Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 24, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EST

12:00 pm
majority in the congress and search for common grounds. that is what leadership looks like. that is all we do everyday working without legislators. signing an executive order storming around the country defending that executive order is not leadership. the likes of which we practice everyday. i would like to sit this administration down with the republican congress and find genuine common ground, more security, is by -- piece by piece performance that should be advanced on this issue. >> the third governor up here who has washington experience, i know you have to hide that these days.
12:01 pm
but, with the congressional bettercans the in a negotiating position if house republicans had passed something last year, started this incremental -- and that is what the white house says. we waited and waited for better negotiating position if house republicans had passed something last the house to do anything and there is nothing they have done on the issue. >> see that things. one, is resident, he was very plain about this. during the election, he said i will wait until after the midterm elections to take action, knowing this would be unpopular, and then he went out and told us "my policies will be on the ballot. we did not -- we did not say that. he said that. americans rejected those politics in blue states and purple states and red states. he said i will have an election where my policies are -- are on the ballot. .t is the height of arrogance
12:02 pm
he is not the first president to disagree with congress but he may be the first to consistently to ignore it. you may say, look, i agree with the president. substance, but this is not the way to do this. imagine there is a republican president who says, i will ignore congress, and i will selectively with the affordable care act, obamacare. around the constitution and go around the law. he had the majority. he got obamacare done and -- and the bill done. this is such a priority, he could have done this. it is politics. the reality is, if he is really serious, he would be sincere about securing the border.
12:03 pm
the onethe president is who bears the responsibility. >> you do not think the house republicans have any responsibility for not passing anything for two years in the senate bill? >> i think our immigration system is broken and we need to make it easier for people to come here legally. we need to say the president, how can we trust you when you are not securing the border? you are not doing what you could be doing. he has to be a trustworthy negotiating partner. if he wants to build up goodwill and want to have a productive conversation, as john and mike said, he has to secure the border. he can do that. it is not hard. i would define the border as secured when border state governors say the border is secure. that is how you know. it is not based on a thousand page senate bill. >> governor perry, if basically codifying the executive order, the reality that is already there.
12:04 pm
we are not deporting these folks. there seems to be consensus nobody wants to break up families. aren't we arguing over something nobody was ever going to enforce anyway? >> no. let me address your question about the republicans in congress, from my perspective. one of the reasons they did not do that is you will see this president is going to take this action tomorrow that is unconstitutional, in his own words. >> we don't know that. >> in his own words he said this was not legal for him to do. he did say that. he admitted he could not do what he is going to do tomorrow. when you also add it is bad
12:05 pm
public policy and that the american people are not for this, then you start building a case that the republicans in the house and soon to be the republican majority in the senate will come to him with what is most important to the american people, to secure the border. and it lay a thoughtful bill that doesn't fact fund the needed personnel, the technology, the fast response teams, the fencing -- >> a lot of that was in the senate bill. >> that addresses the issue. singularly. you will not get americans to support an immigration reform bill until, not together, but until the border is secure. and then americans are going to be open to a conversation about
12:06 pm
dealing with these people. not to until then. as a matter fact, it is interesting, the farther i get away from the border, the more intense people seem to be about securing the border. >> i agree with you. what does that tell you? there is a different conversation about immigration in the middle of the country than here in the state of florida or in texas. >> the american people want to see the border secure. when the sheriffs, the police chiefs come up to me and say, governor, thank you for deploying your national guard to secure that border. we are having to pay inordinate amounts of money to prosecute individuals who are in this country that are committing crimes against our citizens.
12:07 pm
so i think the president is taking a major political chance with what he is doing. he is putting his party in jeopardy. he is putting members of the senate and house in jeopardy. maybe he does not care. i would suggest if he goes through with this, and he sticks the finger in the eye of the american people, with no thought about it other than this is what i want to do and i'm going to do it, he jeopardizes long-term the democrats ever to get back in power in washington, d.c. > governor walker, i want to pick up on something about a singular bill on border security.
12:08 pm
the house republicans will put something up. the conversation could be different right now if there was a bill the republicans passed. >> could be. in this case, i'm cynical about the president. this president who campaigned in my state before the election in a ward that was 99% for him in the last election, he went in other states, he was in maryland, others in michigan, across the midwest, i think this president -- it goes beyond immigration. the american people soundly rejected the policies of this president and he desperately wants to get the top of changed
12:09 pm
from the issues we were elected on. we did not get a majority of the senate or as governors, we are not elected for or against immigration. >> it was a big topic in some races. >> not in the governor's races. states like colorado, the new senator elect to actually did well among hispanic voters without being for an aggressive immigration policy. i would say this president does not want us focused on things like a north american energy policy, repealing obama care, he does not want us to balance the budget or reduce the national debt. those are the things republicans were elected to do in the house and the senate. they are the things we are doing.
12:10 pm
that is why he is making a big deal about it right now to weeks after the election. he wants to divert attention from the things americans empowered republicans to do in washington and in the states. >> i was in congress in some of the most turbulent times and the most successful times. we went through a shutdown and after we won the 1994 majority in the house, we had to the shutdown and the chairman to of the budget committee, the clinton folks beat us up badly. they sent feelers to my office to say, hey, it is in our interest to get a balanced budget. the same is true on this issue. this is emblematic of the town in america today -- tone in america today. the country is divided.
12:11 pm
you've got your stuff, i've got my stuff. when we finally were able to work through many tough issues, we got a balanced budget in 1990 seven, the first time since man walked on the moon. we had prosperity. did i like everything bill clinton was doing? are you kidding? but good people needs to be committed to solving problems. he says no border bill first. maybe it can't be worked out.
12:12 pm
everybody knows we have a problem in the country. they may not like his solution, but they want this fixed. people want problems solved. you've got to be careful with the rhetoric because you get too far out on that, and people don't want to deal. my message is you've got to talk to him quietly. you've got to find out, are you interested in solving this problem. we are. we will make some compromises. that is what i would have suggested. >> do any of you think you
12:13 pm
should go to the congressional leadership? let cooler heads prevail. do you engage in the budgetary aspect and force a shutdown? >> i would not place a shutdown. i think you go to court. i think there is a compelling argument. >> who is the aggrieved party in this? i assume there is going to be a court challenge. who is the aggrieved party? >> the american people. it is interesting. bill clinton did not say the republicans in congress are not going along with me, so i'm going to do an executive order. >> the government got shut down first. there was tremendous animosity. >> he did not issue an executive order after that. >> he vetoed welfare reform. >> isn't it that the difference? set aside immigration. this president has said he is the president, not an emperor. he said this is illegal. he defended it time and time
12:14 pm
again and said he could not do this. now he's going to take action. only a partisan democrat would not say this is illegal. that is a difference from saying i want some give-and-take. there is no gift. >> when you have newt gingrich and bob dole at each other over a shutdown, it was not easy. my point is i don't like what he is doing. i think he is making a mistake. what i will say is this is emblematic of our we are going as a country. are we going to deal with the problems of health care, immigration? the problems of a divided country. one thing i learned in congress is that if we had not gotten the clinton people to the table to negotiate, they did not get everything. we did not get every in. had we not done it, we would have never balanced the budget. nothing gets fixed without bite is -- bipartisan support. you've got to look for the places -- look, i did it. i was one of the architects of that budget. i know what it was like. it was not fun. madalyn albright talks about foreign aid. that is enough for a lifetime. ok? [laughter] >> is there a limit on what you would advise house leadership to fight the president? >> the power of the congress is
12:15 pm
the power of the purse. the shutdown was good, in an odd way you are making the case. that it worked. >> shutdowns only happen when you have one catch all bill. i have every confidence speaker boehner and leadership will get out of this lame-duck session and will keep the government moving forward. i'm also confident the new republican majority in the senate and in the house, for the first time in seven years, are going to write a budget and then they're going to go through a regular and orderly process of appropriations bills.
