tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 27, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EST
and will make a better deal because it's easier. they will say no, and we will leave the room. we'll say bye bye and double of the sanctions. within 24 hours they will call and say you get your prisoners back. you go in for seconds. you have to do this -- you go in and say listen, my father was a good negotiator. he thought i was too rough. he said, you're too tough. you have to take the lumps out. he would always go like this, and say, son, take the lumps out. if i didn't have my father i would have said this "we're not , giving you the $150 billion." they would be over there they , would be angry, you probably never bring it back. i would say it tough "we're not , giving it to you." but now i learned so much my , father. so i take the lumps out. i say listen, we have a problem. prisonersantime, our back. i say, did our prisoners land yet? yes, they just landed on american soil. now i saw fellas, we have a big problem.
we have a country not doing well. we owe $19 trillion, essentially we are bust. we have no money. we just had a budget approved for $2 trillion, we have no money. theas, we cannot give you hundred $50 billion, they will go crazy. one day. $150 billion, they will go crazy. one day. i say i'm sorry, i want to give it to you so badly, you have no idea, i'm dying to give it to you, but we can't, we don't have any money. that is better than saying "we're not giving it to you." ,except this way they recover faster. they probably would both work. i know the second would work. the first one, you could end up in a position where would be a long time. no way i would have given them $150 million, in a million years. one of the saddest things is the money is gone. by the way, two days before that
-- the art of the deal -- who reads "the art of the deal?" i always say the bible is much better, no contest. not even close. do we agree? but "the art of the deal" has been a great book. obviously kerry did not read "the art of the deal." probably did not read the bible either. that these are -- [laughter] it's a sad thing, that whole episode with iran. two days before the money was sent, they captured beautiful 10 young sailors. they put guns to their heads, they roughed them up in terms of at least mentally. they were devastated. they humiliated our country, humiliated the 10 people. 1 women and 9 men. that is what we are dealing with. not going to happen anymore, folks. we're going to be the smart
country instead of the dummies that everyone laughs that. they laugh at us. we have people that do not know what they're doing. bergdahl, a traitor, they get five killers they have wanted for nine years. those killers are back on the battlefield. but these are the ones they wanted, these 5. so we knew he was a traitor before we made the deal because we had a general in kernel interviewed everyone who worked with in the military. they knew he left. six people died looking for him. 5 definitely, probably 6. died. they went out looking for him, trying to get him back. he left. that is the way we negotiate. we get bergdahl they get 5 great , killers. for them, the people that they want. not going to happen anymore. i tell these stories, i go around, and i meet with crowds, we have tremendous crowds. far bigger than bernie. bernie is heading down, he looks
like he is over. looks like hillary will be protected from the e-mail scandal by the democrats. can you believe it? so many people, for doing much less than she did are in prison. and are devastated. [applause] think of it. for doing less than she did. and she looks like she's just going to be, boy did you ever see somebody so nice to the president? oh, the president is wonderful, she says. the president, he is great. whatever he wants to do is wonderful. you know why she's doing that? i know why. boy oh boy, she's become like a marshmallow. everything he does -- oh, it is wonderful. whatever the president wants to do. man, her life cannot be so easy. but what she has done is so wrong and so unfair. it looks like she will be the nominee.
it looks like nothing will happen. it will be something that will be discussed, i promised you. it will be discussed often often often. [applause] so with that, i think we are doing well. looks like we are on a great trend, we have tremendous support and amazing people in this country. one of the most amazing people in the whole country is our great friend, pat. would you come out here pat? [applause] look at him. one of the great people. pat: yes, sir. [laughter] -- [laughter] -- [applause] pat it's good to have you here : with us. you inspire us all. mr. trump: good morning to be here. supposedly i lost. probably would've called pat, i don't know if i want to be there today. no, we had a great evening.
pat: you are working on a project in washington, pennsylvania avenue the old post , office building. everybody wanted this, but you got it. "the art of the deal" -- what did you do? donald trump: it is a great -- built built in to in the 1880's. thick walls made of solid granite. today they use like plastic, right? one of the most beautiful buildings in washington. for years it was a post office. i way say to people, if you can get the post office in a city, you get the best location. this was the one for washington. they put it outot bid. -- out to bid. it was one of the most hotly contested projects ever. big landlord. they chose us. it's a great honor because we were chosen in the obama administration, which is sort of amazing. a lot of people did not think we were able to get it. we have a great financial staff
we want to make sure it gets . we want to make sure it gets done. we have a great track record for this stuff. we're building a hotel, 300 rooms. that is going to be i think it , will be one of the great hotels of the world. we are a year and a half ahead of schedule, even more than that. it's a little unusual when you talk about government. they are never even close. but we are 1.5 years under budget, and it opened in -- it will open of september of this year. it was supposed to open up in september 2 years from now. we really have a great team. eric and donna working on it. ivanka is in charge of that one. she has done an amazing job. it will be one of the most beautiful hotels -- i think it will be one of the greatest hotels of the world. pat: you run the table. about a year from now, and you have your hand on the bible swearing an oath before the chief justice of the united states, and then you are president at that you're in. point, [applause]
there's a little office underneath the capital where you can go to and by the stroke of the pen, you can cancel a great many of the executive orders. you don't need congress. executive order -- what would you do? trump: we expect to cancel many of the executive orders of the past. obama has not been able to run things the way you're supposed to run them. you are supposed to get the congressman in the senators in. you make deals like ronald reagan, tip o'neill, and they like each other. i have been involved in politics for a long time, all my life. i've gotten done tremendous zoning changes. i have done politics over the world. we have a lot of jobs going all the world. but i've never seen division like you have now. it used to become a you go to a restaurant in washington, you see republican having dinner with a democrat and they are
best friends. you don't see that anymore. there is hatred. the country is so divided, whether it's african-american, white, congressman, democrat, republican -- i mean, it's like we have a whole divided country. i've never seen anything like it. we used to see -- and i used to be part of democrats and republicans having dinner together with their families. it was a nice thing. pat: sure. mr. trump: there would be combat the next day, but they would get along. they would get things done. so today we have a president that can't get anything done. he signs executive orders. one one of the first ones i would knock out is his executive order on the second amendment, where he is chipping away at it. that's so important. the other one is the one on the border, basically he wants people to pour into the country unchecked. the courts have been following that one. amazingly we have a couple of good decisions so far. -- we had a couple of good decisions so far. it's still out there. the legal fees, i would knock it out very fast.
we do have to -- i know you believe in this, we have to have strong borders. if we don't have strong borders you saw the pope came out , against me. he was very nice. the next day he issued a statement. pat: he realized he had a pretty big wall around the vatican. [laughter] donald trump pretty big. : he was told, oh you have this man named trump that wants to build a wall. we have to build a wall. of course you have to build it. drugs are coming across the border, we don't even have a country. you don't have a border, you don't have a country. he was good. he was a little bit strong at first, interesting because it was the day before the election. i said to myself, oh no. my people came up to me and said mr. trump, the pope just made a , statement about you. i said, good or bad? [laughter] we had the election the next morning. good or bad? they said, not good.
i said oh, this is a disaster. it turned out to be that he talked about the border. he did mention the wall. first thing i thought of, i said but i have seen the vatican. , the wall goes up to the ceiling, right? i think he took a little heat. he was actually very nice the next day. nobody explained to him about the crime. nobody explained to him about the drugs pouring across and the , economy. he was actually very nice. you don't want to hear it the day before the election that the pope says something unkind about you. pat: we have a massive deficit. we are running a deficit every year. wasteful spending is out of control. there was a commission, senator simpson and someone else got together and gave a very reason able proposal. have you adopted anything like
that? we have to have some way of cutting the spending. mr. trump: i think i could add to it a lot, because we needed jobs back in the country. -- i am going to bring jobs back into the country. our country has been stripped. we rebuilt china. i like china, it's wonderful. i'm not angry at china, i'm angry at our representatives, our people, our people for doing such bad deals. not just obama, this is just -- not just now. obama has been horrible and others have been also. i'm not upset with china. i have one of the biggest banks in the world of a tenant in one of my buildings in manhattan. i sell millions and millions of dollars worth of condominiums to the chinese. i cannot be angry at them. same with mexico. i have great relations with mexico. but early in all countries every , country is killing us. we have people that are political hacks that are negotiating trade deals that know nothing about it. they have the smartest, sharpest people that they pick out when the are practically three years
old. you understand that. they go up this. -- pyramid chain, and they pick them early. we cannot deal with it. we have the greatest business people in the world and we do not use them. many business people endorse me, the great ones. we are going to use our greatest business people to negotiate trade deals. we are not going to be losing this kind of money. we have horrible deals with japan. and everyone else. pat: there was a law passed, sarbanes-oxley, and the number s of ipo's since then have been drastically curtailed. now we have in versions where people go and put their headquarters there. and yet our tax burden on corporations is the highest in the world. what are you going to do? mr. trump: we have the highest taxes in the world in the united states. think of it, deficits like this, and we have the highest taxes. i'm cutting taxes substantially. we are going to bring jobs back.
