later kathy kiely of the sunlight foundation on the effect of lobbying restrictions. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: good morning, everyone, and welcome to the "washington journal," on this tuesday, january 13. president obama will gather with congressional leaders to discuss the legislative agenda. the conversation comes at the senate yesterday agreed to move toward on debate over the keystone xl pipeline, a bill the white house says it will veto. also in the news, "washington post" reporting that mitt romney is putting back together his team in 2012 for a third shot at the white house. other gop contenders reacting to the news, and so we want to get your thoughts on that this morning.

host: front page of "the washington post" has this story. robert costa reporting along with philip rucker and karen tumulty. mitt romney is moving quickly to assemble the national political network, calling former aides and donors over the weekend and in a single of his seriousness of the launching a presidential campaign. "romney's message is that he almost certainly will make what would be his third bid for the white house.

his aggressive outreach comes as representative paul ryan, romney's 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the house ways and means committee announced monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016. romney's activity indicates that his exploration of interest friday to a group of donors in new york was more than the release of a trial balloon. instead, it was the start of a deliberative effort by the 2012 nominee to carve out space for himself in an emerging 2016 field, also likely to include former florida governor jeb bush, new jersey governor chris christie, and wisconsin governor scott walker. romney has worked the phones over the past few days, calling an array of key allies to discuss his potential 2016 campaign. among them was paul ryan, who romney phoned over the weekend to inform him personally of his plans to probably run. ryan was encouraging, according to people with knowledge of the calls. other republicans with whom romney spoke recently include

senators kelly ayotte of new hampshire, rob portman of ohio, former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, hewlett-packard chief meg whitman former massachusetts senator scott brown, former missouri senator jim talent, and representative jason chaffetz. romney says he intends on running to the right of bush who is also working vigorously to what donors -- court donors and establishment figures for a 2016 bid. he is trying to assure them that he shares their views on immigration and tax policy and if he enters the race he will not forsake 20 orthodoxy. -- party orthodoxy." mitt romney telling supporters that he will run to the right of jeb bush. yesterday on a fox news radio show, john gibson asked the senator rand paul, another potential contender, about romney throwing in his hat. [video clip] >> ilife governor romney, -- i like governor romney, i think he is a great businessman. but that is yesterday's news.

he has tried twice. i don't really think that there is a third time now there. i think he did a lot of things right, but in the and you have got to have a bigger constituency. you've got to attract new people to win and i think it is just time that probably the party is going to be looking for something fresh and new. >> do you think that you can raise the kind of money it will take to run against hillary clinton? >> i think people will donate to someone who they think can win and winning means bringing people to the party. that means we need african-americans in our party more african-americans, we need more hispanics, more young people. if we say the same thing with the same of candidates, we will get the civil results -- same old results. some of the ideas i've been

talking about to attract new people to the party. i been talking about criminal justice, having a foreign policy that is reasonable. i have been talking about trying to be more inclusive as a party. so i think a lot of those things are helping to grow the party. host: senator rand paul republican of kentucky, potential 2016 contender yesterday reacting to the news on fox news radio show that mitt romney is seriously considering this and saying that he would run the right of jeb bush. should mitt romney run? bob in duluth, minnesota democrat. what do you think? caller: well, i'm probably going to vote democrat can but if i had to choose between the two, i would take mitt romney, because the last bush the had -- we had did a lot of damage. the economy completely went south under him.

and there is just too many things that went wrong in the bush administration to want another bush. and i don't think -- i think elizabeth warren would make a better candidate than hillary clinton, because of her stand on money issues. host: you think elizabeth warren could raise enough money to beat mitt romney in a hypothetical matchup? caller: well, i don't know that, but i know that she would make a better president because she would be better on money issues. host: all right, let's go to james in new mexico, a republican. james, what do you think? caller: i don't think mitt romney should run. he lost already, and he is more of a progressive.

this is a problem with the republican party, they are allowing more progressives like mitt romney. what they need to be focusing on our constitutional conservatives like rand paul. host: ok, you would vote for rand paul? caller: and if mitt romney does get the nomination, i will vote third party, libertarian or something like that. host: ted cruz also reacting to the news about mitt romney. he was speaking to the heritage foundation's policy in washington. "there are some who believe that the republican party should run to the mushy middle. recent history is shown us that is not a path to success. it does not work. i very much agree with president

ronald reagan that the way we win is by painting with bold colors, not pale pastels, and that is a debate republicans are going to have over the next two years. it is certainly a debate i intend to participate in vigorously." cruz also called on the republican drivers not to back down on the agenda and laid out a 10-point plan for the country that included renewed efforts at repealing obamacare and abolishing the irs in a keynote address at the heritage foundation on monday afternoon. we were showing that to you before "washington journal." if you missed it and want to watch his whole speech, go to our website, cspan.org. danny, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i'm hoping that mitt runs good i would love to pound him into the dirt for third time. he seems to think he has a divine right. he and his wife couldn't believe

they lost. they are such wonderful, marvelous people. he worked with bank capital, destroying companies, destroying jobs. he is the epitome of everything wrong with our government, being owned by wall street. fight bush and fight cruz and fight everybody, that would be just great. host: before you go, who would you like to see as the democrat mash-up against him -- matchup against him? caller: elizabeth warren only. hillary clinton, her husband betrayed us with nafta. he is a corporate whore, she is a corporate whore. we don't need these people. host: jim in delaware republican. your thoughts? caller: i don't mind if romney runs. he will dilute bush and they

will both fall. i would like to see someone like mike pence for scott walker run for president. romney is going to run and expect the same results. hopefully he and bush will destroy each other and we get a real constitutional conservative in their. host: politico has the story -- "the selling of mitt 3.0." "romney is promising he'll be different this time." "romney supporters mounted to political about the failed gop nominee's performance. 'we had no message, and we give it to the worst communicator in the world.' two years later, romney is mulling another campaign to romney's making it clear that he is likely to run, putting his timeframe for a decision at

weeks, not months. he wants to make a tackling poverty the issue -- a key issue for his 2012 vice presidential nominee, paul ryan -- a pillar of his campaign. he hopes to show voters a version of himself they didn't get to see last time. there is even an netflix documentary he can point to full. conversations reveal that he promises a different path forward without providing specifics as far as mechanics and his own gaffe-ridden performance." . -- mark is a republican in michigan. caller: i think you should run because he will make a great president. obama has failed miserably, in my fearful some he has had it almost as much debt is all the prior presidents combined.

he is forcing us to pay a penalty for purchasing health care. i think that is unfair. i think mitt romney definitely will be a better president. host: what about mitt romney compared to the other gop contenders? caller: well, if rand paul decides to run to be honest with you i might go with rand paul because i think he will restore our liberties. for instance, the fourth amendment is quite an issue right now. he will restore our rights. host: randy in shreveport louisiana. independent caller. what do you think of mitt romney running in my 16 -- in 2016? caller: he is a bush b

ildeberger. we don't need a monarchy with the bushes. as far as the democrats go, my god, i couldn't think of anybody there. who are to be running is dr. ben carson. he is the man. if the black people want a black president, he is the man to be. i can see rand paul or ted cruz jumping in theirre as vice president. mitt romney, easel companies write down the river and he cost a lot -- he sold copies right on the river and he caused a lot of jobs. i can't remember the term for when he takes over a corporation, but anyway, he caused a lot of people a lot of jobs and he is worthless, far as i'm concerned. host: michael, florida, republican. hi, michael. caller: how are you this morning? host: doing well. what do you think of mitt romney thrown his hat in the ring? should he? caller: no, i don't think so.

sadly, i feel bad for mr. romney if you could hear all these comes, because last time he could have won if he had not listened to some very wrong direction from his associates. and sadly for us, we have this most incredible disaster in the white house today that could possibly have happened. frankly, i would like to see this gentleman from wisconsin. host: ok. scott walker? caller: yeah. i think the job he has done in that state is way beyond commendable. he has done everything the right way, from the standpoint of business, of dealing with unions , of trying to do something about unemployment. i think scott walker is the guy i would love to see in the white house.

host: what about your own senator, marco rubio? caller: i like marco. but he has disappointed me on a number of occasions where he indicated he would follow a particular course and then seemed to change the way the winds seem to change. i am concerned about his overall sincerity. host: as you know, senator marco rubio doing a book tour. fostering upward mobility is the focus of this new book restoring opportunity for everyone. it could be the basis of a presidential campaign. "rubio says he'll jump in the 2016 race if no one else in the republican field puts forward an economic agenda like his, even if it means running against his onetime mentor, former florida governor jeb bush. he told cbs that he could put together a well-financed campaign if he decides to throw his hat into the ring."

the caller mentioned scott walker and that he likes his stance against the unions. "the journal" editorial board is taking should with what scott walker is now saying about unions. "at the second inauguration last week mr. walker told voters that prosperity comes from empowering people to control their own lives through the dignity born from work. in the badger state, he added 'we understand people create jobs, not the government.' he's right, which makes it that much stranger to watch mr. walker dodging the right to challenge. his reluctance on right to work may reflect the desire not to take on one more wrong with big labor as he contemplates a presidential run.

if mr. walker has been -- bigger economic reforms on his mind, he should make them known and why there more important than the right to work. he became a national gop figure because he was willing to spend his political capital on fiscal and political reforms with the effort. if he misses that chance in his second term he may find that his presidential campaign becomes merely a distraction." we are about whether mitt romney should run in 2016. we will get your thoughts in just a minute. but first, joining us on the phone is sean sullivan of "the washington post," political reporter, talking about president obama meeting at the white house. when is this meeting taking place? what is on the agenda? guest: the meeting is taking place later this morning and it is a chance for him to sit down with the new congressional leadership because republicans now control both houses of

congress -- the house and the senate. and really, it is a chance to talk about their agenda. there are a lot of differences right now between what the president wants to do and what republican congressional leaders want to do. they are working on a bill that they want to pass in the senate to approve construction of the keystone xl pipeline. the president has said he opposes that. the house is already passed a similar bill. but we will probably see is the president reiterate to republican congressional leaders that he will veto this legislation and you will see republican leaders say that is a bad idea, this is a jobs bill. right now they disagree more than every other big issues. host: will they discuss homeland security funding in light of what happened in paris? guest: i definitely expect that they would. the house is trying to pass a

bill -- the funding will run out at the end of the month. it would run out for dhs specifically. they want to set up a fight on immigration against obama. but there are some republicans want that we shouldn't play politics with this. host: what will the president do if that is what they sent him? guest: the bill that they are talking about right now, he absolutely wooden sign that she absolutely wooden to sign. --he absolutely wooden sign. obama is not going to sign a bill that undoes his policy.

