tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 25, 2013 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
not go to the south. the south had lower wages and there was less economic incentive. new orleans did attract some italian immigrants, but they lynched a dozen or so italians. they decided that it was kind of a dangerous place. towardnt to the areas where zero. got out that it was a dangerous wastes. they what were there was growth and opportunity. it you're getting the eastern seaboard cities. group faster than the national average. --him him him in large numbers.
there has been negligible population growth. ina very distinct different the 1970s through 2010. there have been movements. guest: there has been movement. people have moved to places where they have cultural affinities. liberal professionals and high skilled people. the server to dallas-fort worth. people from either weren't -- either one do not want to be transferred to the other. they move from high housing cost states. 19 million in 2010. very small growth. texas, 11 million in 1970.
25 million in 2010. it more than doubled. migrants from internal migrants in the united states as well as immigrants from mexico and other parts of latin america and asia as well. host: the emergence over cultural issues and the sharp slowdown in internal migration has sharpened fears that we are flying apart. michael barone wrote in his book," shaping our nation." caller: i am curious as to why we do not use our national guard troops to guard the interior borders of the country just as we used the coast guard to patrol the waterways of the country.
guest: that is not the statutory duty of the national guard, which operates as a part-time force, which can be brought into play when you have national disasters and civil disorders that ordinary police cannot take care of. we have a border patrol. we have different things. for many years, the border patrol in san diego, california, which is a border county, the border patrol was less interested in patrolling the border than having a checkpoint on interstate 5.
a hot and dusty border. we put a border fence up there. if you look at the history of the u.s.-mexico border, there was not much migration going across it. the first attempt to secure it was a cooperative u.s.-mexico effort. the guy in charge of mexico said, die. the conditions along that border or so difficult. it is not the function of the national guard. we have had a big increase in border patrol during the administrations of george w. bush and barack obama.
they were pushed by congress. we can do a better job. we need to use technology. in our recent experiences with the health care act, the government is not the best procurer of technology. it should be able to do better. we should check the legal eligibility of people getting hired to reduce the incentive of illegals to come over. if you reduce the possibility they can get a job and make a living -- looking forward, our biggest task is not so much preventing courts of illegal -- hoards -- hoards of illegal immigrants coming over, but shifting our immigration from what it currently is. it should be going from low skilled immigration to high skilled immigration like it is in canada. guest: there has been movement.
i try to uses for framers of the constitution's founders for the the members group of the first congress. sometimes i may get it wrong. jewish americans are fascinating. what this is an antigen dinner in new york at a time when the jews were generally not welcome in large parts of europe. that has been part of our heritage. we have families dissented from that. they were really second class is
a sentence. they were treated better in the hungarian and german empires in the early 20th century. they came over in large numbers. very few of them ever returned. italians returned to the home country as many latin americans have been doing in recent years. the eastern european jews did not go back. they did not want to go back. you had the holocaust during world war ii. it destroys communities and killed 6 million people, the nazis did. they move up very rapidly. it is a fascinating story. they are people with high skills, high academic aptitudes. they become people in the culture in show business and the movies, the great universal
culture of the 1940s. a lot the studio executives responsible for making movies spoke with eastern european accents. they figured out how to present a quintessentially american culture that would appeal to just about anybody. that is one of the differences from the mid-20th century america today. we had had universal culture in the radio, in the movies, and television. we do not have it today. we have niche media, people watching different things, different forms of entertainment. ronald reagan made his living and radio, movies, tv. in his farewell address to the country, he laments that the entertainment industry is not making patriotic movies anymore and helping people appreciate
the american heritage as much as they used to. he is lamenting the disappearance, as it is happening, of that universal media, from which he had made his living. host: we will conclude on that note. the book, "shaping our nation: how surges in migration transformed america and its politics." our guest, michael barone. and you very much for being with us. obama is in san francisco today for a couple of fundraisers. to also make remarks on immigration policy this afternoon. we will happen live starting at 2:35 p.m. eastern. coming up, our special q&a program will feature robin nagle on her experiences as a sanitation worker.
>> years ago, i do not think anyone was listening to the crystal ball that someone on a college campus would be streaming netflix also an iphone to watch a movie. what is happening is are huge issues that the technology, and i remember in northwest ohio depending on the day the antenna on top of the house was right you got two channels. sunday's you did not get any. the wind andn light in everything else. the industry has changed so rapidly. havet to make sure we things out there that spurred this innovation. i think we have created this.
>> one million people lined the roof of president canneries -- kennedy's funeral procession. millions more watched on live television coverage. starting tonight, watch nbc's coverage of president kennedy state funeral. >> during the historic trip to they noticed how mrs. nixon was looking at packages of cigarettes. i also asked ceo in meyer this. she said aren't they dolling. he'll -- aren't they darling and he said you will go home with them. it was afford for her to support her husband. just her being married brought so much goodwill.
come up.rts would would always say what a wonderful job this was. >> tonight live at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio. until then more discussion on immigration from saturday's host: ourn journal" next guest joins us from new york. with the council of foreign relations, their international economic senior fellow. also a professor at columbia university. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. i'm delighted to join you.
host: you have a recent op ed in foreign affairs magazine called a kinder gentler immigration policy. could you give us a seps of what you make of current efforts here on capitol hill when it comes to immigration policy? guest: i think it's a very good idea to have something like that for the people whom you are going to benefit, actually. i don't want to knock the idea that the thing is entirely useless but the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that somehow you can get rid of illegal immigrants. and therefore, what we want to do is come up with a set of penalties and incentives which will somehow reduce the influx
of new illegal immigrants and will somehow get rid of the stop of illegal immigrants. and i don't think that those are possible feasible objectives. and for the very simple reason that each time we try and do something like this, at the washington level, things really get worse for the illegal immigrants and we don't really gain anything in terms of what is commonly known as controlling our borders. and the main reason is that we have a right brain-left brain approach to illegal immigrants. the right brain says they are immigrants and therefore we should be kind to them. we should be considerate to them. but the left brain says oh but they're illegal and therefore we believe in the rule of law and therefore we should be unkind to them. and it's like a bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. and we go from one to the other. and the democrats who generally are in favor of being kinder actually wind up having to make all kinds of concessions to get a comprehensive immigration reform in washington through the legislative process.
so they wind up imposing all kinds of terrible conditions at the border in terms of disruption of lives of people internally to massive deportations, massive border expenditures to bring the doubting thomases on board and it really doesn't deliver anything. because we tried that last time with the immigration reform control act of 86 and we tried exactly the same tact 86 and look where we are at now doing the same things all over again and it's not going to produce any results other than deterioration in the conditions of the illegal immigrants. host: border control being one thing but what about some proposals that would put some on a pathway to legalization? guest: i think the problem there again is that many people are not going to be able to use that pathway. for the very simple reason that today if you say because we're making concessions to the opponent of such legalization, they're saying it's going to be a protracted process. there are all kinds of restrictions going to be imposed by people being able to do it. people also looking at the situation will say look if it's going to take 10 years to get through the process we know through president obama's behavior that through executive action you can null if i whatever you promise.
