be totally what one would want, but in the end of the day, could bring people together. >> reporters on capital hill say the president has not been the best at interacting with congress. what do you think that is, you think it is because he did not serve in congress as long as biden? eric: i am a lawyer and a real estate developer, i am not a psychoanalyst. i don't know. i think that the human element is very much missing. congress has devolved into that as well. they are on enough opportunities to interact with one another without cameras being in the way or that. in committee and subcommittee, with cameras on, you get a chance to get to know others, and maybe the more intimate

setting of a committee room could help facilitate that. it is worth some thought. >> let's talk about 2016. on the theme of the discussion, short-term-is him. is there anyone in the field that you think has a proven ability to priority its -- prioritize long-term decision-making? you say you have for favorites. eric: the 2016 election, on the republican side, i think even in the general election, hopefully, they will be able to result in the election of an individual who can demonstrate that type of leadership which says, number one, i have a view. i know where i want the country to go. people have elected me to do that. number two, the fact that this is the discussion about what is missing in the white house i have the ability to practically, on a day-to-day brick -- basis

conduct my day job and make it so that i can get along with people and get things done. i do think, on the republican side, there are four people who i believe will be one of those which will receive the nomination. >> and those are just bush, christie rubio, and walker. which one of those for you last speak to on the phone? eric: you are going to get me to say something. >> sorry. once a reporter, always a reporter. eric: i spoke to all of them recently. i don't want to say which one. >> fair enough. let's talk about dealmaking and the big deal right now in the news, former senator john kerry's negotiations with iran. do you think the framework they have put out comedy you think this is a deal for the long-term? eric: i am worried about the steel. i am worried about the framework

that has been proposed. the meat on the bones comes by june. several points that concern me whether you can count on in the long-term, i am doubtful. one is, the whole question about iran's reg out capacity -- breakout capacity, what and when is that, what can be really verified about that. clearly, they have allowed iran to have breakout capacity and that is a danger to us all. secondly, the nature of the inspection regimes. there is a lot discussed in the media lately. what will be the inspection regime? and, how do you resolve disputes? if there is deemed to be a violation of the agreement, are

we going to have to rely on the u.n. and perhaps iran, the countries who are sympathetic to iran to be able to block any kind of view as a response. and then, what is the response, what is the nature of the reimposition of sanctions? how weekly will sanctions be lifted? that is another question that needs to be asked. in the end, this agreement as the president and his administration says, it only deals with the nuclear western. what about all the other destabilizing things that iran has been undertaking over the last decade or more? hamas, hezbollah, what is going on in iraq and syria, the who d's in yemen? this goes back to tehran. if you are going to live sanctions because somehow there is a determination that iran is complying with the present -- provisions of this deal, all that does is give tehran that

much more money to go about destabilizing and doing all they can and reached hegemonic goals in the region. i'm worried about this deal. i know those who are proponents of it think it is a good long-term thing, and a long-term benefit. i am worried about it. >> at the time, when you were in congress, you were the sole republican in congress for an amount of time there. it has been fascinating to watch republicans, especially, when john boehner asked netanyahu to speak to the chamber, what is the relationship between house and senate republicans and israel had it at this point? eric: there is no question, trends on the republican side of the aisle have been on the upswing for support of israel. we are down to low single digits for those who would not

necessarily be there on every vote to support israel. i think the trend is the opposite on the democratic side of the aisle. there has been a lot of sympathy towards those who would claim the palestinians should right now be given a statehood. there are those who would advocate, on the progressive left, on the dds movement, to boycott sanctions against israel, who support u.n. to go after israel. i think all of that exist on the left. you don't see that on the right. there have been, on the right, indicators that some would say we don't need to be so globally engaged. we don't need to spend money on foreign aid. etc.. non-intervention. i don't think that is anywhere near as prominent on the right as it is on the left. i am more concerned about what is going him him left. >> shifting gears a bit, i would like to get your thoughts on indiana governor and the