it is not even clear at this point if the senate, if there are more moderate members and some moderate republicans you might oppose this bill and take it up -- from the perspective of house republicans it this first offer. host: where is there compromise between the two sides? what legislative items that they discuss today that they might be working toward an agreement on the road? guest: in the long run both sides one agreement on fiscal issues. they want to work on things like tax reform. if you look at what the houses passed so far, both bills that

obama said he would veto. in the immediate term there is not that much room for agreement. maybe in the long term there is that right now what we're seeing is the are barely a week into the new congress and a lot of disagreements have already come to the forefront. host: after the first meeting with the new republican majority , republicans and democrats will at the end of this week had for their annual retreats. what is the significance of these gatherings? guest: i think the significance, at least this for, as there is a chance for republicans and democrats to work out differences that have come up in their caucuses. we have seen republicans divided on different issues, how to fight the health care law and so forth. the democrats have divisions in their ranks. you have the liberal, more progressive members who

take on wall street and press tougher regulations. on the other side you want -- you have moderate members who say hold on, that is a bad idea policy wise. democrats are talking about that, and republicans, too. they have differences in how big to go with legislation. it is a chance to sit down and regroup and come up with a legislative agenda that everybody in the conference can rally around. they may not get broad agreement so it is just a chance to sit down here -- and here rank-and-file members and their concerns. host: our republican -- our reporters allowed to go and cover these gatherings? there are separate retreats -- democrats going to baltimore republicans going to hershey

pennsylvania. our reporters like to come along and cover this? guest: absolutely. most of the meetings happened behind closed doors but lawmakers come out of the meetings and talk about what were the big issues and there are sometimes press briefings that republican and democratic leaders will do. from their perspective it is a lot of standing around and waning -- and waiting, who spoke up, who got angry, who didn't figuring out what the pickings are from the meetings. host: sean sullivan, political reporter with "the washington post," thank you. guest: thanks very much. host: back to your thoughts on mitt romney potentially running in 2016, calling former donors and supporters. telling folks that he is most certainly looking like he will take a third shot at the white

house. we want to get your thoughts on that this morning. sean in sunnyvale, california, independent trade go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think mitt romney should run. like that one guy said earlier in the show, he has already ran to her three times and got his face slammed into the ground -- two or three times and got his face slammed into the ground. i want to talk about what that guy sean sullivan said -- host: can i ask you come if there is a hypothetical matchup between mitt romney and, let's say, hillary clinton, who would you vote for as an independent? caller: i would have to go with hillary, but honestly, i don't think that america is even going to vote for a female president could i honestly just believe that. i think it is bs, but i just don't see it that way -- i just

see it that way. they won't. host: ok. ernie in los angeles. caller: hello. host: hello. caller: there is just a delay. i don't think mitt romney should run. i was just listening to ted cruz and he seems refreshing to me. host: ok, in what way? caller: just what he was talking about, about the tax, bossing the irs. it just seemed refreshing to me. i'm kind of like a political idiot in a way, a 9-to-5er, sixpack, i guess you could call me. ted cruz wouldn't be bad. host: helen, what do you think? caller: yes, thank you very much for taking my call. host: you are on the air, go. caller: my name is helen taylor and i'm from orange and

richmond, virginia, and i am delighted to hear that romney may run again. i think he lost by only a small margin and when you consider what our country would have been like had we had a mitt romney instead of obama, it's just incredible. our friends no longer trust us, our foes no longer fear us, and it is just as graceful -- just as graceful there was neither the president, vice president it is a country of state in france to march along the side the others. not surprising, these are sa ul alinsky disciples, whether it is obama or hillary. i served as a representative to the united nations for the reagan administration and in paris in 1983 for ronald reagan and back in 1980, we have the option of turning this country around, and i think that mitt romney and his family are fine people. they have been tested and everything they could throw at him they have.

he is probably one of the finest human beings we have ever had a chance to elect to the oval office and we could certainly use his expertise and experience . he has proof that time and again from whether it was at the olympics and straightening that out and in the job for mission he has enter -- job for mission he has centered i'm delighted we have so many good candidates whether it is ted cruz or walker or rand paul could we have some fine candidates coming on could but it is romney that has been tested. he was too nice but this time he has learned his lesson to be tougher. host: all right, helen. helen mentioned the white house on sunday anyone to the rally in paris. the white house yesterday apologizing for that. take a listen to what josh earnest had to say in his daily news conference. [video clip] >> the way to that country has

come together, i think it inspired people across the world, and throughout this country. it was a remarkable display. there were also a number of other world leaders who were there who said they would show their support as well. some would ask if they sent the united states -- if the united states would send someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to france, and i think it is fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there. that said, there is no doubt that the american people and is an administration in foursquare behind our allies and friends as they face down this threat. host: josh earnest at the white house admitting it was a mistake not to send a higher profile person to paris for the unity march. in the "usa today," they say "president obama himself would have liked to have attended but security is an onerous and

significant factor. the interest after minas prevented people from attending the event." that is what josh earnest said yesterday, in addition to what you just heard. secretary of state john kerry was been in india preparing for the president's visit later this month, told reporters that he wanted to be at the rally but had commitments in india. "that is why i'm going to go there on my way home to make it crystal clear how passionately we feel about the events that have taken place there. the secretary of state will make a stop in paris after he leaves india this morning. want to go through some quick headlines. "financial times" -- " cybersecurity launch gatecrashed by isis hackers." "president obama announcing cybersecurity proposals yesterday could at the same time hackers got onto the pentagon's youtube and twitter

page." these are nondefense websites. "the washington post" saying "the islamic state has waged a propaganda battle online for the better of a year. centcom oversees the u.s. military campaign against the group and infrequent post videos of airstrikes on the accounts that were hacked on monday. twitter accounts synthetic to the militants have distributed graphic images of beheadings and other violence along with threats, while the united states has tried to use social media to expose the islamic state as a group of fanatics and oppressors." on what is happening in paris, "usa today" has this -- "despite the security was from the french government jews set to leave france. about 500,000 jews live in france and 7000 left last year,

more than double those who left in 2013." "the new york times" -- "nominee for treasury post withdraws." " anthony weiss will take on a different role, one that is not required -- one that does not require senate confirmation. his nomination ran into a buzz saw of resistance, led by elizabeth warren, who oppose the nomination of a wall street executive for a key financial post." he has withdrawn his nomination for that. vince, independent caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: it appears that the economic system, the way things are set up, geared towards

frustrating deal -- a trading guilt, people t with money -- host: vince, we're talking about mitt romney thrown his hat in the ring. what do you think? caller: what? host: let's move on. you are on the air. caller: how are you doing today? host: doing fine. what do you think about mitt romney? caller: i think you should run again and make himself -- he should run again and make himself a three-time loser. it was three months ago that he did an interview and said "absolutely not." he would never put his family through that. typical republican flip flopper. now he is thinking of running or is probably going to run. i hope he does run so he can get crushed again. host: who could beat him on the democratic side? caller: i think any democrat

could beat him because i don't think middle-class americans are that dumb to vote republican majority again. the only reason why republicans took the senate is because they suppressed the vote. we all know that. if they don't cheat, they can't win. host: "washington times" tweeting this out -- "mitt romney invited to the rnc winter meeting in san diego." that is a story you can find on "the washington times" website. nick, republican. caller: good morning, greta. yes, i voted for mitt romney did he has been out there on the campaign trail helping people get elected. he has been out there, yes been tested -- he has been tested. i'm glad that he is running again. i would rather vote for him than any other republican, including bush and reviewing -- and rubio and cruz and rand paul.

they are too young. they have got to have more years in the senate. it is highly unpopular that a senator will get elected. after eight years of president obama, mitt romney, we need him. host: what about scott walker, nick, from wisconsin? caller: i don't think he can get the donors. or the money. mitt romney has been on the trail -- yes just retired that she hasn't just retired in 2012. he has that -- he hasn't just retired in 2012. he has been on the trail getting republicans elected. that is why we have the senate majority now and more republicans. he hasn't rested on his laurels. he is out there. i always wished he would run again, every time i saw him being interviewed on tv. host: all right -- caller: glad he is running again. host: "the upshot" in "the near

times" this morning "best position bush rival may not be best known one," talking about scott walker. "on paper he is the type of candidate who should deeply concerned mr. bush. yes the potential drug broad appeal throughout the republican party. mr. walker, born in colorado springs, is an evangelical christian who defeated hype -- who defeated public employee unions in a high-profile battle over collective-bargaining rights and made big budget cuts in a state that is good for democrats in seven consecutive is essential elections. he has the record, resume, and temperament of candidates who could attract significant support from the establishment. indiana governor mike pence may be the only other candidate with a similar profile, but he is not as well-known and has taken fewer steps towards running. cnn reported that mr. walker had brought on regret it, and

expensed republican operative, who would be the campaign manager if mr. walker were to run." scott walker headed to iowa this month, one of the key battleground primary states. nick in frederick, maryland, independent. what do you think of romney running? caller: the thing about him running the first time related to -- the mormon church -- not a lot of people know this -- it was an inherently racist organization until 1978. when i say that, i mean that no african-americans were a letter to join the church. i wanted him to stand up, him being an adult in 1978 --how did he validate that? that was always on my mind and i thought it should be said. host: all right, derek, austin, texas. what do you think? caller: i think romney should run if he wants to. it is a free country.

it will put more people out there in the republican party to decide what they want, but as with the question is this morning, i kind of hate to say this, but i will say it anyway. it kind of just fries me that we are asking the question should mitt romney run, and people call in and say negative things about the president did it just shows a horrible fracture in our country, and some people just wake up in the morning and they are just mad at the president and will take any of your colors -- callers and say something negative about him. we should come together as a country could we are much better than this. host: ok. slate.com has a story on their website, "the warren commission." "in a new focus group, voters agreed on one thing, elizabeth warren is one of the most intriguing contenders for 2016. it wasn't surprising to hear them compete to see who could

-- politicians more. 'if we got rid of every member of congress and elected new people tomorrow who had no expense, i don't know if we could do any worse.' the one politician that escaped the voters' ire elizabeth warren. six of the 12 said they would like to have her at their house to talk." sydni in louisiana, an independent. what do you think of mitt romney calling donors and staffers from 2012 and saying that he is looking at a third shot at the white house? caller: yes, ma'am, i think you are very arrogant person. you change the topic and when a man tried to ask you a question, you cut him off. you just read about elizabeth warren, which has nothing to do with your topic. so if you can't stick to the topic, why should your audience?

host: list of war and possibly being a challenger to mitt romney -- elizabeth warren possibly being a challenger to mitt romney in 2016 -- caller: no, i'm talking about the man earlier and he wanted to speak about what you are reading out of the paper and you cut him off. host: ok, well, the hosts who sit in this chair, what we try to do is let you know what else is in the newspaper besides what we are asking you to weigh in on this morning because we want you to know what washington is reading and what is in the headlines as we continue to talk about whatever topic it is or whatever question that we ask of all of you. joann in ann arbor michigan am a republican. hi joann caller:. caller:caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling because i want to voice my opinion about mr. romney. he would make a wonderful president, i believe. but there are better republicans

that might be able to take his place. the one thing that i have a concern with is that people are confusing their support for president obama with his job. i view president obama as a human and as our president with a deep respect, and feel it is wonderful that our country rose above and voted in an african-american. but what i don't agree is when people are criticizing, they are not criticizing the president. their criticism his policy -- they are criticizing his policy and its stand in helping americans. that is the difference. it is not a criticism to the men, it is a criticism to his leadership. host: ok, joann, so what about 2016? caller: 2016, i believe that the best president going to be either walker or i would like to see someone, out from the

shadows that is a very strong believer in conservative way like mr. carson. i believe dr. carson is an intelligent, very well minded person, should speak his mind in how to run our country and how to make relationships with other countries work. i just think that we are wearing ourselves out saying we are going to vote for an independent if we don't agree with of the republican candidate. we have got to get over that attitude because independents are not a strong field, and we can never vote in an independent . we have to stand through and vote republican. we don't hear the democrats fracturing their party. the democrats always vote democrat. you don't hear them voting a progressive. it is a democrat-progressive. host: on the democratic side there is some talk of senator bernie sanders, looking at a bid

