work will be demanded. it is being done in a haphazard way that is not necessarily rigorous and objective. i think some of this has been done internally. i think it will be found not to be acceptable. i think there'll there'll be an impartial and objective approach that says, that is looking at this issue, if again the waivers are pursued on a large scale. >> thank you very much. we are about to take a ten minute break. before we do, join me in thanking michelle for her remarks. [applause]. tonight's louisiana governor's debate is next. then look at campaign 2016 with two former members of congress. first tim rubber of the organization issue one on the impact of 158 families on the

political system. then david mcintosh, president of the growth on conservatives and campaign 2016. >> once a republican candidate ben carson will speak in lynchburg virginia. takers and bankers have also spoken to students at liberty. our light coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> wednesday, the former ambassador to turkey joins a panel looking at turkey's political future. we are live from the bipartisan policy center at 5:30 p.m. eastern, here on c-span2. >> c-span presents landmark

cases, the book, a guy toward landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus the united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. landmark cases, the book features if production's, highlights and the impacts of each case. written by tony morrow and published by c-span in cooperation with the press, landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> louisiana governor's runoff election is set for november 20 first, next, next for baton rouge the louisiana governor's debate between democratic state representative john bell edwards and republican senator, david bitter. it is hosted by louisiana public broadcasting.

>> good evening, i'm i'm beth courtney thank you for joining us. tonight we'll have a debate between the candidates for the governor of louisiana. we have a 40 year tradition of contributing to the democratic process and tonight we continue that to this debate and other public forms. this tradition is a very about be a one and we welcome you for this entire audience this evening. thank you. >> i am barry irwin president for a better louisiana and thank you for joining us. our debate features the candidates in the runoff for runoff for the we. first, state representative john bell edwards and u.s. senator david bitter. thank you you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> with questions tonight are two journalists, a reporter and producer at louisiana public broadcasting and jeremy, editor publishing a politics.com.

>> tonight we will attempt to cover a lot of territory as we talk about topics and issues of great importance to the citizens of louisiana. a dry and was held early to determine order of questioning. the format is encouraged to a real dialogue between the governors. will touch on elementary and secondary education, the the budget and taxes, workforce development, healthcare, infrastructure, and issues related to each candidate's campaign. the panelists will provide akron on a topic oppose a topic to start the conversation. candidates will have have a turn to ask each other question. panelists last follow-up question to ensure clarity. >> we begin by exploring the governing styles of the two candidates. to to get us started is kelly spires, she'll pose the question to mr. bitter. >> yes, let's talk about your management style.

one of the two of you will be the next ceo of the our state with tens of thousands of employees in a multibillion-dollar budget. what experience have you had an executive management. >> i have manage my senate office for several years now. if you talk to folks who interact with that on any number of issues particularly louisiana into a fight for and work with, they will tell you it is very responsive senator. i am am hands-on, that is my style. very different then bobby jindal who is accused of being aloof and not dealing with people directly. i'm hands-on, hundreds and thousands of people have mice personal cell phone number. i'm completely accessible. i i get the weeds of important issue. i have great staff to help me, i help direct them, but i leave them very actively. again, the proof is in the pudding and i think that in that i built a solid record of accomplishment.

in fact, i would put my record on concrete accomplishment on issues next anyone's from the highway bill that we are working on now to coastal restoration efforts where i benno, hurricane recovery, saving flood insurance for louisiana because we have to reform that to get it right for louisiana citizens. >> thank you for the question. after after my graduation from west point, i was united states army officer. i lead soldiers, ultimately i commanded a rifle, that is a executive commission of commander. i was responsible for 150 paratroopers. we go to. we go to the field and train that number would grow to sometimes 250. also, i have worked the last eight years as a state representative managing that office i've been chairman of committees in the legislature that requires me to call

committee meetings and issue the agenda. whether it's on the military veteran special committee and the house of representatives, which by the way i resurrected that committee, it had gone dormant. i use. i use that committee to do work on behalf of veterans across the state of louisiana from strengthening the homes to make interceptors were open, and are officers remained in place in the system that enabled our veterans to access the benefits they're entitled to. >> now it is your turn to ask a question. mr. bitter u.s. mr. edwards first. mr. edwards you have one minute to respond and that a 32nd rebuttal. the topic is about governing style. >> john bell, i wanted to ask you about governing style. you often talk about shared sacrifice particularly given the challenges we face as a state.

but when i look at your concrete record and others look at it, i don't see see a shared sacrifice required of politicians yourself. your legislative colleagues, other insiders in the system. i see something very different. very soon after coming in office you voted for yourself getting 123% pay raise, in addition to that you voted for yourself getting a pre-dm increase. >> .. ate governments and illegal gifts. you expressed opposition to the concept of term limits. this really does go to governing style. what real sacrifice will you ask of political insiders and politicians? not just hard working taxpayers who have to pay more and more for government. >> senator vitter, you have been lying sideways to the public. you make $40,000 more a year now

than when you got elected to the senate. that is more than i make -- you make more per month than i make into year. so i am not taking a back-seat to you on any of the issues you raised. in fact, i voted for every single bill in the first ethics reform special session we had in 2008. so shared sacrifice, absolutely, there is shared sacrifice. i have led my example. i am very proud of the work i have done in the legislature on a whole range of issues. and you know, you asked so many different things there rather than one question. but i will tell you as it relates to term limits, i believe that there are term limits already. every office has a certain term whether it is four or six years. and the voters are able to decide if you stay in the office or not. they are able, when they want to, to turn someone out of office. and i think you will experience that pretty soon.

