>> CONSERVATIVES NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB REMINDING PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE REASON WHY I SUPPORT THE REFORMS I DO AND I WANT TAX REFORM AND DEREGULATION IS BECAUSE OF COMPASSION AND WANTING PEOPLE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO MOVE UP.

[♪♪] >> HELLO I'M BONA HEINSOHN WELCOME TO THE CONTRARY THIS WEEK IN OUR SERIES WITH WOMEN THOUGHT LEADERS I AM SITS DOWN WITH A PANELIST.

CARRIE LUKAS, PRESIDENT OF THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM.

THE MISSION IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF WOMEN WHO VALUE FREE MARKETS AND PERSONAL LIBERTY.

WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

SO TELL ME FIRST, THE IWF'S MISSION IS NOT LIKE A LOT OF WOMEN'S GROUPS ON THE LEFT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT ANYTHING YOU DON'T GET INTO ABORTION RIGHTS, YOU DON'T GET INTO THE MORE SOME OF THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.

SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE ATTRACTING MORE WOMEN THESE DAYS?

AND IF SO HOW ARE YOU DOING IS IT?

>> THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM RECOGNIZED THERE WAS A LOT OF WOMEN WHO DID NOT FEEL LIKE THEY WERE BEING REPRESENTED BY THE WOMEN'S GROUPS OUT THERE.

OBVIOUSLY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE A VERY IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE BUT NOT EVERYBODY.

AND THERE'S PEOPLE WHO BOTH ARE PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-LIFE WHO WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN A WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION AND TO HEAR THEIR OPINIONS REPRESENTED ON THINGS LIKE TAXES AND HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION POLICY.

AND SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A VOICE AND A HOME FOR THEM AND THAT IS WHY THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM EXISTS.

>> WHAT IS IT LIKE RUNNING CONSERVATIVE WOMEN'S GROUP IN THE TRUMP ERA?

>> WELL IT IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER ERA.

THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM IS YOU ARE RIGHT OF CENTER AND WE BELIEVE IN ECONOMIC LIBERTY, AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT WHICH LENDS ITSELF MORE TO THE CONSERVATIVE OR THE REPUBLICAN CHAMPIONS AND THAT TEAM, IF YOU WERE IN TODAY'S PARTISAN WORLD BUT WE ARE A NONPARTISAN ORGANIZATION.

SO WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON POLITICS.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT POLITICS DOES NOT HEAVILY IMPACT OUR CONVERSATIONS.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ASKED ME WHEN IT CAME TO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A CANDIDATE OBVIOUSLY HE WAS NOT A TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

HE HAD A WIDE VARIETY OF BELIEFS AND CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF THE PARTY STRUCTURE AND PEOPLE ASKED WHAT DO YOU DO AS A SPOKES WOMEN FOR A CONSERVATIVE WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION?

AND I THINK IT WAS EASY.

BECAUSE YOU CALL THE BALLS AND THE STRIKES LIKE YOU SEE THEM.

I THOUGHT WHEN TRUMP WAS COMING OUT OF SOME OF HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES AND HIS PLATFORMS FOR WHAT HE WANTED TO DO IN TERMS OF JUDGESES AND THE ECONOMY AND HEALTHCARE I SAID WOW THIS IS GREAT STUFF AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

AND WHEN IT CAME TO THE COMMENTS THAT HE HAS MADE AT DIFFERENT TIMES ABOUT WOMEN AND HIS BACKGROUND AND TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN THE PAST, WE'VE TRIED TO BE FRANK AND SAY THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR A PRESIDENT NOT HOW WE WANT PEOPLE TO BEHAVE.

WE HAVE TRIED TO BE A NEUTRAL AND CALL IT LIKE IT IS.

AND STAYING TRUE TO OUR PRINCIPLES.

>> BUT I OFTEN WONDER HOW WOMEN BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT HAS SO MANY STRIKES AGAINST HIM WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN, HOW HE TREATS HIS WIFE THEY DO NOT SEEM IN PUBLIC TO GET ALONG WELL SOMETIMES, THE VIDEOTAPE ABOUT HIM GRABBING WOMEN'S GENITALS AND STUFF EVEN IF HE DOES SUPPORT ALL THE POLICIES THAT A WOMAN LIKES HOW CAN YOU DISMISS -- >> IT'S NOT DISMISS.