religious freedom law. the governor is your former colleague in the represent -- house of representatives. it has received backlash. i think you may have a unique perspective, given your industry. you think it was a good idea for mike pence to go back and make changes to the law? eric: i think the fact the changes were made so quickly reflected the fact that those who supported the law did not realize how violent the backlash would be. i am always concerned when there is some sense of exclusion that comes out of a public act. we are a country that should be tolerant and that is based on tolerance. again, as you say i am a member of a minority religion. i grew up as a minority in an area that did not have a lot of

jewish people. i understand what it means, in terms of the sensitivity where if you are in a situation and have a religious service at a school you attend, and all of a sudden you are the odd one out again, but we as a country have come a long way. we are not perfect in this. certainly, we are built on the notion that you have the ability to practice your religion, and there is no imposition of the state religion, but we also have a country that protects people's right. the question at the heart of the debate, of the indiana law which some say tracks closely to what president clinton signed and what 20 other states have, i think some would say that it is license to allow people to discriminate based on their sexual preference, and i think that is wrong.

you should not allow anyone to do that. i cannot say that that law is or isn't. i think the evidence is in the courts. what have the courts done to say that there is a law in place that is needed to protect one's religious rights? or, has a court ever come in and said, this law is unduly burdensome to one possibility to practice their faith? i just don't know, again, where the examples are to say that a court would ever come down and say that you shouldn't or you aren't compelled to serve someone because of their sexual preference. now, i do think it is a question of a ceremony and the photographer, and the intimacy of the ceremony. this is where i think one would on the religious freedom side, would say, don't make me do that. i don't think a court would agree with that. >> i mentioned that indiana

businesses were angry with the governor about the law. the alliance between business and the chamber of commerce, and christian conservatives, many who backed the law, is precious to the republican party. you see that coalition at risk, or threatened? you have dealt with this in the house, where you had a lot of libertarian leading members at odds with the chamber of commerce. this coalition, is it a risk -- at risk? eric: the coalition between? >> between christian conservatives and the republican party. eric: i'm a conservative, and i am jewish. but i don't think there is necessarily a bridge that has collapsed. i do think, there are some issues, and remember what is

surrounding a lot of the shutdowns and a lot of the libertarians it was less libertarians and more fiscal hawks who said to we needed -- that we needed to shut down the government. they said we needed to do something extreme. you saw the is this community get upset. at the hands of republicans, somehow, we saw the shutdown of the government. as you know, i was in opposition to shutting down the government. i don't think it helped anyone. i don't think it helped the conservative cause at all. i don't think it even helped the limited government cause to do that. it is about leadership. i don't think there is any permanent fraying of this coalition that makes up the republican party did --. if you go back to the politics on the democratic side on the left, just like republicans, there are different interested -- interest groups. on the republican side, what we

have in common, i believe is individual empowerment individual rights. that's not to say the democratic party does not stand for that as well, we just get there a different way. the focus on opportunity afforded through a port of mobility. to me, long-term, that is needed more than anything else, is not -- is economic opportunity and growth. it will take leadership for us to get out of discussions about fraying. there'll be a long-term vision. i think 2016 gives us that opportunity. >> i have one question about your primary. and this is it. looking back, is there any thing you would have done differently? eric: i think the mistake made in my primary was, the assumption that we have republicans only voting. in virginia, it is unique. i know other states have it, but there is an open primary law in

virginia. the democratic candidate did not have a primary that day. in fact, it was later uncovered that my opponent in the primary was actively engaged in recruiting the democratic voters , and the postelection polling indicated that 23,000 democratic riemer he voters came into my primary. whereas, i hit -- i still receive the majority of republican votes, i did not receive anywhere near as much as i used to, because of a lot of the issues we talked about. my stance on immigration, my stance on keeping the government open, my stance on making sure we did not go into default is a federal government, my stance in passing the tarp will. all things i feel should have been done, and i would not have given where i was in those instances, knowing what i knew then. but i think the fault was in the

political calculation about who were the voters and who was coming out to vote that day. >> do you miss congress at all? eric: i miss the people. you think about being in a place where you work 14 years, and you get to know people and you work and convene meetings, day in and day out. you grow attached to working with people. i had a great team of people i worked with on my staff. some of whom are here today, one is a fellow here, matt is leading up the digital efforts in terms of the digital age in politics and business. i have been meeting with him and his students today. john murray, a former fellow, is also here. i am able to at least continue the relationships i've got. >> a fun question, then we will go to questions from the audience.

