economy. while the middle class has some disposable income, it does not have enough that it could just the hogwild. the other two demographics, rich or poor, they could only stimulate the economy so much. middle class, you get them in the 1950's when all of those servicemen and women came back after world war ii, they needed something to do. we did the g.i. bill and we got them educated. then when eisenhower was president he said we would never face a situation where we were not prepared. we're going to build a highway system that will connect us to every part of the country so we could never be caught offguard. guess what? a lot of road construction workers went to work. my dad into stanford -- in the

1860's and 1970's, he was busy with highway 5, 99. he had worked all the time except for when it rained. but he knew as son -- as soon as the sun was out, he would be working. he was not making a whole lot as a laborer. he had about a sixth-grade education and he got paid about $14 per hour with benefits stable enough for nine months that he could take care of us. as i said, i got to go to college because of that. how many road construction workers do you know could send their kids to stanford university? that's the difficulty. we have to get to the point where we honor the middle class. we look at them for what they are, the jewel. it is the largest segment of america. if we make them feel like they can afford to get that clothes washer, interest rates will go up and that's ok because i can afford to get the car now that i need.

that's what keeps the economy going. i agree with you in that sense. in terms of how you handle the banks, i want to be a little realistic. i'm not happy with the big banks. i told you i voted against the bailout. even though people would say to me, xavier, you are endangering the economy, the banks always get what they need at the end of the day. have you ever gone to court against a lender? the odds are always stacked against you if you go to court against the lender. the creditor has you by the neck. to me, the banks don't have a right to control our lives but they're very important because we see what happens when they would not lend. when they are afraid of the economy, when the banks get a cold, we get the flu. we need banks. what we don't need banks that get so big and so loose with

their cash -- not their cash, your cash -- that we cannot control. we need to make sure they do not go hog wild. they were essentially in vegas on wall street with your money. with our money. they should not get to do that. if we could put restraints on them, the banks did not even know how much value they had and some of the stocks they had purchased. they were betting against themselves, these hedge bets. they would put money down and hedge that some of their investments were going to lose. if they did lose on the investments, they are ok because because they hedged against the loss. it's crazy. i agree we need to do something with is why we have credit unions. it's why we started savings and loans. we have to have a financial system that works for everyone -- especially small businesses. without the line of credit emma -- without that line of credit,

it makes it very tough. let me go on to the next question. jesse, luis, and i'm being told we are pretty much out of time. 10 or 15 minutes away. i will pick a few more names before i go to you, luis. where is jesse? where are you? >> i'm here with a group but i'm also a constituent of yours. i live in mount washington. i have a short time and followed , followed bymment a question. our group, we continue to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform but we also understand in light of the fact that it is a civil system that some of the reform can come in changes in policies and procedures. immigration should not be a punitive system, but one that makes it possible for all people to comply with the law. what i want to ask you is we would like to get more detail, if possible, about what may be coming in terms of administrative relief.

>> i've said this before and you're probably read, seen, and heard about this on the whole immigration issue. you know, it's more a political issue more than it is a substantive, mechanical issue how you solve it. the senate four hundred days ago, more than one year ago, back in june of last year, passed a bill that dealt with every aspect of immigration under the law. they went through and looked at this. the proposed tweaks and it was comprehensive. it dealt with the whole issue of border security trying to up date, innovate, new ways of doing things are you would not

just have to put a whole bunch of bodies on the border trying to do it that way. we have technology to help us address some of these issues. it dealt with the issues of the says whether for family unification or work purposes and it tweaked the system to be smarter going forward depending on our needs as a nation. it tweaked the whole system about dealing with people in the work lace. -- workplace. what drives undocumented immigration at the end of the day, these folks are getting jobs. why are they getting jobs when they don't have the right to work? there are employers who are hiring them. the legislation dealt with the workplace so you would only match people who have the right to work in the country with people who are going to check to make sure when they hire you they are doing it the right way. it dealt with all of those things. that was the bill.

remarkably it got 68 votes out of 100 in the senate. it was a bipartisan bill and it passed. for 400 days, it has languished in the house because house republican leadership will not allow us to have a vote on the bill. we proposed, many of us authored a bill that is almost exactly like the senate well although we -- senate bill, although we tweaked it. smarter. we cannot get a vote on that though. we need 218 to pass. we have about 200 now. we simply need about 18 more members, we could pass that bill. we've been told by the congressional budget office, the cbo, the nonpartisan neutral referee telling us what bills cost or save to have a sense of what we're doing, it would save us close to $1 trillion because it would essentially get rid of

some much of the underground economy that so many of these folks live in in the shadows. it would put them in the overt, the public, economy because they could no longer pay them with cash and therefore not pay taxes that go along with it as well. we cannot get a vote on that bill. the president has taken some where heinistratively can. the president does not pass laws. the constitution says only congress can pass laws. the president has the right to use his discretion on how we execute the laws which is why there is now this lawsuit against the president which is a crazy thing but the house has now sued the president for trying to enforce the laws. with the president said was the

son immigration. ok. i have limited resources on todaye a border patrol that is four times what it was when i came to congress in the 1990's and doubling in the last 10 years and size. quite honestly, they've done a pretty good job in the recession -- and the recession helped as well to stem the flow of people coming in the country without documents. there are ways to make it work better. the resident said, ok. i can only have so much money. i'm going to enforce the broken laws, i'm going to try to do it the best i can. easy give me resource money to deport them because they are here without documents, let me go after the criminals, the drug dealers, guys trying to do us harm before i go after the kid in school who might be the valedictorian. what the president did was he proposed a program called deferred action for children,

daca. kids who were brought into this country, usually through their parents when they were very small and have spent most of their life in this country and most of them do not remember the home country they came from. many have gone on to be valedictorians and many are going to great universities. many are serving in our armed forces. he is saying rather than go , after those folks and trying to hunt them down, let me have down the ones trying to sell drugs to our kids. i have limited resources. he's using his discretion on how to use the resources to deport people in the country without documents. that is the use of executive discretion. the president has said since house republican leadership has told us last month that they will not pass any immigration legislation for the remainder of the year, the president said ok,

i waited in your request to see if the house would pass a bill so we could reconcile differences and get a bill that finally, by statue, fixes the -- by statute, fixes the broken immigration system and you are now telling me you're not going to do that? i'm going to do what i can within the confines of the law to use my executive discretion to try to implement the law as best i can. the president right now is reviewing what he can do using his executive discretion to make immigration laws work as best as possible. what might he do? he might try to do some things t or redirect resources away from -- again -- going away from the mother trying to buy groceries and go toward the guy trying to recruit someone to be a gang member. when you're going to find

discretion to target as much as he can towards those who are trying to do us harm. it's going to be somewhat imprecise. how many people will it help? it's very unclear. how far can it go? that is more clear. again, he cannot change a law. he can only enforce the law using his discretion. it is not a perfect way to do things. the program, daca, the deferred action program for these minors who are right now not going to be pursued for deportation is only temporary. they are still subject to deportation. at any moment the program could be canceled. a new president comes in, says i do not like this executive order, i am canceling it. a those kids are now out of luck and they are back again in the deportation line. he cannot change the law but changes how to enforce it. they want to go after the guys trying to do us some harm. and tries to leave families that

are just working without that fear of persecution or pursuit, and hopefully what will happen is we will pass a law that will make it very clear who might earn a chance to stay and who will not. rather than going after people where if we had passed the law you would have been able to stay, let's focus on those we need to get out of the country as quickly as possible. ok, i took too long on that one. let me go to luis, and before you go we will pick two more names and then we will close for the evening. estella lopez and, batting cleanup, jim duree? >> yes. >> you will be our last question er. luis, estella, then jim. >> good afternoon, congressman.

