tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 13, 2014 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
going in the wrong direction and we are now going in the right direction. we have had our unemployment go down faster than any other time in 30 years come straight declines in unemployment and jobs are up. that's what we want to have in illinois. my opponent is someone that is a job outsourcer. he has led companies and and leadoff people and outsourced jobs, american jobs to the foreign land and he's opposed to raising the minimum wage and wants to cut the education budget. i don't think that's the right way to go for illinois. i want to have a future for the kids and invest in early childhood education and k-12 and the community colleges and in the four year universities and scholarships at the right way to go. >> moderator: mr. rauner? rauner: i'm honored to be here tonight and again thank you for all of you for hosting us. i look forward to working for you. i'm here because i love illinois passionately. this is how we raised over 20 and i was born and raised here and i build businesses.
i love illinois. and i cannot stand to see what pat and rob blagojevich have done to our homes that are at risk. the future for the children is in jeopardy under the failed leadership of the corruption, cronyism, the patronage of job losses, the brutally high taxes, to be funded schools. we are failing as a state and i will not let it happen. we need bipartisan solutions. we need real leadership. we can make illinois the greatest state and the greatest nation in the greatest nation on earth and i can drive the process. the people of illinois are fantastic. we are the hardest working families to the most fertile farms. we have the best location. we are the heart of america. we can strive leadership that solves problems on a bipartisan basis and brings a real work ethic and integrity back to the government. i'm excited to go to work for you. >> moderator: this is a terrific studio auditions. but get an applause to those both of our candidates. [applause]
>> thank you governor quinn and republican nominee bruce rauner. we also want to think panelists in the end and the end of illinois public radio, wilson of wptv here in peoria and jamie dunn of illinois issues. this is a production of illinois public broadcasters in partnership with the league of women voters of illinois. thanks for watching and good night from peoria.
c-span's campaign 2014 coverage includes last week's wisconsin governors debate between incumbent scott walker and democratic challenger mary burke. here's a portion of that now. >> overall regional people can disagree on this issue and i'm pro-life but i can only imagine how difficult it is for someone
going through that really difficult decision to determine whether they will end a pregnancy or not. that's why specifically here in the state i supported legislation that would increase safety and provide more permission to a woman considering options. a specific bill leads to the final decision -- leaves the decision to a woman and her doctor. that was decided by the united states supreme court more than 40 years ago and that's something that doesn't have bearing directly on this debate is that they longer issue about the significant to health and safety of every wisconsin citizen does. >> moderator: ms. burke. burke: i think you should be in competition with her family and doctors to make that decision on her own and when governor walker talks about making these decisions and passing this legislation that stands in the way of women being able to make their own health care choices, making politicians and medicine deciders on this is ridiculous and frankly to talk about safety at the same time that the cuts
in funding have resulted in the closure of five clinics throughout the state of wisconsin that provided needed health care such as cancer screenings, birth control and family planning services along with mandating invasive procedures that are against a woman's right to choose. i think this is absolutely wrong and i think it should be women who are able to make these choices for themselves. >> moderator: governor walker rebuttal? walker: the winnebago county public health department so we moved it from one area to the other in areas that are respected within the communities that we have added funding. in fact we have talked about on the stage and elsewhere. we increased funding for the university of wisconsin cancer center for affiliates across the state. we have added $59 more to help victims of domestic violence. we have done more to help victims of other issues across the state so when you look at what we are talking about we have added to that in his last
budget in particular. >> moderator: thank you ms. burke. burke: governor walker is trying to have it both ways. he talks about health and safety as if it's pretty reasonable that his position as anything but reasonable. he believes even in extreme cases of rape and that is not a woman's choice and that is politicians deciding that for them. that is wrong in taking that decision away from women is something -- not something i would do as governor. >> i was a portion of last weeks debate held in eau claire. recent polling has listed the wisconsin governor's race as a tossup. see the entire debate and several others anytime on line at c-span.org. >> back in 2012 we passed a law that makes it possible for major broadcasters to give back some
of their spectrum that they have had and it gives the fcc the authority to repackage spectrum and reallocate it. under current law the low-power television industry, they are granted licenses but those licenses are subject to availability and spectrum in the particular marketplace. >> what i am concerned about however is the improper call for a kill switch. if some government entity or an individual decides they want to cut your phone off and it's your phone i think you ought to have some protection so what this bill says is you certainly can ask your carriers to shut your phone off if you are the primary person that uses the phone even if you are not the contract owner you can ask that the phone be cut off or if you are a government entity or a law enforcement agency you have to get a court order to do so. >> it's very bad behavior where those who are fraudulent try to
trick the public to get information from the public. for example a social security number or tax information and this is a growing problem in america particularly among senior citizens. nexa discussion on the influence of the tea party in the 2014 elections. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. >> host: now we are going to be talking about campaign 2014 with matt kibbe who is the present ceo of freedom works the role of the tea party in this election cycle. let's begin with where you guys are playing this election cycle? what you have your eyes on your resources? >> guest: obviously that the goal is to send it in to replace
harry reid with the republican majority but the other half for us is the makeup of the house and the senate particularly the republican caucus which is generally where we play and i think one of the underreported stories in the cycle is what's happening in the house races what i would call the liberty cost -- caucus is going to deliver -- double in size. we are focused at the margin looking at places where you can really make a difference. one of my favorite candidates is running in washington state. >> host: when you say the liberty caucus what is the liberty caucus? >> guest: the liberty caucus is the libertarian wing of the gop that focuses a lot on economics and reining in the size of government but they also care about civil liberties issues and some unlike justin amash who is the leader of the house liberty caucus is representative that perspective
the rand paul of the republican party. >> host: why's he being called the tea party caucus? >> guest: i think the liberty caucus is a little bit broader in the evolution of the tea party since 2009 has morphed into something that's a little bit bigger and broader and more local. think about half of the ron paul movement. the tea party fiscal conservatives constitutional conservatives have all matched up into this new thing. >> host: back in 2010 you said article and the american thinker article recently had this quote that the goal remains the same for freedom works and they wrote matt kibbe the head of freedom works keeps his eye on that goal "quote not in junior partnership with the republican party but a hostile takeover of it. just go absolutely. i think both parties have been captured by washington d.c. interest. i think that's true of the old wing of the gop the so-called republican establishment and our job is to replace the old goals
with young fiscal conservatives that actually are coming to washington to reform problems. if you look at the makeup of the senate even today you look at the makeup of the house is historically unprecedented to have a rand paul and a mic lee and it took crews and a jeff flake and marco rubio and i could go on and on and on, that block of fiscal conservatives in the senate is historically unprecedented. i think the same is true in the house. all policy change happens at the margin and we are very slowly repopulating the republican party and the conversation, the issues and the things that they focus on fall into that. >> host: are you trying to get rid of the leadership of the republican party in the house and the senate? >> it depends on what the alternative is. i have been opened that i think jeff hensarling would make a much better speaker than john boehner and we also supported --
for majority leader. the question of seasoning. you have to have a replacement for whoever is the leader if you want to play that game and obviously we haven't gotten there yet. >> host: what about him as an aside? if the republicans were able to take control of the senate would you be behind mitch mcconnell, senator mitch mcconnell as majority leader? >> i think it's a moo point. if republicans take the cinema, will be the majority leader. >> host: well why is it a moot point? i mean do you see any other pics within the senate with the gop rank-and-file? >> guest: i think if mcconnell were to fail to take the majority everything would be up for grabs and there would be chaos and you would see maybe someone like ron johnson and maybe even some unlike marco rubio, depends on the presidential aspirations. if you see someone like that emerges in a terminal -- alternative to mitch mcconnell none of them would suggest that they been willing to do that today because the landscape
today makes us of them, whence if republicans win. >> host: so you are saying if the reverse happens the republicans do not capture control of the senate you see a challenge to his leadership? >> guest: there was certainly be a challenge to his leadership and that would be illogical follow-through that has been a somewhat lackluster performance amongst republicans in the selection and that's counterintuitive because everyone says republicans are trending right out of the opportunities so big. >> host: let's take a look at the headlines from "fox news." will the tea party gop establishment be mending fences to win the senate in november? are you playing with the establishment republican party in where they put money into senate races? >> guest: i think grassroots activists decide for themselves where they want to fight. the goal is similar today. we have a lot of different goals in the primaries but now the goal is to replace democrats in
red states that voted for obamacare with republicans and that's what's happening right now. the question that is most interesting, the tea parties is what would republicans do with the majority? what is the policy agenda? was the alternative to obamaca obamacare? all of those issues we have been working on for years, those are still question marks and in the great sounds for tea partiers what happens the day after the election is more important. >> host: what you want to see up and? >> guest: would want to see someone winning the senate seat in nebraska coming in and being a standardbearer for the alternative to obamacare and he's an exception i think in the cycle and that he's been willing to talk specifics and he's been willing to acknowledge it's not enough to hope appeal obamacare. now is how much chaos has been wrought on the market republicans need to come up with that alternative. they need to put on the president's desk and if they do
that that's as the table for 2016. >> host: what about fiscal battles? >> guest: that will be interesting. i don't know what republicans will do there. we seem to wait until after the next election to get to the tough questions of balancing the budget. i do think that the next republican nominee for president needs that plan. he's going to be asked about it and he will have to offer that alternative because $17 trillion national debt is simply not acceptable particularly in a presidential year when it's not enough to turn up the republican base. you have got to grow the community and some unlike rand paul is doing pretty innovative things reaching out to constituencies and pulling them into the republican party. >> host: what about the continuing resolution? they pass that before they left washington to go campaign. when make comeback in a lame-duck in december the continuing resolution runs out. what you want to see happen? >> guest: i would like to see
them come up with spending cuts and stand up to the president. the problem for house republicans is they have broadcast far and wide their unwillingness to fight over the budget and that gives the democrats a great deal of negotiating power. presumably if republicans take the senate they are not going to roll over for harry reid and they do have that opportunity. we will wait and see. obviously we will be pushing for actual savings particular as we have on all these emergency spending programs. they always add-on. >> host: what about sequestration and? do you want to see automatic cuts another round of them? >> guest: that the only thing they have accomplished in the fact is it's a small haircut on total spending is a small reduction in the growth of spending and more accurately and if they don't do that the question is what's the goal? how do you get to a
balanced-budget? it has to be a combination of growth but also of strength and this of course is the promise they made going all the way back to the 2000 election. >> host: weird that was matt kibbe who is this present ceo of freedom works and talking about the role and agenda after november. the phone lines are open. republicans 202585. it won democrats (202)585-3880 and independents (202)585-3882. send us a tweet at c-span wj or e-mail journal at c-span.org. let's talk about emergency spending. you brought that up. there's a story in a paper that senator vitter is holding up $1 million that the present lawsuit used to fight ebola. you agree with that decision even when you have now a nurse in this country who seems to have been contaminated with ebola by trying to do with the patient in dallas.