i'm going to make the assumption that level more free time than you used to. -- you have a little more free time now. do you have a favorite show you watch on netflix? have you cap any hobbies? -- picked up any hobbies? eric: i am traveling a lot. my company is a global business. i'm traveling more than i used to travel. if you recall, as majority leader, you have the ability to schedule the floor. you knew when you had to be in washington and you knew when you weren't. now, you are really at the call of businesses and clients that you work with. i will say that netflix "house of cards" is the number one question i am asked. when you go to asia, where people are watching and thinking, wow. they ask, is it really like that?

i think enjoying my new, next chapter in life. >> terrific. let's start with questions now. a couple ground rules, reminders for the questions. all questioners must identify themselves. one brief question per person no speeches please. you have heard all -- enough of those in congress. please and your question with a question mark. >> my name is joe marcus -- ja marcus. citizens united in the $9 million the koch brothers are spending in 2016, for the typical everyday american not necessarily typical, but a person from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background, you think people still have an opportunity to allow their vote to count even though there is so

much money that goes into politics now? eric: i will give you my view on campaign-finance first then i will talk about what you have alleged in terms of the coat rather's and influence -- the koch brothers. i have always taken the position that you ought to be transparent in terms of political donations. i am one who believes strongly that what you do with your money is a lot about your constitutional right to state your position. if you do that, you have a duty in our country and -- to disclose what you are doing. unfortunately, the evolution of campaign-finance laws, what it has done is, it has increased the opacity of the system. evil are able to give money and hide behind these organizations so the public does not realize who is funding them. you cite republican donors

involved. i bet most of the public does not know that. they are hearing things blindly. i do think there is a problem with a lack of transparency. but when you say should billionaires who happen to be republicans have the ability to do that, and is that unfair, is that an unfair advantage over the working people of the country? remember, the press, and no harm intended, the press has total license to do and opine with whatever they want to on politics. as we know, and i don't think i am crossing any uncharted ground here, most of the press self identified as liberal. i don't know, the latest polls are the same. more than half. >> those who participated. eric: right. [laughter] most will self identify.

why is it that one industry has unfettered ability to push out online, through ink, every day but not necessarily one of us, a company, someone who is wealthy someone who is poor. no one says that they should. that is why i come back to this. and not to mention, there is this debate about corporate america on the republican side, and the union and labor movement on the democratic side. they have all kinds of constitutionally deemed rights to organize their members, and communicate with their members unlimited. so it is unfair to single out and say, hey, we have a billionaire republican with undue influence. there are a lot of those who have disproportionate influence compared to you and me. so i think the best ammo --

method of operation says, led everyone give what they want the disclose it. let everyone see what is behind a particular candidate and let them draw a conclusion. >> next up. >> my name is peter. hearing your remarks, you are saying that it seems like a way to compromise on immigration you can take both sides and look at common ground. hyper polarization due to short term is him, what happens if it is the opposite? i give the example of governor walker, and the idea that the labor movement comes in, and there is a scorched earth battle and at the end, the results is that the republican one with wisconsin and michigan being right to work states. that is a long-term solution. there is a case where hyper polarization led through scorched earth to a pollard -- a policy advance that is as

permanent as it could be on the state level. i wonder what you think about there is sort of a relationship that, come on guys might be good but hyper polarization might get the policies you want. eric: i am not sure i would qualify the right to work movement as hyper polarization which is what scott walker was about and governor snyder was about in michigan, to reinstate the right to work laws in those states. it is certainly not in my region of the country, what i say that there is a lot of incentive, and i think, to the detriment of the right to work movement having been very engaged politically. in those states, they were. a lot of it has to do with the alleged abuse that took lace of the public space with the union movement. there was a backlash. we talk about -- i agree with you, right to work is not necessarily short-term pressure. it was more of a long-term, sort of message and i think