I THINK IN 2016 AMERICA HAD A CHOICE AND IT WAS A CHOICE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DID NOT THINK IT WAS THE BEST SET OF OPTIONS WHEN IT CAME TO SOMEONE LIKE MRS. CLINTON SHE WAS SOMEBODY THAT I THOUGHT HAD A CHECKERED RECORD WHEN IT CAME TO SUPPORTING WOMEN.

AND HAVING HER RECORD ON STANDING UP FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS I THOUGHT WAS MIXED.

AND WHEN IT CAME TO WHAT SHE WAS PROPOSING I SAW AS THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTRY TOWARDS MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE REGULATIONS, HIGHER TAXES, MORE SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM ALL THINGS THAT I COULD SEE WERE BIG DRAWBACKS.

SO WHILE YOU HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN VIABLE CANDIDATES AND FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHILE THERE WERE AGAIN THINGS ON A PERSONAL LEVEL THAT I WASN'T -- I DID NOT THINK WERE GREAT THAT ON BALANCE THAT THE PROMISE OF WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD DO I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE BETTER OFF.

AGAIN, THAT IS WHY I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE REAL CHOICES WE HAVE AND SPEAK HONESTLY ABOUT THE TRADE OFFS WE FACE.

>> THE POLLS SHOW ON AVERAGE A 10-20% GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ON VARIOUS CANDIDATES, VARIOUS ISSUES.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT AT LEAST THE REASON I'VE DIVINED AFTER MANY YEARS OF FOLLOWING IT IS THAT WOMEN ARE 10 TO 20% MORE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT LARGES.

AND SO HOW DO YOU REACH THOSE WOMEN MAINLY LOWER INCOME, POOR, WOMEN, WITH YOUR MESSAGE WHEN THEY ARE THE ONES WHO NEED WHAT USED TO BE REFERRED TO AS WELFARE.

WHEN THEY NEED FOOD STAMPS TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

>> SURE.

I MEAN I THINK WHAT THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM FOCUSES ON IS THE IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND THERE IS NO ONE WHO IS TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE SAFETY NET FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WELFARE REFORM OR IMPROVING SOCIAL SECURITY REFORMING HEALTHCARE, IT'S WITH A FOCUS ON TRYING TO MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK BETTER SO FEWER PEOPLE WILL NEED THINGS LIKE FOOD STAMPS AND NEED THESE PROGRAMS BUT WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT WHEN THEY NEED IT AND GRADUATE FROM IT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED THAT OUR WELFARE PROGRAMS AND WHAT USED TO BE THE SAFETY NET IS NOW A NET THAT TRAPS PEOPLE THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MOVE UP.

THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM IS FOCUSED ON EDUCATION.

WE WANT THERE TO BE -- IT IS A TRAGEDY THAT THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE AND CHILDREN, CHILDREN AND ADULTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN SKILLS THEY NEED TO WORK AND TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ECONOMY AND FIND WORK THAT PAYS.

WE NEED TO FOCUS ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS WORK BETTER THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESOURCES AND SOMETHING IS GOING WRONG.

TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT THAT CONSERVATIVES NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB REMINDING PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE REASON WHY I SUPPORT THE REFORMS I DO, WHY I WANT THINGS LIKE TAX REFORM AND DEREGULATION AND THE GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF PEOPLE'S WAY IS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HURTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.

SO THAT IS WHY WE COME TO THIS BECAUSE OF COMPASSION AND WANTING PEOPLE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO MOVE UP.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE SAFETY NET OR BEGRUDGE PEOPLE THE HANDOUT WE WANT THEM TO DO BETTER THAN THAT.

>> YOU HAVE A PROGRAM THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE, RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

YOU KNOW THIS IS AN ISSUE THIS IS SUCH A PERFECT ISSUE TO TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES TRYING TO HELP WOMEN.

BECAUSE THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION OVER WHAT THE DEBATE IS WHEN IT COMES TO PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

YOU HEAR ALL THE TIME THAT PEOPLE SEE IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDS THIS CLAIM THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD FOR WOMEN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PAID FAMILY LEAVE AND WOMEN ARE BETTER OFF IN ZIMBABWE.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM?

>> YES.

BUT IT IS A MISCONCEPTION OF HOW OUR ECONOMY WORKS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT MOST COMPANIES AND MOST FULL-TIME WORKERS DO HAVE ACCESS TO PAID TIME OFF.

THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE ACCESS TO PAID SICK LEAVE, PAID VACATION TIME, PERSONAL TIME, SOME HAVE A BUCKET THAT IS JUST FOR PAID MATERNITY LEAVE MANY DON'T BUT THEY ALLOW THOSE TO USE VACATION.

>> LET ME INTERRUPT.

>> SURE.

>> WE WORKED CLOSELY THIS GOES BACK MANY YEARS BUT WITH THE WORK AND FAMILY INSTITUTE IN NEW YORK AND WITH MAJOR CORPORATIONS THAT WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS.

BUT IT WAS STILL THE VAST MINORITY OF WOMEN WHO HAD ACCESS TO PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

>> BECAUSE YOU ARE LOOKING AT A BUCKET.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SILO CALLED PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

THE CENSUS BUREAU DOES A THOROUGH JOB OF ASKING IT ASKED MOTHERS EXPECTING A CHILD WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU AFTER YOU HAD YOUR BABY?

DID YOU TAKE PAID TIME OFF FROM WORK?

AND MORE THAN HALF DID HAVE PAID TIME OFF FROM WORK BECAUSE THEY HAD ACCESS TO THINGS LIKE PAID VACATION, PAID SICK LEAVE AND WERE ABLE TO USE THESE TIMES.

BUT WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF AND CANS OUT THERE, COMPANIES AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND ORGANIZATIONS TRYING TO DO RIGHT BY THE EMPLOYEES.

WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO HELP THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO PAID LEAVE OR DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT PAID LEAVE.

BUT SO MANY OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE COMMONLY PROPOSED AND SAY OK LET'S CREATE A NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM AND HAVE A NEW TAX THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PAY EVERYBODY THIS MANY WEEKS OF PAID LEAVE.

IT WOULD DISPLACE THE PAID LEAVE THAT IS OUT THERE.

MANY PEOPLE WOULD END UP WITH FEWER BENEFITS, LESS FLEXIBLE BENEFITS AND WE WANTED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT TARGETED THOSE WHO NEED PAID LEAVE AND WITHOUT CHANGING EVERYTHING AND THAT IS WHAT WE TRIED TO DO.

>> AND NOW I WAS SURPRISED FRANKLY WHEN YOU CAME OUT WITH THAT PROGRAM.

BECAUSE TO ME, IT'S MORE OF A LEFT DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL TO GET WOMEN PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

>> THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM WE HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE NEED TO TRY TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS AND NEED PAID LEAVE SO THAT THEY DON'T END UP USING ASSISTANCE SO THEY CAN STAY IN THEIR JOBS AND HAVE THE TIME THEY NEED OFF FROM WORK.

BUT WE NEED TO DO IT WITHOUT CREATING SOMETHING THAT WOULD HARM EVERYONE ELSE AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.

THE GREAT THING IS THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS.

WE HAVE A PROGRAM THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM THAT EVERYONE IS ALREADY PAYING 12% OF THEIR PAYROLL INTO FROM THE TIME YOU START WORKING YOUR FIRST PAYCHECK AND SO OUR PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO WHEN THEY HAVE A BABY OR ADOPTING A CHILD TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS NOW MUCH LIKE THEY DO FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY TO TAKE THE TIME THEY NEED FOLLOWING THE BIRTH OR ADOPTION OF A CHILD.

AND IN RETURN FOR HAVING TAKEN THAT THEY WOULD DELAY THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY IF YOU TAKE 12 WEEKS OFF, YOU WOULD HAVE 12 WEEKS LATER RETIREMENT.

THE NUMBERS ARE BEING CRUNCHED.

WE SEE THIS, THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO HELP PEOPLE WHO NEED IT WHEN THEY NEED IT AND HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY THERE IS A COST FOR THIS.

SO TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE THEIR LEAVE EFFICIENTLY.

>> OK. NOW WHERE IS THE IWF ON DIVERSITY?

>> THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

WE THINK THAT DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT IN ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE THAT WE WANT THERE TO BE DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT IS VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL AS BACKGROUNDS.

BUT WE THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT WHEN GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN TRYING TO MANDATE DIVERSITY THAT BECOMES GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING IT SHOULDN'T.

