ukrainian territory and needs to have sovereignty reasserted but crimean territorial waters contain huge amounts of hydrocarbons. huge amounts on the order of those in the caspian sea. they represent energy independence not just for ukraine but really for all of europe if sovereignty is reasserted over those territorial waters. if it's not, then that just further enhances the kremlin's monopoly position as an energy supplier. >> thank you, george. appreciate the opportunity to clarify. as far as the united states government is concerned, crimea to include all of crimea's territorial waters are ukraine. that policy has not and will not change. we are not going to recognize the invasion and illegal annexation of crimea. period, end of discussion. the question that you have

referred to on sanctions is in the context of the additional more severe sanctions which were imposed by the united states and by europe late this summer in response to the intervention in donbass. and these should be understood as separate baskets. vice president biden and others have been very clear that for the united states, a prerequisite for discussing the relaxation of sanctions is full implementation of the minsk agreement to include the withdrawal of all russian fighters and heavy equipment, the restoration of ukranian control over the border monitored and the release of all prisoners. russia has not done any of those things. to the contrary, as we have said, as recently as last week, secretary kerry pointed out that since september 5, since the signature of the minsk agreement, hundreds of russian tanks and heavy military equipment items have moved into ukrainian territory. and we know that russian troops

have remained in donbass providing command and control to the separatist forces. so i think i would understand those conditions are connected to the sanctions which were imposed in response to developments in donbass. we are not pursuing sanctions for their own sake. sanctions are intended to encourage a change in russia's strategic calculus and a change in russia's activities. but they also were implemented in response to specific actions, and those actions have to be reversed. >> thank you. john, then ariel. >> ambassador, thank you for the efforts you and the embassy are making. my question has to do with the response to the putin regime's disinformation war, specifically the words putin has used in

various speeches are uncannily like those hitler used in 1938. i don't recall that we are hammering -- trying to point this out constantly to world opinion. he's declared war on ukraine but if he hasn't done it in what lawyers might define as a legally declared war. yet we seem -- he's invaded ukraine. you used the word invasion for crimea, correct, but the u.s. government doesn't want to use the word invasion to describe these hundreds of tanks and the soldiers who have died there. within two days of the shootdown of the malaysian airliner one leading commentator practically named the russian unit that had done it yet the u.s. government seems reluctant to name that unit.

i have no information, but i would be willing to bet we know precisely the russian unit that did it. you have mentioned you can't go beyond what tony blinkin said in confirmation hearings. but we don't seem closer to providing the assistance ukraine needs. i would like to ask where are the efforts to respond energetically to the disinformation war that the russian government and the russian media are carrying out? thank you. >> it's a really important question. i have spoken in the past on the ways in which russia has weaponized information as part of its campaign of special warfare, especially in the donbass. it is not a coincidence that the first thing th at some of these russian units did when they moved into key eastern ukrainian

cities is pull down the ukrainian television and radio broadcasts. i'm told by the sbu the units have digital pacs plugged into the stations to immediately switch over to russian stations. the russian strategy, it's important to recognize about the strategy of special warfare, the russian objective is not to win the argument, not to demonstrate truth. it is to confuse, create doubt and keep everybody off balance. that's why you had little green men in crimea. so everybody spent a couple of weeks trying to figure out are they russians or from somewhere else? who are these guys in slaviansk with new rpgs and earpiece radios? it is a strategy which rests on a tactic of obfuscation and misdirection which has an objective to sow division between the united states and

european partners and which has as an objective on the ground in ukraine to create fear, to create a sense of endangerment to russian speakers. i agree with you. it is a critically important issue. to be frank, we in the u.s. government have only begun the process of thinking through how we need to respond to this, but we are doing so, again, jointly with european partners. i was at an atlantic council event focused on this a couple of weeks ago. the fco has done tremendous work thinking about the strategic implications of the strategy. struggling with the task of also strategic communications. i would draw a strong distinction between propaganda and strat-coms. i think it is important not to go down the rabbit hole, not to fall into the trap of trying to meet russia on their ground in terms of misrepresentation or propaganda.

but the best answer to that propaganda is the truth. a consistent presentation of ukrainian government reality and ukrainian government intentions including, as i alluded to in my earlier remarks, ukrainian government intentions regarding eastern ukraine and the imperative of national unity. >> we have eight more minutes. i will take three questions. ariel here. there. in the back. >> ariel cohen, center for energy, natural resources and geopolitics. i just came back from russia. in many conversations with the elites there is more than an undercurrent. there is a message that ukraine will not survive this crisis. i do not know if our concerns about expanding the conflict zone all the way to odessa and

the maldovan border will be justified. but taken what you were saying about the trying times for ukraine, what are the contingencies, to the extent you can disclose them, in ukraine and our contingencies to developments that go beyond donbass? do you think this was just an attempt to engage in strat-com operations and convey this message that they think ukraine will not survive that? or do you think something is really in preparation? thank you. >> let's take the other questions and then we will -- right there. right there. >> thanks. thank you, ambassadors pyatt and herbst.

local elections will be important to the decentralization process and also to further renewal of the political class. i just wonder what you are hearing about planning for local elections, if that's in the works yet. >> thank you. john behind you. >> john gunderson, national defense university. i was counsel general in ukraine after independence. i would like to sort of push you on the one that i know is very delicate to discuss and that's security issues. two factors i think we should think about. one is russian thinking. i know we don't predicate policy. but looking at another way of how we look at russia, the heads of the russian military were all young lieutenants in afghanistan mostly. the thing they fear most is an

insurgency. a vietnam complex in afghanistan complex. the sense then of having to think about a strong ukrainian military factors into russian thinking. so i would like you to address the concept or answer what the arguments would be against giving lethal defensive equipment, the type of things they give to sovereign states such as egypt or pakistan. not quite friendly allies. friend in one way. what is the argument against giving defensive lethal aid to ukraine? thank you. >> the last question over there. >> two points. first one, from your comments, as well from the comments that have been heard today here as well, it's quite clear that what we're talking about is not ukrainian crisis. it's not crisis in ukraine. it is war.

it is a russian aggression against ukraine. the question is why many u.s. officials, sometimes including you, prefer to use the term crisis instead of using the more correct and appropriate term aggression and war. and why not use it from today at least? second, three days ago there was the 20th anniversary of the budapest memorandum. ukraine is a little bit bitter feeling about this. don't you think the mechanisms of the budapest memorandum could be used at this moment, for example, in consultations provided by article vi or in some other ways? all right. last one right there. then you have 30 seconds for each, jeff. >> thank you. eir news.

as much assistance as ukraine might need right now from the united states and allies abroad, the reality is the u.s. policy in the ukraine has nothing to do with ukraine. >> a question, not a statement. >> it has everything to do with destabilizing russia.[7r)o cf1 o i'm sure you listened to president putin's remarks at the bicameral address a couple of days ago when he warned -- >> you have 15 seconds to ask a question. >> he warned the international community that the last people to come after russia to destroy them were crushed and that was hitler. similarly, germany, there is a letter circulating in germany signed by schroeder saying the same thing, making reference to hitler saying they were crushed. my question is how is starting a third world war with russia in the interest of ukraine or the united states, how is this improving the security situation in the world?

