The Daily Signal - RSC Chair Introduces New Health Care Plan, And 2 Trump Officials on Immigration

Episode Date: October 23, 2019

Today, we bring you a special edition of the podcast from President’s Club, an annual gathering of Heritage Foundation supporters in Washington. We sit down with three top political figures in D.C. The first is Congressman Mike Johnson, who serves as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that’s rolling out a major health care initiative. We then shift to immigration and border security with two senior Trump officials: Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services. We hope you enjoy. We also cover the following stories: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wins re-election, but loses majority Amb. William Taylor testifies about Trump's phone call with Ukraine president Obamacare premiums drop for second year in a row The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet,iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Make their holiday unforgettable with a gift that says it all from Pandora Jewelry, a gift that tells a story and shows you know theirs that doesn't just sparkle, but speaks. From new festive charms to forever rings and personal engravings, this season give a gift that's perfectly theirs. Whether you're shopping for a shiny surprise for your significant other, matching bracelets to celebrate your friendship or a heartfelt gift for a family member, say more this holiday season with Pandora. Shop now at ca.pandora.net or visit your closest Pandora store.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, October 23rd. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Today we bring you a special edition of the podcast from Presidents Club, an annual gathering of Heritage Foundation supporters in Washington. Today we sit down with three top political figures in D.C. First is Congressman Mike Johnson, who serves as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that's rolling out a major health care initiative. Our colleague Rachel Del Judas will ask about that.

Then we'll talk to two senior Trump officials about immigration and border security. Rachel will sit down with Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of customs and border protection. And then Kate will sit down with Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of citizenship and immigration services. So today we got three interviews. We hope you enjoy. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now onto our top news. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has eeked out an election victory, despite a high disapproval rating over the past week.

Trudeau's Liberal Party lost its outright majority in Parliament, but retained a 46% share of seats. That means they'll have to rely on other left-leaning parties to pass legislation. Conservatives picked up 26 seats, but still trailed liberals by 35. Trudeau was weakened going into the election with a 56% disapproval rating. He weathered several scandals this year, including a potential corruption case in which Trudeau and his aides improperly intervened in the criminal prosecution of a Montreal engineering firm. Or recently, photos surfaced from years ago that pictured Trudeau wearing black face and brown face on several occasions. Trudeau apologized for those photos. Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, testified before key congressional members on Tuesday.

But since it was a closed-door hearing, always. know is from lawmakers in the room and what they're saying after. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Democratic National Committee chair, said, per NBC, I do not know how you would listen to today's testimony by the ambassador, Ambassador Taylor, and draw any other conclusion, except that the president abused his power and withheld foreign aid. It's a direct line. Representative Mark Meadows, a conservative Republican, said, per CNN, that there was nothing new here, and we're trying to see if any witness has a connection between foreign aid and pausing the foreign aid. As it relates to the quid pro quo, we haven't had any

witness suggest that. Turkey and Russia have struck an agreement to remove Kurdish fighters from a stretch of Syrian land along the Turkish border. The agreement comes at the tail end of a ceasefire between Turkish and Kurdish forces. Turkish President Erdogan had previously vowed to crush the heads of Kurdish fighters if they didn't fully withdraw by the end of the ceasefire, which ended Tuesday night. The new agreement cements Russia's role as a power broker in the region, following President Trump's promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. President Trump tweeted on Tuesday, So someday, if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans win the House,

even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the president without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here, a lynching, but we will win. Representative Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Black Congressional Caucus, said this in response. Our constitutional mandate to provide oversight and investigation, the checks and balances, we are a co-equal branch of government, that performing our constitutional duties is equal to a hate crime and to evoke the horrific legacy. of lynching and you know during the years when lynchings took place they were advertised like sporting events people were told to come out on a Sunday bring your family watch an African-American be burned watch an African-American be

be hung there is a museum that we have now called the National Memorial for Peace and Justice which is a museum that documents this history I would suggest that the president perhaps go visit that he clearly doesn't understand the Constitution so he doesn't understand our constitutional duties and he doesn't understand or have an appreciation for U.S. history. Republican reactions were mixed. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said of the remark via CBS. That's not the language I would use.

