tv Discussion on Regulation Reduction After COVID-19 CSPAN June 1, 2020 3:31am-4:35am EDT
terrorist content, they will tag so others don't copy it. -- there's greater cooperation and we had even two years ago but there is still more that needs to be done. watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. next, senators ted cruz and mike lee discuss recent regulatory changes and the legislative response to the covid-19 pandemic. the heritage foundation hosted this forum. . >> covid-19 has killed hundreds of thousands of people >> covid-19 has killed hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. the virus, unfortunately, could cause additional early deaths down the road due to the unemployment and poverty that it could cause. to stave off those avoidable deaths, america needs to
re-innovate the booming economy we had before covid-19. he boomiy we had before covid-19. to do so we put on this presentation to listen today from united states senators ted cruz and mike lee. each one has ideas about regulatory reform that will kickstart our economy as well as keep it going strong on a long-term basis. i would now like to invite senator cruz and senator lee to join me. before we start today's discussion, i want to get each senator the opportunity to offer some introductory remarks. senator cruz, you are up at first. >> well good morning. it's a pleasure to join you. thank you for taking the time to participate. and paul, it's good to see you. mica, it's good to see you and what a testament to the wonders of technology that were able to
have an intimate conversation thousands of miles apart, and i'm pretty sure that through the electrons this qualifies as social distancing. you know, the fact that we're able to do this so seamlessly, so effortlessly is really a testament to the opportunities that have been presented by this enormous crisis. as an issue when facing two simultaneous crises, a public health crisis, the coronavirus pandemic has killed over 300,000 people, and an economic crisis over 36 million people have lost their jobs as the economy has ground to a halt, and unusually in terms of economic crises, this one is not the cause of some fundamental weakness in the economy or it's not a recession that was driven by the misallocation of capital. instead, the direct result of
government policies that were put in place to fight the pandemic. and we are seeing now millions of americans out of work, over 20% of the american workforce has lost their job in the last two months. that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. you have to go back to the great depression to find a comparable economic catastrophe that a struck the american economy. not only that but we have millions of small businesses that have either gone out of business or on the verge of bankruptcy. and so the crisis level is enormous. but that being said, that also means the task going forward is enormous. mike and i all the members of the senate, we have worked together on four separate piece of legislation, all of which passed overwhelmingly with overwhelming bipartisan support. those pieces of legislation,
they're often referred to as stimulus legislation but that's not, in fact, what i think they are. i don't call them stimulus and affect what i call that is relief legislation because they were designed to provide immediate relief, short-term emergency bridge loans to individuals and families and small businesses to help them get through the immediate crises that we're facing. the state we are at now, there's some of the democratic side of the aisle who want to continue shoveling money, and i will tell you the quantity of money that congress has been in the last two months in response to this crisis takes your breath away. for both mike and i we are at times literally unable to breathe given the quantity of debt that our nation is taken to try to get through this crisis. the next stage, however, when we are now i believe the next legislation should be recovery legislation it should be focused not on relief, not on spending
more money and you shoveling money at the problem. we can't fix it that way. instead the next stage should be focused on tax reform and regulatory reform. in other words, lesson the burden on small business and job graders. the only way out of this mess economically speaking us to get people back to work and that means we need to be working for policy that helps the small businesses that are just starting to open up their doors again that are just starting to see customers again, policies that help them survive and we hire their employees and hopefully grow and thrive. we've got to unleash the engine, the american free enterprise system. the only string long enough -- only thing strong enough. on the regulatory side come one good place to start is every regulation, federal regulation, stately galatian, local legislation in the last three
months has been suspended because of the crisis to deal with the crisis. we should all start with the presumption that those regulations should stay suspended going forward. that it was being helpful for the migration to be suspended during the time of crisis, then it should still be helpful during recovery. i think that's what our focus needs to be, is how do we empower small businesses to drive free enterprise forward and turn our economy around and get people back to work. >> senator lee, do you have any opening remarks? >> indeed. thanks so much. it's an honor and privilege to be with you and to be with my friend senator ted cruz. i agree with every word he just thought it including the words but, and and the. usually when i hear a sentence
like that -- but it's great to be with ted. look, one of the many things he said that is right and so for our time is a notion that we're not going to fix our economy with more government spending. we're not going to fix our economy with more government programs. what we need is to get government out of the way so americans can start helping each other again. that's why i cosponsored along with senator cruz a bill called the right to test act that this is legislation that would let states approve and distribute diagnostic tests when the state or the federal government has declared a public health emergency. it's also why i i cosponsored something called the prime act which will help farmers sell the livestock for higher prices and lower meat prices old way for consumers in grocery stores. right now is a weird bottleneck at meatpacking plants, and what
the prime act does is allow states to regulate slaughter facilities or meat sold within the same state. we have two members of the federal was never intended to be this all-encompassing regulatory body that would regulate even purely local activities like labor, mining, manufacturing and agriculture. it wasn't meant to be the comprehensive exclusive regulator of things like meatpacking and yet it is the federal commandeering of the meatpacking licensing and regulatory business in this nation that has resulted in this bottleneck, the results for higher price for consumers and lower prices for those who actually produce meat. that's a problem the prime act would help us deal with that. we also have to protect businesses from the problems that would otherwise arise from, predictive for businesses that want to reopen from trial lawyers. were trying to make a quick buck. -- who are trying to make a quick buck.