also, the opponents may get into the congress and then may withdraw these things. so either you do it very quickly or you don't do it at all. my prediction is that no more than about half at most of the estimated illegals, stop of illegals which is at 11 million, not more than half will take advantage of it. and this is the situation in 19 86 when we also had the amnesty, as you remember. at that time 3 million out of an estimated 6 million chose the
option. the others refusesed to come out. and today they're protected by their ethnic counterparts of trying to be tougher with the illegals who are really here you can't really do that because immediately there's the problem of the ethnic counterparts going to the political and saying look we're not going to be able to -- the washington cannot really enforce draconian measures against us so we're not going to come out into the open and take an amnesty -- if you want to call it. it is amnesty but with restrictions, and we call it legalization process. they're not going to get started on this because it simply doesn't make sense. and about 30% of the people who are actually illegal in some form or the other, many studies show that about 30% actually manage to become legal through marriage and all sorts of existing provisions, and so the compulsion to come out like this is going to be meaningless and i do think that there's
also politics involved here. i myself am a democrat as you know, and we want a legalization process which ultimately results or immediately results in some stage in the people being able to vote. that automatically divides the republicans and the democrats because the democrats expect these people to be voting for them. the republicans to some extent oppose the legalization process in the sense of reaching citizenship because they think the votes will go the other way. host: i apologize for interrupting. i want to make sure the callers get a chance to talk to you as well. before we do let the callers talk to you i want to get a seps of your op ed, the kinder gentler immigration policy. here's a line that you can expand on. you say that the united states should stop attempting to imgrate illegal immigrants.
principal among them would be a shift from a topdown approach to a bottom one letting states compete for illegal immigrants. could you talk about that last part of that. guest: i think the implication which i was saying so far was basically that it is impossible to think of a suitable way in which washington top down approach will work. it didn't work in 86.
it is not going to work because it is even more difficult now to get it through the congress. so what we have to do is think in terms of being able to do something which actually works outside of washington. that is the principle basis. now, the bad states are going to lose labor if they keep enacting legislation which is designed, like drivers licenses the ability to send children at school. those states are going to lose labor because illegal immigrants just simply avoid them when they're coming across the desert
to talk about the rio grand border or they simply leave these states and go to the better states. labor is required to be there because we need the illegal immigrants. we need the immigrants. the effect is to shift the political equilibrium in the states towards reducing the badness of their legislation. and you see a lot of evidence of that in arizona, alabama, et cetera. businesses turning around joining the lawsuits against the draconian legislation. so that is what i call race to the top or towards the top. the bad states through competition for labor will in fact be improving the legislation and
that actually is going to help improve the humanity with which we treat immigrants. nothing is required from washington for this. host: richard from wisconsin, republican line. go ahead. caller: my wife is an immigrant and she came to this country in 1960. i don't understand why the illegal ones in this country our president seems like he wants to give them a free ride. and my wife never did become a citizen. now she's 82 and would like to be a citizen and they want to charge her $600. and we can't afford it. and i don't understand why our president can give these people a free ride. host: go ahead.
guest: i think you put your finger on a real problem which we have with washington handling this sort of problem. because exactly as you said, a lot of people feel that here are illegal immigrants who violated the law and who are going to be open, or given the right to have a legalization process, where yazz there are a lot of people like your wife who are already here and have not been given this right. more than that, there are a lot of people, millions of people
who legally are now waiting their turn. so they think this is a case of unfair allocation of rights to the illegal immigrants. so i think if we're going to rely on the washington doing it, this conflict between being nice to immigrants, illegal immigrants, and the rights of the people who actually waited in line and are waiting patiently, that is what we call a problem. i think that makes it difficult. spain has an amnesty but they don't have it through quickly because they don't have the of people cued up.
guest: i think that's a very good idea in my opinion. and i think we really need to have something which is shorter -- which is short of the actual issuance of citizenship. because a citizenship is not really what people want. when i came to this country years ago, i was given a greed card by my university. at that time it was easier to get them. and i -- looking at the situation, there was no distinction between green card holders and citizen.
the only thing you could do more or less was a duty. that was a benefit rather than you could offer them a green card, or call red cards, to distinguish them from the normal green card. and i think that would be sufficient to help a lot of people. but we democrats unfortunately want it -- we want to give them not just the red card or green card, whatever you want to call them, we also want them to be citizens. i think that's where we really have to step back and say we could really help these guys come out of the shadows, have respectable lives, have most of the rights which citizens have, but not the citizenship. because that citizenship is really what we want as democrats in order to get the vote. and the republicans oppose it because they think they will lose the vote.
host: independent line, california. caller: everything i've heard out of your mouth is a bunch of hog wash. you don't live in the area where they are not in the shadows. they keep saying 11 million. we have more than that in southern california. they've overcrowded our schools. when they came here with work orders, they came, did their jobs, went back. they didn't bring their whole flipping families that we have to educate. they cost california over $10 billion a year. while they send $50 billion a year back to mexico. we're supporting a situation that is against our laws for one thing. we have no -- it seems like the people in washington have no respect for our laws. host: go ahead.
guest: i think -- i sympathize with your kshes but i think the facts are that actually the immigrants are making a contribution to the tax revenues rather than subtracting from them. this is a perception which many people have including yourself. but i would simply say this is one area where in the article which we couldn't get into that, i said there are many ways in which we could actually work with these misperceptions like you have about how much they're costing us and have the mexican government, for example, ease those concerns regardless of whether they are actually justified or not. one of the things i propose in there is that the mexican government ought to make a contribution, however, to the education and health care expenditures in california, which is where you live. and other parts with large
concentrations of the mexican illegal immigrants. so that people like you feel that, look, mexicans are also making a contribution. so just insped of sponging off our people and letting us do all the lifting of the heavy weight on this. so that would be very helpful. again, people are crossing the desert, going through the ratches. occasionally they slaughter a cow, they mess up things.
there's no way in which the ranchers who are affected can take these people to court for a tort claim. so another thing i propose is that the mexican government should set up a tort fund where you can take your complaint and many of the complaints are exaggerated of course as i'm sure you understand because one bad story leads to, good god, everybody is being affected. but let them go before a tribunal that we set up, jointly, if you'd like, where these claims of damaging are assessed and if found credible then we actually release some funds. so there are a variety of ways in which the countries can actually allay your concerns about how much the -- their own people are costing us and try and ease the hostility which otherwise would spread, like in some areas, like your question itself was suggestive of the kind of resentment and hostility you feel about this situation. host: what -- one viewer gives the suggestion
guest: i'm not in favor for one reason which is the more restrictions and constraints and liabilities you impose on this process of getting them out of the shadows and giving them green or red cards, preferably as soon as possible, that bad process is actually -- makes it less and less attractive for these people to emerge from whatever shadows they're in right now. some of them would like to be coming out into the open, many of them are in favor of these kids of ideas.