we believe in the rule of law. we do not support weakening laws to protect children in the heat of a short-term crisis. we ask you to keep intact the trafficking law from 2008. -- trafficking victim protection reauthorization act of 2008. about thes is talking law that deals with the border kids, wilbur force blah blah law and it was passed in 2008. i want to make this clear. it was passed in 2008 bipartisanly. george bush was president and he signed it. what it essentially says is for children, if we find that they arrive at our border and they are unaccompanied, we are going to try to figure out what's going on so they can come to our border. what was happening -- you may not remember but in 2005, 2006,

2007 and finally in 2008, a lot of kids from china were coming in these container cars on these big cargo ships. inside, these human traffickers -- a lot of times sex traffickers -- would oftentimes put little girls in these cargo containers and they would ship them on boats as if they were part of the freight and they would pay off people and get these kids and put them into sex trafficking essentially slave conditions in the u.s. we saw that smuggling going on. everyone came forward and said we cannot do this go on. we have to go after these guys trying to smuggle in human beings. most of the kids were coming from the asian countries overseas and it was just under severe conditions. can you imagine the long trek all the way from china and a cargo container you cannot get out of?

in the wilberforce law was passed for that reason. because most of these kids did not know english -- they did not know what their circumstance was going to be -- we provided them with legal assistance to see if they make a claim where if they got shipped back they would not be persecuted or killed. that was the reason for the wilberforce law. some are saying we now need to change that to not provide the due process for those children if they come on accompanied. unaccompanied. they said we should process them in five to seven days. if you are saying please don't change that law, i'm with you. i don't believe we should be eliminating due process because we want to have the system move faster. the way you have it move faster is to get rid of the bottleneck. don't make it to where it take so long. you can give these kids chance

to make their case without having to strip them of some rights to make their case. i'm hoping what we will do is figure out that we can do this the right way but do it quickly to prove it to the world that if you have a real claim, we've always been willing to take a refugee or someone seeking asylum but it has to be a real claim. after luis, estella then jim. >> i am so glad that you are here. because really we get a lot of , information and you are doing a wonderful job. >> thank you. i asked her to say that. >> no, no. that's not true. my question is -- i heard on the radio, i think it was this week, that social security by the year

2023, there won't be any. we think it want happen, but my -- it won't happen, but how far has this happened? my worry is that a lot of people are on social security and they say where we only have so much money and they cut it in half. my worry is, it seems america is not the way it used to be. we know that and we understand it. we know it, because we have been here many years. i will make it short. what i am saying is i worry , because our nation is pushing many states down. there is nothing. they are losing their homes. there's no jobs, no money coming in. you know? and then on the other hand, , china is out working us.

i mean our nation. many people were having a good time and others are dying because there's not enough help for them. i wish i could say more but thank you very much for everything. >> thank you for the question. i usually take a little longer than i should on social security because i hate rumors about social security. let me start out by saying this. social security has a challenge facing it in the future. i don't want anyone to think i'm trying to say that everything is hunky-dory. ok? but social security is not going bankrupt. it is not broke. it has never once -- not like some of these banks, not like enron or worldcom, failed to pay

in full and on time to every single american who worked in this country and retired or became disabled or the surviving spouse or child of someone who worked in and paid in. never once has it failed to pay those benefits in full and on time. in those 78 years we have gone through 13 recessions. the last one, really bad. in the height of the recession when we were losing 800,000 jobs in one month, every single american on social security got their social security check. let me give you the simple math on social security because it really is simple. you can check and you can ask my office and i will send you the information. i'm not making these numbers up. i may miss it on the hundreds of thousands or millions, but i

will be pretty close to accurate on the billions and trillions. in the 78 years that social security has been around, how much have we contributed to social security? remember. it's not free. we make a fisa tax contribution every paycheck. our employer matches that, 6.1% -- we get taxed and six point 1% -- 6.1% our employer. it's not free. we pay for it. how much have we put in? about $15 trillion. i may be off a little and i probably have the number in my note book, but about $15 trillion. don't try to figure out how many zeros are in there. it's a lot. every math equation as more than -- has more than one variable.

how much have we expended in the 78 years? how much has social security paid out to either you as a beneficiary or for the administrative costs for the 78 years of administration for tens of millions of people? how much? about $14 trillion. i know the math is tough but i think you can do the subtraction. $15 trillion brought in minus $14 trillion sent out. what does that leave you? $1 trillion. $1 trillion of your taxpayer money, your parents, your grandparents, your kids that has never been spent by the social security system. social security ain't dumb. that money they have been collecting in excess of what

they send out, they don't just put it under a big social security mattress. it is in t bills, treasury bonds. this is the way it works. the people who say there is a fiction in the trust fund and its funny money, you pay this. social security gets that money. the treasury says here's the social security money we got for this month. treasury says thank you. here are treasury bonds to replace the cash you just gave me. treasury bonds earn 2% interest, not much. lower right now because interest rates are so low. but it earns interest. how much has the social security money we've not used over this last several decades earned in interest? close to $2 trillion. how much today is in reserves in social security that has not been spent that is available?

close to $3 trillion. social security is not broke. there's a challenge. i see the challenge in the room. i am the challenge as well. i'm a member of the baby boomers. there's a whole bunch of us. we are retiring now -- not me, not yet -- but we are getting close. we did not have that many kids. so we don't have as many people working paying into the system for social security and now with this big blip of baby boomers retiring, all of a sudden it's a little offkilter. we need more people paying into -- more people paying in to make up for all of the people retiring. so what is going to happen? in about 20 years, the $3

trillion in surplus will be totally depleted. what happens the day after we use up the last penny in the surplus? social security continues but it will now be based only on what americans working paying their fica taxes contribute in along with their employer. how much would the day after we use the last penny in the surplus trust fund provide? through what taxes collected? about $.75 on the dollar. today if you receive social security, imagine in 2034 someone who would want to get essentially 100% of what you are getting would only get about 75% of what you are getting. which as ms. lopez tried to make , clear, that stuff. -- that is tough. you take a 25% cut, that is tough. that is the challenge we face. it levels off. it does not keep going downhill. it will not be worse, worse, worse. what happens is the kids today

who are working and now watching their parents and the baby boom generation retire, remember that they will start to retire. and they are small and they have more kids, so it will be a bigger population now than the relative size of the population working versus the baby boomers so it levels off. no one wants to get $.75 of what people today are getting on $1. our challenge is to make sure we tweak it. we've got 20 years to do it. we want to continue to give a robust retirement benefit to those who work and paid for it. how do you do it? it's simple math. you either increase the inputs are you decrease the output. inputs -- tax or other types of revenue. outputs -- benefits. you cut benefits. some people say to raise the retirement age. people get money later in life so that means you pay less

benefits over time. that's one way to cut benefits. some way to change the cola, the cost of living increase, so you reduce payments as they increase to keep with inflation. that's a cut in benefits. some people say to remove the cap on how much people have to pay in, how much of your income gets taxed at 6.1% taxed at about $117,000 in income. so, guess what -- let's say you make $117,000. every single penny will pay 6.1% in fica. warren buffett makes more than $117,000. he stops paying once he has paid on the first $117,000. everything after that, however tens of millions, it is all untaxed because there is a cap.