Via ABC, here's what Senator Lindsey Graham had to say. This morning comparing it to his impeachment inquiry. What is your reaction to that? I think it's pretty well accurate. This is a sham. This is a joke. I'm going to let the whole world know that if we were doing this to a Democrat, President, who would be all over me right now. Not one person has asked me a question.

What do you think about the fact that President Trump doesn't know who his accuser is? What do you think about the fact that the Republican minority cannot call witnesses, that everything's done behind closed doors? I can only imagine if this were a Democratic President what you would be saying to me right now. So it shows a lot of things about our national media when it's about Trump. Who cares about the process, as long as you get him. So yeah, this is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American. I've never seen a situation in my lifetime as a lawyer where somebody's accused of a major misconduct who cannot confront the accuser, call witnesses on our behalf, and have the discussion in the light of the day so the public can judge. If this continues in the House, it's a complete sham, and I will do everything I can to make sure it doesn't live very long in the Senate.

Well, for the second year in a row, Obamacare premiums are going down. The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that premiums for mid-level Obamacare plans would drop by 4% in 2020, per the Washington Examiner. The news comes as more insurers are re-entering the Obamacare exchanges. Just three years ago, they were fleeing for the exits. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said, per the examiner, the bottom line under President Trump, costs are down and options are up. He added, the president who was supposedly trying to sabotage the law, has been better at running it than the guy who wrote the law.

Are changes in store for Israel? Since Prime Minister Benjamin Nenjahou has failed to cobble together a large enough coalition to form a government, Israeli president, Riven Rivlin, is turning to Benny Gantz of Israel's blue and white party to try his hand at forming a government. If Gantz is similarly unsuccessful, there will be another election. Last year, an anonymous person claiming to be a senior Trump official shocked the nation, shocked the nation's capital by publishing an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times. That op-ed was titled,

I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration. President Trump accused that person of treason. Well, whoever the person is, they're coming out now with a book. CNN reports that elaborate precautions have been taken to protect the author's identity, and that the book will be out November 19th. The book will be called a warning, and according to CNN, a draft press release of the book says,

picking up from where those first words of warning left off, this explosive book offers a shocking firsthand account of President Trump and his record. Next up, we'll feature Rachel's interview with Congressman Mike Johnson about the Republican Study Committee's new health care plan. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head?

If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. We're honored today to be joined on the Daily Signal podcast by Congressman Mike Johnson, Louisiana, who is also the chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Congressman Johnson, thank you so much for being with us today. Well, thanks for having me. It's good to be with you.

Well, you are very busy right now. You're currently in the midst of rolling out the RSC's health care plan, which is entitled A Framework for Personalized Affordable Care. Can you tell us a little bit about it? Yeah, thanks so much for the opportunity. working on this product that we released this week for almost a year. Everyone remembers what happened back in 2017. The big effort Republicans made to repeal and replace Obamacare. It failed by one vote in the Senate. John McCain famously did the thumbs down. And since that occurred, there hasn't really been any idea or proposal in this space at all. It's been almost a vacuum of ideas.

What is filling it now is something that greatly concerns all of us and should concern every American. that is the Democrats, all of the ones on stage running for president, and many of the leaders in Pelosi and company and the Congress, who are proposing basically two options in this crisis that we have with American health care. Some of them want to maintain the status quo and double down on that, and the others want to move us into a government-run, one-size-fits-all health care system for America. We think that would be a disaster for the American people.

