businesses. has a caused growth that has led to higher wages, particularly for workers who these immigrants compete against for jobs. real hourly wages have increased by about one dollar in the last 25 years in real terms. it has slightly declined during this administration. from 2000-2 thousand 14, they were 5.7 million net jobs recorded for people 16 to 65. all of the new jobs went to immigrants in spite the fact that there were 17 million more nativeborn americans in the workforce. democrats like hillary clinton say that they are for the american worker yet demand amnesty and huge increases in the number of immigrants for one overriding reason -- votes. which leads to political power.

they have no interest in fixing our broken immigration system. the president had a filibuster-proof majority in his first two years and did not bother to introduce an immigration bill even though he had plenty of time to push obamacare. to the president and mrs. clinton, immigration is about dividing america by injecting ethnic and racial politics into this debate. not doing right by struggling workers. immigration is another example of how mrs. clinton has abandoned the millions of americans want the opportunity to work and to provide for themselves and their families by using divisive identity politics to gain more power. what i will be proposing today is in direct contrast to mrs. clinton's vision. my proposal says workers of all races, genders, ethnicities,

that you are welcome to an america that will provide you an opportunity to rise if you work hard and obey the law. my proposal is based on hope and opportunity, not fear and bigotry. the establishment i might add, the big business community is not much better. they see immigrants, workers as a way of diluting the worker pool and lowering labor costs, to them workers are commodities and increasing labor supply means more bottom line profitability. workers are not commodities, they are we'll people and real families who have real mortgages to pay and mouths to feed and they deserve leaders who put them first. that is why i'm here today. i am running for president not for power or profit, i am running to fight for the real people who have real families and who are struggling to make ends meet.

over the past 20 years, nearly 35 million legal and illegal immigrants have come to our shores. the largest mass immigration america has seen in our history, surpassing the great wave at the turn of the 20 century. -- 20th century. these immigrants are largely unskilled and low skilled labor and they are competing for the same job that 74% of americans who do not have a college degree are looking for. because labor supply and demand, you see that concept in action, corporate profits are up because labor costs are down and executives and shareholders are doing very well. but the american worker has seen stagnant wages for over a decade. the american worker is struggling and as a result the

american family is struggling. i know some of my party rolls eyes whenever i make this point, when i see them at fundraisers and party events. contrary to what the elites along the coast think, the economy does not start on wall street and in -- end on route 128, it starts with a family and includes streets and avenues and drives across this country, including main street. the american family is the first economy just like business, each family needs revenues, pays expenses and at the end of the month the books must balance. as families struggle, we must make sure our policies do not throw up for the roadblocks and dead ends to their ability to succeed. we must rebuild the first economy and one step is to ensure we have a responsible immigration policy that puts the american worker and american families first. up until a few days ago i was the only candidate in this race who put forth a legal and

illegal immigration proposal that puts american workers first. i wanted to use this opportunity to flesh out those proposals and cast a vision for a stronger and healthier and more prosperous america. the plan will fix our broken immigration system and has -- that has served as a catalyst for economic stagnation and soaring government spending and lawlessness that threatens our national security. i am not new to this debate, a decade ago i authored a border security legislation that stood in contrast to the legislation president bush and senator kennedy were advocating. unlike some who are running for president today, i was never a member of a senate gang, because i understood amnesty was not a solution but -- i will mess this one up -- will perpetuate the problem. amnesty will perpetuate the

problem not solved the problem. -- not solve the problem. where there was a path to citizenship in the gang of eight bill or the right to a permanent work permit supported by ted cruz and others, in any event it is amnesty. the workers who serve as groundskeepers and waiters, bartenders and made -- maids they are hard-working americans who are hurt most by record levels of legal and illegal immigration. they are the blue-collar americans who are in direct competition with cheap and sometimes illegal labor. amnesty will make competition more fierce not less and encourage more illegal immigration, not less. and further depress wages. as important as the debate is over illegal immigration we cannot speak about securing our borders and turn a blind eye to an entire system that hurts american workers. until this summer, the only candidate who had a message focused on having american workers first and commonsense limits on legal immigration was me.