WE ARE BELIEVERS IN DIVERSITY BUT WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN CREATING DIVERSITY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY PROBLEMATIC.

>> SO FOR WOMEN AND FOR PERSONS OF COLOR?

>> YEAH.

>> ARE YOU AGAINST A LOT OF CORPORATIONS ARE TRYING TO DIVERSIFY.

ARE THOSE EFFORTS GOOD OR BAD?

>> THEY ARE GOOD WHEN THEY ARE ORGANIC AND SOMETHING THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO ENCOURAGE ALL PEOPLE TO USE THEIR TALENTS TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.

AND THAT THAT -- FOR TOO LONG WOMEN HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED, AND PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE BARRIERS TO ENTRY OR TO PROGRESS ARE TAKEN DOWN.

BUT IT IS A MISTAKE WHEN YOU START SAYING AND THE WAY WE KNOW THIS WORKS IS IF WE HAVE THIS NUMBER OF WOMEN IN THE BOARDROOM THOR ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS OR ARTIFICIAL QUOTAS CAN REALLY END UP BACKFIRING.

WE ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND WE NEED TO LET IT CONTINUE NOT HAVE GOVERNMENT TO PUSH US IN A WAY THAT MIGHT BACKFIRE.

>> THE FLIP SIDE IS THERE ARE NOT WOMEN OUT THERE QUALIFIED AND THERE ARE NOT WOMEN OF COLOR WHO ARE QUALIFIED.

AND NOW IT'S BEEN 20-30 YEARS SINCE ALL THE TOP UNIVERSITIES STARTED ADMITTING WOMEN AND DOING MORE TO BRING IN PEOPLE OF COLOR AND PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS.

AND SO THEY ARE OUT THERE.

THE HARVARD THE FEMALE HARVARD GRADS AND HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL GRADS ARE WAY MORE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE AND A LOT STILL CANNOT GET ON CORPORATE BOARDS AND LOOK AT THE TRUMP CABINET FOR EXAMPLE.

LOOK HOW WHITE AND MALE IT IS COMPARED WITH PRIOR CABINETS.

WE'VE GONE BACK IN THAT WAY IF YOU SEE IT AS GOING BACK.

A GOOD 20-30 YEARS.

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF SELECT ACTIVITY WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE MEASURE THIS.

I LOOK AT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND I SEE A LOT OF POWERFUL WOMEN OUT THERE.

YOU SEE KELLYANNE CONWAY.

>> WHO STARTED AS A PANELIST ON OUR SHOW.

>> AND A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM AND THE RECEPTION SHE HAS GOTTEN WE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT HAD SHE BEEN FOR A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE.

SHE IS THE FIRST WOMAN TO HAVE RUN AND WON A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BIG NEWS BUT INSTEAD, THE MEDIA HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY UNFAIR AND DISMISSIVE.

SOMEONE LIKE IVANKA TRUMP HAD IT BEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND CHELSEA CLINTON WHO WAS TAKING A ROLE IN HER MOTHER'S ADMINISTRATION SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A FEMINIST HERO.

INSTEAD YOU HAVE PEOPLE BEING BRUTAL TO IVANKA TRUMP AND TO KELLYANNE CONWAY.

THERE IS OFTEN A VERY SELECTIVE AND UNFAIR TREATMENT OF CONSERVATIVE WOMEN AS COMPARED TO -- AND A TENDENCY OF FEMALE CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS TO BE OVERLOOKED WHEN WE COME TO CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BY THE MEDIA?

>> BY THE MEDIA, ABSOLUTELY.

>> DO YOU THINK IT'S TRUE IN CORPORATE AMERICA, TOO?

>> NOT NECESSARILY IN CORPORATE AMERICA.

BUT IT TAKES A LONGTIME.

MOST PEOPLE ONBOARDS ARE OLDER AND WOMEN STILL DO AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE YOU HAVE TO PROBLEMATIC BUT WOMEN OFTEN HAVE A MORE DISRUPTED WORK HISTORY AND THAT IMPACTS THEIR LONG-TERM EARNINGS AND GROWTH.

AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS A COUNTRY HOW TO HELP WOMEN HAVE MORE ON ROADS TO GET BACK INTO THE CORPORATE WORLD.

BUT ALSO TRUST THIS IS HAPPENING.

YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING MORE AND MORE BUT IT IS A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE A WHILE.