but the more difficult you make it, the less likely it is that they will find it advantage tages to do so. so in my opinion this is the left brain-right brain problem. the people opposed want to put in more constraints and that makes it very difficult to come up with anything very sensible in washington. and so i'm thinking of ways in which we can really move away from washington where these problems of the left brain-right brain are so dominant that we have not since 19 86 been able to pass a single piece of legislation. and even now i'm not sure whether we will. but my worry is that even if we do it will be done in such a way that it will not make any real difference to the amount of illegal immigration we get. and at the same time it's going to make life more and more difficult for illegals. and that is certainly not an american value. it just seems to me if these people are going to be here regardless, whatever we had do we had better learn to treat them with humanity. host: talking about immigration until 9:15. ohio, democrat's line you are next. guest: i find this demonization and this harsh rhetoric on the right wing is just -- i just totally -- it's unnecessary, unwarranted. could you explain perhaps about the economics of these people coming in.
it seems to me that these people are taking jobs that are low-paying, you know, unpleasant jobs that americans wouldn't take, for example in the -- in michigan in the apple orchards, the fruit orchards, they had a labor shortage again this year. so i'm curious about this resentment of the people doing these very poor jobs that are poorly paid that americans won't do. guest: i think he is right to raise that question. one way to react is just say that actually when you look at a job, you have to look at it not just the wage which you pay but also whether americans are willing to take that job at that wage.
so i give an example. if i have in my classroom since i'm a professor, if people come and clean up after you've given your lecture probably get about $10 an hour. but if you were to tell me to do it at $10 an hour, i'm not going to take that job. i'm an american since 91. but if somebody comes and says, would you do it for $100 an hour? i say of course i'll cancel my appointment with c-span and go and do that job. but the point is will anybody be able to afford to pay me that $100 pay? of course not. the jobs will not even exist at that price. so i think we have to really think, when people say imgrants are taking away our jobs, we have to laugh at the fact that we are not willing to do those jobs at those prices. so you're absolutely right in making that remark. so i think a lot of people say,
oy, they are taking away jobs. these people are not taking away jobs. the jobs simply would not exist at the prices at which we are willing to do them. host: from texas on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the whole argument about how they're contributing by working and paying in our tax system. that's our kids' first jobs. we need them to get used to working. and they start out young and they pay taxes, too, when they
have jobs available. but they don't have no jobs because they're getting took over by illegal immigrants. and those aren't the jobs that our kids won't do. those are jobs our kids are looking for and cannot find. and our army is supposed to keep us from being invaded. they haven't done that. maybe they need to make conditions better in mexico so people will quit running from there. but we're the ones footing the bill and our kids are the ones paying the price. i don't understand how you all don't understand that. and our kids spend their money here. they don't send it back there. guest: i think this is the same problem that you get in relation to the discussion of the minimum wage that most people on your side of the street in the argument think that somehow it's really the kids versus ordinary people who want those
kinds of jobs. kids are part of the problem. but they're part of the problem today in a very different way where from what immigration really gets sort of involved in. we have had in the last -- since the 2008 crisis a particularly bad situation of unemployment. there are a whole lot of things i think the previous program was dealing with that issue to some extent. and in the i think there, we cannot make policy on the basis of the that it assumption that somehow this kind of macro crisis and the matter of unemployment which we now see -- which is hopefully beginning to be reduced -- but that will continue frer. if it was true i think one would
need a very different kind of mindset to deal with that situation which would involve trade, immigration, a variety of issues. what you do about technological change, how do you accommodate that. but that's a whole set of things which you want to address. and i think you ought to worry about that a little bit. but we are pulling out of it. so we cannot make policy on immigration trade et cetera on the basis of what may be a five-year phenomenon or maybe six years, because we have traditionally been able to absorb and need large quantities of foreign labor, which has always been the case. also on trade where similar issues are raised we have had the same problem that we really have been now some people worry about outsourcing. but we have to have imports to have efficient exports because otherwise our products would not be up to snuff. so all of these things are interconnected. it seems to me when you look at the totality of youthful
employment, it is a measure rotter question. of low-iewer speaks ising jobs. he said this vast. guest: i don't think low wages are because of illegal immigrants. if illegal immigrants did not exist, or immigrants properly admitted, they do not have anything happening like that in a significant way. even the foreign bill gives the union's the right to decide how many people come in. i don't think we have a situation where people are simply able to come in and take away our jobs, because the jobs do not exist at the prices which we americans would want, except in the case of drastic unemployment.
i was distinguishing between the current five years or so, which have been pretty drastic when it comes to unemployment. we have an open economy. we do not want people doing jobs that are really low-paying jobs. we cannot pretend that those low-paid jobs exist because of illegal immigration in the sense that we would otherwise be able to raise the wages they're. if we raise the wages there, people can't afford to pay those wages. look in terms at the totality of what would happen if we did not have immigrants doing these jobs.
those jobs simply would not exist. host: another scenario off of twitter. if you are saying, if for going to open the floodgates of immigration again, why can't we impose a limit on unskilled versus highly educated? guest: in many cases, we do need the unskilled people. this is the cover of the book i'm writing on this subject. they can't build a fence at the border. we don't have any illegal labor available to build up the fence to keep out the illegal people. this is a contradiction you have to worry about. we do need the labor in many of these states. we cannot afford to have that labor at the high wages. host: michigan is where jerry is
located, on our independent line. caller: i'm not concerned with anybody becoming a citizen. the only thing i would like to see the government do is make sure that i paid into the government for 40 years and when i retire, i'm looking to get what i paid in or a portion of it. i want the illegal citizens to pay in for 15 years before they're allowed to get any benefits. if that is all tied together, i don't care who is a citizen. i just don't want my money being paid out to people who come over and have not paid in.
guest: that's a very good point. to modify what you're saying, i think we have to recognize that studies show that illegal immigrants are paying taxes. they pay when they buy things in the marketplace. their salaries are being deducted because employers who hire them do pay in taxes and social security and all sorts of things. when people study how much these people actually have been putting in against taking out, we are a lot better off. counterintuitive as it may seem, given the way our tax systems are framed, they are not sponging off of us. that is one thing we need to remember. on the other hand, when such misperceptions exist, that is where i was suggesting that -- mexicans, for example, the mexican government could make contributions to handle those misperceptions. host: there is a story in the "financial times" today.
they highlight mark zuckerberg of facebook. why do you think there is such an interest in silicon valley over undocumented workers and the ability to be in the united states? guest: it's a political thing. traditionally we have had separate bins for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. this time around, they are not bringing in the refugees, which is becoming a major crisis around the world. we are taking one slice from the illegal immigration, what silicon valley is doing.
the h-1b visas are for people in the medical, stem, engineering, and math. this is what we called ptk's before, professional, technical, and kindred people. the company have nothing to do with illegal immigration. we don't immigrate illegally. we can get all kinds of visas. there are ways in which we can do it. if we come in illegally and get caught, the consequence would be enormous. we don't want that on rcv -- our cv. you might ask, why are we doing this as part of illegal immigration reform. we can bring in unskilled people and have guest worker programs, but that is not what zuckerberg or bill gates are talking about. they want skilled immigrants to becoming an. that is a separate issue. why is it being brought in here? because the people who are pushing through the comprehensive reform believe that they can mobilize these people's roles in order to have the total bill go through. they're trying to bring in more
troops. i think they are lining up any support they can to have the whole thing go through in terms of the illegal immigration part. it is purely a matter of getting more allies. as soon as you try to get to do that, you have also within the stem or ptk, you also have people who are saying, we are engineers and we are unemployed. we shouldn't have this. it doesn't work exactly the way it was supposed to. i think it was a mistake to bring this lot in, it is better to have a legal immigration bill without it being muddled up with this -- these political considerations.