>> well, again, i think this illustrates big differences between us in terms of philosophy about governing. i have always fought against the political establishment because quite frankly i think the political establishment is way too isolated from normal voters. they don't understand normal voters every day lives. that is why i fought automatic pay raises, that is why i never joined the congressional retirement system and will never get a penny. that is why i fought the obamacare exemption and don't get that subsidy. and led the fight to establish term limits in louisiana. i believe in that concept and think we need to return to citizen legislatures not politics as a profession. >> thank you, mr. vitter. now mr. edwards, it is your turn to pose a question. >> david, in the past 16 years you only passed five of 566

bills you authored. you have been called the most corrupt member of congress and been named the least effective member of both parties and don't show up to work. the best indicator of what someone does tomorrow is what they did yesterday. and you show you are more concerned with helping your friends than being accountable to voters and taxpayers. how is it you don't represent a third bobby jindel term? >> you are completely misrepresenting my record. you talk about bills you introduced that passed. you have to look at things i fought for and worked with others on on a bipartisan bases or was a prime author on that did pass. that record of bipartisan accomplishment i will put next to anybody certainly including yours. a water resources bill i

co-wrote with barbara boxer of california is important for coastal measures. fixing the flood insurance crisis, i helped lead that effort, yes with others on a bipartisan bases. coastal restoration i have been involved in that and making huge progress made in the last several years to fund the work we need to do. hurricane recovery. i worked non-stop with our delegation, with others, to pull us out of the dark time in terms of recovery from katrina and rita. i have a full record of bipartisan accomplishment. >> your rebuttal. >> 5-565 bills does speak for itself. you have been named the least effective members of congress. you have one of the worst att d

attendance record of all hundred members in the united states state senate and you said you endorse bobby three times. i like him and respect his leadership and agree with all of this political values is your record. >> follow-up questions, reporters. >> i would like to bring it back to the state legislature and how you will interact with lawmakers. would you all have a plan to testify in front of committees or would you not? >> i would as i said a few minutes ago. i am a very hands-on person. i would be interacting with individual legislatures as i do now. most have my personal cell and i interact with them constantly. i would be on the floor or off the floor in committees. that is a different governing style we have seen in the last several years. i exhibited that governor style in the u.s. senate with real

effectiveness. >> mr. edwards, would you like to continue? >> i will testify i lead from the front. i lead by example. i will testify in support of the bills i am proposing to the legislature. i will meet with the leadership, and rank and file members of the legislature in the house and senate. i will tell you i have not had a meeting with bobby jindel in many months. >> we need to move on to the next topic. >> k-12 education. jeremy, you have the question. >> we have seen significant reforms and changes over the last 20 years including school accountability measures for teachers and students, growth in the recovery school districts, charter schools, and this is in addition to vouchers and school choice mechanisms. aside from common core, could you pick a couple you would keep or strengthen or get rid of from the list i just went through.

mr. edwards? >> i will support charter schools. when charter schools help the perishes and the perishes are in need of help. however, i believe in local control of education. i believe that local taxpayers and voters and parents ought to be able to hold their school board members accountable for how dollars are spent and children are educated. if a district has an a or b better grade, i believe they should have the final decision of a new charter school opening in that district or not. if the letter grade is a c, d, or f, i think it is probably appropriate for the board to have the opportunity to review and perhaps reverse the denial of that charter application. i also have no plans to end the voucher system. it was unconstitutional when it was passed. i voted against it for that reason and the supreme court held it was unconstitutional. i will not end it but i will confirm to its stated purpose

which is to give parents of kids trapped in failing schools a choice. >> jeremy, this is a huge issue where john bel and i have different records. on all of the reform efforts i have been an active leader for charter and voucher scholarships. choice empowers parents particularly from poor families. accountability, i have been in support of that. john bel's record is consistent in the opposite direction against charters. he would limit those opportunities as we just admitted voting against the voucher scholarship proposal when it first came up. voting consistently against accou accountability over and over again because fundamentally he has been doing the work and charting the course of the

teacher's union not parents, not empowering parents who need it the most. >> thank you, mr. edwards. it is now your opportunity to pose a question to mr. vitter on the education topic. >> just like bobby jindel, you were for common core before being against it. you were a strong supporter and then against it in a fundrais g fundraisinging letter, then for it again, and you now flip-flopped again and want people to believe you are against it. you have put your personal interest ahead of the common interest and when the political winds change so do you. just like bobby jindel you put personal ambition over what is best for students and teachers. on this issue, why should louisiana parents trust you today? >> you are talking about common core first of all. it is you who said at the press club, with the respect to the

common core standards you were okay with the sarntands. in the advocate you said in 2014 quote the standards are fine close quote. you said there is no conspiracy about common core and this is not a federal takeover of education. you said that about common core. not me. i have a specific plan to get us out of common core and the park test. it has been part of my plan in the race. it is all at davidvitter.com and part of my detailed plan on the challenges we face. >> senator, i have been voting against common core since brought to the legislature in 2014. that is my record. 2014 and in 2015. i did make statements such that the standards themselves are not a communist conspiracy but i never said the standards should be adopted without being vetted by parents and educators and

made the changes where necessary. that is my record from the beginning. i have been against common core. my voting record is hundred percent consistent on that. i have never flip-flopped. you flip-flopped and flip-flopped again. >> mr. vitter, it is your turn to ask a question on k-12 education. >> i want to go back to the choice in education because i think it is premier civil right issue of time. whether every child in louisiana has the right to a great education. as discussed before, you were in favor of limiting the opportunity to establish charter schools and you would not allow it unless an entire system is drf. that would cut out 6800 students in lafayette perish for example who are in d or f schools from being able to enjoy new charter schools.

state-wide that is 170,000 kids who are in d or f schools. >> your question? >> you are limiting those charter opportunities. what do you say to those poor families who are not going to get the full charter opportunities because of your specific legislation? >> first of all, when it comes to voucher, i voted against this because it was unconstitutional. my oath of office means something to me. when it says you will support the constitution of the united states and the laws of the state of louisiana i take it seriously. my decision was affirmed by the supreme court. money stolen from the local school districts had to be returned so the students could receive the services they were entitled. i believe in local control of education. when a school district is performing well it ought to be in control of the decision of a new charter school opening. otherwise, the creation of a charter school diverts funding

away from the programs that made that school district successfully to begin with. i believe that is the right thing to do. because if parent and leaders don't have the ability to hold them accountability it is only a matter of time until they stop authorizing new taxes. >> there are failing schools in the districts you are talking about. you will limit and trap the students without more choices and voucher scholarships would give them. the record is the record. you can try to talk a good game but on education you have fought all of these reforms every step of the way. you fought the voucher scholarships. you tried to limit charters. you co-authored at least four different bills to curtail charter schools. certainly accountability.