we are going to make sure that -- look china is one of the , great currency manipulators in history, ever. there is nobody ever like them. japan is really good, but china is even better. they have done a number on us with manipulation. with devaluations. in fact, our dollar goes up, and everybody says, isn't that wonderful? in the meantime, look at caterpillar, he cannot sell a tractor. it's a bad situation going on. they have no fear of us, no respect for us anymore. in the south china sea, they are building this massive military complex. it is in the middle of the south china sea. they are not supposed to be doing it. they are doing it because they do not respect our president. he gives them steak dinners when they come over, they have no respect. we have a lot of power over china, we just don't know. them.e rebuilt i have taken so much money out of our country. what they have done -- it's the greatest robbery in the history
of the world. we have rebuilt china. take a look. we have rebuilt it. they've taken so much money out of us. we have to stop it. we have to use our power, and we have a lot of power because of trade, we have to stop it. we can get them to do things like they have to solve the north korea problem. you probably know that more than i do. that is part of the world that you look at. we have a big problem. you know they don't exist without china. but china passes, they don't have that kind of control they , are just toying with us, they have total control. the other one that does is iran. why didn't we, when we made the deal a month ago why did not we , insist they take care of this? instead of going over with ships, weapons, and planes, dropping bombs if we have to. then you have south korea. i love, i had buildings there. they make a fortune. i buy television sets from there. i buy tremendous amounts of things from there. we don't make those things anymore. we used to make of them.
you remember rca? those days are gone. we are not supposed to talk about that because it shows we're not as young as we used to be. [laughter] south korea is an economic behemoth. we have 28,000 soldiers between north and south korea. that is a dangerous job, by the way. 28,000 soldiers. we get paid peanuts. they make a lot of money. they are good people. they have to take care of us. we are not in the position to be the policeman of the world. we have to be taken care of. there are a lot of things we can do. pat: how would you specifically go after the north? they claim they have a thermonuclear weapon. mr. trump: i would start with china. china has absolute power. the stuff comes through china. i would also i would have done you'll but i don't think get anywhere with iran, they are a hostile nation. they took our money, they spent 118 airbusught
planes, instead of boeings, and other words the money goes to europe. they bought a lot of things in italy, all over europe. they bought missiles. which i do not know they had the right to buy. they bought missiles from russia. they gave us nothing. we gave them $150 billion. they spent a lot of it. nothing goes to the u.s. i would have been very strong in the negotiation. iran would have to push them i , would now be very strong with china. again, we have a lot of power over china. china takes out so much money. i said before, $500 billion trade deficit with china. you can't do that. how long are you going to have a country if you do that? i hate to tell you folks, you need somebody like me. [laughter] [applause] you know, pat the politicians , don't even know what that means. they talk about free trade. i am a free trader. you have to have smart trade.
i say like kerry, they are going , to make air-conditioners, sold them for nothing. we lose 1400 jobs, they moved to mexico, they build a plant, mexican -- employ people, which is fine. they make air-conditioners and sold them. here's the story. this is the only thing you can do to stop it. every time you put an air-conditioner into this country, you send one, you have a 35% tax. they are not going to move. [applause] you have to do it. there are people that will say, oh, you're not a conservative. i'm the most conservative guy in many ways. you have to be smart. everyone will move. we will not have anybody left. you can have thousands of factories that close in our countries. pat talked about corporate inversion.
you have people they cannot get money back in. they are moving companies, not only because taxes are too high, but they are moving companies out of the u.s. like pfizer they , are a great company. they are moving to get money. there is $2.5 trillion outside of the u.s. and yet the , democrats and republicans agreed to bring it in. all you have to do if you are obama, is sit down within 10 minutes you can make a deal. this is the case where everybody agrees. pat: why hasn't he done it? mr. trump: i could not tell you the story. but i -- [laughter] i like that example. because -- $2.5 trillion. i think it could be $5 trillion. it could be more, the government has no idea. if they say $2.5 million, it's probably much more. here is the case where democrats and republicans are in total agreement. it is one thing to disagree on health care, and all of these other things, we get it. here's something they all agree
on. we want the money back in our country, what is not to agree on? it should be 10 minutes to solve that problem. they agree here, agree here. the money will come back in no , deal. they have agreed now for 3 years. what that is is leadership. if i were president i would get in the office, a big office, and say fellas folks, , because we have a lot of women, and that is good, -- folks, we have to make this deal. i would have it on and a half -- done in a half hour. you need leadership. you cannot fly to hawaii to play golf on a boeing 747. talking about the carbon footprint. you know, pat he talks about the , carbon footprint and then gets in a 747 to play golf. spews this stuff, comes back a long time later. it was not like he came back the next day. he played a lot of golf.
you have to get people into an office and make deals. pat: one last question. i know david has questions from the audience. scalia just died. he was a dear friend here at regent, a dear friend of all of us and a great justice. the court was in a conservative mode, 5-4. on a lot of votes anyhow. now the next president, there -- may be 3 judges. what criteria would you use? donald trump: we have some good ones, we have judge alito, who is terrific. we have judge thomas, who is a terrific judge. real strong, very good guy. we have some who do not work out as well. if you look at justice roberts, he could have killed obamacare twice. no matter what he does he was , appointed by bush. by the way, i will to you that senator cruz is the one that
pushed him. he was the one that most wanted him. he wrote editorials, saying that you have to have roberts. justice roberts was a terrible justice. he approved obamacare when everybody said it would be terrible. he was the boat that said we would keep it. he had a second time at it, and that would have killed it, but he passed it as well. some of the other judges on the conservative side. rumors are that someone not even speak to him. what he did was terrible. he was a bush appointee. he was really -- the one that pushed him harder than anybody was senator cruz. senator cruz gave us obamacare in a true sense. [boo] mr. trump: oh? no, right now they had editorials where he wrote papers on my he should be the one chosen signed by ted cruz. he has been -- no matter what he does, he's been a disaster because obamacare is killing everybody. it's killing everybody.
pat: one more question. in your selection as president, what criteria would you use to pick somebody. donald trump pro-life. :[applause] very conservative. very, very smart. i mean, like judge scalia would be a perfect. i mean, he was like a perfect -- he was a perfect representative. i've always said that justice thomas doesn't get enough credit. pat: he's a wonderful man. mr. trump: he is. he's a wonderful man. he's a wonderful guy. [applause] and as i said, judge alito is a terrific guy. so in that realm is what we're talking about for me. pat: well, we've got some questions. all right. they've come in from all around. let's turn this over to our friend david. mr. trump: thank you, david.
david: here is a question from a simulcast room because this event is huge. i thought he would like to know that. we've got an overflow room. mr. trump: i see a lot of people upstairs. beautiful. david: they're ever where. -- everywhere. here's the question. it's about israel. it's from terry. support of israel, a essential for continuing stability in the middle east and for maintaining , a firm stance against terrorism. will you emphatically stand with israel? mr. trump: yes. very simple answer, yes. [applause] they've been our most reliable ally, especially in the middle east. you look at, you know, what's happened with israel. they were so against this horrible iran deal. they were so against it. and i'll tell you what, obama was the worst thing that's ever happened to israel. you can look at it that he's not a good president and he's not doing a good job. you look at netanyahu and you look at what he's gone through. you could just see the level of
exasperation on that man's face. the most basic things -- they weren't winning anything. why did we make a deal like this with these people? and they look at us with no respect. they cannot believe themselves that they were able to get this deal. i don't get it. i don't get it. there's a lot of theories. i don't get it. this will be studied and studied for a long time. this will prove to be a very bad deal. this will lead to nuclear proliferation, 100%. all the money that we gave and even the keeping of the hostages and they released the hostages , for $150 billion so it looks like ransom. the other way would have not been ransom. no, i'm with israel, 100%? -- 100%. david: next question. jane wants to know about the constitution. as president, what will you do to restore adherence to the constitution by all levels of government?
mr. trump: i'm a very strong constitutionalist. i feel very strong about it. we have gotten away, frankly, i think you could say it not , giving it a lot of thought but all of these executive orders, that's not a constitutional thing. nobody ever -- [applause] i mean, we have a president who just goes and does, you know, he'll spend three minutes talking somebody into it. he's got a little burden and he goes and signs an executive order and says five years later the courts will decide. it is not the way it is supposed to be. the good thing about the executive orders is the new president can immediately avoid them. that's the one good thing. [applause] david: this is an interesting one. right from here in the studio audience. from bernard. during this campaign there have been a great deal of -- a lot of tough language among the candidates. can you forgive and for get to put it aside to join together and also pick a v.p. choice made from one of these folks that might have been saying a few things?