-- falafel what is called animal diversity to section. this would for more businesses to move to federal court where it's often easier to defend against trivial lawsuits. the constitution itself in article iii section two sets out the format for that and it says when you got plaintiff for one state and defend us from another state, you ought to be able to have in litigation that would otherwise be pending before state court. not to be able to access to federal courts because there's a bit more consistency between one federal court and another. i think were going to touch on this later but our environmental laws specifically the national environmental policy act have been weaponized by radical fundamentalists. they been weaponized in order to raise the costs and cause significant delays to all federally funded infrastructure projects throughout the country.
you want to know why it takes billions of additional dollars and many years longer to complete the same infrastructure projects are grandparents built? sometimes in a very short timeframe, just a few decades ago, nepa is often part of the problem and i'm working on legislation that would set a shot block on planning in litigation to speed up the environmental review process while still protecting the environment. those things are at odds with each other and when we look at many of our pure nations -- peer to nations that have aggressive nepa like laws, we stand out like a sore thumb as as a couny that doesn't put any time constraints on this process and get those countries, thinking of countries like canada, are not exactly environmental hellholes. user places the protect the environment and at the same time
provide a reasonable set of expectations that consumers and businesses can look forward to in the economy. we ought to look at the rules and regulations that ted referred to that has been suspended during the crisis. included within these are many of the occupational licensing regulations. we should ask ourselves why it is that his regulations were put in place in the first place if they are appropriate to be dropped during a real emergency. if we can see this crisis as an opportunity for systematic regulatory reform, then our economy can't and i believe will come back stronger than ever. i continually our best days as americans remain yet ahead of us. but in order to get we have to make the right choices. thank you. >> senator lee, thank you very much. let me ask a a question and ths
is a tossup to both of you. you both side and may 14 letter to the senate minority and majority leaders urging them to support statutory reforms to provide regulatory relief for businesses. in the letter you referred to quote paperwork reduction and removing outmoded compliance requirements. i i know you both mention severl different possibilities of reforms that we should make. do you have any specific examples in mind? and woody be possible to have those included in legislation that we will see passed into law before the end of this year? >> i'll start with that if you would like. the most concrete example of an thinking of is my nepa reform legislation. this would do a number of things with the nepa process but the
most important reform in it would be to limit the amount of time that can be taken up at each stage of environmental review, one of the national environmental policy act. because right now there's no limit to it, and so agencies, between a combination of agency action, court action and preparations for those separate venues, it's not uncommon in this country to see a project, sometimes it's a road or highway. highway. sometimes it's an energy project or something much more pedestrian. but it's not all that uncommon these days to see that taking more than a decade, and there's no reason for that. we don't end up with a clean and five as a result of it taking that long. the review process itself can make sure we don't wreak havoc on the environment might otherwise. there's a reason why that should have to take a decade to discern your i put shot blocks in place
and also put in some requirements that would allow the federal government to use corresponding state law document productions as a substitute for what the therapy would otherwise be provided. if a citizen something similar, the federal government ought to get a handle that. this would reduce the overall point of paperwork and it is something that could be put into a vase four leipsic passage, particularly if it ends up being an infrastructure component to that -- a phase four. >> senator cruz, would you like to answer? >> so i emphatically agree with everything mike said and let me take several different pieces. nepa reforms, spinning of environmental review, mike mentioned the process of building any project can be delayed years or even decades, and the way the system operates that it's not designed to protect the environment.