you have not consistently opposed common core but you have opposed accountability and that is what you are trying to point to in terms of supposed opposition of common more. >> thank you. we are out of time on this topic but we go to the next one with kelly and posed to mr. vitter >> louisiana has been dealing with significant budget cuts. the legislature raised more than $700 million in new revenue yet another huge shortfall looms. given where we stand today, do we solve the problem by shrinking state government or should we better match revenue with spending? >> kelly, quite frankly we need to do both. i have a balanced approach on both sides of the equation. i laid out the approach months ago in our detailed plan on our website at davidvitter.com. the first thing i would do is

call a special legislation session focused on this. i would start on the spending side and have reforms to undedicate most areas of the budget so we can roll up the sleeves and cut the spending in those areas we cannot afford or are wasteful and off limits. that is why higher-ed has cuts that are not porportioniate. and we need to get rid of certain exemptions and credits that don't produce for the economy or taxpayers. i think as opposed to john bel i would have a balanced approach that looks at both sides of the equation. >> mr. edwards? >> kelly, we have to do both. you look for new ways to create efficiency and deliver state services with a cost savings. you have to expand the

flexibility to allocate cuts across a broader spectrum of the budget so you are not focusing on higher education and health care. you do that by looking at the statutory dedications. but also the constitutional dedications. but those are harder and take longer because you have to get two 3rds vote in the legislature and approvaled by the voters themselves. we will september federal dollars back into the louisiana as well. when they help meet obligations to the people and save us we will do that with the medicaid expansi expansion. we will focus on growing the economy and not incentivising the government where there is no growth. the biggest thing is reduce or eliminate tax gave aways that cost too much or don't return. we can create savings to reallocate to high rer priority

items >> you may ask the question on budget and tax. >> john bel talks about a balanced approach but his record is different. it is another area where we have completely different records which suggest would lead in different directions. this past year in the legislative session you voted for $2.1 billion in taxes. you have a plan on your website you are touting that is a $1.5 billion tax increase on the 165,000 families involved. you have never specifically authored a single piece of legislation to undedicate any area of the budget. you have never authored a singleal piece of legislation to cut in those areas. that is not a balanced record. why should voters believe you in saying that you are going to take a balanced approach when the concreate record is very,

very different. it is all taxes -- concrete -- >> the voters shouldn't believe you and the ridiculous question you asked with figures you made up. my record is clear. i did vote for the things i talked about. reducing tax give aways that cost too much and don't produce enough return on investment to create savings that we then reallocate to higher priorities like saving lsu, like making sure the safety net hospital system stayed open, making sure the medical school in sheave port had the money to continue to operate. those were the hard choices we had to make. i did vote for those measures because they were the right thing to do and consistent with what i said i will continue to do as our governor. we will not stay in this ditch we are in under jindel.

we will roll up the sleeves and pull ourselves out and finance our priorities. that is my commitment. >> i asked about a balanced approach and what is on the saving and reform of government side. you talked about a tax measure: getting rid of an exemption. >> your record is all taxes, no budget reform, and no savings. that is the record. you have not authored a single bill to undedicate any part of the budget. if i can missing, name the bill. you have not authored a single bill to go into the areas and cut the budget. you have never proposed or led in that effort. but you voted for $2.1 billion in taxes this year and you are

proposing more. >> your pledge to out of state interest cause you to repeatedly to vote to send our jobs overseas. jobs of louisiana residents and americans. bobby caused the state's dodge budget to employed. you have been unfaithful to use taxpayers and why should they believe you changed? >> i have taken no pledge to glover nor quest in dealing with challenges in the state budget and laid out a truly balanced approach in terms of doing that. you refer to bobby jindel constantly but the fact of the matter is i have on several occasions publically fought, butted heads, and disagreed with bobby on things. his use of one-time money to plug the budget hole, you voted a lot for that, but i opposed

him in 2012. i led the charge to stop abusive legacy lutawsuits. i dragged him kicking and screaming to propose and pass that reform. in contrast when have you every publically disagreed strongly with your party leader barack obama? when did you stand up at the 2012 national democratic convention and say he is wrong on this? he is wrong on obamacare or gay marriage or anything else? it has never happened in any public way. >> mr. edwards? >> you are wrong. you signed the glover anti-tax reform. you said you have not signed it but you lied. you signed the pledge in washington, d.c. and in fact, i have stood up

against the president with respect to the moratorium. i voted for a resolution calling on him to direct the secretary of interior to take that moratorium down. just the other day, i stood up and opposed the decision not to go forward with the keystone pipeline because that is the wrong decision for our country and our state. it would create jobs, allow for energy independence and if you believe sitting here tonight that the president poses the biggest threat to our future in louisiana, you need to stay in wash and deal with that. >> time is over for this topic, we need to move on. >> we can continue that conversation because in the next topic we are talking about and that is workforce development. jeremy, your question. >> we have been told there is an industrial boom coming for qualified workers particularly in the technology field. in southwest louisiana there is

a need of 35,000 jobs over the next five years. me century link in monroe is trying to bring in engineers and technical workers to fill jobs but are finding it difficult. can you give two or three examples of what you will do to address the need over the next four years? >> this is critically important -- and one generation's time we are going from a time when 25% of people needed education beyond high school to get a good job and now that number is two thirds of the people. you have to invest in higher education, four year university and community and technical colleges. the straight of louisiana has cut state support for higher education more than any other state in the nation over the last eight years and raised tuition on its kids more than any other state in the nation in the same time period. that is the perfect recipe for

disaster. we have to do better and align the workforce needs with job creation opportunities out there so that kids are getting the education that allows them to have the certified skills and training necessary to land the jobs. we have to do it around the state. you were talking about century ling in monroe. since the end of the session in 2010, job creation is positive but when you get to alexandria and north to is zero. a key to address this is invest in the higher education around the state. >> jeremy, i have a lot of proposals on my website. our mari skare -- maritime sector it very important.