12:16 pm
when i talk about the consent of the governed, that is where the american people work their will. if the president were to go through with this, he is acting outside the consent of the governed and is not providing leadership to solve this issue facing our country in the way the american people would expect a leader to do. they can object by d funding and preventing funding and implementation. for the president, with the stroke of a pen to announce policies and travel around the country defending those policies, i want to say again -- it is true of every one of the governors, that is not the leadership we practice. that is not the leadership john
12:17 pm
kasich was experiencing and that is the leadership the american people long to see. a president and congress who sit down and figured it out. >> governor perry, who is the aggrieved party? >> i will speak from our perspective in texas. we are spending some $12 million a month on border security. we are also, the numbers are just out in harris county, some 3000 additional students from central america have been absorbed into their schools. the cost to the people of texas is an extraordinary amount of money that this president is exacerbating with his announcement he is going to allow for this executive order. >> you believe it will cost texas money.
12:18 pm
>> i don't believe it, i know it. there is probably -- >> the state of texas versus the u.s. government? >> the new incoming governor of texas, who is going to be a fabulous governor, his job description over the last six years when he was asked, what do you do? he said i go to the office, i sue obama, and i go home. [laughter] >> you believe the state of texas will have standing to challenge the implementation of this executive order. >> i do. >> i want to build on something scott and john said. think about how ridiculous this is. we are talking about making the president follow the law.
12:19 pm
congress can sue under separation of powers. the president has a decision to make. does he want to continue to demonize republicans, or does he want to roll up the sleeves and do the hard work of governing instead of trying to distract us this election, people went to the polls and said they do not want a government-run approach.
12:20 pm
they do not want democrats in there when it comes to health care. keystone is a small example of what this administration is doing to stop us from being energy independent. they want more school choice. they want government-run monopolies. we need to pass conservative reforms, put them on the president's desk, show him how we can be energy independent, and challenge him to change, and make the president cheese. is he interested in being partisan? he was there in the fight. clinton could not get everything he wanted. the only reason he balanced the budget as he had a republican majority. even jimmy carter in his fourth year increase spending in the pentagon after the soviet union went into afghanistan. republicans need to pass reforms and -- >> would we be having a different conversation if the house had passed something? if they had passed something on immigration? >> no, because some form of a bill, there was something to begin with. >> this has always been a political tool. if he was serious about it, he would have doubt about it when
12:21 pm
he had the house and the senate. this has a political tool all along. he brings it out when he thinks it serves him well. >> is immigration the problem? politicians have been played on immigration a lot. >> let's be real. if this president was serious about it, if you could ram through obamacare and you were genuine and serious about it, why wouldn't he push it through? he wanted it for the next election. why wouldn't he have pushed that before? he waited until afterwards. i think it is a cynical ploy to try to draw attention away from the success republicans had connecting with the american people, and look at what has happened. instead of talking about the things we have on the agenda, we are talking about immigration. i think the vast majority of the american people want to talk about this. come with me on the road and i will tell you that there are not a lot of people talking about immigration. >> you do not think it is a big issue? >> it is not as big as economic reform, tax reform, school choice, welfare reform. >> i think that is where the president really misses this. i found out the president is not interested in it when he came to dallas and i asked him to take a look at the border. let me share something important here. the president did not know that his border patrol agents were 45
12:22 pm
to 50 miles away from the border. he looked at valerie jarrett and said, is that right? the president does not care about securing the border. that is the problem. american people do. until he sends a clear message and congress sends a clear message about securing the border, he is wasting his time and the american people know he is wasting his time. >> i hear secure the border. give me a metric. what is the metric? >> come to the border. you put the boots on the ground. here is what has happened since may and july. we had 10,000 apprehensions per month in may and june, and in july, after we searched, the law enforcement and parks and wildlife wardens put wardens in
12:23 pm
the river, and we saw a reduction in apprehensions in july and in august. we are headed in the right direction because we are sending a clear message, personnel, law enforcement, and military individuals on the border. you cannot just come and throw your hands up and stay in this country. it is not unlike you would see happen in a community that had a crime problem and you put law enforcement or patrol cars in that neighborhood. crime goes down. that is with the president i think does not understand or does not want to see implemented. i am cynical in the sense of i
12:24 pm
think this president is not serious about border security. he has never sent us a message that he is serious about it. until he does, the american people will not trust him. >> do you think we will eventually have to have, with the 11 million or 12 million here, do you think it eventually -- can any of you support some form of a path to citizenship for them? if you say they pay a fine and back taxes and get in the back of the line, is there an eventual path to citizenship for these folks do you think? >> after we secure the border, it is the -- i do not think -- i think the american people will deal with folks who are here illegally compassionately and
12:25 pm
rationally. i think it is too hard for people to come here legally and it is bad for them and us. it is great for our economy. one of the dumbest things we do is we educate people and kick them out of the country. scott said we have spent 30 minutes talk about the president breaking the law. i would like to talk about energy, education. i would like to talk about -- scott is right. the american people said we are tired of government running our lives, 2% growth, tired of allowing russian to go into the ukraine. everybody is in agreement we need to secure the border. the president is not serious about it. it would be good if we talk about how to become energy independent -- >> path to citizenship. >> we can keep talking about this -- >> you do not have to take a long time to answer. ask you have asked five times. >> secure the border first and we will have the conversation. in 1986, they tried to do it backwards. we have 10,000,000, 11,000,000
12:26 pm
people here illegally. i'll answer the question you did not ask. are they we should drill for more oil and gas at home and i think we should bring -- >> all right. is there eventually going to have to be a path to citizenship? >> my grandfather emigrated from ireland, and i do not think we should reward people with citizenship when the first act was to violate the law. as you know, back in 2006, we work together on a compromise proposal. after the democrats took over the congress, any thought of moving forward went away. this president had the house,
12:27 pm
senate, white house, and did nothing on immigration reform. i believe putting border security force, setting aside amnesty, but there is a way we can reform our immigration law, including as our economy continues to grow, a 21st-century guest worker program. i want to throw my voice in with bobby and tell you that -- this year in america, the american people said we want a change of direction and washington, d.c., and i think that is a change of subject in washington and focus on getting
12:28 pm
this economy moving again and restoring america's place in the world. >> path to citizenship -- is there going to have to be one? >> i do not want to dwell-- everybody is for sealing the border. if you cannot figure out who is coming in your front door, you cannot run the house. we have to think about what is going to bring about healing. i do not like the idea of
12:29 pm
citizenship when people jump the line. we may have to do it. it may be an area of tough process. i would never say you would never do it. i wouldn't it say that. i do not know we have to do that. if we allowed them to stay here, we allow the door, because we will not put them on buses and ship them to the border. i have heard lots of voices on it. everybody in this country has to feel as if they have an opportunity. i know what they did. they jumped the line. i do not like it. there is a lot of people who have gone through legally live not jumped the line who are bitter about this, but at the end of the day it may we necessary. i am open to it. >> here is what i am thinking. i'm thinking you are probably not going to get invited to moderate a presidential debate. >> ok. but last time i checked -- >> what is the story with this? >> there already is a path to citizenship, and ice just it does not need to be changed. so if you want to be a citizen, get in the line and pay the dues and pay the time just like everybody else who has done it that came before you. >> let me move to education. the number one issue in your state. if it is not, it will be one of two issues -- jobs and education. and you can argue.