mr. trump: i can forgive. i mean, i'm pretty good at that. i do have -- every once in a while there will be somebody that went too far and i don't like it. you've been hearing what i said over the last few weeks. things were said that were lies. i won't mention it because i can't mention -- i've got to be a good person today. at least for the next hour, i'm sorry. but there have been many untruths told. you know -- knowing, knowing. i think what happened to ben carson was terrible when they said he left the race. here come on over, vote for me. i think i would have won iowa. that affected me. we are doing ok. we've got a second and three firsts. so i'm not complaining. [applause] but you know what happened to ben carson, what happened there was horrible. the notice violation. that's like a fraudulent document that was sent. there have been bad things
happening out there. i tell people real estate is tough. real estate in manhattan, you meet tough people. these politicians are not such good people. david: lexi from the audience. mr. trump there are some who say , in the past you have supported democrat liberal views. , how can voters be sure that you will truly hold and would actually continue to uphold republican ideas and values? mr. trump: well, you know, it's interesting, one of the magazines said donald trump is a world class businessman. it was interesting i'm all over , the world. and i deal with all politicians. honestly, i never thought i would be doing this. i just got exasperated. i was leading in the polls, and i had a lot of jobs going. my children are younger and they can do great jobs. excellent executives. this is not something i was going to do or really wanted to do. i loved what i was doing. the fact is that as a
businessman you get along with all politicians, or you have a problem. so i get along with democrats. i get along with liberals and conservatives, republicans, everybody because that was my thing. i got along with bob. where is he? [applause] a fantastic person ok? , you know that. stand up. [applause] he's a fantastic person. but i get along with everybody. i get along with everybody. and that was important. and i tell people and people would forgive for that. as a businessman you want to get along with democrats, republicans. for the most part that's been used on me. once i explain it, most people understand. david: all right. ken from right here in the audience wants to know assuming you will be the nominee of the party, what are the most
important qualities you are going to look for in a vice presidential candidate? and feel free to name some names. that was my part. that was my part. mr. trump: actually there are some names that i've gotten to respect. we started with 17. we're now down to five. some of the people that i've dealt with, i have a lot of respect for. the main quality is somebody that can be a great president if something happens to you. don't you think that's got to be number one? and then i want somebody that could help me with government. so most likely that would be a political person because you know, i'm business and i'm very good at what i do and all of that. and i'm also very, very political. you've seen me -- when you can get zoning on the west side of manhattan to build almost 6,000 units of housing and you have to go through new york city politics, believe me, that's as tough. i don't say israel palestine, but it is about as tough a deal -- i view that as the single toughest deal.
anybody can make a deal and we're going to give it a shot. but a lot of good people have gone down trying to give that a shot. the most important thing is you have to have somebody that can be a great president. but after that, you want somebody that can help you with legislation getting it through, etc., etc. i would say -- and it's too early. i'm not thinking about it a lot. i'm thinking about getting the ball over the line and get this thing done. and it's a very interesting thing because some people know how to do that, some people don't. i do want somebody that's political because i want to get lots of great legislation that we all want. pat: he's had a busy day and you win nevada and come to virginia. i mean, it's a big deal. hillary, if you were president would you instruct the attorney general to indict her for what she's done in relation to the e-mails?
mr. trump: well, it's an amazing question because you know there's a six-year statute of limitations, might be five, but probably the answer is i would six. instruct them to take a look at it because it's not really our call to say indict. pat: yeah. mr. trump: but certainly you would have to take a look at it because you look at general , betray us, he suffered greatly they gave him two years , suspended. they wanted to take his rank away from him. i fought this very hard. i said, this man suffered enough, when don't you focus on beating isis and leave general petraeus alone? leave him alone. [applause] i think it helped him. but they wanted to cut his rank way down. he suffered greatly over this. and what he did is nothing compared to what she did. so i would instruct my attorney general please look at it. and if there's something there -- there seems be a lot there because every day we see people and read about people that are experts in the field. how often do you see some of the
saying she did nothing wrong? they are all saying she did something wrong, but they are protecting her because she is the number one runner, and she's saying how wonderful obama is. did you see anything like it? every single thing he wants to d -- do, she is saying, great. she's doing it for that reason. believe me folks. pat well, donald, i want to : thank you. i think the audience appreciates you and loves you. [applause] i want to ask you, after the election would you please come back as president trump and give a presidential message here at regent? mr. trump: we'll do it again. great job, you've done. great job. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: there have been questions raised on the campaign trail recently about donald trump's past -- tax returns. our guest is irs commissioner who had this to say. >> as you know, we cannot talk about individual cases. it would be rare for everyone to be audited every year. usually when there is an audit and it is cleared up, there are no other issues, it is a number of years before you hear from us again, unless something is in your next return the pops up. as a matter of formal auditing, it would be rare. >> he also says that he is not going to release his tax returns while he is being audited. is there something from the irs that for bits him from releasing his tax returns? clerks with my caveat that i cannot talk about individual cases, the taxpayer controls his returns. there is nothing in the irs
audit process to nearly -- generally that would keep you should -- from sharing. >> what do you make of it? >> we stress that we are in tax administration. any of thestake in primaries going on and whatever the comments are being made, are being made by candidates. are our standpoint, if you being audited and you want to share that information, you can do that. >> one of the other things he said is that he thinks maybe he is being audited because he is a strong christian. is that what -- is that a reason why the irs would audit somebody? collects that is something that would never cause you to be audited. clear, certainly since i have been commissioner that we do not care who you are, what party you belong to, who you voted for, whether you go to church or don't go to church, if you hear from us in response to an inquiry, it is about
something in your tax return. if somebody else had that same issue in their return, they would hear from us as well with regard to limited resources. it would never be a case that you would be audited because of any religion persuasion. announcer: you can watch the rest of that interview with john kostka none sunday at 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 eastern on c-span. announcer: it looked to be has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some of the programs to watch for this weekend. 7:30 p.m. eastern, david randall of the national association of scholars talks about some of the books incoming freshman in college or asked to read before the first day of class. and cia director, michael hayden gives a inside look at national security in his
book, "playing to the edge american intelligence in the age of terror." he is interviewed by the cia director in the clinton administration. >> it is outside of the envelope for electronic indication. as you said, a light -- american law enforcement traditionally has been able to look at the outside of the envelope. the supreme court decided that the fact of your phone call, who, when, or how long also was essentially the outside of the envelope. announcer: watch book tv all we can, every weekend on c-span2, television for serious readers. collins, a member of the judiciary committee in the house has a big hearing coming up next week on apple encryption and the fbi. where do you stand on the issue? in time ihis point think it will become one of the defining issues. we have had a hearing already, i
am of the belief that we could be on a slippery slope. i think apple is fighting back. i think they should fight back -- where believe that did it stop and start. it is not just a one off, it is not just saying can apple give me this phone and just this information, where do we start the conversation -- it is not a need to be handled in the courts. this needs to be solved on capitol hill. we need to make a determination in congress on what the issue is , and how we are looking best to protect the country. i have served in iraq, i have been overseas. there is very much of a concern ise that the government coercing somebody to do something, not to stop something, not to change, but they are saying, you will give us away and. almost analogous to saying there
is a skeleton key for everyone's house, i am not sure that is where we want to go. is there a balance question yes. it is not to be struck in the courts, and needs to be on capitol hill. >> fbi director comb he spoke on capitol hill yesterday. i went you to respond to a little bit of his argument. cases arese and all very important, there is a broader policy question far larger than any individual case that we have to grapple with. first i think the answer would best come from a technical expert in a good lawyer, i am neither of those, but i will take a shot. i do think it is potentially, whatever the judges decision is in california -- i am sure it will be appealed no matter what. e it will be appealed no matter what. there may well be other cases that involve the same kind of phone and the same operating system. what the experts of tommy is the combination, and i'm -- what the
experts have told me is the combination on this operating system is unusual and it is unlikely to be a trailblazer because of technology being limited in principle. but the decision by a judge, all of the decisions will ride how other courts handle similar requests. .uest: some of what i just said he talks about a judge in california and a judge in new york, judges from different areas. do we really want to take an issue in which most people carry areiphone or a data phone, we going to really leave that up to multiple jurisdiction's opinions? in this case, they make a compelling case that it is just one phone of a dead terrorist. but the next question is, if you get a court order for them to do that to that phone, what is the next step to get a court order
for the next thing they wanted to do? that is the concern and the bigger issue. it is why i disagree with the has good who i believe intentions, but i have a healthy skepticism on the privacy aspect come especially with national security interests, as the reason for an exception. host: doug collins, this is from thereill" this morning -- seems to be quite a bit of talk about a budget resolution and whether or not republicans can pass it. guest: i, for one, voted against the deal. we have to get back to priority spending them a something i have talked about says i have been elected. there not in the i'll is spending anymore. we are looking at ideas and saying we have about 80% of our budget that we do not touch. we do not deal with medicare, medicaid, big items driving the smaller percentage of our
discretionary spending. we have done a good job and continuing the process on discretionary spending levels. we have lowered it from 2010 levels. the deficit has come down. so are we going to make a conscious decision that many republicans, the vast majority, voted against? and now we are saying, is this the way we want to go forward? how is paul ryan doing, in your view? guest: exactly what he said he was going to do. he has been working with individuals and with different members. has he always made decisions i might have made? no, but he never promised he would. whiched in situations in we now have members who were openly critical of previous members and now serve on the steering committee. paul ryan actually gave us power. if anybody thinks he is like the last speaker, look at things that have happened. i serve on the rules committee,
and we are seeing better debate and more amendments. host: yesterday in the "new york times comes out there was an article about the house at about paul ryan. and i'mng to sum it up, going to be incorrect, but i hope i get it right. essentially, paul ryan is trying to develop a conservative platform and use the house as the model. the senate is not. it is more of playing a little bit of small ball here. is the congress going to be relevant this year in the political debate? guest: i want it to be. i do not believe my kids and my wife back home come up and go through the motions. i like that we're trying to look at a big agenda. or other presidential times, will affect our debate process. from a conservative perspective,
take any major issue in this country over the last two to three years, the house has taken it up, passed it, and sent it to the senate. many times the senate does not take it up. they will not discuss the filibuster issue. it is very frustrating. , and at one home, they would ask a question, and i would say, well, here is what we passed on it. they would ask what happened to it, and i would say, well, it went to the senate and they did not vote. the senate, even in an election -- but the american people are simply saying, get up there and fight for what matters, fight or getting our country back fiscally in order, let us get up and go to work and let government ofthe a light touch, not the heavy
touch. we are seeing the electorates discuss that in a passionate way. you originally supported scott walker for president. who are you supporting today? guest: after scott walker left at race, i am still looking it. i am getting ready for the process in georgia. ted cruz has a good message. we agree on a lot of things. marco rubio has a consolidated message. trump isump -- donald -- he is presenting what a lot of people feel. i would like to see more specifics. voice to many, and it can't be concerned -- it be concerning review have states with solid conservative resumes for many years, and people had gotten so frustrated. so it will be interesting.