>> okay. i will do lightning round on these. let me start with ariel's hypothetical. i guess what i would focus on is first of all the critical importance of these negotiations which are taking place in minsk, hopefully this week. another round of contact group negotiations. this goes to john's question. this is a crisis which is not going to be resolved on the battlefield. it will be resolved through diplomacy. yes, the united states has an interest in helping ukraine to develop the capacity to defend its sovereign territory. we'll continue to do so. we have devoted $118 million to that purpose so far this year. but the end game will be played in the court of diplomacy, and the best vehicle we see for achieving that is full implementation of the minsk

agreement, which russia signed onto on the 5th of september. regarding laura's point on local elections, we just don't know yet. ukraine has been in a very rapid period of electoral politics. i think at this point -- and i will be interested in what the experts advise, what the ukrainian political leaders decide, but i would argue having watched this unfold that the important thing is to move ahead on the process of constitutional reform that the deputy prime minister launched to figure out who is going to drive that process in the new government now that groysman has taken over as speaker. then have that process proceed the conduct of the local elections so that people know what are the packages of powers which they are going to be assigning through the local elections. so that's my view on where we stand on it today. on the budapest memorandum, it

is not a coincidence that our undersecretary rose gotmueller was in kiev on the 20th anniversary of the budapest memorandum. we are proud of both our nonproliferation and disarmament partnership with ukraine where i would point out ukraine is a global leader. ukraine's role in president obama's nuclear security summit was one of the most important of any country. it is a country which has made the right choices on nuclear disarmament, and the world is a safer place as a result of the choices ukraine has made. it is important therefore that we do all we can to up uphold and help ukraine to defend its own territorial integrity. that's why president obama has led the international effort in imposing a cost on russia for its violation of ukraine's territorial integrity. that's why we have worked as hard as we have on the sanctions regime which is intended to

affect russia's calculus. on the question of russia, i would note i have been clear on the record from the days of my confirmation, we think over the long term russia should see this as a win-win proposition, that a ukraine which is economically prosperous anchored in european institutions with access to european markets should represent an economic opportunity for russia and russian companies. i'm intrigued by the proposals president poroshenko has made for a free-trade zone in the donbass region. while ukraine moves ahead on the european choice so that company european choice so that companies in the donbass region would be able to provide a bridging role between the european space, the largest space in the world, and the eurasian space. that kind of win-win calculus has been absent from the kind of language from moscow. we hope we can get to that point.

>> jeff, thank you very much. a terrific discussion. thank you all for coming. [ applause ]. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated while the ambassador exits the room. thank you. join us in about 45 minutes for remarks from incoming virginia congress dave brat who ousted eric cantor in the

republican primary earlier this year. he'll be speaking at the clare booth policy institute. noon eastern time on c-span3. lateritis a look at smart technology and the internet coming up live at 1:30 p.m. eastern from the center for strategic and international studies. it's also here on c-span3. and the senate is in business today. here's a live look at the senate floor. we expect lawmakers to begin consideration of the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill later this afternoon at about 4:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that live. the senate is on c-span2. we've got some background on that i shall shoe earlier today. >> well, neil is with cq roll call. what's happening in the senate today? >> well, now that there was the agreement that you just discu

discussed and the house has actually passed the so-called omnibus spending bill, it's the senate's turn. what we're going to see first ie looks like when the senate comes in this morning there's going to be some end of the-year business to begin with, which is -- we're looking forward to the farewell speech from senator carl levin, the democrat from michigan, who's the arms services chairman retiring at the end of the congress. we're actually starting off on that note by the looks of it this morning. and then senator levin's last big bill, the defense authorization, is going to be the first matter up for consideration. late last night, after the house had concluded its work and we knew sort of the way forward for the senate, there's been an

agreement struck about 3:00 p.m. today if not a little bit earlier depending on the level of cooperation. there's going to be a series of votes that will lead to the passage of the defense authorization bill. and once that happens and that passes, which is expected to be overwhelming, will send the bill to president obama's desk, and after that, then we're in to sort of the end of the year negotiations on time and how to compress time in order to get the rest of the work done, most notably that's kromnibus. >> when it comes to the federal spending bill, the larger one that funds the government through next september, what are the chances it's going to pass the senate?

is the senate going to be in on saturday to get this done? >> that's the big deal. so after the 3:00 p.m. votes, what will be happening at that point is there will be a series of negotiations between all hundred senators basically behind the scenes s ts to figu whether or not harry reid, the senate majority leader, has to go through the process of filing cloture in order to cut off debate on that big spending bill. and if that's the case, you know, it wouldn't pass until -- he wouldn't have the cloture vote until sunday were they to have all the hurdles thrown up. so basically, because there's only a two-day continuing resolution, the betting is that by saturday, either tonight or sometime on saturday, they're going to get the rest of the work done because if you actually reached a point where all the procedural hurdles were

in place and were being deployed by critics of the bill, the house would actually have to come in at least nominally to do another short-term continuing resolution in order to keep the government open sunday and monday. >> now, bernie sanders, according to this article in "the hill" num has already said he's going to pose the federal spending bill. have other senators come out and said they're opposed to it as well? >> well, there are certainly senators on the left who are vehemently opposed to the inclusion of the language regarding the swaps provision from the dodd/frank regulatory overhaul. sanders, i presume, is in that camp. elizabeth warren of massachusetts has been leading the charge on that one. there are senators on the right

who are against the fact that the bill does not take specific action to try and stop president obama's executive action on immigration. but it's unclear how many sort of as we saw last night in the house, it's unclear how many of these people who have objections to one piece or other of the bill would try to actually hold up its advancement or actually vote against it. so that's the sort of touch and go thing that we're going to see this afternoon after the defense bill passes is how much of these objections turn into actual problems. >> niels lesniewski is with cq roll call pap thanks for your time this morning. >> we've been asking for your thoughts on the $1.1 trillion spending measure now been the senate. here are some comments from our facebook page. "someone with an ounce of ethics needs to filibuster this bill.

e. warren, bernie sanders, anyone?" meanwhile, joanne doesn't like the bill for a different reason saying, "oppose! no money for illegals. it is more money that should go to veterans." we'll share your comments throughout the day. here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend on the c-span networks. sunday evening at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a" political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. on c-span2, saturday night at 10:00 on book temperature's "after word, "lindsay mark lewis on money and politics and how it's grown and changed. and sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, senior correspondent for "the daily beast," shane harris, on the military's use of cyberspace to wage war. and on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 2:00, a panel including "washington times" opinion editor david keane on how ronald reagan's career as an actor and spokesman

for general electric helped hone his communication skills to be a successful politician and president. and sunday at 8:00 on the presiden presidency, frank gannon, former aid to president nixon, shows clips of his 1983 interview with the former president about vietnam, watergate, and his resignation. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. british prime minister david scam ron had meetings in turkey this week and vi3:n%ñ the auschwitz concentration camp in poland for the first time on wednesday. filling in for him during question time was deputy prime minister dick claig who talked

about the uk's immigration policy among other issues. this is just over half an hour. >> questions to the prime minister. mr. john reynolds. >> question number one, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, i've been asked to rely on behalf of my friend the prime minister visiting turkey and auschwitz. this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in the house i shall have further such meetings later today. >> jonathan reynolds. >> the deputy prime minister last week refused to attend the statement. can you tell the house which part of that statement you most objected to? >> that statement was coalition statement. mr. speaker, i -- mr. speaker, i spend one day in cornwall. members opposite have been spending five years in cuckoo land because this side of the house has been clearing up the mess that they created. >> in the light of my honorable

friend's enthusiasm for devolving powers from uk government to component members of parts of the united kingdom, does he have similar plans for devolving competencies from europe to uk institutions? >> mr. speaker, he will be perhaps surprised that i even once wrote a little booklet about that very idea. but just as we have to decide to do certain things at european level together that nation-states can't do on their own, the environment, globalization, trade talks and so on, there are certain other powers of course where possible should be devovmed downwards as well. >> harriet common. >> well, it's good to see the deputy prime minister back in his place after his important day trip during the important statement. but mr. speaker, since he became deputy prime minister, he's had the opportunity to appoint seven cabinet members. can you remind the house how

many of them have been women? >> mr. speaker, she knows exactly who the members of the cabinet are. but i would like -- i would like to remind her that for the millions of women in this country they have got from this government something they never got from her government -- better pensions, more jobs, tax cuts, shared parental leave, better child care, more flexible working. instead of scoring westminster points why doesn't she do the right thing for millions of women around the country? >> well, he's reluctant to answer the question, which is unlike him because normally when he's asked about numbers and women he's quite forthcoming. but this is not -- this is not -- let me tell the house -- let me tell the house the answer to the question 4 1/2 years as deputy prime minister, seven cabinet appointments, not one

woman. and this is not a westminster point. it affect what is they do. so let me ask him, since his government brought in tribunal fees, what has been the fall in the number of sex discrimination case? >> i don't have the statistics at hand. of course i'm very happy -- i'm happy to prorye it to her. but, mr. speaker, once again she displays the way in which her and her party are in total denial about their own record when it came to women in our country. female unemployment rose 24% under labor. under labor in one year, women were given a paltry 75 p rise in their state pension. scandalous. a total shame. to our few fairer single-tier pension, 650,000 women will get an extra 400 pounds a year from 2016. and i care more about those 650,000 women across the country than i do about anyone around

the cabinet table. >> i'll answer the question since he hasn't. since the introduction of their tribunal fees, there has been a 90% fall in women taking sex discrimination cases, including women who have been diskrim nuclear facilitied against at work because they're pregnant. let me turn to another of his key decisions. those who get the millionaire's tax cut, what percentage are men? >> quite breathtaking this. quite breathtaking. does -- does -- is she not aware that in the over 26 million people who have benefited from our tax cuts for low and middle income earners that tax cut has disproportionately gone to women? is she not aware that under her government the top rated tax was 40 p, 5 p lower than it is under this government?