AND IT MAY NEVER BE 50/50.

I AM OK WITH THAT.

WOMEN AND MEN TEND TO MAKE DIFFERENT CHOICES ABOUT HOW TO SPEND THEIR TIME AND TALENTS AND THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO SOLVE AS LONG AS EVERYONE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW THEIR VISION OF HAPPINESS.

>> YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THE #METOO MOVEMENT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT?

>> WELL, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF GREAT THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF IT.

AND IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT FOR WOMEN TO COME FORWARD.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF POWERFUL PEOPLE PARTICULARLY IN HOLLYWOOD AND SOME IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND IN THE MEDIA COMMUNITY WHO WERE CLEARLY ABUSING THEIR POSITION OF POWER.

WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL AS WE GO TO THE NEXT STAGE OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO STRIKE A BALANCE.

BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT BELIEVES AND FOUNDED ON THE IDEA OF DUE PROCESS AND INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THAT IN MIND AND NOT ALLOW MEN TO BECOME SCARED OF WOMEN OR VICTIMS OF A WITCH HUNT -- >> DO YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING?

>> I THINK IT CAN HAPPEN.

THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE THERE SEEM TO BE MEN WHO THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE WOMAN COMES BACK AND SAYS ACTUALLY NO.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN -- IT IS A DIFFICULT LINE TO BALANCE.

IT IS NOT AN EASY ISSUE.

BECAUSE WE NEED TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HAVE BETTER CONVERSATIONS AND TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT WE CAN'T, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GO TOO FAR IN JUST CREATING LIKE AN ANTIMALE BACKLASH WHICH COULD HURT WOMEN AS WELL AS MEN.

>> DO YOU AGREE WITH A SECRETARY DeVOS EDUCATION SECRETARY DeVOS ABOUT LIMITING WOMEN'S TITLE 9 RIGHTS TO ACCUSE MEN -- >> I DO VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE THAT IF SOMEBODY HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF RAPE THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE POLICE NOT FOR SOMEBODY SITTING IN THE OFFICE ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS.

THAT IS A SERIOUS CHARGE AND IT SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

>> WHERE DO YOU STAND ON IMMIGRATION?

>> EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE SECURE BORDERS AND A LEGAL SYSTEM FOR PEOPLE TO ENTER.

IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT IDEAL TO HAVE A MASSIVE PROBLEM WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION OR MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SECURE OUR BORDERS.

AND THEN TO MAKE SURE WE ARE WELCOMING PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD FROM A VARIETY OF COUNTRIES.

AND INVITE THEM TO BECOME -- >> IN THE SAME NUMBERS WE HAVE BEEN LETTING THEM IN WHICH IS A MILLION A YEAR?

>> THAT'S A SHADE OF GRAY THAT OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE.

WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A LEGAL PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT DIFFERENT VARIETY OF COUNTRIES.

I DO THINK -- >> SHOULD THERE BE QUOTAS?

>> I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WELCOMING PEOPLE IN WHO HAVE SKILLS THAT WE NEED.

THERE IS A LOT OF AREAS OF DEFICIENCY IN OUR SKILL SET AS A COUNTRY AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE LETTING PEOPLE IN WHO CAN BRING NEW SKILLS AND JOBS AND HELP OUR ECONOMY GROW AND HAVE A COMPASSIONATE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THAT CAN HELP PEOPLE FROM PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE THEY ARE BEING MISTREATED.

WE HAVE AN ASYLUM PROGRAM THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AND THAT PEOPLE ARE COMING IN IN A MANNER THAT MAKES SURE WE ARE PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF OUR CITIZENS.

>> DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE LETTING ALLOWING IN MORE SYRIANS FOR EXAMPLE?

WHO CLEARLY HAD THEIR COUNTRY BOMBED OUT FROM UNDER THEM?

>> SURE, I THINK A REFUGEE PROGRAM AND ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE IMPORTANT AND I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE POTENTIAL WE NEED TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE BEING VETTED.

SOMETIMES THERE IS -- JUST ABOUT EVERY COUNTRY AROUND THE GLOBE PROTECTS THEIR BORDERS AND IS CAREFUL ABOUT WHO THEY LET IN BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO OUR COUNTRY HARM.

AND THEY KNOW WHEN WE HAVE A POOREST IMMIGRATION SYSTEM AND WHERE THE WEAKNESSES ARE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT ALLOWING OUR DIFFERENT IMMIGRATION ENTRIES TO BE ABUSED.