12:30 pm
the issue of common core, governor, you were funny about it. he related, we need to have come standard. it seems to me everyone agrees but it some, standard, is now a four letter words that is what it is your plastic set national >> i know. don't need the governmentto set national standards. we need our children to set a standard and image to be uniform. bring the states well her, we are not doing in the world. if we're not careful, the googles and the papers will be invited at some miles.
12:31 pm
why was that not here? saying that we are curriculum they get proposed, should be by law school districts. this is obama ow anything else, my concern is that test is a good test. will was a good test throw it out. the idea that kids in california and kids of ohio are in different levels of achievement. start federal government meddling in those, doing all this education policy i am up local at, as long as
12:32 pm
school boards are involved in running the curriculum in reaching a higher standards particularly in maths and science. i think it makes a lot of sense. common core for, for a while. i object to -- something we have we were ommon core, able to jjudge students and see how that were doing. my concern is a common core has become something in the been a ed to be, it has federal approach. i think that it does draw curriculum positions and i do not think federal government
12:33 pm
should be doing that. i believe state, local and should be deciding this. we have open comment? why then we invite other experts? we have never allowed federal government to allow curriculum decisions. i would encourage parents to at the actual standards, i'm a little apparent not just how they r, look at teach secondary. on his third grade, content as is e right. bat you have to see how you get to those answers. you make it into a 10 step all kinds of diagrams, iit was ridiculous and frustrated the kids.
12:34 pm
even maths professors came out and said this is not the best way to teach kids. i have no objection in those and other local schools if they want to join by the federal government says you do not get any child behind. they should not be playing with tens of millions of dollars. the federal government under never been has allowed to intrude with local curriculum. everybody's been to sensitive. one point we need to agree upon something. offer a different opinion. i proposed common core in
12:35 pm
the state of wisconsin, because i want high standards. i would of course have been up best in re the second the country. all the test of gone up. i will say the reason why we part of ools in many our state and in the country that we are failing is not a high we do not have national standard, is because we do not hold our schools accountable for their teaching today. of the biggest reasons in collective as for bargaining in articles, we trade good teachers exactly the same. the biggest reason our test scores have gone up is because three and have years ago we the burden in our schools. schools to be runby school boards so local officials to behold accountable by local parents.
12:36 pm
they are the one running the schools. one of the biggest problems is that we have schools filled with many great features that we also have rubber rooms where teachers go who do not belong in teaching any more under the bargaining contracts. we can now uck there hire and pay based on is what we , that need. want the federal government, no child left behind will be left. want in education -- what can the federal government help you do to improve education in indiana? >> even though it was priority at ush top a group , i was part of
12:37 pm
that opposed " no child left behind". i will say resources is needed and not red tape. the ou want to block to ources to stop in indiana make new solutions, where compromise for making better careers and solutions. but they need to give us resources to do that. when i became governor of legislator today how to look at the common core and they sent a bill, we became the first aid to legally withdraw from common core. we wrote our own standards. i believe that the principle of who desires here is a truly important. those things are most important education and e are to be ety,
12:38 pm
managed and be accountable at the closest level to the people. i believe republicans do well in a certain principle. we have been expanding with 75 charter schools. third great reading this up. we wrote our standards, i believe our state demonstrates that we can govern and have excellent education. >> governor perry, what do you child left he no behind negotiation? >> i believe we are on the verge to the return of federalism like you have never seen in this country before. in washington i hope, will understand that the real solution to this country are in the states.
12:39 pm
i see no reason to reauthorise no child left behind. within not be displayed with race to the top of a common like the ause just other governors we agreed that legislators in this country know better how to educate bureaucracy en than in washington dc. that washington knows host of different areas, whether as health care or education, transportation, infrastructure, all of those need to have a good conversation about what is the most efficient way. they said that the state was a unnecessary.
12:40 pm
our suggestion is a good message for washington dc. a different bit of message here. understanding that common the governors were very concerned that we are not testing as well as students around the world. it was the governors who called the superintendent in education to set a standards so that our children would have to leave higher. it was not a student in a different part of the country be better than another. these 45 governors said that we need to have some standards. state we have choice, the third grade reading.
12:41 pm
school tate, it is local boards that develop the curriculum. there is nobody from washington telling what the curriculum has to be. it is purely local control. inverse information out there, somehow somebody is sending a curriculum i would like to know about it. because i don't have any complaints from anybody that to set their able own curriculum. my problem is that that test have to go up, but high every kid in with ca with a process local authorities assert a curriculum. that is the national test. maybe i did not get the message him the governors back
12:42 pm
out with this, but they did not have these people writing this. this is governors doing it. but i'm going to look at what these guys are saying. the states are being lavatories. three of you chose to not use medicare money. start with governor kasich. >> i think first of all we got a load of people who have made promises to and they have been ignored. the drug addicted and the mentally ill.
12:43 pm
i want my money back in ohio because i do know they're doing with that in washington. if i get free money a local and l so the mentally ill drug addicted and much broader services available to them who live in the shadows. i made it clear that the government changes the rules, well withdraw from the program. when i was out campaigning, i did all right. i was in every republican group, an expert on about our responsibilities. if you do not have that, you have nothing else. i am proud of all we have going live under ple who the shadows. people have responded to it.
12:44 pm
but we are also involved in welfare reforms 2.0. we don't want is to give aid, we won the training and businesses located. so the new members welfare and medicare should be it temporarily place not a permanent place. take the next step, that involves treating people, training them and get them connected to a proper job. >> governor pence, you have an approach for the welfare. >> we do know is going to happen. i believe obamacare should be repealed. convince me that
12:45 pm
forcing americans to buy an insurance is going to save this country. why we ruled out extending medicare. the state of indiana from the bush e administration to create a healthy indiana plan. it has been in effect during that time, we have seen people, we have significantly reduced waiting time. 93% of the people are medicare legible users. to make a monthly payment the saving accounts. 995% said they would reenroll they had the opportunity. i am rolling out
12:46 pm
expanding traditional medicaid, but it we can take this use urces in medicaid and them to expand a proven program indiana will pursue that. we got current programme a waiver, we have been in discussions with this administration and believe there is only two futures in health care. there is government driven healthcare and that consumer driven health care, the state has been a leading part in empowering individuals. quote by ronald reagan when he announced his campaign york city ent in new " to help those who country cannot s help themselves. we also note that the federal government is the least able to accomplish that".
12:47 pm
he basically said that these in a ems need to be solved state level. freedom is giving the we will demonstrate easy give the es the resources and flexibility will create solutions. they will make the unique needs in our state. don't think i took it. i do not agreed with this often but in y 2009 he said that medicaid was broken. i agree with it. why would we take money into a that is clearly broken? not going to speak for our
12:48 pm
-- i am not to going to criticise the other governors. would of at money taking us to being a bankrupt state. one of the his is states of the most economical viable. decision was made overwhelmingly nnot to take this money. here's the big issue and the about, should be talking in that federalist model going to go to our friends in washington dc and here is the solution to this way to deliver healthcare to the citizens of this country and our state. here is a way we can save you some money. i would suggest that almost
12:49 pm
her would rnor in take less medicaid dollars in exchange for flexibility of being able to put the program your place that you and legislators seek best and how to deliver healthcare. more efficiently and effectively, and you can cover more people. you could have substantial savings. how can you turn down the projected cut spending and to cover more people in your state? that is a solution that are ready to make to congress and hopefully over the 12 to 24 the next months, that will become the law of the land in america. >> first of all, i want agree everything rick just said.
12:50 pm
president obama said that it no sense to give more medicaid. oregon has extended medicaid. they found absolutely no proof mount in fiscal help. i'm mistaken they made a little improvement, they find no improvement. the reality is that if we on government ow run health, that is not the future we want for our children in louisiana. so every state has to come up with their own solution. global brands in the state. in louisiana we would have to one person out
12:51 pm
of private insurers to carry on with medicaid. they have been very clear. and they have not given any flex ability. i give states possibility, will give you more flexible to and how you design the benefits. how do you deliver the benefits, i asked present this question. wouldn't irectly, why give states more power when it comes to medicaid? as it will move all this route restrictions and will try to get people better care. the president said he did not trust us.
12:52 pm
he said if we they did not do this people were not get the health care they needed. this president time and time again does not believe in federalism. he truly believe the federal government knows better. we believed that the extension of medicare was not the way to go. like other states, we have our own solutions. >> senator walker, you do not extend to 100%. kids and pregnant women, they're talking about adults without children. he did not put enough money to fund it. mike stade actually had a waiting list for people living in poverty.
12:53 pm
-- alarm and restoration obama administration give us a position. i believe that medicaid is for people living in poverty. i eliminated the waiting list people living in poverty inn transition to involve everybody in the marketplace. to criticise fellow governors, but in our i could do that cover in poverty, g transition those to the top and still protect my taxpayers. this government has a deal this its rnment has a deal with $17 trillion debt. i had to just to put in for medicaid reversal.
12:54 pm
larger feel philosophical i believe this president measures success in government by how many people are dependent on the government. by how many people have medicaid, how many people have stamps, how many people are unemployed. i believe we should measure it in the opposite. true se we understand the freedom of prosperity, that comes from work. we have single mothers who get treatment cannot get it if over 100% of poverty. now the weird of 238% of poverty history will get
12:55 pm
treated. ronald reagan standard medicaid because he said there were people who were left out, when people can argue compares of healthcare they get sicker in the y end up emergency room, guess who pays for that? we do. >> are you making a case that the affordable care act? >> no, limiter you why it doesn't work. the reason why the affordable care act is bad is because it has nothing to do with costs. we have a program in ohio. high e saying that we want quality lower prices with companies that would provide good prices.
12:56 pm
we have tried to reduce the visits of children to hospitals. because of that they get less money and assurance companies get more money. they have come together to share the benefit. everything is related to the simple fact that women to pay for quality and low price, we can drive that. there is not a governor in does not have medicaid, it is just a matter of how you run the program. our program is running by 3%. our credit rating is up, wwe have created a quarter of 1 million jobs. to me that is a pretty good formula for my state. not everybody has to agree with it. i negotiated ng,
12:57 pm
medicaid 1997. as i am concerned, they could hold accountable to spend on people who needed it. they could actually reduce the cost of some of those programs. bid to reduce medicaid, what message with active. could ld work better and be more efficient. >> i'm going to make a to a 16 , is it question. when should the race begin? be holding those debates that governor perry you do not want me doing. why should the campaign truly begin? >> i think the more legitimate question is, when did it start?
12:58 pm
>> what you want to see the campaign engaged? >> i think the campaign has engaged. we are talking about issues though going to affectthe presidential election in 2016. this conversation with americans. >> the campaigners on. >> i don't think they happen to later this fall. i think this panel here and the other fellow governors, aas it i can think of other 30 great people who are sitting here. we would have better chief in cutives of the one washington now.
12:59 pm
as bobby said, it is a bold approach from washington. there is plenty of us here who will be a great alternative. >> i don't want to see the debate starting today. i would say -- i worked in dc for 12 years. washington disease was focused on who is next. as governors were we to focus on what is next. the arguments for this new republican congress to give more freedom and resources, one of the reasons why republicans were re-elected elected in surprising places is because they're getting results. i promise you that anybody is
1:00 pm
on what is next on their state, we will let washington dc debate what it always debates. >> giving big race starts to quickly? >> i don't think it matters when the official candidate is announced. it is for republicans to use the majority that we have been given. that we have one to accomplish conservative reforms. this starts, top-down approach does not work . eight can be risky to energy policy, through foreign policy. i think the best way to set up not only the republican candidate, but also our country, is, let's not wait for the last two years. it's show people conservative policies can work. at the state level and at the
1:01 pm
national level, let's challenge the president. it's give him an opportunity to change course. either he will adopt good policies, or if he does not -- let's are member, they did not take over health care overnight. theary clinton started in 1990's. it took them almost two decades. we might not get our freedom back in two days or two years, but we have got to start the fight. >> is there a danger of the campaign starting to quickly? quickly? >> i kind of like the approach that people can sit in groups like this. rick perry and i did this last time. this is better than people yelling at each other, and having guys like you moderate. we can have a good way -- >> give me a chance of the second bite of the apple. let's talk about these guys for a second. >> think about this. theyterry, in his state -- created so many jobs, it is
1:02 pm
unbelievable. he was running for president and called me up and said, how do you think i am doing? i said, why not talk about all the jobs you created? you have walker. he runs for election like every week there is another election. and he wins them all. unbelievable. following mitch daniels is like following michael jordan, and he is doing a terrific job. jindal called me on election night. i said, you win so many votes in louisiana, a runoff for you is if you do not get 70%. you runoff against yourself. some remarkable people doing some remarkable things. and i think you guys are going to force some discussion with everybody. >> you think, really? >> you are. it is kind of not a great question to finish this. this was not great. i was trying not to do the
1:03 pm
stupid, when do you announce. i was trying not to do the silly, when do you announce, and how do you not run? fair enough. you do not like it. do you have a closer you would like to propose? page, whateverl he wants. >> thank you very much, everybody. these guys were great. bunch ofabuse of a governors. see you guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
1:04 pm
>> taking you live to the white house briefing room for today's briefing with josh earnest. to of the topics we expect hear about -- the resignation of defense secretary chuck hagel, announced earlier by chuck hagel and also by president obama. >> there is a lot of challenges he is facing. that is fine. are you working friday? >> this white house preaching was scheduled to start at 1:00 eastern time.
1:05 pm
expecting it to start shortly. while we wait for the briefing to begin, take a look at immigration policy in the context of the history of immigration in the u.s. this is from today's "washington journal." host: to give us some historical perspective of past presidents' action on immigration -- this has been talked about a great deal over the last few days. let's step act. president,e president obama, use as some of his justifications for the executive actions he took last week? good deal there is a of precedent for what president obama did. residential actions on immigration certainly go back at least as far as dwight eisenhower, if not further.
1:06 pm
there is an entry of individuals who are in trouble for one reason or another, the cubans in duringungarians in 1956, the ford administration, the admission of 360,000 vietnamese. 114,000 lebanese. whenever there is a world crisis, presidents have the option of responding. after then to that, 1986 immigration reform and control act, there were adjustments made by the reagan and the bush and ministration to bring in parents and children of those who had been amnestied, to keep them together. >> -- host: how long has congress legislated on
1:07 pm
immigration? what is our history with legislation setting limits, and who and when they can come into this country? guest: back in the 19th century, immigration was a state manner -- matter, and the federal government was only marginally involved. by the 1870's, we see congress legislating to exclude people who are considered to be criminals, imbeciles, which was a clinical diagnosis in those days, prostitutes, and so on. in 1882 was the chinese exclusion law, which was a dramatic piece of legislation, to exclude chinese workers from coming to the united states. inthe 1890's, beginning 1891, the federal government moves into a controlling position with respect to interrogation and inspection of immigrants coming to the united states, and it has been that way ever since.
1:08 pm
1924, there are dramatic restrictions passed by the federal government, by the congress. the johnson read immigration act imposed national origins quotas on immigrants coming to the united states. a very restrictive policy. that was not really revised until 1965. the so-called kennedy-johnson in 1965. we have not had, other than irca in 1986, a major overhaul of u.s. immigration policy. host: you go back to the late 19th century, early 20th century -- have they always been accompanied with the fraught political environment for both the president and members of congress? guest: almost always.
1:09 pm
beckons, but americans repel. what that old saying means is, the opportunities of american life, of achieving success in the united states, are dangled before immigrants. but often, after they get here, they find the welcome mat is not always out. throughout american history, debates about who should come, how many should come, are almost constant. >> let us look at some of the numbers. this is from the washington post, the executive order the president is issuing. who would be affected by obama's immigration plan? that 4 million undocumented immigrants could gain protection from deportation. parents of current legal residents. protectioncould gain
1:10 pm
by eligibility through 2010. they also say many are protected under the current deferral program for young immigrants. that was in order the president previously issued, correct? these numbers -- how does this prepare to treat his actions by a president? -- previous actions by a president? guest: in the 1970's, amnestied 1.5 million people. other cases, deportations had been deferred. reagan,ase of ronald 200,000 nicaraguans, their departure was rescinded because of the crisis going on in nicaragua. this is a proportionate number two what happened earlier. certainly, 1986. but from time to time, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have had their deportations deferred
1:11 pm
for various reasons. we are going to open up our phone lines to viewers. as we get a historical perspective on changes in from anion policy american university professor, and the migration policy institute -- what does that institute do? a think tank that compile statistics on immigration. i believe on your show last week, you had doris meissner, one of the executives of the migration policy institute. it is probably the premier institute for the study of migration, contemporary migration to the united states. have you had the time to analyze the impact of the president's order? not my role.s
1:12 pm
my role is, as it is this morning, to provide historical background, to describe what has happened for. -- has happened before. host: willie institute itself provide an analysis? are alreadyeve they doing projections as to what the impact will likely be. bill is in reading, pennsylvania, on our republican line. go ahead. not cut mease do off. this is very important. because i am an immigrant -- i have been here 55 years. i came with a green card, and all that stuff. the point is, we are fighting right now by danforth and compromising. me, common sense is the way of the game.
1:13 pm
this is the way you stop it. if the guy hires illegal aliens, 50 years in prison, $1 million fine. then you send them all back and you replace them with the workers. it is ripping up our country, the welfare department. third, you put the national guard if they come in. it is done. when did you come to the country? caller: i came here in 1952 and i am 70 years old. host: what would the environment for immigrants have been in the early 1950's, when bill came to the u.s.? guest: in the early 1950's, immigration was very much a cold war issue. it was a time when the united states wanted to admit migrants from communist countries. was a sign to the world that they prefer democracy rather than need -- rather than the
1:14 pm
repressions of the soviet regime, and so on. it was also a time when there was a great deal of concern about admitting immigrants who might ring with them -- bring with them ideologies to the united states. this was a time of rather low immigration, before it except picks up again in the 1970's, and we begin to see another spike. host: what is the cause? guest: the end of the war in vietnam. economicest and dislocation in latin america. economic difficulties in mexico. you have large numbers of latin americans, mexicans, and southeast asians humming to the united states, as well as ethnic chinese who have been living in southeast asia. host: we go to fort worth, texas. caller: the comment made earlier
1:15 pm
free --aves working for the mexicans volunteered to work, and they want to send them away. president obama has fought ever since he came in office, against everything he tried to do. this president has worked as hard as any other president to make things right. can we say not just obama, but president obama? farmers urge congress to legalize agriculture workers. they write that under the president's plan, an estimated 250,000 farmworkers would be eligible for relief. this is a fraction of the total number of undocumented numbers in the u.s.
1:16 pm
the farmers hoped the decision to take unilateral action will tell congress to achieve a legislative solution. they write here that more than half of all fieldworkers are undocumented, according to the labor department. that share maybe higher than 70%. historically, how much have we workersn undocumented to do our farming work and agriculture work in this country? guest: historically, we have been very dependent on migrant labor coming from mexico into the united states. at one point during the mid-20th century, we had a special program, to bracero bring workers into the united states. this was especially valuable during wartime. so many american workers were away at war. we have always been dependent upon this migrant labor force coming out to plant and harvest.
1:17 pm
it is hard to be sure. i think this new plan, this possibility of legalizing some of these migrant workers, would be of enormous benefit to american agriculture, and would certainly be the decent thing to do. host: when you hear americans say things like, but they are taking jobs away from american citizens, how valid you think that is? guest: certainly, in the agricultural sector, it is not. americans are not flocking to get the backbreaking jobs of planting and harvesting. if it is an issue of having a high school diploma or not, there may be competition for jobs, but not in agriculture. good morning. me one second.th
1:18 pm
i wanted to ask two questions. the statement you just made was pretty, how should i say, watered-down. you do not speak of the black community when you say these things, but truman, in the 1950's -- he deported millions. was not amigration problem until 1974. that is because of everything the black people asked for in 1960. once we got it, they removed us out of the workforce. this has been going on. this is a real racist problem by the chamber of commerce. the mexicans said and indians was here first. california was named after a black woman. you need to put your history in perspective, because i think it is a little watered-down. they are trying to stop the black man from working ever since he asked for his freedom. the responses that is a
1:19 pm
great exaggeration. the immigration legislation certainly has not been designed to prevent african-americans from having jobs which created competition between the foreign-born and african-americans. that one ofnly true the advantages of the foreign-born, especially undocumented foreign-born, is that they work for very low wages. but the competition is not in the agricultural sector that we were talking about. by and large, there is an exaggeration of the degree to which this is a plot somehow by preventto african-americans from having jobs or from succeeding within the economy. as for the issue of whether or not undocumented or illegal aliens has been a problem throughout american history, that certainly is true.
1:20 pm
this is not the first time americans have spoken about or referred to undocumented aliens. illegal immigration has been constant, ever since the restrictive legislation of the 1920's. caller mentioned truman in particular. was he accurate on that? truman ordered some deportations, but not nearly in the proportion he is talking about, and those were of mexican workers, burr cerro's -- braceros, who had been in the united states. host: as you mentioned, during the war. and this happened after the war? guest: that is right. host: republican line. caller: i can agree with one of your former colors about, i feel .ind of that it is a shame senator mcconnell brings kind of a shame on to all white people.