And so in the Republican Study Committee, which is the largest Congress of conservatives in Congress, of 147 members. We have been working on this since January of this year to come up with sound proposals that follow with our orthodox conservative beliefs and principles, free market principles, that we believe we can insert into this space to fix what ails the American health care system. The idea ultimately is to present a framework for more personalized, affordable care. We think we can drive down the cost, increase the quality and accessibility of health care by instituting some really simple principles that we think we'll have a great shot at

getting past. That was actually my follow-up question. You mentioned how Democrats are really proposing two options, either the status quo or a completely government-run health care system. Why should Americans be watching and caring? I mean, we know a lot of us, our own health care prices are going up. So you mentioned earlier at an event today that I was at that this is the issue of the day, and why should we be watching? Well, first of all, this is an issue that affects every single, American, every family in this country, individuals, people are struggling with their health care. I'm from the state of Louisiana. When I go home and do town halls with my constituents, northwest Louisiana, I do a presentation, I give them an update on what's happening in

Washington, D.C., and then I open for questions. Inevitably, the first or second question, in every town hall, no matter where I am, is about health care, the cost of health care. That is what people are so deeply concerned about. Because for a lot of Americans now, they're paying more for health care, even in healthy families, than they are on their mortgages. And the projection of the cost is just ominous. If you look at the projections of where this goes over the next three years, five years, ten years, it's not a sustainable model. We can't afford our health care. And meanwhile, the quality of care in so many places is going down and the access to the care is going down. All this is a result of the ACA, Obama care, and the way that it has failed to people

and not fulfilled its promises. So the reason that people should be paying attention, I don't think we need to encourage them to pay attention to the issue because I think it's top of mind for almost everyone. But if it's not for someone, if they're not struggling, if they're delighted with their current health care, they need to be very afraid of what the Democrats are proposing right now. I mean, even amongst the candidates for president on the Democrat side, they're having an open and public debate about it themselves. I mean, it was just this week that Joe Biden challenged Elizabeth Warren, for example. Oh, yeah, single payer, great. What's that? going to cost us. And he's floating the figure $32.6 trillion over the first 10 years. I mean,

this is not a system that would work. And even some of the Democrats are willing to acknowledge that. But their proposal is to double down on what we have. That's not going to work either. So we have to have better solutions. And we think that what we're proposing will take us a long way in fixing this problem. In the rollout to this plan, you mentioned that your plan increases access and the quality of care rather than reducing it. Can you give us some specific ways, maybe some of your favorite examples of how it does that? Yeah, there's a lot of features in this 65 page plus report that we've published this week, and it's going to be readily available for everybody to go through and read for themselves. But some of the highlights are, first,

we have to take care of those with preexisting conditions. That is a driving force for us. It's an important mandate that we have, and we believe, it's so critical because we don't want anybody to be left behind. But how do you do that by following with free market principles? It is possible, but it's a different approach than what the ACA, Obamacare has done. What we want to do, just some specific examples just real quick, is expand HIPAA, the Health Insurance, Portability, and Protection Act, is expand that to the individual market. HIPAA's been part of the law since the mid-90s, and it has ensured that in the employer-based market, your health insurance follows you through your various iterations of jobs, right? But it's an impediment

to those who would want to take a risk, be a small business owner, start their own company, right? To be an entrepreneur, many people don't take that leap of faith because they're afraid that if they lose their employer, if they leave their employer, they will lose their employer-based employer-provided health care. It doesn't follow you if you go outside into the individual market. So we want to fix that. We think by doing that, in a big way, we reduce the crisis. that is pre-existing conditions. Because if somebody gets a policy early and it follows them and they can keep it no matter what their iterations of employment,

they don't have gaps in coverage. Your gaps in coverage is oftentimes when you develop a disease or an illness that makes you uninsurable later. That's what the ACA, Obamacare, was trying to fix. So by making HIPAA portability a big factor, we cut down the pre-existing condition concern and you have more individual marketplace options. We have to establish these federally funded state-administered guarantee coverage pools

because that's the way that you ensure individuals with high-cost illnesses have access to quality and affordable coverage. There's ways to do that that are free market-based and introduce competition and help to drive the cost down, and we have some details on how that can be done. One of the ways we do this is repackage the existing funding for the ACA premiums and the Medicaid expansion to fund the state-administered flex grants. And that can be used by states as the incubators, they can innovate with us, to provide the help to subsidize the health insurance

for low-income individuals. We'll give them the flexibility to find what works for them. And you may have 50 different models for that, but that's the beauty of our system that they would be able to do it. We get the federal government out of the way. And finally, one more idea is reduce the regulatory barriers that give Americans access to quality care.

