volunteer first responders, the services donated annually by these volunteers are estimated to be worth more than $140 billion. this legislation allows communities to continue to benefit for the time and commitment of our firefighters and other first responders. treasury has responded to the concerns that mr. barr leta and many other members raised through the final legislation but this makes permanent the reasonable solutions that the administration put forward. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the department of the treasury outlining the regulations that address those concerns. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . ms. sanchez: this ms. sanchez: it codifies a regulation that has been administered by the administration. i ask my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time.

the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i yield myself the remainder of the time. i want to thank mr. barletta for bringing this to our attention. this is a problem with the law and therefore the law needs to change. it is insufficient that we have some regulatory forbearance from the administrative branch because the law has to be changed and that is why this legislation is necessary. again, i want to thank mr. barletta for his leadership on this issue. we need to do right by our volunteer firefighters and this does that. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having now expired on this bill the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1191 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended -- >> mr. speaker i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this motion -- further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

>> go ahead. go ahead.

>> good to meet you. heading this way. >> ok.

[inaudible] >> you can stand up. >> thank you.

[inaudible]

>> can i do one more? jeb bush: yes, ma'am. >> i already like this guy.

>> see if we can get this going now. >> thanks for coming tonight. please walk to the back of the room and let people from new hampshire come up and see governor bush and ask him questions, at the end of the event, feel free to circulate around but as best as possible, mr. cullen took the time toinvite his family, his

friends, his neighbors, he's not a supporter of governor bush, this is his house. >> got to earn it like everybody else here in new hampshire. but he went out of his way to invite his family, his friends and neighbors to come here. you are welcome too but do me the courtesy, do the cullens the courtesy, please go to the back of the room and let his friends in. at the end of the event, feel free circulate around. please go to the back. folks, come up, please. friends, neighbors. >> new hampshire folks, come forward. don't be shy. come on. i know you're not shy.

come on up. >> thank you, mike. >> may i have your attention please? thank you very much. >> thank you all for being here, jenny and i are so grateful to be here for this event. house parties are such a huge part of our first in the nation primary in new hampshire. candidates, potential

candidates, meet with voters one-on-one in small group settings, make their case and answer our questions and rise and fall on their own merit. i think it's a system that's served our country well over the last many decades. we're especially pleased to host governor bush on this, his first trip to new hampshire since he announce head may be, possibly, running. and the fact that he is doing this house party says a lot about the kind of campaign he would run here in new hampshire if he runs. i have a few people i want to recognize, hold your applause. i know the mayor of dover karens weton is here. a couple of our city councilmembers, kany cheney and don o'connor are here. here's the may yomple and doris -- she's an eighth -- she's in

her eighth decade of education in the city of dover. she's in her 22nd year on the school board. and she is a true marvel. [applause] i need to thank my wife, jenny. [applause] when we talked about hothsing a house party and she agreed i think she might have had something a little smaller in mind. i want to recognize my mother and father -- my mother and fournl, the goodriches who are somewhere. for helping us pull this event off. i'm very lucky in my in-awes -- laws and i want to also point automy mom and dad, tom and mary cullen, who are every here. governor bush and i share something in common, we both have very strong, tough mothers. if you haven't had a chance to

meet my mom and dad, i hope you'll take that opportunity tonight. so four years ago, in the last primary season, we had a lot of candidates running for president but we didn't have enough serious, credible, substantive candidates. if governor bush were to become a candidate, he's a one-person antidote for that problem. this fam -- his family has distinguished itself in service to our nation. i like that governor bush was a successful two-term governor of a big, diverse state like florida. and that education and schools was a signature issue then and after you left office as well. i appreciate that governor bush has been a leading voice on fixing and modernizing our broken immigration system in a way that welcomes the world's most talented and motivated people to come to our country. please join me in welcoming governor jeb bush. [applause]

jeb bush: thanks so much for doing this this is my inaugural voirge at a house party, that looks like this at least. thank you all for coming. you could be doing other things, it's friday night, there's probably a lot of fun things you could do i'm truly humbled you would come to hear me talk and ask me questions and let me have it. before i start, i want to talk a little bit about myself. people know me as george's boy, barbara's boy, and george w.'s brother. all of that i'm proud of. i was born in midland, texas, i looked up and barbara bush was there, i didn't know at the time but i won the lottery. i'm blessed in so many ways but i know if i'm going to go beyond the consideration of running i have to share my mark and tell my life story in a way that gives people a sense that i care