>> guest: what's frustrating about the process and i'm not going to talk i'm a fiscal perspective because certainly we always faced challenges that are unexpected in priorities and things that need to be funded that we didn't know about when they budget cycle started. the question is why isn't that built into the process in the process and place it that we spend more money than we have every time there's a crisis we add-on to that? i agree with senator vitter. i think that money should calm from existing funds and i would also suggest that the natural proclivity to simply give an appearance failing agency more money because they failed is the frustrating aspect of washingt washington. >> host: you are saying the cdc has failed. >> guest: cdc failed the first test with isolation letting these patients back into the country. they dropped the ball from day one so their skepticism that
funding more of the failing agency exists and i think we should take that seriously. >> host: at the good opensecrets.org and put in freedom works he will find these numbers for the 2014 election cycle. contributions made by freedom works over 365,000. outside spending coming in at $1.6 million. he ranked 21 out of 121. what does that mean? what you doing with back? explain your outside spending. >> guest: that's for super pac and that's just one of the organizations that's it's under the freedom works banner. our super back -- super pac is a little different because we typically don't do the tv advised as american crossroads would do. our job is to provide the tools and resources that activists ask for to get out the vote on the ground so typically that meat and yard signs and it means social media and connecting people with each other. means door hangers and also
training on how to have an impact. remember most of the members in my organization are new to politics. they haven't been seasoned political pro-so they are trying to figure out how to have an impact in the election cycle and given the treatment of 501(c) fours leading up to 2012, this type of super pac might have an increased importance to activists because they are afraid. they're trying to comply with the laws. they don't quite understand the complexity of campaign finance and i think the system is designed that way. >> host: so they can donate without being disclosed? >> guest: no, no our super pac is disclosed and we have close to 80,000 individual donors that have contributed to the cycle. >> host: an average donation? >> guest: i don't know what it is but it's about 25 bucks. >> host: is that where you get most of your money from small
individual donations? >> guest: circling from our super pac. we have about 100,000 individual donors and there are larger ones in their but the average gift is declining every year because of the internet. the same reason the rand paul is the basis of freedom works. >> host: let's get to phonecalls. bill is up first in elizabeth new jersey and independent caller. bill, go ahead. >> caller: thank you greta, good morning. the question i would like to ask you is this. when the tea party came onto the scene was about spending and fiscal issues. you guys wear funny hats but you are harmless. from that point you joined with the second amendment groups and evangelical groups and moved into social issues. why did you move there and why didn't you just stick to fiscal issues because once you moved on i think you lost all credibility. >> guest: i think that's a great question and i personally
think that's a bit of a mythology about the tea party. keep in mind we survey 6.5 million members on a regular basis and i can tell you a lot of people care about social issues that the issues that motivate our folks are very much fiscal and very much civil liberties and i was looking at the survey this morning actually that the professor had done of our membership and questions like gay marriage and abortion barely show up on the radar screen for activists. i think the reason we are characterized as social conservative is that the strawman that the left can attack. they can't attack citizens that would like government to stay out of their health care and to balance its own books, would like to get that individual liberty back into the political equation. we are worried that neither party represents that. that doesn't mean social issues are unimportant. it means politics is a horrible way to manage really important
social institutions. its push and pull. it's dependent on special interests. i would suggest social issues the long to church and they belong in their synagogue. it's a question between you and your pastor not your congressman or your senator. >> host: we go to wane in chicago, democratic caller. hi wayne. >> caller: hi how are you? people like mr. kibbe come on the air and try to act like they are some grand -- it's nothing more than the political arm putting koch brothers. >> host: i'm going to have met kibbe respond to that. >> guest: we have never received a penny from the koch brothers since the founding of freedom works in 2003. this is one of those talking points that the left is trying
to use. they are trying to make it all about the koch brothers. i'm not sure it's working but as i said earlier our support is very broad-based and is actually primarily grassroots funded and that's the way we like it. >> host: do you agree with the koch brothers and the americans for prosperity in their group? do you agree with their agenda? >> guest: yeah there's a lot of overlap between where i would stand philosophically was charles coke can i love the fact that they are offering the counterbalance to big money coming from the george soros crowd on the left. politics show up on both sides and this idea that we shouldn't have individuals spend their money in the political process i think undermines the purpose of democracy. get. >> host: 23 days to go before november 4. where have you decided to change gears and what races and decide
we are not going to play here anymore and we need to shift over to the state werber might be. >> guest: i think the senate races we are most interested in our places like iowa where joni ernst is neck-and-neck and a lot of races are shifting resources. i'm not sure makes a lot of sense. the opportunities might be in some of the house races. i think that one is really important and i think a number of other races let's say mayor linda garcia's competitive. she is trending in new hampshire. that's an important race. what the house does is the originator of the budget and as the originator of key legislation is very important coming up. but you know i would argue that it's about turnout in the cycle and i wouldn't count in a senate race in the republican column is trending republican but anything goes at this point.
>> host: would he make of the republicans having to defend kentucky georgia and kansas? >> guest: yeah i i think that sort of proves the point that the tea party has been making for several cycles now. just because you have 34 years of experience doesn't mean that makes you a competitive candidate in the general election. pat roberts used to trouble me because he was in washington d.c. and not kansas. the american people are rightly ready to turn over the old generation and bring in new blood and i think that's a very rational response. i also think it's frustrating to those of us that are focused on these seats at the margin that mitch mcconnell has about 40 million plus in kentucky which is the mark -- remarkable amount of money to spend. why would we have to spend money in georgia? that money should be spent at the margins. >> host: do you think the republican party should cut with
them? >> guest: they should stand other on absolutely. >> host: we are covering the kentucky senate debate at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will go to owen in grand junction colorado. go ahead owen. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i've been a victim of -- intolerance fired from my job and because i said something i believed about gay marriage and they thought it was hate. all i did was express my view. an attorney cannot use common law process to violate restrictions. but a christian without an attorney can use the substance required found only in the law. any christian out there please don't pay your taxes next year and you won't be paying into it. that would be great.
