♪ [cheers and applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> former hewlett-packard c.e.o. carly fiorina broke the news in an online video. >> i'm getting ready to do something too. i'm running for president. >> our founders never intended us to have a professional political class. they believed that citizens and leaders needed to step forward. we know the only way to reimagine our government is to reimagine who is leading it. i'm carly fiorina and i'm running for president. if you're tired of the sound bites, the vitriol , the pettiness, the egos, the corruption, if you believe that it's time to declare the end of identity politics, if you believe that it's time to declare the end of lowered expectations if you believe that it's time for citizens to stand up to the political class and say, enough then join us.

it's time for us to empower our citizens, to give them the a voice in our government, to come together to fix what has been broken about our politics and our government for too long. because we can do this. together. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> another republican gets into the 2016 presidential race tomorrow. former arkansas governor mike huckabee makes his announcement from his hometown of hope, arkansas. which by the way is also the hometown of former president bill clinton. governor huckabee's announcement tomorrow is at 11:00 a.m. eastern live here on c-span. one republican who is not officially kicked off his campaign for president, jeb bush, spoke last week at the national review magazine's ideas summit in the nation's capital. the former florida governor oftened his views on immigration -- offered his views on immigration, the riot in baltimore a week ago, and

simplifying the tax code. his conversation with "national review" editor, rich lowery, is an hour. rich: we're ready for the next portion of our program. our next guest needs no introduction. so i'll just say very briefly, in his time as two terms of florida governor he was the most successful reform governor in the state in america and we're very pleased to have with

us today jeb bush. jeb: thank you. [applause] rich: so we have some journalists here. i've been trying -- they have a news hole to fill. i've been trying to think of a question of sufficient gravity to really drive the news cycle over the next, say, two or three hours. this is what i came up with. has w ever painted you? and if you run for president, and if you are elected will you consider having him do your official portrait? jeb: the answer to the second question is heck no. i'm going to be -- i think george's early works were a little too primitive. i'd like to wait until we get to the postmodern era of his -- before he starts painting me to be honest with you. he's gotten a little bit better. he started with dogs. then he did landscapes. now he actually gives paintings

to people who are his friends and they put them up because they know ultimately they're going to have quite a bit of value. rich: great. let's talk about what's been big news this week which is the situation in baltimore. and it's become a little less a debate over what specifically might have happened and the terrible death of freddie gray, a little less about the handling of the riots, and more the bigger question of who or what is responsible for the state of baltimore and what we can do about it. what is your take about that big question, who or what has failed the city of baltimore? jeb: first i think it's important to reflect on the fact that a young man died and that's a tragedy for his family and this is not just a statistic, this is a person who died. secondly, there were a lot of people who lost their livelihoods because of this. and i think we need to be respectful of private property and i think the beginning, allowing the riots to kind of happen was disturbing.

you can't just push over that that end go to the grand societal programs. do i think that public safety is the first priority of any city or governmental jurisdiction. in this case there are a lot of people who are going to suffer because of what happened and hopefully order is going to be restored. thirdly, i just say, i think it sends the wrong signal not to have a baseball game with people in it. i think we need to recognize that life doesn't just get paralyzed when these tragedies occur. you can't allow that to happen because it might create more of them. i do think the tendency, particularly on the left, is to blame -- to create, you know, a set of reasons why this happens. and the president's view on this, i thought he started pretty well by talking about, you know, he had one sentence in his response about the

decline of families in urban core america and i think that is absolutely true. but there's much broader issues that go along with this. the pathing tos that are being built of people that are stuck in poverty. where you're born poor today and you're more likely to say it pure and we need to deal with -- stay boar and we need to deal with this. his approach is to say, conservative haven't offered up enough money to get me to be able to create programs to let people be successful. well, at what point do we go past -- $10 trillion? $1 trillion a year? at what point does -- you have to conclude that the top-down driven poverty programs have failed. i think we need to be engaged in this debate as conservatives and say that there's -- that there's a bottom-up approach and it starts with building capacity so people can achieve earned success and having higher expectations and higher accountability and dramatically different kinds of schools. and the kinds of thanges that

will greeled -- of things that will yield chance for families to survive in a difficult time. here's the big challenge, i think, for people born in poverty today. if you're born poor today, by the time you reach 18 it's possible you'll never have a job in your entire life. i mean that's the world we're moving towards. of dramatic disruptive technologies putting the first rung on the ladder higher and higher and higher. so if we don't get this right, we're going to have an america that is radically different than what created its greatness. the ability for people to rise up i think will be challenged in ways that we can't even imagine. having this conversation in the broader sense i think is probably not appropriate today but i hope conservatives don't feel compelled to pull back. we don't need to be defensive. it's the failed progressive policies i think that we need to address and we need to offer compelling alternatives to it.