is she not aware there are now more women in employment than ever before? that is a record of which we are very proud indeed. >> and he should be aware that any gains on tax changes for women have been more than wiped out by the hit they've taken on the cuts to tax credits. and, yes, indeed, i would agree &háhp &hc% let me tell the house 85% of those who benefit from the millionaire's tax cut are men. so let's try him on another one. what proportion of those hit by his bedroom tax are women? >> mr. speaker, since she's losing her way a bit with statistics, let me tell you, we have cut tax for 11.9 million women. the gender pay gap, the gender pay gap for women under the age of 40 has pretty well disappeared under this coalition. under her government, under her government, only 1 in 8 of the

ftse board members are women. under this government there are more women on ftse board than ever before. the labor department is becoming a launch for their politics. they've forgotten the better half of a decade how they've messed things up. >> i'll tell the deputy prime minister and the house the reality for people who are paying the bedroom tax. two-thirds of those hit by the bedroom tax are women. doesn't seem there's any shortage of spare rooms in downing street for the spin doctors to spin against each other. let me ask -- let me ask him about something else. of the 26 billion pounds this government has raised in changes to benefits and direct taxes, a staggering 22 billion pounds of that has come from women. can he explain why? >> mr. speaker, i think it is time to call out the ripe old

lady on her government's record. under labor, unemployment, unemployment was higher. female unemployment was higher. youth unemployment was higher. inequality was higher. child poverty was higher. relative poverty was higher. fuel poverty was higher. and income tax for low and middle income earners including millions of women was higher. when will she come to admit that her party create sod much of the mess that this side of the house has had to clear up since? >> harriet -- >> he has just demonstrated that he is completely out of touch with women's lives, and it's always the same with this deputy prime minister. he talks the talk, but he walks through the lobby with the torrys. he breathes against them but he always votes with them. he complaints about the autumn

statement but he signed it off. and that's why people will never trust him or his party ever again. >> mr. speaker, does she seriously think the british people are going to trust her and her party on the economy? of course not. manufacturing jobs were destroyed three times faster under them than it was under margaret thatcher. this was the party that it will health secretary sitting there demurely is the only man in eng hand who's ever privatized a hospital. and they dare to lecture us, hitchingbrook hospital, the only nhs hospital privatized by the labor party. inequality higher under labor. privatization of the nhs higher under labor, and an economy destroyed under labor.

>> -- delighted to hear the deputy prime minister's support for the excellent state last week. as people in wimbledon know it's the only credible path for economic recovery. they have been worried because there have been some scurrilous rumors abound that the deputy prime minister wants to raise taxes and put a hinge tax next. that can't be true. would he today confirm his loyalty to the long-term economic plan creating jobs and growth for people of wimbledon? >> i of course wholeheartedly agree that we must stay the course in order to finish the job and finish it fairly. he perhaps will know that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency has fallen just in the last year by a full 40%. that is an extraordinary achievement. as he knows, my view is that it is simply not fair or justifiable to apply property tax bans, council tax bans to lower value properties and not

adopt the same approach to higher value properties. why should a family living in a family home pay the same council tax as someone living in a 10 million pound palace possibly in wimbledon? doesn't make sense to me, and it should change. >> mr. speaker, my 69-year-old atherton constituent margaret was run over by a car and was left bleeding in the road for 90 minutes before the ambulance turned up. the chancellor last week said the government has made cuts without affecting front-line services. does the deputy prime minister agree or does he regret supporting every cut that this government has made? >> mr. speaker, what i regret enormously is that every household in her constituency, indeed every household in all our constituents took a hit of 3,000 pounds each because of the crash in 2008 caused in large part by the absolute neglect of the labor party and government. that's what i regret. that's what i regret. that's what i regret. this economy -- this economy has

suffered a cardiac arrest, the like of which we have not seen in the post war period. and i'm very proud of the fact that this coalition government is taking the painstaking, controversial decisions to make sure that we live wb our means and don't simply burden our children and our grandchildren with this generation's mistakes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents are very concerned by border security and the situation that we see in calais this year. does he agree that while we've acted the european union noods to take more responsibility for people trafficking, open borders and to get italy to take responsibility for claimants? >> mr. speaker, i certainly -- of course i can understand what an important issue this is for him and hi stilts. i certainly agree with him that this is a problem shared and therefore the solution needs to be shared asle with across the

europeans. it's one of the reasons why i've always been an advocate of cross border cooperation in the european union on issues which have to do with people crossing our borders. we can't do that an our own and i agree that wherever possible the european union should act e effectively and together. >> mr. bax. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we've called for a section 30 order to fast track elements of the decision to scotland spishl for 16- and 17-year-olds. the boss usually allows imto make the big decisions. but in the big seat today, will he make a commitment to do the section 30 orders now? >> mr. speaker, we will stick to the timetable that was committed to by all the main parties in westminster at the time of the referendum, and we've roulgsly stuck to that timetable so far, and in fact despite predictions by smp we have overdelivered on our commitments to scot land despite their predictions to the

contrary. as he knows t s there is a live debate about the franchise for 16- and 17-year-olds. my party has always believed we should give them the right to vote, to cut that right with alacrity in the scottish referendum but clearly something which will continue to be debated across parties in this house. >> michael thornton. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what a surprise. some of the most heartrending cases i see in my -- >> standing. standing. so surprised. >> sometimes i worry i might forget where i am. anyway, mr. speaker -- thank you. thank you. some of the most heartrending cases in my surgery on a weekly basis are those people who had mental health difficulties and feel let down by the national health and other organizations

set to help them. does the deputy prime minister agree with me that it's time we did more? >> mr. speaker, i suspect many members across all parties in this house will agree that mental health surveillances for too long have been treated as sort of poor cousin, as a sort of cinderella service in the nhs, have been systematically underfunneled for a long period of time, and that's why i'm delighted to say we have announced a coalition government that we will be introducing new access and waiting time standard for mental health conditions in a way that have been in existence for physical conditions for a long period of time. and over time, as reflected in the new nhs mandate, we must ensure that mental health is treated with the statement quality of resources in the esteem of nhs just as much as any other part. >> when the health and social air act passed through parliament, they said it wasn't about privatization. a recent article says one-third of all contacts have gone to the private sector and only 10% to

the voluntary and social enterprise sector. does the deputy prime minister regret supporting the legislation? >> mr. speaker, he's being highly selective in describe what that report said. what it actually said was of all nhs budget contract, 6% have gone to the private sector. guess how high it was when this government took office? 5%. so they presided over 5% delivery of contracts to the private sector. we've added 1% on it. they delivered a 250 million pound worth of sweetheart deals to the nhs, deliberately undercutting the nhs for operations which didn't help a single nhs patient in the country, and they have the gall to lecture this side of the house on the privatization of nhs? >> mr. duncan. >> dewill the deputy prime