this summer i was joined by governor walker who was first to change his position with a few specifics calling for limiting legal immigration. donald trump has joined a majority of americans at me with -- and me with ideas had to put american workers first, i welcome them both and encourage all candidates and all americans to listen to this vision of how we can make america stronger. let's face it, the problems with the illegal immigration can mostly be solved immediately. it does does not require changing the law, it requires enforcing the current laws. the president has the authority and access to funds to secure our borders. let me be clear, i will do what five presidents have promised the american public to do, i will secure the border with mexico. i will build hundreds of miles of new walls, you state-of-the-art technology,

deploy what manpower is necessary to secure the border with mexico. i will end the catch and release program of this administration and have personnel deployed to maximize apprehensions at the border. it is time to stop the bait and switch, the political discussions that happened during a campaign and then forget about the promises when you become president. i will not demand the governor of mexico build a wall, i want u.s. workers to do that. i will make it clear to the mexican government that they must stop facilitating the lawlessness on the border and cooperate with our efforts. i will do all i can to change mexico's behavior for the benefit of both countries, but if they fail to cooperate, i am prepared to do several steps, beginning with authorizing the border crossing cards to be suspending until mexico -- suspended until mexico cooperates. visa overstays are one of the

largest factors contributing to overpopulation. the fact, i will do what no previous administration has done, i will enforce the law. we will track who they are and whether they overstayed their visa. anyone apprehended will be subject to fines and subsequently removed. i will end the practice of sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds from any city that refuses to cooperate with federal law. i support kate's law and ending the policy that results in 30,000 criminal illegal immigrants being released from prison last year. because their native country will not accept them. i will exercise my authority already a law to deny visas to

any foreign country that will not take responsibility for their citizens until they take their people back. the federal government has to end policy that have encouraged millions to break the law. in that regard, i will put an end to the presidents unconstitutional executive amnesty which is largely responsible for this latest border surge. i would make the argument that if you look at my track record on issues that no one thought could be passed, we have a good record of passing the. we should put an end to the automatic citizenship of children born to immigrants here.

laws willting dramatically reduce the number of illegal immigrants competing against legal workers in this country. reducing the number of illegal migrants will not be sufficient to help struggling american workers. i am proposing to changes to the legal immigration system that will reduce the supply of lower skilled adults holding wages down america. i am proposing to eliminate both the visa lottery and chain immigration. unlike jeb bush, i am not going to increase other categories of immigration to levels beyond the current level. these changes will result in a 25% reduction in legal immigration. this is a stark contrast to every republican presidential now recentlyept donald trump. he says he also wants to return to historical averages. some like ted cruz have actually proposed doubling the number of legal immigration and he is not

alone in the republican field. i believe immigration can be a good thing for you as with anything, there can be too much of a good thing. when our labor markets cannot manage the influx we are receiving then it's time to recalibrate. this is not anti-immigrant. this is pro-worker especially for those who are most affected by the waves of new workers. and those folks who are recent immigrants, minorities, and younger workers. even skilled workers have been hurt by our current system. disney laid-off americans and replace them with cheap foreign labor. in southern california edison had the nerve to have its american workers train their foreign replacements under the h 1b program. disney and southern california edison use this program to replace existing american tech workers for not supposed to be replaced by this program but are.

is anll reports, there oversupply of american workers who can fill entry-level tech jobs coming out of our schools. they should be given the opportunity to get the work in their chosen field and grow in experience and rise. i propose overhauling the h1b these of programs will only the highest skilled programs can create more jobs will be eligible to come here. again, this is in stark contrast with other republicans particularly ted cruz who seeks h to increase1b fivefold. that is the current program. in the same being, there's a sector of our economy that needs and does not have a sufficient amount of americans do that job. are 400 categories in the department of commerce of job classifications. of those 400 job

classifications, only a handful of those job classifications are there a majority of folks not born in america doing those jobs. athink you can safely say some like to say about more jobs that these are jobs that americans are not doing and will not do but there is only a handful and not surprisingly, they are all in agriculture. as a result, i will provide for an opportunity for illegal workers who meet -- who are in these job classifications to be able to stay in america under a program that will allow their employer to pay a fee for them to be able to stay even though they are illegal under a temporary guest worker program. it would be an annual fee and it will be renewable as long as they want to stay in this country. as my father said, america is worth the wait and it's worth doing it right.