for the presidency in 2016, the independent from vermont. and of course, elizabeth warren, a lot of folks want her to run. both senators -- you have the republican senators that are looking for a potential bid, all of this playing out on the floor of the 114th congress already but the first piece of legislation is the keystone xl pipeline. "senator bernie sanders will introduce a resolution declaring the climate change caused by humans is a major threat. you will do this during the next two to three weeks of debate over this pipeline. 'it is not going to be forgotten by history,' said mr. sanders who is considering a campaign for president. 'did you hear what scientists around the world are saying,

that climate change is the most serious environmental crisis facing this planet?' a group of liberal democrats who have made climate change their priority, including sheldon whitehouse of rhode island and martin heinrich of new mexico, are also expected to promote climate change them immense during the keystone debate, and senator lindsey graham, who is openly spoken of the climate change that, says he might introduce a resolution of his own. on the republican side, senator ted cruz of texas who is wrigley mentioned as a possible candidate next year, is expected to offer amendments of his own that would speed approval of export permits for the quick natural gas." -- liquid natural gas." that is taking place this week and next week, possibly on the senate floor, as they debate the keystone xl pipeline. yesterday they approved the pipeline -- they approved of procedural motion to start debate over the keystone xl

pipeline in the senate. they got 63 votes, democrats joining them for that. the debate has begun on the senate floor and tune into c-span2 for that. ryan in a new mexico, democratic caller. caller: good one. good morning, thank you. i am a democrat. however, i was very disappointed in the president and i did vote for mitt romney. that is one of the pleasures of living in a republic could you don't have to vote for your party directly in a general election. the thing that concerns me -- well, let me rephrase that. the thing about mitt romney is he works almost democrats, he works well with opposite sides. i miss seeing my president work well with republicans or vice versa, but i was very impressed with him being governor in a democratic, liberal state, being a republican governor and coming together with both leaders of the house and senate and working together to balance the budget.

that is the only thing i wanted to see, balanced-budget amendment to our united states constitution. i'm hoping that whoever runs would support a balanced budget because if the states are required to have a bounce budget, the country should be required to have a balanced budget -- balanced-budget could everyone is talking about hillary clinton, and i support that because she is a progressive woman but i'm guessing that everyone is missing biden. i don't hear anyone talking about biden -- i don't know if he is running -- but he is the most qualified. vice president for almost eight years, most qualified to be president. those are my thoughts right now. host: we are going to turn our attention to the congressional agenda of the 114th congress, talking to our republican and democrat in leadership. we begin with the chairman of the republican study committee

texas congressman bill flores. after that we will talk to the chief deputy whip, congressman pierre welch of -- peter welch of vermont. the heritage foundation kicked off a policy summit -- opportunity for all, favoritism for none. here is from yesterday's event with president jim demint. [video clip] >> at heritage we see ourselves as representatives for freedom minded americans, a constitutional conscience to the federal government, a northstar that helps lawmakers navigate a precarious landscape fraught with special interests pulling them in all directions. the pressures in washington keep congress in a foxhole mentality fighting one battle after another without telling americans where they are trying to lead the country. americans can inspire and

motivate by showing them how our policies can make your life better and our country stronger. this is the purpose of the conservative policy summit, to inspire americans with real solutions. you will hear from congressmen and senators about their policy ideas that will build stronger and safer communities. a stronger economy with more job opportunities, and a stronger america. it may shock you to hear that the congressmen and senators you will hear from today are the real progressives in washington. they are fighting against the status quo, committed to ending business as usual in washington and showing americans how we can progress to a better future. it is all about opportunity for all and favoritism for none. we see the needs progress to a nimble, citizen-centered government where people have

many choices in all areas of their lives, not just the one choice offered by the government. if we can do it with cell phones and computers come we can do it with health care and education and especially values. americans must be free to decide what they believe and what they value without government-sponsored intimidation. those who call themselves progressives in washington are the protectors of the status quo. the ones calling for more failed big government solutions. it is the independent-minded conservatives who are offering the roadmap to real progress. host: former senator jim demint there, the president of the heritage foundation, talking yesterday as they kick a two day conservative policy summit. if you missed yesterday's event you can go to the website. they will continue on today and we will have coverage of that at 1:00 p.m. eastern time and you will hear from senators rand paul republican of kentucky,

and mike lee, republican of utah today at that conservative summit. joining us now on the set is republican from texas, bill flores, who is the chair of the republican study committee, the conservative group in the house. how many members do you have and what is your responsibility as chairman of this group? guest: we have north of 150 members, the largest and most effective caucus in congress. my role as the chair is to listen to the input of all the members of the rsc and try to channel that into a conservative action plan that we can use to push the house leadership to enact conservative policies for the betterment of hard-working american families. host: what is your relationship like with of leadership team in the house, and how often are you letting them know this is the pulse of the conservative wing of our party? guest: well, let me bring you -- give you my background first. i spent 30 years in business and my views in terms of dealing with anyone else to try to go in and establish a working

relationship. you may not agree perfectly, but you establish that working relationship could and that after you have established that working relationship, you try to let them know -- negotiate the best possible outcomes that you can. in this case, conservative policies for the betterment of our country. in terms of dealing with leadership, it depends on what. last tuesday -- excuse me, last wednesday, we had our first luncheon, our first rsc luncheon, and the message that came back from the membership is that we want an early vote on the full repeal of obamacare. i've taken that to our richard trip and i visited the key members of the leadership -- the speaker, the majority leader, and the with -- and i believe we will have that vote in the next four weeks. host: before you have a vote on the employer mandate, is there consensus on what to do with the employer mandate of the affordable care act? guest: we have already done one thing on the employer mandate dealing with the 30-hour week

that is in the law versus 40-hour week, as 30-hour is hurting employees and hard-working americans. the next thing we need to do is have a vote on a full repeal of the employer mandate. i've talked to leadership on that and my hope is that we can have that fairly soon. maybe within the next six weeks we will have employer many repeal vote, but more than likely it will be -- host: are you telling leadership that you need to keep bringing up these votes for the next two years, just to try -- just keep trying? guest: well, it depends. we need to have the repeal vote. it is still a toxic law in the eyes of hard-working americans. they would like to see it go away. but we as republicans need to come up with what the 21st century health care solution looks like. one of the early steps we need to do in terms of -- rather than

just having repeal after repeal after repeal -- is talk about what our vision is for health care in america. and it is not a big government solution. it is where you put patients and providers act together, you try to let the markets develop so that people have better coverage options cap lower costs and they can do what is right for their family and not do what a bureaucrat has designed for them. host: there were 50-some votes more in the congress -- guest: 113. host: do you expect as many in the 114th? guest: probably not. we will need to look at what solutions are going forward. hire more heroes was a partial repeal vote, if you will. we need to develop the solutions that will satisfy what the free market can do in this country.

free markets are always better than a bunch of bureaucrats determining what will happen. we as the republican study committee, we have a task force that is working on this today to come up with a 21st century solution. host: president obama has us that he will veto anything that reduces law -- guest: the president always puts himself between special interests and hard-working american families. american families are hurting because of obamacare. when he threatens to veto keystone or a replacement or repeal of obamacare, he is saying to himself, i put bureaucrats in front of hard-working americans. host: are you concerned with this new republican majority in the senate, joining the majority in the house that people might say u.s. wasted time on something that is not going to pass that of bringing up legislation that could help all of us?

-- instead of bringing up legislation that could help all of us? guest: tow wo things. king vs. burwell coming up before the supreme court, which is likely to gut obamacare -- host: the subsidy issue. guest: we are not really wasting time. we need to set the vision so that american families know what we stand for. we stand for more jobs and better paychecks for them. it comes to coming up with a solution vote -- what is the new solution, which is not bureaucratically driven? what is the free market solution to help them be better off? you have to have the right balance. in the 114th congress, now that we've both chambers, we are going to get it right. host: is there consensus on the homeland security funding issue? here from "the washington times" this morning "$39 billion bill would find dhs through

september but republicans are expected to attach amendments on the bill that would prevent funds from being used for limiting the president's executive order on immigration." are you in agreement with the leadership strategy on this? guest: we helped develop the leadership strategy. our leadership did a good job this time. instead of throwing something out there for us to digest -- host: what are you referring to? guest: well, no, i'm not talking about the on the this. this time they got about 30 of us from all parts of the republican party -- some conservatives come some less conservative -- and said what is the solution to deal with the president's unlawful amnesty activity? we worked collaboratively over the course of 48 hours and came up with what i believe is a good solution and my expectation is i think it is going to be part

bipartisan. we take the funding issue of the table and say that we will fu nd the department of homeland security and i think that is important in light of recent events around the world, but we also say that we will deal with something that half of american families think is wrong, the president overstepping his constitutional boundaries and enacting something that congress did not intend for him to do. host: democrats say that any disruption to the homeland security budget could put the united states and risk of what they saw in paris. guest: well, that is up to the president. we will send him a bill, and if he signs it, homeland security gets funded. if he doesn't, homeland security gets disrupted. it is up to the present. is -- president. is he going to decide just because of his unlawful activity that he will shut down homeland security? that is the president's call. i hope he makes the right decision. host: we want to get viewers involved in this conversation.

we are talking to congressman bill flores of texas, chairman of the republican study committee. host: caller: the phone lines are open. start dialing in now. i want to show our viewers what congressman that holland had to say, -- van hollen had to say on what happened in paris and the issue over homeland security funding. [video clip] >> look, it would be a bad idea for anyone to play politics with the homeland security appropriations bills. it is especially about signal now to do that, and i hope our republican colleagues will not tie down cap department of homeland security bill with other kinds of amendments. unfortunately, by all accounts it looks like that is what they are planning to do this week. >> specifically, what are you

expecting? >> my understanding is that they will be presenting amendments that would essentially deny funding for the department of homeland security unless the president walks back his recent executive order to prioritize the department of felons over families -- deportment of felons over families. it will be offering commitments that undoes provisions with respect to dreamers, young people brought here through no fault of their own. if they tried to loaded it up with of those kinds of amendments and say they will not fund the department of homeland security unless those things are part of it, that will obviously create a big problem. i doubt the senate will have those positions, and then our republican colleagues will have to decide whether they want to shut down the whole department of homeland security unless they get those provisions. i certainly hope they back off on where they are headed right now. host: congressman flores, do

you plan to back off? guest: no, we will fully fund the department of homeland security. contrary to what mr. van hollen says, we are running full funding for dhs. we are also saying, though that we are doing what 56% of americans want us to do that think the president did the wrong thing when he illegally granted amnesty to several million felons. we are saying we are going to stop that and yes, mr. president, we will sit down and talk to you about it, but we have got to clear the decks and get that illegal activity out of the way and move forward with a plan. we're not playing politics could we are doing with the american people asked us to do. we're doing what we promised the american people in the -- wendy om -- when the omnibus past. we can then have a conversation

about how to deal with this. it is what caused the crisis we had on the border last year when we had all the unaccompanied minors. americans didn't like what the president did to cause that to happen. that is to make sure we don't have another few minutes on the southern border. caller: i have three comments and then i will go off-line and let you respond to my comments. the first comment i have is, as far as immigration, the senate had a bill that passed and the house refused to take it up. as far as i am concerned, the president is doing the right thing. and then the xl pipeline -- that is just a windfall for the petroleum company. it does not help americans. it would get about 40,000 jobs for i think one year. the third comment i have is