minister condemn what appears to be the killing this morning by the israeli defense force of the palestinian government minister, who was doing nothing more than protesting in his own country against illegal demolitions and the destruction of ancient olive groves by the state of israel? will her majesty's government join international pressure in demanding a full investigation and then calling, should it be so justified, for the prosecution of the soldier who struck it? >> mr. speaker, of course i and the government will look with urgency into the circumstances around this killing. of course we condemn all unwarranted acts of violence on all sides in the middle east. the circumstances of this particular death is something i'm not familiar with now. clearly we want to see restraint exercised on all side. we want to see an end to illegal settlement activity, an end to

indiscriminate violence inflicted on innocent israeli citizens and a demonstrative move on all side which will involve compromises to the two-state solution, which is the only means by which peace and security can be delivered to all communities in middle east. >> the deputy prime minister has received toe nations totalling 34,500 pounds from the managing director of auto fill young's limited. can he tell the house what he thinks of the fact that workers at auto phil young's limited have received the news recently that as many as 160 jobs could be moved overseas jobs lost to britain by auto phil young's? >> clearly i can't speak for auto phil. any company needs to explain its own business and investment decisions. i'm very, very surprised by his line of questioning given that the labor party's entirely

bankrolled by the puppet masters of the trade unions. for all i know, that question might have been written for him by his trade yunl i don't know bosses, and surely he would agree with me that it is time that we clean up party funding on a cross party basis once and for all? >> mr. jackson. >> you said employment's halved since 2010, apprenticeship ts at record level and the claimant count is down 51% in the last four years. in addition, the number of children living in workers's household is now at a record low nationally. does the deputy prime minister agree with me that such achievements and the policies that gave rise to them consistently opposed by the labor party showed political courage and will change the lives of people for the better and not, as some people have foolishly said, as a result of an ideological commitment to austerity? >> mr. speaker, i think this is very striking that given that

the outset of this coalition government we were told by the party opposite that 3 million people would be unemployed, that we now find that there are more people at workn this ever before. i remember being warned by the right honorable member for brightside, he said, "there will be a post soviet meltdown, people will be fending for themselves on the streets. we now have fouer young people who are not in education, employment, or training in cheffield ever, fewer in that great city than ever, and that is something you see repeated across the country, and that is because of a balanced, pragmatic, nonideological approach to balancing the books steldly overtime. >> mr. robinson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. could i ask the deputy prime minister to use his evidently widespread support in the coalition rank opposite and particularly with the prime minister convey on the prime minister a pledge he gave in june this year to the victims of the contamination scandal that took place in the nhs? it's a scandal that reflects

very badly on successive administration since the administrations as far as back as harold wilson as more and something that ought to be looked anlook ed at and rectified. one promise the coalition government has it in their power to deliver. >> i'm grateful for his question because he's quite right, of course, that this is a heartwrenching issues which has dragged on now far very long period of time. if i may,ly write to him because i know steps have been taken seeking to address many of the legitimate outstanding claim which is exist. and i will look into it for him and write to him if i may. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the deputy prime minister will be aware that sherwood forest hospital trust currently stand in special measures p what assistance can he give to the health secretary as he works with the trust to continue improvements despite them wrestling with that 40 million pounds a year repayment to a pfi teal signed in the previous

government? >> mr. speaker, i'm afraid it's another example of the approach nhs from the party opposite. they entered into think palling p fx i contract where along with other pfi contracts with the nhs are now costing the nhs 1 billion pound a year. and it's an absolute scandal the sherwood forest hospital's trust has been crippled by that entered into by the previous government. the sherwood forest hospitals trust is now receiving central report, address its underlying financial deficit and develops a plan showing improvementen on this position, include 145g extra nurses, nursing support staff and doctors since going into special measures. >> if deputy prime minister had attended the statement he would have heard the chancellor claiming that was government that backed small business. he could give those words some meaning by backing labor's plan.

to outlaw large companies who are charging small companies to be on their supply. will he take this opportunity within the small business bill to actually back that fund and really start standing up for small firms? >> thankfully we have seen more new and small businesses being created under this coalition government than has been the case since records began. i actually agree with him that some of the revelations that have come to light in recent days of some large companies, particularly in the food sector in effect charging small suppliers for the privilege of providing them with supplies in the first mace is something i know my right honorable secretary of state for business has looked at and is looking at very -- is looking at very carefully. and i know he's already pledged publicly he will take action if necessary. >> mr. speaker, diane howell, my constituent, visited gps in newark 15 times in eight months

last year before she was eventually diagnosed with terminal cancer when her son, luke, took her to a&e in newark. 80,000 people a year or one-quarter of all new cancer cases are only diagnosed at a&e. would my right honorable friend agree to review this very tragic case? and also to back luke's campaign that cancer be ruled out first and not last and increase referral rates at rgps? >> mr. speaker, of course i will look into the case, and i'm sure my right honorable friend, the secretary of state for health, will be keen to look at it as well himself and get back to him. as he knows, the nhs is successfully seeing 51% more patients with suspected cancers than four years ago. survival rates have never been higher. almost 9 out of 10 patients say their care is excellent or very good. and of course the cancer treatment fund has helped thousands upon thousands of patients. but of course where possible we

should always do more. >> the deputy prime minister has made a series of extraordinary claims today but among the most extraordinary is his claim in response to the honorable claim in response to the hon honorable lady's question that pension poverty rose under the last dwgovernor. so, can the prime minister -- can the prime minister explain to the house what the source is for that claim is. it can't be the institute for fiscal studies which in 2010 says they failed dramatically under the last government. >> the source is it's a whole lot better than what ware doing. 75 -- we have delivered the largest -- we've delivered the largest cash increase of the state pension ever. we have delivered the triple guarantee for pensioners. we want to put that into law so that unlike pensioners under labor, pensioners on the state

pension because of this coalition government will know their state pension will go up by a decent amount every single time. that's my source. >> close question, dr. julian lewis, number 12, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, our defense budget is in the biggest in the eu. this government is spending 2% on gdp, one of only four nato countries to do so. >> dr. julian lewis. >> that wasn't exactly an answer to the question on the order. given that this country for decades spent more than 4% on defense, would the deputy prime minister not agree that it would be a disgraceful dereliction of duty if the british government ever fell below the 2% minimum

recommended by nato? >> mr. speaker, as one will know, we're spending 2% of gdp on defense and have consistently met and exceeded this nato guideline. we're spending over 160 billion pounds on equipment and equipment support over the next ten years, which will ensure we have one of the best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world. decisions, of course, on defense spending after 2015-16 will have to be determined in the next comprehensive spending meeting. >> what does he think under the fact of his government if he needed an operation, he would be denied it because he smokes, as would the community, because of his size. >> that's a bit harsh. that's a bit harsh. i don't think it would be would argue with clinicians to look after themselves and prepare themselves for operations. my understanding is the decision -- or the announcement

in devin is about patients preparing themselves for operations. but, of course, i disagree with the idea of, in effect, rationing in this way which is one of the reasons we have announced in total 3 billion pounds for our beloved hns. >> on the 13th of november the people of switzerland voted overwhelmingly to retain freedom of movement with the european union because politicians talked about the benefits of being in the single market. will the deputy prime minister continue to do what the city, the cbi and companies in my constituency want, talk about those benefits for the uk and reject the politics where we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. >> mr. speaker, i strongly agree with him that freedom of movement, which is by the way, a privilege and entitlement that over 1.5 billion british citizens benefit from across the european union is something we

should defend. but freedom of movement is not the same and not synonymous with the freedom to claim which is why there's a healthy debate about while freedom of movement. >> closed question, mr. graham allen. >> 14, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, i'm grateful to the honorable gentleman and the committee he chairs on operation of fixed term parliament's act. fixed term parliaments give greater continuity. the full effect is something that can only be assessed over time, which is why the act will be reviewed in 2020. >> graham allen. >> nearly 25 years ago i asked the then-prime minister, mrs. thatcher, pmqs, if she should set up a national institution to reduce the sexual abuse of children. may i congratulate the deputy prime minister and his government for setting up over the last five years a series of