host: here is terry on the democrats' line from florida. caller: thank you. i'm trying to be brief on this now. i want to read something here. great minds discuss ideas. average minds discuss events. small minds discuss people. the speaker, which i have great respect for, has spoken with a great mind, unlike some of the callers who have called in.
i can offer a separate solution myself if you give me the opportunity. just simply have this national id idea that they tossed around in the legislation, work that into the situation with a national idea that everybody who is illegal or legal can sign up and get a national id as to their identity and where they are, and so forth, and that will solve the whole problem. guest: i think that's a very good idea which we should be considering quite seriously. when you have things like employer sanctions, it was inevitable that people in our country, how do you attack an employer for hiring illegals unless you can say that he went through a process by which he was identified as illegal?
otherwise, if you're discriminating against people who look like me from india or who are from -- hispanic, you have to have an id process. i have lived in this country and england and india. this is one country where my pocket bulges with a number of ids. -- id's. if you really want to be able to give rewards or punishments to people depending on their status, then you have to have an id process. i think we democrats cannot have it both ways. we cannot say we must employ sanctions. we must be able to identify and prove in a court of law that the employer was deliberately
disregarding the illegal status of these people. we need to really look at our economy, our society, what is possible. the one thing which we really need to worry about is that this is a country where you could never eliminate illegals from our midst. that is a fundamental mistake of all these legislations, which is that as long as we have restraints in place and people cannot just walk in or swim in, this is inevitable that we have to have these restraints because people want to come here.
you go to india or china, put your finger on somebody's children say, do you want to go to america? they will say, where is the plane and where is the ticket. we cannot afford to dismantle restrictions. illegals are bound to becoming an and using all sorts of ways to come in. the real problem is -- you can do it by analogy by the movie "the untouchables" -- no matter how many idiots you send out to keep out out opponents, the trucks will keep -- al capones, the trucks will keep rolling in.
whatever mix of policies we come up with, we have to allow for the fact that we should not set up obstacles to the id process. people will just wind up in our midst even more, not a thing that is a politically viable process to have where we say we will forget about it if you are legal or illegal. we have got to think of things that are really feasible. feasibility requires that we accept id cards exactly as you suggested. host: steve is on the republican line. caller: i wanted to see what the gentleman had to say -- we have the illegal immigrants here, and they do the fruit picking and these jobs that supposedly we don't want to do, but they don't have health insurance, so the immigration problem ties in with our health insurance debacle because they clog up the emergency room's, they're not contributing to that problem -- contributing to that problem.
we have cheap fruit, but our health insurance is skyrocketing. maybe you could mention something about the balance of that. guest: these are exactly the kinds of questions you have to >> we will leave to go live to president obama's coverage on the immigration policy. this is live from san francisco. ♪ ♪
hernt to starts by thanking for the wonderful introduction and the great work she has been doing. give her a round of applause. [applause] lieutenant governor newsom. i want to recognize some wonderful members of congress who are fighting every day for the people of california, mike honda -- [cheers and applause] doing thathey are work every saturday. entire ucerseeing the
system and will be doing a great job. we nester back in washington. she is going to be outstanding leaving the university of california. for i begin, i want to say a few words about the news problem over the weekend. i am here to talk about immigration reform. i am also here in my capacity as commander-in-chief. this weekend together with our allies and partners the united mets an agreement with iran on the nuclear program. some of you may recall that when a version for president i said it was time for a new era of new american leadership in the world, one that turned the page on a decade of war and began a new era of our engagement with the world. as president and commander-in- chief, i have done what i said. we ended the war in iraq. we brought our troops home. justice. laden met
the war in afghanistan will in next year. strongest nation on the face of the earth, we engaged in clear eyed, principal diplomacy even with our adversaries in order to begin to just and to place the first real constraint in a decade on a rant's nuclear program. i firmly believe in what president kennedy once said. he said let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. i believe that. this diplomacy, backed by the unprecedented sanctions we brought on iran have brought us the progress that we've achieved this weekend. for the first time in a decade, we've halted the progress on iran's nuclear program. keep parts of the program will be -- key parts of the program will be rolled back. [applause]
international inspectors will have unprecedented access to iran's nuclear related facilities. but this will help keep iran from building a nuclear weapon. over the coming months we will continue our diplomacy with the goal of achieving a comprehensive solution that deals with the threat of a rant nuclear program once and for all. and if iran seizes the opportunity and choses to join the global community, then we can begin to chip away with the mistrust that has existed for many years between our two nations. be easy.hat's going to huge challenges remain, but we cannot close the door on diplomacy and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions for the world's problems. the cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle. tough talk may be the easy thing to do politically but it is not the right thing for our security. [applause]
this progress and the potential it offers reminds us of what is possible when the united states has the courage to lead. not just with the force of arms, but with the strength of diplomacy and our commitment to peace. that's what keeps us strong. that's what makes us a beacon for the world. continue to will lead so long as i'm president of the united states. and that spirit, not just what we can criticize or tear down or be against, but what we can build together, that's what brings me here today. time toit's long past fix our broken immigration system. [applause] we need to make sure washington finishes what so many americans
just like you started. andot to finish the job. it's fitting that we are here in chinatown, just a few miles away from angel island. in the early 1900s, about 300,000 people, maybe some of your ancestors, passed through on their way to a new life in america. for many, it represented the end of a long and arduous journey. they finally arrived in a place or they believed anything was possible. for some, it also represented the beginning of a new struggle against prejudice in a country that didn't always treat it immigrants fairly or afford them the same rights as everybody else. the asians faced this thomas so did the irish, so did italians, and so did jews, and many groups still do today. that didn't stop those brave men and women from coming. they were drawn by a belief in
the power of opportunity. a belief that said, maybe i never had a chance at a good education, but this is a place where my daughter can go to college. maybe i have to start out washing dishes, but this is a place where my son can become mayor of san francisco. [applause] maybe i have to make sacrifices today, but those sacrifices are worth it if it means a better life for my family. that's a family story that will be shared by millions of americans around the table on thursday. that drew myy great, great, great grandfather from a small village in ireland, and drew my father from a small village in kenya.