i proposed structural reform so we would focus on ports, maritime and have leaders built into led and dot to help me do that. a subcabinet focused on growing those jobs. secondly, we need to be more effective in terms of addressing the burden of litigation. we need litigation reform because we are hurting because of abusive lawsuits led by trial lawyers, who by the way are funding vitter's campaign. i laid out reforms for this like texas did in the 1990's and that was a major factor leading to their very robust economy. there are other detail proposals in the plan. >> mr. edwards, question for mr. vitter. >> david, you have consistently voted against job training against louisiana's veterans

many who are seeking employment after their dedication and service. what kind of plan is it if you not dedicate your time to this? >> i have a strong record in terms of supporting our veterans. it starts with individual cases. helping them get the proper treatment and benefits they need. i spend a lot of time personally, along with my great staff, helping veterans on those issues with great results. talk to the veterans who have interacted with my office. talk to them and ask them how they feel about my representation of them. we are getting community-based clinics >> the question is about job

training. >> job training at the va. i sponsored legislation as the chair of the small business community to put increased fluence through the va specifically for veterans as they make the transition from war time to work. i helped lead that effort. >> david, your record is you voted against the gi's educational bill for veterans moving it from $1100 to $1500 in 2008. in 2012 you voted no on the veteran's job core act that would have invested 1 billion in veterans. you voted no on the national defense appropriation act to help prepare members of the armed forces for civilian employment. your record is horrible.

it is your turn mr. vitter. >> economic development and workforce development is critical. you are trying to portray this myth that you are a conservative or moderate. you are in the middle. you are going to unite and you have a mainstream record. but if you look at the record it is different. leading pro-business groups and economic development groups give you a low score. national federation of independent business, 23% rating. the top economic development group in the state, louisiana association of business and industry, 25% lifetime rating. that is lower than mitch and mary landry and bill jefferson. that is the bottom 10% of shh legislature. why should voters think that is a pro-economic, workforce development record, that will grow jobs and the economy? >> theluti louisiana associatio

businesses gave 90 legislatures f grades and i was one because it didn't like the way we supported the universities, hospitals and people of louisiana. i will tell you the louisiana association of business and industry is headed by someone who is a very strong supporter and former executive council and chief of staff to bobby jindel. today they endorsed you because they want a third jindel term except they would like to have it on steroids. when it comes to voting records, i don't intend to give anybody a hundred percent except for my wife. >> again, john bel, you try to portray yourself as a conservative. the record is the report -- record and it suggests something different. i am not talking about this year giving these f's this year.

i am talking about a lifetime rating of 25%. i am talking about comparing that life time rating to mitch landrieu and they all score higher. i am talking about the fact you are in the bottom 10% in terms of ratings about jobs and economic development. that is not conservative or moderate or anything of the like. >> time to move on to another topic and kelly will talk about health care. >> yes, in the realm of education, similary our state has seen changes in the way public health care is delivered. would you keep the policies we have now and work out the issues we face or go into different direction all together? mr. vitter? >> you mentioned a few things. the public-private partnerships are a good reform but need work. i specifically have been proactive leading the charge to improve the pub linebacker

partnership in louisiana. i support log chip and thing it is important and needs to be in the mix. medicaid expans is a huge issue in this area. we have strong differences on that. john bel would immediately lunge into the medicaid expansion under obamacare and barack obama's terms. i would only consider it under louisiana's terms. kentucky's cost soared beyond anything they projected. kentucky's cost are double what they projected. they are facing a budget crisis and just elected a new republican governor largely on that issue. those are the differences. >> i support the move for the public-private partnerships and

we have to make it work. the state owes the federal government $190 million because of the plan being illegal to draw down dollars we were not entitled to. we have to strengthen that. we went to a manage care plan administered by five insurance companies. we are going to expand the medical program when i am governor. it is the louisiana plan we already reformed it. they would have saved $52 million this year alone. that is how it was scored. 30 states have done it. 13 with republican governors. this isn't right versus left. this is right versus wrong and i

will do it as governor. >> the biggest issue around health care is obamacare. the core of obamacare and medicaid expansion. john bel, you have supported all of that including the core m mandates of obamacare. hb-429, clear vote. and that fundamental mandate is what through 98,000 louisiana residents off the health care plans they had and wanted to keep. obamacare said no, we are not allowing that. we know better and that is not good enough. that fundamental mandate led to increased in cost. folks are getting their premiums now and they are soaring. what do you say to middle class louisiana families who got thrown off a plan they wanted to keep and face the soaring premiums >> i say the affordable care act

came from congress and that is where you sit. we are not voting in louisiana on mandates for obamacare. you are making that up. if you are worried about health insurance premiums going up you should support medicaid expansion. every family with private insurance is paying $1,000 a year extra to pay for the private care and because the hospitals are not getting compensated they are building it into the contracts and that results in higher premiums. we are paying the taxes to the federal government and not accepting them back so that 250,000 of the worker poor get the benefit of health care coverage with our tax dollars that are instead going to other states that did that we are paying more in terms of private insurance. that is a disaster for this state. we need to do better by our people. we need to bring those dollars home. we need to save the tax dollars in the process. it is just the right thing to do.