rich: let me circle back on the riots specifically. mayor giuliani has said the right 'approach in that situation, first person who throws a rock is arrested and that's it. do you agree with that? jeb: i completely agree that the broken window policy is -- has been proven successful. it's not -- you don't have to take it to the extreme of having police brutality. but there needs to be a certainty of punishment to create order and security. who are the people that get hurt by this? it's the shop owners, it's the person who now may lose their job in a business that can't reopen. it's the nursing home. it's the church. these are people -- this is the community that creates the vibrancy to allow for these communities to be successful, they're always hurt the most in these kinds of events. so i think the mayor's record when he was mayor of new york creating the strategy with the

police department, was the right one. rich: so family breakdown, as you mentioned. the president mentioned absent fathers. a huge part of the puzzle there. is there any policy or anything public officials can do to help turn back what has been a rising tide of family breakdown across the decades now? jeb: absolutely there is. it's not necessarily at the core. my views on this were shaped a lot by charles murray's book, except i was reading the book and i was waiting for the last chapter with the really cool solutions. didn't quite get there. i think we need to have solutions. i don't think we can just accept defeat here. but i think there's things that we can do as it relates to our whole wealth transfer payment system, the welfare system, where the highest marginal tax rate for people, equivalent of a tax, would be someone trying to get out of poverty. the minute they start earning enough income, they could in

some states lose more benefits than they gain in net income. we have to change this and reward work rather than nonwork. i think we have to have a system where we, and this is something that many of your colleagues at national review are focused on, the so-called reformicons, i think the place where these approaches make sense, how do you create a system of support that doesn't create dependency? that's got to be where the federal government plays a role. in public life i think it's pretty clear that the way to break out of poverty is -- there's a higher probability of breaking out of poverty if you have two parents in the home that are focused on loving their children with their heart and soul and if that child gets a better education than the great majority of kids in the urban corsetings of our country get -- core settings of our country get. if you have those two things, you're likely to break out of poverty. let's encourage those things to happen more often.

stronger family life and a rad -- radically different education system. the baltimore education system, best i can recall, is not a role model that anybody goes to travel to see how they're educating low income kids. you want to see that, go to florida. go to miami-dade county where greatest gains amongst kids in poverty have occurred because we have high expectations, high standards, robust accountability, we ended social promotion in third grade. this insidious policy that says you're functionally illy the rate as a third grader, but it's fine, go to fourth grade, no big deal. basically creating learning gaps from there on out that make it harder and harder to be successful. school choice, both public and private. ultimately -- a girl can dream here so here goes, ultimately we need to get to a system from where time is the variable and learn something the constant. -- learning is the constant. rich: what does that mean?

[laughter] i know everyone else is thinking it. i had the currently to ask it. [laughter] jeb: darn. i thought that was pretty -- i've been using this line for so long. everybody has that same look. it makes no sense. what it means is, instead of having your little kid's butt sitting in seat for 180 days and then you go to the next grade level because you've been going to school for 180 days if you don't master the material, you don't go on. if you do master the material, you're pushed forward. you're not held back if you have the capability of learning and you're not pushed along if you haven't mastered it. in other words, a customized learning experience for every child in america. that's what we need to be doing. to suggest that we use an agriculture calendar and an industrial model, where the collective bargaining interests of the adults benefit both, you know both sides of the effort, and there's no accountability,

no rewards for improving student learning, all that stuff that we just keep doing the way we've been doing the way we've been doing, and we're going to expect a different result is not going to work. the mod that will i'm suggesting is possible because of the ability to bring high-quality, rich, digital content into the classroom. every aspect of our life has been customized. why not the most important thing that we do? which is to assure that children have the capacity to achieve earned success. rich: let me hit something else that's at the top of the news. i should mention to participants of the summit, there should be carted on your table. have you -- cards on your table. if you have question write them on the cards and someone will pick them up and deliver them here. a very 20th century delivery mechanism. the senate's engaged in this debate over iran policy.