it's a story that drew so many of your ancestors here, that america is a place where you can make it if you try. and here's something interesting. four, more than one in residents born outside the united states came here from asian countries. many through our family immigration system. , businessoctors owners, laborers, refugees. this rec center's namesake, nine/11g, was a hero on . [applause] she was also the daughter of immigrants who grew up not far honored tond we are have her family with us here today. [applause] but too often when we talk about
immigration, the debate focuses on our southern border. the fact is, we are blessed with immigrants from all over the world. who have put down roots in every corner of this country. francisco, 35% of business owners are immigrants. your economy is among the fastest-growing in the country. that's not an accident. are's the impact that talented, hard-working immigrants can have. that's the difference they can make. they are hungry and they are striving and they are working hard. and they are creating things that weren't there before. and that's why it is long past time to reform and immigration system that might -- right now doesn't serve america as well as it should. we could be doing so much more to unleash our potential, if we just fix this aspect of our system. california,ere in
you watch the news and you share the countries not very sunny view of washington these days. you've last few months, seen a lot of headlines about gridlock and partisan bickering, and too often, one faction of one party in one house of congress has chosen courses of action that end up harming our businesses or our economy or our workers. or they want to refight old political battles rather than create jobs, grow the economy, and strengthen the middle class, or take 40 more votes to undermine and repeal the affordable care act. instead of passing a single serious jobs bill. despite the fact that americans want us to focus on jobs, business, and growth, and by the way, thousands of californians are signing up every day for new health care plans. [applause]
thisen as we're getting darn website up to speed -- and it's getting better -- states like california are proving the law works. people want the financial security of health insurance. and even if you're already insured, reach out to her friend or neighbor and help them get covered. when it comes to immigration reform, we have to have the confidence to believe we can get this done, and we should get it done. by the way, most americans agree. the only thing standing in our way right now is the unwillingness of certain republicans in congress to catch up with the rest of the country. i met the other day with the ceo's of some of america's biggest companies. i'm positive not all of them voted for me. [laughter] i'm pretty sure.
of them, but definitely not all of them. but the thing they wanted to talk about, their top priority was the fact that we invite the brightest minds from around the world to study here, many of them enrolled in the university of california system, and then we don't invite them to stay. we end up sending them home to create new jobs and start new businesses someplace else. so we're training our own competition. those than invite incredibly talented young people to stay here and start businesses, create jobs here. i hear from folks have been separated from their families for years because of green card backlogs, desperately wanting their loved ones to be able to join them here in america. i hear from young dreamers who are americans through and through in every way but on paper, and they just want a
chance to study and serve him contribute to the nation they love. [applause] i talked to business owners who play by the rules that get frustrated because they end up being undercut by those who exploit workers in a shadow economy. they are required to meet the same obligations. those companies in dublin's in our own business. right now, i'm seeing brave advocates who have been fasting for two weeks in the shadow of the capital, sacrificing themselves in an effort to get congress to act. i want to say to my friend from , iu and the other fasters want you to know we hear you, we
are with you. the whole country is with you. there are plenty of leaders, democratic republican, who don't think it is fair that we got 11 million people in this country, including a million from asia, is no real way to come forward and get on the right side of the law. it's not smart, it's not fair, it doesn't make sense. we have kicked this particular can down the road long enough, and everyone knows it. we know what is, the solutions are. there is bipartisan hope of getting it done. this year, the senate passed an immigration reform bill by a wide, bipartisan majority and it addresses the key issues that need to be addressed. it was strengthen our borders. it would level the playing field by holding employers accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. it would modernize our legal immigration system so we eliminate the backlog of family visas and make it easier to attract highly skilled entrepreneurs from beyond our borders. it would make sure that
everybody plays by the same rules, by providing a pathway to earned citizenship for those who are living in the shadows. a path that includes passing a background check and learning english and paying taxes and getting in line behind everyone trying to come here the right way. each of these pieces would go a long way towards fixing our broken immigration system. each of them has been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. it is no reason we can't come together and get it done. more, we know the immigration reform we are proposing would boost our economy and strengthen our deficits -- shrink our deficits. if the senate bill became law over the next two decades, our economy would grow by 1.4 trillion dollars more and would reduce our deficits by $850 billion more. you don't have to be an
economist to figure out that workers will be more productive if the got their families here with them. they're not worried about deportation. this isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. democratic and republican governors -- just because all that is in place doesn't mean will actually get it done, because this is washington, after all, that were talking about. everything is looked at through a political prism. let's be honest. some folks automatically think if obama is for it, then i've got to be against it. even if, before that, i was for it. but i want to refined everybody, to his great credit, robert -- predecessor,
president bush was for reform. 23as in the senate, i joined senate republicans back in supporting reform. it's worth remembering that the senate bill that just passed one more than a dozen republican votes. , i'm not forget running for office again. michelle doesn't forget. so you don't have to worry about this somehow being good for me. this is good for the country. it's the right thing to do for the american people. ultimately, not only in the short term, but ultimately, good policy is good politics. look at the polls right now. the american people support immigration reform. by a clear majority. everybody wins if we get this done. but there's no reason we shouldn't get immigration reform done right now.
if there is a good reason, i haven't heard it. betterway, if there's a plan out there than the one democrats and republicans have already advanced together, if there are additional ideas that would make it even better, i most -- i'm always willing to listen to new ideas. my door is always open. but right now it's up to republicans in the house to decide if we can move forward as a country on this bill. see it don't want to happen, they've got to explain why. the good news is, just this past week, speaker boehner said that he is hopeful we can make progress on immigration reform. and that is good news. i believe the speaker is sincere. i think he genuinely wants to get it done. and that's something we should be thankful for this week. number ofk there are other house republicans who also want to get this done. some of them are hesitant to do it in one big bill like the senate did. thanksgiving, we
can carve that bird into multiple pieces. as long as all the pieces get done, soon, and we actually deliver on the core values we have been talking about for so long. i think everybody is fine with it. they're not worry them about the procedures, they just want to results. but it's going to require some courage. there are some members of the republican caucus who think this is bad politics form back home, and they are free to vote their conscience, but what i've said don't speaker and others, let a minority of you folks block something the country desperately needs. we can't leave this problem for another generation to solve. if we don't tackled this now, we are undercutting our own future.
ismy message to congress hummer or rather than create problems, disprove washington can get something done. this is something that has broad-based support. we've been working on it for a decade now. mosys we'vecomes as gotten to something that will benefit everybody, now and for decades to come, and it has the potential to enrich this country in ways we can't even imagine. i will just give you one example . andrew lee is here today. where is andrew? he has an amazing story. , and heup in vietnam and his four brothers tried three times to flee to the united states. obviously the country was going through all kinds of difficulties. so three times they tried, three times they failed. on the fourth try, their boat, filled with 140 refugees, was
attacked by pirates. familyy in their eventually mated to malaysia and then they eventually made here to san francisco, and they learned english. they worked as handyman and seamstresses, and eventually andrew and his brothers had earned enough money to buy a small bakery. the started making doughnuts. and they started selling them to chinese restaurants. work and aof hard little luck, the sugar mold millionoday is a $60 business. [applause] so these humble and striving immigrants from vietnam now employing more than 300 americans. to costcolying pastry
in safeway almost every hotel in hospital in san francisco. i don't know if andrew brought me any samples. [laughter] but they must be pretty good. andrew says we came here with nothing, so we don't take things for granted. we know this is the best country in the world if you work hard. america is a place where he can reach for something better if you work hard. it is a country our parents and grandparents in waves of immigrants before them built for us. it falls on each new generation to keep it that way. the statue of liberty doesn't have it's back to the world. faces the of liberty world.
and raises its light to the world. when chinese immigrants came to this city in search of gold mountain, they were looking just for physical riches. they were looking for freedom and opportunity. they knew that what makes us american is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. because we look like the world. you've got a president named obama. [laughter] [applause] what makes us american is our shared belief in certain enduring principles. allegiance to a set of ideals, to a creed, to the
enduring promise of this country , and our shared responsibility is to leave this country more generous, more hopeful than we found it. and if we stay true to that history, if we get immigration reform across the finish line, and it is there, just within our grasp, if we can just get folks in washington to go ahead and do what needs to be done, were going to grow our economy, were going to make our country more secure. will strengthen our families, -- most importantly among most important, we will live up to our character as a nation. [indiscernible] exactly what we are talking about. that's why we are here.