what works organizations to provide best practice including early intervention but may i ask if he and other party leaders will now consider putting in their manifestos the creation of a national institute for the study and prevention of sexual a abuse of children so we don't have another 25 years worth of belated inquiries that preempt prep trags both nationally and internationally? >> mr. speaker, he's seeing my friend of the crime prevention on this issue next week. i agree with him and my party does on the mayors of what works initiative. we believe what works institute for crime prevention would be a good idea and, of course, he shines a spotlight on the reprehensible, grotesque crimes of child sexual abuse and sex

exploitation. we need to work together which is why the national group to tackle violence against children, vulnerable people has been set up to work together across agencies, across local authorities to bear down on these reprehensible crimes. >> sorry. thank you, mr. speaker. last weekend i had the pleasure of visiting a local primary school in my constituents. they have moved tooth and nail to introduce free school meals successfully. will the deputy prime minister take this opportunity to congratulate all the primary schools in my constituency and across england who have done a fantastic job delivering on his policy. >> mr. speaker, of course i would like to congratulate everyone in primary schools across the country who have despite all the skepticism and cynicism to the contrary delivered healthy free school meals at lunchtime to 1.5

million more children. the benefits of doing so, the educational benefits and health benefits are very considerable and i'm delighted we're now doing this across the country. >> can the deputy prime minister tell us why, with crude oil at below $70, that price is not deflected at the pumps. >> mr. speaker, i know my right old front the chancellor and chief secretary of the treasury have raised this with the industry because we all want to see lower shifts in oil prices across the world reflected in lower prices in our forecourts and that's something we must continue to focus on in our dealings with all of the oil companies. >> mr. speaker, we should be clear, it's not wrong to express concern about the scale of people coming into this country. people have understandably become frustrated. it boils down to one word, control. does the prime minister -- does the stand-in prime minister agree with the prime minister,

because those were his words. >> i think there are some important controls that we do need to improve and strengthen so that it why, for instance, i believe it is essentially that we reintroduce the proper border controls, the exit checks that used to exist in our borders removed by previous governments. it was something i insisted was in the coalition myself. just as we count people in, we count them out as well. that's so important, those additional controls because then we can discover who has overstayed their visa which is one of the biggest problems, people overstaying their presence here in the united kingdom illegally. >> here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend on the c-span networks. sunday evening at 8 p.m. on c-span's q&a, politico reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. on c-span2 saturday night at 10

p.m. on book tv's after words, lindsay mark lewis. and sunday at 10 p.m. eastern senior correspondent for the daily beast shane harris on the military's use of cyberspace to wage war. on american history tv on c-span3 start at 2:00 a panel including washington "times" opinion editor david keen on how ronald reagan's career helped hone his communication skills and be a successful politician and president. and sunday at 8 p.m. on the presidency, frank gannon, former aide to president nixon, shows clips of his 1983 interview with the former president about vietnam, water gate and his resignation. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a twee

tweet @cspan #comments. follow us on twitter, "like" us on facebook. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs event pops weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, visiting museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency looking at policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the '30s through '70s.

c-span, fund by your local cable provider. watch us in hd, follow us on twitter and "like" us on facebook. live to the heritage foundation. coming up shortly, remarks from congressman dave bratt appearing at an event hosted by clare booth luce policy institute. congressman bratt defeated eric cantor. he was sworn into office on november 12th after mr. cantor resigned mid-term following his defeat. the event should get under way shortly. live coverage here on c-span3.

good afternoon, i'm michelle

easton president of the clare booth luce policy institute. i want to give a thanks to our special co-host. heritage today is here with laura truman, director of strategic operations for hair tan. i want to thank each of you for joining us here today. those of you here in washington, those watching on c-span all over america and all over the world. i want to welcome you to this special december edition of the conservative women's network. as most of you know cwn usually features top women's speakers in the conservative movement but every december it is our tradition to feature a special gentleman speaker. this year we're so mrised to have david bratt, new united states congressman from virginia. as much of you know, congressman bratt defeated former majority leader eric cantor in the

primary last summer for virginia's seventh congressional district. he was sworn in last month and he'll be bringing some much needed economic expertise to the national policy discussions. congressman bratt is a product of the rural midwest and has long believed in the values of faith, family and a strong work ethic. he observed a masters in divinity and earned a ph.d. in economics from american university. in 1996 he began teaching economics and ethics at randolph macon college where he chaired the economics department for six years. he served the commonwealth of virginia in a number of capacities also. he served two governors on the joint advisory board of economists and also served on the richmond metropolitan authority. his peers elected him as president of virginia association economists and the

governor appointed him to virginia board of accountancy. a man of deep faith, dave attends st. mary's catholic church with his wife laura and two children. please join me in welcoming congressman david bratt. >> thank you very much. >> thank you all for having me. nice introduction. you saved my throat a little bit. you know we've had an exciting week. do you know that? you've been following the news? i'll get to that after i frame some of my biography and some of the background to how i got where i am. i'll break it up into a few pieces. my biography and then kind of my run for office and where we're at today with republicans and the votes coming up that just occurred yesterday and in the week prior. but thank you all very much for having me. it's an honor to be here with you at hair tanning.

i've been a long-time follower of heritage and it's great to with be you all today. first of all, my biography was very well captured. i usually started my stump speeches over the last ten months. try that, ten months of campaign. i basically opened up and said, how would you like to send someone to congress to bring economics and ethics up to d.c. and that combination of economics and ethics hits a nerve in the country right now because people do get a sense that we're on the wrong track. when we knock doors, that's about all you had to say. are we on the right track or wrong track? and every household in the seventh district were off track. i've combined those two themes over a lifetime. i went to hope college and went to work for arthur anderson, and felt the call, went to seminary. i was going to teach systematic theology and a lot is ethics, fits in there fill officially.

that was my goal. and while i was in seminary, i went to princeton seminary and came down here to wesleyan seminary and there was a guy writing ethics in one book, it's not a punch line. i got very interested in that. a lot of seminarian students were interested in justice. that term justice is a tricky one. it's a got a long pedigree but shaped more recently to end up in the leftist tradition or leftist moral description lately. and i think it has a longer pedigree, so i'm very interested in exploring that. i've taught it over the last 19 years. so, i pursued those themes in seminary and then went on from wesley, butts right up to american university so i said i want to pursue these further

through ph.d. and-n economics. you can get the city around, can you go to interesting talks by world class people across the board every night. and so pursued that through my ph.d.. i was lucky enough to apply and find a great job in richmond, virginia, and ashland. we call it the center of the universe, actually. very small little town in hanover, a county very friendly to me. i've been there for the past 19 years. this would have been my 19th year teaching economics and ethics. so, i was the chair of the econ and business department, but i also chaired the ethics minor for several years. john allison, a friend at cato, helped me build a program on the moral foundations of xaptism. that puts the two together in the same way. and then i got a chance to work in a general assembly for the last eight or nine years in virginia politics. got to know a lot of how the political system works.

and wasn't happy with. so things going down in my area in the seventh district, so put my hat in and the people thought it was good to send an economist up to d.c. so that, in short, is the biography and who i am and why i ran, but i'll get a little more specific now. when i ran, i ran on the virginia republican creed. how many virginians in here? oh, really? very good. how many of you know the virginian republican creed? very good. it's not perfect, but it's good. >> i don't believe in economic justice and it says the word. >> very good. that's what i'm going to get at today. very good. the first is most important, adhere answer to the free market system because that dross a red

line. adherence to the free market system. all of human history up to 1800 made how many dollars per person? $500 about. right? basically subsist ens level for the entire world for all of human history. something changed at about 1800. what was that? very good. adam smith if you want to put a name to it. adam smith, 1776 and that was in the works. but society8ut)áá$ur @r(t&háhp % choose the free market system. there's always been markets, trading chickens, kous, whatever.