and the consensus vehicle is this corker bill. now, there's criticism of it from the right, which says it's much too weak because what it's effectively done is say you will need 67 votes to disapprove of any iran deal whereas traditionally when the senate is giving assent to a treaty, you need 67 to approve. so this is reverse and it should be toughened up with amendments if we're going to pass it. what's your take? jeb: i do think that the amendment process is helpful. so that americans are educated about the disastrous nature of the treaty itself. i think the broader question is this is not in the national security interests of our country for all sorts of reasons. this is democracy at work. the option i think is no congressional oversight at all. no congressional engagement at all. which would be worse than

having some engagement. i think republicans need to be on record opposing whatever happens, if there is to be an agreement, and doing it in a principled way. it sets the stage for what the next president can do as it relates to changing whatever the outcome is. so the reason why this is a bad deal is, you know, iran does have -- hasn't recognized israel and its right to be a jewish state. iran has destabilized the region that we're now engaged in. iran has missile capabilities to take their weaponry far into the region. iran is building a defense weapons capability that is apparently as good as what we have the russian's, you know top-notch technology. and we're going to give up the leverage that we have if they have that defense system and the other leverage of sanctions. the net result of this is you're likely to have proliferation in the region.

you're likely to have an emboldened iran, not a humble iran. and you're likely to have our strongest ally in the region be threatened. so i think this is a horrific deal. my -- i can't conjecture on what happens, but it looks as though the negotiations unfold, we're pulling back, making more and more concessions, iran's not making any and maybe they overstep their bounds, perhaps there's not going to be an agreement at all. because they don't really need one. if you think about it. they can get almost everything they want without it. rich: so would you recommend attempting to amend the bill to make it a requirement that iran recognize israel? jeb: i understand the sentiment. i don't know if that kills the bill and you have no legislative oversight, no congressional work. there's some benefits to that because it would have to be done by executive order, but the united nations would overturn the sanctions and the leverage that we have would go away. this is not an easy question.

i think the better way of looking at this is, we shouldn't be negotiating at all. we shouldn't have started unless we were sincere about maintaining the objectives that were there when the president started and today he abandoned those. rich: if you're president of the united states and a deal, something like we think it's going to be, is in place, and it's gotten some loose form of congressional fodder because there hasn't been those 67 votes to disapprove it, would you pull out of that deal? jeb: if it's in the security interests of the united states absolutely. it could be the other -- another hypothetical might be that this is done by executive order and, as we know, the president is proud of using authority he does and sometimes doesn't have and all that can be undone by the next president as well. rich: let's talk about something else in the news. it seems every few weeks there's some horrific story from the broader middle east or

north africa having to do with the massacre of christians or the ethnic cleansing of christians. is the u.s. government doing enough in this area? if not, what can be done? jeb: i think it's sameful -- shameful that the united states is not speaking loudly and acting forcefully on behalf of christians and jews, but in the case of the middle east principally christians. we have -- i think we have a duty, we're the only country that can -- has the resources to be able to provide support. i have a personal interest in this. my broad interest of being a christian and i think we all as christians need to be acting on our conscience as it relates to this, to provide support. but my daughter-in-law is of iraqi origin. she's a canadian, canadian-born, she lives in miami. her parents were iraqis and

they moved to toronto. i was watching the efforts of isis to try to take out the entire christian community of one of the oldest christian communities in iraq, deeply disturbing. because of this personal interest, as well as my faith. so i've helped raise money. but the united states government should be clear that we need to be supportive. i've always thought that we had the capability of providing support for the 200 christian girls that were kidnapped by boko haram in northern nigeria. i just don't know why we wouldn't be aggressive and forceful in cooperation with these countries to act on our conscience, on behalf of people that their only fault has been that they had a deep abiding faith in christ. if you see these things, it's so horrific. if it doesn't move your heart, not much will. coptic christians are being

beheaded and you can see them mouthing the lord's prayer. but for us, who is going to stand on behalf of these folks across the board? i would add the same applies to , we need to stand tall against anti-semitism in europe and other places as well. if we allow these things to linger, they just grow and grow and grow. this is what happens when we disengage. this is what happens when we have a regime that can't -- excuse me, a government -- excuse me. [laughter] i didn't mean that on purpose. i swear. rich: now you're speaking our language, governor. jeb: yeah, well. rich: we just fed the news cycle right there. jeb: yeah, yeah, yeah. [laughter] i was thinking of the regimes there. a country that cannot even say what the threat is. islamic terrorism. the girl with the really cool glasses in the state department, the spokesperson, she can't say it. i think the press, when they go talk to her, they torture her