We want to empower them to purpose. personalize their coverage to fit their own unique needs. One of the biggest complaints, the biggest problems with Obamacare is you had these check-a-box systems that every policy that you were required by the federal government originally to buy had to have certain coverage. And it didn't work for most people. For example, a young male triathlete doesn't need coverage for breastfeeding equipment, right? I mean, but he had to buy a policy that had those features. And so it drove the cost up naturally. We want to take all that out of that, all the mandates out of that, return it to the states and allow them to put in the qualifications in each policy that people need and really want and will use, and that will ultimately drive the cost down. So without getting too deep in the weeds on a short podcast, there's a lot of details, obviously, with all these ideas, but these are ways that we can restore the access that people have to care, the quality of the care, and ultimately drive all that cost down. You mentioned that your plan really addresses some of the regulations that

or in Obamacare, unnecessary coverage that people have to buy because of Obamacare, are there some other aspects of your plan that also addresses some of the ills of Obamacare that won't be part of it if this were to become law? Yeah, you know, a lot of the regulatory infrastructure of Obamacare really worked as a disservice to the people because it drove up the cost, the compliance cost, and all the rest. We feel like the federal government should never be involved in so many of those spaces, that it really should be left to the wisdom of the state legislatures in various places to define and determine what works best for them. One example, with these guaranteed coverage pools.

In the state of Maine, for example, three years before Obamacare, they had a good innovation in Maine, and they decided they would do indivisible high-risk pools. They determined that really it's a small percentage of the population in their state that had the chronic illnesses and cancer and the things that were the really high cost drivers of health care. And they said, what would happen if we just kind of, maybe we'd install a $4 surcharge on the private policy of everybody in the state. And we take those funds and we put them into a separate pool of money. We have an invisible high-risk pool where we identify persons who have these various ailments.

We put them into this other pool over here. They don't even know it because it's done invisibly. And we subsidize their care so that they can afford their care. Well, that's a simplified explanation of the model, but it worked really well. In Maine, they had more people insured. They had better access to care. They had better outcomes, higher quality, everyone was satisfied, and then Obamacare became the law of the land, and it blew it all up, right? So we want states to be able to do that kind of thing.

Now, maybe not everybody will do the main model with an insurance, an invisible high-risk pool, but maybe they'll do something more like a reinsurance model that some other states have done. Whatever it is, we trust the authority to be down at more the state and local level than a is at the federal level because the worst thing that can happen to an American is you have some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington that's getting in between the care that you would be getting from your provider, your doctor of choice. That's what the ACA has done to it. That's what Obamacare has done to America. And we have to change that model so that we can return health care to the people and make it, again, more personalized and affordable. In traveling back to your home

state of Louisiana, you mentioned that health care is the top of mind issue. That's the issue that's brought up the most times during your town hall meetings. Are there any specific stories that you've taken back with you, personal stories to D.C., where you're, you know, remembering these people and personal stories where this is why you're doing what you're doing. Yeah, and, you know, all of us have personal stories from back home, and many of us have personal stories that affect our own families. In fact, this report that we published this week is full of personal stories where people are using their names in their hometown. They're explaining their family situation and how under Obama care, their situation is perilous, but we illustrate that under our principles and our plan,

how their lives would be so much better. Look, in my home state of Louisiana, it's really been a disaster. We were in expansion state. Under Obama Care, we did Medicaid expansion, and the resources have been wasted. I know people who are not able, who are vulnerable populations. I mean young, single mothers, people with severe disabilities, the elderly, who were in waiting lines, It's unable to get the care that they desperately need. Medicaid was designed to help these folks, but it can't. Why? Because we expanded the program and we put able-bodied workers without dependence on that proverbial wagon.