some people say raise the cap a bit more. it is very simple, inputs or outputs. we can solve that. you just have to have the will. what i would never support is those who say, the system does not work. it is going bankrupt. we should let you have your own private account. essentially, you get to put it on wall street. and that's -- by the way, you know how much you pay in fees for your social security system to work? less than 1%. i know a lot of you have 401(k)s, financial advisors, have you checked how much they charge on a monthly basis to advise you? i guarantee that means they are not talking to you every month. they still charge or fee. you know how much? at least four or five times more than what social security charges to manage that money for 60 million people. one last thing, on top of the

fact that it's never failed to pay on time and full through the 78 plus years it's been around, it's not just a retirement benefit. it's not just a pension plan. it's better than a pension plan because you cannot outlive social security. you can outlive your pension. that is the commitment that every generation behind your has made. you work for this country, you pay, we guarantee for your life you will always get social security. no matter how long you live, you'll always get social security. no pension in america tells you that. but people don't recognize is there are a lot of americans today who are not retired getting social security. why? they were the children or spouse of an american who worked and paid in so they get survivor benefits.

it is not only that. if you worked in this country and you become disabled, guess what? you get disability benefits as well. social security is a pension plan, life insurance policy, disability policy wrapped in one. go price that out in the private sector marketplace. go to any insurer and find out how much they would charge to provide with disability, life insurance, and a pension annuity. find out how much they charge and then compare it to social security and you'll see why it's the best deal this country has ever made to americans. the population of seniors who are living in poverty is under 10%. if it weren't for social security and medicare, about half of the seniors would be living in poverty today. women, you should attack anyone who tries to privatize social security. because women outlive men by several years.

and women a majority of women , rely on social security for more than half of their retirement income. by the time to get into their 80's, it is almost 100% of their income because they have out and -- they have outlived whatever meager pension they may have had and they begin to rely almost exclusively on social security. when mrs. lopez says she's concerned about social security getting cut, this is what's going on. first, people trying to be spooked. the people who should defend social security more is not mrs. lopez but everyone in this room under 30. i guarantee you don't have the type of pension plans that my dad had. he had a defined benefit land -- plan which meant you contribute into your pension and it defines how much you will get when you retire. now we have defined contribution, the 401k, the ira. you put in a certain amount and

it is not defined. you are not guaranteed a certain amount in your retirement. it's only guaranteed how much you have to put in and the rest is up to the stock market. if you put your money in enron, you don't get a whole lot back. more and more, you'll find a lot are relying on social security for retirement income. if we're smart we figure out the right mix of input and output -- revenue and cuts -- to keep social security stronger kid to for kids who believe they will see martians before they see their social security check. if we do that it would be good for all-america. i told you i would go long on that. i am the ranking democrat on the social security subcommittee and i hear from so many seniors who say, i got this letter in the mail asking me to send $15 per month to help defend my social security and they just get ripped off. it just burns me when i get that kind of stuff because most of these people are on fixed income.

shame on anyone who thinks it's upe a senior into sending them so much money a month. you know what? i will send a border patrol agent after them. last question. forgive me. we ran a little long. jim, close us out. make it a good one. >> can you hear me? ok, great. the issue that should be on everyone's minds nonstop is that we are currently marching into global thermonuclear world war iii with russia and china. because obama, the bush crowd, cameron in britain, the queen and so on are hysterical that the british empire, wall street, is collapsing and that russia, china, india and others, the bric countries, are building a

new system for the future. what the bric nations are doing are setting up a new monetary financial economic system to finance infrastructure development all over the world. my friend hunter mentioned the chinese moon program. russia has a similar one. obama says that we've been to the moon and we are not going back. he also says we do not need fusion power and other newfangled technology. that is obscene. john kennedy is rolling over in his grave at obama's statement to that effect. but people need to understand -- i'm not kidding about world war iii. it is the assessment of the russian government that obama and company are going to try a thermonuclear showdown like the cuban missile crisis very soon except these clowns around obama think they can win a nuclear war.

they are nuts. they're fascists. what's going on right now in ukraine proves it. i met with staff people here in los angeles and you probably got a briefing on it. she seemed quite conscientious. i spoke to your legislative director back in washington and also a lady who is your foreign-policy adviser up in the caucus office, a turkish american lady. what i laid out then before the nazi coup d'etat, this is what is coming and it has to be stopped. >> i need you to go ahead -- >> i am almost done. john brennan, obama's cia has now admitted to senator feinstein and other senate intelligence committees which have been investigating criminal

activities of the bush cia -- >> john i need you to get to the , point. >> brennan has now admitted that contrary to his earlier testimony the cia has been spying on senator feinstein, her entire staff, her entire colleagues on the senate intelligence committee. now what do we have? obama says he has confidence in our cia director -- >> give me your question. >> are you going to impeach this nazi sob like a real democrat or not? >> i'm not sure who the reference was to, but i hope your reference is not to people who have been elected to office. i don't think that's an appropriate way to refer to anyone who has been elected to office so i will not grace that comment with a response other than to say elected office is not easy.

i'd tell you that as someone who has now served for more than two decades. i think the president is trying as best he can. i think george bush did the best he can. i disagreed with some of the things they do, but i do not refer to them as you just did. in this country, we are fortunate he can get to say that because we have the leaders who have allowed us to protect the constitution to give you that right. trying to respond to your point -- [applause] let me respond to your point. let me just try to respond to his point. jim, my sense is this -- how can i say this? it's a dangerous world. there's a lot going on right now in the world that we cannot predict. we, ourselves, by ourselves, cannot control it whether it is ukraine, syria, iraq, north korea.

the situation in central america that we can see from these kids coming as desperate as well for different reasons. i did not get elected to tell you that i want us to be the cops of the world and not get even paid for it. we are out there and a lot of places around the world. we have our armed forces, a lot of work that's being done, which i think is important, but no one ever pays us for it. we foot the bill for all this stuff. and so for making the world a , little safer, someone should pay us a little more when our troops are out there. how long did we have our troops in the dmz in the korean peninsula? i have not seen a check. i believe the u.s. has a major responsibility around the world because we have been successful, and everyone looks to us. we have responsibility to lead, but we do not have to be

suckers and the way we lead. to some degree, i agree with the kernel of what was said, in that we have to understand what we are facing. i think i diverge from jim quite a bit on most other points you made, so let me try to summarize by saying this -- on syria, i told the president that if he was going to go in and use our military, because the syrian government -- proof that the syrian government had used a chemical weapon, that i would support that. i have never been a big fan of using our military unilaterally. i voted against the iraq war for that reason. to me, it was important to make a point, that if we had proof that someone had used weapons of mass destruction and we said

that is a no-no, then we got to show them it is a no-no. while i am not a fan of using military, especially by itself, i was ok with the president to use military force. you try to use chemical weapons destruction,f mass you are going to pay the price. [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] >> if i could just finish. my point is the same now with regard to ukraine, iraq, i look at things a little differently from syria. iraq to me is not a country. it is a sectarian population. as i have said before, the day i see a sunni arab soldier defend a -- a sunni iraq soldier defend a shia iraqi civilian or a shia iraq soldier defend a sunni iraq civilian, i will consider it a