host: representative doug collins is also reverend doug: spirit you served as senior pastor at the chicopee baptist church, which is where? guest: just south of gainesville, georgia. host: we want to get to your phone calls. a lot of topics, congressional, political, whatever you would like to talk about. we have a call from arizona on our republican line. caller: well, hello, c-span. monthlying use of my call, because i think i have some the very important to say to the congressman. i know congressman do not have a lot to do with picking a supreme court justice, but the democrats are getting ready to viciously attack because they would not .ake up obama i think you need to make it simple for folks, tell them you
are invoking the biden doctrine and the schumer doctrine are not picking a supreme court justice as a president is finishing up his term. people should understand that it is the same thing that the democrats were doing six and 10 years ago, and now they want to accuse republicans of screwing up i not doing it. host: i think we got the point. this reflects a lot of our constituents. i agree -- it is amazing and really highlights -- i think it reflects something. on our side, we have viewed this president as the most ideological and political president on most issues. in an election year, i would we see anything less? we are now looking at a court that is changing and would
really change the landscape of the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years. i think i supported the senate or they will hold up on this year it lets look at how this political season is playing out. but also giving the next administration that possibility. i think the president should nominate somebody. i think it will be an interesting choice. but i think there will be a clear dissension on the priorities. host: using think he should nominate somebody? guest: it is his constitutional responsibility. and then they can follow the democrat doctrine of not playing politics. host: anthony in st. paul, minnesota, democrat. caller: what i would like to ask the senator is -- we were talking about national defense and the phone.
i have to wonder why there is so much interest put on this particular phone. it has been on the news. those people are not just walking around with these same phones in their pockets 2, 3 months later. another thing with national defense, we should be addressing , so, educating our young they can keep up with all of these high-tech weaponry's that we're building. if we're going to start stopping aliens, only allowing aliens to come in with education, that is discrimination to me. but we need to spend a little is on building bombs and putting them to the people that will have to operate these systems and do infrastructure with the pipes. as i yesterday about the water pipes and stuff like that. that is national security. when you do not have good water, your electrical grid is faulty, i mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. host: a lot of topics on the table. guest: what is interesting for
phonethe interest in this is that it is a very public case. this has been discussed in classified hearings. we have been talking about this in the judiciary committee. the issue of encryption is not new. they might feel this is something that will be something and want to get fixed gear the phone in this case actually becomes the focal point. it is not particularly this phone and what it may offer. i think the reason i and many others are skeptical in this case is it is not just this phone. it is the precedent set going forward. i do not think it is about apple or these other issues. these are issues in the marketplace. the market will handle that. the bigger question is privacy. holding that privacy and how we access the information. do need tochools, we
continue our stem education. we need to grow in that as we continue to move forward. thethe phone has become object, if you would, for the whole debate. host: part of the debate last night and houston was about insurance, health insurance, and interstate -- if you were able to sell insurance over state lines. should that happen? guest: yes. host: why doesn't it? guest: it goes back historically with the insurance industry and the way it was set up to sell in sure and said how they would deal with different markets. in georgia, we passed legislation to allow others to sell. it is part of a comprehensive plan that needs to be looked at. insurance needs to cross state lines spirit we need a more patient-centered approach with the health care situation. we need the axis and terminology that says, here is what is
opening and expanding the markets, but at the same point, we get caught up on the issues. one of the things that was moving forward, but then obama over,- obamacare took some of us have continued to look at other alternatives on how to make it a competitive and fair market so people can get affordable health insurance. in my district, which is very , sometimes folks have access to health care issues. some have ang that lower premium, but they get a low monthly rate, but then there co-pays and deductibles are out of their range. so it is a false promise. the get a policy, but they cannot afford to go through with the policy because of the deductibles and co-pays being too high. from my perspective, i think that is a step we can easily take. host: the representative reverend collins is also a
lawyer. we have a call on the independent line from wisconsin. caller: good morning. you know, it is so interesting now about apple and the phone. called the first 48, and authorities always get search warrant's to go through these people's phones, you know, suspects or whatever. ism not understanding why it so difficult to just do what they normally do. get a search warrant and go through these people's phones. you know, is this some kind of special phone that is exempt from the search warrants? i am just not understanding. frankly, as far as i am concerned, apple really said just go ahead and do with the do, becauseants to our privacy is already, you know, out the window. host: all right, we get the
point. guest: if the phone was yours, would you want them to look into your phone just one time? i am not sure. the issue is not the process that law enforcement went through, it is the fact that the encryption in the phone cannot be unlocked. apple does not have the "backdoor." that is what is being discussed. is there a way that they could go in under the encryption and get what is being asked for? it needs to be held up here in congress. what is the rights of companies and the balance of national security? that is what congress is supposed to be doing. he wrote question here is, again, maybe this phone is not attached to you, but the next question is, when is the next warrant going to be to your phone that is encrypted and you do not know it was there? host: we have a tweet -- i do
not want your unhealthy state of georgia buying health insurance in iowa and forcing up my costs. guest: i appreciate accurate he is welcome to come down anytime and visit the great state of georgia. host: jackson, tennessee, democrat line. doug,: yes, reverend congressman. my concern about the same-sex marriage case and the ruling of that, and if you really take a real look at that from the perspective of chief justice roberts saying it had nothing to do with the constitution. justice alito said dealing -- the question now is whether or not congress should actually deal with the rule of law. justice scalia pointed out that no social transformation without
representation -- they questioned the constitutionality of that decision and also the fitness of the supreme court to deal with the rule of law. so what really needs to take place is to address what is going on within the supreme thet itself, because until supreme court is in the position to actually address the rule of law, then they cannot carry out the responsibility of the supreme court. host: thank you. guest: he hits on something that a lot of people are concerned about and have been in many cases, the actual undertaking in the supreme court and the rules that have come out and then the balance between, which seems to state, andimes to a at times it takes the backdoor settlement. it is interesting. the reason why the next supreme court choice is a crucial in the history of our country, because
it will determine on many issues how states and how they federal government interact with each other. he has hit on that sort of black box, if you would, of when they get together and decide their cases, what is being put into it and what is not being put into it, who is having the arguments made, and it also of the damage in a moment ago. oning on court, ruling constitution, ruling on law, or is it ruling on preference? if you have multiple rulings out there, especially now witha 4-4 quart, they will hold. host: the syria cease-fire is supposed to take effect tonight. guest: we will see. i think the issue there is not only syria but the weak application from this administration, and we have now had russia come in, someone who served in iraq. we have isis leading over into
iraq. ,e have the kurdish fighters which i think need to be armed and we need to help more and give them the tools they need to fight. there are concerns in the region about that, but we can begin to work. , this is notnot something we can bomb our way out of. there will be times we have to make the call that bombing works, but when you are dealing with three or four people they gather themselves in civilian groups, our country would never support a mass bombing of civilians and terrorists in the same place. the question is, how do we take groups from us and others in the arab world that have a direct impact on this and begin to solve it? we will see how long this cease-fire lasts, but i am not sure it will last very long. host: rochester, new york, independent line. caller: about the apple telephone controversy, what bothers me is whatever power the government gets, at some point,
they always of use it. i was reading an article the other day about the u.s. 6000als secretly tracking cell phones. i am also tired of government trying to manipulate us and making as constantly afraid. then these technologies go down to the local police level, and god knows what they are doing. guest: it is. and before people out there said to could care less about national security, i will remind them that i am still in the air force. a father that was a state trooper, too. balance, and good police work has always run up against the next technological problem. they have always found ways to do the work and do the job. are we getting into something much more difficult here with encryption that we never would have had 15 to 20 years ago even? yes. but the interesting thing here