regarding -- i am losing my train of thought. hold on just one minute and i will think about it -- oh -- taking up the aca and wanting to repeal it. that is wasted time. with the aca, our president is going to veto that. why don't you just get your own. why don't the republicans get their own bill? host: ok, we addressed that. if you want to take the first two? guest: i think we did address the last. it is important for the republicans to come up with the 21st century health care solution, and we intend to do that. there were sent -- there were several things in the senate bill that were toxic. americans do not like comprehensive bills. they like smaller, bite-size bills. what i would envision, you go

through and break immigration reforms down to discrete pieces. you have things buried all the way from -- you have things very from what you do with border security enforcement, all the way to the dreamers here. let's deal with that on a piece by piece basis. quite frankly, if we do it that way, we will wind up with a situation where you have several democrats that believe in the several -- in the same things we do. in terms of the xl pipeline, jobs are jobs through any time you can create more jobs for americans, you are doing a great thing. that is what the keystone pipeline does. do not forget the impact of what the pipeline means in terms of gas prices. to the extent that you have more oil coming into the markets and you push down the price of gasoline, that is a good thing for all hard-working american families, and that is the reason

we have 28 democrats voting with us to approve the keystone pipeline. host: would you as a conservative and others on the republican study committee agreed to environmental regulations in exchange for the keystone xl pipeline? if the president were to say i will take away the veto threat you give me something on the environment? guest: the environment today is incredibly different. it is incredibly improved from what it was when the epa was first founded. when america realize we had a fire -- and environmental crisis in our air, our water, and our lands. the first couple decades of the epa, they did a great job. now it has gone overboard. look at our air quality. in terms of industrialized countries come we are the only country in the world that has had a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

that did not happen because of washington. it happened because the private sector found ways to burn more cleanly than with fossil fuels. bobby jindal and i co-authored one last year. we talk about making american energy a superpower. we will wind up with those good things -- better and more reliable energy sources at a lower cost and a cleaner environment. host: from manassas, virginia, sam, a republican. caller: two questions. one is the national debt. would you explain why they don't raise interest rates, because the economy would collapse? we would not be able to pay the interest on the debt. that is why janet yellen his not raised interest rates. number 2 -- don't you think the republican party should say the reason we cannot do nothing against russia is because it

has several thousand nuclear weapons pointed at every city in this country? so he can pretty much do whatever he wants whenever he wants. guest: let me say this. with respect to the national debt, it is out of control. a lot of folks focus on the $18 trillion, but the bigger problem we have facing this country, our kids and grandkids are the unfunded obligations that arise from social security medicare, medicaid, and other federal entitlement programs. we in the house when i was on the budget committee, working with paul ryan, we developed balanced budget solutions, and the last two balanced the budget in 10 years, and addressed particularly medicare and we came up with great solutions. that is something we need to move forward with. in terms of interest rates, i will tell you this -- i think the fed is too much of a black

box for me. you cannot tell me what is behind the decision-making. with respect to russia -- i believe in ronald reagan's philosophy of peace through strength, and i really believe that if president obama would move forward in a strong manner and help rebuild our national defense like conservatives in the house want to do, we would have a more stable world. we would not have russia asserting its influence by invading ukraine. the world is a safer place when america is strong. that is the conservatives' five major tenets. host: sean from suitland, maryland, and independent. caller: i wanted to ask for congressman about social security and the disabled. democrats recently stated that there was something within the house rules that messed with

social security payments. -- with social security payments to the disabled. i wanted to know if that was true and if not, what is the plan? guest: that's a great question. the social security trust fund is going to go bankrupt before the end of next year. it is not because of anything republicans did. it is because the president has decided to load the rolls up with people who are not truly disabled. you can ask almost any american and they will tell you they know somebody who is on social security disability that should not be. because of that, the system is going to go bankrupt. what the democrats would like to do is go back and raid the social security retirement fund, the fund you are counting on when you turn 65 or 67 or whatever so that you can have social security benefits. they want to raise that to shore up disability, but they are two

separate funds. what we are going to be working on as republicans are fixing the social security disability fund so it stands on its own. and hopefully the democrats will work with us. if they do not, next year when the fund goes bankrupt, the typical disability payments will be cut by 20%. we need to reserve that for what it was intended, and that is people who are truly disabled, not for those who are treated as extended unemployment. we have a great solution for the american people to look at, and i think they will be supportive of us, because we are protecting the retirement fund and the disability fund. host: byron from louisiana. go ahead. caller: i do not know where to start with this gentleman, but i hope he keeps doing exactly what he is doing because they do not talk about fixing the social security disability fund or

fixing social security or fixing medicare. they talked about cutting it out, and i hope they do that because the people who receive it voted for them, and that is why we will never have another republican in the white house and about half of the ones who are in there will get voted out in two years. go ahead mister, and do what you want to do. guest: i don't know if you heard, byron, but i said fix those things. all of us pay into social security, even members of congress. we want it to be here not only for current retirees, but i have two granddaughters. when they reach retirement age, i want them to have social security as well. we need to come up with a solution to fix social security. that is what i said in the earlier answer, and that is the same answer right now. host: this week the house kicks off its debate on homeland

security funding that we were talking about earlier. will there be any debate about what happened in paris? any provisions added to it? anything you think should be added to it to protect the united states? guest: i think we have already done that. the base appropriations bill takes care of national security needs from a homeland security perspective, including additional funding in the areas we need it. hopefully we will not have another paris incident. it also fixes the president's unlawful actions. i think we have reached the right balance in terms of taking care of national security from a homeland security perspective but also doing what the american people asked us to do, and that is stop the president's illegal action. host: central kentucky, stephen a republican. go ahead. caller: hi, bill. the senate needs to do what they can to stop obama's illegal amnesty.

several million illegals -- i mean, how much more taxes are we going to have to pay for other people who do not even though here -- who do not even belong here? that is coming out of our pockets. i mean, we have so many people here who need jobs. they are going to give illegals jobs over americans. a lot of these companies will. you guys need to do what you have to do. i do not care if it is the funding homeland security or whatever other government agency various, but you have -- whatever other government agency there is. but you have to do whatever you have to do. guest: the only person who can defund the homeland security agency is the president, in not moving forward with our appropriations bill. if you look at the president's illegal amnesty action, he has

given preference to employers hiring illegal persons as opposed to someone who is lawfully here. if you run a fast food chain you are incentivized by $3000 a year to harrier -- to hire somebody who is here unlawfully because you do not have to supply them with health care coverage, versus those that you do. we are fixing those types of things. the president has put americans at the bottom of the list, below those here illegally. that is not -- that is the reason americans do not like what he has done, and that is the reason we are committed to fix it. another thing he has done is he has taken the fees that the folks are paying to get an illegal visa or an illegal guest worker permit to be here and put them at the bottom of the list and taking those fees and using them to process the applications

for those who want to receive one of these work permits. host: o'neill, california, jeff, an independent. caller: my statement is the best way to get rid of illegal immigration are to go after the people hiring them. do that and these people will not come to america. if they know they do not have jobs, they will not come to this country. i am so sick and tired of these guys creating more jobs and trying to put americans back to work. they are not going to do it. they are not going to do it. they will keep doing the same old song and dance they have been doing the last 30 years. it is not obama's problem. it is the republican party's problem, back with nafta and all that. i have been out of work for 10 years. the construction trade in california is a joke. contractors will not hire a nativeborn american.

it has driven down wages to minimum wage level. guest: i appreciate your call. the president will take what you are talking about with driving wages down and make it even worth with -- and make it even worse with his illegal action. any discussion of illegal immigration reform, we have to deal with one of the drivers and that is employers who hire people who are here illegally. if it were up to me, i would say that it either ought to be mandatory, and if you hire somebody illegally, you have a stiff sanction to pay for that. on the other hand, we need a legal supply of labor that fits what we need. i need -- i have a diverse district that needs workers. i think that we need to improve the legal work programs for those sectors, and then i think we will have a situation where we do not hurt american wages but we have a more vibrant

american economy. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers. "what is the republican health care plan?" guest: these are broad generalities, but number one, if you are a partner group, you are allowed to join together as an association. that way you have more buying power. once you have that association you can look for health care anywhere you want -- across state lines. there is no reason you should be restricted to doing it in state. the third thing, if you work for an employer, they get a tax advantage for providing you health care. you as a family or as an individual ought to get that same tax treatment. we also need tort reform. one of the big cost drivers in our health care industry is litigation, and health care providers who are having to cover their tails and charge you for additional tests.

so we have that. those are the big ten in supporting health care reform. there is more, but those are the big drivers to start with. host: from new jersey, donny, a democratic caller. caller: president obama did not put lawful citizens at the bottom of the list. you did. lobbyists come first and the people come last. and your health care program -- what is it? if you get sick, make sure you die fast. you are worried about a deficit. cutting taxes for the top 1% does not help with revenue or paying the deficit down, but it has been going on for 30 years. and the dopey people who keep voting for your side, they are waiting to be trickled on. keystone -- it has nothing to do with jobs, nothing to do with energy, but it has a whole lot to do with the several million

dollars the lobbyists are spinning around. host: congressman? guest: you are pretty good at reiterating the democratic talking points but they are not factually based. keystone creates jobs. it also creates better energy prices for all americans. typical income for families today have been flat for years. and there costs are going up. we could lower their energy costs and grow the economy and create an environment where there are more jobs and bitter paychecks. they are better off. this is not about lobbyists this is about hard-working american families. that is what i am here to fight for. this is what conservatives are here to fight for, and that is what we will do for everybody whether democrat, independent or republican. host: another issue for the 114th congress is the highway spending bill. we had the republican governor

of utah, gary herbert, on recently. i want to show you what he had to say about raising the gas tax. [video clip] host: you were open to raising gas taxes, is that true? guest: we were looking at the long-term aspects of transportation in utah. we found that by 2040 with growth, and we are about the second fastest growing state in america right now -- good economics, good quality of life, as well as a higher birth rate -- we have to anticipate for the future. we cannot just talk about the next few years or the next election, it has to be a generational thing as we look down the road. we came up $11 billion short of our transportation needs in utah. we have not adjusted the gasoline tax in 17 years.

just to recapture inflation means we should raise to $.10 per gallon. -- should raise $.10 per gallon. should we have a sales tax? should we have a combination? should we have maybe a sales tax or a fee of registration that raises up on batteries, a higher sales tax on cars? that is going to be a debate and i expect we will have some kind of an adjustment with the fuel tax and how we charge to maintain the roads and build capacity in the legislative session that will start in january. host: how is the legislature responding to your idea? guest: they understand. they are tactical people. nobody wants their taxes raised, and that is why it has not been done in 17 years. [video clip ends]

host: jim inhoffe said that he is for raising -- do you agree with those republicans? guest: actually, no i do not. first of all, all conservatives agree that the infrastructure is important. the question is how do you pay for it and who is responsible for that? so why don't we think about again, a 21st-century solution. i had dinner with governor herbert and some other governors last week, as well as some conservative senators, and we talked about solutions for the 21st century -- transportation and elsewhere. the governor hit one point on the head. we have too many people who use the system but do not pay for

it. so we need to think outside the box in terms of how do you raise the revenues that you need to build a transportation infrastructure? what i would propose is something like this. governor herbert knows that what his transportation needs are, a bunch of bureaucrats are in washington. so why don't we devolve the process? why don't we push transportation back to the states? let them seek funding the way they see fit, design the roads the way they see fit, and get washington bureaucrats out of the way. when americans sent taxes to washington the most they get back on their dollar is $.90. want not -- why not keep 100 cents on their dollar? if we let the governors do it, they will find ways to build

more roads, more quickly at a cheaper cost, and we will get the federal government out of it and you will not have a bunch of federal bureaucrats controlling the lives of everyday americans. americans do not trust the government, so let's-it act -- so let's turn it back over to governors. host: susan in hampton, virginia, a republican. you are next. caller: hi, that morning. i have a couple of comments. one is on this highway fund. didn't the stimulus spending $8 billion? wasn't that supposed to take care of the structure and jobs? number two, keystone -- one thing i do not hear anyone mention is all the tax money that the states are going to receive with the pipeline. that is never mentioned as a plus or an asset to the whole project. number three is the issue of

abortion. somewhere on the internet yesterday, i saw that they were going to vote to not allow abortions over 20 weeks, which is five months. i totally agree with that. i was wondering what your views are. guest: let me start at the beginning. you are exactly right, the stimulus bill came out, and we all heard the mantra that the president and his allies were touting, as if these were shovel-ready jobs. 18 to 24 months later you heard the joke that maybe some of these were not as shovel ready as others. that was a giant waste of taxpayer money for hard-working american families, and we do not want to do that again. that is why i think it is better for the states to do with infrastructure in the ways they see best for their local populations.