>> YOU HAD A RECENT ARTICLE ABOUT THE ACA, YOU ARE FOR REPEALING IT, CORRECT?

>> I AM FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM.

OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS VERY IMPERFECT AND OBAMACARE MOVED US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

>> HOW WOULD YOU SEE IT CHANGED WITHOUT THROWING A LOT OF LOWER INCOME PEOPLE OFF OF IT?

>> YOU KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHAT IT IS THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DID.

WE OBVIOUSLY WE TALK ABOUT IT AS THOUGH THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS JUST FOR THE POOR.

BUT IT'S BROADEST THE MOST SWEEPING REGULATIONS IT HAD WERE IN DICTATING WHAT EVERY SINGLE HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY HAD TO HAVE AND THAT IS ONE REASON WHY IT VERY MUCH LIMITED THE OPTIONS FOR WHAT AMERICANS WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

ONCE YOU SAY, IT'S HELPFUL TO USE AN ANALOGY IF YOU SAID THAT EVERY SINGLE PIZZA IN AMERICA HAD TO HAVE SALAMI, PEPPERONI AND ALL THE VEGETABLES, PIZZA WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE AND PEOPLE SAY WAIT I JUST WANTED A CHEESE PIZZA AND WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR A SUPREME.

I THINK THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS START BY TRYING TO ROLLBACK SOME OF THOSE REGULATIONS SO THAT PRICES COME DOWN AND MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT SUBSIDIES AND MORE PEOPLE WOULD ENTER THE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET AND MORE FREEDOM AND INSURANCE PROVIDERS COULD COMPETE FOR THAT.

THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE NEED A SAFETY NET.

>> PREEXISTING CONDITIONS THE PART THAT REQUIRES COMPANIES TO INSURE THAT?

DO YOU THINK?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS GET THE INSURANCE AND THE HEALTHCARE ACCESS THEY NEED.

>> THAT IS A MANDATE TO INSURANCE COMPANIES?

>> YES, AND THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO APPROACH THAT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICY EXPERTS WHO SAY IT'S BETTER TO PROVIDE DIRECT FINANCIAL SUBSIDIES SO THE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THEIR INSURANCE EVEN IF IT'S EXPENSIVE RATHER THAN CREATING THAT MANDATE.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE IT SOUNDS EASY AND OK WELL THE COMPANIES PAY FOR IT AND THAT IS THE WAY IT HAPPENS.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH IT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS HEALTH INSURANCE HAS BECOME SO EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANDATES.

MANDATES ON INSURERS THAT MAKE THEY HAVE TO COVER THOSE COSTS WHICH IS WHY THE AVERAGE PERSON'S PREMIUMS ARE GOING UP SO MUCH.

THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM AND THAT IS WHY I THINK WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT ALL THESE ISSUES WHETHER IT'S PAID LEAVE OR HEALTHCARE, THE REAL KEY IS TO TARGET IF WE ARE TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE BUT WITHOUT MAKING IT SO THE REST OF THE MARKET DOESN'T WORK.

BECAUSE SOMETHING THAT AMERICANS APPRECIATE IS THIS IDEA THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE MARKET IS GOOD AT DELIVERING WHAT I WANT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU WANT.

WHAT YOU NEED IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE NEEDS WE NEED PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR PREFERENCES AND NOT SAY ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL WHICH THE GOVERNMENT TENDS TO DO WHEN THEY CREATE A PROGRAM AND MANDATE ON HEALTH INSURANCE IT'S TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO BE DIVERSE AND REFLECT THEIR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR PREFERENCES.

SO GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF THAT AND LIMITING THEIR INVOLVEMENT TO HELPING THE POOR.

OFTEN WHAT IS JUSTIFIED TO HELP THE POOR AND YOU SAY THE POOR PERSON HAS A PREEXISTING CONDITION.

WE CAN ALL AGREE TO HELP THAT PERSON BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM SOUP TO NUTS.

WE SHOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM NOT REMAKE EVERYTHING AND HAVE OUR GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.

>> THANK YOU CARRIE LUKAS IT WAS ENLIGHTENING.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

AND WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK TO THE CONTRARY, SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ON-LINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE OF TO THE CONTRARY VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY.