out of that, it to be getting people in jail for that. we have got to figure out what justice is. civil forfeiture has put justice on its head. about a month ago in philadelphia a teen soul drugs, they barricaded the house and convicted the family. overwhelmingly these are poor, black, brown. families that are disadvantaged. in ferguson there were 31,000 arrest warrants last year. mostly just heady stuff, but people's lives can spin out of control because of this. if we show compassion because big government can't run the post office, they screw

everything up. they screwed up the justice system and we will show compassion for those who have been left behind and incarcerated unfairly over time. i think you'll find our message is going to resonate. when we show the other side has tried to do for poverty for 40 years hasn't worked. when we show the ability, the compassion and the plan to make things better, when we can be judged not on whether we care but on whether our policies work , we have always had the intellectual argument but then we win the emotional argument, we become a dominant force and we have what we have all been looking for and that is once again a great america. [applause] >> former texas governor republican rick perry spoke to a meeting of the seacoast republican women in new hampshire on wednesday. he discussed a range of issues

including energy, immigration, and the economy. governor perry ran for president in the 2012 primary. he is considering another campaign in 2016. under one hour. [inaudible chatter] >> civilian contractor. that is a great facility. i go down there pretty often. the burn center, i have a lot of kids there. >> they used to bring them in their. -- there. >> wilford hall was outside of

kelly. >> we were there when it was second army. it was such a great place. >> there have been changes. >> we were back a few years ago. it was so different. >> when i got out of pilot training, they had a unit there. [indiscernible] i think there was for some reason i think that they had a unit there. i was there.

[indiscernible] they still use them. they have been around for 60 years now. last year he was 60 years. a great airplane. i flew out of kuwait city into baghdad in 2007 in a model that belongs to the state guard units. looking back at old records, i'd flown it in the 70's. they just put new things on. [indiscernible chatter]

>> they still fly in and out of their don't they? [indiscernible]

>> and i go shopping for three weeks i have been driving it. my wife say you are a better driver now than you were. [indiscernible]

>> we are going to wait. i'm going to say hello to folk. [indiscernible]

two tours. >> then you come back and become speaker. >> our user? -- how are you sir? >> what do you do in your day job? >> a professor. [indiscernible] >> we often talk about the new hampshire advantage in our state. >> do you know what has happened

to electricity rates in texas? it is not necessarily because we have a terrific oil and gas industry, we made a decision to transport. how you deliver it and how you get there and how you deliver it, and everybody else says about private property rights and visuals. we can't, that was why i loved it today. [indiscernible] we made a decision in the early 2000's we wanted to expand in of a very broad energy portfolio. portfolio.

we put some programs into place. we had to move to where the people are. we were able to do it. and keep most of it in the public right away -- right of way. i think we can always do better. we have innovators working on storage. 10 years ago, on the fracturing side. [indiscernible]

nitrous and oxide levels were down. total carbon footprint. i'm going to keep telling them that. it is important for us to talk about if you can have economic surplus and address things like the environment.

[indiscernible]

>> what is your name? >> jackie. >> lovely to meet you. >> we had met several times. [indiscernible] >> today was a pretty day. i could not complain about today.

[indiscernible] >> we get snow. nothing like this. with that said in 1985, i was a young legislator in austin. it snowed 8-9 inches in san antonio, so much so. we don't build our buildings to have that much weight. it shut down the city. nobody knows how to drive. if you get to inches of snow in austin, it is a hill town. they all slide down.

very rarely does that happen. we call it west texas. the eastern panhandle. north central texas. we all call a west texas. it is cold in the winter time. we have a lot of wind. >> my wife's son is stationed at fort hood. i used to go to houston. [indiscernible] >> i hope you do run. [indiscernible]

>> i'm not going to go there. i will stay away from that. [indiscernible]

[inaudible]

>> i have a question for you. i know where you stand on immigration. can we weed out the bureaucracy of the agencies. [indiscernible] >> it is a fascinating read about corruption and is in our justice system. you look at the irs, the v.a. it is a two-term presidency to

get it headed in the right direction. the first is by hiring good people that have experience, and that you can trust and do that making these agencies. we spent the last 14 years making it effective. that's not to say it is perfect. [inaudible]

>> now we are working. thank you very much. we got that out of the way. it is good to be back here. it is a little chilly. this is spring? anyway. it is a beautiful day today. let's leave it at that. i got up this morning and turned on my app to see what the weather was. one degree in concord.

i took a screenshot gave and send it to my wife so we can have a chuckle about the difference in temperature between austin and here. anyway, to all of you that are here today, thank you for coming out. the seacoast republican women, thank you for coming out on a chilly february evening. i was sitting and sharing with this table, the election in november was pretty awesome. the election results were stunning across the country. i belong to the texas house of representatives back when i was a boy. in the 1980's. seeing new hampshire have both their house and senate in republican hands is pretty awesome. it sends a powerful message

across the state that conservative thoughtful leadership is what will drive the state to where that point in time -- you talk about the economic model. i want to talk about a couple of things, want to share the vision for not just new hampshire, but for this country from economic standpoint. i want to leave you with some views and visions about foreign policy. why that economic side is very them or into that foreign policies. why that our country and the world is in jeopardy from a lack of foreign policy standard. our allies are not sure where we

will be on any given day unfortunately. those who are not supportive of american policies and western values, they don't fear the united states. they don't respect the united states. why all of that is tied together , and reviving the dream for the american middle last -- middle-class, why it is important for the policies to go into place, can be so powerful as we go forward. we look and see these numbers in america, the participation rate has been as low as it has been since 1978. how many of you remember 1978? i had just gotten out of the air force and move back home in that rule community -- rural

community in. everybody had their own tomcat. i know i am a rule community when someone chuckles at that. we lived a long way from our neighbors, i assure you. being able to live that american dream, my father came home from world war ii as a 20-year-old young man who had spent a year in east anglia on a b-17 crew. he came back to that rulerural area to live in peace. he knew his country had sacrificed greatly to bring peace and liberty and freedom to places all around the world.

that is exactly what he did. today, i'm not sure people have the faith that american dream is attainable. it can be. i happen to think the best years are in front of this country. i know for a fact that we can put policies into effect that will get america on track again. the idea, the opportunity and security has been replaced with anxiety and with worry in this country. it does not have to be that way. we know that there are places in this country where freedom still reigns. where economic opportunity is -- and people are optimistic. i come from one of those places. for the last 14 years we have in the job creation in my home state. one point 4 million new jobs

were created from the end of 2007 32014. unfortunately if you back those job creation numbers out of the total u.s. job creation, american would be a quarter of a million jobs below the line. the president talks about economic recovery. i kept listening for him to say i want to say governor perry thank you for creating these jobs and making this possible. i may have missed that. there are places where those policies have made a real difference. it is not rocket science. the leadership in the house and senate here can implement tax policy, regulatory policy, legal policy, that basically make accountable public schools

which means you have a skilled workforce. as each ride to laura businesses to come to new hampshire organically grow in the state. that is going to send a message. that you want those type of technology companies to come here. facebook and ebay google, every macbook made in austin texas today. -- austin, texas. they're not coming because we have great weather in august. they know they are coming to a place where opportunity reigns. it is tax policy, legal policy, education policy. those are the town foundations of an economy. it is pretty simple. the hard part is finding men and

women who have the courage to implement those policies. over the course of that decade that i had the privilege to be the governor of texas, we put tax policies, regulatory policies. let me share with the results of those policies are. let me put it into terms where people can understand. this is what the result of good policy. we talk about that tort reform. we codified in our constitution so that those future generations would know that the stability and predictability was going to be there on the tort side and regulatory side. today there are more than 35,000 licensed physicians, more than in 2003.

35,000 more licensed physicians in the state of texas. that is due to tort reform. they knew they would not sued frivolously. the result is that access to health care has exploded across the state. if you are pregnant fema on the rio grande, you had to leave your county to find prenatal care. but no longer. if you lived in the rio grande valley and your child fell off a bicycle, you probably had to take that child hundreds of miles to find the narrow surgeon. no longer. those specialists have come back to those places where health care was rationed. no longer. he gaza policies they put in place in austin, -- because of policies they put in place in

austin, texas. the population is exploded in my home state. from 2001-2014. 5.6 million people were added to the population in that state. i share the jobs that were created. during the same time that we added that many people in jobs there are those out there that said you cannot have job creation population growth and address environmental issues at the same time. that is funny. during that same time, we saw emissions in the state of texas drop. nitrogen oxide limits went down. sulfur dioxide levels went down 50%. ozone levels went down 23%.

the total carbon footprint regardless of where you are on the debate of global warming, in the state of >> the carbon footprint was reduced white 9%. isn't that what we were shooting for? to have economic growth? to have a place where the air is cleaner? isn't that what were looking for in this country? it happened in ninth place that has the 13th largest economy in the world. it can happen anywhere. we can even have it in california. we can. we wanted to. we need it to. it is an important part of this country. to give examples, that is the reason that i happen to think that the leadership in this

country need to respect our constitution. they need to understand what our founding fathers were talking about, and their intention when they got around to writing the 10th amendment and the concept that the federal government has to do a few things. things like secure our border that is a constitutional requirement that our federal government for years has failed to do. i am critical of this president for his lack of engagement. i came to dallas, i asked him to helicopter down and take a look at the rio grande valley to see what was going on with those unaccompanied minors and other individuals who were coming into the border. he needed to see that city could understand it. he turned me down. he was on a very important mission in dallas to raise money for needy democrats. [laughter]

interesting, he turned me down because he said that he doesn't do photo ops. [laughter] i know that gaggle of photographers within found that interesting. he chose not to count. at that time, i knew that i was not going to get any assistance from the federal government. that was when i made the decision working with my legislature that we were going to deploy the texas national guard. that national guard, working with our law enforcement, parks and wildlife wardens, not just at the border, but in the river they started making a real difference. that visual presence, this is like in a community. if you have an issue, a crime or an issue of an individual breaking the law, you put a law

enforcement presence there, it has a powerful impact. you know it will work. i knew it would work. in may and june, we were having 10,000 plus apprehensions of week and that 150 plus region of the southern part of the border. 10,000 plus a week? in november, after we put those individuals on the border, we saw apprehensions drop i-74 percent. you knew it would work. i knew it would work. my instinct is the president knew it would work. they have aggregated there responsibility to do what the constitution actually tells us to do. the 10th amendment says that after those clearly defined duties, everything else is

reserved for the states. or to the individual. it makes so much sense. we are a diverse country. we are a diverse state. what will work in new hampshire, maine at work in oklahoma. what is in the best interest of people in california, may not be in the best interest of people in taxes, or what they want to do. i respect that. washington doesn't. washington has this one-size-fits-all mentality. a want to tell you how to educate your children. here is the curriculum that you are going to use to teach her children. i don't believe that. i think that the governor of new hampshire and the legislature in new hampshire, working with the school administrators and teachers and the parents, will come up with the right curriculum to make the students in new hampshire as competitive as they need to be, not a one-size-fits-all curriculum that comes out of washington d.c.