with respect to keystone, that is a point i have not raised but you are exactly right. our state and local governments when the pipeline runs through those states, they will receive more taxes -- which means better schools and better education better infrastructure for their local communities and for their states. those are all positive things. unfortunately, this thing has been vilified by those who would put the environmental community ahead of jobs and paychecks, and that is unfortunate. with respect to protecting lives, yes, there is a bill that has been introduced and i am a supporter of that. there is a large majority of americans that just think the idea of killing an unborn child that has been in the womb for over five months is abhorrent and i agree. one of our missions of the republican study committee is to protect american values, and that includes protecting

american lives, even those who are the most vulnerable, the unborn. host: when is that legislation coming to the floor? guest: guest: i am not sure, but my goal is to get it on the floor as soon as possible. host: have you talked to leadership about that? guest: i have not. it is a member driven organization, and we are going to present those conservative solutions to our leadership this weekend at the gop retreat. host: so when you gather later on this week in hershey pennsylvania, that is your plan. can you run through the agenda? guest: the highlights are create better jobs. balance the federal budget. the fourth is protect american values, and the fifth is put the

federal government back in its constitutional box. the federal government is doing more things than it was ever intended by our founders to do. as a result, americans are very distrustful of our government because so many bureaucrats are interfering with their daily lives. host: we go to gainesville, florida. mike, an independent. caller: good morning. my question is, would the administration that we have here -- and it seems like all we are doing is trading licks between our congress and our leader -- what can be done about moving forward? because we can propose all these legislations and all these plans and all these studies and all these fields that we are coming at, but it is not necessarily benefiting the people if it is really just a waste of time

because you come back down to he is going to veto and do what he wants to do anyway. you can threaten the whole funding, but he is just going to find a way around it. he has not been stopped yet. if he is truly breaking the law what can we -- what can be done about it and why hasn't anything been done about it yet it? if he is not, why are we just posturing? this affects every topic that we have on the air today. host: you raise a great -- guest: you raise a great point. we would not do these things if it was not in the interest of the american people. for far too long, the president has put special interests ahead ofc more jobs and more paychecks , better jobs and more paychecks for hard working american families. my hope is that when the

president looks in the mirror and he looks at the legacy he has had the last six years which is middle-class families being squeezed from both ends -- lower income and higher cost -- that he will decide i have to do things differently, and maybe those conservatives in congress have some good ideas, and maybe i ought to sit down -- if nothing else, for his own -- to burnish his own legacy to make it better. just think about this. if we had an environment where the economy suddenly got a lot better and middle-class wages were coming up, because he sat down to work with us, he would suddenly improve his popularity. but as long as he puts his special interests ahead of hard-working american families, we are likely not going to get anywhere. i hope he will reach out to us and say i am willing to sit down and talk to you about a few things. he has done that on a limited basis, and that is on corporate tax reform. i think that was a good start.

i applaud the president for reaching out on that. his ideas may be different than ours, but we will never get there until we sit down and talk about how we move forward and how do we take care of those people who have been heard by his economic policies. host: i want to talk about the vote for speaker of the house. on sunday we had on our show for republican commerce and -- a former republican congressman who is part of the mainstream partnership, and he was talking about that rebellion. i want to get your reaction. [video clip] guest: their action is to take their thumb and stick it in the eye of the republican congress. so there are 25 of them. that still leaves 212, 218 other republicans in the house who did

vote for the speaker, and they are angry and they have the right to be angry that these folks are preening on television, and they are excuses , and their explanations ring hollow. one of them said that i am just doing what my constituents want. i'm going to tell you, i served the district in ohio for 18 years, and i never had a groundswell of people say you had better vote for louie gohmert to be speaker of the house. [end of video clip] host: do you agree that the supporters have the right to be angry with the defectors? guest: the important thing is to move forward. if we spend time litigating last week over the controversy of the speaker election, we cannot go forward with these things i have talked about, making america a stronger country and life better for these hard-working american families. i think it is time to move

forward with the policy. let's say, for instance, that the insurgency, for lack of a better term, had been successful. that would have delayed the conservative agenda by a couple of months. we voted on three great bills last week. the 40 hour work week, hiring more heroes, and keystone. that would have been delayed by two months had we had to go through the controversy of electing a new speaker. the way the process works -- and i have tried to explain this to people -- in november after we organize our new conference, we could have some -- we could have elected a different speaker, and they would have been safe in doing so because it is done by secret ballot. if somebody would have been a competitive speaker, john boehner could have been replaced and there would have been two months to organize and come out of the shoes running. instead, we had people deciding to do it the last minute, in a

fairly disruptive manner. i want to mention something that the former representative said. he said that those folks said their constituents told them to do it. i had about 400 constituents that called in, and they were extremely angry and telling me to vote for one of the other folks other than speaker boehner. i represent 700,000 people. just because i did not do what the 400 wanted me to do does not mean i am a bad member of congress. they certainly would not like it if 1000 pro-abortion people called in to me and said we want you to approve abortion and i did it because they are the loudest screaming people. that is not the way this process works. we are representatives of several hundred thousand, and i cannot let the loudest group overtake decisions for the 700,000. host: you say it is time to move

on. so should the speaker not look for retribution against those who voted against him? guest: the speaker is fairly magnanimous about prior attempts to interfere with the speakership. i think at the end of the day he will probably do that again that he will probably go ahead and turn the other cheek. but, look, he is a human just like the rest of us. if somebody tries to hurt you time and time again, you have to say, you know, somewhere this has got to stop. the representative is correct. people are angry the 216 who feel that they made the right decision, are tired of being vilified by a small group of people. but it is time to move on, and i think the speaker will be magnanimous and turn the other cheek. once that happens, we can heal and have a family discussion

that the speaker has talked about, and we can continue to focus on our agenda. it is better to focus on the agenda moving forward then to focus on the past. host: let's get in one last phone call gina, from georgia a democrat. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. congressman, i have a question for you. i want to say something, and i have a question. years ago when medicare was first created, the doctors and insurance companies and medical providers said that they did not participate because it was going to be another big government program that would not work. so the governor has finally decided, listen, if you would be willing to participate, just try out the program, for every dollar you provide, we will give you a next her $.35 -- you do not have to do anything for it, -- we will give you a next trip $.35. you do not have to do anything

for it, but thank you for participating. that has turned into $750 billion. you say you want to cut taxes you want smaller government. why would you want to take that $750 billion out of obamacare and put it back into the mother of all gimme programs? it would take over 80 boxcars of 100 dollar bills to haul that much money. host: i will leave it there and have the congressman jump in. guest: let me say this. the democrats, when they passed obamacare, are the folks who took $750 billion out of obamacare. it was not the republicans. we were trying to stop it from passing to start with. it is not conservatives in congress. host: congressman, we appreciate your time this morning. thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you.

i told my mom and dad to call him today, too. and they did not. host: thank you very much. maybe next time. we will talk about, coming up next, national security issues and the congressional agenda with chief deputy whip peter welch of vermont. later, the sunlight foundation's kathy kiely talks about washington's revolving door and the lobbying rules that apply to former members of congress. we will be right back.

>> dr. anthony felty, our guest this sunday on q&a, is on the front line battling infectious diseases. >> we have drugs right now who -- that when they are given to people who are hiv infected -- in the early 1980's, if someone came into my clinic with aids, the median survival would be six to eight months, which means half of them would be dead in eight months. now if tomorrow when i go back to round on friday and someone comes in to a clinic who is 20-plus years old, who is relatively recently infected and i put the -- i put them on the combination of three drugs, i could accurately predict, look

them in the eye and say we could do mathematical modeling to say if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 50 years. going from knowing that 50% of the people are going to die in eight months to knowing that if you take the medicines you could live essentially a normal lifespan, just a few years less than a normal lifespan, that is a huge advance. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with representative peter welch democrat from vermont, and chief deputy whip. let's talk about house action this week. on the floor, it is going to be the spending bill for the homeland security department. what do you make of what the republicans are trying to do here?

how many democrats do you think will vote for it or against it? guest: none. first of all, the homeland security bill is not about homeland security, it is a continuation of the attack against any effort that the president is making on immigration reform. the republicans have dodged dealing with immigration reform because the bill is about unraveling every executive action the president took, really pushing us back from where we are on the immigration issue, which has got to be faced, and sending a bill they know they will -- sending a bill they know will not pass in the senate. it will not pass because senate republicans know we have to pass an immigration reform bill. so what they have done is put together a bill that has no chance of passing in the republican-controlled senate never getting a signature from the president, so the confrontation they will have has simply been postponed, and that confrontation will be with

senate republicans. so i do not think much of it. host: our previous guest, congressman bill flores, says that he will predict that there will be some house democrats who will vote for this legislation. you are saying none. guest: there may be a few, but there will not be much. this is a strategy. it is about the republicans in the house is essentially appeasing the most ardent, anti-immigration folks within their conference. they know this bill will not get through the senate. it will get through the house. it is not about funding because it is only funding in name. but it literally unravels everything the president did. keep in mind that the senate passed a strong bipartisan immigration reform bill. there are a lot of contentious issues on immigration, but we have got to do something. the president took action because the house last year failed to take any action

whatsoever. so the bottom line, i find it a bad step because it is not the house republicans, who we need to work with, coming together on something that moves us forward. host: how will house democrats respond? how will you counter on the floor? guest: we are saying we have to get something done. the senate bipartisan bill, that legislation was pretty good. it passed with john mccain playing a leading role. they just get it that we have to do something on this to make a difference for america. host: in addition to your role as chief deputy whip, you also serve on the oversight and government reform committee on the national security subcommittee. what are your thoughts on what happened in paris, and what sort of threat is there for the united states, that there could be some sort of similar attack here? guest: number one, how can any of us not be totally horrified about what happened in paris? it just shook emotionally not

just france but europe to its foundations, that possibility that a lone wolf or an isolated group on their own can cause so much damage? it is terrifying to all of us. and what should we do? this is an example where i think our homeland security folks have been really vigilant because one of the apprehensions we have and rightly so, about what is going on in the middle east with radical islam, is that some homegrown terrorists, folks who came from europe and went and got trained, or from the u.s. who went and got trained, we'll come back and cause some real harm and damage. so the monitoring that the homeland has been doing, and the fbi, to prevent travel to those areas, we have to maintain that vigilance because it could happen. host: another threat that

presented itself today was isis' ability to hack into the pentagon's youtube and twitter pages. how concerned are you about this and what is your confidence level of this administration's ability to thwart that kind of attack? guest: i am very concerned about it, and all of us should be. this is an area where i think there is potential for real bipartisan support on cyber security, and here is the situation that i think we have to acknowledge the starting point. our military has superiority in just about any engagement it gets involved in. but as general dempsey said sunday, when it comes to cyber we do not have superiority. we have a lot of arrivals out there. some of those cyber criminals are hacking into target, jpmorgan, so it is an economic threat. some of them are actually trying

to take steps that would sort out national security, and that is an example, that you just mentioned. so the president will be proposing cyber security efforts, and i think you will see, on the energy commerce committee, where i sit there will be a lot of cooperation because we know that both from an economic standpoint and from a national security standpoint we have to do the very best we can to make certain that our systems are safe and protected. host: what type of proposals are you talking about? what have you heard coming to the floor? guest: the president is proposing it, and there is real bipartisan support in the energy and commerce committee, with our republican chairman with a lot of activity on this. there is a desire to work together. at some of the things would require legislation that would allow companies to share information with respect to

systems so that we would be able to take better steps and earlier steps to prevent hacking. i do not know how much of it would be a resource issue. the other element would be trying to protect the privacy of your data and mine, because that is another issue. we have to have data security privacy as well, as well as secure data networks. host: democrats leaders are also having your annual retreat in baltimore where you will discuss your agenda and priority. i wonder if there will be discussion at that meeting about how democrats talk about wall street. there appears to be a division within the party about how the party talks about wall street. do you agree that there is a division there, and how should the party address it? guest: wall street obviously is a big part of the division on how we treat the economy.

what you have seen is, they have done well. we went off the cliff in 2008, largely the result of financial manipulation that was creating enormous wealth for a lot of folks and some of the banks on wall street. we then had the bailout and the american people were really pretty livid that the result of the bailout was the folks who caused the problem are now doing better than ever. but all of the rest of the folks , their wages are stagnant. that is a reality, and you are even seeing some of the republican candidate knowledge that for the middle class, their wages have just not kept up. the whole heart of the american dream is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to play your -- to pay your bills and make your kids better off than you were. we will be talking about this, but i think what the democrats have to do is focus on what is the growth agenda? what our tax policies, budget policies that will help spur

growth and wages echo the big divide in our economy right now is that profits are up but wages or not. that is the challenge for us, and we will be talking about that. host: the division within the party seems to be playing out over what to do about dodd frank legislation. do you these up on some of those provisions or not, as well as the fight over the president's nominee for treasury post, antonio weiss, who has now decided to withdraw the nomination. was that a good decision for him to withdraw from being considered for this post? guest: everything i understand about him is that he was an exceptionally positive person who did a lot of good things. host: senator elizabeth warren did not think he was a good nomination. guest: that's right, and i think the issue here, from senator warren's standpoint, he was

symbolic of wall street getting his people back into high-level policy positions, and symbolism in policy matters. mr. weiss has taken a position that does not require company -- that -- that is not require confirmation. we will see. the bottom line is not individuals. the real question is we have to help our mainstream banks. we need a strong banking sector in our country. you cannot have a capitalistic system without a good banking sector. a good banking sector makes this money and this contribution by lending to the real economy. that is the best thing that can happen. our mainstream banks did that. when it comes to dodd frank -- what i would like to see us do is give some relief to our small mainstream banks that got swept up in dodd frank regulation and bear significant cost trying to comply with it. those banks have been keeping our local economies going, and they really did not contribute,

nor do they endanger our economy going forward. i am for strong dodd frank on the big banks, the money center banks, and giving a lot of relief to our smaller banks. host: we are going to get our viewers involved in this conversation. we are talking with peter welch democrat from vermont, chief deputy whip. taking your questions and comments. we go to larry first, memphis, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning congressman. i am a black army veteran, and the republicans -- they clapped and cheered when a man died from the lack of health care. they always say obama will not work with that. the republicans say whatever they are for, if obama is for it, they are against it.

now, it is crazy. if they are something for the -- if they are for something like the aca, it is their idea. i am tired of hearing that he will not work with them when -- host: larry, you broke up, but i think we got your point. congress and welch? guest: i agree with you. obamacare was modeled after mitt romney's plan in massachusetts. we are reminded of mitch mcconnell, when he was senate minority leader, it was his job to determine that -- to make sure that president obama was only a one-term president. the democrats are in the minority now, and what we have to do is find a way to work together to make some progress for this country. and i know the present -- i know that president obama believes that and will go more than halfway.

host: rose from nashville tennessee, a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. conversely welch, i would like to correct something that you and other democrats always say about republicans. you made the comment -- and it is not true -- that republicans are anti-immigration. that is a great talking point and it has been permeated by the democrats throughout the press and every time a good democrat -- and every time a democrat speaks. but republicans and conservatives are not anti-immigration, we are anti-illegal immigration. this country we know was founded by immigrants, and all of us pretty much our descendents of those immigrants. but they came legally. they did not sneak over our borders. and i really am tired of the democrats lying about what republicans believe and what

conservatives, especially, would like to see happen. host: ok. congressman? guest: well, some republicans are for immigration reform, and some are not. the senate, with real leadership from folks like senator mccain, past a real immigration reform bill. by the way i am for immigration reform, but that means there has to be legal immigration. a big element of the legal reform passed by the senate that i would reform -- that i would support is making our border security. there have been massive increases along the border to deal with the situation of illegal immigration. we have young people who through no fault of their own came here when they were three or four years old, and now they are in the 20's and want to contribute to society.

how are we going to do without a practical levels? the senate had ways to deal with it. it is a very divisive issue, and we have to deal with it, but we are not dealing with it in the house. as you point out, some republicans -- all republicans and democrats are for "legal immigration, co-but the steps we are required to take or should take from country, with practical realities, that is whether continued to be a big division. host: from connecticut, an independent. caller: i don't know why the democrats should understand why illegal is illegal, and they should not be here. they should find a way to force them out, not to let them be here. guest: i hear you on that, and it is a visible that you are enunciating that makes sense. but on the other hand, you have a child who was brought here who had nothing to do with the decision. they were two years old or three

years old when they came and are now 20 or 25. and all that person's family is here. should we separate that person from his whole family? should we take that person, man or woman, out and deny that person an opportunity to get an education and become a trip -- and become a contributing member of the economy? i do not think that makes sense, and that is what we are struggling with here. if just absolutely we are going to deport everybody, no matter the circumstances or how much of a contribution they made while they are here, that will be hard on the country as well as devastating for some of those innocent families. host: tiki on our line for democrats, from texas. go ahead. caller: i have a next military family, army navy. there is so much fraud. the democratic agenda -- how about this.

they are already to decrease the amount of wages of college education, that it gets you. number two, when we arrest these illegals, we arrest their employers. our -- if you are going to confiscate pot smokers in their trucks and homes, why not do it for illegals? my sons have been fighting. do you know why we are fighting? the bush family. i am sick of it. i want to follow the money. the drones are owned by the bushes per you had better prosecute war crimes. guest: i cannot add to bank much to that. if there are war crimes, they should be prosecuted. i do not think the bushes are profiteering. i think going in to iraq has had great consequences for this country, so i am with you on that. but finally, i want to thank

your sons, army-navy, for their service. host: from new jersey margaret, on our line for republicans. caller: thanks for taking my call. when the democrats controlled the central -- the senate and the house, they did nothing to pass an immigration bill. now that the republicans are in control, they want to throw this problem into their laps and still gain politically from it. i just do not think -- there are companies here in new jersey that are on hold hiring employees, waiting for this bill to pass, and it is not right. i just hope and pray that african-americans wake up and stop telling to the democratic party, and look more to the republican party. it is about time. host: ok. congressman? guest: i think your point, if i

understand it, is that we have to pass this legislation for reform. it is overdue, and i agree with you on that. i have some hope that we would be able to do it. the real challenge in the house on the republican side, there is a real split about what to do, if anything. so what we are seeing is the house is going to pass this homeland security bill that rolls back everything the president did and ignores everything that the senate did. so it is just postponing for tomorrow a problem that we have to address today. but that confrontation is coming, and it is going to be one where the house republicans face-off essentially against the senate republicans. host: could there be some compromise on education? here is "the washington post" this morning -- "education secretary: keep annual tests add preschool funding." "

guest: there is potential. anything that we can do in early education in particular, but all the way up to college and postgraduate education, we should. i think it is terrible that we are so stalled. the testing issue has become extremely controversial. it is a portfolio -- not just for a specific test, but trying to measure progress that specific students make. it makes sense because all students are a little bit different. i think what the secretary is pointing out is that there can be some testing, but there is an and norma's advantage -- there is an enormous advantage and our country, if we have a robust program that will give our kids

in poor and middle class neighborhoods a shot. there is an interest there. let's see if we can get it done. host: lamar alexander, who leads the panel -- "considering ending the testing mandate, prompting states and local districts to pile on more tests during the school year to measure if students are ready for the federally required exam at year's end. the national associate bash the national education association the american federation of teachers want to replace annual tests with age span testing. guest: we can argue about what the best way is. the bottom line for me, with the opportunity for our kids, we need good teachers, good principlesals. when i think back to my own education, what makes a

difference is when you have a teacher that takes an interest in you and gives you some sense of the world that is out there if you engage your mind. my focus when it comes to education is almost always on how do we help teachers become successful echo how do we train and host: back to phone calls. still on the __ sstill on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have seen you many times on television. i want to talk about the keystone debacle. i, like so many other individuals in america who understand what filthy oil can do to the landscape, do not understand. i do not understand how we can

allow a company in canada to use our country as its __ essentially, gutter __ for the filthiest oil on the planet. we cannot allow this. guest: i think the decision will be with the president. as you know, the house passed the keystone bill. in the senate, most people expect it will pass. the president will have to decide what to do. what is strange about this __ in addition to the questions about the keystone pipeline, this legislation is a special exemption to transcanada __ a foreign company. it makes it so that they do not have to pay into an environmental cleanup fund.

how in the world we have a special exception for this foreign company? secondly, climate change is real. tar sands oil provides about 20% to 40% more carbon emissions. finally, the oil will go through our country but not to our country. it will go down to the gulf coast and be refined for export. host: james, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first a comment than a question __ i remember back when nafta was passed. my father called me up. he told me about it.

he said, say goodbye to the united states as we know it. he was right. it went from __ free trade to exporting jobs to other countries to importing immigrants for cheap labor. that is the whole effort __ to bring back manufacturing jobs. job creation __ i do not know where that comes from. we stayed job creation like, let's re_invent the wheel. we did job creation, and we gave it away. that's what i do not understand. guest: i share your concerns about nafta.

we have to figure out how to revise manufacturing in this country. the energy advantage with the low cost of energy __ that has been coming down. we are basically starting to export energy. that is giving our manufacturers an advantage. we will have a number of trade agreements that are under consideration. my bottom line question is will those make our labor force weaker or stronger? will it help us make more products home, or will simply export jobs? there were a lot of provisions in after the resulted in the things that you described. we have to stay tuned on this. there will be a lot of

discussion on trade in this congress. host: does the president have a lot of democrats on his side? guest: i suspect that if they had a trade agreement on the floor, they would have a good chance on passing it. this is a situation where you have the president and many republicans in agreement. the democrats are split. there is a lot of wariness on what this will do to wages and employment. we have seen trade agreements increased the gross domestic product, but if they export jobs and keep wages down, that is bad. host: is the parties split on the issue __ with 2016 around the corner, what will happen? guest: i think it is a separate debate in the presidential race.