it is called putting louisiana first and i know that is foreign, david, but we need to do that. >> the record is the record. it is all at lagovernorfacts.com in case you want to look. very specific vote in 2014. hb-429. it was a vote by you and you sided with the president. that is siding with the people of louisiana. that is what through 98,000 louisiana residents off the health care they wanted to keep. they used a model i am proposing. they didn't say we will do it under our terms. they negotiated their own terms. you have a chance to pose a question. >> while in congress, you voteded to end medicare for 70,000 louisiana seniors. that has no place in government. the seniors deserve to know

whether you plan to balance our budget on their backs as well. how can you justify ending one of the most successful insurance programs in history and ask the seniors to pay more. >> john bel, you know i am for medicaid and have voted to end it as you know it. you know that is the case. this attack is exactly what we hear from the national democrats. i hear this from harry reid over and over on the senate floor. i hear it from barack obama over and over. i never said i want to end made care as we know it. i never voted that way. one of several reasons i voted against obamacare is it stole from medicare. it stole $750 billion to create a new entightment and weakened medicare. that is why record on medicare. -- entitlement -- i am proud of my record. you are spreading the old fears

and lies of national democrats. we hear it all of the time from harry reid, barack obama and all of the rest. >> you hear it all of the time because it is your record in. in 2013 and 2014 you voted budgets that would turn medicare into voucher system and increased the cost on seniors and made them pay the difference. that is your record. that is the paul ryan budget you have supported. the people of louisiana need to know that you will treat them better. they deserve better retirement plans and need a governor who will not budget the balance on their back. >> if we are moving from one thorny topic to another one and that is the state's infrastructure; roads, highways,

ports and everything questioned. jeremy? >> i am sure you know what number i am going to say which is $12 billion. the back log of projects in louisiana. there is not enough to address the larger problem. how would you generate more money or is it time to concede this is too big of an issue to deal with? how do we break the tradition? >> until you fix the trust fund, it is premature to ask the people of louisiana to pay more whether that is a toll or additional gasoline tax. up to $60 million has been leaving the transportation trust fund not paying for roads and bridges but going to the state

police. that is wrong and not the expectation of the taxpayers when they paid the gas taxpayer. i will get the trust fund under control in the first year. i will wean the state police out of the trust fund and that is $60 million. i am increase by 25% the amount of the capital bill and that is an additional $75 million per year. as soon as we do that, we will double the investment in the port priority program from 20 million to 40 million overnight. that is the right thing to do. once we clean it up and see we don't have enough revenue to go forward and maintain the system we have in terms of highways then and only then will we consider tol tolls or other revenue measures. >> we cannot ask the hard working citizens of louisiana to put more money in the bucket whether there are gaping holes at the bottom of the bucket.

that is the situation now and john bell voted for that situation. that is the situation now. last year only 11 cents of every dollar of revenue associated with the state transportation trust fund went to roads and bridges. went to concrete and asphalt. that is ridiculous. i have a detailed plan to change that. it is all at davidvitter.com. i have a second plan to lead an effort among chambers, business groups, and leading legislatures to develop a high priority building program. high priority projects in key areas of the state to spur economic development linked to new revenue, tied to that. go to the voters and citizens and say this is what we will build in a finite amount of time. if you support it we will not spend the money any other way. it would go to voters and

citizens to earn their approval. >> a question on infrastructure, mr. vitter. >> david, you have been rated the least effective member of congress, the fifth highest absence rate among 554 peers and nowhere does it show in any other area than transportation. you have not helped finish i-49 or back up the projects jeremy asked us about. you even worked against securing loan forgiveness after hurricane katrina for local governments. >> why don't you talk to local leaders and officials about my record. you will hear a different story. >> no, i didn't. >> i have been a leader on i-49 including as a high ranking republican on that committee.

we have brought significant money to virtually finish i-49 north and to start i-49 south in a major way. through that work on that committee i have helped turn louisiana from a donor state. we were spending more money through federal gas tax to the federal government than we received back whether i went to congress it was about 93 cents on the dollar. we are no longer a donor state. we are getting more back than we send to the federal government because of the reforms and the work i did with others. and there are lots of specific projects. la-1, i-49, many critical projects around louisiana, relief in baton rouge and greater new orleans that have benefited as a result. we need to go farther and i am working on a federal highway bill. >> david, the fact of the matter is you have been ineffective in

the senate and worked against the local government in louisiana when they sought loan forgiveness after hurricane rita and katrina. >> i secured the loan forgi forgiveness. >> i get my information from the local people who lead the municipalities and perishes. >> mr. vitter, you can continue the conversation with the question. >> john bel is misrepresenting the record. i helped secure the loan forgiveness. talk to the leaders who received it in key perishes. but john bel, you are always talking about fighting the former governor, in fact, there have been eight budgets you voted for and supported five of them. on this critical issue of infrastructure they were horrendous and stole from the transportation trust fund.

you voted for 5-8 budgets. hundreds of millions and voted for the very budget i was referring to under which only 11 cents of every dollar of that revenue goes to roads and bridges and steel and concrete. why should voters believe as governor you will do something different? lagovernorfacts.com. that is your record. >> i have voted for five budgets and that means i voted more budgets than the vast majority of my colleagues. the reason it is different is because i am going to be the governor. i am going to set the priorities. if you don't vote for the budget you don't pass a budget and nothing gets funded. but as governor, i will be able to control the process and make sure with that line item veto we will do the things i am talking about. just the most recent years we

voted for revenue to take it clear that the state police can get out of the transportation trust fund. that is going to happen in the first year. zero dollars are going to be aappropriated to the police. that is my commitment to the people of louisiana. we have the revenue in place to make sure that happens. i did support that revenue because i want to be in a position to make sure that we can restore faith and confidence to the people of louisiana in the trust fund. >> again, john bel, there is an enormous gap between your rhetoric and the vote. you talk about battling bobby jindel but supported 5-8 of his budgets. you voted for the state fund and it was rated over and over, hundreds of millions, and you voted for the budget under which 11 cents of every dollar, only