it's a very different thing doing choosing socially your society chooting and running the society by free market system. that's the big deal. and that came ahead. you had to choose the rule of law, property rights, liberty tradition coming from john lock all the way through. and in my sdrishgts i'm fortunate enough to come from a district that is framed by patrick henry down in the richmond area going down to james madison in my district. all of this fits more broadly within the judeo christian

tradition weave been fighting off the huns and you come along lately. i appreciate everything they're doing. have a lot of good libertarian friends. there was heavy lifting that came for 2,000 years to set that up and i think the heritage foundation is aware of that long tradition. so, all of that goes together into a narrative that's hard to describe in a sound bite. when you're running for office, i'm just on point one, by the way. you can see how long this talk is going to go i'm trying to show you what goes into it to show you how complex it is so when the president asks you about simple markets, it's hard to put that into an answer. i gave them 15 to 20-minute homilies, was my stump speech

night after night after night trying to explain this. and i'll close this little part. by saying, this is the good news. the republicans, the conservatives have the -- the chinese and indians were making roughly 500 per capita. what happened? what radical choice has been made in the last 20 years that's made all the difference for global poverty reduction and improvement in people's lives? what is it? the chinese and the indians have chosen the free market system. the iron any of iron any is while they're choosing the free market system the united states of america is choosing to backtrack. we're clogging the arteries at every turn. obamacare, regulatory

overreaches, et cetera. the human welfare games, you have these efficiency triangles, whatever, that choice to choose the free market system dwafshs all the other market systems globally by ten times over. our side has a hard time explaining this to the average american, average global system that this system is good for humani humanity, period. i went to seminary so i believe 7 to 8 billion people on this planet are children of god. i try to make that very clear, essential will he when you get into immigration arguments, those can get testy. the basic framework and basic lodge sick there right from the beginning. i want what's best for the entire world. all of god's children, christmas

is coming up, merry christmas to you in advance, but that's what i tried to do. that's what i try to set out. there's number one. i'll go through the rest of the creed real quick. second ee-s ee quul treatment under the law. everyone is equal under the law. third is fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. federal, state, local. fourth, adherence to the constitution. a and i just had a tough few days, trying to vote on that. adherence to the constitution, presidential overreach on amnesty, executive amnesty. that wasn't just a simple public policy choice at margin about dollars and cents and policy differences. the reason it was a big difference is because of the fourth point in the republican creed adherence to the

constitution. that's why i stuck very firm to the votes over that issue the last couple of days. faith and god is recognized by our founders. that's a big deal. all the president,s, i've been reading -- everyone is sending me carts of books on prayers of the presidents. you go back and read the basic bookings, the basic speeches of the founding generation, the great people we all revere in this room. they were not ashamed or bashful about it.

absolute is freesh expression of your faith. as part of the freedoms baked into the constitution and first amendment. a lot of people were very much attracted to that. that kind of frames the economics and ethics. so just in a nutshell, also some of the biggest problems we have in the country under bullet point three, fiscal responsibility, the debt is 18 frill on. if you go to the bottom, it's a bigger number. unfunded liabilities are $127 trillion. the four big programs medicare, social security are all insolvent by about 2032 or so. so, to preserve those programs for seniors, much less the next generation. i see a bunch of you sitting out here, we better get on it. and i don't know if it's really that technically a difficult economic problem or just having the political will to solve those problems. it seems it's later. the political will to engage in

those very tough conversation on the entitlement programs. those are the few principles. i made a pledge to meet with my constituents once a month and every county to term limit myself to 12 years and i pledged to put in a fair or flat tax. a few specific pledges as well. that's the basic framework i ran on. that's really what i'm going to try to do. the people back home will keep me honest and help me to do that. how am i doing on time? >> fine. keep going. >> you with me for a few more moments?

>> sure am. that's who i am. those are the principles i ran on. this week voting and being up here, i've been here only for a month. i got sworn in. once you get that thing, you know you're in. i was up here with 50 of the rookies, congressmen and women in my entering class. we got to know each other and that's a great experience. the press says, what's the most unexpected part of being up here? i think it's the warmth and graciousness of the other members, right? the freshmen group, democrats, republicans who are together. the first two weeks we all had events every night and on some of the issues, constitutional issues, public policy, how does congress worng and all that kind of thing. that was great. the senior members of congress, a picture going up to the podium

and looking out at the entire congress that you see on tv every day and having to give a speech right after they swear you in. right? put yourself in those shoes. my entire virginia delegation came behind me and was very gracious to me. and then the rest of the senior members played me feel very welcome. that truly was unexpected. and how i was received. i'm very thankful and i'll just leave it at that. and then while i was orienting, my predecessor stepped down early, that was a gracious move on his part, so i got to start off not only going through freshman orientation but also serving as a member of congress. so that that was a lot to learn quick. you go from the campaign side to the general side. so, we had to do all of that and then i had tough votes.

the tax extender vote came up. that was a tough one. you're faced with a choice. i wasn't in on the framing of the whole piece so you got a tough choice. put yourself in a member's shoes. if you don't vote for, it taxes go up on all of my constituents' taxes go up. i voted for that package because overall, the net i thought was positive. the defense authorization bill came up. that had land grants on that. senator coburn, you saw on the news, pork and politics pieces in that, too much in my judgment, and the greatest -- greater issue there was, i don't want our defense authorization bill cluttered with other pieces. eventually, if you follow that principle that you can clut that's true defense authorization, that's going to

hold our defense funding hot in some way shape or form. you know it's coming. on principle i tried to separate that one. on the omnibus we were all pushing for short-term cr so we could be in a better bargaining position coming up in january or february. that didn't go through. a group of 75 members tried to put an amendment on the omnibus bill to restrict the president's overreach on executive amnesty. so we went to rules and not having a chance to write a 1600 people. you have to read it in a day or two. you find out it didn't deal with fundamental things you ran on.

you try to do an amendment and then the amendment piece is closed off because everything is so shortened. one day left and we're going to vote on it. that amendment went down. because that, the rules didn't allow that 37 the next day i voted no on the bill. primarily on that constitutional issue, there were plenty of other policy issues that differed there. the overriding logic was the executive overreach. so, from there, and i'll close it out and be happy to take questions from all of you, but if you're interested in following me and the people of my district go to davebratt.com and share ideas wugs and i'm going to try to put out economic papers, white papers weekly that

summarized my voting positions, maybe daily if we can do that. my chief is over here so i offer them work by the wheelbarrow full, by the day. i say go do this, do that. we'll see what we can do. we would obviously love to do that and share our economic logic. that's kind of the important part where your voters understand how are you voting, right? what's the logic behind your vote. and then i am the only economist in the house, and so i would love to be able to start doing some economic education. i would ask audience every night, have you ever heard the number $127 trillion? the answer was no. no idea. so, if that's the country's biggest issue, which i think it is, numerically it clearly is. i taught public finance and that's the end of the week.

i don't want to tell you the name of the professor who wrote that book. any guesses? see if you're educated. gruber. so $127 trillion. that's the problem. ow our country does not know that's coming through. that's just the unfunded piece of the liability. that's just the unfunded liabilities we promised in law. that's two-thirds of the budget. the military is being pinched. you all in this room know the state level governments are being pinched and that trickles down to local levels and that's the context.

everyone knows hairs no money that's going to be falling from the clouds any time soon. it's game over, right? now we're in an era of scarcity for the next 10, 20 years. how do you know that? what's the gdp growth rate for the united states right now? 2% subpar. our productivity levels is also subpar. your economy is roughly your education level times your -- the number of people you have, your productivity. how does that look? how are we doing in education compared with the chinese and indians on education and s.t.e.m. fields and all that? not so hot. our economic growth forecasts for the next 10, 20 years is not all that bright either. i think we can turn it around. i'm an optimist. you got rag not on wall out there. i like him. he had tough, tough economic times when he came in. it can be done.