structural issue for the labor situation in those states. but it is where -- so, if you -- the budget we just passed, that we sign congress pass. the budget was a partisan budget, by and large. it was a republican budget that balanced, in 10 years. that is a very short although one would say we need balance and it is good for republicans to put out their model. you know that budget will not pass. but it was a concession to the short-term imperative, to those who do not think washington is living within its means. but in the end, it is very hard to see the democratic president solving that problem in that way. it's not going to happen. at some point, there will be a breakdown of those expectations

about balancing the budget in 10 years, given the political makeup. it is this short-term jerk saying, we are there for you. don't worry. we will balance the budget in 10 years. at the end of this year, that is not going to happen. that leads to cynicism, and that also, i think, is actually, gets in the way a long-term -- if the goal should be deficit reduction, you do that more effectively through economic growth. why can't people rally around economic growth, rather than stay out here, fighting of the polls between balancing the budget within a year and never balancing the budget? >> we will go up a level. >> thank you for speaking to us. my name is alex. i am a student at harvard business school and i was president of harvard republicans. my question concerns virginia.

virginia has been talked about as a place that is trending blue but we had a surprise were ed gillespie goes against mark warner in the election. what you see as the political future of virginia? eric: i think virginia, being a native who has lived there all my life, it is still a center-right state. it is a state that has benefited from a lot of growth, not just in northern virginia and the washington suburbs, but in the metropolitan areas in richmond and high water. the state's population is about 28% northern virginia and the rest 72, 73%, the rest of the state. you have a fairly significant downstate minority population that tends to vote democratic. if you are going to run statewide in virginia, you have to run up the middle.

ed gillespie was a candidate that really had not been tarnished by any kind of record or statement that he had made in the past, that offended those suburban families out there that make up the bulk of the electorate in these major urban areas. unfortunately, he was unable to get over the line. i think mark warner, if you remember, he campaigned as the quote-unquote radical centrist. that again says a lot about what the statewide electorate is. unfortunately, and i think part of the analysis looking back at the race while some who say that warner was unable to generate enthusiasm in the democratic base, that was because he didn't go up into the extreme. when you listen to some of the extreme populism we talked about before, in terms of the dodd frank system and all of that,

the big, bad corporations and businesses being against you you didn't hear mark warner saying that. again, maybe there is some sense that that is what generates the enthusiasm on the base of the democratic side. i don't know. but the fact he states that i am a radical centrist, i think reflects his notion of what that state is and ed gillespie really was a center-right candidate, and that contributed to his good performance in that race. >> thank you for joining us. my name is ignacio. i'm a freshman. my question, what is the future of the republican party especially on social issues? will begin to blur between parties when it comes to immigration and lgbt writes? or will they be dragged by future supreme court decisions? eric: with the immigration

issue, i am not so sure the courts will be able to resolve that. i think congress will have to resolve it. my sense is, it will be resolved after the next election. i think the time has come, and it will be resolved. again, for a lot of the reasons we talked about earlier. on the question of gay marriage, i think the courts have dragged the republican party, or the situation in this country, back to the state level. those issues pre-much being resolved -- pretty much being resolved at the state level. i would say that there is plenty of room for diversity in both parties. just to claim there is a monolith republican position i'm not sure that that, in the end, is what it will be. there are some very -- you take a life issue on abortion. there are some heartfelt religious convictions that a lot of us have on either side of the

issue. you will not deny people those convictions. again, i think it is a question of tolerance. a question of, the culture and breeding that sense of tolerance. and how that intersects with the policies. but no question, when i was majority leader, i spent a lot of time focusing on the question of women participation and support in the republican party as well as minority participation and support. >> hi. my name is sally, i am a freshman. piggybacking off that question what you think is the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the republican party going into 2016? eric: i think it is really the republican party's year, it is their race to lose. i think the country has seen,