common core is bad public policy. [applause] i think the same thing can be said about health care, transfer station -- transportation infrastructure. if the epa were that be all end all, we would see an externally impact. well we are seeing externally impact, jobs are getting killed. they want to see how to make a difference? come to texas. it is the incentive programs and we have put into place to move these diesel engines out of our fleet. shutting down old, inefficient power plants, replacing them with natural gas. someone said one time on a debate stage, it is easy to be the governor of texas. that's like drawing four aces and thinking you are good at

playing poker. it was a good line, but it was not true. they were making reference to oil and gas. the fact is we are a very diverse state. the texas of 1985 is not the taxes of 2015. the jobs that have been created over the course -- over the last 15 years -- has been extraordinary. when you look at that diversification, whether it's manufacturing every toyota pickup truck in the united states -- we recruited those companies. we created tax and regulatory policies that were incentivizing to a company like that. technology companies have grown in come to the state of texas to the point that today the number one high-tech exporting state in the nation is in texas, passing up california last year. what are the results of these policies question mark we talked

about the environment results. we talk about what happens on the exporting side, the creation of wealth, the manufacturing side. we share with you one more thing that i happen to think is a really powerful result of policy that let people like you keep more of what you work for. that is the explosion in the cultural arts. in the last 14 years, we have seen texas become -- well, let me go city by city. ft. worth as the home of a new museum of modern art, one of the finest symphony halls in the world, one of the great museums in the campbell. fort worth and dallas both have world-class zoo's. dallas is home to two performing arts facilities.

the perot's finished one of the finest natural science resumes in this country. there is a cultural arts district and dallas, texas that is the largest in america geographically speaking. 60 a acres. austin, a little government and university town that i call home , has a new museum, new performing arts facility, the sxsw music festival, the largest in the world. the only formula one race in the united states, the united states grand prix is an austin, texas in november. you go to san antonio they have a new performing arts facility that they completed in the last 12 months. tonight, in houston texas, there are more your seats available in that city than any other city in america outside of new york city.

i make the argument that there reason is because the government did it. policies that were made in austin texas, tax policy regulatory policy that is predictable and smart, legal policies that don't allow for over suing, public school policies that make those schools accountable so there is a skilled workforce. when those were put into place men and women new they could risked their capital, and they did that. they can happen all across this country. we need to allow these states the freedom to be able to compete against each other. not an exact concern is stored louis brandeis was on the united states supreme court, he said the states of the laboratories of democracy. allow the states to compete against each other. from time to time, they will make a mistake. he said they may pay a price for that.

that is the beauty of that concept of allowing this country -- the federal government needs to do those few things and do them well, like a strong military, foreign policy that is cogent, that is stable, that sends a clear message to our allies. when i look at the foreign policy that is going on for the last years, i am greatly concerned for the future. as an individual who had multiple deployments of our national guard to iraq and afghanistan traveling to those places from time to time with those your men and women, seeing the extraordinary costs, talking to the mothers and the father's, the spouses, the children of texans who had lost their lives in the war on terror, having foreign policy that matters

seeing isis come back into the cities that are young men and women died to defend and to free through extraordinary and powerful impact. we look at libya egypt and how we treated israel, iran, syria we see what's going on in ukraine in crimea, and the lack of clear policies to send a powerful message that america is going to be there for our allies, were not. just watching this kerfuffle between prime minister netanyahu , who does need to come and have this conversation about what's going on between the united states and iran with israel in between. it is appropriate for him to come. we need to have this conversation. we need to hear him out. this is our longest serving ally

in that region, the longest democracy in a part of the world . there should not be any space between united states and israel. if this administration is feckless with her foreign policy , it puts us relationships in jeopardy. i think the world's safety is in jeopardy as well. we need foreign policy that clearly states america's intentions and role. our allies should that question where we are going to be. isis is on everyone's mind right now. there will be another crisis, but isis today is rightfully on everyone's mind. when we see an allyies young

pilot incinerated. when we find young american aid workers lost their lives. when we see the tragic events of people being beheaded in front of cameras, we know he -- we are looking into the face of evil, and it must be stopped, must be eradicated, and we cannot do it halfway. we have to the time and effort with our allies, with the jordanians come with the saudi's, whether other allies in that region to stamp out this absolute plague on western values. this is what this is about. as i started this conversation with you tonight, i want to in

with that, that is the best days of america are ahead of us. our great and amazing faith in the resiliency of this country when you think about what we have the potential to do, i'm proud to be an american. i am proud of american industry and what it has brought to the world. i'm proud to avoid the universe -- uniform of the united states air force. i'm proud of what america can do when we are pulling together. i know for a fact that with the right leadership in this country, we can make washington functional again, i know that. the idea that we can't work together on issues that are important to both of us, democrat or republican, when i look at all the big issues that we have dealt with over the 14 years that i was the governor of texas, whether it was a reform, education policy economic

whether it was issues like ebola . when ebola came on the shores of america, it came to texas. we show the rest of the country how the state would deal with that. when the space shuttle fell out of the sky in the early 2000's in east texas, when katrina moved hundreds of thousands of people out of neighboring louisiana into my home state when tens of thousands of unaccompanied minor showed up on our border, americans got to see that leadership does matter, and that there are very functional places in this country. it wasn't just republicans that did those things. we worked with our friends on the other side of the aisle. not one of those big issues that we dealt with in the legislative did we do alone. we reached across the aisle. i happen to think that is what

we need to be doing in washington d.c., find those areas of commonality where we can work together, spending time in the effort. i had to spend time asking my democratic colleagues to come help us on these issues. that is what we are about as a country. the best days are ahead for a spirit when i think about the opportunity for us and the renaissance that can occur here economically, when we think about opening up, think about what can happen on the energy front. i'm a big believer that all the above as an energy policy is what we need to be working on in this country. just as we get back in my home state, we happen to be the number one wind energy producing state in the nation. again, people think texas is just oil and gas, but were not. we have a vast portfolio of energy.