instead what it is time to do is allow activist groups to lose litigation to shut down a a project him to shut and 11. it uses a tool simply to -- [inaudible] a little over a week ago i had a phone call with elon musk, the ceo and founder of tesla and spacex and elon is hardly a right wing conservative activist. but he is public expressed his displeasure with the headquarters of tesla in california and they shut down their factory there, and he's expressed his displeasure with wanting to open up his factory and he publicly expressed his interest in it california keeps doing this, we may decide to move our tesla headquarters out of california and maybe to texas. i called elon and said, hey, if
you want to come to texas, , we would love to have you. texas is real simple. we love jobs. anyone who's coming and creating jobs, we would love to have you. in addition to tesla, and i think this is a very real possibility, i am hopeful we'll see tesla come to texas but in addition to tesla, spacex has very substantial operation already in texas. this week today we've got spacex launch, the first launch of u.s. astronauts on u.s. soil on a u.s. rocket in over a decade. spacex will be launching from cape canaveral, but they also have a launch facility in south texas. the lot and i talked about the desire to substantially expand the launch facility in south texas to create even more jobs in south texas but he said the biggest problem is the environmental review, we can expand the operation into a get through the enormous red tape and bureaucracy. so i think speeding that up is
incredibly important. to give you a sense of scope, i actually pulled some numbers. so between the year 2000-2016, the epa issued a total of 22 rules, estimated by omb to cost $1 billion or more. that was a total of $104.4 billion. every other federal agency combined issued only 19 of those rules that cost an estimated $34.4 billion. so to put it in perspective, epa alone issued more of those rules and every other agency and more than three times as costly to the economy. so i think speeding at that review, and i think the
administration has made positive steps in that regard, and was interesting, mike and i both serve on the commerce committee, judiciary committee together your when you bring in local mayors, when you bring in local elected officeholders, elected democrats, inevitably the express frustration with their want to build public come to want to build a bridge and they say it's a most impossible to do the review. it goes on and on and on, and i know mike and i both have those conversations with elected democrats will be similar, it's your party that's putting all of those roadblocks in the way. and if you think this is an opportunity to speed that up and is an opportunity we should take advantage of. >> senators, it seems possible one of the reasons environment impact statements that get written resemble war and peace in terms of the magnitude and the amount of time it takes to write them is that agencies might be afraid that unless they
do work of that length, the courts will strike it down. that brings up some general regulatory reform questions. there have been a variety of large-scale proposals, such as a requirement that congress adopt any rule that has more than a $100 billion impact on the economy. could you each address what you think the best way of trying to deal with these broader, general regulatory issues are so that as businesses can start hiring people again? whether by limiting environmental -- or others. >> senator cruz, -- story, that's fine. i thought i would let senator cruz gophers this time. >> mike, go ahead. >> if i had, given the power to
pass any single piece of legislation now pending, over the wave a magic wand, and it would be the reins act, and i can stands for regulations in need of scrutiny. does what you just described, which is anytime a federal regulation deemed economically significant costing over $100 million to comply with were put in place they could not be self-executing. wouldn't take effect as long until such time as both houses of congress had affirmatively passed it and submit it to the present for signature or veto. if we were to pass something like that it would do a couple of important things. number one it would restore the letter and spirit of article one, section one clause one, the very first clause says all legislative power granted shall be vested in congress in the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house
of representatives. article one section seven goes on to explain the legislative formula for enacting federal law. you cannot do it without something passing the house and the senate and being submitted to the president for signature or veto and, of course, give it a seat if they can only if two-thirds of both houses decide to overturn it. my point is this. over the last few decades congress has become increasingly reliant on the passing actual laws of passing platitudes, and passing laws that say things like we shall have good laws in very expertly delicate to commission or agency or department. the task of writing and interpreting and enforcing. the problem with these laws is not only are they put in place through a constitutionally suspect mechanism but they're to suspect as a matter of policy
and public acceptability for the same reasons that they violate the letter and spirit of the constitution. meaning these many women who inhabit our federal agencies can our federal departments, the federal bureaucrats to write these laws are well educated, well intentioned, hard-working and highly specialized, but they don't work for you. you can fire your congressman every two years. you can file your senators every six years. you cannot fire a bureaucrat. they don't stand for election. they are not accountable to anyone who does intern stand for election. this is really something that we need to do. it, neither republican or democrat. this is a constant semantic we we are to be fulfilling. and it also has the added benefit because of the fact it would bring elected officials back into the accountability chain of lawmaking. of making sure we do something, put something in place in
federal law, it's going to be really expensive, that somebody who stand is on the ballot is going to be on the line for putting that there. the use bruce ohr system cost the american economy about $2 trillion for you. some say it is more of, it's very difficult to ascertain but those are not born something by large blue-chip corporations or by billionaires. each of the monopoly game piece figures. they are born really disproportionally by america's poor middle-class who pay higher prices of goods and services and pay through diminished wages, underemployment and a point. if we put a a place reform like the reins act, we'll be in a much better place because once again we would have the american people being in charge of their own government. >> senator cruz? >> so mike is exactly right on that when it comes to the reins
act. he and i have both fought for years trying to press congress to pass it. when mike talked about the lack of accountability in the current system, sadly for many career politicians in washington, both democrats and republicans, that's not above, that the future. that enables rules to be promulgated with no accountability. and from the perspective of the citizenry, from the perspective of we the people, that's exactly backwards. look, neither mike and i, and i expect only else on this call, is an anarchist. we actually that there is a need for government, that the constitution establishes the government, that there are some regulations, that are needed. but if there is to be a rule or regulation that has the consequence of destroying someone's job, the person who implements that rule needs to be
accountable to the voters here the power of the reins act symphysis structurally in economic relation that is going to cost $100 million or more has to be affirmative approval from congress. and that means maybe it's the case that, that, that there is a particular role that is justified, that needs to be in place to prevent, look, nobody wants the air and water pours in. we don't want our kids killed. there are certainly rules when it comes to pollution, air and water and the like that we would all agree upon are good rules but as a matter of democratic accountability, if your job is going to be taken away as a result, you didn't be able to look me in the eye, you need to be able to look miking eye and ask why did you go to take away my job. if you don't like the answer, you want to have the ability to throw the bums out. and that check is incredibly important. right now the election officials did to say gosh, i can't help
you. it's just the unelected bureaucracy that destroyed your jobs, and mike is exactly right also that the people whose jobs are impacted the most are working-class americans. our blue-collar americans are the men and women with calluses on their hands. one of the most dramatic lyrical ships in the last decade is the modern democratic party chose between two political groups that were typically favored children of the democrats. they chose between california environmentalist billionaires, or union bosses and union members. and what democrats a dent in the last decade is they decided he wanted the money from the california billionaires more than the jobs for the blue-collar union members. and they count the union bosses to with the votes so they could vote to take away the jobs and
millions of steelworkers, there is a will fieldworkers, millions of truckers, , millions of construction workers, millions of men and women who work for a living. that's -- those workers, i believe as republicans come we ought to be the part of jobs. we ought to be the people fighting for those men or women who want to provide for the family, want to provide for the kids. let me make one of the point on this. you know who also sort by all these regulations? the environment. let's take a example the endangered species act. so endangered species act, it's got a great name and it's got a great purpose. listen, all of us would like to protect endangered species. i don't know anyone who sits around twirling their mustache and laughing at species being driven off planet earth. these are all gods creations and we should be good stewards of the earth. here's the irony.
if a particular species is listed as an endangered species, that is about the worst thing that can happen to that species. the odd subdivides dramatically that species is going to go from endangered to extent. why? because our current registry system creates enormous economic incentive to get rid of that little critter. because the endangered species act, all right, if you've got a proposal, you want to pump the oil and gas, building a home development, fly spacex, expand the space port, if there's an activist group that wants to stop it, only have to do is go search that area and fine one trader, one snail, one little fish, one bird, when lizard, any critter and list it. and they can stop the entire development period and by the way, the economic and city you create is for any land owner, if you find one of those animals,
your instinct is to get rid of it, kill that dancing because it's going to stop in economic development you want to do. here's reform legislation i've long advocated. create economic incentives to grow endangered population are this is something the lawn and i discussed as well. i've drafted a safe harbor to the endangered species act this is if there's endangered species act and the project and if the developer of the land owner mitigates, in other words, grows the population not just to the current level but expands the population even more, so west texas has been repeated, litigation try to shut oil and gas drilling based on a little lizard that is out there. i said look, we ought to have an incentive. fine, if we have diminishing violation of lizards, bring the lizards. i joked, put up a disco ball, play some very white and let the
little lizards do what comes naturally. you have to growth the population. now, i don't think the critter has necessarily an taliban to be on that exact square inch of land. it may be that you find a suitable habitat nearby and you invest real money. you invest real money to okay, let's expand the lizard population. let's expand whatever population it is angrily. that actually would help the environment. an interesting thing is the activists who bring these lawsuits are not interested in solutions that grow the population. their objective is to stop the economic development. that is a radical objective and it is contrary to what we need right now which is jobs and economic growth spurt senators, let me ask about the flip side of the problem that you just been speaking about. which is when that's been printed by the supreme court. the supreme court has created some doctrines that say and
agencies to petition of the law. sometimes has to be accepted by the courts. they did this in the same as chevron case and they reaffirmed that within the last year in the case called kaiser. if -- is that a problem? and if that is a problem how do you and congress go about addressing that? the way it is now, courts can't often since issued the final decision on in matter. it's up to the agency. if congress is given to agency extraordinary authority in the delegations, you are just aggravating the problem that it is no longer governance by congress. how do we address that aspect of the problem? >> i can go. there's ledges of proposal, separation of powers restoration act that i develop a couple of years ago. i don't member who ended up filing it is either me or chuck
judgesordinarily employ in order to interpret federal law . so it ought not be the case that federal agencies of all litigants who appear before courts ought to be given unprecedented deference . there is an argument in favor of keeping chevron, i'm just not a bigfan of it because it's not a very good argument . the argument is well without chevron it would bemore difficult for the courts to keep up and at the end of the day this is congresses problem that congress needs to fix . on the first point, the federal courts are more than up to the challenge of undertaking some additional work in order to interpret statutes and not blindly deferring to a federal agency unless it's obviously wrong. as to the second i think there's a point there, it just doesn't mean we should cling to the chevron doctrine because it's wrong . what it does mean is members of congress ought to be more
conscientious in an acting legislation so that we actually provide enough legislative teeth rather than just deferring to agency discretion on everything. part of the problem is for decades you've had members of congress of both houses in both political parties, senate, white house and representatives of every partisan combination who been willing to defer entire questions off to an agency and that needs to stop. it's one of the things that's perpetuating the chevron doctrine but we can do that without even waiting for the courts to themselves abandon thedoctrine by enacting separation of powers restoration act . >> i fear many of the concerns that have been raised by chevron, we see more and morediscussion about chevron deference and reversing that decision . although at the same time on one that doesn't think that
reversing chevron would be a panacea. that it would solve all the problems. at the end of the day our system of government only works when you have elected officials who are accountable to the people in an active and engagedcitizenry . the system works better when elected officials take responsibility for their decisions. that's the reason why i support something like the rain because it puts people whose names are on the ballot in the difficult position of making a choice . without chevron , it matters greatly what kind of judges you have on the bench so chevron itself was a reaction and it was a judicial reaction to judicial activists. to article 3 judges who were engaged in policymaking, who were themselves resolving policy issues and trying to take the place of the elected
legislature and we have seen judicial activism really start to rise up in the courts starting in the 1960s and 1970s and that's not the role of the judiciary. both mike and i are passionate about nominating and confirming strong constitutionalists to the federal bench. if you have judges who themselvesare going to exercise restraint, who are not going to step in and decide policy questions on their own , then getting rid of chevron as some real benefits because it makes the hard policy decision making occur in the legislative branch . if you don't have constitutionalists on the court, if you have activists on the court, getting rid of chevron can be quite problematic. we have seen for example during the last 3 and a half years, the trump
administration practically every step the executive has taken including steps that are clearly and explicitly authorized in federal law and given to the executive to make almost inevitably are challenged in litigation and we've seen activist judges try to strike down step after step the administration is taking . if you look at the area of immigration, congress has given the president wide authority on immigration and yet especially the ninth circuit which has long been the most left-wing activist court of appeals in the country we've seen judges that have basically joined the resistance. they've decided to hate trump so never mind what the statutes say, they're going to step in and say this is bad immigration policy. probably the most ludicrous example of that is the litigation over daca, amnesty
that they had asked would obama grant amnesty to those here illegally based on executive fiat and obama said over and over i don't have the power to do that, i don't have the authority to do that . he said i am not a king and suddenly i guess his political advisers decided it was good for him to do that and he became a king and he agreed for a certain subset of people here illegally that executive would not enforce the laws, disregard the laws adopted by congress and the executive would essentially risk fraudulent workpapers for people here illegally the statute says cannot work here illegally, the executive would give them a document that purports to authorize them to work illegally so that was challenged in court so fast forward to the trump administration, one of the decisions the president makes, the right decision is to suspend daca. were no longer going to refuse to enforce immigration law, instead the executive will follow the laws on the books and in a true alice in wonderland through the looking glassmoment , the ninth circuit proceeds to say
it is illegal for the president to follow the law. that trump cannot say he will follow the law, instead he must continue to abide by obama's statement to ignore the law. and that is still in litigation now but it is an example of there's no basis based on federal statutes, based on anything resembling law to say the executive cannot followthe law . his jumbled idiocy to even make that argument and yet it is where resistance judges find themselves so the chevron issue is complicated. i support reigning in the chevron but without good judges , we don't get to the outcome we want which is democratically elected and accountable officials making hard and important public policy decisions .
>> senators, i want to turn in a minute or two to questions from the audience but i would like to just commend you for your remarks about trying to make sure that the economy takes care of little people. as a matter of personal privilege i thought if it weren't for the people working in grocery stores and pharmacies or the people driving trucks, to fill the shelves and grocery stores and pharmacies, the nation would now be in chaos and it's the little people that are probably the greatest benefit we have going out and one of the least i think appreciated. everyone knows that the healthcare professionals are putting their lives at risk but these little blue-collar people, the people that get their hands dirty deserve a great deal of credit and one area where often times they are hurt his occupational licenses. i know senator lee and senator cruise, an area you wouldlike to see reformed .
that brings up this question and it's a question dealing with telemedicine because the state generally license the practice of medicine. but given what's happened over the last two months, is telemedicine an idea whose time has finally come? physiology is the same in all 50 states. surgical procedures are the same in all 50 states. the singles on the same in all 50 states and all graduates have to pass the name name national exam. is it time for congress to examine telemedicine and if so what should we do as a nation tomake it happen ? >> i want to remind you physiology is the same in all 50 states. just remember everything is bigger in texas. >> my bad. >> with that notableexception , you're right. it's not like it would be in
court where if you had to admit someone to practice law in one part of the country they had to be admitted somewhere else. an argument can be made even there but with regard to medicine, there's no reason why somebody practicing in massachusetts or new york should be able to treat somebody in wyoming or montana and in fact, one of the big divides that now exists in this country could be taken down, not just economically but also geographically. people in some parts of the country always have access to as many doctors or specialists in an area that they might reallyneed . and so i think this is an idea whose time has come and hasprobably been here for a few years , we just haven't noticed it. but this is part of the trend that americans throughout the country are waking up the to the fact that in many
instances, a lot more instances than not , occupational licensing serves to entrench incumbents more than it does to protect the public. i had a constituent point out to me that the more important the license or the more, the less you would want somebody performing a certain procedure without adequate training, the less likely it is that the license it self will be the distinguishing characteristic for the end user. for example this poor person pointed out that in one sense the license to fly an airplane that anyone could get could allow somebody to operate a small cessna or a 747 jumbo jet. it's up to the owner of the jumbo jet to decide whether or not that person who has the pilots license operates the jumbo get. so too with physicians. once somebody has a medical degree and is a board certified medical doctor he or she may be able to
undertake certain procedures but if you're getting a specific type of surgery, you're looking not to whether that person as an occupational license as a medical doctor but the experience and the training and the recommendations that person has . so i think in the case of telemedicine that's especially important. consumers can do a good job. i'm not suggesting abolishing occupational licensing standards although it's debatable whether that would be a benefit or a quorum to the country but we don't have to go that far. when it comes to telemedicine we need access to it now especially given that they are afraid to go out in public for fear of contaminating others were being contaminated themselves . >> occupational licensing i think often serves as a barrier to opportunity and it hurts the most vulnerable among us.
in a prior life, back 20 years ago in the early 2001 to 2003, i was the head of policy at the federal trade commission in the george w. bush administration and the ftc is charged with defending consumers and defending competition and so i chaired a series of public earrings on barriers toe-commerce and we look at 10 different industries . every one of the industries, we look at telemedicine and education, we look at contact lenses, look at funerals and caskets. we look at your and why. those are five of them off the top of my head and every one of themhad the identical path . it is the existing bricks and mortar competitors. would go to the state and local regulators and say protect us against these new
competitors. e-commerce that's coming in area there was a report that was written i think in 1999 by the policy institute which is the think tank of the democratic leadership council so the sort of bill clinton democratic think tank and they were a report called revenge of the this intermediate which is essentially the middleman between the producer and consumer area middlemen do a good job of getting local regulations protected and insist you've got to go through me and they put all thesebarriers to entry . what was fascinating, we had hearings in all 10 industries . every single one of the industries there was at least one witness who said i look at these other barriers and the other nine industries while these are terrible. these hurt consumers. a drive up costs. there are terrible but our industry is different.
there's a reason to protect our industry. one of the more ludicrous ones, i mentioned funeral directors and caskets. there are states that state to sell a casket you must be a licensed mortician. you must be able to do involving and prepare a body and the problem is look, funeral homes make all their markup on caskets. that's where the cash is is selling caskets and do you really love grandma? then you need the special deluxe . the problem was funeral homes have started to see competition from other competitors, online competitors selling caskets much cheaper because there's a massive markup in caskets. pause to think whether in order to sell a pine box you need to know how to involve someone. i recognize if you're going to involve someone you want to know how to embalm someone if you're trying to sell a pine box there's no reason you should have to know how
to embalm someone. one example but it's all about the market. contact lenses in my state, one 800 contacts is based in utah. they got time contacts online. the optometrist hates this because their markup, they do an eye exam but they make all their money selling you contact lenses much higher than the cost so they don't want the competition. the institute for justice in bc does a fabulous job of bringing litigation on behalf of of people, small business owners who want to compete are being prevented. care raters are a great example where you have hospitality boards that shutdown and if you want, you got a lot of instances of african-american young women want to start a business hair braiding and yet they have to go through sometimes a year or two years of training and certification and it's a barrier to entry whereas if you've got a single mom,
you've got to be your kids, you may not have a year or two to devote all this training. you may know how to braid hair and last i checked the market contest that. it's not like there's a massive public safety issue if you braid hair wrong. i have to say my daughter is braiding my wife's hair most nights. if you do it wrong your customers will leave. i think i focusing on removing barriers to small businesses and entrepreneurs is very powerful in terms of unleashing the economy. two thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses and occupational licensing serves as a barrier to make it more expensive or more small businesses to enter. i think as conservatives, as libertarians, as believers and economic liberty we ought to be fighting forthe rights of entrepreneurs .it helps the little guy, it helps young people and african-americans and
hispanics and a single moms and those without vast resources. to be able to start a business and compete and i think that's very powerful. >> let me turn to questions from the audience. the first question actually deals withsmall businesses . we had businesses large and small that has shifted production lines. from the rigid that they ordinarily make over to the production of various types of safety equipment and the like that are necessary to respond to the pandemic. and it takes a while to shift over production lines and when we no longer need those sorts of pieces of equipment and the numbers that are being produced, these companies will shift back . during that period when the ship back and will be able to sell. because they're in the
process of just equipping the facilities. the question is what sort of situation we will have. will there be another leg. where businesses turned down as their shipping out of equipment for the pandemic and back to the their own equipment? what if anything can be done about this and hopefully this will go rather quickly but is that going to slow downthe overall recovery ? so i'll jump in on this one. it's a good question. it depends on the circumstances in which the business changed their production line. but let me take a slightly different tack on this question you i think the most important and far-reaching foreign-policy consequence of this pandemic is going to be a fundamentalreassessment of the united states
relationship with china . that china, the communist government of china their enormous responsibility and culpability for this pandemic. they live. they covered it up. they suppressed, they punished the heroic chinese whistleblowers that tried to stop this pandemicearly on . and one of the things this crisis as illustrated is incredible vulnerability the united states has the chinain terms of our supply chain . and the critical infrastructure. let's take for example medical equipment. ppe, an enormous percentage of the peace in the world that produced in china whether it's masks or downs or gloves. pharmaceuticals are in the chinese communist government systematically, strategically and deliberately targeted pharmaceuticals and they did so not from an economic perspective but from a national security perspective where they created cartels to
go after specific pharmaceuticals and essentially to bankrupt us production of those pharmaceuticals so right now a massive percentage of america's pharmaceuticals and the ingredients for pharmaceuticals are manufactured in china whether you're talking about antibiotics or one pressure medication, heart medication, cancer medication . and high anxiety medication and antidepressant medication. all sorts of medicines that we rely on china is getting more and more of a monopoly on producing area and the vulnerability of that was highlighted during this pandemic when one state owned newspaper in china explicitly threatened to cut off pharmaceuticals from the united states as a tool of economic warfare. now, if they were to do that, that's not just economic warfare at actual real warfare, needed medicines literally threatening the lives potentially of millions ofamericans .
personally i think it is foolish to allow ourselves to be so dependent on china for our supply chain that the lives of americans hang in the balance of the winds of the communist government of china. and i fully expect over the next coming week and months and years we are going to have an extended debate about how to decouple our economies and how to ensure that critical infrastructure is here in the united states. that means more pharmaceuticals production so the question about lives that had been shifted over to ppe or pharmaceuticalproduction , i'm hopeful some of those lines will stay producing it but i think we may well be looking at tax and regulatory policy to try to make it easier for critical infrastructure to actually survive in the united states
and withstand china's assault. i can tell you oneexample of legislation i just introduced . looking at where rare earth minerals that are needed for a number of ourdefense technologies for a number of our high-tech technologies . to a large extent, we've almost entirely not producing them, stop buying them in the united states both regulatory costs are so high also china has moved in to be capitalized and monopolized rare earth minerals introduced legislation that would create strong beneficial tax treatment to developing rare earth minerals herebecause it china . , we don't want our national security to be vulnerable to the winds of communist china. i believe that china represents the single greatest geopolitical cracks the united states over the next injury and i think we're going to have their extensive discussions about how to make sure china doesn't have a stranglehold on the ability of the united states to defend itself.
>> but he asked historically, the supreme court has allowed iris and the states pretty much to regulate states as they see fit. we don't treat economic liberty as being as valuable as other personal liberties. given the fact that we now have to get millions ofpeople back to work , is timefor that to change ? is it time for the supreme court to re-examine the low level of protection it gives economic liberties seeing as how we have millions of people out of work and we need to get them back to be productive members of the economy? state laws that are arbitrary therefore only hurt the entire nation in this regard and is it time for the ex-supreme court to examine economic liberties or is it time to take a more aggressive approach in preempting burdensome state
and local regulations and this is a tossup. this is a question from an audience member and it's for either of you. >> insofar as the questioner is referring to the supreme court's 1904 decision locker versus new york i would not favor a return tothat . that's a dangerous form of jurisprudence that looks to what we now call substantive due process as a tool for the federal judiciary to tell face what they can't do.i understand the point, i'ma huge believer in economic liberty and it's something that factors into every decision that i may . i also think it's important to keep the federal courts and congress for that matter focus on federal issues, issues that are covered by the us law or by the u.s. constitution i think one of the ways, the most profound way federal lawmakers and federal jurists had and then
protect economic liberty is by focusing on restoring the twins structural protections of the constitution. a lot of times when we think about constitutional protections we think about substantive limitations. the mouse shall not of the constitution . it's every bit as important i would argue like justice scalia, before he passed away a few years ago used to say that substantive protections in the constitution are worth anything, they're not worth more than the paper they're printed on unless you have a dualism separation of powers in place, the vertical production of federalism keep most of the power of the state and local level and the protection of separation of powers is within the federal government we're going to have one branch interpreted in one branch that enforces that. we ended badly from federalism and separation of powers over the last 80 years and our only from federalists
has helped perpetuate our drift away from separation of powers . we would have much less economic interference by government in general if we started to restore these things we had assistance of the courts in for example this or that doesn't belong in the federalgovernment because it securely vocal economic activity . but likewise if they would start enforcing operational powers by not allowing congress any longer to just open ended late delegate to an executive branch agency, the task of making law, that you would have the effect of opening up economic liberty. >> we have only about a minute left so i want to get interviewed 30 seconds to sort of offerany final remarks . senator cruz, your first. >> i'm going to use my 30 seconds to emphatically echo what might just. i am passionate abouteconomic liberty . but i'm equally passionate about cultural constraints in our constitution federalism.
enables all 50 states to be what supreme court justice louis brandeis laboratories of democracy. means so i think lockerbie was wrong, i don't think if new york wants to set minimum wage rules for bankers, i think that's a bad policy idea and i think new york has constitutional authority to do it. if california wants to and ask socialized medicine at thermal policy and yet california as a constitutional authority to do it in the beauty of federalism is if you don't like it you can pack up and move and come to a place to protect your economic liberty so i don't think we should have judges making policy decisions even if it's striking down bad policy. instead it ought to be democratic accountabilitywith constraints that are in the constitution . >> senator lee. >> federalism and separation of powers tend when we follow
them to give more americans access to more of the kind of government they want and less of the kind of government they don't want. when we hear people in this day and age talking about how unfortunate it is that it's grown so contentious in washington it should be no surprise to them that this has occurred as a result of our concentration of power excessively in the hands of the few within washington dc. you put all the eggs in that basket have contention like you had a homeowners position was in charge of transforming all lighting in the common areas, once it starts expanding and deciding what kind of grass and flowers you can plant in your yard and then starts telling you how many servings of green leafy vegetables your children happy every single day , the broader expensive authority, the more contentious and sustainable that association is going to be. the federal government has exceeded its mandate. it's up to the american people and those they elect
to the senate and house of representatives and the white house to restore the balance that we relinquished long ago. >> senator cruz, senator lee, on behalf of the heritage foundation i want to thank you are taking the time to join with us today to give us your views and fighting for the freedoms and liberties that you both have described rid of you very much. >> you ver >> the governor of colorado and michigan and of arkansas testify before the house subcommittee on how their states are responding to the coronavirus pandemic. watch live tuesday at 11:30 eastern on c-span. on c-span at c-span.org or listen free on the c-span radio app.
federal government at work in d.c. and route the country, use the congressional directory for contact information for members of congress, governors and federal agencies. order your copy at c-span store.org. the spacexorning dragon crew arrived at the international space station. here's a look at the capsule talking with the iss and the two crews greeting the -- greeting each other and taking questions. >> have to put down their virus -- visors. got some instructions about the crew handoff point, the point where we do not want to crew issuing commands to the vehicle. vehicle. it's about two meters away from the docking adapter, i believe the number is 1.7 meters. >> station on the