country. right now shia defends shia, sunni defends sunni, kurd defends kurd. i'm not interested in sending an american soldier in to figure out who they should defend. we just saw what happened in afghanistan where a u.s. general was killed, where the afghani military could not provide the security whether its soldiers were who they said they were. until those countries want to be more responsible for their future, i am not interested in investing american lives, as several thousand have done in afghanistan and iraq. tens of thousands coming back wounded. we talked about that in veterans affairs and health care. we got to be smart. we're never going to lose our

role in the world to try to help bring prosperity to other countries like ours. at the same time, he have to be very careful how we use our military and our forces. to respond to jim, what i would say i think the president is trying hard. i think he recognizes when you got soldiers who have served there, four, or five tours of duty, it is time to give them -- a rest. unless you can prove to me that iraqis can do something special to prove that they deserve to be defended, i will wait until the happens in the civil war. in ukraine, the russians are going hog wild. that is in their backyard. if something were happening in our backyard in this western hemisphere, what would we do? would we allow mexico to teeter? would we allow puerto rico -- although it is a territory -- or

the dominican republic or haiti get into a crisis? i suspect not. we invaded grenada, and so the russians fear what is going on. maybe not legitimately. but you got to get inside that brain, because i want to get inside that brain before i send troops to defend somebody i do not understand. i have had to present flags to the spouses of fallen soldiers. it ain't fun. it ain't fun. and i'm going to make sure that if i present a flag to the spouse of a fallen soldier, it is going to be for a good reason, so i can say to that spouse, your husband, your wife died for your country and you should be proud, and i'm proud of what he did. i want to make sure i can say that with my heart fully behind it. and so jim, i do not agree with , most what you said, but if i can agree to which you it is we have to be smart with the way we use our power and we have to be smart how we help the world and cannot be duped into thinking

just because we're the biggest power in the world that we should get involved in everything right away. with that, you have been great. we went longer. i thank you so much. we will do it again. thank you all for participating. thank you c-span for coverage. we will follow up. you all have a good evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] back inrs of congress their districts, back in their states, engaging in constituent activities as part of their five-week summer recess. lots of tweets. senator tammy baldwin discussing the maiden wisconsin economy with nicolette hardwoods and the wisconsin improvement collaborative. cory booker saying on my way to visit new jersey seniors in monroe. -- and rest in peace jim

jeffords. former senator jeffords died today at the age of 80. look for programming later tonight on c-span and also www.c-span.org as well. for early 2016 news -- the huffington post writes that hill records and will be headlining senator tom harkin's annual steak fry next month. this will be her first visit to the hawkeye state since losing the 2008 residential caucuses there. stireturn is sure to speculation about her potential 2016 presidential campaign. by the way, we will have coverage of that harkin steak fry on c-span networks. >> here is a look at our primetime lineup this week on c-span networks starting at 8 p.m. eastern. geneticallyebate on modified foods. on tuesday, a spotlight on

general motors safety recalls. programming from the new york ideas for him. thursday, we will look at the issue of climate change. friday night, we will visit important sites in the civil rights movement. on c-span two, it is book tv in prime time with a discussion about fracking. -- tuesdayht tom a night, the history of money. on wednesday, the authors of the second machine age talk about how new technology will fundamentally change everyday life. thursday, a discussion of politics with robert ehrlich and a democrat. and friday, in-depth with reiter and religious scholar reservoir slan.ng -- reza a at thean3 -- a look overland campaign tonight. tuesday, the battle of fort stevens. 150thnesday night, the

anniversary of the battle of the crater. thursday, the capture of atlanta and sherman from march to the sea. and friday, a look at hollywood 's per trail of slavery. we want to know which programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us at comments@cspan.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> this month, c-span presents debates on what makes america great -- evolution, genetically modified foods. oversight,oks at irs student loan debt, campus sexual warming,global fighting infectious disease, and food safety, and our history chores showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find our tv schedule one week in

advance at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us at comments@cspan.org. join the conversation. like this on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next, utah republican senator mike lee talks about president ronald reagan's economic recovery act. the legacy of the bill passed 30 years ago and reagan's role in transforming the conservative movement. senator lee also credits the tea party with the success of the modern conservative party. the young americans for freedom hosted the event. [applause] >> we are so honored to have each of you here today. c-spanal welcome to our audience joining us for young america's foundation's

celebration commemorating the signing of the largest tax cut in american history by none other than ronald wilson reagan. america's foundation is committed to ensuring increasing numbers of young americans understand and are inspired i the ideas of individual freedom, is wrong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values. thehe president of government, we introduce thousands of youths to these principles. we accomplish our mission by providing seminars, or educational materials, and speakers across the country. in the spring of 1998, the young america from foundation stepped forward to say that we believe, as president reagan did, that freedom is no more than one

generation from extinction. in his farewell address to the nation, he said all great change again set the dinner table. general livecitor this out in his family. he discussed various aspects of judicial and additional doctrine around the kitchen table, from due process, to the use of executive power. ronald reagan also said there is a flickering spark in all of us that can like the rest of our lives, elevating our ideals, and sharpening our appetites for knowledge. i think it is safe to say that wes lee helped light the spark for his son mike. he attended most of his father's arguments before the supreme court, giving him a unique hands-on experience of understanding government up close. developedenator lee

an appreciation for the constitution and fights to preserve it today in the united states senate. before he entered the u.s. senate, senator lee received his undergraduate and jd at byu. he had two prestigious clerkships, one for the not quite yet u.s. supreme court alito. sam he also served as the general counsel for governor jon huntsman and was an assistant u.s. attorney and then got to go back to the u.s. supreme court for a one-year clerkship under justice. supreme court sam alito. he spoke at the center immediately after his 2010 election and returned back in 2012. he has also spoken for our national conservative student rail conference. he understands the importance of reaching students with conservative ideas. it is no surprise that he has been before our audience more than most of his colleagues.

asy of you have heard of him one of the three mouseketeers of the u.s. senate, but he was also called the gop's renaissance man, because he so obviously relishes ideas on impressive array of issues and is constantly irking on conservative new solutions for today's modern times. he has show that conservatism can the solutions oriented. let's hope that his colleagues on both sides of the i'll take a page from that playbook. it is a cause for great celebration. it is quite rare this day -- these days that we see anything encouraging coming out from tohington, but get ready have your hope renewed and join me in welcoming my friend, senator mike lee. [applause]