we produce more when than all five other countries. we have a gas industry that is strong the policies and place to give incentive for people to use those natural resources and to thoughtfully and safely partisan so that we can continue to drive down the costs of energy. from 2001-2013, electricity prices went down 14% in my home state. that did not happen here, bruce. but it can, a can with the right policies, to be able to bring this abundant north american energy resources we have. that's the reason why opening the xl pipeline is important for america's future. that's the reason our friends in mexico and the changes they have made. i would rather be buying my energy from canada and the

united states than from venezuela or middle eastern countries that don't have our best interest in mind. when we are able to do that, you drive down the cost of energy, you continue to put policies and place, whether its corporate tax policy that actually gives incentives for companies to come back into america and invest in this country and create the jobs , that's the revival that can happen in america. i am bullish about the future of this country. we are only a couple of decisions away from being able to see this extraordinary thing happened. ivc, a change in leadership in washington dc, but i think ready for that. i think this country is ready for that. i think we saw that in the november elections. i don't think it's going to be a little change. i think we took a chance with the young articulate united states senator who did not have any record. i happen to think we are paying

a price for it. i think america is going to make a substantial shift. they are going to be looking for a test it, results-oriented leader who has a record. america is only a few decisions away from having the greatest, most exciting economically harmful years that we have ever had in this country's history. starting today, let's make that happen. god bless you. thank you for being here today. linda, thank you. thank you for letting us come be a part of this today. thank you, thank you, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. very small token of thanks. >> these are more important. >> they were all out. they sold out. thank you so much. welcome to the hampshire.

>> thank you, thank you. [applause] >> up next, a conversation with former senator jim webb. then on "q&a" thomas allen harris. tomorrow night on c-span, a discussion on hillary clinton. the former first lady, former secretary of state and a potential 2016 campaign. here is a portion of his or marx. -- his remarks. >> there is a populist element in the democratic party that is growing and she will need to respond to it. the way she response to that will be a big question. her first outing on that was not

encouraging for her supporters. she said at one point that she was trying to show that she wasn't too close to wall street. she said businesses don't create jobs. it was a gaffe similar to obama's gaffe when he said you did not build that. the difference was, this was something that might indicate challenges ahead. obama said it when he was talking fast and he made a gaffe. when hillary said it she was speaking very slowly. if you watch on youtube it is really disturbing, because her mind should have said, what are you saying? >> watch a discussion on hillary clinton hosted by the new york historical society. >> now, a discussion on the

future of the democratic party with former virginia senator jim webb. host: jim web former senator, democrat from virginia. thank you very much for being with us here on c-span. guest: a windy windy day out there. host: it is a windy day. guest: let me ask you about your own thinking about a potential bid for the white house. you're looking at it. you'll be in smoin, yea this spring. host: when i left the senate i took a year where i did no media, no op eds. i used to write a lot of op eds. just to regain my political independence and think about things. and when i came out with my book last may, there was a very strong response when i went into different media shows and started talking about issues. over a period of several months we decided that we would put together an exploratory

committee to be honest with you to see whether even possible in today's age of campaign finance which is so different than it was even when i ran for senate. to put together a viable presidential campaign that can be competitive on the one hand and still not have to concede on a lot of major issues to the financial interests that are so active right now. here as good example of what's happened if people want to think about it. on my committee, the maximum donation i can receive is $2600 by law. the pac about $5,000 max. i'm getting a lot of 100, and 150s and very grateful. but under the current policies after the citizens united case, someone can write an individual a check for $26 million. there's absolutely no control in terms of how the money is going into the overall political process. we've seen jeb bush has said

that his people have said they want to raise $100 million in three months. there was a piece in the "washington post" yesterday that said that people have to pay $100,000 just to walk into the room to talk to him. so we've had this bifurcation between what the law says and what the reality of politics is. so we're looking and the exploratory committee, listening, talking to people about the issues but also having to make a judgment about whether you can actually put together the type of funding to compete and still be independent. host: money aside, what issues would motivate you? what are your passions? guest: the themes that i ran on when i ran for the senate in 2006 are the same themes i focused on during my entire time in the senate which were issues of economic fairness. i was talking about the preakdown of this country into three americas, not two americas. during the campaign throughout the time that i was in the senate, the people at the very

top having moved away from everyone else. you can see this most emphatically in what's happened in the stock markets since our economic recovery began after this last recession, since april 2009 the stock market has almost tripled. it's actually gone over 18,000. it was down about 6,000 in april 2009 when the recession bottomed out. and yet average wages and salaries have declined during the same period. if you own stock, if you're on one side of the financial benefits, economic benefits in the country you're doing pretty well. if you're on the other side we have not. we have focused on this throughout the time that i've been involved in elected politics. the second one is the issue of our national security policy. how we articulate our national security policies rooped the world. when do you use military force, when do you not. and other issues include social justice issues.