1:21 pm
mean, doesell he, i not have any latino friends or african-american friends. a huge percentage of america can really tell, i mean, if somebody is not urban, or if somebody calls something "urban" or "socialist turcotte or "it reminds me of people on marijuana." to play these games and do it for political reasons, to put the fear out there, is just so wrong. especially people overwhelming our country to come take our jobs. it does not make sense. there are so many people. i think if republicans were not littlebe, into their own groups and all, if they were out there in the world, meeting people, like i have had the experience -- i graduated with a crowd of 4000 people in the chicagoland area. mixedou are used to being
1:22 pm
with different kinds of people, it is just very obvious to the person. it is not worldly. you are just experienced. if you have a lot of different experiences with a lot of different people, you understand things. i just think republicans, the fact of it sticks out with a sore thumb, that they are just very kind of out of it. people here already have jobs. to me, it is kind of looking down to even say that you are going to be overwhelmed. --t proves that they do not like i tell my mexican-american friends, they speak spanish and everything. they are not uneducated. i think it is a real shame. i think she is absolutely right in terms of concern throughout american history about immigrants coming and possibly altering the culture, as well as competing with
1:23 pm
americans for jobs. this has been a constant in american history. if one looks at the early part of the 20th century, when vogue,s was very much in at least one nativist wrote that america was committing "race suicide" by admitting citizens the eastern europe into united states. anyone swarthy of confection or different from the american pioneering breed were looked upon with tremendous suspicion. host: what first got you interested in the subject of migration, particularly its history? guest: my own experience growing up in new york city, i grew up in the south bronx at a moment when there were lots of migrants coming north from puerto rico and black migrants coming out of the west indies and moving into the bronx, these are my friends and people that i played stick all with on the streets of new york. my interest in migration comes from my own experience of these
1:24 pm
youngsters who i played with and the environment in which i grew up. when i went to graduate school, i worked on the anti-slavery movement. i was also interested in moving toward the history of immigration in the united states. i spent a good deal of my career studying immigration as well as some of the health implications. good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. just a quiet monday to get our thanksgiving week going. we had to keep you on your toes. let's get settled in here. josh, would you like to get us started, please? the president this morning said that it was the appropriate time for chuck hagel's tenure at the pentagon to come to an end.
1:25 pm
what exactly did he mean by that? >> josh, the president alluded to the fact that secretary hegel and the president had convened a number of conversations more than a month ago about the president's two remaining years in office, and the priorities this country would be facing when it comes to our foreign policy. of the lastrse month or so, the president and secretary have had a number of conversations, and they determined that it would be best for the pentagon to transition to new leadership. consistent with the tenure of the previous secretary of defense we have seen. the first two years, secretary gates served. the second two years, secretary panetta. the last two years, secretary hegel has been running the and gone. it is consistent with this pattern that we would have a new -- has been running the pentagon. it would be consistent with this pattern. the secretary departs with a strong track record at the department of defense.
1:26 pm
at thet in key reforms pentagon that have strengthened our military in the short term, but also will do a lot to strengthen our military and our national security in the years ahead. obviously, he has served in a very challenging budget environment, not just for the pentagon, but for the government. also making sure that the military had the resources they needed to carry out the very important missions around the globe. he was successful in that effort. he led the effort at the pentagon to ensure the necessary steps were taken to step out and discourage sexual assault. there have obviously been reports of sexual assaults, the rate of sexual assaults increasing in the military. this is something the president and secretary of defense took very seriously.
1:27 pm
there is a review underway on that. is something that required a significant reevaluation inside the military, and it required leadership. that is exactly what secretary hegel provided. >> why did he have to leave? >> one thing we have seen in the last year -- there have been other significant challenges that have required strong leadership at the department of defense, something the secretary has provided. counter again -- countering the strength of isil, countering ebola and using department of defense resources in west africa to try to support the ongoing international effort to stop that outbreak at source. effort togoing support the people of ukraine as they deal with inappropriate s inrference from separatist eastern ukraine. all of those have emerged in the last year or so, and are things
1:28 pm
that will, on an ongoing basis, require the continued attention of the department of defense. over the course of the last two years, secretary hegel has stepped in to fill a very important role, which is to navigate that department through a very difficult era of budget constraints and other threats to the united states. he is somebody who has served ably. he is somebody in whom the president has the highest respect, and the president is pleased he has agreed to stay on in that role until his successor is appointed. is themuch of a role environment in this decision? is it fair to say the president is looking for a new defense a newary who can bring approach to the islamic state issue?
1:29 pm
>> the president has been working very intensively with his national security team to deal with this rapidly changing environment, and to make sure we have the kind of strategy in against isil. i would anticipate that the president is mindful of the fact that the next secretary of defense will have this as a top priority when he or she steps into that office. the president is certainly mindful of that. the other thing that i think is important for us to not forget -- and this is one of the reasons that secretary hegel was nominated to do this job in the first place. he was the first enlisted combat veteran to ever serve as a secretary of defense. he understood and understands firsthand what our men and women in uniform and their families sacrifice on a daily basis.
1:30 pm
that firsthand knowledge is not just a testament to secretary hegel's character. it means he was the right person to lead that department at a time when they were going to have to make important reforms and budgetary decisions that would have a direct impact on the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs. in a leadership role at a very critical time for the department of defense. he has been the right person for the job, and he has performed the president's expectations in a way, as the president mentioned in his statement, it will contribute to the ongoing effort that has been the u.s. military most powerful force for good in the world. can you confirm a replacement and the start of this year, and the next congressional session? frame. not have a time when the president makes a
1:31 pm
decision of who will succeed secretary hegel at the pentagon, that will be a person worthy of swift confirmation in a bipartisan fashion. >> are there any prominent members of congress who are sanctionsr increased and expansion of nuclear talks? the president had threatened to veto any such new sanctions from congress. -- is it veto threat still valid and active now that the administration is asking for another seven months to wrap up these talks? >> we continue to believe that adding on sanctions while negotiations are ongoing would be counterproductive. it is important for people to understand how this regime works. the united states deserves credit for this strategy. they put in place a very tough sanctions regime against iran. the effect of that regime was
1:32 pm
multiplied because of the diplomatic work the administration did to get other countries around the world to abide by that regime. american diplomats going around the globe, urging their counterparts in significant countries, some of whom by much more iranian oil than we do, saying, we need to abide by this sanctions regime so we can resolve the broader international immunity's concerns with the iranian nuclear program. congress and the administration can work together to maximize the impact of the sanctions. the concern that we have is that layering on additional sanctions could leave some of our partners with the impression that the sanctions regime is more punitive in nature than anything else. crafts in cause some that international coordination -- some cracks in that
1:33 pm
international coordination to appear, and undermine the sanctions regime. because of ongoing talks, we have succeeded in rolling back iran's nuclear program. i year ago, iran had 200 kilograms enriched at the 20 print -- 20% level. they now do not have a single ounce. they eliminated that stockpile. that was one of the terms of these conversations. haswill recall that iran also, as part of this agreement, suspended in rich in uranium above the 5% level. -- suspendedng enriching uranium above the 5% level. goes with the heavy water reactor they were building in iraq. the agreement was they would not continue to develop that site in the context of these talks.