11 cents goes to transportation, and everything else is rated. that is the record. your red -- rhetoric is different. >> gentlemen, we have come to the last topic of the evening. time constraints say let's each do 30 second response on the first question. i give it to the reporters. >> gentlemen, both of you in recent forums have discussed trackers following you and your family with video camera and the media in louisiana is writing about private investigators. have you and your campaign hired professionals to carry out the such behavior? if so, have they done anything you regret? >> it is the reality of campaigns i have lived with for years. i have lived with the trackers for many years and they

associated with every campaign. we have not directly hired them. but others in support of my campai campaign. it is a free country. in terms of negative campaigns. there is nobody who has been the target of more negative campaigning than me. there are eight different entities attacking me. three in the primary, three of their assoc aceationsation -- association. >> the short answer is no. senator vitter spent $156,000 on private investigation and lied saying the money was spent on legal fees. he said it is free country and

he is sending private investigators to spy on the sheriff. louisiana doesn't need more scandal. i urge everybody to go to www.ltv.com and watch the cferee given. >> a question for mr. edwards. >> john bel, follow up on this. you never hired the parts but the state democratic party does it on your behalf. you say you don't do negative campaigning but you have the most vicious negative ad up that veterans have been offended by and asked you to take at a down. you have nothing to do with the trial lawyer pac that has been running negative campaigns in the millions of dollars for months. isn't that disingenuine?

you are not living by the honor code. you are living by the lawyers' code trying to parse words. >> mr. vitter, a question. >> nors -- my campaign has not played for a tracker or private investigator. i have not seen any footage of you anywhere from a tracker. i understand you don't like it. it hits you where you live. >> i am not talking about me saying anything. you have missing out on your

deals in congress in order to engage extra curriculum activities. >> >> you said the trial lawyers were working for jay garden. now it is benefiting you to say they are working for me. >> let's each one of you who have had a chance to ask a question we are almost to the closing comments. why don't you get 30 seconds and you get 30 seconds. 30 seconds, vitter. >> again, john bel, you are being dis-in genuine to suggest the trial lawyers are not doing your dirty work.

you are living by on honor code of technicality. >> i am not suggesting anything. i am not looking at video foot null from you. have haven't hired a private investigator to go after you. the last part of the honor code is i will not tolerate those who do. you are a liar. and a cheater >> what have you said -- >> i don't tolerate that. >> if you don't agree with tlar behavior why are you tolerating and benefiting from their behavior? what we will do now is go to closing remarks. we are just about out of time for the hour debate. we thank you for your candid and energetic commentary. we will go to the closing remarks. >> this is certainly an important election.

we have two candidates for governor. john bel edwards and myself who could not offer more starkly different voting records and political philosophy and therefore directions in which we would lead the state. it is pretty clear that john bel edwards wants to talk about anything but the future. he wants to talk about anything about those records and philosophies and where we would lead the state. that is because his campaign is built on a myth that he is some sort of conservative and we don't differ much on the issues when we absolutely do. so, i humbly ask for your vote and support and ask you look on the key issues and how we differ on job creation. his ranking is at the bottom of the barrel. on education my support of charter and accountability and

reforms and john bel has the opposite record supporting the teachers's unions not parents, families and children. >> thank you. mr. edwards? >> i want to thank the veterans. we are on the eve of veteran's day and i want to thank them for the service of the country. when i decided to serve the country nobody asked if was a democrat or republican. which candidate is best able to lead the state right now after eight years of miserable failed poliauolicie policies? leadership to bring the people together, performance agreement, and tackle the biggest problems and challenges and provide real opportunity for our children in louisiana. that is my record in the legislature as a leader. i will fight against anyone of any party when they do harm to use. and i will find along the side

of anyone of any party when they want to do our state good. ...unting task

host: joining us now is tim roemer who served as a representative in indiana from 1991 to 2003 and is now the strategic advisor joining us this morning to talk about money in politics. could you tell us a little bit about issue one. >> we are not for profit and are very concerned about the growing issue of money in our political is something that i think your viewers know very well to it seems like most of america knows that there is a big problem with .26% of americans about two thirds of the elections getting too big of an influence on our legislators and there is a lot of good movement across the country from

the common sense of the people with ballot initiatives in seattle and maine to clean up and yet here in washington, the most powerful place in the world seems to be insulated from it. and pedro, i think what is happening with the influence in politics is that we have formed a stork group of over 100 republicans and democrats, former members of the house and senate and governor's to take back our government to say with the american people to washington to the capital right that seems to be disconnected and dysfunctional from this, we need our democracy back. we need the middle class and we need the poor of this country and the voices heard from everybody, not just those with access to money. reformersand the caucus, this group of 100 former

legislators working to restore our trust in democracy and what has happened, pedro, what happens is catastrophic. we are at a tipping point. when people lose trust in their government, they tend to vote less, they tend to believe that our great capital that is the place to represent the people, they not only don't vote, they don't believe in our institutions of government. they don't want to participate in those institutions, and this great democracy that jefferson, lincoln and our founding fathers talked about which was a beacon to the rest of the world, when i served in india and when i travel around the world today, people are starting to look at us and say, what is wrong in america? greaten't you guys the

voice of democracy that you have always been. you are the inspiration. take back the government. how: give a for instance of big money has skewed to you can go back to the previous campaign cycle. former member of congress, i was blessed to represent my hometown and night ran against a republican incumbent in 1990 and i got outspent three to one and i still won. it wasn't just about the amount of money you could raise, it was about your ideas. it was about knocking on doors in getting people involved. it was about how hard you worked and hopefully your integrity and your ideas. today, it is about money. money is not only determining who wins, it is determining who runs and who can even get in the race.

more and more, that didn't ask minorities, women, the poor. those folks are stunning to say i cannot even run for congress because i don't know millionaires or donors. the politicalto system yet we are seeing some good changes. are seeing this rising up and percolating across america that states and local governments are saying enough is enough we need and werency, disclosure need to do something about the citizens united. we want our legislators here to do something, too. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. give your thoughts on twitter.

money in politics for campaign to 16 is our topic. tim roemer is our guest. and congressample is you only have so much time in a day and these folks in washington are hard-working people, honest, tenacious and one to represent their constituents and yet they are spending more and more of their time raising money. we say and member of congress might spend 40% or 50% of their time on the phone at democratic or republican headquarters raising money. why is that not good? they are not spending time with their constituents and may not spend time in committee hearings and may not help us solve problems whether it be climate change syria, terrorism, balancing the budget, whether you are liberal or conservative, this money interest issue works against all of us.