we led the movement toward fixing our criminal justice system from the time i was running actually when i was running for the senate i had political advisers telling me it was political suicide to start talking about the breakdown in the different components of our criminal justice system not simply mass incarceration but how these people are able

up up is america stronger or weaker? guest: i think clearly since 9/11 we've become more adept in terms of protecting ourselves from issues of the types of things that happened on 9/11, international terrorism i think our people have done very good out in the areas where those who wish us harm train and prepare. we i think are pretty much on top of issues like cyber warfare and these types of things. but what we have lacked since the end of the cold war is a

clearly articulated doctrine that determines when we use military force when we decide to put large numbers of people on the ground and keep them there and i think we're still struggling with that. i think you can see that from the results of the arab spring. the situation in libya has been characaterized frequently by benghazi by what happened in benghazi but the real story on libya -- and i was talking about this well before benghazi was when can a president unilaterally use military force in a situation where there were no treaties in place that compelled us to do so, no americans at risk, and no clearly defined threat to the united states? tried to get to the airport at triply today. they lost thousands of weaps from karachi's weapons storage

areas that have spread through the region. and the doctrine of when we use military force has become extremely vague. this notion of responsibility to protect or humanitarian intervention. it's not clear. we could -- the president would use that in ireland tomorrow for all we know. it's a very loose doctrine and it's not healthy for the country. host: recent nurel piece which is available on line, here comes trouble. do you think -- do you consider yourself trouble? guest: i vment read the piece. but my participation in the elect ral process -- i spent a lot of time as a writer. when you write, you have a duty to get to the gut issues and write about them in as powerful a way as you can. i think we showed in a paralyzed

environment how you get things done. the greatest example was the give bill. i wrote the g.i. bill before i was sworn in. i sat down with the committee counsel and wrote the bill. we worked across party lipes in 16 months. we got the most important piece of veterans legislation since world war ii through the congress and the bush administration opposed this the whole time. this was not an easy lift. so we know how to work across lines. you know i haven't read the a. i don't see what we're doing is trouble. i see what we're doing is trying to show that you can have a formative leadership that's independent of this -- these financial processes and maybe get something done for people. host: our guest is jim web who served one term in the u.s. senate. let me read a portion of what bob moser says about you.

guest: i think that's a little hyper bolic in terms of what i would say my objectives were. i think what this country needs is leadership. it needs leadership that can get things done. and i think we've been able to articulate issues get into the depths of them. the criminal justice situation being another one where we brought more than 100 different groups from across the philosophical spectrum together to listen to them. we weren't talking at them. we were getting information from them.

and got a buy-in on how to put together a commission, a sunsetted commission to examine all the components of the criminal justice system all the way from the international association of chiefs of police the national sheriffs association to the aclu, the naacp, and the american bar association. i don't know other people up there who are working in that kind of way. so i don't think this notion that i'm here on some horse to try to save america is what we're doing. i feel very strongly about a lot of issues. but i think when you look at what we've done, it's providing leadership and what i hear over and over again in the thousands of e-mails we receive is that i don't agree with you mr. web on everything but i trust you. and i think that's what we need in government. host: our guest, a graduate of naval academy. the autor of nine books.

served in the reagan administration and served from 2007-2013 as the senator from the commonwealth of virginia. we go to tennessee. caller: good morning. senator web i've got to ask you this question. suppose i come to your house and i bring my kids and i bring my wife and she brings her parents and i bring my parents. and we bring our brothers and our sisters, and they all bring their chish and also bring their spouses family. and all the cousins. and we come to your house

the law hasn't been effective. it's been loosely enforced. there are a lot of entities in the country including wall street and is big on open immigration that have worked against the notion of putting

restrictions proper restrictions on immigration law. at the same time, when we look at this -- and number one, what we do have to do is fix the law to make it proper and fair in terms of the numbers of people come here and a lot of the other issues that are alongside it. the second part of that is the reality of the number of people who have come during this period of very lax enforcement. i live in bailey's crossroads virginia within a few blocks of my house are the comb ar area, the willsston areas our number five child goes to jeb stewart high school the most diverse high school in america. it's more than 100 different nationalities. and when you look around and see people who have been here for 15, 20 years who have worked hard, who have learned the language, et cetera we have to do something other than just saying they all should go.

and that's the approach that i took when i was in the senate. i proposed an amendment in the 2007 immigration bill saying we need to fix the larger law itself. but for those people who have been here for over a period of time we put down a set of dritia. if you meet these criterion then you should have a pathway toward citizensship. host: good morning from massachusetts. caller: good morning senator. my name is evan. just calling from greater springfield, massachusetts, a city that i think is a quintessential rust belt city, economic decentralized, stagnation, brain drain. my question for you is how do we reinvigorate our economies and our older urban centers? and i was wondering as president what type of agenda you might bring forward to do so. guest: thank you. well first of all in terms of

the economy writ large, i agree with those people who say we need to grow our way into greater life, greater benefits for those who are carrying the hard work of society. we also need to fix our tax structure. i think that the hopefully this will happen in the coming year. bru if not it should happen as soon as we can get it on the table. to look at corporate tax reform. i think we should reduce our corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes, repatriate a good bit of the money that is still being held offshore. and at the same time fix the biggest indicators of inequality of treatment here and that is the difference between people who make money on regular salaries ordinary income versus people who are making their money on passive

income such as increases in the value of their stock. the income tax rate on capital gains of taxes and dividends is much, much lower in most cases than it is for ordinary earned income. i made a promise when i ran for the senate that i would never vote for an increase in taxes for ordinary earned ip come. but i do believe that we should be much fairer in terms of the tax rates on capital gains. in terms of the larger issues of the manufacturing sector and the future of the economy i think we have two problems that we're facing here. one is to rehabilitate the manufacturing sector as much as possible by getting these companies back in and they know the productivity of the american worker is high and there are places where, for instance southwest virginia, the very southwest of virginia where they have lost their manufacturing base. they were big in textiles and furniture for so many years.

coal had diminished. tobacco has gone away. people down there have a very high unemployment rate and a willingness to work hard. and in those places we can start bringing american businesses back and getting people to be productive again. when people want to invigorate the economy, just remember the people at the middle levs of the economy spend a larger percentage of their income and as a result really do help to invigorate the economy in a very real way. if other piece though, of what's going on in terms of our economy is that we're leading very heavily in many areas towards service oriented jobs and to sort of individual jobs. if you look at the generation behind my generation, there are a lot of people who are working as more as contractors categorized as contractors, like my oldest daughter, as

opposed to being actually employed. they face difficult situations. their profession is portable. they move around from place to place. very difficult to get retirement. in many cases they have to pay for their own medical. we have to develop a formula that will protect maybe the affordability for those kinds of jobs so they can have the same proteches in health care and in retirement that we have had in my generation, the baby boomer generation. host: the president is asking congress for trade authority. he has a lot of support from republicans. not so much from democrats. what's your view? guest: i tend to agree with the president on this. i worked on a lot of the different trade issues when i was in the senate. i spent a lot of time in east asia. i spent a lot of time in east asia in my life before i came to the senate and i was one of those who worked hard to try to bring about a trade agreement with korea with the free trade

agreement with korea. the difficulty with the present situation is it's almost impossible to get things through. at a time when if you look at china, china's making free trade agreements all through asia. just made one a year-and-a-half, two years ago with the ten countries of also i don't know. very economic system in those ten countries. but now they signed on trade agreement with china. we need to be in that ballpark. and to give congress an up or down vote i think is fair. bring it over. if you don't like it vote it out. if there's something that troubles that many people over there vote it out and have them go back and work on it again. host: let's go to david joining us from new jersey. our line for independents. conversation with former senator jim web. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television. good morning steve. it's a pleasure to talk to you

again. host: now you know david calls every 30 days. we love to hear from you david. thank you for the compliments. here's your chance to ask the senator a question. caller: good morning, senator web. you are a shining light and i want to thank you for your service. i'm a world war ii vet. mr. web. and i would like to talk about the greatest generation as tom brokaw called me generation. we were the greatest generation because we all worked together to do what was best for our great country. our corporations financial institutions politicians the american people, we all came together to do what was best for our great country. and the one word that described my generation was two letters.

we. w.e. unfortunately, today 90% of our corporations, financial institutions politicians and a large nur of american people are not thinking of what is best for our country. the word that describes the current generation, unfortunately, is me. host: thank you for the call. thank you for your service. guest: thank you very much for that. and i do appreciate your service. my father was a world war ii veteran and wasn incredible experience to grow up under the tulet ledge of those who had gone off in world war ii. actually also when i started working on the house veterans committee many, many years ago the mentors over there were the world war ii generation who had benefited from the g.i. bill.

and ills say i learned as a marine in vietnam how people from this country can work together. people from all across the geographic and ethnic boundries coming together, having to work together, having to rely on each other is one of the formative experiences of my life to see how we can do that. and i believe we can do that in the larger sense as a nation. another thing that was very important in terms of making the greatest generation the greatest generation was the g.i. bill. the world war ii g.i. bill. there had not been a g.i. bill for veterans until the world war ii g.i. bill. even before i decided to run for the senate i was saying those people who were pulling many consecutive tours we were calling them the next greatest

generation deserve the same benefits from the world war ii generation. for every dollar that was spent on the g.i. bill in the world war ii generation we received more than $5 back in treasury remune rations because of successful careers that were built on this type of an educational opportunity. and i think we're going to see that. this g.i. bill that we put together as i said i wrote it sitting down with legislative counsel, and the model was the world war ii g.i. bill. pay their tuition, buy their books, pay their fees, give them a monthly stipend. tell them that they really are going to be a great part of the future of this country. and i get letters every week from veterans who have been able to use that benefit and who are on their way of becoming the leaders of tomorrow. host: to david's point though that we have gone from the we to the me generation. agree or disagree? guest: i think there's a lot of truth to that particularly in

terms of how our society has been breaking down with the people at the very top. the so separated from the rest of the country in terms of the income levels and other things. and i think the issues like the money that's being made on passive income -- if you look at the very, very top, actually i asked my staff to chart this out when we're having some of the debates on the top 1%. how about the top top of the 1%? where does the money come from? and the money overwhelmingly came from passive indom. where you hire somebody to manage your portfolio. and i have stocks and i like to make money off of stocks. but at the same time, if you don't have a stake in that, then you are getting separated. and people feel it in this country. i feel it everywhere when i travel around talking to

friends from the marine corps, from -- i work in l.a. but different -- everywhere i go in america you hear this. that we're not pulling together and the notion of fairness has been harmed. host: from wyoming bonnie republican line. caller: mr. web thank you for your service. and i would like to ask you, what do you think of the health care system now that you have it all set up? and could you tell me -- it is not helping the seniors. i know that because i am of your generation and i am a senior. and i'm retired and i'm also a widow. and my husband was a military man. and it has not helped me. there's just -- i would like to know your opinion of that. host: thank you. guest: thank you for that. i think there's a lot of work that can be done now that this

system has been kind of shaken down and put into place. i raised a lot of questions about the legislation when it was being debated. it was a very, very complicated and i think most difficult piece of legislation that i saw including four years as a committee counsel. and the problem i think was that this administration did not present a bill. as bob dole used to say the congress proposed -- the president proposes, the congress disposes. we didn't have a bill to dispose. there were five different bill that is came up through three committees in the house and two in the senate and 7,000 pages of contradicty information. i voted with the republicans 18 times trying to rein in some of the different portions of the

bill. at the same time, when it came for a final vote i believe we did need to move forward. the benefits in the bill were better than voting it down so that there would be nothing out of a year's work. things like preexisting sngses. and areas like that. but there's a lot of room to make this a better bill. and with respect to having been in the family that had military service, i grew up in a family that had military service. my father was a career military person and i grew up under a system that i guess some people could call socialized medicine. i've benefited from military medicine all of my life. i think it's a great system that a lot of people like to criticize in some ways because it wasn't a private system that we had before. but it's a very effective

system for people. why did you vote for a tarp program? signature voted against it.

it was a cataclysmic freefall people felt very strongly on this issue under both size and i called around to people i trusted and who are considered to be experts in the area. the call convinced me i needed to vote in favor of this legislation and was individual. it was on the smartest macroeconomists in the country. he used to be for morgan stanley. helpful to me in vietnam in the 1990s. and he actually made a lot of money as a hedge fund guy in -- when he left morgan stanley but he said to me three things that stuff with -- that stuck with me. he said you have to vote for this. if you don't the world economy is going to go in to cataclysmic freefall within the next couple

of weeks but then he said on the other hand, he said you have to punish the people who did this who abused our system. you have to find a way to punish them. and he said you need to reregulate, congress needs to reregulate, get back to glass-steagall voted away during the clinton administration and which had previously had the kinds of controls that were -- would have presented the situation. i voted in favor of it. then i did something else. in 2010, after a lot of research and actually having gotten the idea from an article by martin wolfe in the financial times, i put in to a legislative proposal the idea of having a one-time windfall profits tax on executives from those companies

that received $5,000,000,000 or more from the bail-out. i think there were about 13 companies. and what we said was you can get your full compensation. you can get $400,000 of your bonus and after that, you split the rest with the people who bailed you out, the nurses the truck drivers, the soldiers who were out there paying the taxes. we voted in order to stabilize the economic system not to bail out the people who brought us in to this crisis. and i couldn't get a vote on the senate floor. i think the democrats didn't want to vote for this wind pham profits tax because they didn't want to have to take a stand between the moneyed people and the people who were going to get bailed out. we lost the ability to even have a vote on it. but that is the reason that i voted for it and what we need to do now looking in the future is looking at reregulating the

process in a manner similar to the way it was when we had glass-steagall. >> billy from jackson, miss good morning. >> good morning gentlemen. the good morning, senator. thank you so much for your distinguished military service and career to our country and our naval secretary and as united states senator. i was wondering what, you know, i keep reading. we all know about the income inequality and it's kind of interesting that all of the sudden republicans have discovered income inequality and that middle class people are suffering in america and they are now talking about those issues. i am glad they are because i think it's the one issue that needs to be most talked about right now in this election cycle, but i don't think corporations are people regardless of what the supreme court said and i am wondering after the t.a.r.p. and the bail-out and everything we have

been through, do you think we still have big banks and big financial institutions that are still too big, too big so-called, too big to fail that it needs to be looked at by our congress and senators and administrations? should they be broken up? should they be divested and having served in the senate like you did, why do you think there was a reluctance on the part of the obama and bush administration to fine the folks, like you said your friend from morgan stanley, fine the people actually responsible within these financial institutions and corporations and big banks and mete out some sort of pun inc.ment for them for what it is that they did to completely wreck our economy back in '08 and '09.

host: billy, you put a lot on the table. wet get a response. guest: get thank you for the very thoughtful series of questions. i think it would be good for the country if we could get serious discussions on reinstituting something like glass heave steagall which did have a form of regulation on the activities that the larger baking institutions could be involved in. in terms of the individuals, we have seening a pattern of finding the institutions rather than holding individuals accountable. i think probably the best way to have approached that was what we were recommending with the idea

of a one-term windfall profits tax because that would have gone directly to the people who had been the most culpable and put us in such a precarious situation. one time, meaning i don't believe we should have a so-called windfall profits tax every year because that becomes another tax but in that particular situation since they were bailed out by the working people of america, it would have been highly appropriate and the reason that you didn't see a vote on that -- and this goes to some of your other questions, i think it's power of the financial sector in the political process today. as i mentioned at the beginning, we have reason bly good laws in terms of campaign finance. if i am doing an explore tory committee to see if we could put together a viable campaign the maximum donation of $2,600 but

after the citizens united case people can go over across the street and create a super pack and there is noliment in the amount of money that can be put into that. you can write a $5 million check today and essentially cover the same items that would be covered in the $2,600 contribution in an explore tory committee. the power of the people who have made enormous wealth in the country who control the political process is obvious. it's obvious. and what happens to the average american who wants to vote for someone who will bring about change? by the time people even measure the health of a presidential can candidacy about the amount of money he has been able to raise, so you have a screen process

with those who can write a $5 million check before people in america get to vote on people who will take positions on a lot of these issues. host: that is the playing field you are going to enter if you decide to enter for president. can you compete on that playing field? guest: that is the question we are looking at in this exploretory committee. is it possible to move forward with enough money to get into the debate process without having to comp preromise deeply held believes. guest: dayton ohio chad. caller: thank you for having me on the show. thank you for your service to this country. i am a republican and you are one of the very few democrats i am willing to vote for because i believe that you are willing to work with both sides and you have proven that with your record record. my question is: how do you plan

on dealing with isis since they are going to be more of an issue and just airstrikes isn't going to cut it. host: 40e69 thank you chad. guest: i think when it comes to that part of the world we have to clearly define our interests and i have said for many years, do not benefit from becoming an occupying power in that part of the world. i am going to go back to the initially invention of iraq but i am going to get to your question about isis. before the invasion of iraq i wrote a question saying this would be a strategic blunder it would empower iran and china long-term you can see china is one of the major beneficiaries of all of these years of efforts in afghanistan.

the greatest veth occur for the united states since world war ii, the greatest strategic victory has been the cold war where we were able over a period of years to face down expansionist soviet union with a strong military but not -- not allowing this to become a fighting war. we had ancillary wars i for the in one, was wounded in one. basically, we put together the right sort of overall strategy so this thing didn't blow up. with respect to the middle east, in the situation with isis the first question we have to resolve -- and i think we have -- is whether or not any of these entities constitutes a threat to the united states rather than simply locally, and i think isis has crossed the line. i think we can fairly say that

now. then the question is: what sorts of activities will stop them? will diminish their attractiveness as one of a number of sunni militia elements in that part of the world? our activities are one part of it, but encouraging and other countries in the region it would who would have a stake in this who take action is equally important and we have seen this in the last week or so with jordan stepping up and the uae stepping up. but we can't do this simply by ourselves. and the membership in these malitias, particularly over in syria, the numbers of people involved, vary depending upon who they think is sort of the top dog of the moment. you can see people moving from

one militia group to another just depending upon which one they think is being more effective. so, it's extremely complicated situation in terms of crafting just going to ussis. we have people i guarantee you who have been trained when they were with another syrian opposition group. previously. i could see this as a journalist in the beirut when i was there in 1983 when a marine turned around on one of the operations and said don't get involved in a five-sided argument. this is a situation that we are facing there. so we need to clearly articulate our national security objectives. i believe isis comes under that. we need to encourage the other entries in the region that have a stake in the stability to step up including military operations and when they are appropriate, we should have military operations. the best way to get a clear

picture of this is for the congress to have the hearings that it should have had at least six months ago, maybe earlier than that and get a full readout of what the administration is doing and what it sees are the most effective things to do in the future. host: let me final up on two final points. money is a big factor. you talked about that early but if governor o'malley and bernie sanders and hillary clinton, can you get the nomination on the issues? can you win on the issues? guest: i believe that the issues that we are bringing to the table are the issues that are important to the country that was the same decision point when i ran for the senate. this is a much different arena, but we pushed the issues that were, i believe, the country needed to go: national security. international security, economic fairness social

justice, being able to governor in this very complicated bureaucracy. and i believe americans want to see leadership. they want to see people who will take a risk talk about things that otherwise aren't being talked about iblt the reported i have had over a long period of time shows i can work with people from all different sides. that's the way we get things done in this country. hoeflt. host: how has president obama performed in bringing people together? guest: i think that we have entered a period of absolute paralysis that partly was the result of the timing of the healthcare debate. and i was warning about that at the time where it has been an issue that was a big campaign issue and then right before the

election, we saw the economic crash, and i president obama came in with favorables. it wasn't from day one that this thing started to fall apart. but i don't think the nation recovered. we saw the rise of the tea party that year. we saw the republicans saying the number one objective was going to be defeat president obama in '12 rather than working legislation. in october, '11, when i got my criminal justice reform national commission up for a vote this was a bi-partisan -- i had oren hatch and lindsey graham as co-sponsors on this bill people from all across the philosophical spectrum who

worked on these issues every day in support of this. justice kennedy supported it. $18 million. that's it. one helicopter. $14 million. one helicopter. we could have done this. we weret the best minds of america, show us how to fix this the whole nature of this problem and particularly reentry, and who goes to jail? how long? what will the administration looks like? we got filibustered october of '11. we got 57 votes and the national review the conservative paper editorialized it was insane to have filibustered something that was that logical but that's how far the things got divided host: final question: what's your time line? guest: i will know it when i see it. we are out talking to people. we are talking more now going in

to this year. if we see that it's, you know, if we see that this is viable that it can be funded in a way that we can get into the debates, we will move forward. if not, we won't. host: do you personally want to run? guest: under the right circumstances, i would like to. host: >> john ward looks at how the president is trying to shape his legacy. the american legion talks about their programs to help veterans. and if the associated press reporter discusses a disability program. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" on c-span.

>> the political landscape has changed with the congress, not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 democrats in the house, there is 108 women including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information and clothing photograph -- including voting results. on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> coming up, a services committee hearing on afghanistan. then q&a. and at 7:00 a.m., washington

journal. >> afghanistan operations commander jeff -- testified before the senate committee. he said the white house has options that would allow the most accessibility. the president is reviewing the options. after getting president will be in washington -- afghanistan president will be in washington next week. >> good morning. the committee meets today to receive testimony on afghanistan and i want to thank general campbell, the commander of the resolute support mission and u.s. forces afghanistan, for appearing before us today, about security conditions on the national security forces and the way forward. general, we've been blessed by a series of great military leaders

of our forces and allied forces in afghanistan. and you are a worthy successor to those outstanding leaders, in my view. according to a recent media report, the troop drawdown in afghanistan is now, quote, under white house review. but as the white house deliberates, the current plan is set to reduce the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan to about 5,500, beginning in the middle of this year's fighting season. the plan was first announced by president obama in may of 2014 before it was known that the afghan presidential transition would require almost six months to conclude, before the appearance of isis on the afghan battlefield and before pakistan military operations sent 200,000 refugees from -- into afghanistan. these unforeseen circumstances illustrate the major liabilities of a calendar-based approach and