>> thanks so much, danielle. it really is an honor to be here at the reagan ranch. i am so delighted to have my wife and daughter with me. you met allies of -- eli's a. two years ago we had our sons james and john with us. they are not here now, but they enjoyed it as well. every time i think of james and john, i think of an experience i had a couple years ago when i was driving down the road with both of them. we were going someplace fun. we were listening to a popular song on the radio. it was a song he had heard many times before, but for some reason the words came through more clearly. i understood what the singer was

saying. i was horrified. these were threatening words, this was not words that any god-fearing father of three children would listen to. i seized the volume knob and i said, guys, these words are are a bull, why are we listening to this? my son, without batting an i said, dad, it is not bad if you don't think about it. [laughter] thought, myden, i son john must be advising the president of the united states. [laughter] of things around us, particularly in washington, that are not bad, but only if you do not think about it. but you are here today because you are thinking about it. you're trying to make the world a better place. i am honored to be invited to join you for this occasion. it really is an honor, by the hereto be invited to speak

on this occasion today -- or at anything -- on any occasion. for a conservative politican, being invited to speak at the reagan ranch is a little bit like a musician being invited to play a set at sun records or a ballplayer taking the field at fenway park. this is just a great opportunity, by which i am very humbled. as i have been preparing for today's event, i thought many times about exactly where i might have been on this day in 1981, on august 13, 1981. to i have not been able identify exactly where i was, but i believe my family had just moved to the washington, d.c. area. as danielle mentioned, my dad took a job early in the reagan administration as president reagan's solicitor general. we moved into a quiet suburb of

washington, d.c., and it had a different feel to it than my hometown of provo, utah. [laughter] an outsider in our nation's capitol. 33 years later, i still do. but that was my first real exposure to the reagan administration, was through my dad. serving as the solicitor general under president reagan, my dad's job was to communicate to the supreme court of the united states he official litigating positions of the reagan administration to the court. so, that was his client. the u.s. government was his client. the presidents of -- the united states.e therefore president reagan was my dad's client. he had to learn how to channel reagan's voice and reagan's message to be supreme court. he enjoyed that job very deeply.

right off the bat, i could tell this was going to be an interesting set of circumstances. right off the bat, even as a 10-year-old, i somehow intuitively understood this would be an historic administration. i definitely knew my dad had an interesting job, in part because the solicitor general of the united states has a ceremonial uniform of sorts that he wears while arguing for the supreme court. it is called the morning suit. if you have watched "downton abbey," you might have seen one. it consists of a coat with long tails and some funky striped dance, and as it turns out, as my dad later discovered in court, you're never supposed to collar.utton down

he was reprimanded by chief justice burger for doing that. it was a treat to go to court and watch them argue in court, starting when i was about 10 years old. one of the main reasons initially was i knew if i expressed interest in going to the court with my dad, i could miss school for a few hours. moren time, i learned much about the supreme court and what my dad was doing in front of the highest court in our land. when i got there, when i watched him argue these cases on behalf of the reagan administration, i did not always understand everything that was being said. it was in some respects a little bit like attending church in a foreign language. you had to hold very still. in fact the security personnel at the court would come around and tell you to sit up straight if you were slouching. you couldn't talk. you had to pay attention. so, i did. even though i could not understand all the words, i started to understand there is a

rhythm to the court. i loved watching my dad argue there and watching him represent these positions, represent president reagan. what i learned most of all in was perhaps the fact that there is a certain cadence and a certain rhythm to being a good advocates for good government, and that is what he was. but just as there is a familiar cadence among skilled lawyers, there is a familiar cadence for conservatism itself. no one understood that cadence better or more completely than did president ronald reagan. he had the cadence of confidence. he had the cadence of courage. he had the cadence of compassion. you roll all of these things together with the conservative message, and you have a winner. place a call you

to the reagan ranch, i hope you will be placed on hold. there is a reason for that. i ordinarily would not tell someone i hope you get placed on hold when you call a particular number, but really, trust me on this. if you're lucky enough to have the holden to hear message, you will hear that confident cadence of courage in the voice of ronald reagan. it is my hope that today and moving forward, those of us who honor his legacy will not just talk about him, but listen to him, and do our best to learn from and ultimately act like him.

that is what we need to do as americans. for all americans but for conservatives and republicans in particular - the legacy of ronald reagan will always serve as an inspiration. but it should also serve as a great challenge to each of us. it's that part - reagan's enduring challenge to the movement and the party and the nation he revived - that i'd like to discuss today. as you know, this is the 33rd anniversary of president reagan's signing of the economic recovery tax act of 1981. it's amazing to think that that happened right here but just over there. giddy almost baking about it. i wish i could've been there at the time that i should have thought of that, asking my dad if that was one of the perks of being the son of the solicitor general. he did not occur to me at the time. today, conservatives tend to think of that moment as the

,eginning of reagan's legacy and of the country's triumphant era which would eventually usher in the longest peacetime recovery in american history, victory in the cold war abroad, and the restoration of the american dream at home. 20 million new jobs. a forty-nine-state landslide. "tear down this wall." "shining city on a hill." cadence and courage. that's the reagan conservatives all remember and revere. but i submit that is not the only reagan conservatives need to study and emulate most today. the obvious achievements following august 1981 provide a

showcase of what we can learn from our 40th president. but some of the most important lessons we can take are from reagan's hard and heroic work leading up to his electoral victory in 1980. the four-year stretch between 1976 and 1980 was a time similar to our own. the unemployment rate was coming down, but still too high. the economy was recovering, but not enough to restore broad prosperity. energy dysfunction, rising prices and an unfair tax system were eating up what gains working families did see in their take-home pay. but it wasn't just about statistics. humiliating failures of

leadership at home and abroad throughout the previous decade had taken their toll as well. a psychological pall was descending on the country, leaving americans uncharacteristically anxious and pessimistic. when grinding stagflation steered us toward yet another recession, many americans began to wonder if our best days had come and gone. it was in that time, in my view, that reagan did perhaps the most important work of his career. ronald reagan in the late 1970s was a prominent figure, but not a powerful one. he was no longer governor. his primary challenge against a

sitting president of his own party had failed, and made him a pariah among a resentful republican establishment in washington. and the conservative movement he led was once again in the political wilderness. the situation was bleak. but, as always, where others saw obstacles, reagan saw opportunities. he saw what too many in washington did not, that a disconnect had opened between the american people and their leaders. president carter's approval rating fell into the 30's, and congress's into the 20's. that seems high by today's figures. [laughter] according to the latest figure i saw congress was hovering right

around 9%. i think that makes us less popular in america than fidel castro. one of my colleagues said who on earth are those 9%, and why do they approve of us? [laughter] this was not a great time for our country. the republican establishment, timid and unimaginative by nature, hoped the democrats' unpopularity might allow republicans to win a few elections by default.

but this status-quo strategy did not interest reagan. it did not interest him at all. reagan wanted to build a new republican party, a new majority coalition, a new conservative movement that would not just cut across party lines, but permanently redraw them. he had a much bigger vision. reagan noticed that, aside from america's political and economic elite, the rest of the country suffered under increasingly liberal policies. they were holding down those who were most in need of economic opportunities. the political, corporate, and media opinion leaders were doing just fine. the people shouldering the brunt of big government's failure were

the working men and women of and aspiring to america's middle class. they were the ones whose neighborhoods saw rising crime rates. they were the ones whose communities were threatened by family breakdown. they were the ones whose jobs were hanging by a thread. they were the ones whose children couldn't to go to college, whose sons and brothers came back from vietnam only to be insulted by those they had fought to protect. they were the ones who couldn't afford gas and groceries because of the energy crisis and inflation. unlike the poor, who attracted washington's sympathy, and the rich, who could influence public policy, the mass of americans in the middle were being ignored, slighted, and left behind by the political class in washington. the 19th century economist william graham sumner had a term for the american caught in the

middle, "the forgotten man." as sumner put it in his famous essay of the same name - "[the forgotten man] works, he votes, generally he prays, but he always pays, yes, above all, he pays. his name never gets into the newspaper except when he gets married or dies. he is strongly patriotic. he is wanted, whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to be given. all the burdens fall on him, or on her, for the forgotten man is not seldom a woman."