is, what is that next step? i have yet to have the fbi director, who says this is isolated and unique, every time i hear this is just the first step, on many of these issues you see is liberally -- a slippery slope. host: you have the general counsel of apple coming to the hearing next week. who else? of thethe fbi director general counsel, and i think we have some other experts in the field. host: c-span will be covering that hearing. daniel is in baltimore, republican line. caller: hello, thank you for allowing me to be on. representative collins, thank you for your continued service. we are talking about the government. i think the american people, at least this american people, and i have served 24 years, and when we see the government not play the same game with themselves as
they do us, it is kind of making us unhappy. hillary clinton as a good example. why 45% to 50% of the american people are supporting someone that has given up so many classified documents -- you know , even one i do document, you are in trouble. another thing i would like to say real quickly is we have got five candidates out there, and it is kind of scary. guest: i want to go back to one thing you said. as someone who has been around classified information, and we get trained on it in the military all the time, the revelations of classified game.al, she runs her own hillary should suspend her presidential campaign viewed the fbi should get direct answers, and they should get this solved. for most of us that deal with
this, i have gotten e-mail after e-mail from friends in the military, and they say there is no way you do not know that that is something that should not be on a nonsecure account. for her to continually say this is no big deal and this is a witchhunt, that is doing a great disservice to this country and to those who properly work with our security and properly understand that there are positions that you have been interested with homage of handle information that has very few eyes upon it. frankly, she should stop what she is doing. being president may be her goal, but she owes it to the american people to answer for what she did. she needs to solve it now. host: baltimore, independent line. hello. wasi, -- hi, i was going to address the question to the congressman about hillary clinton, but you said it much
more cogently than i could have. but i would like to make a wantingt about the fbi the information on the apple iphone. agents hundreds of fbi to whatthe equivalent the brits had in world war ii, and when they want to get access to a complex code, if they cannot break it, we should just retire them all and save a whole lot of money and just ask apple to come up with that particular piece of information that they need out of that phone, if that is possible. if not, look, we have to have some downside risk. i am living in a free country. i am a world war ii veteran. i am 88.
and i think i understand the problem. and i was so happy that the congressman is so cogent on this point. thank you. guest: it is not everyday i get to talk to a world war ii veteran. thank you so much for your service and what you meant to our country. the question here is not -- again, so many times we want the bumper sticker answer in our world, the easy one. one-off,imply not a not something that you can get in a room and sold with one company. we have multiple companies who have encryption. i know some other tech industries are beginning to weigh in. know, i try is, you to keep things simple sometimes. and this is not a simple topic. it is like a children's book, if you give a mouse a cookie, next thing, they will want a glass of milk.
in this case, you're dealing with millions of transactions and lives. host: part of the discussion , does itis phone is have to be a master key? do you know? can they unlock just this phone? guest: according to apple, they cannot. they said it is not builds in. there have been interesting discussions from apple. when you start saying, if we could or if we did, then i am saying, ok, there may be a pathway to get into it. so that tells me, even if you gave it to -- somebody once said give it to apple and just let apple have it and give us only the information we want. but this is a dead terrorist, a dead phone. we can gety, well, this anyway. but what about the next alive person who may or may not be rightfully accused?
then they will say, well, we just have one more. again, i understand security risks. bet is something that has to balanced. the question is, is there a balance we can live with that does not make a lot of these advances mute? the: if donald trump win republican nomination, will you endorse him? thet: i think he will be republican nominee, and anybody "washington journal"e i continues. byt: now we're joined here ben wikler, the washington director of moveon.org. mr. wikler, why did moveon endorsed bernie sanders? is a national grassroots progressive organization with about 80 million members. we only indoors when our members vote to endorse a candidate. his january, we put the question to moveon members with four
options. bernie sanders, martin o'malley, hillary clinton, or do not endorse. bernie sanders can through in a landslide, 70 8.6%. that is more than any candidate had ever received in a presidential nomination vote in percent.story -- 78.6 so perhaps this was a totally clear winning endorsement by our members. host: what was the reason for what you called the overwhelming response? guest: we have been asking our members about why they're so drawn to the sanders campaign. the message is very clear, which is that sanders represents the fight against our big system and the fight for an america that works for everybody and not just the people at the very top. he wants to break up the big banks and fight income inequality. more than that, he wants to make
sure that at each step of life, government is serving all interests, rather than just interests that happened to write giant checks to campaigns. that includes to seniors, paid family medical leave for newborn expanding funding for planned parenthood, reforming the criminal justice system, combating climate change, all these fundamental issues. in one way or another, stalled by the power of big money and special interests to prevent legislation that most americans would strongly support. ben wikler, donald trump also has, in some ways, a populist message. did any of your members vote for him? was he considered viable? guest: no. as clearly as our members support bernie sanders, they are adamantly opposed to donald trump. there is a simple reason. every time donald trump opens his mouth, it is clear that he
would like to chop us up he would like to ban muslim spirit he like to break up families and build a giant wall. is tapping into real anger and concern for how this system works, but he is not proposing solutions to bring people together. far from it. host: one of the issues that or put outworked on press releases on is the supreme court and whether or not the president should nominate somebody. i want to get your response to what then senator joe biden had to say about 1992, and this is from the c-span archives. [video clip] my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after
the november election is completed. president, too, mr. must consider how it would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. it is my view that if the president goes the way of presidents fillmore and johnson and presents an election year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. host: a lot of "nots" in there. guest: a lot of "should seriously considers" in there. we should consider the contest. that was the summer, not the end of winter, in an election year.
it was totally hypothetical. and he was saying we should consider, we should seriously consider, and that is different from having an actual vacancy in the supreme court in february and having the entire republican caucus in the senate judiciary committee and across the senate now say they blanketly will not even meet with a nominee. what they are doing, speeches people have made, what they are doing now is unprecedented. there is no precedent for blake refusing to do their constitutional duty, saying there is no way they will consider any nominee. that is irresponsible and extremely partisan, and it is making a political move in a wayess that is about the the justice system was constructed by the constitution of the united states. host: the numbers are up to talk with ben wikler of moveon.org.
we have a lot of political topics on the table are ready. we will introduce one more and then go to calls. 3763 delegates at the democratic convention this summer in philadelphia. 2383. to win plus, 15% that 4700 of them are so-called superdelegates. guest: so these superdelegates are people who were not chosen through primaries are caucuses, people who are party leaders, elected officials, members of the democratic national committee from different states, and they can vote for whoever they want when it comes time for the convention. a lot of super delegates have been endorsing delegates, and that is fine. .org and a big for most immigrants across the country, it seems pretty clear that superdelegates who have their position not from being chosen by primaries or caucuses, they should not have the power to overrule the choice of the
democratic electorate when choosing the democratic nominee. we have primaries and caucuses going on around the country. so moveon.org has asked superdelegates to pledge now that when it comes time for the convention, they will support whoever has actually won the primaries and caucuses around the country, rather than potentially overturning the will of the public. host: do you support the idea of superdelegates? guest: i think superdelegates are not particularly democratic as an institution. i support elevating people of certain leadership in the party. i think their voices are important. it is great for them to have a way to plug-in or but they should not have the power to overrule what most people want. the reason we have caucuses and primaries is that we believe in democracy. wikler, how did you get involved in progressive politics? guest: i grew up in a wonderful place called madison, wisconsin.