when there is a president in office for eight years, whether it is this president or the prior one, the country gets tired of it. i think there is a lot of weariness on the part of the electorate right now, and things that have gone on with this administration, that america likes to change. whether -- in some republicans circles, they say, we tried that. look how that worked. but i do think this country does look forward, it likes change, a new generation, and i think there is a lot of sense of that right now in the electorate. there is a strength, electorally. there has been a real collapse in confidence on the part of working middle class in this country, who have been well reported. you look at the lack of wage growth as we begin to see a little bit of economic growth, although there is a cap in this last set of numbers -- a pickup

in this last set of numbers. you don't see the kind so you did advantage. so there is an advantage to be gained by the republican party, let's try to our way. all you think that is a strength. the weakness, were the party has to focus is how to expand the appeal how do we go about an electoral college map with large estates impacted by minority votes and we have not been successful in the last couple of cycles. i think some of the candidates mentioned before had the ability to appeal to those constituencies. lisa: thank you so much for

coming to speak with us. i am with the junior-college. in before we talked about the short-term and long-term in politics. as you start your life on wall street what are your personal goals? eric cantor: you are trying to make news. [laughter] eric cantor: i am also a father. i have three who are most of these stupid here -- the student here's a. my long-term goal is to do the best i can, i have been in public office for a long time and i have a wife who has done the heavy lifting so i am engaged in that effort. the economic security of the cantor family. i think long-term i care about

this country. i care about the role that the country plays for all of us. but also the role that the country plays globally. as i mentioned before, i am traveling internationally and i see from a business perspective and a geopolitical perspective there is a need for american leadership. you look at what is going on in asia and the competitiveness in the environment with china on the rise and the prospect for increased interaction between that region of the asia-pacific and where we are in europe. what kind of rules and norms are we going to abide by? that gets me back to caring about the trade issues. nothing out of think is more important right now than to see a completion of the trade agreements so we can establish international laws and norms that we are used to and the

other countries we are allied with are used to in terms of conducting business of protecting rights. and human rights as well as every other right. i care about it and i plan long-term to stay engaged. >> are you planning to stay involved in politics from a washington perspective? eric cantor: i would say that i have been given a great opportunity to join a firm that is very narrow, only about eight years old -- very new only about eight years old, very entrepreneurial, about solving problems. you say wall street but the firm is positioned with the essence of what makes the economy what it is, entrepreneurial. i look forward for the opportunity to be at the investment bank, helping to grow and expand businesses and

economy that helps everybody. >> my name is patrick. if you could require president obama to read one book, what would it be? >> harvard kids are smart. eric cantor: i was going to say one but i am not sure/ . "the fountainhead" by ayn rand. i just feel, i have read ayn ran d, i have read all of her books and there is this sense in those books that somehow could do a lot to bring the sort of philosophy little bit back the other way. i would also ask him to read the bill carnegie "how to win

friends and influence people." [applause] >>, up there. -- all right, up there. >> why are you so concerned about the democratic initiative? a long overdue attempt to ensure related justice for palestine, a welcome democratic initiative in congressional districts. eric cantor: i disagree wholeheartedly. i think the movement is misplaced, i think it is wrong. to secure and he quite what is going on -- sit here and you quite what is going on -- equate what is going on with israel and palestine, when you have rockets incoming and killing innocent

people, you have been there and seen it, there is a saying that if the palestinians would put down the arms there would bps if -- would bps, is the israelis put on arms there would be no more israel. prime minister netanyahu he is out there in a forceful way saying if there were a partner in peace we could make some progress. but you do not have in the palestinians anyone who is willing to recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state. that is the problem. you have nobody at the table recognizing your existence, how are you going to get agreement? that is why i have been such a strong supporter of the security of israel and until there is a partner for peace on the other side of the table i think the american people will back the position i take. >> one comment for person, thank