>> at the same time, you have the power to -- >> actually, i don't. and that's why we're here. [indiscernible] x don't worry about it, guys. these guys don't need to go. let me finish. you can stay there. hold on a second. [applause] i respect the passion of these young people. they feel deeply about the concerns for their families. now, what you need to know, when i'm speaking as president of the united states, and i come to , is that if, in
fact, i could solve all these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so. but we're also a nation of laws. that's part of our tradition. and so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like i can do something by violating our laws. what i'm proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic process to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve, but it won't be as easy as just shouting. it requires a lobby and getting it done. [applause] so for those of you who are ,ommitted to getting this done i am going to march with you and fight with you every step of the way to make sure that we are welcoming every striving, hard- working immigrant to see america
the same way we do, as a country where, no matter who you are and what you look like or where you come from, you can make it if you try. and if you're serious about i'm ready toappen, work with you. but it is going to require work. it is not simply a matter of us just saying were going to violate the law. that's not our tradition. about thishing country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it's messy, and sometimes it's hard, but ultimately, justice and truth wins out. that's always been the case in this country and that's going to continue to be the case today. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you, and god bless america. ♪
will talk about his economic agenda. he started talking about lifting sanctions on iran. senate majority leader harry senate might pursue stronger sanctions against iran after lawmakers criticized a nuclear accord that would ease sanctions. he called it an important first step but expressed uncertainty whether it would be good enough to meet when we come back, we will take a look at this, see if we need stronger sanctions, he said in an interview today. coming up this evening, our special q&a program will feature .nthropologist robin nagle she will discuss her experience as a sanitation worker in new york city. it starts at 7 p.m. great years ago, i don't think anyone looked at a crystal ball and thought some college campus streaming netflix onto
an iphone to watch a movie. this is what is happening out there, we have a huge issues out -- i that technology remember in northwest ohio, depending on the day, if the antenna on top of the house was working right, you got to channels. or maybe you didn't get any channels, because it depends on the wind and the light and everything else. the industry has changed so rapidly. i want to make sure that we have things out there, regulations and laws on the books that support this innovation. just on the cell phone side, about free .8 million jobs. >> technology issues in front of the current congress. tonight on the communicators at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2.
starting tonight, watch nbc's coverage of the state funeral. >> during the president's historic chief rick to china -- , it was noticing the pack of cigarettes had pandas on them. he said i understand you also admired the pandas at the zoo. he said yes, aren't they darling? he said we will make sure you have pandas to go home with. there brought so much goodwill. news reports would come out, they would talk about the but they would always talk about what a good job she did. andlso on c-span radio www.c-span.org.
>> new jersey republican governor chris christie has criticized both parties in washington for being absolutist who failed to lead. and wall street it journal event earlier this month, he avoided answering questions about a possible presidential run. he was also just named the new head of the republican governors association. this is just under 40 minutes. q. >> thank you for being with us. >> i'm a republican from new jersey. i was just worried about getting over the finish line. >> what was striking to so many people, if you look at the detail of those exit polls, you won 50% of the latino vote, over 20% of the black vote, if the a percent of women, running
against a woman democratic candidate. a lot of questions about the pewter of the republican party, so how did you do it? >> the first thing is, you do your job. makeen think that folks political leadership to complicated. do yourxpect you to job, first and foremost. in new jersey,ks republican, democrat, independent, felt as if we had done our job. if youond thing is, it want to reach out to constituencies who have not normally voted with your party, you can go six months before the election. we made a concerted effort from the time i got into office today , we only got 30% of the latino vote in 2009. that seven percent of the american vote in 2009.
we started working with those them a serious seat at the table, knowing that they weren't always going to agree with my policies, but that they were going to be listened to. i think that was a very important part of the victory as well. campaigns still do matter. a reallytunate to have outstanding campaign team that had worked with me for the last five years, so they knew me. these are not folks who parachuted in from washington or someplace else with their own ideas about angst. these are folks that knew me and knew my voice and new but i would be willing to do and what i would not be willing to do. >> you have become a national figure in the last four years. tell us the things you did that were most effective in terms of changing the political or economic trajectory that new jersey was on. you did a number of things on taxes and public sector unions.
i couldn't point to any one particular achievement that i think was most important. we cut taxes $2.3 billion. we reformed the pension and benefit system to save $120 million over the next 30 years, all in the face of stiff opposition. the most important thing we did was to change the conversation. so many of these things were considered givens in new jersey that could not be changed. our position was, i'm a republican in new jersey. i'm playing with house money come and i'm not supposed to be there. i'm not supposed to be alive. the fact is, if you get elected in that context, and you have two choices. you can either try to figure out how to try to play everything conventionalm the wisdom perspective, or you can just say i'm doing it my way.
if it works, i might have a chance to win, and if it doesn't, i'm going to lose. we changed the conversation very early on. we took on the teachers union, the most powerful union in our state. they have 200,000 members in new jersey. dues of $140annual million. from those dues they do not pay anything on teacher salary, pension, or help where. it is essentially a trust fund to reward their friends and punish their enemies. so we took them on early. they never expected any politician in new jersey to do that, and the public react the extort nearly well. i think that was really the moment they change the conversation in new jersey. it made a lot of the things we did possible because it we
showed we were willing to take on the biggest bully in the schoolyard. >> is their national lesson from that? are the national equivalents of the new jersey teachers union? i'm jumping ahead of myself here. teachers are organized on a local basis and paid by local authority. >> but you are talking about setting a tone him and you have to point out to people, as rupert mentioned in his remarks today, the education system in our country, while there are successes, in the main it is many, many millions of families in our country, and any one of these ceos down here knows that the only way american companies or international
companies that work in america are going to continue to thrive as with an educated workforce. that doesn't start when you get to college. issue of ourining time, what were going to do with the education system in america. it is now defining us as mediocre. getting better results, better satisfaction among parents >> in certain places we are. in others, it is suited -- it is too soon to tell. for instance, look at the city of newark, our largest city. we paid $24,000 per pupil per year for public education. two years ago, the graduation rate was 23%. now, i don't know how you define failure. in asbury park, where i held my election night celebrations, we pay $33,000 per pupil per year. two years ago, less than 50% of
the young people who graduated from asbury park high school could read at the eighth-grade level. so, somehow with the teachers union -- this is a debate about whether that is failure or not. my opponent, who was endorsed by the teachers union, said that when it was pointed out to her we have 200 failing schools in new jersey, her response was, that is not a bad percentage. they asked me for my response. my response, that sounds like someone who never sent their children to one of those schools. if you send your children to one of those schools, it is an obscenity. that is my difference between the republican view of what needs to be done with education in america and the democrat slash teachers union view, that the status quo is fine and we will get to fixing those places. if your child is in the classroom, eventually isn't good enough.
>> you didn't change the economic performance much. the unemployment rate is still one of the highest in the nation. you haven't had a particularly strong recovery. other states have done better. why hasn't new jersey produced more jobs in the last four years? >> tell those critics to come to jersey and attempt to turn around the queen mary in the delaware river. the fact was, we were the highest-taxed state in america when i took over as governor. we were rated e state with the least business friendliness in america. we raised taxes and fees 115 times in eight years at the state level. you are not going to turn that around in four years completely. what we have done is cut business taxes by 2.3 billion dollars, cut regulations by 1/numeral re-over where they were in the corzine yurok, and create private sector jobs. in the last year, from august 12
august 13, new jersey ranked in the top 15 in the country. it will take us longer, because we were in the deepest of deep holes in a state that had followed a liberal democrat doctrine for a decade of there is no tax you can't raise or create and you can't raise it high enough to drive people out of your state. boston college did a study that between 2004 and 2008, in the heart of democratic governance, $70 billion in wealth left our state. you don't recover from that like that. it is going to take a while. look at your numbers, i think they will continue in the trajectory they're going in now. >> you expect a real economic dividends in the next couple years? >> i do. you can't -- everything is relative, but i do expect us to continue to be more competitive. for instance, a state like new york is moving in the wrong direction. you see taxes being increased, a new mayor in new york who is
aggressively talking about increasing taxes in new york city. i feel badly for new yorkers. come to new jersey. [laughter] you know it is moving in the other direction. >> but not to the tunnel you decided not to build. >> that tunnel would have never been built, whether i decided to build it or not. this is what new jerseyans hate the most. want to be popular in new jersey? cancel the tunnel between new jersey and new york. one, because it is the smart thing to do. secondly, the deal negotiated by jon corzine, a wizard of business, apparently, was that well, it is true. you may not like it, but it is true. his subsequent performance has shown that as well. after he left the governorship.
the fact is -- hard truths need to be told. the fact is, the negotiation he made with the federal government was that new jersey would contribute about $3 billion to this project and would be responsible for every nickel of the cost overruns. new york city, zero. new york state, zero. for a tunnel that will take people predominantly to new york. and was not going to go to penn station, where people could get on subsequent mass transit to go to other places in the city. this was going to the basement of macy's. six stories below macy's, a $1 billion terminal. >> miracle on 34th street. >> the miracle would have been if it happened. folks say to me, why did you cancel it? my answer is, why the hell would i ever build it? we would be responsible for every nickel of cost overruns in
a federal transportation project. nothing to worry about, right? talk to our friends in boston who went through the big dig. this was the single largest federal transportation budget that would ever be built. i canceled it because it was a bad deal for the people of new jersey. there is nothing they are more suspicious of them getting stuck with it by new york. >> that is a good opportunity to talk about national issues. on your election night, in your victory speech he talked about what you achieved in trenton. working across the aisle, achieving political consensus. there were lessons there for washington. what are the lessons for washington? what is wrong right now in washington? that is a long list, so don't go through all of it, but tell me what you would change in washington right now. >> the people. predominantly. >> in both parties?
>> sure. both parties have equal blame in what is going on here. listen, i have a completely democratic legislature in new jersey. it is not like it is close, everybody. strongly democrat. how do we get pension reform, how do we cap property taxes, cut business taxes? how do you do all the things that don't appear to be traditional democratic things with a democratic legislature? it is about human relationships. the fact of the matter is, nobody in the city talk to each other anymore. if they do, they don't speak to each other civilly. they don't develop relationships, don't develop any sense of trust between each other. then they expect from the kinds of problems you talked about,, big, difficult, contentious problems, that they will be able to get into a room and fix it. >> who do you blame for that? >> first and foremost, the president.
if you are the executive, you're in charge of making that happen. if i waited for the state legislature to come to me, i would be waiting forever. they are legislators. they are elected not to lead. [laughter] that is it. members of congress, members of the state legislature, they don't have a responsibility to lead. they always have an excuse. if you let them. the executive is the person held responsible. first and foremost, the president -- this is no newsflash to anybody -- he has not developed relationships necessary on a personal level with both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle, to be able to bring people to the white house and be a consensus- builder to drive the course. i was watching one of the numerous specials on the assassination of president kennedy. there was one particular piece on the warren commission. they played a tape of president johnson on the phone with richard russell, who said, i
don't want to be on the commission because i can't stand earl warren. johnson said, you know, i don't take no for an answer. too bad, it has already been announced. what did russell do? he served. that is because he knew johnson. johnson knew him. in the end, when i develop these relationships over time, you compromise at times, you don't walk away with everything you want. but if i walk away with 70% of my agenda, new jersey is 70% better than it would have been otherwise. what we have in washington, on both sides of the aisle, absolutists. >> a month or so ago we went through the government shutdown. you have criticized the president, but you have been critical of your own party, too. who was to blame, and what are the lessons you think should be
learned? >> both sides were to blame. it was a train wreck everybody saw coming for months. where was the president? he knew this, everybody knew the dates. it wasn't like, i forgot my calendar, i didn't know this was coming. everybody knew this was happening. and i think there were a number of people in congress on the republican side of the aisle who just did not have an endgame. >> talking about ted cruz? >> i get myself in enough trouble without your help. [laughter] >> the strategy of defunding obamacare as a condition for keeping the government open. >> and's obamacare is still currently being funded and the government is reopened. maybe i am too simple, but it appears to me the strategy of defunding it by closing the government failed. some people believe it was the
right thing to do. that's fine. they can believe it was the right thing to do. you can rail against obamacare. you can refuse to run a state- based exchange because you know the whole process is a train wreck, as i have done in new jersey. but not subscribed to the notion that your job in running the government is to close it. your job in running the government is to run it and run it efficiently. all the people down here, from the president to the leadership in congress who engaged in this, failed by definition. why are people more appreciative of what is going on in states? we are actually doing our jobs. >> do you think obamacare can survive this mess it is in right now? does it have to be scrapped? >> obamacare is a failure, it has always been a failure, and it will not succeed. it just won't. >> how would you replace it? >> i am not going to go through
an issue like that with 16:26 to go. >> you can have 14:00 to do that. >> that is the problem. as all due respect, that is part of the problem with the culture here. somebody things i can solve obamacare in 14 minutes. solve the health care crisis in 14 minutes. and i have 30 seconds on iran and 22 seconds on syria. we will solve the whole thing. carve it up. either conflicts conflict problems, and people are tired of these focus group-tested, below-dried answers people give that all sound the same. somebody asked me during the campaign, why is it you get so much attention? i said, unlike most politicians i don't sound like charlie brown's teacher. it all sounds the same.