we all pay a price for this. if people are spending 50% to 60% of their time raising money, and who are they talking to? they are not talking to the middle class or the poor, they are talking to the big check writers and also about their own selfish interests. that really skews our democracy. we need legislators working for a system that represents all people. host: what is the most practical way to even that out? issueswe have a lot of -- solutions with issue one. what is transparency and disclosure. whenever there is a contribution, you have to disclose it immediately. be super pac black money for secret money coming into campaigns at the last minute, nobody knows where it is coming from or who is funding it. that ways theey

governor's race or merrill race at the last minute and secondly we are for enforcement with teeth and power. today is divided 3-3 between democrats and republicans. we need to reform that body so it has teeth and enforcement mechanism so if somebody breaks the lot they will pay a price for it and they will go to jail and we will have election laws that work and represent all the people. and we need new jurisprudence and legal action. we need buckley versus valeo and citizens united overturned. money is not speech, money is our party and it should not be equated with the freedom of speech. i think that if congress would pass a law to define and regulate money, maybe then the supreme court would weigh in and

maybe even without a new justice they may overturn the flawed weisions of the past and need to disconnect and cut the cord of lobbying with giving money and politics directly. >> we are people lined up to talk to you. >> will start with tom and texas, republican line, go ahead. c-span, i justg wanted to say that every year, only a tiny fraction of the oney spent campaigning campaigns is spent on republicans and democrats because you have these leftist pbs, cb -- like abc, cbs spending billions of dollars every year campaigning on behalf of democrats attacking republican so your guest said that money is not speech. support strictl limits on the amount of money cbs, pbs, nprnbc,

every year to produce their products pay their employees and pay their expenses every year, is that correct? guest: tom asked say good question within that. but we are a nonpartisan organization. we want to get spending whether it is a leftist organization or a right-wing organization. we want a system that represents all of american so they all have a voice. sweater that money is being raised and spent by a secret left-wing pack or a right-wing pack, we have democrats and republicans coming together with for thosemer's caucus of you following this back home and across the country. care what kind of

partisan organization is raising the money, we are equal opportunity reformer. want them all to be under the same rules left and right, democrats and republicans with a big donor on the left and the right and they should all disclose and have immediate transparency, they should all be limited by new jurisprudence and overturning the clay versus valeo.- buckley versus flawed that was a decision that needs to be overturned. host: from bill in sebastian, florida. independent line. ifler: i would like to know your alliance will do anything about tpp. it will kill the middle class here in america.

some of these governments that we will be dealing with our on the shady side. alabama and the voting suppression, what they have done with the motor vehicle bureaus. spending specialized -- to these, or any others? the first point, tpp, the transpacific partnership, which president obama has been advocating, whether you are democrat or republican, the presidential race, i hope, will how we create an infrastructure in america to create more jobs so the middle class, the working poor, the

people who lost jobs have opportunities again. i come from the heart of the midwest. many fracturing created -- manufacturing created all kinds of jobs. we need an america that really supports the private sector, the public sector, research and development, state and private business sectors that will do thanks to create jobs. i hope we hear more about that at the republican debate tonight. i know hillary clinton, and others are talking about how to work and create those jobs, and how to engage in the trading system in the world. about spending and voter repression, i think part of the reason why people are not voting is because they feel like no one cares about their voice. their voice cannot be heard with this influx of money anyway. it is the people writing the

$100,000 and $1 million checks that are drowning out everyone else. talking about ways to increase loading turnout, respect for dream for ahe democracy the ahead as a kid to run for an office one day, and winning. we did. i was lucky. we want to support issue one and the performers caucus. you talk about the presence of campaign. donald trump is self funding his campaign. what you think about that approach? he is not taking money from anybody. guest: i think he has said some very positive things about campaign finance reform. money gets you access. he has given examples of getting money in the past influencing legislators and people in

congress. that should not be the case. that should not dominate people 's time.people people trying to raise that money and not in their oversight jobs, not in their committees -- when you are democratic or republican, you are concerned about jobs, guns, climate change, or balance budgets. this money, special interest, dominating politics hurts everybody's agenda left and right. it paralyzes the system and causes people to not believe in it. host: carl is up next from michigan for our guest. .aller: hi c-span, i'm a big fan. i want to tell you, at the outset, your landmark cases series is fantastic. every patient taking a chance to watch that. mr. roemer, citizens united has

bothered me since it happened. however, the free speech battle of it, i don't know if i can really argue that much. congress could pass a law to cap contributions. talking about donald trump spending his own money, maybe a lot of people will tune into that, but that says that says the only rich people can run for office. also, i've been following this for a week or so, the reports about 150 families -- what was the percent of the money donated? .26% of americans donating two thirds of the money to congress, and over half of the money for presidential elections. caller: we're talking about 60% plus being donated by approximately 150 families? guest: that is correct. caller: that is the worst part. to me, these people have this

kind of money, they are not paying enough taxes. guest: directly to your point, it is a very good point. plus, i agree with you on complimenting pedro and the good work that c-span is doing. it has to come back to buckley vallejo.l citizens united was a terribly flawed decision, but buckley equatedted money to -- money to speech. you are absolutely right that we have to do something about limiting expenditures. there were laws that worked prior to 1972. i know, i have talked to my colleagues that limited campaign expenditures at the campaign level. ,hey ran for election, they won they lost. it was a fair assessment of

their skills and strengths. we can do it. it has worked in this country before. they have limitations and places like great britain and canada about the time that you can run and the money that can be spent in democracies. then, to your point about donald trump, i also agree with you that even though donald trump may be saying some good things about the influence of money in campaigns and he is self funding, he is not relying so , the facter pac's that he is unbelievably wealthy wed can self fund -- cannot afford to have our congress made up of millionaires and people who can run. this process of evolving through the 1990's and 2000s, people started going to recruit candidates not based on howr ideas, not based on

are they going to help america, not based on their patriotism, but based on how much money they could raise, if they were rich and could sell fund, if they had .ccess to a donor list we have to get that back. i think people like you across the country, we see people across the country recognizing this. we need people going out there and asking the presidential campaigns, what are you going to do about money in our elections? how are you going to solve this? how are going to make a difference. host: from new jersey. caller: good morning. what i would like to say is in pp, those are the ones