you for your question. rachel: i am a senior in the college. there are a number of us here from a class about the divide between the left and the right. have you noticed this growing and what strategies have you used to combat the growing divide between left and right? eric cantor: a good question and apropos at harvard. i think the dean here said it is great to be a part of the institution whose mission is to solve problems. i think that the divide has intensified. i do not know if it has grown it has intensified. some of that is partly due to th e press, and the fragmentation of the press. the ability of all of us to access the news that we want and the perspective that we want to

hear. in many cases constituents of members of congress choose to watch news or read news that matches their own videos. -- own views. if you take that and put that in the extreme how much will you have in common with each other? the game has been upped in terms of efficacy which is confused with the news. how do you go about combating that? i think that goes to the topic of today's discussion, it is about leadership committed to a long-term goal we can all get around. i used to start weekly at the meetings we would have at the republican conferences and i would put a slide on the screen which would ask the question how is what we are doing this week on the floor of the chamber helping the people who sent us here?

if both sides agree that that should be the goal, we could disagree all day long on the different methods of that help but at least we are saying that we are here to reflect that notion of helping people in terms of being elected leaders. i do think it takes leadership committed to that long-term view. i think it takes a practical ability to do your day job, to understand when the pressures come but not succumb to the siren of short-term thinking. >> we have time for a couple more questions. you are up. >> i am from the business school across the river. you mentioned that one of the reasons that president obama faced resistance is a lack of what we will call the personal thought. but the almost unanimous rejection of the policies you put forward it suggests to me that even dale carnegie would be

hard-pressed to have dinner with that many people to build connections. so i wonder if you would have advice if we find ourselves in a situation where people are objecting to policies not solely on the merits thereof but on a perverse incentive structure. eric cantor: you are right, i think in time the republicans in congress to revie -- took the view that they were motivated more than anything else to stop the president. there was nothing more galvanizing and many incidences to be against what the president is for. i think the point is well made. but i do not think it is hopeless because i do think starting today, if he was starting to invite members one by one, in couples, 4 x 4 to try to make something work for

the last 16 months of his term, he ought to be doing that. so when you say what do you do when you are faced with somebody who was just going to reject you for who you are i mean, it is tough. but i also think the difference in the business world is people are less quick to adapt that kind of mentality because you have a mutuality of interest in trying to do a deal or close a transaction. i think that is what you are going to, in everyday life outside the political arena people are more reasonable because they have a shared end. in the political arena we have to work to create a shared end again. >> thank you very much for your service and for being here. going back to your theme -- >> would you please identify yourself? jim: jim sherriff, i am a

fellow in the advanced leadership initiative. when you look at the long-term challenges, social security reform, medicare reform, the debt. with the current form of government can we solve it or is it time to call a constitutional convention and do something radical to fine-tune the constitution to work better on long-term issues? eric cantor: take note of the law of unintended consequences if you call a constitutional conference. i think there will be some prospects after the election. the problem has been in washington that there are two fundamental differences that have not been bridged and it has to do with how you fund of the government and how you expand entitlement money.

on the one hand, the tax question is this populist notion that you have to raise taxes on the rich. republicans say no new taxes. on the side of spending, the disproportionate cause of the deficit as we know is entitlements because of the demographics and connections with health care costs. republicans have always said, since 09, that what we would say is transition from a defined benefit plan to more of a contribution plan. beneficiaries over time take more of the risk, not governments are taxpayers doing it. of course the democrats respond and the president say that changes the nature of the safety net, we are not doing it. boom. those two things, when you have the transportation bill coming up unless you decide to fund it and incur more debt like they

did with the bill last week health care reimbursement, unless they do that it will be a band-aid fix at best. i do think over time -- it has been six years since the budget was put forward. over time there has been some willingness on the part of some democrats to listen to it as has there been some republicans willing to listen to the closure of loopholes on tax issues. over time we will get there but it is frustrating and you have to be patient and i am not patient. i understand the frustration. >> up there. scott: thanks again for coming tonight and spending time with us. i am a joint masters candidate in the business goal and kennedy school and a former military officer. eric cantor: thank you for your service. scott: my question involves

leadership in the private and public sector and differences you see as key to being a leader. what advice would you give based on your experience in washington to your current colleagues and on the flip side, to your former colleagues in washington based on business experience? eric cantor: probably the most obvious example of the difference so when you are a leader in congress, you are a leader of members who have basically their own bosses at home. each represents about 750,000 people. you have a sense that if they go to washington and accomplish something as a team they can go back and explain what has happened. often because of the short-term pressures and reward system that

has developed, there is not as much incentive -- in fact there is a stronger draw to go off on your own. whereas in the private sector, you've got direct accountability. people do not have the incentive, in fact there is a huge disincentive not to follow with the leadership has said is the policy if you want to stay there. what would i advise my colleagues and partners about the experience i had in washington? i can go a variety of different ways with the answer to this. one of the things -- i hear so

much in terms of our clients with disbelief about the lack of functionality in washington and it is almost as if i want to say, let me try to explain it to you, they are not all dysfunctional. there is just so much there a complexity that has gained so much ground and you have to be patient, don't give up. don't give up on this system. because i, having traveled a bit, i do not see any better. there is so much good about this country, do not give up. that is the advice i would give to my new partners. and for my former colleagues, i would say listen before you talk. [applause] -- [laughter] eric cantor: i have been there for 14 years and i have been out

since september, i had the rhetoric down pretty good. i was an entrepreneur and a businessman and i understood what it was to be the entrepreneur that signed the note at the bank and make payroll and pay benefits. i get that. it is so easy for that rhetoric to fall off your tongue in the versus what actually happens to make things work in practice. and i probably knew this then but not as clearly as i know now. listen before you talk because you can learn something. >> i have a question. ray: my name is ray fong and i am a harvard graduate. we have heard you vividly express your distaste for president obama, however you

have been a congressman since 2001. is there anything the bush administration or the republican party could have done such that they could have won the election in 2008 and barack obama would never have become president in the first place? eric cantor: i think i alluded to this before. the biggest challenge for the republican party is to be one of inclusion, not exclusion. and you will come diversity of demographics into our fold. -- and to welcome a diversity of demographics into our fold. policies have to reach a wide swath of the public and we have to be sensitive to people who do not feel they are welcome into the mainstream of the country. i think that is probably what we could have done early on. it remains more important today. >> i would like to thank congressman can tour for joining us in the form tonight.

[applause] -- forum tonight. [applause] >> thank you so much. >> monday night on "the communicators," spectrum policy director carl on the importance of spectrum for policy and the government. carl: the last administrations have written presidential memorandum on spectrum. when i started in 1979, i came out of the marine corps after being an artillery officer and i did not know anything about spectrum.

most people i met and worked with did not understand about spectrum. now everybody realizes that part of our daily lives are devices and relying on the ability to communicate and stay in touch with the family. >> monday night on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's studentcam's video documentary competition. studentcam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle- and high-school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create their documentary based on the theme "the three branches and you," to demonstrate how policy, law, or action by one of the three branches of government has affected them or their community. cole sebastian, thomas norris, and amy gilbert from montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland, are one of our second prize winners. their documentary focus on the

immigration of undocumented youth. announcer: 70,000 children alone, afraid, searching for hope, with no one to turn to escaping from lives of trauma and hoping to find a place to call home. announcer: carlos flores aragon is one of the 70,000. he immigrated from honduras and was eventually placed in a home. he now lives in takoma park, maryland, with his foster family.

announcer: the office of refugee resettlement, or the orr, and local programs for undocumented refugee minors, or urm, are working to find housing for these 70,000 across the nation. but there are thousands more to come, and the orr does not have enough resources to process a huge number of unaccompanied minors. carlos is one of the lucky ones. but without government funding the programs that put him where he is could now clog up or even shut down. the house of representatives must be willing to allocate enough funds to these programs to keep them running. these programs are what nurture the demographic that will shape the future of the american economy.