They're riding along. The resources are limited, and so they get spread out further. This is just simple math. What's happened is these people who are able-bodied and don't need that care. Many of them have high personal incomes and all the rest. It's draining away the resources and the people that desperately need it. In my state, tragically, after Medicaid expansion, our legislative auditor and others have determined that over 5,000 people have lost their lives and waiting lines awaiting health care that they would have otherwise received if we had not expanded Medicaid in this way. It's a tragedy.

And these stories are repeated over and over and over throughout the country. We have to fix that. We believe, as conservatives in Congress, the Republican Study Committee, we have a moral obligation to step into this arena and provide solutions that will solve. that crisis. And we're really proud of what we're presenting. We look forward to the debate that this is going to spark. And we think ultimately this is going to be a great thing for the country. Well, thank you for your work on this. Last question. Democrats right now, they control the House and you're revealing this plan at a very busy time in Congress. And even though Republicans aren't the majority party, what is your vision for down the road as you all debate this and potentially

could vote out in the future if Republicans do gain back the majority? You know, you were with us at one of roundtables we had with reporters on the Hill this week. And one of the questions was, gee, whiz, Congressman, you know, politically, this seems like an unnecessary risk. Like, why wouldn't you guys just wait around and see what happens? Because we said we have a moral mandate to do this. We have a sense of urgency about this. This is not about political timing for us. This is about solving what is for most families the biggest crisis that they face. And the political wins are not relevant to us in doing that. We're going to put these ideas out there as the only ideas that are out there. I mean, remember, no one has presented anything in this space for going on two years.

We are going to occupy that beach, so to speak. We're in a store on the beach with these principles, these proposals, and put them out there to spark this debate. We look forward to it. I believe that the Republican Party is going to be restored to the majority in the House in the next election cycle. I believe we'll maintain the majority we have in the Senate. I believe President Trump gets reelected. And when all those stars align again, we're going to be ready to roll with real ideas, there's real proposals on day one to solve these problems. So it begins today. We're not going to wait around.

We're not going to sit around. We're going to storm that beach. And so we've gotten out of the boat. We're proceeding up to beach now. And by God's grace, we'll advance these ideas pretty far along. Well, Congressman Johnson, thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity.

Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. In the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. And now we shift to immigration and border security with two top Trump administration officials, Mark Morgan and Ken Cuccinelli. Well, we're honored to be joined today

on the Daily Signal podcast by Mark Morgan, that you're Chief Operating Officer and Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the Daily Signal podcast. Commissioner Morgan, thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for having me. So it's no secret. We all know that we do have a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. In The Washington Post, they had to peace out this week saying that there's a surge of Mexican

immigrants at the border. What's your current perspective on the situation at the border right now? So here's what I'll say, and it's very important, is though, although we've made tremendous progress in the last four months, again, if you recall in May, we were at a very important. at our highest, 144,000 in one month. It wasn't unusual, have over 5,000 apprehensions in a single day. Fast forward now, four months later, that has dropped almost 65%. Last month, we had about 52,000 apprehensions for the month. That's a dramatic shift. And that's absolutely due to this president and this administration efforts, the network of rules and policies and initiatives that have

directly led to this decrease, as well as our partnership with the government of Mexico, the Northern Triangle countries, but make no mistake, we're not out of the water yet. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. And with the increase in Mexican families we're seeing now, a slow increase, what that should alert the American people to is that the cartels, the human smuggling organizations, they are smart, they're flexible. As soon as we start to cut off the flow for the Northern Triangle countries, now we know that they're using social media now to encourage Mexican families now to start coming across.