i think i better end there while on a positive note. it can be done. i didn't say how. that's the next talk. thank you very much for having me today. it's an honor to be here. >> thank you so much. we have time for a few questions. we have laurel conrad here, who just graduated from cornel. >> oh, congratulations. >> the new election director at clare booth luce institute. if you can give your name and affiliation because we're on c-span. wait for the mike. >> thank you. i'm barbara bowie whitman. i'm an republican because i believe in free market principles, i'm glad to hear you. now, i have a couple questions really and i'm going to cheat and sneak them in. first one is procedure going forward but the other part is

from -- left over from last night. the procedure going forward has to go with, can we get a good solid economist who believes in the right things to head the cbo and do dynamic scoring? second question is from last night. i got an e-mail from ken cuccinelli telling me you were the only republican from virginia who had voted right. and it stated that there was no way we could fix what happened last night because of this rule, because it would allow the president -- the president going forward to do exactly what he wanted already with the amnesty provisions. there has to be a way to fix it, even though it sounds horrible. in politics we always, when we're trying to get people excited, say that the worst has already happened. how do we get out of what happened last night? >> i'll start with number one. yes, is the short answer on getting a good economist going with dynamic scoring and all that. that will help a little bit but

that doesn't get you to the $127 trillion. won't get too optimistic on that, but we'll do better on that. i'm trying to get on the joint economic committee as well so we can work in tandem on some of those issues. and then on ken's e-mail. i saw that. i will just put the whole omnibus piece in a broader context so you understand. i wasn't involved in the process going through. so for sitting members it's harder because they're on certain committees and they have certain pieces in that omnibus that they're shepherding through and they believe in. i came in in some ways on easier ground. i ran on constitutional principles. stood my ground on them and that's that. so, the other members, for example, chairman goodlatte has plans legislatively to take on the overreach within his jurisdiction, in judiciary.

and so that's taking place. the broader context was the omnibus was not our chosen method on the republican side. the failure, and we discussed this at length in the rulings committee. and the failure came on the senate side on the -- in the democrat chamber. they would not take up any appropriations bills. they just wouldn't take them up. and so that failure of working through the normal process failed, not due to us. paul ryan over past years has always put in a budget. the democrat senate has not. and so everyone says, dave, are you going to work across the aisle and compromise and all this kind of thing. i'm not against compromise. all i'm for compromise. we compromised $127 trillion

down. we have to compromise on how you reduce the trillion down. so, i'm not making excuses for anyone shlgs but we were put in a very hard spot on how those appropriations bills would be put together so we were forced in this omnibus package. there's a lot of the moving pieces. i don't pretend as the rookie up here to know all of that. so i know the members from virginia. they're all fine character. i think we'll do the right thing. and the rules committee and the speaker did promise that they will address the issue early in january and that the amendment would be attached to the defense piece going forward. so, it was a matter of a lot of moving pieces. i said no just on the constitutional piece, that if you know something is illegal, i don't want to move forward at all. >> you said what the mulvaney

amendment was 75 of us on the republican side put in an amendment that would stop specifically all of the presidential pieces in the -- in the military bill on homeland security. so, we -- all of his -- the executive overreach had 10 or 12 pieces to it so we defunded all of those pieces specifically. >> on the amnesty part, where does the defunding on amnesty come? >> and that's in there. >> any of the administrative pieces, social security card funding, any of the administration underneath there we defunded. yes, ma'am. >> wait for the mike, please. >> i'm an intern with the heritage foundation. i just wanted to know what your

thoughts are on in including something against obama's executive action on immigration in the current lawsuit that the house filed against president obama. >> i'm not an expert. i'm an exist, not a lawyer. that's my preremark. that's where our other members in the virginia delegation will come in on that piece. i'm in favor of moving across on all fronts. the legislative piece, the funding piece, the judicial piece, the judiciary piece. soings i don't have too much in the way of specifics to offer you on that other than to say i want to do all of the above because you don't know the timing on it, which piece is going to be most effective. but already you know in virginia, i think there's 1,000 federal positions already fundinged. and in place. they're already getting the green cards going, social security cards are already in process.

and that that's the downside to the om omnibus funding of the government through february. i think the obama executive action had kind of a 50-day limit on it and we go beyond that. at the end of 50 days, everything can be executed and that's why i'm concerned and that's why i voted no. i wanted some solution prior to that 50-day cutoff. and the piece you're talking about, the lawsuit, will probably take longer than that by the time it works its way through any other questions -- >> i don't know if i want to pick a directions. i'll just say i hope we do work together on the big pieces.

in economics -- how many of you had economics class? you're supposed to rank your preferences in order. the goal is maximizization, et cetera. if you think economically, you need to put the most important pieces in rank order and go down those in order. president obama, the republican side, i don't think there's any way to deny the $127 trillion number. everybody knows that's number one, right? and then the debt piece, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said when i said, what's the greatest threat to our military, he said the u.s. debt right? and so people of goodwill on both side, there are ways to solve these problems. we have to do it. and the third issue i'll put in there i think democrats and republicans can work on jointly is education i'm hoping to be on the education committee. that's a bipartisan issue.

it's clear we're not succeeding. the u.s. now on test scores, international test scores, is underneath the median score. we're toward the bottom. in the centralized word we're toward the bottom on math and science test scores. there's no way our kids can compete in this global economy with that. that doesn't even begin to talk about the fact that our kids don't know what a business is. we're in the medieval post world war ii manufacturing kind of world view instead of being in this dynamic global economy world view. things have to change radically, not a little bit. we have a monopoly in k-12 education still. kids are not being trained. they don't know what a business is. they don't know what an entrepreneur is. they're learning all the math and science and this kind of thing. but if you're not taught what business is, we have a major problem on our hands. so, businesses are complaining

about the workforce skills development. we can do something about that. we have projects in our area where the business foelglks are coming into the schools and helping to shape the curriculum to skill the kids to work for those companies. and that's a motto we have to look at. it doesn't cost anything. that's a nice model. you skill up kids to work for the company in your own area. 40% of college kids can't find a job in their own area that they majored in. 40%. so, that's a big deal and that's one of the reasons i'm taught on that issue. i don't want any more short run band-aid issues. when you have a labor force problem and our economy is not back to normal state steady growth by any means.

the worst part of the economy is the labor market. how do you solve that? we need to skill up our own kids and get our economy moving again. the answer is not to ignore the real problem we have and to import 10 million new folks from abroad. that's want not an answer for any country. we clearly cannot hold 8 billion people. people want to talk about 10 million. that's not the problem. the problem is we need free markets for 8 billion people on the planet to get the whole world growing. that's what we did after the war with the japanese and germans, our enemies. we learned from world war i how not to do it. and now they're our friends. immigration in my mind stands for that short-run band-aid approach where business looks for short-term earnings.

that logic has put our country in a terrible hole. we need to get back to long-run planning. i used to put in my stump speech the ceos in the country right after world war ii was kind of as general motors goes, so the nation goes. that was logic. the ceos knew they were implicitly involved in charting gdp growth for the nation. these days the language is changing. we can go global. we can make our money over there, we can make money over here. individually, corporately, they do okay. but it's not tied back to the u.s. gdp growth rate and the welfare of the country as a whole. that's a long-winded -- sorry about that. >> maybe i'll ask the last question and then we can talk informally at lunch. >> sure. >> in most of colleges and

universities. most of the proefrs are liberal and left wing. with some wonderful exceptions, of course i was curious of the reaction of your fellow professors at your college when a freedom oriented liberty talking professor like you is elected to congress. >> i can't say that on live tv. i can't. i'll just put it that way. they're already. they're collegial. at lunch we would debate all the time and we had fun. the left gets more mad at you, the more effective you get. when i got this effective, they weren't happy with it. i challenge my liberals, if you all want to have fun with liberals some day, it's a fun thing to do. i enjoy them. i get along. go to the lunch table and ask them where the word liberal comes from. any guesses?

liberty. the liberal tradition where they're a part f you want to go deeper, get into what ethics will you name? what ethics are you teaching to the kids? there's no such thing as ethics. everybody with me on that? there's jewish ethics, beautyist ethics, utilitarian ethics, right? ethics, there has to be an ethical system, a frame of thought. and it's almost criminal that kids coming out of k-12 system have no idea what ethics is at all. no awareness of the judeo christian tradition. that's what a liberal education is. it's being open minded to all the various systems of thought. i teach a justice course at the school which starts with socrates, plato, aristotle, milton friedman and all those.

that's the liberal arts education. most kids coming out of school are not familiar at all with that tradition graduating from college. so, i'll just kind of leave it there on that one. so we need to reinvague rate -- some of the best university have no curriculum whatsoever. kids 18 years old are so wise they can choose their life plans. i'm a conservative. i don't really buy that theory of education. >> we want to give you a couple gifts to thank you for coming by. we're sure glad you're up on capitol hill talking about civil liberties. at clare booth luce we promote liberalism, as do you. our 2015 calendar with great women who have spoken for us in the past year. and a mug. this is a famous saying.

read it. >> no good deed goes unpunished. thank you, thank you. thank you very much. >> go ahead. >> we also from the heritage foundation, you'll love this gift, it should be right on your desk as opposed to way over on the bookshelf. it's the heritage guide on the constitution. >> oh, very good. there you go. let me show everybody that one. it's heavy. more light reading this evening. thank you all very much for having me. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you so much. >> we have a tote bag you can put everything in here. everybody needs a tote bag. >> am i still on tv? i always forget to thank my wife. please give a round of applause.