this means that we need an immigration policy that rewards those who do it right. and immigration policy that fits our economic needs and immigration policy that puts american workers first. i was asked in the first presidential debate how i would explain the enforcement of our immigration laws to the child of an illegal immigrant. i said our compassion as a government is found in our laws because we treat everyone equally under the law. this must be true of our immigration laws. having an immigration system that turns its back on american citizens and legal immigrants so more immigrants can come to our shores of time when there are not enough good paying jobs to meet their needs is not compassionate. what is compassionate is an immigration system that nominally says we want you in america but says we have an opportunity and a job here for you so you can rise and each of everyone of you, both of those

in this country and those coming, can live the american dream. it's something all of us strive for. ast will be my policy president of the united states. thank you very much. thank you, senator. you can stay right there at the podium. i will stand next to you. questions? how does your proposal for a border wall differ from donald trump? i'm for americans building the wall not mexico. what i want mexico to do is to stopping the influx of immigrants and instability of the border. let's be very clear -- immigration into america's big business for mexico. the estimates are 22 billion dollars to people in this country from mexico to provide a lot of economic support for

people in that country. there are certainly every indication that mexico is doing -- some say they are working to facilitate people coming into this country and doing so illegally. change and a fence or wall as part of it. as long as they are not secureting with us to the border, it will make our job harder and that's why i suggested i would suspend the border crossing cards, the renewal of order crossing cards as an initial step in i would look to do other things if we don't see additional cooperation from the mexican government to make the border secure. of those differences you outlined on the wall, what are your other thoughts about the donald trump immigration plan and how you differ from it

and perhaps also the things you agree with that are part of it? .> there are some differences mostly it's the lack of specifics on the part of mr. trump on some of his proposals on the legal side. i have been clear about what i would do to change the legal immigration system and change to programs that most people feel have not been beneficial to our country. there is the idea of chain immigration and on the visa lottery program. there are certainly widespread thought on the republican side that those programs are not good therams, allowing people, chain immigration idea, allowing people to come in to this country by virtue of the fact that you have a relative, and adult relative in this country and we are allowing other adults to come in who are parents or siblings of that person. the policy prior to that was

that if you are an adult, you had to earn citizenship on your own or at least entry on your own merit, not because you had someone here who is related to you. i think that should be the case again going forward. i have no specifics. about the return to historic levels but he has not talked about how he will accomplish that. as far as the illegal side, betweene similarities what mr. trump and i have put forward. i'm glad to see that. from the wall and visa overstays and -- birthright citizenship -- all those things are similar. theow will you handle millions of illegal immigrants already in the country? said, the enforcement of

e-verify -- if you stop immigration at the border, if you require people on overstays to leave and contact them and move with the process of removal, you know who these and they made a promise when they came here that they would leave within a certain time so we would go through the process of and movingthem forward with their removal. the same thing would happen with other people who are in this country. we would move forward with removals as we find people who in most cases, we would find people through people having known to laww and enforcement and therefore agentscate with our ice to begin the process of removal. a rather easy

systematic way of going through that process of simply enforcing the law of the country. you are a politician who has made family the centerpiece not only of your politics but as well as your life. how would you handle children who are citizens i birthright but whose parents are here illegally? and another question related to birthright -- i believe it was governor perry yesterday that it could take a decade, many years, to change the 14th amendment. is just not practical and we should focus on the border and the wall. what is your response to birthright changes being practical? >> i give a lot of talks on immigration throughout the country. theuld agree that birthright issue is an issue, a

legal issue that frankly should be solved and we should have a determination as to what the 14th amendment says. argumentsgood legal on both sides as to whether someone born here irrespective of the circumstances of their parents should be considered a citizen of the country. looking atspective, the things i want to a compass on immigration, that is certainly not my highest priority. there are the things more pressing than that. simply another one that i listed it and i think i listed at last and all the things that encourage people to come to this country illegally, that's one thing that encourages people to come into this country. i think we need to eliminate those type of incentives that encourage people to break the law to enter this country. there are many other things we need to do ahead of that. i would agree with rick perry