the trade agreement discussion has a difference of opinion in the republican party as well. trade agreements affect different sectors of the american people different ways. there is a lot of concern at the congressional district level about how will this particular trade agreement impact the people that i represent. host: jerry, and independent. caller: i have a lot of questions. we've already got an immigration law. host: jerry __ what else? caller: why don't we swear to uphold the law instead of change it. guest: the president does swear

to uphold the law. i think he has a certain authority that any president has. if he goes be on the executive authority that the constitution gives them, then the courts will hold him back. that is the way it works. the assertion that just because the president is taking action, denies the reality that there is certain authority that is limited. host: our next caller. caller: i would like to see democrats fight hard for income inequality. another thing i would like to see is for democrats to make sure that they fight the president on tpp.

make sure they do not let that pass. it is a bad idea. another thing __ i say this strip social security. they should make sure the keystone pipeline does not pass. these are things i would like to see them do. i would like to see democrats fight much harder. learn to express themselves a little better. never shied away from the president. support the present. guest: that is pretty good advice. we have been hearing that from a lot of people. i do think we should fight hard. we have to be willing to cooperate with the republican majority. they have the vote. the question will be __ really for the republicans __ will

they reach out to find some things that we can do together? if you want to do things like energy conservation, or get our budget under control, or improve funding for the national institute of health. if we will do some of these things, i think democrats have to be willing to try and work with republicans. on the other hand, if these message bills that will essentially be vetoed __ and we make no progress, that will be bad all around. host: ed, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. there are a lot of subjects that i could touch on. i will stick with what i call about. you mentioned earlier that a lot of these illegals came as children. i think you said two or three years old, now they are 25.

how many of those people when they became 18 years old __ legal adults __ have made an effort to correct their illegal status? if no one has the answer, it would be a good idea to do some research and ask them. republicans have been pushing __ as a separate issue __ sealing the border. democrats are opposed to this. what will happen if the terrorist decides to get infected with ebola, come across our southern border, and walk through our malls or assembly theaters?

or, a terrorist __ they smuggle in millions of pounds of drugs into this country __ couldn't they smuggle in millions of pounds of bombs? this will have been. guest: two things. number one __ essentially what you are proposing is self deportation. on a practical level, it is a pipe dream. if you self support __ you are asking people to leave their lives. the only life they know is there life here. and technically, sealing the border, there has been such a huge investment of resources on the border.

is it possible to literally have an airtight border where there is no possibility that somebody, somehow, someway will sneak in? i do not know that that is possible. i do know that the resources are there on having the border controlled and preventing people to come and illegally has been a bipartisan approach. host: betty from texas. caller: my question is __ on the illegal topic that your speaking of. i want to know what you will set in place to make sure that we actually get money from the illegals to pay into the social security system to put money back into the area where they

are at to give money back to the education system. down here in texas, the evil eagles will work in groups of __ illegals will work in groups of 10 or 20. only one will file for taxes. then, there are several who do not shop further hearings and things that they are supposed to show up for. another question __ on social security. how is the money that is missing from social security going to be paid back? what is the government going to do about this flow of muslims that the un is talking about shipping over here. guest: i'm not quite sure if i

understand all the specifics and what your outlined. on immigrants that want to take advantage of the opportunity to get square with the law. there is no amnesty. they have to make sure that any back taxes that they owe are paid. number two, they have numerous obligations before they would be allowed in the senate bill to get the green card or get citizenship. it is not an amnesty's situation here. there's an obligation to get square with the law. of course, does not include people who have a criminal record to become a citizen. on social security __ the quote illegal immigrants who work with these companies __ have

social security taken out, but they never draw on social security. the social security fund actually benefits because he gets contributions from people who never received benefits. host: yesterday in washington, chris van hollen outlined a plan __ including $1000 tax credit bonus. the sabres bonus of $250 each year for individuals who put $500 of their paycheck into tax_deferred savings accounts. updating the child and dependent care tax.

a second earner tax deduction. guest: it is a very well conceived program to try to provide for tax fairness for working families. in the last campaign, democrats got beat. i think one of the things that brought us down was we did not have a good message on the economy. we just talked about minimum wage __ it impacts many people. we talked about pay equity which is important. what people feel is that they are working hard and they're not getting pay raises. taxpayers are not fair when someone is paying half the rate that their personal assistant is paying. chris van hollen is trying to

get more money in the pockets of working class families. multimillionaires gay huge bonuses at companies where their employees get no bonus at all. host: will this be a push by democrats to include those provisions on any tax reform bill? guest: it will. i think what you will see is this will be part of the budget that comes out of the budget committee __ or at least the democrat alternative to what the republican budget will be. everybody knows that our tax system right now is not fair. it is really tough if you're paying as social security tax

and you have kids who need braces, or something happens with school. most people are going paycheck to paycheck. what we are talking about __ what the chris van hollen proposal trys to do is put more money in the pockets of middle_class families. host: our next caller. caller: these illegals coming across __ reagan, when he was president __ he brought 10,000 mexicans across its border. social security __ bush took $80 billion out to start the war in iraq. half of the people in the united states.even know what he was doing.

medicare overseas __ we pay for healthcare. how come american people cannot have it? guest: i kind of agree with you. that was a pretty good statement. the healthcare situation in this country __ we pay the most and get the least. we have so may people who are uninsured. what obamacare has done is expand access. we have been in this long battle as to whether or not we will repeal it. we will not repeal it. we need to focus on the health care system to get the costs down. it is a burden on employers and employees. a lot of people will forgo even

bargaining a pay raise, if they can hold onto the health care that they want. the cost of healthcare is really the challenge that we should focus on. that is an area where republicans and democrats should be able to work together. we are paying the most for healthcare. why do we find ways to lower that cost and improve quality. host: are the things that republicans could appear to? guest: absolutely. for example, prescription drugs are incredibly expensive. why don't we try to get those costs down? we should approach things from a comprehensive standpoint, and reward the value of the healthcare. it has to be a focus on the cost side, and avoid duplication. that is hard work.

i think it is the hardware challenge is. host: we appreciate your time. coming up next we will talk to kathy kiely about a new report focusing on washington's revolving door. we will be right back. ♪ >> our guest this sunday on "q&a." >> we have drugs right now. if someone came in to my clinic in the 1980's __ the median

survival would be 6 to 8 months. now, if someone comes into our clinic who is 20+ years old, relatively recently infected, and i put them on the combination of three drugs __ the cocktail __ i could accurately predict to say that if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 55 years. to go from knowing that 50% of the people would die in a month to knowing that if you take your medicines, you can live a normal life span. just a few years less than a normal lifespan, that is a huge advance. >> that is sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific.

"washington journal" continues. host: we're back with kathy kiely the managing editor of the sunlight foundation. what is the revolving door? guest: it is the door that stands up there on capitol hill. we really focused on congress. what happens is __ you see a lot of people who come onto capitol hill __ bboth elected officials and staffers. they stay for a while and then they leave. they usually end up down the street in the lobbying sector on k st. __ and making a lot more money. sometimes they come back to the hill, then go back to k st. it makes for an interesting dynamic. these are the folks who have really insider knowledge,, and can get a lot of time, and get

a lot of money for the services. host: that is not all sound bad. they have a lot of knowledge, contacts __ why shouldn't they be allowed to use that experience from capitol hill or on k st. to get legislation done? guest: congress passed a law several years ago of allowing this kind of interchange. but the proposal pulling off. so that people could not ask to go directly from their service on capitol hill to a lobbying shop. i think there are some good reasons for that. there is a question about how much of a quid pro quo there could be. or, if you're on the hill in __

and you are negotiating, and you do a favor for the organization, then you find yourself suddenly working with them for a top salary. the other thing that is important is that there be more transparency about this revolving door. even under the current law, there is not nearly as much as they should be. one thing that we document in our report is how many people __ who are theoretically still in a cooling off period __ are in fact loving. i think that is because of a lot of loopholes in the law. it also reflects a lack of transparency. the most important thing for voters is to be able to see what is happening. that enables them to determine

__ are these folks working in the public interest or are they working for special interest? we would like to see more transparency, better reporting. i also think __ i'm not policy person, i am a journalist __ there are some cases to be made for closing some loopholes. host: what is the law? what does it say about the cooling_off period? guest: it is so complicated. a fundamentally says that if you are an elected representative, you cannot lobby your chamber of congress for __ one year for the senate, to use for the house __ i may have that backwards. also, senior staffers have some restrictions. again, what our report found out __ what we did was __ we

took a database of people who were becoming legal to lobby. we looked at folks who would in their cooling off period in the first year of the 114 congress, and we looked at what they did. many of them are already working for firms. first staffers, certain staffers, you can lobby as long as you do not make contact with the committee that you work for. there are many members of congress who are already at public affairs jobs, in high_ranking positions, directors of companies with agendas before congress. theoretically, they are not lobbying, but it's hard to argue that these people in those positions are not having an impact. host: let's talk about some

examples. there is a former senator of that budget committee __ kent conrad. he has been one of 10 members of the board of a fortune 500 insurance company. how did this all happened? guest: the law says that you can tell people how to lobby as long as you do not do the lobbying yourself. that is a distinction without a difference. i think that is where you get into this really gray area. it is hard to believe that a member of congress __ knowing that his or her former colleagues are working on the board of a company __ will not have that in mind.

host: another example. a former congressman now heads up the heritage foundation. guest: jim demint is an interesting example. a piece by politico quoted members of congress saying they considered him a force on the hill well before the lobbying band ended. the reason is, he has used his own political action committee as well as the heritage ffoundation to exercise a great deal of force. he can do that because he has money to give out. he has an organization __ the heritage foundation is the heritage foundation __ but they haven't lobbying wing. theoretically it is different,

but is still the heritage foundation. clearly, if it's lobbying wing is pushing a bill __ it is hard to think that jim demint does not have some view on that. host: is that shadow lobbying? what is that? guest: it is what we are talking about. it is someone lobbying without having to register as a lobbyist. host: we're talking to kathy kiely about the revolving door here in washington. we want to take your questions and comments on this conversation. let's begin with floyd. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i believe what should be going on is every dime that every legislator receives __ the

people have the right to know. they hide it from the public, they do not c what __ llet us see what is going on. we would be very disappointed to know that many of them end up as millionaires. that is wrong. they are there to serve the american people, they serve themselves. meanwhile, those of us out here try to make a living are barely hanging on. it is not right. guest: i think they call it really captures some of the cynicism that this kind of system fosters. the question is, again __ are the people coming to washington to serve the public or to get rich?

there's no question that the renumeration for some of the jobs is so high. again, it defies credulity to say that someone is not lobbying, but we will pay them just to sit here. we saw a lot of this come up in the 2012 presidential campaign __ i'm sorry, the 2008 presidential campaign __ when newt gingrich came under a lot of heat for not saying that he was a lobbyist, but he clearly was. i think having clear rules of the road __ make it plain to people __ it has two effects. it increases public confidence. it also has a deterrent effect on abuses.