it is the most extraordinary overreached of government power in the history of our country. it is being run by people who never ran anything. so why are we surprised it is failing? it is failing because the people in charge have never run anything in their lives, and even if they knew how to run things this would be hard to run because it is an extraordinary overreached, taking over 1/7 of the entire economy. we need to replace it. we need a robust debate on both sides. unlike last time when the president jammed this down everybody's throat and got one republican vote because he was unable to compromise. we need copper mines were everybody brings skin to the table and everybody compromises. if we do that, we can craft a
solution. if we don't, we will continue to have this failure. >> it seems objectively obvious that to defund obamacare and shut down the government strategy failed abjectly. how did the gop get itself in a position where it was associated with that for such a long time? how did that happen? >> bad decision-making. a lack of courage. that is really at. we all saw it on display. the fact the democrats were as guilty. harry reid played the same kind of games. we are not going to fund this, funds that, even though they believe in funding those things. he was going to do it because it was good public policy to close all the monuments in town? good public policy not to fund the military in the places it should be funded? of course not.
if you ask what was good public policy, he would not answer. he would pivot to the are publicans are the cause of the problem. come on. he did not do that because he saw political advantage not doing that. i am fine with the republican party taking their share of the blame. i am not fine with the republican party taking all the blame. harry reid and nancy pelosi played as many games as the folks on the republican side. so we need to drop down some of the partisan cloak here and say, both sides fail here. we have an enormous failure of executive leadership by a president that seemed unwilling or unable or uninterested in being engaged. >> you are just about to take over the chairmanship of the republican governors association. 30 republican governors across the country. how are you going to use your platform? >> elect republican governors. >> how do you do that?
>> my job is to make sure they have the resources they need to tell that story, and also to hopefully give them strategic advice on the best way to reach out and broaden the reach of their base of voters in this state. in the 14 other states where there are democratic incumbents or open seats, it will be my job to identify talented challengers to come in and challenge in those states to make sure they are funded and help them with strategy as well. but my job is to be supportive of those 36 races. to make the strategic choices about where we should invest the most money to yield the greatest success. it is not a whole lot more consultative than that. >> you will be spending time in iowa. >> there is a republican incumbent governor who is the longest-serving governor in
american history. in new hampshire, we have a incumbent democrat governor. i will also be in places like texas, where governor perry is retiring and we have a really dynamic candidate in the attorney general there. i will also be in states like south carolina and pennsylvania and ohio and florida, michigan, arkansas. all over the country raising money and trying to help folks raise their identity level with the voters. if we have a chance to tell a story, we will do quite well. we have 30 republican governors now out of 50. >> a lot of people were keen on you to run for president in 2012. you turned down the opportunity. how do you make your mind about 2016? >> don't know. depends on what the politics of
the world are like them. >> is there any other republican candidate you could get behind? >> there's a number of people who would make good presidents. whether i would support them depends on the politics of the time and how they continue to develop. this is a long way away. we are three years away from the presidential elections. in this sense, i feel badly for president obama. he just won a year ago, and everybody is like, "who's next?" as we shoved him out the door we minimize his ability to be an effective executive. we shouldn't do that. i am not rushing. i have work to do. i just got reelected governor. i have an agenda i want to pursue in the next two years. i will make that decision when i have to. i was direct with the people of my state. people confronted me, my opponent frequently in debates,
are you going to serve a full term? i don't know. if i decide to run for president and win, i won't. if i don't, i won't. i don't have to make that decision now. people who run companies know this. when you make decisions before it is the right time to make them, you increase geometrically the chance to screw that decision up. not something i want to screw up. >> you speak very directly, unusually for a politician. >> thank you. >> you have spoken very directly about some republicans. you hinted at it tonight. there are people in the republican party who think you have been to direct and two critical of republicans, and it does not play well. they also don't like the fact you seem to have a warm relationship with president obama. i year ago, hurricane sandy, the work you did there. have you some work to do with the republican base to reassure them you are a good, solid, reliable republican?
>> how outrageous. your state has been hit by the worst storm in its history and the head of the federal government comes to help. and when he does a couple things right, you say he did a couple things right. it is the most outrageous bit of heresy. it is ridiculous. i speak candidly about everyone. when the president does something worth praising, i will praise him. when he does something worth damning, i will damn him. i will not make that decision based upon my party. i think most republicans, except for a few who like to see themselves on television, understand that what you expect of a elected official first and foremost -- the second thing you expect is performance. the people of new jersey judge me on honesty and performance, and we got 61% of the vote.
some republicans think i must not be conservative. how could a conservative win there? this is completely crazy to me. among these elements, the better you do, the more voters you attract, the more diverse voters you attract, the more suspect you are. there is a winning formula. let me tell you. [laughter] there is a winning formula. so no, i don't feel like i have any fence-mending to do. if i ever decide to run for anything again, it being me isn't good enough, fine, i will go home. this is in my whole life. my mother used to say to me all the time, to me and my younger siblings, my brother and sister, be yourself, because then tomorrow you don't have to worry about trying to remember who you were trying to be yesterday. you never have to worry about that with me.
i will never have to worry about remembering what i said during the debate. if that is good enough for me, that is great. it was good enough for new jersey two weeks ago. if it is not good enough in any other election i might someday pursue, i will find some work. >> we have some minutes for questions from the floor. you have a very outspoken and directly speaking governor speaking to you. anybody wants to ask any questions? there will be some microphones around. >> nobody raising their hands, brings to mind to me, i have a monthly radio call-in show called "ask the governor." in the first year it was pretty contentious. one of my friends said i should rename the program "ask the governor, call if you dare." >> how is that for an invitation? let me ask you a bit about the campaign last year, the
presidential campaign, mitt romney. according to some published reports recently, they considered you very carefully for the vice presidential slot. i am not sure how carefully you considered being the running mate. they raise some questions about your background, about some ethical questions about your time as u.s. attorney, related to your brother. you are going to get a lot of scrutiny over the next few years, whether you run or not. the press is going to be examining you carefully. the romney campaign, according to accounts published in this book that was published recently, did not get satisfactory answers. >> it is simply not true. all you have to do is listen to mitt romney. he is the only guy who got to make the decision. what governor romney has said publicly since the book came out let's face it about this book, this book is a book where these two authors trawl at the lower levels of campaigns to get
gossip which they then put between two hardcovers, and all of a sudden because they put it between two hardcovers it becomes authoritative. the authoritative source for my betting is the guy who did it, mitt romney. he said there was nothing in the vetting that gave him any pause at all, nothing that had not been in the public realm, and it was not the reason he did not ask me to be vice president. as far as scrutiny goes, i am not worried about scrutiny. some will be fair, some will be unfair. if you are worried about that in this business, you don't belong in this business. >> the press, they like your directness. >> you have to ask them. if they ask good questions, i give good answers, and it usually makes good copy for them.