about them and that i have ideas that will help people rise up. my life experience has been driven by my wife of 41 years, i met her in leyland mexico when i was 17 in an exchange program. she's from andover just south of here. i fell totally head over heels in love and it allowed me to -- i wanted to marry her so i had to figure out how to make a living. it's hard to make the pitch without having the wherewithal doing it. i have worked all my adult life without having more than a week off that experience kind of has been part of my life. the other part is that i've signed the front side of a paycheck. i think with eneed more people with practical experience in that endeavor which is the heartbeat of our country in washington, d.c. because we see this massive

amount of ro o pressive rules on top of old rules that creates complexity that makes it harder and harder and harder for people to have a chance to have rising income. i was governor of the state of florida, which i recommend highly for any of the young people. two pieces of advice for young people that are interested in politics. run for governor, don't settle for something not nearly as interesting. and run against a bad candidate if you can, because it's easier to win. or better still, don't run against a guy who never lost. i've tried it both ways. better to have a chance to win. i have a chance to serve. when i was a candidate for governor in 1998, i had these deeply held views about education. i want to tell this story, i think it has something to do with how we start fixing problems in washington. my views didn't change much when i ran between 1994 and 1998 but i decided i wanted to take these

deeply held views of turning the system kind of upside down and shaking it a little bit so it could become more student-centered so i went to visit 250 schools. and it was a spectacular experience. people saw me for who i was. i showed my heart, i stood my ground as it related to my convictions. i earn learn -- i learned a lot. i learned to share the need reform our schools in a human context and also something i was going to do and it gave me a chance to do it. in florida we have lead the nation in many categories in rising student achievement, particularly kids in poverty that are always left behind and there's always another excuse. we can't afford that anymore because our country is 56% -- florida is 56%, majority minority. 57% free and reduced lunch qualified. we have a growing number of people that are poor, which is

fine because they have every chance to rise up if we get it right system of changing these big things i've had a chance to do as governor. we created the first statewide voucher program. we created the charter school well eliminated social promotion in third grade. we advanced early childhood literacy to make sewer the gaps didn't start early, that we began to close them. we hit it on all cylinders, school choice or accountability, florida did see big gains. we also built a better business climate. i cut taxes to the tune of $19 billion. we reduced the state government work forest by $14,000 but took on the entrenched interest in our state, whether it's the trial bar or the folks making money off our workers' comp system. the net effectiveness was we had 1.3 million net new jobs in my eight years. i didn't do it. i was part of the 13,000 decrease in jobs because that was state government.

but the private sector did a lot better. and people's personal income grew faster than the government. we were the only state in those eight years that went to triple-a. because we were frugal. government didn't grow faster than people's incomes. they called me veto corleone. maybe i called myself that. i can't remember. i vetoed something like 2,500 separate line items in the fwouget try to create some discipline and focus on how the budget worked and the legislature ultimately responded. my point is, you can be a conservative, you can do it with joy in your heart. you don't have to be angry about this. you can do it in a way that draws people toward our cause and you can win in a purple state. in this country if i'm going to begin to solve problems, we have to win. we have to go out and reach out to people of every walk of life. not with a divisive message but one that is union fid. one that says everybody should have a chance to rise up.

everybody should have the god-given skills to achieve success system of if i get beyond the consideration of this, that's kind of the mission i'm on. i believe that this country is on thes prenoifs greatest time to be alive. if we have a strategy of high, sustained economic growth where people's income begins to rise again, nothing will stop this country. we should pause and reflect on our greatness. not just our history but our innovative spirit, the ability to do things that defy the imagination of the rest of the world. we should be optimistic about the future and going govern to solve these problems so everybody gets optimistic and if we do that, this is going to be a great time to be young. i'd rather be your age than mine. with that, i really appreciate y'all being here i'm happy to answer any questions, this is really kind of up close and personal. yes, sir. >> i appreciate your principled stance on common core.

my question to you is, what do you think is the biggest misconception of common core? >> that it's a federal takeover of education. and i totally oppose that. and the best way to disprove that notion is for the re-authorization of the no child left behind act that's in the congress right now. in to disprove that notion is for the re-authorization of the no child left behind act that's in the congress right now. in that act, in the -- the re-authorization, there is a provision, i think, that says that the federal government should have nothing to do with standards. directly or indirectly. the federal government should have nothing to do with content, directly or indirectly. the federal government should have nothing to do with curriculum, directly or indirectly. common core standards are higher than the standards of many states. as they have been emgraced -- embraced, if some states don't want to have them, fine. set higher standards. call them sunshine state starne dards or whatever you want. the simple fact is we've dumbed down everything over a long

period of time, this is not a new thing. as we've dumbed it down and have the politically correct curriculum on top of that we have an 7% graduation rate in high school, that's pretty good. but about a third of our kids are college or career ready. so who is fooling who here? we're giving people a piece of paper that says, you're a high school graduate, congratulations. but then go to the community college and, sorry, you have to retake high school reading and high school math. are we going to be a great nation that has higher aspirations for people? or are we going to say it's someone else's fault. whatever it is we should put away the excuses and recognize, the kids have the talent to do this. they have a talent. we have the teachers to do this. an element of this that i think is important is high standards. by itself it won't do anything. but high standards matters a lot. i hate the poisonous environment

that common core has brought because what we ought to be focusing on is higher standards, accurate assessments fewer of them but accurate. robust accountability, school choice, ending social promotion. advancing the cause of rising student achievement. and that's my passion. i'm all in on that i'm not backing down on that because i've seen what happens when you do this. when you implement this. i got tire marks on my forehead doing this floridians here in the press, they'll tell you the stories of what it was like. it wasn't easy. the union -- look, i tried to find common ground. we couldn't. i was their poster child in the re-election. the whole campaign was about bigger ideas on education. i fortunately won re-election but it's hard to get through these things. you've got to stay the course and make it work. florida's gains are real. no one can deny them. because we have these kinds of reforms that really work.

>> you talk about iowa leading innovation and technology. which states are lags -- lagging? jeb bush: i've been on a lot of business tours in my real life mitigating circumstance former life, i don't know what i'm calling it. there's innovation across the board. agriculture in general doesn't get the recognition of the how innovative how technologically driven it is, whether it's the biotechnology that allows for having crops grow in drought resistant way or the yields that have increased. farmers have increased productivity 10-fold. when you think technology, it normally mean this is area around here, southern new hampshire, massachusetts, and certainly silicon valley, all those places.

but technology is across the board in every sector of the economy. so it's a great business to look at. there are companies in florida, i still as former governor feel compelled to toot my horn as it relates to my state. but everywhere there's incredible stuff happening. i went to see the guys that run uber. i found it afazing -- amazing that you could -- he pulled up his own personal computer and showed me the number of uber cars that were in my hometown of miami and he shows me which ones were possibly violating the law of picking up people at miami international airport. because we have these laws that prohibit this type of activity. eventually those are going to go away. we're living in a world of abundant opportunity and innovation. the question is for parents particularly, are our children going to be beneficiaries of

this disruptive technology or are they going to be overwhelmed by it? that's the big challenge for america and our system of government needs to be fixed so that we start building for what the future looks like where it's our benefit rather than our detriment. >> governor bush. >> yes, ma'am. >> hi. >> are you a reporter? >> i am, sir. jeb bush: later. >> i'm not a reporter. i am on blogger. >> this is a new hampshire -- >> we'll get with you guys later. >> as president how would you address ensuring our economic and climate security? jeb bush: the question is how would i help ensure our energy and climate security, how do you balance the interests of both? i think the rule -- the role of

the federal government needs to be narrowed to one specific field that only the federal government can do. which is basic research. the federal government shouldn't have a venture capital arm inside the department of energy picking winners and losers. that's a total losers. i mean, we saw how bad it was. i don't know if any of those things were successful but that's not the role of government. but to advance the cause of disruptive technologies, innovations and energy over the long haul, just as we do with n.i.h. for discovery of drugs, there's a legitimate role for government in that regard. beyond that, i think we need to encourage the marketplace deciding what the energy feed stock for power plants is and what the -- how we -- all the energy we need for anyone. it works far better. the best example of that is the obvious one. a decade ago or 12 years ago, natural gas prices were double digit and end was near. we had less than 10 years of

supply. you may remember that we actually, i think up here there wasn't an import -- there was ap import facility being built to bring in expensive liquefied natural gas to supply our natural gas needs in our country, or this in -- or in this region. those are abandoned, the three or four that were built, are gone. because guess what happened -- a guy named george mitchell, in a private company, through trial and error, took two existing technologies, hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, and created a revolution. we've gone from 10 years of supply to 100 years of supply and the price has gone from double digits to $2 or $3. that's america at its best. america at its best, people pursue their dreams. some succeed, some don't. it creates opportunity for all of us.

the oil sector, the oil and gas sector has created enormous economic opportunity nor country and will continue to do so and it also has another benefit which is not only has carbon reductions been reduced because of this, which it has, i meanmark countries in europe are actually kind of flatting as it relates to their reduction in carbon. we have seen a significant dee de-crease because natural gas has less co2 emissions but it has created a national security opportunity for us. we could be energy secure within five years if we were serious about that and certainly within a decade with north american resources. with canada, mexico, the united states. and we would have the lowest cost energy, the benefit of that is that we could reindustrialize the country to create middle class jobs, it would also allow us to not have a heavy footprint around the world if we didn't want to have it, that our foreign policy be based on our values and the national security interests of this country, and

it would allow us also to use natural gas and oil as a tool to deal with the instability in the world. so i'm not sure we need a bunch of industrial planners telling us how to do this. i would rather have, you know, 100,000 george mitchells across the spectrum of life pursuing their dream the freest possible way, creating the kind of innovation that allows us to continue forward. limit government's power and let the marketplace work is probably the best approach. yes, ma'am. >> governor. last summer we lost people to isis and new hampshire residents are probably more bitter than others. to america it was a wakeup call about the islamic terrorism and islamic radicals. my limited understanding is right now, our boarder is far

more wide open than it's ever been. my question for you is what would you do if you were elected president, but beyond that, two years is a long time to have that border wide open and what can we do? jeb bush: i think the first thing we can do is encourage congress to pass a budget that prioritizes spending more money on the border. and prescribing as much as you can in the budget the strategy to be effective on that secondly there's got to be more money in a strategy on the part of this that should give you as much concern which is that 40% of illegal -- of illegal immigrants come to this country with a legal visa and then don't leave. there needs to be a much better mechanism of, when the visa expires, you either have it be renewed in some fashion if it's appropriate or for the person to leave.

that's got to be a priority. they cannot do anything else until there's confidence that people are serious about that. whether it's the public health threats, not as significant as the national security threats, and certainly just the basic concept of rule of law, this has to be a high priority for sure. then you can get to the broader issues of how do you fix a broken immigration system that makes it more economically driven? we have a system today where 80% of all legal immigrants come through family petitions. it is a noble thing for sure. don't get me wrong. but we have the broadest definition of what family is. spouse and minor children. like every country. we also have adult siblings and adult parents. then we put quotas by country. the net result is we don't have an immigration system that's strategic for economic growth. we have a noble immigration system that's legal, that's

fine. but i think we should narrow it down to what every other country has, spouse and minor children and create the first 500,000 first round draft picks if you will, of the people that will create economic activity for all of us. and you can't get there until people are confident that the rule of law is being applied consistently and our borders are being enforced. >> governor. >> yeah. bebjush -- jeb bush: i'm a veteran and work in new hampshire. we've heard about veterans not getting appropriate care. what do you see, or what is your vision to ensure that the veterans get proper health care and have the appointments? jeb bush: do you have the same issue in man chest her >> no, we've never had a wait list or anything like that. jeb bush: a credit wait list? >> we keep up, i'm not saying it's perfect but we do get a lot

of positive remarks. jeb bush: it's been a serious problem. and you know you have bipartisan support when you have john mccain and bernie sanders agreeing on a bill. one of the few bills that actually turned into a law in the last four or five years. and it was an effort i think, to begin the process of reform. i don't think it's the full comprehensive reform that's necessary. one of the things that they did and you might not agree with this since you're working at the v.a. hospital, but i think it's essential. given the uniqueness, the need to customize the health care service for veterans because of their different needs. health challenges, mental health challenges, long-term disability issues issues of iraq and afghanistan are different than vietnam. as people get older they have different needs. all of that leads me to believe that we should empower veterans to make more of these decisions.

where they have the chance to pick the place and the health care provider that they want. in this law that was passed last year, it allows for, i have to call it a voucher, i don't know what else to call it. that's pejorative for some but i'm all in on the voucher thing. it has -- to empower people to say, if you want to stay, assume tags veteran that live here's and you don't want to go to manchester but your health care provider can provide the attention and care you need, why would you have to travel to manchester? so you're giving someone the chance to make the choice themselves. they ka can go to the veterans hospital, no one is suggesting we shut down the v.a. system but the simple fact is the v.a. doesn't look like it's made any effort to make sure that veterans know that this is available to them. and the number of people taking advantage of this is very, very low. so i think there should be much more outreach to give people a chance to go to private

hospitals if necessary. if they want to see their own doctor. but this has to be a long-term commitment, for sure. i don't think there's a big argument in terms of budgeting, at least. there's been dramatic increases in the budget, it's probably flatlined now given the sequester and lack of a budget in the last five years but i totally agree with you this has tb a high priority. >> for the record, i don't mind. i think whatever can get the best, most efficient, timely treatment, regardless of where they go. >> the president said obamacare would bepped the cost curve new york reality it's gone up dramatically and that's a driver of cost. do you have ideas about thousand reduce cost or reduce utilization? jeb bush: the obvious way to reduce utilization is to have people be healthy.

so the system we have pre-obamacare and in obamacare is not a health care system. it's a sick care system in effect. so ultimately, i think we need to move to a plan that has h.s.a.'s, high deductible, lower premium coverage where the principal coverage is on catastrophic coverage and where the rewards economically and every other way is toward preventing illness. not to manage care. sometimes you have services that are -- that are preventive and sometimes you don't. but if you add the economic incentive to this, which is that you get to keep the money and it rolls over tax free so that you're building up a nest egg to deal with harder and more difficult and more costly health care needs, you're going to bend the cost curve, reduce the overall cost of the system.

but i also think we need to have tort reform, whether that's -- i don't know about you, but in florida we fought hard for this. it was not easy. the state levels, i know the state groups are powerful. but it's obviously the driver of the uncertainty of lawsuits creates a lot of defensive medicine we don't need. last range of things we need to do but the insurance part of it needs to be focused on moving back to a high deductible, lower premium, h.s.a.-attached plan. the other thing i'd say is i've got this, this is prehistoric i can tell -- i can do my strides i can know how long i'm sleeping i normally figure that out after i wake up. but these devices, apple just announced their device this

week back to technology wherever that question was. these devices and many others much more sophisticated thaten -- than this prehistoric thing will allow us to monitor our own health care and will be able to -- you'll be able to wirelessly send messages to your health care provider because you didn't ingest the pill at the right time. 40% of all prescription drugs are taken in the wrong way and health care costs of that are enormous. and the adverse outcomes for health. so at some point we need to recognize that the best system is one where each person is engaged in their own health care decisions. that's the american way. and as we become, you know, we move aid way from that, our health care costs have gone up, our health care outcomes have been worse. technology gives us a chance to move back to where we're more engaged in all this. mayor. >> i'm i polled my employees to find out what they wanted to ask

you so i have two questions. jeb bush: let's d one question with two parts. >> ok the first one will be the affordable care act. they want to know where you stand? are you on a whole repeal or do you want to take it and fix what's broke snn and then the second question is where do you stand on minimum wage, federal minimum wage? jeb bush: the question on minimum wage, i don't think we need to raise the minimum wage at the federal level and as it relates to the affordable care act, in a perfect world which is what -- campaign world is kind of a perfect world in some ways. i would like to repeal and replace. it might end up the same place where some of your employees would want, which is you would have the pre-existing condition element of any plan, you would

have probably, a small number but for young people to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26. i don't have much argument against that, i'm not passionate one way or the other. but there would be things you'd add. the idea that the federal government, through these massive subsidies, is going to be -- and exchanges where there's all sorts of mandated employer mandated, employee mandated, all these mandated services that increase the cost of insurance that is going to work over the long haul, i find it flawed to the core. so what i described as a better plan is the replacement plan. >> thank you. >> governor if i find one of the most chilling parts of the future of our -- future of the united states sour indebtedness. can you tell us the plans you have to control that indebtedness? jeb bush: the debt is not a

problem in the here and now in washington, d.c. don't take that out of context. that's a comma. because we lowered interest rates to zero and we've shortened the maturity of the doubling of debt in six years. under the president, we've doubled the debt and slunk the maturity so that something like 60% of all debt now comes due in three years. as you shrink the maturities, two-year treasury bill, six-month, there's no interest system of the debt service today is lower than it was 12 years ago. so it's kind of like passing in the bottle of bourbon and giving the keys to a mazz raw tee to a 14 -- to a maserati to a 14-year-old. what happens if interest goes back up? debt service, because the

maturities are coming due, you have to renew the debt if you can, will grow exponentially and crowd out all the other things veterans affairs, homeland security infrastructure, the federal government doesn't have thatch many to do with that be everything else will be squeezed out. we should be restructuring our debt to make it long-term rather than short-term. secondly we ought to create a high growth strategy, growth above all else. i mean the idea that we're going to grow at 2% per year, out for the next decade, will make it harder and harder for taos service the debt. but if we grew at 4%, which historically is where america has grown and there are some discreet, really important things that we can do to make that work as it relate -- some discrete, really important things that we can do too make that work as it relates to our regulatory system, our tax code is creating incentives for investment overseas rather than the jobs that would be created

here. emgracing -- embracing the energy revolution. those things will help us grow at 4%. if you count the 2% tinches i did this once, stucken a tarmac at o'hare, but if you take 1.02 times -- at the time it was $18 trillion. compound that out. in the 10th year we would create an additional germany of additional activity. and an additional germany creates $1 trillion of revenue, state, local, and federal, based on the current amount of taxation. that's a far better idea than any exotic form of taxation barack obama would like to impose on us. so high growth is the first step to dealing with this fiscal structural problem. and it's structural, it's not here and now. second i'd say we have to go to sound budgeting practices. the federal reserve because of

the low interest rate environment, the federal reserve provides the treasury something like $70 billion of prophet. that's not revenue that's going to stick around. 4 let's be real and be honest about it and ultimately people will spend less. that's ultimately what we need to do. spending less will be a huge problem if we don't fix our entitlement problems. at the end of the day, you can talk about all the other things, how efficient government is, it's not. but the entitlement challenge is going to overwhelm everything else. the deficits we have today will

pale by comparison to when we get fully into the baby boomers all being retired, receiving social security and medicare and the expansion of our medicaid population which is an entitlement program as well is explosive to our debt. you have to deal with that issue while creating a high growth strategy. >> governor, our foreign policy, i'm not sure that we have a foreign policy. jeb bush: we do. >> i'd like for you to ex-pabbed on -- expand on that jeb bush: our foreign policy is one of entrenchment and disengagement, one that thinks america's force in the world is not for good. i love reading history books. we have been a force for good consistently. and the idea that we're not, you

agree with me, then this president has a different view, it's quite dangerous. because as we pull back, voids are filled. two things that really mat for the a consistent foreign policy is that our friends know that we have their back. and that our enemies fear us a little bit. they don't have to fear us a lot, but just enough to know that the consequence is a -- if they behave in a way that's dangerous for the region or the world. right now, our friends are consistent friends -- our consistent friends don't believe america is reliable. name a country this is the test i'm asking, name a country, you're going to go first. name a country where the american relationship is better today than when barack obama came into office. >> hard to do. >> cuba. jeb bush: cue bafment -- cuba.

possibly iran. cuba. i don't know about north korea but just -- miramar perhaps because of diplomatic relations. but not canada. absolutely not. not latin america. not israel. not egypt. not jordan. not turkey. not saudi arabia. not the entire middle east. not the african countries either. and the simple fact is, the disengagement has created so much uncertainty and doubt that people don't know where we stand. and so a -- so restoring america's presence in the world actually would be a powerful footstep to creating a more secure world. then we have to re-engage in a way to have a strategy to deal with the threats that now are amongst us, isis being one of those, of course. russia now moving, you know work great authority and aggressively into eastern europe.

and perhaps the baltics even. challenging whether article 5 of nato is actually a viable -- nato is a viable treaty organization. people i think begin to have doubts about that. the emergence of china aggressively pursuing their agenda in asia. all of these things are serious threats. and then the thought -- then instead of negotiating with iran to legitimize the regime, we should have kept the sanctions on because they would have come to the table. $45 a barrel oil for a year with iran would have changed the dynamics. instead of negotiating downward where we're negotiating with ourselves downward to a deal that will create permanency for the regime, we could have created a policy that would have weakened iran in their support of surrogates in the region and prohibited them from get agnew clear bomb. yes, sir. >> i would like your opinion on

whether the house and senate should have fully funded homeland security without dealing with the president's, i believe illegal, executive order regarding immigration. jeb bush: i think you're correct. i think the president doesn't have the authority in either case, the two executive orders, he used this concept of prosecutorial discretion which i read and tradition, by and large, has existed that says that you take these case by case. there are a lot of unique cases in imgration. that was authority given by a congress to do -- for a president to do it. he used it for three million people. i don't think he has the authority nor does a federal judge in south texas. my guess is this will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. what my hope is, to be honest with you to be clear, i think that congress needs to pass a budget.

and put the priorities, conservative prior toins the table. find consensus among republicans first, get the 50 votes to pass a budget. use the power of the budget which has a lot more power in terms of impacting policy than any other bill in congress, pass a budget for cy crying out loud. s the fifth year we haven't had one. there are a lot of priorities that languish and a lot of things that shouldn't be done that continue because of this co-continue -- because of this continuing resolution approach. and in that budget there are ways that you could show the opposition to the use of executive orders. so i hope they do that. i hope they fund fully fund, the department of homeland security. to get to your point, how else are we going to secure the border? this is the only way we can do it. so i think -- there's a time for making a principled opposition to the president. and then there's a time to govern. and to lead. and republicans need to start

showing that we can govern and lead. we can. i'm totally convinced we can. but this is our chance. the democrats have control of the congress now, you know. they had it for a long while. and no budget passed. there hasn't been a budget. we reached a crisis in the budget -- and the budget then is sequester. rather than going through regular order where you put the priorities on the table, i think we need to increase spending on defense and figure out ways to reduce the cost in other areas. maybe members have a different view. but let the process work again. that's what's missing. every state government sometimes ugly, sometimes nice and clean, has a balanced budget requirement. and every state government ends up at the end of the day, they pass a budget and it's balanced. washington needs to do the same thing. >> governor, i've got a feeling

you're going to have plenty more opportunities to take questions from new hampshire voters in the next couple of months. i certainly hope that's going to be the case. thanks for joining us tonight. great job. [applause] jeb bush: thank you, ma'am, it's an honor. i'm going to tell my mom and dad, maybe we'll get you over there. it's not that far. to kennebunkport. that would be cool. >> are we all invited? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[inaudible] >> do you like them 1234

[indiscernible conversation]

[indiscernible conversation]

[indiscernible conversation]

jeb bush: you look like someone i know in fort myers. it's striking how you look like her. that's a good thing, just for the record. >> we're going to put you in a sandwich. >> carl cameron taking the picture. can you get it? jeb bush: this is a blast.

give me five minutes with anybody and show that i'm not off the reservation and. maybe a combination of both. i'm not surprised where people don't understand where i'm coming from. the common core, there is a lot of people -- >> breaking it down. jeb bush: take the federal government's role. >> [indiscern i believe conversation] -- [indiscernible conversation]

[indiscernible conversation]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> first legislative day of the week for the house and back at 6:30 eastern including a vote that would exclude hours worked by volunteers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel, from the health care law. we will have those votes at 6:30. in the meantime, a look at the health care law and the enrollment numbers and projection of health care costs

from today's washington journal. guest: they have over the tax period to be able to sign up for insurance and not get a penalty next year. host: c.b.o. is projecting a decrease. guest: going to cost the country $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. but proper jokeses keep getting lower. in january, the projections were

11% higher than they were found to be last week. host: what is the reason for the decrease in spending? guest: lower enrollment numbers in the exchanges that had previously been thought. the congressional budget office had originally projected that 13 million would enroll and that number is at 11.7 million. the department of health and human services sees it as a huge success because they projected the numbers to be 9.9 million. host: she is a health care reporter and read the phone numbers for the viewers. host: where were you writing?

guest: center for public integrity. host: tell us what the c.b.o. has had to say about the spending projections in the future. guest: one of the important factors to note is that subsidies are going to be -- are less expensive than had been projected. they were projected to be $500 per person mere year. and so we are spending 20% less per person on health insurance subsidies per year than we thought we would. host: one of the headlines.

host: the law is cost effective and working says the piece. the price tag is lower. fewer americans will be covered by health insurance under the law than previously thought. you think that trend would continue? what might you see? guest: so hard to make these projections, but the fact that we fewer people enroll could be seen as a positive or negative. fewer people are enrolling because more people are getting jobs. or it could be they are simply choosing to go without insurance. one of the major goals of the affordable care act is to get as many people enrolled as possible. host: if fewer people are insured, how much does that

reduce subsidies? guest: 20%. host: let's go to our first call. a democratic caller from maine. caller: good morning. i have a question, my daughter who is 27 is a full-time student and earned $9,000 and when she called her republican senator and asked why she couldn't get into the affordable care network because they didn't make enough money they told her to project upwards and she said i probably won't make any more less and there's nothing for her. no insurance no medicaid expansion in our state and to have republicans to have her project up knowing she won't be able to make any more money i just wonder if there is any

other instances of that? i was perplexed and dismayed and my daughter is an honest person and would not pretend she is going to make more to get into the affordable care network. guest: i started to work into a piece that looks into it more deeply and i don't know the details. if you have an income of about $9,000 would qualify for medicaid through the states in order to pay for health insurance. host: what are you trying to find out? guest: about how often this is happening and whether it is happening in states that have or have not expanded medicaid. host: democratic caller. good morning. i really enjoy your guest. i love reading u.s. news and world report.

my comment because you are answering everybody else's and i don't have a question but my comment was that our children were put on our insurance after the a.c.a. went through in college on account of the affordable care act. we appreciated it. it saved us a lot of money. helped with college tuition because we saved money and one of our children has a pre-existing condition since birth. and after the age of 27, now he can afford -- he can get on any plan through our state with a.c.a. he appreciates it now he is on his own and out of college. before which he couldn't have gotten insurance because of a pre-existing condition. we were afraid of this for 20

years and thank you president obama, every day we wake up and thank him. thank you very much. host: anything you want to follow up on there? guest: many more people have been covered under health insurance who would not have been covered. and we hear stories a lot and people are concerned about the supreme court decision that might do away with subsidies that might help people pay for insurance. and this is certainly a message i hear a lot from readers. host: what the impacts might be on that supreme court case. take us deeper into that case and how it may affect what we are talking about. guest: whether the federal government can legally distribute subsidies through health.gov and 13 states and the district of columbia has

actually created their own marketplaces. the majority of people who signed up have done so through healthcare.gov. and if they rule that it is illegal, the numbers vary, but the department of health and human services estimate that seven million people could lose health insurance. host: democratic caller. caller: isn't the care of health care services in the united states the most expensive in the world? i think i heard that we spend twice as much as a percentage of gross domestic product, of the g.d.p. on health care than any other country. we got private insurance we got medicare, we got medicaid. so if you compare our costs we pay more for surgical procedures. we pay more in drug -- for

drugs. i think twice as much as canada does. host: ask you to hang on and talk to our guest. is that true everything he is laying out? guest: yes, it is, compared to other developed nations. we are spending more on health care than most countries and the cost of health care is continuing to rise. rising at a lower rate than it has in recent years, but still rising. host: why do you bring all of this up? caller: what i wanted to say the other thing i wanted to say is that the obamacare is sort of -- is the old republican idea or republican idea to have private insurance competing with others on exchanges to require people -- the individual mandate, doesn't that come out of the heritage foundation and the republican health care proposal in 1992?

i think they came up with an alternative to hillarycare. people like me thought we would want a single pair -- payer system medicare for all. obamacare is really kind of an in-between compromise/partly republican idea. it was romneycare in massachusetts. romney had it in massachusetts. guest: it is true that what you are saying is true. the affordable care act was passed without a single vote in congress. it isn't seen as a compromise. host: how about paul ryan's cuts to medicare and medicaid affect a.c.a. funding? guest: medicaid is supposed to be expanded under the affordable care act and states are

concerned how they are going to be paying for the program in the future. and whether they will be able to keep up with that spending we'll have to see, any cuts to medicaid would make it difficult for states. host: where is medicare spending at this point? i read a story that medicare spending is level or declining a little bit. guest: this is something that is interesting happening in health care. the baby boom generation going into medicare they are younger and healthier and spending less on medicare than we have in a very long time. and the rate of medicare is growing at a lower rate than it has in the past is what i mean to say. even though it is happening now and medicare takes up about 20% of health care spending, there is a projection after the next decade, the rates of medicaid

will go back up. host: let's hear from virginia, republican caller. caller: i have two quick questions. the first, has the a.c.a. innoculated the insurance market to higher deductible plans? and the second question, is the reduced spending in health care partly due to what was built in the a.c.a., cost-sharing measures that people are defering cases because of the deduct i believe so associated with their plan? guest: i hear concerns. they sign up for a premium and think they can afford health insurance and go to the doctor and pay way more than they thought because they weren't aware of the details of their plans and how the deduct i believe so would play a part in all of that. that is something i'm hearing.

in terms of whether the affordable care act has slowed the rate of spending growth, that is something that is being evaluated. it is unclear to what extent the affordable care act plays a role in health spending rates. host: what kind of changes tweaks, might you expect in washington on the health care law this year, in the coming years? guest: this year, it seems to me the supreme court case is by and large going to be the most important decision that can happen to the affordable care act. republicans have tried to dismantle the law 60 times and president obama obviously would not sign any law that same to do so. the supreme court decision is going to be the major factor that is going to play into the health care law. as far as other parts that go into that, medical device tax is something that could be repealed. and i think that in terms of

other funds, i don't see anything moving quickly. host: john from st. louis missouri republican. good morning to you. caller: i would like to ask the young lady that since they passed the health care law, there is still 30 million people that have not been covered. and what the affordable care act was supposed to do, it didn't do. i mean i'm sorry but i just -- it just frustrates me to no end that the democrats pushes through congress before the republicans got another senator in there to keep it from passing. pelosi said you got to pass it and then you can read it and find out what's in it. the president of the united states, mr. obama, turned around

and i don't know how many times he's changed the law, which he does not have the right to do. congress passes laws, the president of the united states has to back the laws and not change them. i'm sorry. i'm going to let you guys talk it over and i will be listening to you. host: 30 million uninsured. any inside perspective you want to add? guest: we have 11.7 million on the health exchanges and 10 million have signed up through medicaid because medicaid has been expanded. there is a difference between the number of people who get insurance and then whether they are actually satisfied with their insurance -- h.r. 647 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 648 by the yeas and nays