the sunlight foundation comes from a quote that says that sunlight brings abundance. if people are being watched, they tend to perform better. some abuses could be avoided if we had a better disclosure system. host: when this law was put into place, and the money spent through the years __ there were more lobbyist back in 2008, it has dropped off in 2014. the money has pretty much stayed the same. we're talking about billions of dollars here. guest: we're talking up billions of dollars. i think those figures __ almost undoubtedly understate the situation for some of the reasons that we are talking about. a couple things happen. when this __ one, this law was

passed. two, when president obama was a candidate, he ran very much against lobbyists. i think what has happened is that __ lobbyist has now become a dirty word in washington. it is a legitimate profession. there are good reasons have lobbyists, but, you now have more than going underground. there have been lobbyists deregister. the other thing is happening is the rise of technology is allowing for new ways to being a lobbyist.

you can now use digital technology to create grassroots campaigns. you can exercise a lot of influence and advertising. a lot of what are called public affairs funds are arguably lobbyist. i think that laws and regulations may be need to be updated to reflect the more modern technology. host: that sunlight foundation on this __ calling out lobbyists drove them underground. check out the chart that they published. you can see the number of registered lobbyists from 1988 to 2013. let's go to ray. caller: hi.

i want to commend you for what you are doing. what you are doing is very much needed. the reason why i think things stay the same __ when it comes to election time, we tend to vote for the same people. if you vote for the same people, you get nothing different. the same results over and over again. these guys hire their families. the same money just stays in the topics. they are representing the businesses, and the network system. there need to be taxes on the senators and congressmen. the american people need a raise. social security is an embarrassment. you need to start putting caps and rules and regulations.

so they can bring their family into the political system. they give their families a decent wage, but they cannot pass a decent wage for the american people. guest: again, i think __ you know, democracy is a participatory sport. if people sealed shut out of the system, it will be hard to maintain that. i think when you have a system that encourages people to say __ okay, do your time on capitol hill __ if you're nice enough to business lobbyists, maybe they will hire you, and you will make a lot more money on k st. tthis skews the system in a way __ it creates an incentive, and the suspicion that your caller

expressed. the idea that there are people with a lot of money, they can use that money and influence to have a bigger impact on capitol hill than someone who is merely a voter. i think it is corrosive. i think the voices that you've heard to date_that. host: a tweet from a viewer __ what forms does lobbying usually take? guest: all of the above. people say that our current system is a form of legalized bribery. what we see is __ it is a system that everyone hates, including lobbyists. we track fundraisers. if anybody out there is getting invitations to fundraisers, i encourage you to

go to political party time, and upload it. that is another way that we can promote transparency. one of the reasons we do that is that we take information on those invites, and enter into a database so that people can search for it and track what is going on. of most interest to us are the lobbyists. it is interesting to look back and see when there is a big vote in congress and find out why representative x or senator y is voting this way or that way. then you can see that a certain lobby held fundraisers

for members of congress. they are putting their social networks to work, it adds up to a lot of money. that is one way that lobbying is done __ that is not as obvious. host: our next call it from delaware. caller: i love your show. people keep dancing around the subject, it is absolutely corrupt. it should be stopped. host: what do you mean? what do you want them to do on capitol hill? caller: stop all this nonsense. who represents the poor people? who represents the little guy, the disenfranchised, the homeless? who do you have out there bobbing for them?

guest: there are groups that represent them, but they tend to be way outgunned by the other side. i think what you'll see is __ some of the most important decisions that congress makes that have real impact on people's lives are on issues like health care, taxes, unemployment. when you have a lot of folks on the other side who represent business interests, trying to protect their interests, and have a lot more money __ whether in terms of campaign contributions, or jobs to offer people, all that and more __ i think people have a right to feel suspicious. there are a lot of different

solutions to this. some of them are legislative. one solution that is easy is transparency. we now have the technology available to make a lot of these and it changes public within 24 hours. why not do so? that would make people's faith in the system a lot more greater. i think there is another aspect to this __ how little we really know. even of the people who are registered lobbyists. they basically tell us, these are the subjects they lobby on, this is how much money that is involved. if, on the other hand we were lobbying for foreign interests, we have to tell a department of justice not just what you lobbied on and how much money was involved __ you have to tell the department of justice

who you contacted, the names of members of congress, the names of the staffers, whether it was by email or phone, or personal meeting. you even have to tell the department of justice which reporters you talk to. again, that is another way of exercising pressure on the system __ the media. some of the same people were making those reports to the department of justice are the same people who were filing much less informative reports to the united states congress. why shouldn't we have one standard for all kinds of lobbying? particularly at a time when is hard to distinguish what is a foreign interest in what is a national interest __ when you're dealing with multinational companies. that would be another big improvement.

knowing exactly who was contacted __ and how many times __ and how closely __ would be very telling. it would give voters information that would be helpful. host: of you are on twitter __ a viewer on twitter agrees with you. a registered lobbyist required to keep and submit an annual log of every officeholder lobbied? they should be. caller: i agree with the earlier caller. we had a three term governor passed away last week. he was indicted and admitted guilty to corruption charges. his daughter is now a u. s. senator who received almost half $1 million from the coal industry.

it was well known to the public, but she was still voted for. the coal industry continues to run politics and i stay, how can we fight that? guest: this is the interesting question. how to give voters information that can influence them. it is not unusual that in industry that employs a lot of people in a state is powerful. i think the coal industry is controversial, even in west virginia, ddue to its safety record, and environmentally. but, it does employ a lot of west virginians. i think it is understandable __ i know west virginia politicians that i'm familiar

with have generally supported coal. i think that having this information allows you to look at the record and ask intelligent questions __ why are you doing this? is is because you are employing people, or is it because of money that went into campaign? the answer is not always clear. the answer __ whether it is a credible answer or not __ will depend on the voter. the voter should have the information going into the voting booth so that he or she can make an intelligent decision. host: we are trying a lobbying here in washington and the revolving door. a new report on the law that was passed back in 2008 that demands a cooling off period for members of congress before they can start lobbing. in your report you caught more spaghetti than steel.

guest: yes. i think __ i would say that those of us who work on this at the sunlight foundation and the center for responsible politics __ we knew that we would find a lot of people who had not finish their cooling off period. i think when we start to dig into this, we were taken aback by how much this law has turned out to be. we hope that by illuminating that we get some people thinking. host family of about 10 minutes left here. the lines are on your screen. take a look at what the center for responsive politics put

together. the top firms in washington __ the number of revolving door people profiled. these are some of the top lobbying shops in washington, d.c. we would hear next from al. caller: good morning. about dysfunction __ i think it runs a lot deeper than just lobbyists. an example __ the director of homeland security said that he had the authority to make a law pass __ and state clearly that he makes this distinction or that. does congress have the ability to flex their responsibility __ to just pass off the

responsibility? host: how is this related to our topic? guest: it is about congressional dysfunction. it is not just about lobbying, it is that the law. host: ron in texas. caller: good morning. i've got a couple things i want to say. one of them is __ i am a republican. but, all of my decisions are based on the decision i am given. i will say to both of you __ i'm 77 years old, i have lived a long time. the lobbies do a lot better in washington. but, if the news media would expose these people __ i'm talking to you there, lady __ a

view would expose these people and what they are doing, and give the information to the american public, let us see what they're doing. host: let us jump in. guest: we did this report because we think __ for the reasons i discussed earlier __ two things. one, the passage of a law, a cooling off period, encourage people to find loopholes. also, president obama, in his campaign __ if you wanted to work for his administration, you had to launder your resume. i think the unintended effect is creating this culture of shadow lobbying. it makes it much harder for anyone to follow.

that is because __ the law says that if you do not spend more than 20% of your time lobbying for an individual client __ this is after the cooling off period __ you might not be a registered lobbyist, but you are working for six clients. let's say you have six major corporations and those are your clients. you can divide your time so that you do not spend any more than 20% of your time working for an individual client. you could be up on capital hill 100% of the time __ down at fundraisers, handing out checks. but because you're not spending more than 20% of your time on individual client, you never have to register. that is one loophole. the others are kind of what we have talked about __ people who

should be in the cooling off. so they are not lobbying __ they are telling people how to lobby. if someone comes up and says senator so_and_so sent me, or i work for senator so_and_so __ doesn't that have an impact? i think it does. there is that aspect of it. also, because of digital technology, and the use of social media, television advertising to create what looks like grassroots movements, but really put pressure on members of congress __ that is awaiting you can lobby without lobbying. there are a couple of changes in the way lobbying has worked. really, the laws and regulations have not caught up. as a result, there's a lot going on that is hard to track.

host: of wayne from washington, your next. caller: do they keep track of how anybody in congress makes their money while they are in congress? i was really surprised that pelosi __ worth $61 million. that destroyed me knowing that she did not make it just being a representative. the other part __ having worked for the state and knowing what political parties can do __ there's a lot of lobbying the goes on within agencies. agencies themselves will lobby to get certain things past. guest: she host: sheen reference nancy pelosi.

she is married toa wealthy businessman. guest: yes, members of congress have to file personal disclosure forms every year. they are supposed to list all of their major financial holdings. the reason for that is transparency __ we want to make sure that people are not voting on their stocks. that is a problematic area because reporting is very vague. we do not know exactly how much any member of congress is actually worth because they are required to stay in very broad categories the values of what they own. there are many things that they can exempt. of course, their spouses whose

holdings sometimes have to be declared, by deducting their salaries do. again, i hesitate to get into all the rules and regulations because they are complicated. my experience as a journalist tells me that when things are unduly complicated, it is because they are trying to hide something. the problem is congress makes the rules that they have to abide by. congress tend to go soft on themselves. we talked to someone from public citizens who helped lobby on this bill that we referenced earlier __ that created the cooling off period __ he told my colleagues that the then democratic chairman of the house committee said that we will not put this law through much you put loopholes in. the public really need to demand more accountability on

the part of congress. those employers need to be much more accountable to the federal government than federal government has to be to its employers. host: joe, go ahead. caller: that people are the problem with the lobbyists. if they get their senators to pass laws to get rid of these lobbyists and put the people's interest first __ we will always be in the same boat. every candidate that just was in congress went on to a $4 million job __ what is that for? host: on the add __ let me add on to that.

the ex_cantered aid start bobbing firm __ a story in the "washington post." guest: on that story __ there was a blur put onto that. the optics are not too good. i think it is the kind of thing that could promote public cynicism about the political system. host: just to show that the revolving door can turn the other way. this is a tweet. guest: we see this happen. it goes both ways. i would say __ you have to

wonder if someone is serving the interest of a corporate climate and if they come back to the hill __ whose interest are they really serving? yes, in many cases they are taking a pay cut. in many cases that pay cut will be more than made up when they return to k st. they almost always do host: is go to jolt from new york. caller: hello. i am a bit of a media critic. i have a problem with lobbyists who are paid by the government. i've heard you speak very much in detail about business lobbyists and how there is corruption. the corruption i see is when the government itself pays for the lobby. i do not like to see colleges that receive money from the government paying for studies with benefit to the government.

guest: i think that is an interesting point. the white house is theoretically not supposed to lobby congress. i think this is an area that is right for more examination. one things that we do is show public entities, the contracts they get from the federal government, who is lobbying for them, and any advisory board that they might sit on. this touches on something that one of your callers said. there is lobbying that the executive branch does too. host: a headline from this morning __ a lifetime ban on lobbying? guest: callers would have to burn up the phone lines on

capitol hill. host: you can find this report on their website. thank you very much. now, and we will take you to the house of representatives. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 13 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable charles j.