it was these familiar friends and neighbors from all races and creeds and regions, people all americans know and most americans are, that ronald reagan believed made our nation good and great and beautiful. they were the ones, reagan understood, conservatism could help the most. indeed, in a national review essay a month after the 1964 election, before his name was ever on a ballot, reagan reminded a defeated conservative movement - "we represent the forgotten american, that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids' schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just 'ain't no such thing as a free lunch.'" to ronald reagan, these americans were never forgotten. from the beginning, he built his politics around a profound

respect for the honest, hardworking men and women who made america work. many of these americans, like reagan himself, believed government should stand on the side of the little guy against unfair concentrations of political and economic power. they still believed that. and so did reagan. it's just that by the late 1970s, the democratic party's leadership in washington had gone washington. the new left did not oppose, but had come to enjoy, the unfair privileges of concentrated power. the ruling class in washington not only ignored working families' interests, but openly disparaged their values.

now, reagan knew that while middle class americans were disillusioned with washington democrats, they were equally suspicious of washington republicans, with good reason. liberalism may have been failing, but to many americans in the late 1970s, conservatism was at best a cobwebbed theory. reagan needed a way to transform this anti-liberal majority into a pro-conservative majority. he didn't want to spin them, or play on their fears. he respected them, he wanted actually to persuade them. he knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren't going to cut it. reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant. he rebuilt conservatism with a concrete agenda of innovative reforms to directly help and empower all of the forgotten americans whom liberalism always leaves behind. he advocated marginal tax-rate

reduction. this, reagan correctly promised, would allow workers to keep more of their own income, raise wages, and create new jobs. he advocated a strong dollar. this, reagan correctly promised, would help us gain control over the inflation that was gnawing away at middle-class wages, savings, and aspirations. and he advocated an aggressive defense build-up. this, reagain correctly promised, would help us expose and defeat an aggressive, atheistic, and violent empire that threatened the life of every american, and the future of every child. so often, reagan's success is chalked up to his personal attributes. these were not insignificant,

and are missed to this day. his charm, his humor, his political and communication skills. he had all those things when he ran for president the first time. but alas, those personal attributes alone were not enough. we must always remember that in 1976, conservatives found a leader for the ages, but they still lost. by 1980, they had forged an agenda for their time, and only then, with an agenda and a messenger for that agenda, did they win. armed with this agenda, reagan not only confronted liberalism head-on, he also connected with those long-forgotten americans

by aligning his movement, his party, and his message around them. it's time for us to do it again. the similarities between the late 1970s and today seem to grow by the hour. now, as then, our economy is struggling. the great american middle class is beset with anxiety. stagnant wages don't keep up with the rising cost of living. for too many americans, opportunities seem to be narrowing, and the american dream seems to be slipping out of reach. meanwhile, a chasm of distrust is opening between the american people and their government. both parties are seen as incapable of producing innovative solutions to growing problems, or uninterested in

even trying. reagan's "forgotten americans" are once again being left behind. once again, the left has betrayed the trust of the american people. but the right has not won it back. so it seems to me that conservatives today need to do what reagan did in the late 1970s, identify the great challenges holding back america's working families, and propose concrete, innovative solutions to help overcome them. just like reagan did, as conservatives today we need to re-apply our principles to the challenges of the moment. we need to offer the country a new, positive reform agenda that remembers america's forgotten families and puts the federal government back on their side.

a real conservative reform agenda has to do more than just cut big government. it has to fix broken government. reagan did just that a generation ago. since then, new challenges have emerged, demanding repair, and conservative principles can once again point us toward exciting, innovative solutions. i find it interesting that most americans feel forgotten, left out of the debate, left behind in their efforts to get ahead, while shouldering the burdens of failed policies, without a voice in what matters most. the ironic part of having a podium and a microphone is that most americans want someone in washington not to speak to them, but to listen to them. "fix it," they say. "turn it around," they demand. "will government ever work for me, or will i always be working for it?"

reagan listened to the forgotten and the disillusioned american. can we be our best? i know that we can at least be better. congress can do better. we can expect more out of our leaders, more out of ourselves. we can fix, cut, and tear down walls that confine our liberty, in any era. we can expect more. we can expect reform. let me give you a few examples. a conservative reform agenda needs to reduce taxes for families. today, marginal tax rates are much lower than they were in august 1981. they are so low that almost half of all households pay no income tax. but most working families are

still overtaxed, some by thousands of dollars a year. how? because of the hidden double tax the current system imposes on parents through the payroll tax to fund our senior entitlement programs. many tax-reform plans today ignore this problem, and would actually raise taxes on working parents. for single parents, this might as well be a "keep out" sign on the front door of the middle class. it's an unfair attack on individuals, families, and neighborhoods, forcing them to make decisions based on what government wants instead of what they want.

conservative tax reform today needs to fix this unfair parent tax penalty, to level the playing field for the hardworking families raising the next generation of americans. a conservative reform agenda also needs to spur economic growth. new jobs come from new businesses. but all the taxes and regulations government foists on the economy actually hurt newer, smaller businesses and help large, politically connected corporations, which can afford all the lawyers and lobbyists to comply with all the rules. people who fear that the economy is rigged today are right. it is, and government rigs it. today in washington, economic policy is driven by a corrupt alliance of big government and big business conspiring to keep

out the new, disruptive competitors that innovate, transform, and create new jobs and growth. true conservative reform should level the playing field for all businesses, small and large, new and old. that's where new jobs, innovation, and growth come from from main street, not wall street, k street, and pennsylvania avenue. look at our nation's infrastructure. america needs more highways, more bridges, more local transit. but the old federal transportation trust fund is now permanently insolvent because 20% of the money it takes in is skimmed right off the top by special interests, bureaucracy, and inefficiency. real conservative transportation reform could cut out those

beltway middle-men. we need to create a 21st-century, open-source transportation network of sustainable, local innovation that empowers america's diversity and ingenuity. another example is our broken higher-education system. today, the exploding costs of and restricted access to college are leaving millions of workers without the skills to succeed in the global economy. millions more are being saddled with more debt than they'll ever be able to repay. washington sees this structural dysfunction, and immediately launches into an argument about, the interest rate on student loans. we shouldn't be arguing about tenths-of-a-percent on $40,000 tuition, we should be fixing the system so college doesn't cost so much in the first place.

and we need to increase access to new schools that can accommodate the needs of non-traditional students, like single parents, who can't afford to study full time. a conservative reform agenda must confront a welfare system that isolates the less fortunate. a reformed system would start to bring the poor back into our economy and civil society. real welfare is not about dependency, but mobility, designed to make poverty temporary instead of just tolerable. a conservative reform agenda must include plans for an energy revolution. just look at what's going on in north dakota and texas and elsewhere. let it create all the jobs and

opportunities and energy independence it can. let all energy producers compete on a level playing field, new technologies and old, large businesses and small, with equal opportunity for all and cronyist subsidies and special treatment for none. and finally, this approach shows us that we can't just cut obamacare, or even repeal it and go back to the old system we had before.