>> how are you doing? >> i work here. i studied economics. >> still to come this afternoon here on c-span3, a look at smart technology and the internet. it's live at 1:30 p.m. eastern time from the center for strategic and international studies. the senate is in for business today. more farewell addresses and tributes to retiring members today. a vote later on on the defense programs and policy bill and we expect lawmakers to begin consideration of the $1.1

trillion federal spending bill later this afternoon. you can watch the senate live on our companion network c-span2. we've been asking you for your thoughts on the federal spending bill that's now before the senate, or will be later this afternoon. here are a couple of comments from our facebook page. mary ann posting, the republican party just stabbed every one of their voters in the backs. i'm done with the republican party forever. and jerry says, our democracy has been sold to the highest bidders. the oel gasligrachs are in char. join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. a discussion on immigration reform and the president's recent executive action on immigration. it's from today's "washington journal." >> a conservative and compassionate approach to immigration reform is the new book by former attorney general

alberto gonzales and david strange. judge gonzalez joins us from nashville, tennessee, where he is dean of the belmont ski s1 f law. judge gonzalez, we'll judge will get into the book in a second. i want to ask a couple of questions about the cia and the interrogation and what's been going on here in washington. sir, what was your role when it came to approving or knowing about the interrogation techniques used? >> sure. well, i'm not sure these are the kinds of questions that can be discussed very quickly, as you said in your introduction. i'm happy to talk about them. i was whitehouse counsel, of course, in 2002 when discussions about enhanced techniques began. and they relate d to -- george tenant, who was cia director, felt strongly that he had information about pending

attacks. and needed to find a way to gather that information consistent with the law. so he brought to the national security council or members of that council this prediblctmepr he was in. that was between the department of justice and the cia in terms of what would those techniques look like and based upon the requirements of the cia in terms of having an effective program, the department of justice was charged with determining whether it could be done in a way consistent with our laws. of course, as the whitehouse counsel, i sat in on the meetings and sat in on the discussions amongst the lawyers. at the end of the day, it's up to the department of jof justic the attorney general to make the decision whether this can be done consistent with our laws. i provide input.

at the end of the day, the attorney general and the department of justice has the final say on what can be done consistent with the law. i've been asked questions about what was the president's involvement? what i can say is in the beginning of the discussions, i visited with president bush's chief of staff about what should the president know about these discussions? obviously, the president of the united states is every day, every moment, filled with information and decisions. you want to be careful about information that you bring to the president. we felt that the president needed to know the fact that we were in discussions about enhanced techniques. the details we couldn't provide to him -- not much detail because those were still being hammered out. i recall having a conversation with president bush fairly early informing him that the discussions were ongoing and assuring him that we would be focused on ensuring that the

techniques were effective and that would come from the cia and that the techniques were lawful and that would come from the department of justice. that was very, very important to president bush. they had to be effective and they had to be lawful. i can say that subsequent to that conversation in ensuing months and years, i was privy or present at conversations with the president involving other people where it was clear to me that -- it was apparent to me that the president had been advi advised, may been briefed on the specifics of the techniques. i don't know for certain. but clearly there were conversations about the techniques that the president was aware of the techniques. u as you read his book, there are references that conversations the president had in which it's clear the president had knowledge that we were engaged in these enhanced interrogation techniques. i don't know what level of specificity the information was that was provided to him.

but he understood what was going on. again, the program moved forward with the clear directive that they be effective and that they be lawful. of course, it was very important for the agency and the white house that key congressional leaders be informed that have knowledge of what the agency was doing and those briefings occurred as well. so we move forward again with the clear understanding that they were effective and it would be useful in protecting america and that it would be consistent with the rule of law. the lawyers worked very hard to ensure that they provided a framework with safeguards to ensure that the techniques were consistent with our -- bouj our domestic and international obligations. >> what do you think of john brennan's press conference and the release of the interrogation report by senator feinstein? >> i didn't see all of john brennan's press conference.

perhaps i can respond to specific questions about it. it's a tough situation to be in to be head of an agency and to -- in essence, defend or explain the actions of the agency for events that occurred before your watch but that comes with the territory. so i felt some degree of empathy for john brennan in that respect. my sense is that what he did is he said the agency was charged with a mission to gather up ngs and protect america and that's what they did. and i think he supports the work of the agency as do i, quite honestly, quite frankly. he admitted that in certain instances the agency agents went beyond the guidance provided by the department of justice. that's unfortunate and that should not happen and there should be accountability. i think that in some of these cases if not most of the cases there was some accountability put in place.

so it's a tough chapter. i think that one of the lessons that one might gather from this is that in a time of war, there's extreme pressure and people sometimes do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. and it's very, very important to understand that even though you may give strong guidance about what is lawful and what can be done, sometimes people go beyond that guidance. when that happens, i think it's appropriate to understand what happened, that there be accountability and that we do things that we can to ensure that that doesn't happen again. but, again, i've heard people say, never again, never again. it's easy to say that now. when you are in the heat of battle, when there are threats against our interests as a country, you know, it's tough. i think we need to never lose sight of that fact. judge gonzalez, your book opens

with a forward that says there's something for everyone in this book to hate. how does a conservative, a compassionate as you describe it, approach immigration reform? >> i think that the thing we understand that this is a very complicated issue, that implicates so many interests. it impacts families, it impacts national security. it impacts foreign policy. it impacts our economy. what we're talking about is what we are as a nation of immigrants. when you have diverse interests that are implicated by any policy that's passed by the congress and signed into law by the president, it's unescapable that you have to compromise. people will have give -- will gain, but they will also have to give on certain issues and

certain points. so that's the basis of the comment that there are things -- everyone has a stake in this discussion. and everyone is going to have to compromise, from my perspective. frankly, it's hard to compromise. when you have to compromise on something you think is important, you will hate that. sometimes you have to -- you will have to make compromises for the common good to be successful in moving forward with immigration reform. it's absolutely necessary in my judgment to have everyone and the table who has a stake in immigration policy going forward. coming to that table with an understanding, i can't get everything i want. i will have to give. that's the nature of the exerci exercise. >> besides being a numbers game, there are substantial consequences related to having millions of undocumented immigrants living within the u.s. and the possible negative consequences of having a pervasive, undocumented

community are many. some of the more tangible issues include fostering disrespect for the rule of law, an economy floundering or stagnant and the potential for security breaches by terrorists. given that, judge gonzalez, who are two changes that you would make if you could to the immigration laws of the united states? >> well, i do think that we have some serious issues with respect to security in a post 9/11 world. i think if you want to get conservative support for any kind of immigration policy, there has to be greater effort with respect to securing our border. clearly, we are much securer today than we were, say, a decade ago. because we have put in place additional resources. we are using new technology. we have additional border agents along our southern border. so we have made progress.

but it's important in a post 9/11 world that we have a secure southern border. the world -- i'm afraid to say, we're not -- i think in some ways, it's much dangerous than it was pre9/11. i remember my first visit to mexico when i was the attorney general. i visited with my counterparts in law enforcement in mexico. we had some very candid discussions about the challenges that exist with respect to mexico and immigration coming into america. they were very candid in saying their nightmare scenario was someone like -- from al qaeda coming across the southern border and committing another 9/11-scale attack, because they knew what the repercussions would be. the united states would shut the border off. that would devastate their economy. so they really were worried about border security, really worried about threats to the united states coming from the