if you breathe the air there, you're probably breathing progressive politics. stronglys were both political and believed in social justice. i remember going to a jesse jackson rally when i was seven years old. that memory stuck with me. i volunteered for campaigns. i was part of the state legislature and the house. intern foronor to feingold when i was in college. people involved in politics were there for the right reasons, standing up for their constituents and values. that i am the sense proud to be able to carry into my job now. i think there is a real russrence between how a feingold, who is now planning to return to the senate, conducted and othersal career are pursuing this incredibly partisan approach. russ feingold sometimes broke
party lines and sometimes stood along. he is the only senator who voted against the patriot act, but he always stood on principle and explained what he was doing. me, it seemed like a way you could make a difference in the world. it is an honor and pleasure to be able to participate in that. host: first call comes from jerry in rhode island, democrat. i disagree with everything you said about the delegates. what i wanted to talk about with the goals of office taken by politicians, article six of the constitution -- the oath of office taken. take wereeople written by lobbyists, not sanctioned by the constitution, they were not written by the government.
says theonstitution supreme law of the land show shape and loyalty to this pledge, the constitution, and the people. i do not understand how any other pledge is not in direct conflict with constitution, and the people that vote for lobbyist pledges are lobbyists to they cannot vote for lobbyists. but if they win the presidency, they will have 32 states, both the senate, the house, the presidency. they will get to pick the judicial, the supreme court, and -- host: i think we are getting your point here. any response? andt: thanks for your call, you are making a profound point it fundamentally, the first job of every member of congress, of every senator, is to uphold the constitution here he that should be the guiding principle. the constitution is there to functioning and
general welfare of the united states of america. seeing candidates, especially on the republican's eye, actually making pledges that prevent them from serving the public interests -- especially on the republican side. they are doing this, and not even for emergencies or balancing the tax season. that is the kind of pledge i think is hard to take seriously if you take seriously the idea that your foremost duty is to the public interest, the interest of your constituents. that kind of hard and fast 1% alleged does not work out in the pledge does not work in the real world. that is why democrats look at the world as it actually lives. they have a fundamental problem with how campaigns are financed
and how politicians get reelected. right now, for so many politicians, they are choosing which donors they want to cultivate, and they have to stick with them instead of with the needs of their citizens. are: via twitter -- what bernie sanders's congressman's? guest: great question. the first thing i would point to is his work in the veterans affairs committee as ranking democrat. he and senator mccain were lead on a profound reform of the .eterans affairs administration that is a very strong accomplishment to her he also has an incredible history of working across the aisle. when he was in the house of representatives, he had more amendments than any other representatives. he was called the amendment king of the house, and these were on a huge array of issues. hethe affordable care act, had the power of getting several billion dollars from community health centers, helping to make a vital role outside the
traditional custom -- hospital system. he has a record of figuring out where to find common ground for people who disagree with him and , even practical advances while he has visionary ideas that move the national debate forward. host: pensacola, florida, independent line. go ahead. good morning. i am a huge bernie sanders fan. i recently switched parties to become a democrat so i could vote. you talked about the superdelegates a little bit. if it comes down to superdelegates nominating clinton, i think a huge amount of bernie sanders' fans will use or switchrite-in sides be at i think it would be a travesty if bernie sanders was not nominated because of superdelegates. that is all. appreciate it. guest: thank you for the call.
turnout ofs to the base voters and activists, of independents getting involved for the first time, if the nominee has been chosen through primaries and caucuses and is then taken away by party insiders? that would be an incredible blow to the huge numbers of people who will have turned out and volunteered, donated, put their hearts and souls into a democratic process that they wanted to believe in. i think this cuts both ways. wass say bernie sanders behind in pledge delegates and won with superdelegates, i would want the superdelegates to support secretary clinton. no matter which candidate, it is vital that the final nominee be the person that actually won the election speared we do not want a rerun of 2000 with bush versus gore decided by the supreme court. host: if you go to the c-span website, you will find our delegate tracker.
763 democratic delegates overall. 2472 republican delegates overall. 37 tolicans need 12 nominate. democrats 2383. of the democratic delegates a so-called superdelegates, which we have been talking about with ben wikler of moveon.org you can find it on our website. our delegate tracker. you can see who has done what so far. "new york times" call for hillary clinton to release the transcript of her speeches. do you agree with that position? , i think all the candidates should release of the transcripts of their speeches. because what candidates say, especially when behind closed doors, is pertinent for people
deciding who to vote for. that is pretty basic and clear. one of the things that is great about bernie sanders is that he does not have a record of giving speeches that he is not comfortable releasing the transcripts of your it he is volunteered to release any transcript. host: pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: i am a big ernie supporter, too, and agree with his vision for the future -- i am a big bernie sanders supporter. i was disappointed that it was not brought out more that bernie wants people to vote, and he forgot to mention that there is s up forof 534 seat election in 2016. i am sure if voters came out, a lot of those seats could be taken by progressives. thank you. your call.ks for this is one of the key things.
it is not just about the presidential election. havenk sanders and clinton a strong view of this, of the idea that it is not just about taking the white house. it is about mobilizing people across the country. sanders has done an extraordinary job of giving people a role to play, making it clear that people power his campaign and it is not enough to win a presidential election. we need to take back the senate and make inroads into the house. after elections, citizens need to stay involved. we will only get a visionary, bold change of millions of people are involved in the political process daily. that is one of the lessons from the last eight years, and it is fundamental to sanders' candidacy. it is really not about him. it is about all of us. host: ben wikler is the washington director of moveon .org. we have a call from ohio on the republican line. caller: good morning.
on theatching something fox network. they were talking about having women joined the draft. when they mentioned that sandler was 18 years old, he refused to join the draft. he did not register. i just wonder how this young man feels about that. is almost can't 90 sanders -- almost treating sanders like he is a saint. of course, he is jewish. they could refuse, but he was a jewish man, and all my family went to germany and five for the jews. so tell me about bernie sanders and his record on registering. guest: thanks for your call to
one thing i love about c-span is the chance to engage with people from a huge variety of viewpoints. something we have in common is that our family members fought in america's wars. my on goal was a vietnam veteran, and my dad served in the u.s. and did not go to was am -- my uncle vietnam veteran. sanders had a profound moral disagreement with that war. .e talks about needless wars sanders obviously grew up as an activist fear he was getting arrested protesting segregation, fighting for civil rights as a teenager and in college. he had deeply held political views in a time of german's visions -- at a time of tremendous division, a time i did not live through. but i have heard stories from mike parents and friends and family. -- from my parents and friends and family. the key question is what we do now, what we require of young people, and what we do going
forward when america has to make a decision about war and peace. sanders has shown tremendous judgment to her he opposed the most available -- one of the most pivotal for policy decisions of my time. he supported the iran nuclear deal, which helped of heard a war with iran. am confident he will only put men and women in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary host: . -- necessary. host: what is the path to bernie sanders getting the nomination? guest: votes. the big moment coming up now is super tuesday already, i think we're looking at strong results in vermont and colorado and oklahoma.and he is actually ahead in oklahoma , and i believe in massachusetts. there are 11 states up for grab spirit i think he can win
several and come close to a draw or tie him for several more. it is still a pension battle. the thing about the sanders campaign is that it is people power, and people power is a renewable resource to what has happened so far is that people step up. people turn out and volunteer more. people donate more. nobody is maxing out the sanders campaign. i should not say nobody. but people can keep making small donations. the average donation of the sanders campaign is $27. i think that is something we will see continue for as long as it takes. i think the exciting thing is how success builds on success, how energy builds on energy. h is demonstrating it is possible, and that brings people out of the woodwork to make it happen. tweet -- can you give us one conservative policy you would like? where are you willing to
compromise? if not, why should they compromise with you? guest: great question. a lot of policies have been supported by republican senator much like. i will point to my favorite example, a president i had differences with. created theh emergency plan for aids relief him and that policy saved millions of lives and transform the global epidemic. it is something we can lifetimely end in our could the prospect of an aids-freak generation, which seemed unthinkable, is up julian view -- the prospect of an aids-freee -- generation is a prospect. stepped up to the plate and provided tremendous leadership on the issue. i think that is terrific. i would be delighted to see more policies that make the world a better place from our friends on
the republican side and from the democratic side. no question that there is room for compromise, room for finding things we can work on together. it is about putting down the partisan puzzle and focusing on what the people of america actually need. host: i guess he's all your poster of their in harvard. ella delphia, independent line. -- philadelphia. caller: big bernie sanders fan. once i understood how the super pac's work, that a similar to gerrymandering. anyway, i am glad you are from wisconsin. i was very disappointed with that recall. please explain how you got over one million signatures and, yet, failed to give scott walker -- get scott walker out of that job. i'm confused on that. host: thank you. guest: that is a painful and important question. for folks who have not followed
the stories of wisconsin, scott walker who failed as a presidential candidate, was -- has been republican governor of wisconsin for some time now. after he passed this ridiculous bill supposedly to fix the budget, but actually to smash public-sector unions up of wisconsin, there was a recall effort. millions of signatures were gathered across the state calling for a new vote for governor, and scott walker ran for reelection. what a lot of people do not realize is that millions upon millions of dollars was poured into the state by the koch brothers and national efforts of wealthy conservative donors. that amplified a message that they found had a message, and the message was that the people already decided it would be unprecedented to recall the governor, we should not do it, he has not broken any laws. and this idea that we should not just recall the governor when we do not like the policies, that
broke through. i think if people realized that they were hearing that message over and over and over, repeated in tv ads, because of money pouring in from out of state, people who funded his campaign had a clear, direct financial interest and breaking the power of organized labor, i think it might have turned out differently. it was a stark example of the power of big money to avert what should have been the democratic process. host: ben wikler, washington director of moveon.org. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, green party presidential candidate will join us live in the studio. also, eric erickson will talk about his new book, you will be made to care. c-span'so watch h washington journal at 7 a.m. eastern. join the discussion.
>> the candidates are standing about social security and how they plan on saving it. if they are, what are going to do to save it? >> i'm participating in this election because i feel it is important to get out and vote. that is the only way besides local elections we can voice our opinions. >> there is more road to the white house coverage this weekend with ohio governor and republican presidential candidate john kasich. he will take questions from voters at a town hall in nashville. we will have that live at noon eastern on c-span. house majority whip steve scalise says he will support whoever becomes the republican nominee in the general election. he made the comment while speaking to bloomberg news congressional reporter billy
scalise. i'd like to thank representative scalise for taking time to join us. we started this series a year ago to bring together politicians and all the issue os they have day. as his party's chief vote counter, he's also got what i would argue is one of the tougher jobs in washington today. listening and taking into account the views of all of his conference and then getting them to follow him. on a personal level, he's focused on energy and national security issues. a couple of weeks ago he gave the republican radio address speaking about the energy industry. as somebody who spent my life in the tech industry and working with programmers, he's a computer scientist and a former systems engineer. now before i hand things over to billy house, bloomberg news' congressional correspondent and
our moderator today, some housekeeping items. we'll have time for q&a at the end, there will be microphones so put your hand up and a microphone will find it -- find its way to you. our bgov clients are always welcome to these but if you're not a bloomberg government customer and want to join us in the future, find a member of the team afterwards and we'll follow up with you. billy, all yours. >> good morning, everybody.
got a lot to cover today, but let's start off with a couple of softballs so we don't pull a hammie. you're technically the number three ranked republican in what is the largest republican majority in the house since 1928. so what -- if it's not too personal here what does a whip do specifically? mr. scalise: before i got elected whip i had never seen "house of cards." seems like half of my constituents did and they said, is that with what you do? so i had to watch it. the job of the whip is to take the pulse of the membership. i'm talking to my colleagues every day, to find out, as we're trying to move our agenda forward, what are things our
members want to see, in the policy especially, to get them to support the legislation and get it across the finish line. so those conversations get really details in policy. a will the of it gets into some of the things they're also trying to accomplish back home, whether it's other bills trying to get through committees, having problems with. you find out what the members want. >> so you know what they will do and what do and whether they'll bend on certain things? mr. scalise: you know what members want to see to get them to go along with it. >> you announced you wanted to run for majority leader last year but the spot didn't open up. mr. scalise: no, when speaker boehner left, the speakership opened up, mr. mccarthy was running for that, so i was running for his spot. i'm glad that representative ryan for speaker. he's doing a good job.
he's probably one of the best ideas guys in the country, not just in the house but in the country. >> you haven't endorsed in the presidential race. >> no, i have not. >> do you plan to do so? >> i do not plan on endorsing prior to march 5. i want the most conservative person who can win. i admire ronald reagan, came up in school when ronald reagan was president. saw what a conservative leader could inspire people who didn't consider themselves conservative but understood because of how he explained it why that conservative policy was good for them. i want to see somebody rise to that level. >> you'd be ok with donald trump? >> i would be ok with anybody who was on the stage last night. i think if you look at our field, it's not completely settled, obviously, the election tuesday night could have a lot of say in whether or not this is going to be competitive or be over but
regardless, whoever on that stage is our nominee, i can support and i think would do an incredibly better job than hillary clinton or bernie sanders. they're arguing over who is more to the left, a socialist or somebody who won't even denounce socialism as bad policy for this country and a bad direction. >> ok. now let's get to the nuts and bolts here. the softball is over. what is going on, again, with the largest republican majority since -- in the house since 1928. what is going on with the budget. what is going on with the bills? i thought the words continuing resolution and omnibus were thrown out the door last fall with the two-year deals but they're back in the lexicon. mr. scalise: we're in the middle of the process of meeting with members, committee chairmen and rank and file member, on where to go forward on budgets. a budget is always a big,
visionary document, it's a complicated document to put together. last year, we had a lot of complicated issues to work through. the big issues then were, it started off as a difference between our fiscal hawks and our defense hawks. to me, i'm in both camps. a lot of our members felt they were in both camps. but there were some real issues that had to get results -- resolved and it took weeks and weeks of meetings and intense negotiations to come to a place where we got the budget. because we lay out the vision for how to get the budget back to balance in a 10-year window, we repeal obamacare, how do you save medicare from bankruptcy? because of that you don't get democrat support, unfortunately. it's got to be something that attracts the vast majority of our republican conference. we have people, whether you know it or not, we have people that have differences of opinion within the republican conference. that's what makes us strong and healthy as a conference, as a large majority.
but it means we have to work hard to come to a true consensus where you can get more than 218 people to vote for that bill. >> you have so many members, it might -- why wouldn't it be simpler to pass a budget? mr. scalise: if only it was simple to get agreement on the most complex issues we're going to debate and discuss and get a vote on. if you look at the conversations within our conference, there are a lot of important conversations that are being had about how we actually get a balanced budget, how do we get the economy moving again? and those are all things that, ultimately we're going to resolve and we resolved those in the past. but it means you've got to really work together with everybody to come together and lay out policy. this isn't just platitudes. we're writing legislation, writing a true path to get the economy moving again and hopefully this is something, clearly this president doesn't believe in that approach. he's never brought forward a budget that gets to balance.
he doesn't think it's important to balance the budget he raises taxes in his. we don't raise taxes in ours. you've got a very big difference in ideology but hopefully whoever is going to be running for president on both sides can be commenting on whatever we put out and say whether they agree with it or disagree with it. what's their approach to getting the economy moving again? at least we lay one out. >> is there a chance that the house won't do a budget? >> there's always a chance the house won't do a budget but if you look at the budgets we presented over the years since we've been in the majority, every one of them gets to balance in the 10-year window. that's been a big driving priority of ours. but then, the most important discussions we have and the agreements we've got to come to is what is the underlying policy that gets you there? those are things that we actually, you know, it's not like we disagree upon them but everybody has a different idea of how to do it. you can't have five different approaches. ultimately, you have to come together on one that everybody supports. >> cutting the agreed upon
spending level from last fall, almost a nonstarter for the senate. is that correct? and certainly speaker ryan has said it would probably hurt the appropriations process. do you think there would be 12 appropriations bills passed this year? mr. scalise: i'd like to see us move 12 appropriations bills out of the house. i'd like to see the senate take up appropriations bills, something they didn't do last year. part of the budget agreement at the end of last year is there was an agreement that they would start moving bills. unfortunately, the senate has the 60-vote requirement. at a minimum they ought to review and consider the requirement for appropriations bills. it's constitutional responsibility. having 51 votes to move an appropriations bill to the president's desk or back to the house is something they should revisit. in the meantime, it does still take 60 so if you look at reconciliation, a byproduct of passing the budget if the house and senate agreement, which is
something we did last year we the first time since 2002 the house and senate agreed on a budget that gets to balance. it was significant, it shouldn't take that long between times where the house and senate agree on a budget that balances, but we did that. and it allowed us to have reconciliation which gave us the ability to put a bill on president obama's desk, defunds planned parenthood and to do that with 51 votes in the senate. i think on the 12 appropriations bills, they should revisit having a 51-vote requirement for those bills. in the meantime it takes 60 and the agreement from last year was that they would not block moving those bills forward, anymore, the democrats wouldn't, like they did last year. >> if you had to guess, if you were a betting man, you don't really believe we're going to do -- this house is going to do appropriations bills this year do you? mr. scalise: it's unlikely you'd get all 12 signed into law.