asking these questions and she refuses to actually say what it is. no one in the obama administration for some reason can say what it is. as a result we don't organize against what it is. rich: let's run through some more. jeb: rewind that regime thing. please. [laughter] rich: let's run through some other policy questions and see if we can get you in more trouble. marco rubio has a tax reform plan out there and a central future of it is a big -- feature of it is a big increase in the child tax care credit. which has been very controversial within the right. do you have any view on that? do you look at that favorably, unfavorably? good idea, bad idea? jeb: i have a favorable view, and i think it's necessary, to deal with the fact that the last tax reform that we had, big tax reform, was 1986. since that time the tax code has been modified 15,000 times. i mean, now we've created -- we went to simplistic which helped create economic growth.

to now we have the most complex code in the world. a code that's so complex that says that $2 trillion of u.s. corporate cash is overseas because of our worldwide income and bringing it back is -- creates the most punitive activity that -- so jobs are created overseas, smaller foreign businesses are buying u.s. businesses to relocate them overseas. the next generation of job creators can't set up a job because of two -- three reasons, overregulation, this complex tax code and obamacare. those are the three things that suppress jobs. i think the focus ought to be not on targeted elements of the code, but a broader conversation about how we can eliminate as many of these tax expenditures as possible and lower the rates down as much as possible. that creates economic growth. and if you want to create a rising middle class where

disposable income is growing, where take-home pay is growing, you have to fix the things that are the burdens on people's aspirations, like health care insurance system and certainly our regulatory system. but simplifying the code is part of that. i don't know where that puts me. but if i go beyond the consideration of running to being an actual candidate, this will be front and center, a really important part of my advocacy. rich: so if you become candidate, in the past you've been very critical of grover norquist's tax pledge. is there any circumstance in which you would take that pledge? jeb: no. but i cut taxes every year, $19 billion. no one comes close to the record of tax cuts. by the way, we cut $19 billion in eight years. every year we cut -- we had all sorts of tax cuts. i don't have to be told how important that is. i did it. i think that's the better approach. cutting taxes in a way that creates economic prosperity, ends up creating more revenue

enough revenue for government at least to allow it to function, and put morse money in people's pockets -- more money in -- puts more money in people's pockets. that's the right approach. my record is clear. my record is as good or better than any. let me put it this way. if you've served in the united states senate over the last eight years or six years, you haven't -- there's no tax cut that's taken place. this president has raised taxes $1 trillion to fund obamacare and then just because he could he created another $600 billion tax cut. so anybody associated with washington, d.c., can talk about all this stuff. but places where the taxes have been cut are in places like florida where they were led by a conservative governor that thought this was important. the net result, just to put it in the broader perspective, was, during my eight years, $1. 3 -- 1.3 million net new jobs were created. in five of those eight years, more than any state. in eight years more than texas

. if perry comes, tell him that. [laughter] or you can tell my brother. either way. rich: to drill down a little bit, it's a principled opposition to pledges of that sort. jeb: yeah. rich: will you promise not to raise taxes? [laughter] jeb: i think we need to cut taxes and reform our code to create economic prosperity. we're talking on the edges of what ails us as a country. what ails us as a country right now, apart from the pessimism that really is kind of freezing in place the animal spirits that typically allow americans to solve problems, is a lack of leadership in washington for sure, but it's also this tepid economic growth. we're growing at 2%. everybody accepts it. it's this new term. i read about it in "the national review" for the record. it's called the new normal. the new normal makes me nauseous. because the new normal will redefine america in a really bad way. 2% growth compounded out, we'll

be overwhelmed by our entitle am programs, we'll be overwhelmed with crumbling infrastructure and the lack of commitment to reserve and development. 4% growth is what we should be achieving. so tax reform and regulatory reform embracing our energy revolution in our midst, reforming our broken immigration system, and fixing the structural deficits we have related to our entitlement system, is how you get to 4% growth. that should be the focus. rich: scott walker has kicked up a bit of a fuss over the next several weeks. jeb: you're trying to get me in trouble. rich: of course i am. he said that, when it comes to legal immigration, the first thing we should think about is what effect immigration has on american workers and their wages. do you agree or disagree? jeb: i don't think it's a zero sum game. i think if we start thinking