>> host: matt kibbe don't pay your taxes? >> guest: the point of the races is important. i love free speech and i loved the push and pull up the social debate and this is why love social media so much. i think it's more healthy than someone deciding for you what's acceptable to say and what's not and i find the modern progressive movement to be insanely intolerant of diversity of speech. that's frustrating to me. i don't think that's the american way of doing things. we should have given to the public square and everyone should be allowed to speak their mind and have the appropriate response. that doesn't happen so much anymore. >> host: here's a tweet from jersey girl in pa. mr. kp says people want government out of their health care. what is your position, freedom works position on a woman's right to choose? >> guest: of those are two different issues i think. the question of health care is how to get services to people in
an economically efficient way. i think everything that the government has done really going back to the 1930s has inserted a middleman into the process. if you don't like the idea of government deciding your right to choose, if you don't like the idea of some faceless government agency deciding whether or not you can get trent -- cancer treatment when you desperately need it you want to get middleman out of the process and that might mean insurance companies but also means the federal government which is why the right solutions on health care or simple things like legalizing the tax treatment. let's get the middleman out of the place of the people decide not bureaucrats. >> host: india don't see the same line of thinking for this decision of abortion or contraception etc.? >> guest: i don't understand why politics decides these important issues. i really don't and i think you are talking about 435 men and
women who haven't been able to balance the budget. we want them to decide really important moral issues. we want them to decide marriage. we want them to decide whether or not grandma gets the health care she needs. i think it's wrongheaded. >> host: mark mark from canton ohio, democratic caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the department of commerce i if i understand the commerce's role is to help with trade treaties and things like that. we have been running a trade deficit in the billions for a number of decades i believe. my question to you sir do you believe the department of commerce and the department of education should be eliminated? that's my question. >> guest: oyez i mean the department of commerce is almost a caricature of a failed agency. it doesn't do anything. it doesn't accomplish anything. it tends to be a place where political appointees go to hang
their hats after a president wins an election and i don't think anyone would notice it was missing. education is more important because i don't think the department of education does nothing but i think it actually does real damage to the cause of actually educating children and layers of bureaucracy and issues like common core which do the obama stimulus were imposed on states. this takes away parents decision right and ability at the local level to make educational decisions. if you look at the trends in spending at the department of education as it goes up learning goes down. i don't think that's an accident. i think we need to get the federal government out of education and empower parents at the local level. >> host: st. louis missouri kenneth and independent caller. >> caller: good morning. with so many candidates coming
up for election and so many people asking for your help one of the most important races they be two or three that you are going to focus on the good batch of your efforts and resources on for the final weeks of this campaign. >> guest: i will name two senate races. iowa joni ernst and alaska sullivan. those are the two races that i think are very much up in the air. i mentioned two house races already that i think are essential washington state and ireland at percy new hampshire. >> host: judy erie pennsylvania democratic caller to point. >> caller: good morning. remember when cheney was sent? he said deficits don't matter. where were you then? it seems that all this tea party nonsense is all about a black president in the white house and i wonder within your meetings you guys don't wear white sheets? >> guest: nell we don't and
that's one of those strawmen that the left love to throw at the tea party. if you would actually go back and look at the history you would discover that the tea party arose from opposition to the bush-cheney bailout of wall street. if you talk to any tea party and if you are willing to talk to a tea party about what they actually believe you would discover that they were frustrated with republican overspending long before president obama was sworn into office. i hate the fact that racial politics is used as a cajole when in fact he should be talking about the common answers. it doesn't matter the color of your skin and it doesn't matter who your parents are. it doesn't matte matter who you know in washington d.c.. the cause of fiscal responsibility, the cause of individual opportunity and the ability of anybody to do anything in america is far more important than the divisive politics that people like you
use. >> host: onto florida, leonard democratic caller. you are on the air. >> caller: you used the word a while ago about -- forcing young people to buy health care that they don't need. that is why it's called family health care. and not back you pay medicare and medicaid. it was the greatest investment in this country. >> host: matt kibbe.
>> guest: okay so this is an interesting question. you mentioned car insurance and health insurance. those are catastrophic plans. those are very low input plans designed for that moment when things go horribly wrong. let's planned health care. young people are generally healthy but they don't earn much money. the reason that we would like to move from a one-size-fits-all individual mandate that forces young people to buy something that they can afford and they can't need to an individualized plan that allows them to say for that day when they do have either children or some sort of a health care crisis is that health care needs to be there when you need it over a lifetime. it's not something that a typical 22-year-old needs. you don't need a cadillac plan. you don't need it goldplated plan and what obamacare does is it transports money from young healthy people too old or more
wealthy people. i think that's wrong and i think we need to go from that one-size-fits-all for government agencies decide for you to something that empowers young people and gives them an opportunity to climb the economic ladder and allows them to safer health care needs when they need it. >> host: we will go to jeff in columbia missouri, republican caller. hi jeff. >> caller: good morning. i'm wondering why the president and congress and the senate don't go with the simple plan like a six-year analysis forecasting method for taxation before all this overspending became such a problem. >> guest: i wish they would do long-term budgeting and i wish they would have knowledge the insane amount of unfunded liabilities in medicare and medicaid and now obamacare.
you are talking about over $100 trillion that are not on the books. if we get our budgeting in an honest way we would appreciate to things one where we are spending it on an unsustainable level and two couples regardless of personal tax rates there's only so much that the federal government has historically been able to extract from taxpayers. so you are stuck in a sense that the more you raise taxes the marginal return and the rate of growth goes down. we have to live within the certain means and we haven't done that right now. the net result is $17 billion in debt and growing. >> host: what about defense spending? the pentagon doesn't have great accounting over there as well and how they are spending the money. military spending is the single biggest spending cause of the -- budget shortfall in debt. >> guest: is not the single biggest but i would put defense spending on the table and i think any federal agency no matter how important it is,
defense is one of the core functions of a limited government. that doesn't mean they get a blank check. any bureaucracy will waste money if there isn't accountability and scarcity forces prioritization. i think we should do that dod as well. >> host: deepened the present strategy against isis or the threat of isis is worthy of a worthy of the strategy and resources that are being spent, the money being spent? >> guest: i think rand paul has this one right. we need to take a step back and look at the whole history in the last 10, 20, 30 years and realize the mistakes we have made intervening in a lot of these battles it seems like if we don't learn from what we have done we are never going to get it right. there's always going to be a war. this is now going to be a 30-year war. this goes back to the fiscal
question. if you believe an american strength in if you believe in american leadership it is not the case that you can continue to spend all this money don't have because there's a relationship between economic strength and fiscal strength and our ability to project leadership in the world. >> host: go to jim next in north carolina and independent caller. you are on the air with matt kibbe the president ceo of freedom works. go ahead. >> caller: educational cuts come if they keep cutting it. they need to stop cutting our education because without education you can't get a job. >> host: are you referring to loans like pug loans like pug rat lungs or education spending in general? >> caller: educational spending. they are cutting a lot of programs in schools.
transportation for schools. >> host: jim thinks this is hurting our competition. >> guest: sounds like you're talking about local spending cuts and that would be in different areas but i can tell you from a federal perspective there are no cuts to education. education spending continues to grow. i mentioned this earlier. it's not always the case that more spending leads to better education. i would like to move those dollars from the bureaucracy whether the department of education are even the state educational brat proceeds to give that money back to parents and to give parents more choices about where their children can receive education because that's where the accountability is. parents hear most about their kids and a one-size-fits-all school system is failing. that's not necessarily a function of money. >> host: north carolina graded democratic caller, hi there.