illegally. So although we've made tremendous progress, we're not done yet. So in regards to not being done yet, is there a specific facet of what's happening at the border that concerns you the most? If there's one thing that you say, this is top of mind for me, what would that issue be? Yeah, Congress has failed to American people. That's what the top of my list. So look, we've got the government of Mexico that has stepped up in unprecedented ways. Over 25,000 troops. They probably are going to double their apprehensions of their southern border this calendar year. They are absolutely targeting the smuggling routes. They're stopping large groups coming in. In May, we had between 40 to 50 large groups. Last month, we had one. Just a couple weeks ago,

we had a group, a caravan starting to come together of over a thousand. And Mexican troops went right in there and absolutely disbanded that. So look, Mexico is doing an incredible job. We have the agreements with the Northern Triangle countries. They're really stepping up to do this and really look at this as a regional crisis and being partners. But at the end of the day, None of this is durable or sustainable. At the end of the day, we still need what I've been saying from day one. Congress needs to get off the sidelines. They need to do their job that we elect them to do and pass meaningful legislation to address

loopholes in this system. They failed to do so. They failed the American people. You've been critical of the judicial activism that we've seen with the courts getting involved in affecting border policy. What can be done in this area? So, you know, I harken back to my law school days. and I like to put things simplistic is, and I learned, you know, my first few days of law school

is judges, courts are supposed to interpret the law, not make the law. And that's what we've seen. We've seen, again, an unprecedented amount of judicial activism during this administration. And every single time, so we have both ends. So we have Congress on one end that's failed to do their job and judicial activism on the other that every time this administration, this president tries to implement a new rule, a new policy, new regulations, it's shot down. The judicial activism should, scare every single citizen in this country. These individuals are not elected, but yet they are legislating from the bench. That's scary. What role does CBP play in preventing drugs from coming over the border? And how big is this problem? And what do we need to do? I know a lot of people

across this country find it very concerning. And so what does the role you all play in that? So that's a great question. I tell you what, we need to talk about this more. Because when we talk about how we secure the Southwest border, the wall. It's always in the realm of talking about illegal immigration. What we don't talk enough about is the NASA Security crisis part of that, the illicit drugs. Last year, 68,000 people died in this country because of illicit drug overdosed. The year before that, 70,000 people. And where does almost 100% of the drugs in this country come from? From outside the country. And more likely than not, heroin meth overdose, more likely than not, that probably came from the southwest border. And that's why I always say every town city and state is a

border town city and state. Why? I'll give you an example. Ice, just a couple weeks ago, they did interior enforcement operations in six Midwest states, Missouri, my home state. And they caught over almost 100 illegal aliens, 100 criminal illegal aliens that were here illegally and committed additional crimes. And guess what? There are absolutely individuals who were smuggling drugs through this. And so last year, I give you another stat, 910,000 kilograms of illicit drugs CBPCs in one year, 910,000 kilograms.

This year, even though up to 50% of border toll resources were taken off the line to the humanitarian, I removed 731 officers out of ports, even with all those resources going to get it this year. That is something that's killing American citizens. every single day, CBP's on the front lines of that. And for some reason, you never hear this reported on mainstream media. It's all about the concentration camps at the board. You don't hear about all these drugs that are being apprehended and keeping Americans safer. That's exactly right.

And I'll even go back. Remember, wasn't that that long ago where we were told that this was a manufactured crisis on the humanitarian side? And then when they came where the facts were there and they couldn't deny that, well, then what they said is, well, it's a humanitarian crisis. We've been saying a law enforcement, specifically CBP, we've been saying, forever. This is a dual front crisis. It's both a humanitarian and national security crisis. How come we're not talking about this every single day? Sixty-eight thousand Americans died last year to drug overdose and a overwhelming amount of drugs are pouring into this country from the southwest border. So when I talk about the wall, it's not to stop good people from coming

this country. It's to stop and make sure we have the integrity of this system of legal immigration, but it's also to stop bad things and bad people from coming in. And that's another thing we don't talk enough about either, the bad people coming in. That's very true. Ten years ago, Democrats in Congress, like Chuck Schumer, they were very supportive of a border wall, which isn't the case anymore. You mentioned that Congress has failed in its job to secure the border to have good immigration policy that they've worked on. Why is this the case, do you think? Look, from a law enforcement perspective, I don't want to weigh in politics.