1:34 pm
that also relates to the kind of inspections that we have seen. international inspectors keeping close tabs on the iranian nuclear program. the access they have gotten in the context of these talks is unlike any access they have gotten to the iranian nuclear program in history. there are substantial gaps that remain. the president, on numerous occasions, has made clear that he believes the prospects of the deal are 50/50 at rest. best.ess -- at the president has also been clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. we do believe that enough progress has been made toward giving the iranian regime more the international community's concerns about their nuclear program, and to put in place a protocol for continuing to assure the international community about their compliance. >> if congress passes a bill early next year with more
1:35 pm
sanctions, will the president veto it? puttingosition on forward sanctions in the midst of ongoing negotiations has not changed. >> was secretary hegel forced out? >> steve, the decision announced today was the result of conversations the president and the secretary have been having for more than a month now. in the context of those conversations, the two of them arrived together at a determination that new leadership should take over at the pentagon, and for the last two years of the president's term. that is what is going to happen. >> did the president try to talk him out of leaving? like i spent a lot of time talking about the progress made under secretary hegel's leadership. they talked about some of the critically important budget reforms in place. they talked about the work that secretary hegel has done with men and women in uniform to combat sexual assault in the military. they also talked about
1:36 pm
strengthening the alliance with nato. those of you who traveled with us to asia last week, part of , theontext of the visit state visit to china, was an u.s.-chinabout military relations. there was agreement on a protocol for stronger and clearer communication between the u.s. military and chinese military. those kinds of agreements do not happen by accident, particularly agreements between the u.s. military and a pretty secretive military like the one that is maintained by the chinese. again, that is an illustration of the kind of success and leadership secretary hegel has provided in the department of defense. >> did he disagree with the president's policy? what effect would that have now?
1:37 pm
it's the president is looking for the senior members of his team to provide clear, unvarnished advice waste on his experience and instinct. people like secretary hegel are sought out. the question is, how reliable are those individuals, in terms of acting and carrying out the strategy the president has selected? in this matter, secretary hegel has performed extremely well. he is somebody who has understood the strategy. the department of defense has a core component of the strategy. present hegel has said he believes in the strategy the president has laid out. it has yielded important progress in the short term and would be successful over the long term. >> when exactly did the secretary turn in his resignation? was it a meeting on friday? how did this transpire? >> i will not get into all of
1:38 pm
the meetings they had, but you heard secretary hegel stay -- say in his statement today that he had submitted his letter of resignation today. >> the president will be looking for new blood, fresh perspectives, maybe somebody from outside of his inner circle in the administration, a replacement for chuck hagel? >> at this point, i do not have a sense of where this process is. i would not want to handicap the process at this point. whoever the next secretary of defense is is going to have some big shoes to fill. >> josh asked you a very direct question and i did not hear a direct answer. if he had done such a wonderful job, why did he have to go? >> again, this is based on a conversation between the two of them about what the next two years of this administration is going to look like. based on what those priorities are going to be over the next two years, both men determined it was an appropriate time for
1:39 pm
secretary hegel to step down and for someone else to take the reins over at the pentagon. to crafting was key a strategy the president has pursued against isil? >> obviously, the secretary of defense has a very important role to play in that strategy. our men and women in uniform are providing a variety of important functions, including the airstrikes carried out in iraq and and syria. in iraq, they are obviously in support of ongoing ground operations. there is an important role for our military to play in terms of providing equipment to iraqi security forces. there also is important training and advisory component. there are a number of important things the department of defense is doing against weisel. -- against isil. the secretary of defense has to
1:40 pm
make recommendations to the president about the capabilities of the department of defense. once the president has set out a implementing it within his department. there are a lot of elements that directly affect his approval. how central was he? how political was he? her much ownership does he have of the strategy the president has pursued? obviously, he has been implementing the strategy as far as opposed to the department of defense. as far as the president's strategy, the approach he has taken to syria and the fight against isis in iraq and syria, how much of a role did chuck hagel have? >> israel was substantial, as it was with other members of the national security team. are significant equities when it comes to the department of defense. the president expected to hear from his secretary of defense on
1:41 pm
a number of these important strategic decisions. the president is pleased with the advice and counsel that secretary hegel provided. >> john mccain said that he spoke to chuck hagel, and he was very frustrated. .e was very frustrated there have been leaks out of the white house. he was not up to the job and felt he was being micromanaged. john mccain onto something there? that given his relationship with the administration, i think there might be reasons to view a readout of the phone call from senator mccain to be less than impartial. >> he has a close relationship with secretary hegel. that did not unfold that hit -- at his confirmation hearing. they have both served in the military, and that might mean some personal bond between the men. to any private
1:42 pm
conversation secretary hegel had with senator mccain, but i can speak to his proud record of service to this country, both as an illicit -- both as a combat veteran and secretary of defense. >> we will find the nominee, and then we can discuss timing. >> i understand the house and senate are close on a package of tax extenders. have you seen that package? >> i have not seen that package. i have seen reports about the package. i can tell you the reports are not promising. the reports suggest there might be some in congress who want to provide tax relief for businesses and corporate insiders, but not ensuring that those benefits are shared by middle-class families. certainly, the administration
1:43 pm
would not be supportive of a package that provided relief to tooorations i'm not middle-class families. that is consistent with the president's view that we need to be august on expanding economic opportunity for middle-class families, because the president believes our economy is strongest when it is growing from the middle out. investment in significant, unpaid for tax breaks for corporations, without giving a tax break to middle-class families, is not consistent with that philosophy at all. >> does the president want to see that package move in the lame-duck? towe certainly do not want see a package that benefits corporations but not middle-class families. we would not want to see that move in the lame-duck. we would not want to see that move at any point. we believe if we are going to have a conversation about likening the tax load, we need about lightening the
1:44 pm
tax load, we need to start with middle-class families. policies of the new secretary of defense, has the president's thinking involved -- evolved as far as combat missions in afghanistan? >> i know there are reports about the role u.s. men and women in our military will play in afghanistan. as you know, the u.s. combat and -- afghanistan will end, and shift to training and equipping afghan security forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al qaeda that still operate in that area of the world. >> there is no expansion at all of the mission? >> he mission the president has
1:45 pm
laid out remains consistent. >> in terms of the last two secretaries of defense writing books that were pretty scathing about the president and in some cases attack him personally -- did that play any factor in terms of some of the divisions that have been raised and concerns that secretary hagel was headed in that direction? hallmarks one of the of secretary hagel's career is he has been extraordinarily loyal to his country and commander in chief. that was true when he was a combat veteran, true in the united states senate, and true as secretary of defense. in hismmigration, interview with abc news yesterday, the president was asked about future presidents, democrats and republicans, using this as a precedent, and he seemed to dismiss the idea it to enforce certain
1:46 pm
tax laws. how could he make such a blatant statement when he is applying this principle to immigration as aand does not know democrat or republican how they are going to approach this? how does this not open the door to a pretty large president? >> first of all, we're not talking about whether or not the president is going to enforce certain laws. we are talking about the department of homeland security using prosecutorial discretion to sharpen the focus of enforcement on those who pose a threat to national security and those who pose a threat to public safety. that is consistent with the kinds of executive actions that previous presidents have taken in this area. every administration is challenged to make a decision about how to use limited resources to enforce the law. the president believes those limited resources should be focused on cracking , who pose ainals
1:47 pm
threat to public safety, and those who pose a threat to national security. the tax law thing is obviously much different. i think the analogy would be that refusing to enforce certain tax laws would be akin to refusing to enforce any law that relates to our border, for example. that is not at all what the president is doing. as we have discussed over the last couple of years, enforcement at the border is actually up under president obama, thanks to the investment we have made in terms of manpower and resources at the border. >> the next president could say, i am going to enforce corporate income tax. , to pick and tax choose is the point that was made. how do you know this is not a precedent?- a >> i guess you could ask president reagan after he made
1:48 pm
his action, using prosecutorial discretion to reform the immigration law. when it comes to tax law, there are important restrictions as relates to political interference and enforcement of tax law. those are laws that have been scrupulously abided by, by this administration. >> there was a long story in the new york times about al sharpton having back taxes up to about $4.5 million, personally and his for-profit entity. he said he has paid a bunch of it. there is some dispute as to how much he paid or not. he is here at the white house frequently as an advisor to the president. at hissident spoke organization. is the president concerned? ask a question you are asking does -- question -- >> the question you are asking underscores the importance that
1:49 pm
there is not political interference in tax enforcement. confident this administration is allowing whatever enforcement procedures are underway to be carried out. >> an advisor to the president should pay his or her taxes. >> i think every american should pay his or her taxes. a controversial statement for our monday. [indiscernible] what progress was made on any major issues between turkey and as u.s., such [indiscernible] >> i got only a very brief readout of the vice president's meeting. very longhas had conversations with the president and prime minister while he was there.