>> caller: excuse me independent caller. when i initially heard about the tea party a long time ago i thought about campaign finance reform. au contraire. i completely disagree with you about education. education shouldn't be about -- should be all the children in the states having opportunity regardless of how much or who their parents are. you do like the 2nd amendment but what about the fourth amendment? thank you. >> guest: i want to take the last one first. freedom works you may not know is the co-sponsor of a class-action lawsuit against president obama and the nsa with senator rand paul in the sense of the fourth amendment. i like the mall and i think the first amendment is pretty
important. you mention campaign-finance reform. one of the most interesting things happening in american politics right now which i don't think either political party has gotten a handle on is what is known as disintermediation. more and more power shifting away from the parties away from the insiders in washington d.c. batch of the end-user the voter because of social media and because of her ability to get information from multiple places. that is what all this disruption is about. the same thing is happening on the progressive left. i think it's politics so it's not all about money. it's not all about how much money karl rove can raise. how many people are willing to educate themselves and show up in elections. i think we are just starting to see what is going to be a very healthy process of getting more people more voice and is not about money. >> host: juan williams writes for the help entitled even a
senate victory won't heal gop division decries gop controlled would nod in and of itself guarantee agreement on a common agenda by republicans in the house in the senate. having that much power might instead ignite open warfare inside the gop party to prove their -- gets to keep -- keep in mind the tea party parties are replacing the budget and they would be other ones as well but let's focus on those two because the polling i've seen shows those are priorities. balancing the budget is difficult regardless of who's in charge. nobody in washington d.c. likes to put their programs on the table to be either rethought, eliminated or even trimmed in the rate of growth. we are going to have that fight and we certainly have seen there
are plenty of republicans that are elected to do that. a bigger list is going to be coming up with a health care alternative. there are all sorts of interest in this now. hospital interest, insurance interests, people that now have a mandated benefit that they didn't have before. these are well-heeled interests. we are not talking about -- we are talking about people in the allocation of resources. yes we are going to have that fight but i think it's very healthy. >> host: nub of the primaries are over you are seeing folks like rand paul going to states where they have supported a different republican in the primary but now going to states like alaska for the republican candidate there, sullivan and campaigning for them because they are saying we controlled the senate. what sort of clout do you think someone -- if republicans take control of the senate what sort of capital to senator rand paul
have been in november going forward? >> guest: i think it helps him. he has a keen interest in achieving a republican majority and its most interesting to see when a republican candidate gets in trouble with a call? they call rand paul. they don't call john mccain. they call ted cruz who has gone to kansas to help ted roberts. the rock star of the gop comes from a class of 2010, 2012 in the same thing will be true in 2014. the rock stars the day after the election will be people like mayor linda garcia. >> host: the "washington times" has a picture this morning of senator ted cruz texas republican at a campaign event for senator pat roberts in kansas. you have the picture there in the "washington times" of him campaigning there and then next
day that you have got senator rand paul he went up to new hampshire to campaign for scott brown the former massachusetts governor and as you said below that i want to show our viewers a picture of mitt romney that former republican presidential nominee introducing me a love their republican nominee in the fourth district. >> guest: i think it's instructive. if i was in trouble in kansas i would call rand paul before i would call mcconnell. >> host: why is that? >> guest: because rand paul turns on voters that might otherwise stay home and i think that's the challenge that pat roberts has. people are looking for something different and the value proposition in kansas is not to elect pat roberts but to inspire harry reid and the net result of this election if republicans take the majority is primarily
first the repudiation of the obama agenda in the president himself said that. his election was all about his agenda. it's not so clear if the republicans are winning and that's why we are going to have this fight after the election. it's going to be interesting. >> host: a lot of the senate races, the republicans running against not only the president but as you said senate majority leader harry reid. we sat down with the campaign director of mr. reid's super pac the senate majority pac for newsmaker. if you missed it good or web site c-span or web site c-span.org and you can see at there. paul, a republican. i met paul. >> caller: good morning. i raised this point a lot and i never have had a satisfactory response in based on what mr. kb said on this program i may get an answer this time. another question is what is the tea party? i believe in fiscal conservatism. i believe basically and zero
budget making process. i believe in accountable government. i believe in public education and involvement to give us the best solutions to our public issues. i don't believe in polluting a responsible public dialogue or hurting americans by just blindly cutting budgets without due diligence. i would submit that the tea party is not a party. it's not organized functional organization in our nation. c-span in the media and even yourself use the terminology as it is. i know it's easier that way because it doesn't require a lot of hard work but frankly does the tea party even exist? thank you. >> guest: that's a great question and i actually agree with everything you say. the tea party is not a political party. it's an ethos. it's the idea that u.s. and individual as a citizen have a responsibility to show up to get
involved to become educated on what's going on within your government because the responsibility sits on your shoulders. i think the tea party is also a result of the political disintermediation that i've been talking about. i know moms that run local tea parties that literally have larger facebook pages than county republican parties. this is the new normal. the other thing that you said this so important is i don't think it's a misinformation campaign but when we started calling it the tea party it sounded as if it was a political party and of course it's conflating new things. i think people in the media are trying to understand a grassroots social movement and its easy to treat it as a third political party. it's not. it's about involvement and constantly morphs and evolves
into a protest in a get out the vote machine in 2010. today it's far more decentralized and focused on things like school board meetings, book clubs a lot of activist focus on common core and i would argue it is more intuitive broader liberty movement that is focused on typical -- fiscal issues for us. >> host: and asked you before we let you go on 2016. i i know we are not there yet but the headline in "the new york times" is the republican right still has doubts about chris christie the governor from new jersey. it's about social issues, the right to care about social issues. but from a fiscal perspective and from a tea party perspective what are your thoughts on governor kristi? >> guest: i think it's lost a lot of its appeal among tea partiers and remember when he was tackling the new jersey budget which was not an easy
thing to do he had a lot of grassroots support early on and that has since faded away. what's interesting about the field in 2016 is the so-called republican establishment is in the same situation that the democrats were in 2012. at one or two candidates. maybe it's chris christie but they abandoned him after bridgegate and flew down to florida to try to talk to jeb bush and cajole him into running. after that it you would be candidates that are by and large only are totally indebted to ask at the showing up in their races and obviously rand paul and ted cruz would be two of those but also marco rubio and scott walker and even governors like mike pence of indiana. you are talking about a homemade generation of republican leaders that are post-2,092,102,012. we have repopulated the presidential field for president with the young compelling fiscal
service which makes me want to think about who that candidate might be. >> host: would you put paul ryan in that category or the establishment party category? >> guest: if paul ryan is the compromise position between rand paul and chris christie i would say the fiscal conservatives have succeeded in fixing the republican party. >> host: more to come with that. matt kibbe we appreciate your time this morning. thank you.
right now a closer look at that race. >> moderator: the first and so far only debate schedule in the kentucky senate race monday night carried live on the c-span networks and joining us on the phone is joseph gerth. thanks for being with us. >> guest: great to be with you steve. >> host: give us a sense of where this race is three weeks out. >> guest: i think the race is very close. polling in recent months is trending a little bit towards mcconnell last month. he was up by four months -- 4% buy a newspaper here in kentucky. recently released polling that showed grimes gained a two-point lead but all of these polls are within the margin of air and on election day it wouldn't be a shock if either one of them got
a couple percentage points ahead. >> host: alison graham said in your editorial report and asked whether she voted for barack obama in 2,002,121st evolved why that question and what kind of news to team a? >> guest: well, the question was asked because mcconnell has spent the last year trying to tie her to barack obama in barack obama's policies. he is very very much disliked and people don't like him personally. people don't like his policies. mcconnell has been trying to convince voters that grimes if she is elected will simply do the presence of bidding and will vote for the agenda of the policies that he wants in place which senator mcconnell argues are bad for kentucky. grimes made news because this was the third time she was asked this question. she was asked the question whether or not she would vote for mcconnell and -- i'm sorry
whether she would vote for obama and she would not answer the question. she said i was a hillary clinton delegate in 2008. she said i believe in the sanctity of the ballot box and she was asked for time specifically whether she voted for president obama and she wouldn't say. guy she has been getting hammered ever since then from the right, from the left and from the middle. "daily kos" the liberal web site has hammered her and sing her response was pathetic was a term they use. >> host: former president bill clinton has been in the state campaigning for alison grimes and hillary clinton will be there later in the month. what influence do the clintons have among kentucky voters? >> guest: left an interesting question. i guess were going to find out here. president clinton was the last democrat to carry kentucky in a
statewide election. he carried kentucky in 1992 or in a statewide federal election in 1992 and 1996. when hillary clinton ran for the presidential nomination in 2008 she utterly destroyed barack obama in kentucky. so the clinton name is a strong name in kentucky. we did recent polling on president clinton's favorability and it is about as high as any politician we have seen in the state over 50%. >> host: mitch mcconnell first elected in 1984. he has always faced tough re-election battles. why? >> guest: well, kentucky although it performs as a republican state it's got a strong democratic voter registration. 56% of voters in kentucky are
democrats. he also, being in a position he is in, he's a guy who says no in washington and the democrats have been able to effectively use that to hurt his reputation. he doesn't come across as likeable especially when he is the guy up there that blocks every piece of legislation that they try to push there in washington. i think that is over the years worked on his reputation and harm him. >> host: senator mcconnell and alison grimes have been together a number of locations. the kentucky educational tv debate is the only time the two will be in the same studio stating the issues. what are you looking for? >> guest: well you know, it's going to be interesting especially after this episode with crimes before the curry
old -- courier general editorial board. whether she answers questions that are put to her and the same goes for mcconnell. senator mcconnell appeared on radio recently on a sports radio talk show and also before the cincinnati inquirer editorial board last weekend. in both cases he was asked about global warming and whether or not he believed that it existed in other man was the cause of it. his answer both times were i'm not a scientist. i don't know. ..
the candidates are running for the seat vacated by retired -- retiring republican senator tom coburn. both political reports list the race as solid republican this hourlong debate took place in stillwater, okla. last weekend comes courtesy of the oklahoma state university. ♪ ♪ >> at obama's state university, name is brandon lenoir, and i am a professor of political science here and it is my pleasure to
moderate the u.s. senate debate. this has been a joint effort between the league of women voters of a, and oklahoma state university. let's introduce the candid it's there is democratic state senator connie johnson and republican u.s. representative james lankford. [applause] >> welcome. as you all know, and campaign is very long job interview. as such, we will be approaching this debate as an interview. we selected a series of questions dealing with the most salient issues of our time and will get to here with a canada stand on those key points. the debate and the format of this debate is going to be that each candidate will have two minutes for an up and mark, two minutes for closing statement, and each question they will have 90 seconds-answer the question.
all of their questions were selected by me and me alone. however, we will be taking some questions. we have ushers walking through the aisle right now distributing pieces of paper. we ask the right your name and the year year lsu premium the panel that will review those questions. a representative from the college of republicans will review the questions and give me the top three. to add those questions at the end of the debate. with that, let's start with their opening statements. so, based on the coin toss senator johnson will be. lankford: it is a privilege for the two of us to stand
here, and we understand that we carry irresponsibility both to our state and the nation. twenty-two years i observed -- i have served. it was absolutely my joy to be able to do that. four years ago my wife and i bet the call to serve and the united states house of representatives. to us this is still serving families, doing well we have always done to make the best defense that we can. now, have to tell you, four years ago walking into the house of representatives was more like walking back on campus and a middle school cafeteria lunch because they pride themselves on trying to insult each other and ran each other down and say crazy, weird things. i thought, that is exactly what this is, the middle school lunchroom they trying to reset a tone and an example of how we pay respects to reach other even when we disagree, how to
deal with a set of parameters and say, this is the thing that we consider best for the nation. how we get those things accomplished, and to move us from complaining in talking to actually solving issues. tremendous debt as a nation, all kinds of educational issues as a nation, all kinds of opportunities for the youngest generation. we want everyone to have those great opportunities. income inequality, lot of issues that must be dealt with as a nation. it is essential to us that we take those things seriously and to be able to work together to find real results. i strongly believe conservative solutions to win now. those options and ideas in every neighborhood in every community in every town in a state and across america, if we will actually are each other as we walked through the process. alex or to the conversation tonight. >> thank you. state senator johnson you have two minutes. >> thank you, professor. good evening, everyone. it is my honor and blessed
privileged to be here this evening and steve present my feelings, my thoughts to my views threat more so to see how those issues resonate with you congressman lankford is correct. is addressed to have a conversation about economic equality, about fairness in our economic system, about taxes, about health care, about women's reproductive freedom and certainly about privatization of social security and what that means for the future well-being of the majority of obama citizens who are baby boomers. it is a time for us to have a conversation that is devoid of labels about conservatives and liberals are republicans and democrats. it is time for us to talk about the people of oklahoma and what issues concern then, what issues government should be addressing and
what issues you should be addressing. my campaign has been a campaign for the people. as i have traveled the state of a, i have heard you talk about the need to strengthen public education, the need to create jobs that are meaningful, that pay a living wage, not just the minimum wage and, perhaps, through increasing our infrastructure. i had mostly heard you talk about the need for the government to get out of business, to let people live their lives, and to let people make choices, as individuals that the government should have nothing to do with. i come to you tonight with 33 years' experience in the oklahoma state senate having actually resolve problems for citizens, written policies that made a difference in their lives, and now i am asking for your vote for me for the u.s. senate to go and do the same thing in washington d.c. i am happy you're here tonight, and i look forward to these conversations. >> all right. thank you. [applause] and i did forget to mention
in the opening statement that we do ask audience members to hold all of their applause until the end of the debate. that way we can focus our attention on their answers and their answers alone. thank you very much. it is time now for the questions. this first question will go to you, congressman lankford . i set it up with the introduction that a campaign is a long job interview, and in that sense why don't we talk about campaign finance reform. not many people would apply for a job if the application fee was more than ten times the salary of the job. yet this is what takes place when members of congress run for public office. do you think the amount of money spent on campaigns is a problem, and do you support a constitutional amendment to curtail it? lankford: thank you for asking and i would not support a constitutional amendment to curtail it. what is interesting is the first amendment was set up to protect political speech. the last thing the founders wanted to have is i can nor anyone else stepping in and telling everyone how to talk
about things, what they could talk about, what they couldn't talk about. we have students right now protesting in hong kong because the in china is stepping in saying we have a few changes we will make and we will help select a group of leaders and try to alter some of this. we should allow the free conversation that is happening. i can assure you, it is a great frustration to be able to walk to the campaign finance issues and make sure you do everything correctly, file of reform, walk through every process that is completely appropriate. as many people would know and people that are watching this, if you're going to have a commercial on television, that does cost money. a sign in your yard costs money, a piece of mail to send to someone's house or to be able to put something around on the back of their car with a sticker on it. the fund-raising does not go to the candidates. it actually goes to help get the message out. and when i go to someone sick and i would like to have your help, they can make a decision on who they
believe in and what they're going to do. transparency is extremely important. we have that. people could look on line and see every donor. i think that is entirely appropriate, but i do not like the thought of silence a political speech. >> moderator: thank you. senator. johnson: thank you. if, in fact, the cost of running a campaign is ten times the cost or ten times the amount of the salary that i would expect to receive, i am on minimum-wage. we are a grass-roots campaign. votes are the only thing that trump dollars. we have enjoyed traveling the state's using my car, using gasoline to of pain for food. i believe that the cost of a campaign should not outweigh the value of the campaign. heavily have to -- what we have today, citizens united, where untold amounts of cash
being funneled in the campaigns by private corporations in ways that influence policymakers to make decisions that are not always in the best interest of the people, i think those are the concerns that we are really speaking to when we are talking about campaign finance and the need for campaign finance reform. we know that that court hearing, the decision has been upheld. we know that it does not leave us in a fair place when it comes to how we get our message out to people. i appreciate this opportunity to have to talk to the students above, state university and those who are watching us on line. this is one of the free opportunities, and i am very appreciative. thank you. >> moderator: thank-you. and state senator, for this next question we will start with you. it deals with the islamic state. with air strikes taking place in syria and iraq, should congress vote on an authorization of military action? if so, how would you vote? johnson: i believe that is a
conversation that needs to be had. this ongoing crisis in the middle east, in fact, the 240 skirmishes that have occurred in the world since world war ii are an example -- and the united states has been involved in all of them. those are examples of wars that are basically founded and based on religious issues. and we keep trying to put a political a and a military solution on a religious situation. and we can see that it continues and it is not being very successful. i would definitely take a long, hard look at whether we send our troops -- whether we send our troops into harm's way and get into situations we have not been able to resolve because of the nature. i think there are some alternatives. think the united states needs to look more at peaceful resolutions and get our house in order in terms of how we are spending money
for things overseas verses how we're spending money on our soldiers when they come home. this is a big challenge for me in sending people to war. we have to be prepared for when they come back. >> thank you. >> congressman. lankford: the islamic state is not under the previous authorization for the use of military force. 2001 congress voted to approve the execution of military force for those directly connected to the september 11th 2001 a tax. the president now is saying that he still has authorization to move into syria based upon that authorization and for those directly connected with september 11th, 2001. that is not an accurate use of military force. the 2002 authorization was directly connected to iraq petallides moving forces in. the issue is this is something that congress has to resolve. this is the way our system was set up.
a very specific. and as you go back to the federalist papers to be able to determine all these different amendments and language, it's a really good one to be able to look at. defines the power and shows how different more power is from the previous king of england. the king of england could call up his army and then go execute the army and go work out and be able to have the war. the president of the united states would have that. he can't just call up the army and then the commander in chief. his commander in chief after congress has approved. the reason that was put in there was specifically for the american people. we would be engaged in that conversation when we feel threatened, when we and stand their is a real threat to the american people through their elected representatives would say to the president made is time for us to engage. so, yes, the president absolutely should come back to congress. i have already spoken on and on the house floor. >> well, thank you. this next question deals with ebola. it is kind of in our
backyard. texas governor rick perry is calling on federal officials to implement screens procedures at all u.s. ports of entry. screen is to take the temperature of travellers and conduct other assessments to determine their overall health. if elected to the senate, would you support those moves? lankford: we already have procedures in place to man the president is doing a decent place to have a decent job. what needs to happen right now is we need to verify everyone coming from west africa and determined, did they have contact and not just assume without ever asking the question. sometimes they know, sometimes they don't believe that children in texas was fully aware that he had contact, and he lied on his farm coming through. so the first check needs to be not just, tell us the truth canadians to be verifying every individual that comes from that region. we talk about one person in the u.s. right now struggling. that is a dramatic thing for us, but in west africa around 7,500 people right
now have a bullet. their system is completely overwhelmed. the cdc estimates by the time we get to january this year there may be as many as half a million people in west africa. while we take this seriously, we need to take tebow seriously and understand there are people have fled across the world that are in desperate need of engagement. this disease will spread if the united states does not engage. there is no other place in the world that is better equipped than we are to deal with this disease, and it would be wrong for us as a nation to back up and say we will allow people to die because we don't want to engage are afraid. we should lean in. we are equipped to do that. we should also pay attention to ports of entry to make sure we're verify. >> moderator: thank you. state senator. johnson: i believe this is, in fact, the most dire world health issue of part-time, and it is just a matter of time before it came to america.
and i agree with the congressman that the majority of these cases are centered in west africa. but with our highly mobile society of today people travel from africa to china to japan to new england, and those areas are just as likely and just as capable of exposure as any other place in the world. i think a comprehensive system for our part would cover anyone who comes from overseas. i think the method of screening is not invasive. think that everybody would kids screamed, i don't think anyone would consider it a hassle. i think it is something that we all as citizens of the world have to be committed to, and until we can get this virus under control, i don't think any measure is too extreme. screening in and of itself is not a difficult process. it is one that is available.
it is one that can be instituted immediately, and i think it is one that people don't mind having to go through. >> thank you. and in this question we will start with you as well, state senator. a marriage equality. this debate is coming on the heels of the supreme court decision to reject lower-court appeals overturning the ban of same-sex marriage in five states including obama. there are still more than 20 states, however, that ban same-sex marriage. now, as my wife and i move to a state, another state our marriage would be recognized. however, if a same-sex couple moves to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage they will not be considered married. should congress stepped in and make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, should we leave this to the states? >> i am very pleased that this debate comes on the heels of that no decision. i celebrated yesterday with
my friends in the oklahoma who are of different gender orientation. i understand their challenges. i understand first and foremost. how are we to treat human beings differently from the way we would like to be treated? this whole question of same-sex marriage was voted on an oklahoma to in years ago. and since that time our demographic has changed substantially to the extent that i think people who choose to do, they have the same rights as those of us who are oriented the way that we are. don't think that there should be an opportunity for states to decide. i think it just like interstate commerce, we ought to the will to have that freedom to go from state to state and people be able to keep their values, their principals, their lifestyles intact without government, unnecessary government interference.
i believe that if the united states were to take on that issue it would be a useful discussion for us to have. we only have five states so far, but i think that attitude is changing as our states grow older, as our nation becomes more mature fernandez think we have a basic duty to respect humanity. >> thank you very much. congressman. >> every person is created in the image of god, every person. every person has value and worth. but the united states constitution clearly leaves that authority to make a decision for mayors to the states. i would say it is clear from the tenth amendment of things not addressed in the tenth amendment are reserved for the states. it is not just my opinion on that. you can go back 3200 years of supreme court history and over and over again when in the issue on marriage can of the supreme court said, that is a state issue, not the federal government issue.
the federal government and congress should not be engaged in a marriage issue at all. as recently as last year the supreme court last year in the defense ameritech cheering occurred when a final peace cannot saying the federal government can't get involved in this argument to on page after page saying this is a state issue. this is estate issue pre states alone can make the decision about marriage and how to define marriage. what is interesting is yesterday the supreme court said, we are not going to hear a case and basically their interpretation was high the stakes make the decision or a single federal judge in the state can make that decision. they literally conflicted against their own argument from just a year ago and their own opinion. if you read through the opinions and see what happened yesterday verses what they did last year, it is amazing to me the separation between the two. this is uniquely estate issue. individuals ought to be respected. i believe marriage and traditional marriage, and that is the definition of marriage we had as a nation and should maintain.
the states should make the decision, not the federal government. >> thank you, congressman. this question comes back to you, congressman. dealing with veterans of the decision tim send u.s. troops in hostile situations can and should be difficult want to of the debate over how to care for those troops and their return for more for many is simple. serve your country and receive the needed support the return of. multiple reports have highlighted deficiencies in veterans' services produced support increased funding for veterans' health care, education, and housing? >> let's start with the basics. but supporters of veteran being able to make a decision. right now they don't have that capability. it is incredibly frustrating unknot alone. multiple others continue to bring up the same issue. if a veteran is in oklahoma, wider than need to drive to a veteran center to be able to get health care what drafted tulsa, would then need to drive past five or six really get hospitals on the way to make the family
has to make that trip, sometimes leave early and get in line to build a go through the process to be leaving from their home when they're sick already. it is not right. that does not treat them with absolute respect. a first thing you need to do is not look at just the finance side but look at the process issues, allow veterans to choose where they go for health care rather than be forced into locations to the will to get health care. this past year we actually passed a bill to the house of representatives that gives veterans that first opportunity to read what ended up being the issue was a 40-mile radius. that is all we can get. we took the first to say we want to allow more opportunities and open the days ahead we can flip the senate. be able to open that up to a greater group of people and to allow veterans to be able to choose. that is an essential part of it into the woods on the promise made. you can't break that promise. you may change things for a future person signing up
some of what you don't break the promise to those of already serve our nation. >> thank you. state senator johnson. >> thank you. as a former member of the senate veterans committee in the oklahoma legislature, it is the usual that we don't have a love fest when it comes to veterans the emmy's i agree with everything that the congressman is said regarding the need to care for our veterans once they return for more. i think that goes deeper when we think about what is currently going on with our veterans, not only in the health care setting but in the every day setting to my jobless, sometimes incarcerated, homeless, more many of them, record numbers are committing suicide because a ptsd. and we are not listening tour veterans in terms of the help that they say they need, let alone providing the services that they need. as your u.s. senator, i will fight for veterans at the u.s. level and the state level. i believe that veterans have
given up everything they have to my job but they were doing, and went to war to protect our freedom. at a minimum when they return home we need end and we deserve to give them the best that they can afford, that we can afford. was privilege the other day to witness coming through the airport in washington d.c. having a celebration tonight in oklahoma city to honor those world war ii veterans. the price of in their faces for what they gave to our country will never leave my memory command that is what will drive me and my attempts to be of service to them further. >> thank you. arguably one of the most import responsibilities is the power to confirm supreme court nominees. would you confirm supreme court nominee who is more politically progressive or in your case more conservative than yourself? put another way, would you vote to confirm a nominee
holds the opposite position you have on issues like abortion, since sex marriage, stem cell research ? johnson: i think there vetted pretty well. i think president obama in place are now, i don't think i would have to worry about the type of nominee. the question is whether i would support someone who had different views but if the majority of the committee votes for that it does not matter what i support, but i would continue to be the voice questioning that person about the fuse. as we have seen, we are concerned about the supreme court ruling on marriage quality, but the same supreme court struck down section four of the voting rights act. so the supreme court is potentially all over the place. i think we, as senators and representatives of the people, have to use our voices to make sure that we vet them in ways that guaranteed that we can
a living document. if changes at the whim of culture, then that is not consistent with the constitution. their is a way for the constitution to change cut through an amendment process. there would follow a strict construction of the constitution and sarah will be consistent and i could be comfortable. they're determined to make cultural references of political preferences come off the bench rather than falling through the law that i would absolutely oppose that. >> thank you. well, congressman, this question actually builds on your discussion of the constitution. based on this promise the cause of the constitution, federal law trump's state law. currently there are several states in violation of federal drug enforcement laws regarding marijuana. should congress follow the lead of those states and legalize marijuana nationally or should existing federal law be enforced, thus negating the
legalization of marijuana in states like colorado and washington? >> it is an interesting question because this is one of the areas that the president has spoken to the justice department on and said don't enforce federal law he has used his power of the selective prosecution to say, will pitch what was need to be enforced. i think that is a problem. the president takes the oath of office to honor the constitution and to protect all laws and to be able to execute faithfully the laws of the land. we have the law on the buck to be if there is a need to change that law that needs to be a vote to take the wake of and not just president stepping up to say, and not going to enforce the law. that should not be an option. as recently as yesterday the governor of colorado yesterday made the statement that he believes that colorado was reckless when
they legalize marijuana. a democratic governor of colorado because of what is happening now on colorado and what he actually sees in the damage is doing to me he says he wished they would have had more research and data before they made the decision is state. so i absolutely do. part of it is for me in my own perspective. workman teenagers. i have seen firsthand the damage is done the families when teenagers get involved in drug use. as adults start using drugs is passed on to them pier have a hard time with anyone saying the best thing we can do for our kids is to get their parents smoke more marijuana and for that to be legal. i just don't think as the best thing we can do. >> moderator: thank you. state senator johnson. johnson: the question was more about the federal law trumping the state law at this point. the president's having issues, basically hands-off position about what is going on in colorado and washington. as many as you know, have
been a legislator who has promoted reform of our marijuana policies among other policies in oklahoma because of their own sustainability from an economic perspective. not only from an economic but from a medical perspective. the perspective of our economy, agriculture. think it is terrible, a child who is suffering from intractable seizures, epilepsy, i think it is just as bad for us to allow those children to die without having any concern for the fact that we have a natural substance that was created by god that would address both seizures and has been sent to be the only thing that addresses the seizures. no different from the children were dying from violence in the street. so did not work with alcohol and it is not working with
marijuana. at the end of the day oklahoma is a state where cannabis is an indigenous plant in our agricultural community could benefit and make products to my suntans commotions, paper, clothing, and those are issues we should look at more so than what we're talking about in terms of state law. >> thank you. well, state senator, surveys have shown that the average generation and perhaps even some of the students sitting in this audience think it is more likely they will see a ufo in their lifetime than it is we will ever see a social security check. what reforms if any would you push forward? johnson: i would push against privatization of social security. social security is that thing that, yes, we hope our average generations will be able to benefit and share what i hope to share one day, but at this point that efforts in congress and that the national level along with other areas of our
lives to privatize that system in ways that will put a lot of people, women in particular who have a difficult time getting a job making equal pay for equal work, there will be thrust into poverty if we allow privatization to come in and take over our social security system. so the system, i believe, is working as it is. we should do something to charade up, but in no case would i support a change where we will privatize social security. is just as bad as privatizing education, other pensions, child welfare and obama, privatization means privatization, profit-sharing, and that is what we are seeing. and people deserve to profit of a private interest. social security is a system that is fair, has been there, it serves people who have worked all their lives and who in their twilight years deserve to have a reasonable and come and
security. >> thank you. lankford: first off, it is probably more likely they will see big put before they see a ufo. yet those typically land farther west of us apparently. the big challenge that we have is really making sure social security does what it was designed to do. designed to kick in an age 65. at that time the average life expectancy was between 62 and 65. it was an emergency plan put in place that if someone outlived their own retirement and lived past their life expectancy that there would be something there as an emergency backups of people did not end up on the street. we want to be able to come alongside the disabled, come alongside those that cannot work anymore. it has now risen up to be something that people still will pay for all of my retirement. the polar slowing down, actually saving. people need to save for their own retirement, big or
small. some people only set aside $10 a month. set it aside. start a plan to meet now one of the things they struggle with right now is it -- way to bring his name not, but harry reid has said publicly that social security is not something we need to deal with right now. i adamantly disagree. we need to deal with it right now. age, the process of social security into the will to evaluate how what is done, if you go back to tip o'neill and ronald reagan committee made a plan to stabilize social security and it is only just now being implemented. it takes decades to get going, but you've got to start early. >> moderator: thank you. congressman, repealing the affordable health care act also known as obamacare has been a recurring topic in top -- topic in congress. instead of discussing why or why not to mothers get to the central topic of the debate. do you believe quality health care is a right or
privilege in the united states of america? lankford: it is both, as strange as that sounds. is given to every individual if anyone walks into a hospital right now with a severe injury, they're giving care. every emergency room in the country, every single entity we have backup plans to keep -- to deal with medicaid, especially mom's and children. our system is set up for individuals to be able to engage in take personal responsibility, individuals that decided not to take personal responsibility to and there is a tremendous put back -- tremendous push back. what will you do to take responsibility? so each family has the responsibility for their own family, employers say of the will to provide health care coverage. i can tell you the wrong way to do that is to be paralyzed. i say it like this. i run into a few people that i need to say, this system is really not working well.
anyone who thinks the health care system is working. so you know what would really make this work? lets get it to washington because it seems to fix every by representative problem much better than the private sector. the problem is not that it is going to get better. did bogus more complicated, expensive, it decreases the amount of access. we have seen premiums go up to of folks now struggling to build a find access to the care they want while others are receiving care. their is a better, simpler way to do this. community health clinics, a better model to be withheld. medicaid system and other ways, but not like this cannot a takeover. osu thank you. state senator johnson. johnson: and whether health care is a right or privilege is the question, and i agree with the congressman. it is both. however, we have a health care proposal for the first time in 50 years that is actually making a difference
in the lives of people who are here -- who were here to fore not only unable to afford insurance but to have access to meaningful and affordable and quality of care. the affordable care act means that people who were not injured before, millions are now insured. the fact that we have a congress that has continually, 54 times, voted to try to repeal of law that has been passed, that has been upheld, and that has been implemented says that we are wasting money and killing people. and that is the priority. i believe it is more important for us to look at what is going on with our health care system when people cannot get the care they need to know when our systems of government, our systems of care are overloaded couple's health care conditions are continuing to decline but we believe oklahoma is rated 48 in health care. that says to me that not only should it be a right to not only should it be a privilege, it should be a
necessity. government exists to provide those things that we can do individually. health care. when you have your health you have everything. when you have your health you have a better worker. when you have workers who are respected you don't have employers trying to director health care service. >> moderator: thank you. welcome a state senator, the fact is most voters will cast their ballots consistent with their party eddy. there is, however, a growing population of independent voters. why should an independent voter vote for you? johnson: well, the platforms that i have spoken to throughout this campaign in terms of strengthening public education, creating meaningful to and living wage jobs through investment in infrastructure, those are things that resonate, i believe, not only with their grants but with republicans and certainly with independence.
but the third area of this campaign which talks about protecting civil liberties, protecting civic freedom, that, i think, is the area that resonates with independence because in essence independence have given up on both parties. because of the party's positions on things that impact in individually, i think in addition to independence have a lot of libertarians who are concerned about this over reach of government where government is buying on us in our daily lives in a daily way. where we are incarcerating for-profit people who have been convicted of possession of nonviolence substances, women's rights to choose to make decisions about their own reproductive health care are challenged and constricted and even to the point of limiting women's rights to contraception. i think those are the aspects of my campaign that resonate with people who are outside of either party but who want to see a change,
who want to hear a voice that willpeak differently and that was b-2s to power. >> thank you. congressman, why should an independent voter vote for you? >> i like to reach out. we are one state. there are 4 million of us. we do not all agree. not all independent spirit i have four members of my family, and we struggled to pick restaurant after church on sundays. we don't all agree on every issue so what i would bring to an independent is this, i have a conservative perspective. i believe the constitution. i believe the system actually helps us, the economy really can grow if government is less engaged in the day-to-day operation, and we can give back to the growth of individual lives and families and allow people to live their lives on their own and make their own choices. i would also say one of the things independents are frustrated with his
rhetoric. they want to see people treat each other with respect. the christian world you i come from and working with families, i am going to treat people with respect of people, all backgrounds, allegre statement i've always appreciated the region makes the comment, truth is now responsible for its owner. pretty wise. i will agree with him on that one. so it demands the actually slow down and listen to people in the process and get to know folks spirited demands that i turn around and say this is what i think >> moderator: thank you. the debate on immigration is centered on beefing up border security. is border security the solution to illegal immigration? lankford: it is much bigger than that. i come from a couple of different perspectives. one is to my religion believe every person is created in the valley.
so when your rhetoric that means individuals regardless of where they're from is out of bounds. our religion believe that there is a responsibility that every person has to their own nation. i am a citizen of this country. at unique rights and responsibilities. in every other country against that, the conversation is about defense. lankford: there are areas where we should have a fence. but down the texas-mexico border, the international border is the center of the rio grande river. gerard going to build a fence down the middle of the river, neither was you abdicate to mexico that river and the boundaries around it. border security is essential. we should have good policing. and to make sure the north and south and our maritime, we are watching who is coming in canada we absolutely should realizing that we have 11 million
people here illegally, ten and a half million of from poor countries. mexico, guatemala, honduras, el salvador. if they're going to come in from central america have to cross the mexican border to do that we should be able to patrol the border as well and have a policy that does allow individuals to be able to apply to come work for a short amounts of time with absolute standards and to make sure that that occurs straw the only way that that happens is enforcement at the workplace. multiple areas. >> moderator: thank you. senator johnson. johnson: thank you. people were talking about immigration, and the congressman has pointed out that the majority of them are coming from areas south of america. i think you have to also realize that we are all immigrants to apart from the indigenous peoples but we all came to america. my people came over in the
bottom of a slave ship. and so the process for people coming into america is what i think we are needing to look at. when we establish a system that has checks and balances, people want to come to work to my people want to come and make america and a new home, they're willing to abide by the rules to what to do the tests, to become a citizen, and pay the money, frankly, is that we should be opened because, again, we all came here from somewhere. i think policies are in need of repair. i think the president has been proposing solutions and congress has yet to act played as your next u.s. senator i would be open to all aspects. i would definitely be open to the things that i think in sure that people will come here, who abide by the rules, would do what is necessary and begin paying taxes and actually contribute to society,
america is a better place when we have diversity. the inventions that come our way, the technological advances that come to america, all of those things come about because we are inviting people into our state. >> thank you. >> moderator: law, it is time now to hear from oklahoma state university students. a panel has reviewed the question submitted by students in the audience, and the first question comes from a senior. this question is to you, state senator. steve support the policy of using drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists, including u.s. citizens? ..
this ongoing conversation has happened for the last 12 years president bush used drums and some of the strikes and president obama has accelerated debt that i have asked the question and maybe we can have a conversation after this is over is there a difference between an f-16 launching a missile between apache launching a hellfire or a drone launching something and some of the tools say they want a pilot and aircraft launching that to the target being a
thousand miles away in a safe secure way. in a wartime experience there is no difference. we deal with the issue of what happens if there's an american on the ground there? americans have rights that are different than other individuals. they have constitutional protection. if an american commits a treasonous act and is at war with the united states in their own country if there's any way to capture that individual they should stand trial. there's no way to access the person and they are in a battlefield situation in preparation to attack the country with the enemy yes we are justified. that's no different than a police officer standing on the street and an american citizen draws a gun and says i'm about to shoot you were a police officer can respond to that. the president of the united states is has a difficult responsibility to protect our country from all enemies foreign and domestic. a president and i have disagreed on many issues. this is one that requires oversight and one area i do not disagree with.
we should protect america. >> moderator: thank you. congressman this next question comes from kelsey is a sophomore at osu. where do you stand on the issue of religious liberty particularly apply to the islamic faith? lankford: i am adamantly protecting religious liberty and is one of the issues i talk about on the house won one of the issues i talk about openly to let people. people. i have a lot, because i come from a minister background a lot of people come to me and say you need to tone down her conversation because you are in a secular world now. my response is look at article vi in the constitution. it says there's no religious test for any office of the united states. you have to have a certain faith or put your faith away to be able to serve the united states. that is the same for every single american. every person in this room you can leave your faith out or just have no faith at all be christian be jewish be islamic the buddhist hindu seikh whatever you choose to be this
is the united states of america. we should protect the religious liberties of every individual and i will stand up as an individual and say regardless of your background we need to protect those rights. let me give you one caveat. there are some in the islamic faith they cannot practice their faith apart from the government also being aligned with their faith. literally their faith drifts into surrey a lot to say i have to also control the government. that's not all the islamic faith but there are some nasa way they practice. when united states absolutely honor those that have religious faith but you cannot be an individual that would try to undercut the u.s. government for the practice their faith. the government exist to protect all faith not to allow you a vehicle to take over a section of any part of the government. >> moderator: state senator? johnson: thank you. this whole idea of religious liberty to me is very -- what
does the government do and what is the government not to? what should the government do with regards to people's lives, their liberty and the pursuit of happiness? i believe religious liberty is essential and for the government to try to interfere and determine who is supposed to do what is an embarrassment. it is actually a slap in the face to people who choose to be different so that in our country when we have the condition of religious liberty being questioned are being constrained that is not the best possible situation for us. i believe in these days and times we have extremists in every faith. those of us who would only adhere to the old testament in the christian faith versus being in the new testament sometimes we can be just as rigid in our views to the extent that we are infringing on those territories
similar to what other extremist religions might be doing. religious liberty is a personal issue. it is an issue that the government should not be addressing. it is an issue that the united states counted on. we came here seeking religious freedom and for us to change now and try to construct one group one way or another is unacceptable in my opinion. >> moderator: thank you. state senator this question comes from derek derek leedle man who is a junior at osu. which of the senate committees do you feel you are most qualified to serve on? johnson: thank you derek. the students are deep thinkers. i appreciate that. i have a daughter who just graduated from here. i have serve served significantly in the area of health and human services in fact for the last 33 years. i have been in the area where we have reformed medicaid, where we have reformed the health care
authority in the state of oklahoma but i am also focused on criminal justice reform. how to reform our criminal justice laws in ways that are productive and don't cost us a lot of money? i served on the veterans committee. i got a bit less on a served on the transportation committee because i know roads and bridges are the key to recovery for our society in terms of economic principles. so i know i would like to stay in health and human services but i have a heart for the veterans. i have an economic interest in transportation. i have enjoyed serving on energy. i would be available to serve wherever i am best suited to serve, wherever my leaders think i should serve. i would serve in that position, do my best and if i gain seniority i would branch out into other areas and continue expand my expertise in order to
better help citizens of the state of oklahoma. >> moderator: thank you. congressman? lankford: i currently serve on the committee called oversight and governmental reform in the house of representatives and i'm a subcommittee chairman and i have oversight for energy policy health care and entitlement. i work with social security and disability but also work a lot on issues of oversight and government duplication government. it's maybe a shock to to you but at times the federal government can be fairly inefficient. shocking i know. the committee has the greatest jurisdiction on that in the senate is called homeland security government accountability. that committee itself allows me to be able to step in and continue the work i've done in the last four years in the house of representatives. oversight is not a republican democrat issue. bureaucracy is bureaucracy bureaucracy. doesn't matter who's in the white house at that point. we deal with duplication government. one of the bills they pass in the house of representatives is called the taxpayer's right to
know. it lists every program they do how much they spent on the program how many staff they have on the program and how they evaluate the program. that passed the house of representatives overwhelmingly bipartisan way. like to take that to the senate get a pass. as one of the things i could implement on the homeland security government accountability so we can require the agency to provide that list and look for areas where we have duplication. why do we need 50 programs across 10 different agencies to do the same thing? we don't have money to spare. if you haven't noticed we are over $17 trillion in debt which is the big issue we face. we have got to get our government back to greater efficiency. >> moderator: thank you and that will have to be our last question. it's time now for closing remarks. once again based on the coin toss congressman you have two minutes. lankford: thank you and thank you and thank the conversation and those of you on line as well i appreciate your engagements to
stay involved. it's extremely important that people don't make decisions based on the signer sticker that people make decisions based on real insight so i appreciate you i appreciate you are engaged in to do the research and make decisions on that. i would like to ask if you'd like to do additional research and what i think about a lot of issues. go to james langford.com and you can get a chance to do greater research and find out what i'm all about. this is an issue about trust. as you said earlier this is a long job interview. actually i say that a lot as i travel around the state. i don't come from blue background so i treat like a job interview. i go to people and say here's what i'm all about. i don't run down other candidates i don't try to do compare and contrast stuff. people can make a decision about who they want to hire in his this role. i would ask for your vote. i can tell you my family and i work very hard for a nation and we do stay engaged. we are committed to serving all
4 million oklahomans in every community in every town in every city and small rural village. we are going to stay engaged to try to listen but i can also say to you even when i listen and do my research in the end of her responsibility to make a decision. the issues we face right now in america are serious. and they are typical. anyone who comes to insist we can fix all this if we will just and then then they fill in the blank is oversimplifying the issues we deal with as a nation. this year $500 billion in overspending. four years ago when i came to the house of representatives and join the budget committee we were $1.4 trillion over spending that year. the budget fight for the last four years we get down to 500 billion. we have many typical issues to do. we have to deal with the issues of everyday americans in oklahoma. i will listen. i will research and i will lead to make that decision to help us in the nation. god bless you and i look forward
to our ongoing conversation the next 28 days. >> moderator: thank you. state senator? johnson: thank you. it's been a pleasure to be here this evening and share in the conversations about the issues that most affect their people. we have talked about veterans and we talked about immigration. we talked about defense and health care and social security. if you think about those issues i encourage you to ask the questions what have you done for me lately? what have we done to make a difference in the lives of you and you and you versus the lives of the special interests who seem to take over our government right now. as your next u.s. senator i commit to to always be a voice and to always be the ears who will listen to what is of interest to you. what are the challenges that are facing you in your life? i have always been an advocate of voting and i challenge you tonight to believe this election
is the most important election that we will have in the next 10 years. this is the election that they don't think anyone will vote in. i am encouraging everyone, go out and you sure vote and make your vote your voice. that's the only way we get a government that really meets the needs of individuals versus the needs of a few. as your next u.s. senator will be my privilege in my honor to represent you in the areas that matter to most like education, strengthening our public education. i like creating jobs that are meaningful jobs that pay a meaningful way to mostly in making government do the things that government is supposed to do for us as people and not in our lives as individuals. those are the challenges, those are the opportunities that lie before us today. i want to say thank you again for having us here. i want to thank my family and my supporters who were here with me this evening.
this has been a privilege. i appreciate you. god bless you and vote for me 2014, november 4. you can get more information at www.cj for okayed.com. thank you. >> moderator: that includes the debates that i would like to state -- thanks a senator connie johnson and representative james langford for an informative and incorrigible -- and that like to thank the students that help with the event event today as well as recognize the partnership between the league of women voters of oklahoma and oklahoma state university. be sure to vote on november 4. have a good night. ♪
>> coming up tonight on c-span2 to the communicative speech and representative joe barton at texas on technology legislation. and former senate leader trent lott and tom daschle discussed bipartisanship in congress. this. >> host: this week on "the communicators" we talked with social -- several legislators about pending legislation in some of the issues the fcc is working on. joining us first is the chairman er