all look people decide that for themselves, but you just said it. I think it's common sense. So 2005, we had a bipartisan support for the Secure Finsac that led to 654 miles of wall being built. Fast forward now, and this current president is in power, and now of a sudden that the wall is immoral and effective. It's hypocrisy, and it's just, it's a lie. The wall is part of a multi-later strategy example of infrastructure, technology, and

personnel, it works. And we can give you data and facts that everywhere that those three elements have been applied effectively. Illegal immigration has gone down. Illegal drug entry in this country has gone down. And assaults of agents have gone down. It works. So final question. You were the former Border Patrol truth under President Barack Obama. How have things changed in the past administrations looking at the past administration you served in, the administration you're in now? And what are reflections from these two different times that you've been serving our country in? So my reflections, it's almost 180 degrees. It's a priority. Both the maintaining the

rule of law, maintaining the integrity of our current immigration system, and ensuring the safety of this country, and that our hands aren't tied anymore with selective enforcement. It means, look, look, if someone is here illegally, we're going to enforce the rule of law, whether we apprehend you at the border or interior enforcement. Your hands aren't going to be tied that says you can only enforce someone here that's illegal if they fit into this certain category. The gloves are off. And I think more importantly, though, it's just become a priority that this administration realized the importance of securing our borders and to safeguard every citizen in this country. That's the major difference.

Well, Commissioner Morgan, thank you so much for being with us on the Daily Signal podcast. Thank you for having me. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation. and we're committed to solving the issues America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight four conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous.

But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. I'm joined from Heritage Foundation's President Club meeting with Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Thanks for joining us. Good to be with you. Okay, so you spoke about the courts getting in the way of President Trump's immigration policy. How are they doing that and what can be done?

So we have a lot of judges that by any reasonable measure are being activist judges. And by that we mean they're implementing their policy preferences in the form of court orders instead of simply calling balls and strikes. We're going to have the World Series here in Washington. So we'll go with baseball analogies. and being a neutral umpire. Uh, you know, the example I used today in talking to president's club here was a judge in New York last week who imposed a national injunction on what's called the public charge

regulation, which is a rule that requires legal immigrants seeking to stay here permanently to be self-sufficient. It doesn't count humanitarian categories like asylees and refugees, just regular. legal immigrants have to be self-sufficient. Well, the judge went on what amounts to a rant against the policy, which, by the way, is about 140 years old in American immigration law, and it goes all the way back to the 1600s. So he's complaining that this somehow undermines American traditions, and in fact it's completely consistent with American traditions. And that's just one example.

ICE, the interior enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration Front, implemented a regulation to deal with the Flores settlement. This is a case where one judge in California imposed a 20-day time limit on holding families with children in detention. So this was back in 2015. the Obama administration opposed the effort by this judge. The Trump administration opposes the effort by this judge, but the judge in her order also wrote, you know, you can set regulations in place and do these things to make this qualify.

Well, we went ahead and did those. And what did she do? She imposed an injunction on the regulation that complied with her own court order. Again, by any measure, an activist judge, and an action by an activist judge imposing her policy preference, over those of the executive branch and the Congress. That's a violation of separation of powers by a judge. And I could, unfortunately, go on and on with more examples.