it would be likely if we got a budget and the agreement was still in place and the democrats in the senate held to their word that you'd be able to get a few of those bills, not just moved through the house, moved through the senate but about the president's desk and signed into law. maybe the d.o.d. appropriations bills, maybe a few other appropriations bills, where you're no longer looking at over $1 trillion that you come up to september 30 that's unresolved, it's a much smaller number which means you've gotten some policy riders signed into law they have biggest damage this administration is doing is through the regulatory side. we're fighting the president a lot on his regulations. we've beaten the president on a lot of regulations. but there are many others coming out of agencies like the e.p.a. and cfpb and other agencies destroying jobs in this country. we want to push back on that and the best way is to attach limitations on the president's executive power in those appropriations bills that ultimately we get to his desk. >> back to the budget, as an
aside what would you say to the conspiratorial minded that you're dragging your feet on the budget so many members can get through the primaries without having to cast a vote? mr. scalise: we're probably at the earliest point in decades we've been starting the budget process. typically the budget moves out of the house around april, around mid april. that's when most budgets have come out of the house. so we're looking at something in march, which would be a month earlier than normal. we've actually ramped up the process. of getting the budget discussions going and ultimately getting the committee to do their work. so we're way ahead of the average schedule of the budget. >> when would you say panic should set in that there might not be a budget? when should the alarm start sounding? mr. scalise: we are still in the middle of discussions with our members so we're not anywhere near a point where things would
break down so we are still having a lot of discussions. they're passionate discussions. because again, you're literally talking about how you get the country turned around. both getting to balance, getting the economy moving, dealing with the insolvency of medicare. those are big, big, passionate discussions. i don't see those discussions happening on the democrat side, unfortunately. they'll criticize a lot of things in our budget which is fine. i don't see them laying out alternatives. i think it's a conversation that's good for us to have with the country. because people across the country want us to solve these big problems and the fact that we're willing to write them down on paper, put them in a legislative document, called our budget, and then debate this with the american people, they are hungry for those ideas and the fact that the other side refuses to talk about how they're going to fix these big problems is going to hurt them in the presidential election. >> the other side has helped you pass some appropriations bills and last year's omnibus bill.
is it likely you'll have to rely on the other side to pass something this year? mr. scalise: ultimately that's up to our members. our members don't want to have a process to avoid a c.r. at the end of the year. this is the best way to do it, start with a budget process and then have appropriations bills move through the house and send it to the president's desk. if you do that, you don't have this looming deadline at the end of the year that results in an omnibus or c.r. which is far less than what you want to have as an ideal. a c.r. doesn't allow you to have any policy limitations on this president's executive overreach. >> sounds like you're saying this looming sense of dread and pessimism that's already set in over the budget process and then the appropriations process is a little too early? mr. scalise: way too early. these are the conversations that
we ought to be having. we really care about the policy. and the policy matters to the direction of the country, you're having these kinds of passionate conversations within the republican conference an that's what we came here to do. we came here to go fight for our ideals in the best way to get the country moving again. in a majority, you've got to come together to get an agreement with at least 218 members. billy: are you on ryan time yet? he spent the first four months saying that he inherited a mess and basically nothing was his fault. is this ryan time yet? mr. scalise: look, paul has made clear the direction he wants the country to go. having a functioning legislative process.
that means we are going to meet as members and the members will be deciding these big decisions. paul ryan -- if you are waiting around for paul to say this is where everybody is going to go whether you like it or not, that is not why he ran as speaker. we are having meetings on all of the different policy areas. we set up task forces on all of the different policy areas. members are coming to these meetings. i was there yesterday. members have really good ideas about how to restore the balance of power in washington so the government works for the people, which it does not right now. paul has laid out a vision. this is not top-down where a few people in membership are making decisions. the members are empowered. which means that the members up to make decisions. i always use the jack camp example.
if you go back to 1980, ronald reagan ran on tax reform. but it was not his idea. when he was fighting through the primaries, he wanted to lower tax rates. jack kemp put together a plan to lower tax rates. he came up with the plan that lowered rates from 70% down to 50% and when ronald reagan got the nomination in 1980, he said, i want lower rates, and i like that plan by that guy jack kemp. literally, a year later that got signed into law. i inspires members, look, if you got an idea, a way to get the country moving again, start building the coalition now. our nominees are not talking about a lot of detailed policy ideas. if you watched the debate last night, they're talking about who built the trump tower or who was lying.
it's not a detailed policy discussion. we need detailed policy to get the country moving again. that is really where speaker ryan has made his objective, so they can look at a lot of these ideas, and they can say that is the way i want to save medicare, that is how i want to get the budget balanced, that is how i want to get the country moving again. billy: when a member of congress talks about task forces within congress when there is a committee system, you really wonder if there is too much going on there that does not need to be done. there are committees. why handle these things through the committee process? i thought the mantra was order.
mr. scalise: that is why when he set up the leadership, i think you can go back and see where taskforces were set up to go around the committee chairman. that is the worst way to do it. you erode the trust and undermine the expertise in congress. if you do look at the task force set up to find a replacement for obamacare. i think everybody knows that we are for repealing obamacare. but it's important to show what a replacement would look like to lower costs and put patients back in charge of their health care. kevin brady, ways and means, john kline, the education workforce, those chairmen are heading up the task force because their committees will do the work to produce the bills that come together. so, that is what he has done. he has gotten the chairman to
lead those efforts. and members who are not on the committees, if you have a great idea for tax reform -- whether it is a fair tax, flat tax, lower rates overall, which we want -- you can go to the taskforce and you can bring your ideas and ultimately that will result in better legislation for us. billy: by the way -- i was at the same place as you last night, talking to a congressman, moderate, fiscal conservative, and he said i do not understand this. why don't we just pass these bills we need to pass? who cares if the senate does not take them up? who cares if obama vetoes them? let's let our agenda be the bills we pass and run on those. why doesn't the house pass a replacement bill? why doesn't the house passed a poverty bill? why doesn't the house pass a
welfare reform bill? why not do a "bold agenda manifesto" like contract for america? why not do bills? that is what he was asking. mr. scalise: you will see us bring a lot of this bills to the floor. billy: this year? mr. scalise: this year. that is what our members are deciding. our members represent 750,000 people each on average. but at the end of the day policy matters. you can't throw some bill on the floor and say let's put some bullet points in the form of a bill and lay it out there. we need to work through the details of the policy to make sure we get it right. at the end of the day, i want these bills to be bills that get signed into law. if barack obama will not sign our welfare reform and our tax reform bill, let's put together a bill that the next president
can sign into law, so the presidential candidates can debate that bill and it is strong enough and put together in a way where it can stand on its own merits and let's have both sides debate this issue. let the country engage in this. billy: we are in the second year of a republican-controlled congress. why hasn't that groundwork been done already? was it disunity of the previous speaker and his handling of matters that slowed things down? is this the year that everything is going to be punted to 2017 because details have not been ironed out in those bills? how come none of this stuff has actually been -- taken flight yet? mr. scalise: we brought some of these ideas to the floor already last year. if you look at 2015, on national security, a number of pieces of legislation to deal with specific problems. the visa waiver program, the
problems with the visa waiver program. we have people in, let's say france, traveling to syria, training with isis. they literally, without even a visa, could come into the united states. we changed that. most people recognize that there were major flaws with that program, but you can't say, ok, let's fix it. you have to fix it the right way. we put a task force together led by the chairman of jurisdiction and came up with a bill by candice miller and that was signed into law. the visa waiver program has been addressed and we did that last year. we brought other bills to the floor to handle these problems. obviously in the budget, we laid out the plan to save medicare from bankruptcy. the left like to criticize us for it, because they do not have a plan at all. there are a lot of problems our country is facing. again, details really do matter.
we are working through the details and we have an interest in each of those issues. billy: what if the product you come up with do not mesh with your party's presidential nominee's ideas on the issue? mr. scalise: i think you will see these before we go to cleveland, to bring in our nominee as the official republican candidate for president -- it's a good opportunity for us to lay out the good ideas when you're not hearing a lot of those details coming out of the presidential election, there will be solutions to problems our country is facing we will have put on the table in the house so our nominees can embrace them, take pieces of those, and may run on those bold ideas in the general election in november. billy: with many general appropriations bills being passed, do you think that undercuts the speaker bringing
together a agenda? mr. trump, if he is the nominee, he has differences with the speaker and house conservatives. what happens if there are two different directions being put out there? mr. scalise: if you look historically, the nominee ultimately is going to be the person who shapes the agenda for november. that's always the case. i'm glad i had unanimous support, but at the end of the ay that is what the process is going through right now. we in the house, at least, have an obligation to lay out our vision and you're seeing that play out and i think it is a ealthy conversation. i think including members from every committee -- not just the members of the committee of jurisdiction -- clearly they have the most expertise, but we