the urm program consists of local programs nationwide that work to find undocumented refugee minors homes and futures in america. the program that found carlos a home is called lutheran social services, or lss. we met with the clinical supervisor of the urm program at lss. supervisor: we recruit foster families. we train the families to work with the kids and also provide case management for any kids that are in foster care. so we basically do that, but it is a specialized type of program for unaccompanied youth from other countries. so all of those cases management services that a traditional kid in foster care would get, but knowing that there is a lot of cultural and language differences and things like that, the idea is that they are getting prepared for when they age out of the foster care system that they are ready to live independently when they turn 21. announcer: recently, through an executive order from president

obama and the new budget passed in the house, funds are being allocated to stem the flow of immigrants to the country, and over 5 million immigrants will be able to gain citizenship. large sums of money are now being used to support the large number of child immigrants coming into the u.s. supervisor: well, all that money to support those kids comes kind of out of the same pool, also the office of refugee resettlement, and that is, our programs. the concern was, rather than adding funding, they would just sort of take money away from other programs, such as refugee resettlement, to support youth programs. what we would hope for is that not that they would be taking money away, but rather they would be adding money to meet the need, rather than taking money away from places where there is already a need. announcer: success in the american workforce and the american education system can be extremely difficult for urm's without programs such as lutheran social services. >> well, the value is that they are providing all the necessary

social services that these children and youth need. announcer: bill ecenbarger is an attorney who often works with refugee children. bill: and they are often -- there are issues involving serious trauma. they have been oftentimes emotionally, physical abused sometimes trafficked, so they need mental health services a lot of times. lutheran social services also provide a case manager who checks in on them periodically and they work on life skills just learning to cook and clean on their own and take care of themselves, basically. they help get them job training. they often help put them in the right educational program. a lot of these youth come and they are 15, 16, 17 years old, and they have very little formal education. announcer: many americans believe that the u.s. government should not be helping any immigrants in any way. they believe that immigrants will steal american jobs and increase crime. secretary of labor of the united

states thomas perez was able to explain why immigrants are so important to a prosperous economy. secretary perez: well, america is a nation of immigrants. immigrants have helped build america. immigrants are more likely to have a college degree than native-born immigrants. something like one in four workers in the health care field is an immigrant. so immigrants from the beginning of time have been a robust part of our nation's economy. and what we see in other countries who do not have the robust immigration patterns that we have -- countries like japan -- they are confronting a real workforce crisis because they are not replenishing the workforce. and one thing that immigrants do as well is they contribute to the social security trust fund. that is our system, and it relies for its success on a robust cadre of workers, and immigrants provide that labor. bill: i do notice a lot of -- that the youth who come through the urm program are much more highly motivated.

they want to be a part of society. they want to work hard. they want to really attain the american dream and often are able to give back to society in a lot of useful ways. announcer: those who oppose the assimilation of immigrants claim that immigrants are un-american. but there is nothing more american. when one describes the american dream, there is no dream closer to that than the dreams of the children that come across our borders. the urm programs are essential to the success of the demographic that is most essential to the success of america. if these programs lose their funding, young immigrants will not be able to grow into the contributing members of society that america needs. announcer: to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. also, tell us what you think

about the issue these students address in their documentary on facebook and on twitter. >> on the next "washington journal, clay aiken talks about what he learned running for political office. kyle, economist with the tax foundation, discusses the new report saying that americans will pay over $4 trillion in taxes this year. and defense one reporter marcus will report defense spending on weapons programs. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live on c-span. >> next, "q&a" with andrew ferguson.

that a discussion on the role that political spouses have played in history. after that jim webb and martin o'malley speak at a democratic dinner in iowa. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," our guest is "the weekly standard" senior editor andrew ferguson. he talks about gop presidential candidates, his career, and his approach to writing. brian lamb: andrew ferguson of "the weekly standard." we call this our odds and ends with andrew. i want to go over some of the columns you have