1:50 pm
i think that is indicative of a couple of things. strongndicative of a alliance that exists between the anded states and turkey, strong relationships the vice president currently has with those two leaders. there is a significant stake turkey has in the outcome in syria, and in ultimately destroying isil. there is a long border turkey has with syria. there is a substantial humanitarian situation that is pretty dire that turkey has been focused on confronting. i would anticipate that this is just the latest in what will continue to be extensive consultations between u.s. officials and turkish officials in the region, as it relates to dealing with isil. in terms of any agreements or progress in those conversations, i would refer you to the vice president's office for more details. the president and
1:51 pm
secretary hagel have been having more than a month conversations. why wasn't there a successor today? does no one want the job? the array of challenges are huge. you have got about a month to figure out a potential successor. why was there no one out there today? to give you ant impression that the very first conversation between the president and the secretary began with secretary hagel's departure in mind. this was a more recent decision that came out of more than a between conversations the two men. i can tell you there has already been worked down to start considering who the next secretary of defense will be, but i do not have any updates on that process. >> i am confused. you suggested to josh that the increased prominence of the iso-threat -- isil threat was a
1:52 pm
factor in secretary hagel's departure. you told john that secretary hagel was implementing the strategy perfectly. i do not understand what role that campaign played in his departure. >> a good question. let me try to clarify. the point i am trying to make is simply that when secretary hagel was first nominated for this job, i believe that was at the end of 2012, even before the first of the year. that was posed by isil was not nearly as significant as it is now. the threats caused that is posed by isil to rise up to near the top of the priority list of the department of defense, and that was not the case when secretary hagel first took office. at the top of the priority list was helping the department of defense adjust to some of the budgetary challenges facing then agency. those challenges are not over, but substantial progress has been made in making sure that
1:53 pm
our men and women in uniform have the reinforcements that they need to carry out their mission, even as these new challenges emerge. that is, frankly, a testament to the leadership and management of secretary hagel. the point i am trying to make is just that the priorities of the department, or at least of the new secretary, have changed, given changes in the international community. it does not mean that secretary hagel has not done an excellent job of managing these crises as they have cropped up. it does mean as we consider the remaining two years of the president's term in office, another secretary might be better suited to meet those challenges. that we will have an announcement about his successor relatively soon. justin? aboutssume i can ask reports about the ferguson grand jury. they will be announcing a
1:54 pm
decision today. i wonder if there are plans hear from the president. i know he spoke about it over the weekend. saw those news reports just before i walked out here. i do not have any special insight into those grand jury proceedings. neither does anybody else at the white house. if there is a need for the president to make a public statement today, we will obviously let you know as soon as we make that decision. i do not have any insight to share what might be part of an announcement from the st. louis county prosecutor. >> there was a report in the times last friday. i am wondering if it is true that the white house has banned congressional staffers from meetings between the president and lawmakers. i do not think that is true, but i do not sit in on too many meetings with the president and congressional leaders these days. i think he prefers to have those conversations just with the members, but i do not think that has meant there has never been a congressional staffer who has participated.
1:55 pm
>> he report suggests this is a new policy initiative that has changed when i'm asking about a lot, which is a continuance. it was funny. i was the only one who cared about it. then there was the story in the new york times. >> i did read that one. >> i am sort of wondering. it described -- >> let me try to answer more -- more directly. i do not know of a policy that suspended congressional staffers from meetings. i know as a general matter, the president prefers to have those meanings in smaller settings with fewer people, but that does not mean there will not be members of congressional staff included in the future. >> sifting through what you have been able to tell us, a month ago, these conversations started. they did not start with a premise that hagel would leave. >> that is right. >> they discussed the
1:56 pm
obligations of the secretary and the challenges ahead. , ithe conclusion of those was determined by both of them mutually that hagel had to go. you also said it was important for the president to know the person at the head of the defense department would reliably implement his strategy going forward. taking those things together, it sounds like there was a disagreement about the strategy and the lack of confidence in the president that hagel, if he remained there, would implement it to his satisfaction. fair enough? >> i was with you until the very last part. has been veryl reliably implementing the strategies the president has directed. the president has been completely comfortable and in fact pleased with the way the secretary of defense has implemented the very important role the department of defense has to play in the execution of strategy. >> but going forward. ask the president does not have any doubts about secretary hagel
1:57 pm
's loyalty or his commitment to implementing the strategy the president laid out. there is no concern about that. -- fact is that based on >> the strategy as he sought the next two years. >> he would have to ask him that, but i do not think he would say that is the case. numberomebody who on a of occasions has publicly stated his confidence in the strategy the president and this nation is pursuing. >> they were in agreement on everything, but looked at each other and said, after a month of conversations, this cannot go on. >> i do not think they arrived at that conclusion, because you saw the two of them standing next to each other and talking about the respect and admiration they had for one another in the state dining room today. i think there are genuinely warm feelings between the men. secretary hagel formed his friendship with then newly elected senator obama at a very formative time. sealed thet really
1:58 pm
strong bonds between the two of them. >> if he was pushed out, you had an opportunity to say, he was not pushed out, and you did not. >> i keep saying the man in the conversation of these -- the context of these conversations made his decision together. i think that is a clear indication was happened differently to what you are he described. >> a report friday in the new york times was that the president signed an order clarifying force protection for u.s. military personnel remaining in afghanistan until they are all pulled out -- meaning providing air cover and authorizing the use of combat operations if necessary, to protect them from potential attacks. those questions were raised on the various conference calls the white house organized at the times the new numbers were announced, and they were not answered. i just want to clarify that the president has authorized air
1:59 pm
cover and combat operations, if it is needed for forced -- four force protection for remaining military personnel, until they are all pulled out of afghanistan. >> there is no secret order. the reports of a secret order are, at best, greatly exaggerated. there is a routine policy making process the president engages in with his national security team to determine these kinds of policies and strategies. and when the president did sign off on a strategy for keeping about 10,000 troops on the ground in a in a stamp after 2014, focused on this very specific mission of training afghan security forces and conducting limited counterterrorism operations, that in the context of the strategy, the president also those service personnel doing what is mrs. are to protect themselves. i do not think that is a surprising development.
2:00 pm
that is consistent with the decisions the president makes with other military strategies. we are not talking about a secret order. at least in this case, there is the kind of guidance the president assured with u.s. military is entirely consistent with the mission they will carry a wide for announce ideas settings particularly when they are serving in areas-esque dashed as dangerous as it continues to be in afghanistan.

28 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on