a traffic light, the cop is a couple of cars behind and the guy gets out a card car and starts walking. he's going to go get a soda. so the officer drives along. >> so now he's gotten out of the car. >> no because and there's no reasonable suspicion to stop. >> so is no longer armed and dangerous. >> no reasonable suspicion. the armed and dangerous a formulation only comes up once you have had a legitimate stop of that individual reasonable suspicion. >> so when we do these hypotheticals here and there you think of losing away for the

supreme court decisions case after case. that is when you get in the situation where a gun is present and where you have a stop which is the traffic stop which is they have a certain level of tension, the supreme court says when you get in these confrontational situations or temp situations the policeman is justified in taking a small, protective step. it may save a life whether it's his or someone else's, or the suspects. these are situations that are inherently and inherently have a certain degree of confrontation. there's apprehension about what the police may find. there's anger being stopped.

so the situation can turn on you. given the dynamics of these situations as a general rule, it makes sense to disallow a small protective step that may very well be life-saving. >> i agree with that. it was some time ago. i really respect you must challenge your next statement. you said and in all argument turns of this notion that it is the stop, the legality of the stop that informed the armed and dangerous analysis. but in fact as you will recall the famous officer mcfadden in the terry case did not affect the stop at all. remember. the defendant in particular was walking back and forth in front of that business and mcfadden walked up to him, he was a pedestrian and mcfadden had

reasonable suspicion that they were casing the joint for robbery as someone earlier suggested. mcfadden said a few words, katz mumbled something in response and mcfadden immediately laid on hands and produce the handgun from inside the over coat pocket. and then he patted him down. so the irony of terry in the so-called stop and frisk is that in terry there was no stop. it was an encounter between pedestrians in downtown cleveland. . .

>> >> is not true that every stop can give rise to the fresco that is to separate analysis just like armed and dangerous is the separate analysis. you are armed or dangerous but that is not what the supreme court has said. >> describing that you said that the officer laid his hands quick. >> guess he would pat him down felt the badge reached

into the pocket and pulled up the handgun. >> standing on the street. >> it has always been viewed as stop and frisk. >> absolutely incorrect. look bad -- looking up. there was no stopping it was consentual encounter outside the business. it was not a stop. nicolle that stop and frisk but it was only about the fresco and then it goes into the discussion if it is okay to be in the presence of an individual and he elaborates the notion it is okay so did have to go through that analysis.

and then go around a telephone poll watching them. >> i must disagree i always saw that as a stop. >> you are not along. [laughter] civic you were relying on pennsylvania buckskin? >> so is that your point that the supreme court took carry as a different situation by excite not clear what you are saying. we have not talked about the progression what he did adams vs. williams with the evolution of this concept x with uh different cases

cases, isn't that something we have to consider that you are leaving at out of your analysis. >> r-utah locking about the legitimacy of the armed and dangerous? >> this is a traffic stop. >> but it was limited some way but it has been expanded as time has gone along. >> then they extended even further when the court held what you could do is go into the passenger compartment. but since you brought up the michigan case the supreme court uses potentially dangerous in that context if they are armed.

>> >> if he is alone there is no reason to stop the car. one with no other traffic violation by. >> that is what i said. driving lawfully we believe the facts of the case the amount to reasonable suspicion. so armed is already there. especially arm to. the police officer is by his presence.

solely based on the presence of a police officer not any thing he was doing but it is the presence of the officer. to have a forcible encounter >> but you talk to somebody on the street. and you believe that somebody told you they were armed? in that circumstance that would be created by the police officer. >> when you have a police encounter, the fact there are does not give rise to the armed and dangerous formulation. >> that triangulates. doesn't quite. >> just having a firearm in and of itself does not make you dangerous.

but for the purposes of this case. but i'm trying to understand >> wouldn't they have the same instance? because he knows you have a gallon. what difference does that make? doesn't that make that dangerous in every instance? >> the head of the supreme court say if they say can spee2 that they cannot do that quite. >> of course, . >> if you are with a gun does that make you dangerous to make you were using them in the colloquial sense.

i am trying. >> this sounds like you bounce yourself off original position fact that your arm doesn't make you dangerous but the question was a sexual encounter but i said no from the very beginning. >> but consensual quick. >> what difference does that make greg. >> what the case is about so would doesn't make any difference if you are reading for the police to frisk can't take the gun away.

one. >> awareness is a consensual encounter mason but the officer testified stopped in this car because of the tippee was carrying a gun. that is why i stopped the car. it is justified because there was a seat belt violation. but my question is.

>> but there has to be a violation. >> how hard would it be correct. >> but that practical matter is, but i have the will or pushing the benefits of her even though if the legitimate all you had to mention was expired license plate. >> what is the oval differential piquancy they

may think you have drugs but they cannot search you for drugs. this in is a unique case because they feel that the hunchback from from with this is just unusual application. >> but it. >> and now that has not been raised yet but.

>> you would rely on him all cases were decided discovery of the second amendment. do we have anything wrong the supreme court that tells us for but then not having to deal with all the cases. >> dead don't have much time left to. but there is no second amendment claim but then my

he takes the data of way cake can afterwards. the stops on the t and a take baghdad then there is the brief period but they have defaults because of the abolition of the second amendment. >> i am not of time. but let me and nephew -- ask you that we talk about for

short periods of time it is an individual's life ahead so your analysis. >> only if there is the foulest of one but the fact that was alluded to but then

you will be subject but then to go up against the supreme court. [laughter] >> is that the analysis but as far as the lead today are giving him -- but the government with their petition for a rehearing argued that it should be armed and then you're

automatically dangerous. my address to any but the inquiry to the government but that has been our position and and these harrison from and. >> by don't believe so but lead this for.

>> but a man not correct but the supreme court has to you said by the circumstances by the account your but to be creative with the linkage between but there is no love

but he was alarmed. so there goes the serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. in no circumstance serves any fee and of reasonable caution and likely have abducted but we can change. but too distant -- strike a very careful balance for:they said that you have the police that not freed

but those two things where the cortex is not armed to but for the stop and reasonable suspicion with fresh and nixon and and with some protection with safety in the light of the individual adversary. the supreme court did not want. >> we walked into their beak -- but just throw them up in

the year. -- the air. that seems a officer of those life could be on the line. >> eric is a danger that with your views we have got off the tracks but the government is suggesting we

have first 102nd provision to head dash down can? and answer that question. but maybe prior to that day off so used to but is the police chief plaques but now they're armed and dangerous because he legally carries the death in. outthrust but that was the

point teammate originally that but that is not what we have here but to de-fund. >> when they are illegal that is a different case are you complaining? [laughter] half

>> good morning mr. speaker. everyone in washington is wondering where did you learn to hammer a nail? you used to build your own tree stand with hammers and nails now you can buy one cheaper than you can buy the lumber and the nails it was quite a moment. >> another thing the use spent constructing is a document. with those house republicans are you committed to moving

forward online x. >> >> this is big problems solutions that it is much easier to do with the unified government look at the issues we're trying to tackle like poverty let's define success by getting people out of evidence based policy making like to think there is space for those reforms matter flu is in what office. said rebuilding the military has been controversial. >> those are things and obama care is in is imploding we propose a

comprehensive alternative to prevent a debt crisis in the future that will be have to deal with no matter what and tax reform. again if it is inevitable just the fact we losing our competitiveness so quickly in this country that we're losing the homegrown business with consented selling nine-point 1% of americans if the house to meet the test of americans? we should always have a plan

we will have a system in this country where everyone has access to affordable health insurance without having a costly government takeover? 1931 percent of rations county's only offer one plan. invent these are big public utilities where people are getting no choices and such high premium increases the not-for-profit is staying. to recruit -- to reduce. >> to provide universal access. there will be people for one reason will choose not to have health insurance if your son is the army ranger in business school may

choose not to have health insurance but for those who want it and need it clearly we can have a system that can do that by the way that this will be proposed. >> on the tax side going back 30 years, clinton raised taxes. >> with a capital gains. >> george w. bush cut taxes only 1.3 million now with 11 million jobs with obama so what is there in the record that gives you confidence that tax cuts are the aisle lever for job growth greg. >> we're in the 21st century. that was all twentieth century. [laughter] but let me explain we have

one or 2 percent growth and flat wages with anemic growth probably a recession around the corner. this economy is so global and interconnected america was out there in the lead. that is not the case anymore. we have to be competitive. lakes superior is what i call but the corporations are taxed at 35. our successful small businesses then attacks top rate the point that i am trying to make is if we keep passing our businesses that hire tax rate, we will lose in global competition companies are going overseas

because of taxes provide met with one big company with a huge business in minnesota so they could take the overseas money to reinvest back into the country. is crazy. in the 21st century you cannot just think he will tax and tax with no consequences it pays to stay so make sense to manufacture with your headquarters in america. >> it is inevitable be have to address that. >> if you spend time going into communities and you have said in those places what have you learned to and what will it take to change those perceptions? >> show up and listen.

two years and one month and we need to do better. and what i have learned there are communities doing amazing things. did not try to displace them i am here to tell you what to do but support them. have them replicate. >> is something we created in milwaukee. this was not a safe place we created a mentor program and then our medium to 24/7 to help them get on the right path graduation rates are representative test scores are up so water redoing? year cost -- cross pollinating it is going on in dallas these are home

grown solutions to get behind. but they're not working to gather right now or in tandem. so we are pushing and pulling to go after the root causes and that is what republicans can offer with disruption in to the status quo so that we can and actually have reforms that measure success based on outcomes. >> critical here is the budget priority does not always match up with your language and rhetoric.

then there will be budget savings at the end of the day because of that. i will say it this way. we have a poverty trap if you stack a lot of different benefits so it pays not to work you will get 24 granted benefits with two kids if you have did job so with assayed disincentive to move out of poverty. so customize benefits to their needs. with important incentives. benefits are conditional with saw hard skills and the point is if we can customize benefits to where they need

to be that there is plenty of savings that the end of the day it shouldn't be about saving money at the back and it is getting a lot of poverty. >> and they are driving toward the first majority and they said to be on the trip it cannot just be the party of little government with the party of big government is he right? >> i am pushing for criminal justice reform. >> i think both parties would sign these into law. it went of little too far now we have learned there are better methods to get people on the right path of redemptions so that is what

we are working on. >> we are working. >> we're still working on this. >> the polls have shown in the republican primaries for virtually every other state with the exit poll the primary voters support some kind of legal status for workers is impossible to move forward? >> i would say this there is a away you with a population but there's also the mass deportation not amnesty but they can turn their right to a work permit. but the problem so many people have the that they

will actually secure the border so to do something on the legal side but then it is the same problem. >> but it isn't that big comprehensive bill. >> that is the wrong way to go. and they must begin with an exercise that is critical for national security to secure the border. with heroin coming into our high-school is, you have got to deal with this. and it is the sense that we are securing our country where people are willing to embrace but does have to be

fixed but not one great big bills. >> but in six weeks, drug baby elected president. but to renegotiate the terms of nafta and he would withdraw from that. would you help them achieve that quite. >> i don't want to get into a hypothetical. >> this is six weeks. [laughter] >> if he is president would you help them achieve that by. >> first of all it was 1993 when this was done? there are things they can do to improve so clearly there is room for growth and richet have fun north american energy block to dominate the world.

there were areas of clear improvement but less work on improving it. it is important to open the export markets for ourselves it is us and not others. >> but from the beginning the budget and your cool into a premium support structure so regardless of who is elected will you continue to push crude. >> and managed-care

dishonest may set the right now they're making promises that they know they cannot keep. we are proposing a system the cbs tells us is the most effective way for proof of fisheries and but if you are in and near retirement nothing changes. if we fix this soon with the of retirement michael -- will come pool of a hat on dash with that crisis burned by the dinner markets that

is the fraction of the number and every need much more. double of for dash laugh laugh in this the infrastructure program. [laughter] just so you know, significant groups only this weekend everything done with the other structure problems but but donald trump said

pre-should have death five not ax and dash did you committed but then they stay at the historical average of 14% to limit future of the goal and patient and. >> but i have learned but keep the nuclear family in debt to read have a shortage

here in an we're going to need nurses and nec -- inductors but every person on of welfare issue were but that 90 percent increase of the population but only 18 percent but they should be given upon your contribution that is needed tandoori honey laugh laugh

how much time do you have? that is a reading did unified republican government is the way to go. [applause] >> i came along with a. but stand talked-about this he is said with the but this

is the epitome of the public but with the teachers' unions working together but break up before 4:00 in the morning those that wake up and but then they can pull them up but the difference with the teacher advisor is that you can customize your lesson based on the needs of your kids.

with the video is getting smarter and smarter and more out world tough a but this is a five-year so excited. thank-you but that is with normal last -- language processing that is very different from of preventable system. but it is a very different and he for a and pet with

that information's and and and benitez and an unfair and with those petitioners sent teachers or, etc. and collectively we have talked about this.

teacher professional development. >> is very exciting week and already see the difference it can make. but we have seen the statement you say you're dash but love. i am the driver of this technology. >> to have that proper public school experience on

but other companies have changed companies but you cannot be judgmental but they responsible for teaching the will child everything. within a short period of time pecks -- some hedge fund doomed 30 kids but everybody else in my class says but what happens is you

have these ideas pet to get a customized lessons from someone who has not done that already. and will interpret some it

in to take this to other levels and mathematics but it is exciting. >> but to be new at the greenwich level you have to know what it is about through the numbering system or a concept. attached the standards wretches the filth the court

but you can search one. >> but the content that will surface up zero of six stomachs like they have been seriously curated say they will not do random research but they will trusted as a place that has the content but can you apply them plaques but that is what we

do right now that is usually important. and then show what we don't know. head is at the parade in but that is important for but that is a process of research very excited and

their supporting what we do and the latitude to teach. thinking for the process and what you have done as a teacher riser. >> thanks for your partnership. [applause] jonathan. [applause] but then they get around to passing these. [applause] is it enough's and? at one of 29 that could deal with this piaster that

because he thought it was important part of that going the distance the we can but we want to take a the money and keep moving forward to make sure here in united states we are as prepared as we can be helping states like florida. over 100 people have often -- contract did zika to make sure we are working on the vaccine and we are making and the ferris fain but in other words, as the

pregnant woman but as cause of death restyled and now there is other damage with their hearing or site or developmental issues food don't present. >> i have seen the recent reports about transmission. >> so i think that question and have 23,000 cases of zika in miami now there over 3,000 do what people don't realize is we had 29 for.

>> tower dire could get but most of the people are a symptomatic and that is a problem because you could visit one of the five countries that have outraged

but that is where they need to be careful for the period when i come back. >> people are watching palmer five and fourth in a we are pretty horrifying. does that set you back quick. >> we had to make decisions that were not what i would like to make. the first is take the money from ebola. with one dash within the two months we have had this cdc back to make sure we would not have additional outbreaks.

but in florida there are teams to determine the number of cases and assist florida to fight the mosquito and those are things we cannot stop but to have those to be harmful to those issues and in this particular case. because this is about pregnancy and women but.

>> better open enrollment is getting ready to stage. >> but talk about the goal of the affordable care act but that over arching goal is what we fell upon with access that is what we put in our mind in the marketplace is a contributor >> but what do you expect with the exchange's price. >> we will go all out this year with open enrollment just this week we had a millennial summit focusing on those young people to make sure they know affordable care is affordable and we are working with more digital partners than ever before

with the new economy the other thing we are focused on is no more enlarging the font. that people are want and make it easy to access this bid met cusack united health care, and others pulling out and then so then added this reducing bet people go to the exchange's but when we think about health care 150 million people have employer based care but is

another huge chunk of people on medicare and medicaid. tens of millions. but that overall picture we learned to weeks ago in the market we have seen so yes of with regard to marketplace specifically. does something we want to encourage real working hard to track the people to go into it get there with them. >> and last week there were of questions and let

foreword to how this had to our profitability pressure of the of success? and intuit share and but they are running and did is a transition year. >> with the passage of the firm will can act but to use those those a huff and puff. >> and then you can switch your plan but if they had

priced the map available but they basically don't like this it is underpriced for the market they tried to serve. it isn't a criticism but they didn't have information. follow the line from the premium to where we are now. so we probably wouldn't have this conversation of this started higher at the beginning. >> i am the the pilot will and then to have a mission rehire and younger people. >> this is one of the things of the affordable care act.

>> if we have not seen that. and i think that you know, the first thing was unemployment. we did not see the and obliterate go up. that was the first thing. second we will see employers what they put into the marketplace barco's aho that did not have been. the third inning is will to get below the numbers but i will say that.

>> whether there is more competition or look get a transition and so we know we have work to do but the basis are we confident? yes. >> we have any election going on. [laughter] what happens to the affordable care act in the donald trump presidency with a republican congress quick. >> aclu are working on the trump affordable care act laugh desist to make sure that it survives? >> one of the constraints in requirement that it is my reliability to talk about elections or candidates in any official role like cannot do and i will not do. but let me answer the question about the future of the affordable care act in any scenario i think the

question you're asking is can we repeal? the fundamental is this is in the fabric of our nation. if we ask people do you want pre-existing conditions to keep you out of health care? somebody who has cancer or asthma do want to go back to a world you can be cut out hopes blacks in america don't think we're going back for the seniors from the doughnut hole there were 11 million saving $23 million ended don't think they want to go back to world where you could have annual limits in your health care. i met a woman who delayed

irv chemotherapy because she had her annual limit their some ndp says that people don't realize. that is a benefit is in the fabric at this point. >> also congress is voting to repeal the affordable care act. >> so if you have a republican congress and republican president who campaigned on repealing if they sign that for the 40th time, how do you prevent that? is it just not possible? >> if it could be reality but look at a time when there was a court case we were confident obviously it was a court case. so what happened at that point in time they thought

this could happen and the damage that it could cause. >> but everybody knows in the house with these folks have occurred. when you are faced with the reality every district in the country has or their rate of uninsured. >> so there was a republican president zine and repeal that they would not go forward greg. >> will not get into politics but the point of view of the american people and buchanan translate that into politics. but the american people will demand the benefits we didn't even mention preventative care. when i take my sexual did for his annual visit there is no additional payment.

so going back from those things i think then nation will demand. >> another story it has dominated that is the epi-pen. so what happened? are you satisfied that issue has been resolved? they are increasing their discount watching from afar can you see this product that they are gaining a monopoly greg sam profiting off of kids that depend on this to save their lives. >> access and of availability to drugs in many to take steps as a nation to make sure we do that. and what is most important

and but does require legislation is debility for hhs to negotiate on high-cost but just in that space. these are the tools that we have. last year the fda approve a more generic drugs in the history of the fda. right now it works to help people understand how to work through the generic process. you can get faster approvals . but one of the most important tools we could gain is the ability to negotiate. >> they are paid for. and in certain cases so they would have that it is far

the most complicated jobs in the federal government but the future of health care so much outside of the law. but in terms of treatment putting the consumer epicenter of their care with treatment of how we provide that. so that physicians are coordinating care the physical therapist as we think about that care to use and prevention to change how we pay so little pay for this service the doctors paid for your outcome. >> how does that work? >> i will give you a

specific example saw no you have put out mandatory bundles. but the nfc we will pay for that from the first episode. then as you pay for the outcome pet you and the providers that you work with are provided a quality health care -- outcome but the cost of debt and a knee replacement is great so this is how we get to a place.

>> unfortunately we are out of time. [applause] >> good to have you. >> i remember this couch. >> so i hear a rumor that vladimir putin round the crime brown. [laughter]

there is no way possible to communicate with those four people. [laughter] >> anguilla take on a lot challenges. syria, is as complicated as anything i have ever seen. and that is going on at the same time. setting arabia, turkey, iran , if everybody against isis and it is a misstep sectarian and civil war and strategic with proxy and it is very, very difficult to be able to align forces. >> in the middle of that why did you thank you could crack. >> we did we got one that

held for a number of weeks originally then this one was interrupted and the other was the destruction. that is hard under any circumstances with the rationale or the excuse. >> so that was a purposeful action. >> is strong evidence would reject. but the boy is, there's just huge levels of mistrust but basking in a question which makes me think, i make no apology for president obama. none. whatsoever to try to reach out to find out if there is a way to achieve the political settlement that

everybody says is but people are constantly saying there is no military solution then what is the political solution pecks who will get you there? the job of secretary state is the job that tries to do that. arrest of this and maybe pact it has been marred but by russia's persistent rashad that is beyond the seeking of the political settlement and the bombing right now is an excusable beyond pale of any notion of strategic or otherwise is an

discriminant, they took down a hospital last night, 400 civilians have been killed in the last 80 -- days 100 were children we made it crystal clear with those circumstances it is not possible to be cooperating. >> are we on the verge of taking down the scaffolding to walk away of any chance of going back to your plan of joint implementation center to do with the russians? for are you willing to give it another chance quick. >> suspending the discussion because it is irrational in the context of the bombing taking place to be sitting there trying to take things seriously. there is no notion or indication of the seriousness or purpose with what is taking place right now.

it is one of those moments we have to pursue other alternatives for a period of time bart barring a clear indication that they are prepared to consider how to approach this more effectively john mccain has lampooned you with threatening the suspension to say how could this have any influence? we have talked about this before that i would like to winter stand how if you put yourself as the diplomat dozen into the intentions of russia, how do they see the map and the future? if we do walkaway what influence do we have quick. >> i am not worried about lampooning from those that don't seem to have the votes

or cobble together a plan or a legitimate approach peddles the congress for those good people to go to work in syria. it's easy to be critical of difficult -- diplomatic efforts so what is the alternative? will we go to war in syria? that will not happen we are at war against diocese in be will fight that and win that have no doubt to make enormous progress with that is different in dissolving ourselves directly into the civil war. and the russian point of view hmm but they are a dedicated terrorist organization we repaired to go after that russia does not believe that because months ago there was the

statement about separating our fighters from them. so there is a huge distressed by russia that basically be using this to go after a side. there is huge distrust on both sides. and those levels because of the type of operations to engage in an in is inappropriate on our side incidentally. it is inappropriate and against any common morality so that is why when we are pulling back, there is no miscalculation in anybody's

mind about as cooperating in a way that manpower's them we will just not do that obviously. >> don't want to believe this serious subjects the syria and basis and iraq, but my colleague was one of the most important articles on the above doctrine and i thought it was useful because he raised the question how did they frame their priorities? i am interesting in your frame. if you look out there uninterested in what you see as the nation's leading diplomats the man who may have then-president, howdy organizing your mind taking on the day national-security challenges quite. >> the first thing obviously

is understand and define the interest of the united states of america my job and the president's job is to protect our nation and to levant's our interest and value simultaneously. that is what form policy is a combination of interest and values'' for the melded like that but not always sometimes they are far greater importance to a particular moment and you may have tension or the values which is also relevant to the debate about syria by the play with the killings and torture. >> it is and the values category? >> both. we have huge interest because of the stability in the region, the need to

fight against extremism, prevent the country from breaking up, and having a negative impact including their ally it is still. you have to get a sense. >> so what is the secret sauce? >> once you have figured those things out then you have to figure out in the adversary's if you confine a meeting of the minds on any of the interest or values. that vexes differently with different people at different times. with the rain and negotiating in the iran nuclear agreement they wanted out from the sanctions and did not think it was worth to pursue a

nuclear weapon and the ayatollah made it clear he made a calculated decision i think it was right and important. it was something to work with but at the same time hq shall level of distrust and questioning where they may go at we have a huge interest to make sure it was as strict as possible anticancer people's questions with the capacities and ultimately you can see how to get from here to there. there are some frozen conflicts we cannot see that because of feeder source tensions but somewhere it is

difficult but you can see how you can get there if they made a certain set of decisions. palestine falls into that category you have to be prepared to make a certain set of decisions. >> was iran what you are most proud of what. >> >> where you least satisfied with. >> with syria i am very dissatisfied where we are i am extremely concerned wearing it is going and will happen to the people of syria and in the region if more rational and moral base common-sense approach is not found to deal with this situation. yemen, libya there are many challenges.

i feel good where we are with isis they do think we could move faster but the president is on track we can see where we hear going in where we're headed and he is constantly looking for ways to try to excel rate that. the climate change agreement that be reached in paris is monumental and extraordinarily important. because of the threat of climate change manifest itself on a global basis. it is everywhere. to have brought the 186 nations to gather which hordes of the drought of the effort with china we got china to agree to work with us instead of against us in copenhagen that was a sea change resulted in sending a signal to the marketplace

which now we follow-up on with the aviation agreement hydro fluorocarbons agreement, and that alone could save one half of the rise of temperature on the planet. so these are critical. >> so you have those net gains. >> so with those local will majors. >> today's cns. >> some people doubt his staying power. >> i hear this but it is interesting may have heard people ledge that we are retrenching and somehow going back but i have to

tell you, i think if you measure all of american history, there has never been a moment when the united states is fully in caged in two places simultaneously on as significant in number of complicated issues as we are today with an impact. with a bowl of predictions were 1 million people would die. obama had the courage to sell one dash send 3,000 troops to galvanize support me lead that effort. that never happened. and about to have there first generation of children free of aids in the unprecedented amount of money and expertise to do that. afghanistan we have held together after a failed

election where it could have collapsed we could nurture that is complicated and difficult but we could sustain the effort. in the south china sea we could make it clear freedom of navigation. we held that from becoming a major conflict. the sanctions worked we are working on the implementation and rainout even as we sit here we are making progress. i hope we can further that. we put a peaceful vote for word with cnn. but we are working with the egyptians and to grow to the capacity and sustainability it is tricky and tribal and complicated there are extremists, dash in some

place and with a very aggressive effort we're pushing them back. >> maybe be needed a bumper sticker there's a lot going on. board and you think. [laughter] . .