instead, we need to move forward with real healthcare reforms that empower patients and doctors, not big government and big insurance companies. under the radar of the mainstream media and beltway politics, the conservative reform agenda we need is starting to take shape. as you can see, the content is different from reagan's agenda. but the goal is the same, reforming outdated policies to put government back to work for those forgotten americans. growing our economy and strengthening our society. and finally bringing the american dream back into the reach of every american willing to work for it. 33 years ago ronald reagan set over there and signed into law the historic tax bill. it was midmorning, a fairly heavy fog. as he was signing that bill into law, the sun seemed to be cutting through the fog. it was morning again in america. that time approaches us again today. like reagan's, the agenda i am describing is based on something too often missing in our

politics today, respect for the american people. as president, ronald reagan understood that the forgotten americans were the people really in charge. and they still are. the people, not billionaires on wall street, are the customers who decided which products and services and businesses would rise and fall. the people, not the activists and academics and celebrities, decide the values that guide our neighborhoods and define our culture. and ronald reagan was okay with that. he celebrated it. his agenda was designed to give ordinary americans even more power to make those decisions. he respected them and trusted them, and thought the government should simply get out of the way. he knew the answer was not to get america to trust washington, it was to get washington to trust america.

today, some see it as ironic that as reagan decentralized power to a diverse, divided nation. and as he did so we came back together. but it's not ironic at all. it's the tried-and-true genius of the american way of life that has sustained our exceptional republic for more than two centuries. reagan's agenda was an attempt to empower americans to come together to make our economy more wealthy and our society more rich. reagan knew, and proved to a cynical elite, that freedom doesn't mean you're on your own, it means we're all in this together.

and really, that is ronald reagan's enduring challenge to conservatives, and republicans, and all americans, to believe in each other. to trust and respect the courage and industry and wisdom and ingenuity and compassion and hope of our people. a renewed commitment to reform can not only put america on the path to recovery, but reunite our nation after too many years of bitter division, and empower our people after too many years of falling behind. a new generation of problems demands a new agenda of solutions. to answer reagan's challenge, and to once again remember america's forgotten families. ronald reagan signaled the cadence of courage from this spot 33 years ago. it still echoes from these hills. today our duty is to answer the call. we must dare to be better. dare to look ahead past the next election, into the next decade and beyond.

dare to make the changes today that will shape the america of the future. i invite each and every one of you to enlist as 21st-century reagan revolutionaries. see beyond the next eight years into the next 80. join me in taking the road less traveled. we are the forgotten americans who have new ideas, start businesses, start families, volunteer as room mothers and little-league coaches, we are the flag raisers, the builders, the workers and the inventors. we are the dreamers and the stewards, we are the shopkeepers by day and the homemakers at days' end. we are the people who james madison, george washington, thomas jefferson, and abraham lincoln, had in mind and ronald reagan did not forget. we are the light emanating from the city on a hill, we are the

keepers of the flame, the guardians of liberty. we are the people, the unassuming heroes marching forward in reagan's cadence of confidence in that quiet adventure we still call the american dream. thank you very much. may god bless america. [applause] they asked me if i would be willing to answer questions. i will be happy to do that. you can ask anything you want, law, politics, gardening, fashion, rock music lyrics, i don't know, anything.

>> my name is dorothy scott. i would like to know why congress can't at least pass a law that the language of the united states is english? >> it is english. we continue to operate our government proceedings in english. i think one of the many reasons why we need to continue to speak in english and write our laws in english is because ours is a society that operates on the basis of rule of law. our laws consist of words, and in order for them to have meaning we have to be speaking the same language. i do not know why this is a controversial topic. in my opinion, it should not be. >> it is very expensive, and all

of my ballots come in five different languages. it costs money. >> it is important to remember that our elections are run on a state and local basis. state and local governments will determine the precise composition of the ballot rather than congress. >> question or suggestion. assuming the republicans get control of the senate, maintain control of the house, you still have a veto to look forward to on anything too strong. can you write legislation that would give enough but still solve the problems? if not you are looking at two more years of spitting cats. >> yes. if any of you did not hear the question, he is asking whether -- if republicans are able to take the majority in the senate,

if there is any legislation we could get past into law given the fact that we have a president who will not likely agree with republicans all the time. i think there are a lot of reforms that americans want and that americans need and that president obama would be hard-pressed to veto. there are a lot commonsense solutions that have been there for a long time. i've cited a few examples of things that i think this or any president would be hard-pressed to veto. one that i will mention briefly relates to the way we fund our

transportation infrastructure. currently, the federal government collects 18.4 cents per gallon on every gallon of gasoline that americans buy. we take that to washington and we run it through the washington filter and then the people in washington decide on the basis of a very complicated formula how to redistribute those funds back out to the states. nearly all that money is spent by the states. what we need is not more government bureaucracy, what we need is more steel and concrete in the ground. i have a proposal that would reduce the share that is collected, that would be enough for us to maintain the existing interstate system. the difference between 3.7 cents, and 18.4 cents would be collected and spent by states and the best reason to do that is because you achieve about a

20% efficiency gain when you do it that way. this will result in more money going to concrete and steel going into the ground. that in turn relates to more affordable housing that is accessible for most americans, and is conveniently located close to where americans want to live and work. it is the kind of reform that i think any president would be hard-pressed to veto, given that all it is doing is applying basic constitutional conservative principles to an everyday problem. there are countless other examples that we can point to. i do not have any delusions that we will go in there and suddenly reverse everything the president has done. there are a lot of things that can be passed will not survive the veto. that is not recent enough make every effort to get republicans into the majority of the senate because there is a lot of good we can do. it is time to release harry reid with a vote of thanks as the majority leader. [applause] >> i like what you have said all along. i probably will not get a chance to vote for you unless you run

for president because i am from maryland. back in my younger days i did quite a bit of work for the party. i am too old now. maryland is a democratic state, always has been, probably always will be. now since i have done that work i keep getting these eight-page things from the republican party, and they were written by people with an iq of maybe 70. the very last page is asking for how much money you're going to donate. these days, the first time i see a congressman submit a bill for term limits, i will start giving money again. [applause] >> fantastic question. even though you cannot vote for me, i can vote for you, and i am happy to do it. one of the things that i'm happy to vote for and that i have cosponsored in the senate is term limits legislation. i am a strong believer in the need for a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of time that anyone can spend in congress.

there are lots of different proposals about exactly how many terms somebody ought to be able to spend. anything would be an improvement. as a rule of thumb, i think 12 years in either house on to be enough. but would be two terms for a senator or six terms for a member of the house. and i strongly support that. one of the reasons why i think term limit legislation has become important, the founding fathers thought about imposing term limits and they decided against it. they had good reason to do it and one of the things are built into their equation was that we have term limits and then everybody will be out every two years for reelection anyway.