that it's probably not our highest priority and it would not be my highest priority. i want to be consistent in what i think the law should be. i wanted to lay that out as a marker to what the law should be in this country. in terms of the children born to illegal immigrants and keeping families together, how would you handle that? would the parents be deported and the children would stay and break up families or would you give some exemption to keep families together? premise thatasic the people who brought those children here did so breaking the law and with a full understanding that they very tol -- that when they came this country without children and then had children here, they knew fully what they were doing. it is like someone who robs a bank because they want to feed their family. do i feel bad they don't have and they feel the

need to rob a bank and provide for their family? of course, i feel bad. we hope people are not in that situation to break the law so they commit a better life for their family. doesn't obviate the fact that they have broken the law there are consequences to breaking the law any more than you would say we cannot send mothers and fathers to prison because it would separate them from their children. then no moms and dads of the in jail if we used the same argument that's being made here that we cannot separate the children. theme not separating arbitrarily. we are separating them because they put themselves in a position to jeopardize that relationship with her children. that is not the responsibility of the government to say that we made a mistake. they made a mistake in doing what they did. they put their children in that situation. they should have to deal with the consequences like any other american who breaks the law and

as a result of breaking the law gets separated from their children. unfortunately, it happens every single day in america. it's tragic and i wish they were not separated but the fact of the matter is that we are nation of laws. that if you are for separating -- that this is somehow different than any other type of situation where we have people separated from their families because of the illegal actions of the parents, i think that's inaccurate. consistent. if we are going to separate people who break laws in this country and go to jail, we should be consistent with respect to illegal immigrants who have done the same. donald trump takes credit for bringing immigration front and center. you said in your remarks you were out ahead on the immigration issue. either way, it is seemingly the front and center issue in the republican presidential campaign. is that a good thing?

doesn't belong here or is it crowding out to many other issues that need to get focused on? announced my campaign from a factory floor in western pennsylvania because i think the most important issue facing the economy and most americans is the opportunity to live the american dream particularly for the 74% of americans who don't have a college degree, the millions of americans who have seen their wages flat line and they see they are losing ground with inflation. there is a lot of folks out there who don't feel america's working for them. when i announced for president, i listed a whole bunch of things i thought could turn that around. andis to grow the economy create jobs particularly in the manufacturing sector of the economy which creates good thing jobs and the ability for people to provide for themselves or family. we have gone from 20 million people in manufacturing in 1980 down to 11 million and it's dropping like a rock because of the policies of this administration. focused my entire

campaign on what we can do to help those who are struggling the most in america today. i talk about tax policy that will help, regulatory policy that will help, trade policy that will help, and, of course, i've yet to talk about labor markets and what the state of labor markets in america today. we have ay is that lot of american workers who are up aneing their wages go increase in the supply of 35 million people. some would say that the good thing. make that argument. point, this is the legitimate debate. was it good art bad that we have the debate? it's a legitimate debate but has not been because many on the other side have suggested that anybody who wants to raise this issue, you are raising it because you are anti-hispanic or anti-immigrant. i'm the son of an immigrant.

i'm not anti-immigrant. i want to make sure america strong for the immigrants are due, there are opportunities available for people to rise and live that dream. that is the promise of this country. to suggest that reducing levels of immigration or enforcing the law with respect to over 10 million people who are here illegally is somehow thatimmigrant suggests maybe the alternative is that we should allow everybody in and there should be no limits on immigration. i assume unless you are for that, your anti-immigrant. if you are for any limits, your anti-immigrant. i don't see too many but there opene some who are for borders and anybody can come in at any time but i don't see many people in public life. if you're not for that come you cannot call anybody who wants to have a discussion as to what the limits are anti-immigrant. that's inappropriate public policy discussion that should be driven by the fact. up until this point, i don't think it has been.

i think it has been driven by an attempt by one party to make this a xenophobia football. i hope as more information comes out about the impact of immigration on the american workforce, the impact of illegal immigration on our security and safety as well as the economy of this country, we can start to have a rational discussion about the policies of this country and what they should be to help people looking for the american dream. >> beyond immigration, what are the reasons for the growing gap between the rich and the poor? >> i mentioned before how we have ait is that manufacturing policy that makes is number one in manufacturing. i think that is the key economically for us to have a strong middle of america. called a book a year ago "blue collar conservative." detail howin great

we are going to a compass that. i talked about the manufacturing and talked about cutting taxes and making us competitive with the highest corporate taxes in the world. i will be proposing an economic plan in the 20% tax, flat tax on corporate income and a 20% flat tax on individual income. it will be pro-growth and allows getting rid of the special interest provisions in the tax code. on the corporate side and individual side. it is a simple, strong, growth plan that will get this economy going, particular provisions and going, particular provisions that will provide extra incentives to manufacturing, including repatriation of profits, a provision to lower the taxes on profits made by you companies that are u.s.-based but those profits

were made overseas to bring and you and profits back to america and not get hit with up to a 40% tax. as i mentioned, we have trade programs that we need to make sure we enforce the trade laws and at the same time open up markets. i know some people have suggested that my policy of being against the trade promotion authority, which i was, means i'm not for future trade laws, i am, i voted for almost every trade bill in the u.s. senate when i was there, same thing in the house. i voted against nafta. other than that i do support opening up opportunities, particularly in the pacific rim, but we have to do so in a way we make sure we are not undermining american workers at the same time. frankly, i have no faith that the president will do that, he has given me no indication he cares at all about american workers with his policies in manufacturing and energy and other things that are lowering wages in america today as we have seen, wages have declined.

and they continue to decline under this president. finally, the american family, i mentioned in my speech, i always mention in my speeches, because every book you read and sociology textbook, every study that has been done of america and the reason for the hollowing out of the middle of this country points to a culprit that is first and foremost among them. that is the breakdown of the nuclear family in america. from robert putnam's recent book to the other side, charles murray's book. both of them and many others have suggested the reason we have trouble in our education system and having trouble not rising and getting good paying jobs is because of increased incarceration rates, it is because of the breakdown of the nuclear family which continues to be a problem. i do not seeing anything being done by either party to address it.

in fact, no one talks about it. i find myself often times in these meetings that i refer to in party meetings as the only one mentioning the huge elephant in the room. it is even an elephant in the room in the democratic party. those on the left who are now suggesting this is a problem we can no longer ignore, yet neither political party wants to talk about it because it is politically incorrect. i think we have reached the point where political correctness has gotten us in a position we will not even fight for the lives of our children in -- and their future. then we need to have politically incorrect people run for president and put the children on the front and center of the public policy debate and i am doing that. >> i mentioned in the introduction, that you are down in the polls and said what you say you think of polls. what is your own personal benchmark in your head that will tell you, i am going to get out?

if it is not the polls, what is the thing that would make you leave the race? mr. santorum: sort of like the supreme court when it comes to pornography, you know it when you see it. it is sort of the same, four years ago, it was apparent to me when we got out it was the time to drop out. some suggested it was too late, others suggested it was too early. i am the goldilocks. just right. i will know if that eventuality ever comes, i do not anticipate dealing with that problem. right now i feel very comfortable going out there and articulating a strong, positive vision for america. having answers and unlike everybody else, and this is the case with immigration, people say you will not get this done, i would make the argument that

if you look at my track record on issues that no one thought could be passed, we have a good record of passing them. welfare reform, no one thought we could get it passed and bill clinton vetoed it twice. we got a dozen democrats to join us in the senate and passed a welfare reform bill that ended a federal entitlement, something that was predicted could never happen in washington, d.c. never be allowed unless you have a super majority of republicans you would never be able to get bit of a federal entitlement for the poor, and we did. i led that charge. i wrote the original bill in the house and managed the bill in the senate. if you look at reforming the health care system, we have a lot of folks trying to run around telling you how they will reform the health care system. unfortunately, republicans are bereft of ideas, no ideas of how to move forward and improve the

private economy when it comes to -- and the power of patience when it comes to the health care system until rick santorum came along and introduced the concept of health savings account over 20 years ago and fought for them and pass them in spite of opposition by immigrants and by this president. the reality is we have a long track record, abortion bills, how many abortion bills passed the senate and house? i can think of three in the last 50 years and i authored and led the fight on all three and got democratic support for all three. i share with you that we have a record of being a principled conservative and going out there and pushing the envelope on public policy to restore the opportunities i think america has for everybody and can have for everybody by restoring our conservative principles back here in washington, d.c.