it's a zero sum game, we're going to play the game that barack obama play oh so well. it's the wrong approach. we have three to five million jobs unfilled that require skills in america today. think of, had we fixed our immigration system in the way that i would propose it, how much extra job growth and investment would have happened in our country that would have provided opportunities for higher wages for people struggling near or at the bottom or people that are squeezed in the middle. this is not a zero sum game. if you want to grow at 4% per year instead of 2% per year, you need younger, more dynamic people, inside of our economy, that are productive to get to 4% growth. you can't do it by a declining population and you can't do it with pathetic productivity growth. you have to have both. so immigration is not the end-all and be-all but an immigration system that fixes the border the control that creates a more secure america,

for all sword sorts of good reasons, and then expands the number of economic immigrants and narrows the number of immigrants coming for family purpose, i mean, you follow this you know this, a lot of people don't, though. purposes. we have the broadest definition of familiaring petitioning in the world. every country in the world there may be one or two. most have spouse and minor children. we have spouse and minor children anded a adult sibling and adult parents. we've it allowed to continue. we haven't fixed it, and the net result we put quotas on countries to deal with this because there are some countries that half the country would come. the quota was based on the reality this wasn't working the way it should.

better to expand based on need what our economy would create. a guest worker program. that's how you're going to grow your economy. bring young people who embrace our values and move forward because here's the deal and again -- i love you and i love the "national review" -- mr. lowry: this is going to be good, this wind-up. mr. bush: i think you're wrong on immigration. but if we fix the legal part we could grow our economy far faster and be younger and more dynamic. the world that some argue for is a world of declining population and world of japan and europe in decline. i reject that. america does not do that well. we're at our best when we're

young, aspirational, and dynamic. so maybe i'm stubborn. i'm willing to listen to other views, and i hope we have a dialogue about this, but i think i'm right. if we are going to grow economically, then we need to get this fixed pretty quick. mr. lowry: let me push back a little bit. i think the argument that walker would make or at least senator jeff sessions would make, it's not an argument that is necessarily zero sum game, but basic economic argument having to do with supply and demand. and if you increase the supply of low-skilled labor, of course low-skilled wages will go down. mr. bush: who is suggesting that? that is the false argument. you are talking about the people who are here already? mr. lowry: no, it would have increased legal immigration. although they taught the game of high skills, it's always

increasing low skills. mr. bush: i'm not a united states senator, thank god. i live in miami. i'm outside of washington. i've written a book about this. what i was describing was my idea. my idea is to narrow the number of people coming and expanding. you're not increasing the number overall. we have huge shortages in all sorts of fields. what i'm saying is canada stole our immigration plan and made it better. we should resteal the canadian plan and make it american. there are more economic immigrants from canada coming in annually than we have and they're ten times bigger. which system will be the one that works the one focused on economic growth or the one focused on family petitioning?

mr. lowry: one last cut at this. i'll describe position on immigration that i think is reasonable and you tell me what's wrong. we secure the border first and secure at the point of employment through an e-verify system and visa system that really works, and you pass this and it passes all the -- gets through all the legal challenges it's going to have from the aclu and others, and when it works then you do some form of amnesty for many illegal immigrants who aren't going anywhere because now you know there won't be a managegnet. i would reduce total numbers but certainly emphasize higher skills. mr. bush: hey, we're getting there. the details of at what point do you say the border is secure, i worry about total security which

means that we probably had to lose some of our freedom as a country, that bothers me a bit. i kind of like my freedom. i'm the kind of guy that likes does municipalities. i think we need to be focused on liberty and freedom but that's the idea. another element of this should be to make it easier to come legally as part of the eliminating the magnet. there should be an option for people to come legally. that should be one of the guiding principals which means we need to have much better enforcement. we got to solve this. here's the political side of this that i'm not sure everybody gets it. by doing nothing, you have two things that happen, at least under the age of obama. you have a president that uses this like he's a stradivarius violin he's playing for some symphony. he uses this as a wedge issue

and we always lose. we always lose on the political argument about all this, and he always wins or the democrats always win if you think about having family being the driver of legal immigration rather than an economic driver. so delaying this is what he wants. he does not want immigration reform. this would shock both of them, they probably agree with this. and i think what we need to do is to say, let's fix this, grow the economy, lift people's spirits, again, not exclusively because of immigration. there are a lot of other big challenges we face. but we'll turn people into republicans if we're much more aspirational in our message. our tone has to be more inclusive as well. mr. lowry: let's try another sticky one. there's a movement among some parents to opt out of common core testing. if a parent came to you said governor, i'm considering doing

this what would you tell him or her? mr. bush: if it makes it harder to get into college and graduate i think you need it rethink it. we've had tests long before common core. the idea is that this is common core that you have assessments is really not true, and people have been opting out. florida had the most meaningful accountability system in the country. we also had the greatest learning gains in the country. they go together, by the way. it's a comprehensive suite of reforms that create the rise of achievement. we were on the nape test -- you can't teach for that test. we were 29th out of 31 in 1997 on the fourth-grade reading test. ten years later we were six out of 50. florida hispanic kids do two grade levels ahead of their

counterparts and better than or equal to 33 states on this test. low income kids are in the top five. african-american are in the top five in these tests. the reason is that we have meaningful assessments and we have robust accountability and we have school choice that puts pressure on a system that wouldn't otherwise move. eliminating elements of the accountability system would get a bad result. california has languishing results. when a third of our kids are 40% at the best or career ready that's where we are. how do you know unless you measure? how do you know unless you test? the idea you're opting out of a test because it's stressful -- think about this. i mean, what's the world like? mr. lowry: this is my college

career. mr. bush: opting out? mr. lowry: opting out of tests that were stressful. mr. bush: i'm thinking how we're going to compete in this economy when we have large numbers of parents telling our kids it doesn't matter. in korea they're sending their kids to tutorials from 6:00 until 10:00 at night to be able to speak koreans and english by fifth grade and doing math that is 3 or 4 grade levels ahead of us. who is going to be the competitor that wins? this works if you're in an affluent family and you nurture your child and you help them along the way, fine, ok. that probably works for you. what about the single mom struggling to be able to provide for their kid where kids generally because they start in poverty, well, they can't learn.

what my brother called the small bigotry of low expectations, that exists in america today. you can't deny it and keeping these lowering expectations and loweing accountability will doom us and i won't take it. mr. lowry: this is a controversy that has sprung up the last couple of weeks. is a governor or former governor ready to be president of the united states in the area of foreign affairs? mr. bush: well, i mean, let me think. ronald reagan? i don't know what else i have to say. you can be prepared from day one from being a governor, and governors have to make decisions, they have to say no to people and speak in english. it's a novel language. once you leave washington, you you might actually hear it a little bit. they can't hide behind the collective skirt and say i

passed an amendment about this. they have to lead. they have to make decisions and persuade and convince. they actually have to compromise from time to time. and those skills apply directly to the presidency. and there's enough examples of governors who have been extraordinary leaders in foreign policy, starting with ronald reagan. mr. lowry: is islam a religion of peace? mr. bush: i'm sure for some of the practitioners, but it's been hijacked by people who have an ideology who are barbarians. that part which is the part we need to confront is clearly not a religion of peace, and i think you're not offending the sensibilities of people who are peaceful in the adherence of their faith when you say what i just said.

for example, here's one of the -- you think about all of the foibles of the obama foreign policy over the last six years one that may not be on the top five list but should be is egypt. we have gotten it wrong on egypt. this was secretary clinton's -- i think she was primarily responsible for this. we dumped mubarak. the muslim brotherhood came in and embrace them. al-sisi has just begun to developing a relationship. here's a guy who should be the strongest ally we have because he, for the first time that i've seen and i'm sure there are other arab leaders, but he's said it's our responsibility to confront radical islam. and that is what we need to support and there should be no uncertainty about this. we should be a strong supporter of leaders like this. because the option is the dismemberment of the modern

states of the middle east and nothing good will happen when that happens. mr. lowry: we have some questions on cards, and this must be one that slipped through from a journalist. "dear governor bush, we'll never forget your regime gaffe." what is it about your mother that makes men associated with her ten times likely to hold a high office? mr. bush: well, i don't know. i'm actually kind of struggling with this these days because i know there are some people in the press that would love to make this, if i go beyond the consideration of this, to make it where i'm giving the impression somehow that i want to break the tide between the bush family and the adams family. i guess you could say the same thing about abigail, right? i cannot answer that question. it's different and unusual. i have enough self-awareness to

know it's kind of strange. on the other hand, if i go beyond the consideration, i'll count on the good wisdom and directness of my mom to help me communicate with people. she's pretty good at that. internally in the family for sure and also externally from time to time. i tell people whenever i start this -- which i've done before i've been tooting my own horn as governor. because no one else is going to toot it. every time i start i feel this presence of behind my back and it's the looming -- you don't see it back there, right? -- this looming presence of my mother saying don't brag, it's not about you. i'm almost feeling like she's about ready to do what that woman did in baltimore when she tried to get -- mr. lowry: i thought w got that treatment. mr. bush: we all did. i think my mom and the woman who was bringing her child back home have a lot in common which i admire her a lot for doing

what she did. that was a nice visual symbol of what needs to be restored. mr. lowry: among current u.s. supreme court justices, who is your model justice? mr. bush: wow. i love -- i actually when i was governor -- i'm not a lawyer i learned to appreciate the law is little bit more and made a lot of appointments to the florida supreme court which were really important. i started reading about people who were lawyers would send me rulings that i found interesting things. scalia is the most interesting opinion writer. it informs his views in the most eloquent way. he would be on my list. i actually admire and like the

opposite of that would be clarence thomas, who is quiet and speaks with great clarity when he opines, and there is a consistency there i admire, i like and i generally share his views. mr. lowry: an author says he's coming after you next. are you worried? mr. bush: no, but i hope he gives me a heads-up. mr. lowry: you seem to suggest if the press reports are accurate that law needed to be fixed. what was wrong with it? mr. bush: i supported pence. i think he needed to create clarity this was not an intent or attempt to discriminate against people. it was an effort to provide space for people to act on their religious conscience. we need to get to a place where government is not going to discriminate against people because of their sexual

orientation and at the same time make sure that there is ample space for people not to have a religious view, but to actually act on their religious views. conscience what is we need to protect. i fear that we are not finding that balance right now. i just -- you listen to the solicitor general in defense of the government's position, when it was scalia or someone asked does that mean religious institutions or others are discriminating if they don't want to participate, and he said that's not what's in front of you today. maybe i am misinterpreting that remark but my interpretation

was that might be in front of you tomorrow. that's where we need to focus. i think the country is open and big as this country opt to be able to find common ground on both of those fronts. mr. lowry: something that has divided the right is federal reserve policy and quantitative easing. and you had some concerns who have said this is a huge risk and not working and debase the currency. where are you on that? mr. bush: i don't know. i would have thought based on people i have admired and respected, i thought we already would have begun to see some of that impact on the second side this have and hadn't happened.

the massive liquidity that the federal reserve brought into the market has got to be of concern. here's the problem with it. we're not growing. we're in this weird dichotomy where the fed policy is creating bad behavior in washington. debt service today is lower than it was 12 years ago. how can that be? we doubled and 250% rise in the debt, but debt service is lower. we shortened the maturities. 60% of debt comes due in 4 1/2 years, and interest rates in the low end, the low side of the maturities is next to nothing. basically, the net result of this -- and they complain washington is not dealing with the structural challenges they face. i would argue they are not

forcing the conversation they need to have which is how do they fix the things that impede real economic growth. if we were growing at 4% a year and had an open kind of society where our tax code didn't create $2 trillion overseas, but the opposite, imagine if it created them coming our way which would happen. this country big and dynamic and a huge market and productive and our labor laws are better than most countries and we would get sizeable amounts of that investment. that's the better way to get to low interest rates, by having low interest rates, by having demand of money coming in to invest, not created by print -- printing money and holding it in banks. i do agree that the risk over the long haul could be the debasing of currency and penalizing savers. i live in florida. the contract -- the modern

contract would be you work hard and you save and you buy your c.d.'s and you sell your home up here somewhere and you go live in paradise. that's the american way american dream. it's worked out pretty well except when your 401(k) went to a 201(k) and mortgage -- the value of your home got depreciated because we had a huge access of sub prime loans and were penalized and now you can't live off savings. so the savers are punished because those who are trying to secure capital are limited because of this massive regulation, and so this policy is not getting the desired effect and they should pull back. that would be my view. mr. lowry: have time for a couple more.

how do we go about improving the assimilation of immigrants and i would add on to that, would you have any concern if puerto rico would become a state. any concern about assimilating? mr. lowry: first of all, they're american citizens, so this is not a sub of the first question. it's a separate question. mr. lowry: i got two questions for you. mr. bush: puerto ricans can buy a $79 one-way ticket to orlando and participate fully as american citizens. when they're there they don't. it's been the position of the republican party since the 1970's and it's been a view that puerto rico have the right of self-determination to decide if they want to be a state or not. if they do, just as ronald reagan suggested and george h.w. bush and george w. bush and every republican candidate since the 1970's, i support that.

there's one puerto rican guy in the room. i just think it's a moral question. i don't think you can -- citizens should have the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. that is a core value i have. the other issue is one of huge importance because our immigration works when people embrace a set of shared values. it doesn't work when we divide ourselves up into disparate parts where we move towards the european model of multiculturalism. it's a disaster when it works this way. one of answers is, maybe we should have a conversation about what our shared values are. one of them is learning english, for sure. other is being tolerant and having a respect of the bill of rights, understanding the uniqueness of our country where

our freedoms are created to protect us from an overreaching government. these are a part of what have been shared values. the set may be called into question. part of any significant immigration reform i think would be make it create a deeper -- a requirement that's deeper. let me put it in perspective. to become a citizen you have to become a test. there are 100 questions that you're given you'll get asked ten of them. if you get six of them right you're in. native born americans fail at a higher rate than immigrants because immigrants want to be a citizen so they memorize the questions. i think we need to go deeper than that and a deeper understanding what it is to be an american. if we don't we have problems. i think that's a key element of success. how? you make the test tougher. it was made tougher during my

brother's administration. i think it should be made tougher again and get back to civics education in our country in the k-12 system. look, anybody do their kids' homework? read the social studies books that your children and grandchildren read? it's not common core, by the way. this crapola has been going on for a long while. george washington gets the same emphasis as other noble americans, but george washington is the greatest president we ever had. we would have been different if washington had not been or our mutual friend abraham lincoln. there should be a deep understanding of the courage and conviction and integrity of these great men, and they should be held up high as examples of what it is to be an american in this extraordinary country. so embracing that and making sure that all of us understand

its power i think has to be part of any reform on immigration. frankly, a more hopeful optimistic america. there's no reason we should be moping around right now. i don't know. i don't think i'm naive to think this. we're on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. this is not a time of -- we've had greater challenges in our country's history. this is a time of abundance. we fix a few big things, part of which requires us to go back to our history and appreciate its greatness. i'd rather be 21 than 62. with nothing to my name. i'd rather -- as long as i could go back with my beloved, nothing to my name. give me a credit card so i could play off one off of the other. this is the coolest time to be alive and we need to believe that and then act on it. mr. lowry: couple real quick ones. is it called the paleo diet?

how is that working out? mr. bush: i'm tired of talking about because someone will catch me cheating and it will be like a big deal. but it's worked. look at me. i'm skinnier. isn't that what diet are for? it's a simple diet. they call it because you're not eating processed food. that's about the principle of it. it's meat and fish and vegetables and fruit and nuts, lots of nuts. a whole lot of nuts. mr. lowry: not that you have a lot of time for this, what kind of books do you like to read what books have had a big impact on you? mr. bush: i like the charles murray books which means i'm a total nerd, i guess. what book am i reading right now? he wrote the book about the colombian exposition, the chicago world's fair, i love that guy. i am reading all his books right now.

that is what i am reading. mr. lowry: "the trail of the lusitania." mr. bush: i recommend those books because they are nonfiction, but written in a fiction kind of way. mr. lowry: governor, thanks very much. mr. bush: i still read "the national review." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> remarkable partnerships iconic women come their stories

in "first ladies"." >> she saved the portrait of washington. >> whoever could find out what francis was doing, what she was doing, that was going to help sell papers. >> she starts running the radio station. how do you do that? >> she exerted enormous influence because she would move on mountains to make sure her husband was protected. >> "first ladies," looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history, east on original interviews. learn about their lives, ambitions, families come and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses." presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american woman, filled with stories about

women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great personal cost. "first ladies" is an inspiring read available as a hardcover or an >> coming up tonight on c-span then carson announces his presidency that his plans for the presidency. then, a discussion on the presidential war powers. hosted by the association of the bar of the city of new york. then, president obama will talk about his new organization. ben carson announced his plan to see the presidential nomination. >> [cheers and applause] host: thank you. dr. carson: thank you very much. [applause]