This president has suffered more national injunctions than all his predecessors combined. And that is not an anomaly. When these cases litigate out, we win them because we're doing what the president told us to, and that is staying within the boundaries of the law. And that tells you these judges aren't doing that. So how much of an impact would you say these decisions by what you call activist judges are having on the immigration policy that the Trump administration is trying to implement? They're definitely having a significant impact, and yet we're still succeeding because we just keep pressing ahead. I mean, one thing anybody who's observed this president knows is he's relentless.

And we reflect that in our work and the regulations and rules we're putting in place that the law provides for. And the problem is that as these judges impose more and more and more injunctions, they complicate the system terribly. Congress has not provided the resources needed to fully implement the immigration system we've got, much less enforced the law properly. And as you complicate the enforcement mechanism, the enforcement effort, with all these new rules from new injunctions, eats up more manpower, more resources that are all drawn from the law enforcement function. And that capacity is reduced. So we really have to push back on these judges. The president's very determined about that. So there's no problem in doing that. But it takes time. The courts are painfully slow. And, you know, we're going to win these cases. But they're essentially trying

to buy time hoping this president doesn't get reelected and that these policies will be done away with by a different administration. So what has your agency been doing on interior enforcement regarding illegal immigration? And what changes have you made to e-verify? Well, certainly, as we like to say, it's not your grandfather's e-verify. It's been modernized substantially. And the data checks involved in it now are much more accurate and thorough. We also offer simplicity paths, if you will, so you or I can go to our,

E-Verify website and you can self-certify. You can pre-certify yourself via E-Verify so that when you go apply for another job, you know that it's going to go straight through. Because in the past, there have been concerns with errors, frankly. You know, I'll apply for a job. I'll get the job. They'll run me through E-Verify and a false negative, meaning a false flag will come up. Well, we've reduce those inaccurate results dramatically, and the self-certification allows me to go through the process on my own before I ever talk to an employer. So if a problem arises, I can go zero in on it and fix it before I ever get into that process. So there are a lot of changes we've made that have made it more efficient, more user-friendly, and frankly, less employer-dependent,

which is what they want. They don't want to be given another job. They just want to know they have a legal employee in front of them. Right. So you also mentioned your agency has been trying to eradicate loopholes relating to asylum rules. Could you speak to that? Yeah, this is unfortunately an effort that Congress should be doing that they're not doing. Perhaps one of many things they're not doing, but this is a big one. And it's one where there's some overlap between the Obama and Trump administrations. The two first loopholes on our list are shared historically by the Trump administration, closing the Flores loophole, which is that lawsuit we talked about, about the detention of families to keep them together. And the other is to close a loophole related to the trafficking

of children from countries south of Mexico or even from other parts of the world. Again, the Obama administration and the Trump administration have both urged Congress to close that loophole and they refuse to do it. And so we see children used as tickets at the southern border to kind of break through our system. And unfortunately, with the activist judges, they let them do that. And it tends to overwhelm the system. That's the goal on the part of the illegals. And by the way, the drug cartels who benefit tremendously when the system is overwhelmed. So New York City recently made it so that you could be fined up to $250,000 for using the term illegal alien maliciously, or there's some caveat. What do you think about that? Well, first of all,

it'll never hold up. And it's funny, I signed a internal document that changed our use of other versions like foreign national or what have you to alien, to specifically use the term alien, because that's what the law says. And so here you've got this city trying to legislate away a word that's actually in the federal code or a phrase that's in the federal code. I have great confidence that they will not succeed in doing that. But, you know, who wants to be charged and have to have lawyers defend them in a process like that, you know? And more political virtue signaling. But it is worth noting they're willing to cast aside the First Amendment and its protections for free speech to impose their left-wing politically correct agenda.

and by impose, I mean tyrannically imposed, to tell you what you can and cannot say. All right. Ken Cucinelli, thanks so much for joining us. Good to be with you. And that'll do it for today's special edition episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from Presidents Club in Washington, D.C. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Pippet. And please do us a review or rating on iTunes. Give us feedback.

We'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more. than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, the Leah Ramprasad, and Mark Geine. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.