but what did not exist then was the system that exists now. members of congress in both political parties and both houses will sometimes use their seniority as a cudgel to coerce more votes. they will say you are a citizens of a free republic, and you can vote for whoever you want but do not cast that for anyone but me because of the seniority i have. i have too much power for you to get rid of me. therefore your vote for anyone

other than me will come at a high-price, you will lose money and power and influence. i think it is offensive any time we attach a price tag to our most sacred of fundamental rights. >> i just finished my first year at santa barbara, california. some things about politics in general and why i think the real reason people should want to get into politics is so that we can help this country. we are in a very dire situation right now. we need to save this country. i like what you said about how it is our job to turn the anti-liberal majority into a pro-conservative majority. one is tough to talk about his

with the elections coming up, will we be able to do that with the party we have now, or will we have to fundamentally change the republican party. expanding into more libertarian conservatism. can we do this as this republican party, or we will have to change? >> great question. i wish you well at uc santa barbara. i wish you well in combating resistance from your professors on your ideology. i think about how to bring down that word politics into its constituent greek roots. it has two roots. poli, meaning many, and ticks which are bloodsucking parasites. [laughter] the best measure for what a party can do in any election cycle has to start with a baseline for what it has done in the past two or three election cycles. in the last election cycle, 2012, we did not do as well as many had hoped.

i think your question suggests that we as a party have to do a better job at explaining who we are, why it is we are republicans, why we are conservatives. we got very good a few years ago, and with good reason, by explaining what we were against. but it is time to get better at finding what we are for. i think you're onto something when you referred to the fact that many young americans of your generation are concerned that our government has gotten too big and too powerful. they are very big into the idea of where they might come down on every issue. they are very keen on the idea that there might be some limit to how much of each dollar you

earn of the federal government can take away and how much the government ought to be able to intrude into your life from washington dc. there is tremendous potential as we invite more and more people to join this cause. for us to have people to have who have not voted or have not voted with a party, to know the they have a place with us. it is what reagan did, and that is what we need to do now. >> thank you so much for joining us today. i have two questions for you. firstly about our foreign-policy and the kind of leadership we

are seeing in the white house, or lack thereof. specifically regarding russia and ukraine. what kind of action do you see coming out of congress, being endorsed at the white house with regard to economic sanctions? the second question is about california and the republican party and the conservative movement. you're fortunate in utah to have a strong base of conservativism. we do not have that in california. i was wondering, for republicans and conservatives like us, can you comment on how we might able to regain the state and bring it back to the reagan days? >> as to the second question, i am only two states away, so i am happy to provide you with some conservative representation in washington. it turns out that your two senators are not conservative. i don't know if you knew that. [laughter] we do occasionally agree on

things. i think it leaves not only me, but also the rest of us wondering if something has gone terribly wrong when we vote on the same thing. i think it relates back to the question that we asked a minute ago. the fact we have to do a better job explaining not just what we are against, there is always a place for that, but what we are for. just as importantly, why we are for it. we are not just about tearing down bad government, not just about cutting out that government, but producing good government. what we are trying to achieve at the end of the day. what it is that we want is a society in which everyone, including america's poor and

middle-class, a society in which they will have an opportunity to get ahead, to work hard for him and to better their station in life. i think that message will work in california and everywhere as we learn how to express what it is we really want. the best thing we can do with regard to russia and ukraine, involves really aggressive production of oil and natural gas. [applause] i am a member of the senate armed services committee. i recently asked some very high-ranking military officers whether that would make a huge difference, and they agreed emphatically, yes it would make a huge difference. because vladimir putin would never have dared do what he did if we were aggressively producing and exporting oil and natural gas.

he would never have gotten away with it. economic sanctions, we have to go there. in order for them to matter, in order for any of this to matter, we need to be the world's leading energy producer. [applause] >> one more. >> it seems like every day we are up against the media, up against democrats, up against a great deal of our own party republicans. can you speak to some of the successes the conservative movement has had lately? [laughter]

>> how about another question? [laughter] first of all, the mere fact that we're talking credibly about the possibility of obtaining the majority in the senate, the mere fact that we can talk with some credibility to the possibility of pushing forward some of these incremental reforms that i've mentioned a few minutes ago, all of that was made possible only because of a phenomenon that started to be recognized in 2009 and 2010. spontaneous grassroots conservative waves that hit the country. not everyone knew what to call that. i just call it a return to americanism.

it is what strengthened our weak position in the senate, and is the only reason why we could be looking seriously at the possibility of having majority of both houses. to get there we have to recognize that there is some natural tension that is in any political party. not just an hours, but in any. andion between tehe base the senior leadership, the elected officials within that party. that tension will always exist. and right now it has created a hole in the republican party.

holeay to bridge that is an affirmative agenda that talks about what it is but we want, that nearly all republicans can get behind, it is the only way we can get there and unite the party. it is what reagan would have us do, and it is what reagan did. [applause] thank you. have a continuation of our august programming. here is a preview. we want to talk about nine plateshat are on our because of a sentence in the fda policy from 1992.

that sentence says that the agency is not aware of any information showing that gmo foods are significantly different, so no safety testing is necessary. no labeling is necessary. canompanies like monsanto that theyon their own are deal most seeds and crops that they produce are safe. it turns out that that basic acttence which is in f the basis for u.s. policy overseas, is a lie. it was complete fiction. we did not know about the 1992, but we found out about it in 1999. 44,000 secret internal memos from the fda were forced into the public domain from a lawsuit. not only were they aware that

jim oh boots were significantly different, it was the overwhelming consensus among their own scientists that they were different and of high risk. here are the organizations. s. problem with gmo if that is not enough, here i hold bunch of others. ande are real medical protective organizations. in europe, and australia, all over the world. epa, whom we pay attention to when it comes to global warming say that it would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the impairment.

-- the environment. i could come up with dozens of these. we have identified no safety concerns for any of the gm foods that we have assessed. is this reasonable? is just fear mongering and nonsense and that all of these organizations are goring it? -- ignoring it? >> that airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on the washington journal we will be focusing on president lyndon johnson's vision for a great society and its impact today. the conversation by calling us or sending us an e-mail. you can also send us a tweet. join the conversation on facebook. and live look at the briefing

room of the white house where president obama is expected to speak recently about a couple of issues. raq, and the shooting and ferguson missouri and the nights of violent. ce. meeting with attorney general eric holder on the situation and we look or the here -- and we will look to cover him live here. ourhe meantime, a clip from journal."n and the role of the kurdish people. yourebari, i want assessment of the u.s. air campaign and the stories we are seeing this morning on the

efforts to retake the strategic .nd in mosul -- dam in mosul guest: let me start off by thanking the u.s. military for stepping up and assisting us and pushing back and repelling the attacks of isis. so far, the airstrikes have been very effective in what they have been able to do. isis was gaining a lot of momentum in a short period of time. the airstrikes have been able to stop that momentum. now we are on the offensive in forces ineshmerga conjunction with u.s. air support and pushing back on isis. i'm sure we will be talking about the dam today, that has been one of the accomplishments as of the last 24 hours to 40 hours that we have been able to accomplish in stopping the momentum and reversing the progress. host: showing our viewers some of the video of some of the u.s. air strikes that have taken place. talk about the importance of this dam, why has it become such

a focus? guest: this is the largest dam, largest infrastructure in the country. there are concerns here, when prices took over, it requires constant maintenance. intelligence sources are telling us that they need to be pouring as much as 600 tons of concrete and steel into these holes sucked up by the oil, by the water, within four days. this requires constant maintenance. if the maintenance is not done properly and on time

we are optimistic. we have to give some time and space for the new prime minister to put the government and the new cabinet together and bring this country back together. what is critical and most important is the steps that prime minister maliki took are not repeated. a is important that you form government that is inclusive of all the kurds,