but nobody in this field has a record of doing any of those things. you have a lot of people who will come out there in a very sharp elbows and tell you how everything is wrong and tell you why everything is broken. they have no record to show they have been able to do any of those things and most of the record of the people who are running who are united states senators is abject failure. i would suggest that we need to look at folks who accomplish things before we decide whether they should be promoted or not. i think we have a good track record of accomplishment. >> you mentioned abortion the other day. i believe you said not only should planned parenthood be defunded but prosecuted, in reference to the recent videos that have come out. you have concern that cutbacks to planned parenthood would affect the birth control part of its offerings and inadvertently lead to an increase in abortions?

mr. santorum: i do not think there are any numbers out there that suggest that access to contraception reduces the number of abortions, pretty good and compelling studies that show there is no correlation and has not been for some time. having said that, i am not concerned about the link between contraception and abortion. contraception is part of a federal program and planned parenthood doesn't that those moneys, there are many organizations that can fill the need that planned parenthood is providing to provide these types of services. i am not worried about the access to contraception that would be coming through other organizations other than planned parenthood. i am worried about an organization that was founded by a eugenicists whose purpose was to eliminate undesirable races and people.

it is stunning to me, the eugenicists that has such a horrific record of man's inhumanity to man is someone that the current day politicians are happy to receive awards in her name. including a black politician, because she was a racist. she wanted to eliminate the black race. this is who planned parenthood is, this is what they had been about, started by eugenicists whose objective was to dehumanize certain individuals so they could be recalled from society. i read a book a few years ago talking about the genocide that is going on. it was a short book, a simple answer, could have been answered into words, "you lie." you lie to the people, and that is what this is about, a lie of what a child in the womb really is, just a blob of tissue,

prehuman, not something we need to be concerned about. it is like, the argument from margaret sanger about other racist and disabled at who were in her mindset human and we did not need to be concerned about. that is what planned parenthood is doing, treating these children in the womb as if they are not real human beings, except the problem with these videos is that they are harvesting human body parts. it is hard to make the argument these are not human beings when they are harvesting human organs. the most recent video may be the most abhorrent, the most -- a video with someone who described a procedure where the child was born alive, they made a point of showing the little boy's heart beating. so the baby survived an abortion and was still alive but it didn't deter her from taking out the little boy's brain while it was alive.

of course, that does not horrify anybody who are supporters of planned parenthood, it does not bother people. why, because this is the ugly business of what abortion is. these are children who are not wanted and are subhuman and we can treat them. we can treat little children alive and remove their brains. and we can talk about it, isn't this cool? i can tap their chests and you can see their heart beating and it doesn't seem to affect the moral compass of the leaders in washington, d.c. that this is beyond the pale, that this does not speak well for who we are as a human race in america. but no, it does not seem to bother anybody because we have succeeded in dehumanizing, that is what this is all about. yet, we are dehumanizing children who are being harvested for human body parts.

i guess i would say that hopefully the people who are looking at these videos will come to agree that this organization that fosters this type of behavior should not only not be receiving federal funds but the people doing this who are breaking the law. i was the author of the born alive protection act, which i wrote for this particular situation. and was passed with near unanimous support in the house and senate. it is said that if a child is born alive as a result of abortion you could not kill it, much less harvest its brain. while it is living. and planned parenthood, they are doing that. that should be prosecuted, should not just be defunded, it should be prosecuted and this organization that creates an environment for these things to happen should be put out of business.

not be held up as some paragon of virtue of the left. >> senator, you have compared the supreme court decision making gay marriage a constitutional right to the dred scott decision justifying slavery. what as president could you do to fight back against something that you oppose on moral grounds but that is now a constitutional right? mr. santorum: i would say that i did not compare the recent decision of the court with dred scott, justice roberts compare the two, i was simply quoting justice roberts opinion where he compared the basis for dred

scott is the same that -- for this decision and they had no constitutional basis for this decision. having read justice kennedy's decision, it is not a legal work. not a work of legal scholarship. it is simply a rambling of someone who wanted to get a decision and came up with all sorts of interesting ideas, not based on the constitution. the court has the authority -- let's take the case of birthright citizenship. there is a legal dispute to what the language of the 14th amendment means. to me, it is something that people on both sides of this issue have very legitimate arguments, i could not say that if someone said to me, the constitution does not permit birthrights, i cannot say for certain they are wrong and i do not think for certain they can say we are wrong. that is a situation where the court must step in. and has a role of stepping in.

in making these decisions. what they do not have a right to do is to create new constitutional rights, that is not within their purview, there is nothing historically that congress and the president have said that they give the court broad latitudes to do whatever they want when it comes to the constitution. when the court oversteps its bounds as it has in cases, then it is the responsibility of the president, the people, the congress, to say that the court has to be held accountable and the law has to be changed. that takes all of those things, it takes the president, the people, the congress. if there is not support to do that, the court wins. even though they may have done something unconstitutional, the court wins. the other branches of government are incapable of successfully challenging it.

here is my point when it comes to who should be -- if there is one branch of government that should have more leeway in changing the constitution, i would make the argument it is the president and congress. the reason is the president and the congress can be thrown out if the public finds their decisions to be objectionable. the problem with the court is we could be stuck with a court for 30 years and they are an -- and they are isolated from the american public and as a result their actions can be much more insidious than the actions of a president or congress. the president or congress how many they stand up to a court and says they are wrong, and pushes back, as i did in the case of the partial-birth abortion status where the court found a similar statute unconstitutional, i was undeterred and we passed an almost identical statute and sent it back -- and passed it and said we would enforce it, and the court backed down

because they knew they were off base. that has to happen more when the court goes astray. >> before i ask the last question, i have some housekeeping. the national press club's is the leading professional organization for journalists, we fight for a free press worldwide. more information about the club go to our website, press.org. and we also have a journalism institute. to learn more about and to donate go to press.org/institute. i would like to remind you about some upcoming programs. september 2, nikki haley will address a luncheon on the new south. on september 5, the press club will hold its annual 5k to raise money for journalism scholarships, training, and

press freedom. on september 14, nasa astronauts mark kelly and terry burton will -- mark kelly and terry verts will discuss their work aboard the international space station. i would like to present senator santorum with a traditional national press club mug. that would be suitable on a shelf a couple blocks away at the white house. in pennsylvania, wherever. it is very portable, could even go to iowa where you are headed next. final question, you mentioned your family and how much you like to talk about your family, in fact you brought family with you. mr. santorum: i would use my son and daughter, daniel, number three. daniel is a junior at the military college of south carolina, the citadel. he is taking off a semester to work on the campaign, when he

graduates he will be heading to the air force. my number four child, my daughter maria is a senior in high school and looking to what great players she has in the future, an exciting year for all of us. >> you wrote a book about your youngest daughter. mr. sanctorum: my wife and i did. >> our final question is how is bella doing? mr. santorum: one of the great things i took from the last campaign, is the heart of the american people is beating strong and is wonderful and compassionate. i cannot tell you the number of people in all walks of life of all different perspectives who in the last campaign asked that very question and did so in a heartfelt way. it renews your faith that as divided as we seem to be, as rancorous as this town is, there is still some commonality that,

if we can use it as a touchstone, that we might be able to work together in a more civil way and that is my intent. if you look at the history of me and the congress, that is what i was able to a coppice. my wife and i wrote a book earlier this year called "bella's gift." raising a little girl who had a 1% chance which he was born, she had a 1% survival chance to reach a year. she is now seven, she just lost her two front teeth, so we know what we are getting her for christmas. we are excited that she is doing well, karen and i wrote this book to chronicle our journey. i always say we split the book in half, she wrote 11 chapters, i wrote seven. it is a discussion about how

difficult, challenging, stressful, raising a child is, particularly one who has severe health problems, and in bella's case she almost died twice. how it is a great challenge to the family, but an incredible blessing. we have found in a world of the disabled, so many people who have come up to us and shared their stories with us. while it is a challenge, and i know in many cases in this world you see, for example, down syndrome children, reports are 80% to 90% of down syndrome children are aborted. people see disabilities as something not to be embraced and wanted. that society says it is too hard. you have to look out for yourself. this is too difficult a task to manage. what we found is, yes, it is difficult and stressful.

it is a blessing we thank god for every day. thank you for asking about her. thank you for your prayers. we will continue to shine bella's light very brightly. >> senator, thank you for coming. [applause] >> i would like to thank the national press cup staff and broadcast center for helping us to organize today's event. if you like a copy of this program, go to that website, press.org. thank you very much for coming today. [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] [indiscernible] i would like to

focus were the greatest health challenges are. quirks what would you do to be different than obama. mr. sanctorum: isis is the one threatening this country. it's motivating people here in america. from my perspective, first things first. the first thing is we have an isis that is a great challenge the security of our country. and the stability of the region. eliminated, it can be a serious national security threat to our country. that is our priority. i'm not as familiar with all the different elements that are

fighting assad, but that would be something we look for to see if there are parties that make sense for us to align ourselves with. we have a very mixed bag as to what you have -- any type of resistance you want to align with. >> what about no-fly zones? mr. santorum: it depends on what our alternatives are. >> you have challenges to sitting senators in the last two election cycles. you vigorously supported their opponents. do you expect that will help you in the quest for delegates in the states? mr. sanctorum: we have been someone with set up and fought for something we thought was the right thing to get washington off the old slide of just lurching toward a bigger government and more socialist state.

whether i was in the senate, i try to get behind folks who i thought -- like ted cruz, i endorsed him in the primary, before the primary. i had done so with a host of other candidates. and will continue to use our influence as president to make sure we get our country back on the right track and to limited government and more freedom. >> what do you expect mexico to do? what should they be doing? mr. sanctorum: if you talk to folks who are at the border, they want to use the other side of the border is pretty much a lawless area that allows for a lot of activity. everything from drug running to sex slavery. the first thing to do is get that control of that section of your country.

allowing people to come through your country on their way from central and south america, into the united states, that is another area that the mexican government has not been helpful. >> you mentioned specifically the influx of migrants from central america. how would your immigration platform deal with that problem that was called a humanitarian crisis? mr. sanctorum: again, we would treatment skins the same at the border -- we would treat mexicans the same at the border. apprehend people at the border and returned them to mexico, even though i know they are not mexicans. that is where they came from. our policy should be to return them where they came from. [indiscernible] mr. santorum: again this is a

difficult situation. a scenario where we can work with the mexican government. they have responsibility then if they try to enter this country. that should be a part of what the mexican government should do is a stopping them from coming into the country in the first place. when it does reach our border, it becomes a shared responsibility. not a responsibility of the united states. mexico is facilitating these types of the border crossings. they have to take responsibility. >> [indiscernible] mr. sanctorum: i'm going to have to run. thank you. thanks. well, thank you. [indiscernible]

mr. sanctorum: sure. [indiscernible] mr. santorum: it is more than a two-minute answer. i have another speech. thank you. >> "washington journal," is next, we look at today's news and take your phone calls. cruz will be ted at the iowa state fair, we have live coverage of 11:00 a.m. eastern. this evening, presidential candidate and senator bernie sander holds a town hall meeting in columbia, south carolina. afterwards, he takes phone calls from c-span viewers. live coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern.

>> this sunday night on "q&a," nordion has been visiting the graves of u.s. presidents and vice presidents since he was nine years old. and documented his adventures on his websites. he talks about those visits of his interest in american history. >> the one gravesite that everyone has trouble getting to is the rockefeller. >> nelson rockefeller. >> how did you do it? >> throughout my father describes as an act of god. he walked farther down the perimeter in the cemetery and saw this gigantic tree had fallen across the fence. he went in thaac saw nelson rockefeller's grave and decided he would have to get me there fairly quickly after that. dion on c-span's "q&a." hour, steve this

forbes will talk about the 2016 white house race and the u.s. economy. then, washington dc attorney general joins us to discuss the increased use of synthetic drugs in u.s. cities. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: are we living in a society of entitlement today, where everybody gets a trophy? or is there value in encouraging participation? that's our discussion item on this first segment of "washington journal." on instagram, this message -- i came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing. participation trophies. while i am very proud of my boys for everything they do and will encourage them until the day i die, these trophies will be given back until they are in it real trophy. --