who send the jobs overseas. when we funded wall street, we had to do it because if we didn't, a lot of people would lose their 401(k)s. now, in terms of our economy, our economy is back because the american public has become so disconnected. we have a president of the united states who happens to be black. we happen to be blinded not to know why his programs are not going through. there are good programs. we have an industry that has been floundering for years. what we need to do is rebuild our infrastructure, our roads and bridges, using american steel and hiring the middle-class. it would pay taxes, they would pay into social security. lastly, we need to change our tax code. of the money to

the state, and 10% to the federal government, and 2% to the city, we will have enough money to do what we have to do. we just have to change the rate. you pay into social security, but you don't pay federal taxes. if we do that, this country would be revised. everybody would be happy, and the millionaires and billionaires cannot complain. host: we will let the guests respond. guest: i might vote for her for president. that was a good platform. i remember when president obama took office. i flew with him to my district where we had about a 19% unemployment rate. today, through the work of the president, the private sector,

the midwest, the states have been working hard on this, now we have 5% unemployment. we still have too many people underemployed, too many people not with the wage income they should be making. those wages have come down too fast and too far, but back to the caller's point, and back to the agenda that issue one or the reformers would support, how do we get congress paying attention to that very eloquent agenda? qualityle-class, the and justice and democracy, jobs, infrastructure. that is a middle-class and pro-america agenda. the bigep seeing money coming into the campaign .26% givinge point t

money to congress, i'm not sure they are the same -- their agenda is the same as the caller's. what convince you that that agenda is different than that of say the owner in any americans? guest: i get the feeling that when you talk to these reformers , we have over 100 of them who have signed up, and you get these confessionals where people talk about the influence of money and campaigns. some of them will tell anecdotal stories about the pentagon, for instance, and weapon systems that should be canceled, our antiquated -- are antiquated, do not protect our country. cut to be shinseki him and --

contributions that comment made y sustain something that wa would otherwise go on the back burner. they may have a brand-new idea on climate change -- instead of being in that committee hearing, .26%are raising money from . that agenda may be very different from what we just heard from the caller. host: a view or on twitter says, what do we do about loving -- lobbying? guest: she makes a good point. caucusve the reformer believes the constitution awards you a profession.

lobbying serves an important service to congress, however, the big disconnect here is lobbying and giving money directly to legislators. we should try to cut that connection. we have seen success on doing that very thing. in south carolina, they have and lobbiedobbyists the state legislator from giving to a candidate. that kind of legislative activity, that ban on the connection has been held up by the south carolina supreme court. you've seen the law goes through, the supreme court , and to the twitter question, that is something the reformers caucus would be in

favor of. caller: thank you. question.ple mentioned a few times now the ruling on citizens united. you have yet to bring up what about all the years the union backed the democrats? t supergot the bigges pac, the mainstream media. look at all the free advertising the democratic policies get. , if you bring down businesses' taxes, they will stay here and give jobs. you speak about the koch brothers all the time, what

about george soros? guest: i think that is a fair point. the reformers, a group of bipartisan democrats and republicans, we do not care if republicans or george soros, we need to do something about too much money in our political system. we need to restore the dream of democracy in our country, and get this under control. point, we going after everybody and anybody, treating them all the same. callers also to your point, we have heard this a couple different times, your callers keep saying over and over again, and i completely agree with them that the .iddle-class is getting a shaft

we need a middle-class agenda in congress. we need to build on what president obama has done, creating jobs with the private sector, restoring the dream of laddertter of -- of progress. a way to make sure that higher education is affordable. trying to make sure that that mentioned your caller is not stuck overseas, taking our jobs away from americans. that middle-class agenda, which should be passed through congress, but isn't, is probably being prevented partially from helping the corporations keep that money overseas. we need to bring that money back home to build factories and

create jobs. host: jerry, baltimore, maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. that youke the fact expunge going after both parties. i have a simple, maybe naive, way of attacking it. tax it. any contribution over $500 gets taxed. a progressive tax on all political contributions. .specially on the super pac a more aggressive, and i call some, tax on all money. taxes --m not a fan of

on raising taxes that would impact, especially the .iddle-class and the poor you are not doing anything about self-funded candidates that can still be willing to pay those taxes on anything over $500. people can still flood the system with not just thousand dollars contributions, but million-dollar constitutions that no one knows where they are coming from. that issue solution one at a bipartisan group of republicans and democrats have come up with is a better way to do it and get out all the different ways that is coming in. overturning buckley versus vallejo, and citizens united. a disconnect between lobbyists

giving my directly to legislators, and enforce them that gets in the flood of money from all different directions. i wish i had a silver bullet for you. i wish i could just say, here is one answer. even the constitutional amendment, which i would support , and think might eventually get passis, if congress would a law, and the supreme court would have to decide on that, that woul could be the deal that overturns buckley versus citizens united. host: how far would it bring it down? guest: you have congress that could pass a law and forced the supreme court to decide on it. you have presidential candidates the i hope will here, for instance tonight, i hope we will trump,n carson or donald or marco rubio, or john kasich, or somebody talk specifically

about what they would do in the white house to do something about this flood of money and taking interests, and in away the dream of democracy. do they support immediate disclosure? with a support supreme court justices that would overturn buckley versus vallejo and citizens united? we have had some candidates already say they would interview a potential supreme court nominee and asked him specifically about this question. that is extraordinary. all the time you hear presidential candidate say there should not be a litmus test, yet, this time, we are hearing people started to say, this is so important to the health of democracy and the beacon of our hope to other countries internationally, when we go to china, and we talk about human rights and democracy, we don't want to defend the system that is flooded with big money.

we want to talk about how this works for everybody -- the poor, the middle class, the jobless person, the person with the 12 great education, the rich, the wall street people. it should work for everybody, and not be skewed for people who can pay. host: in that case, it would be the legislator? as well money interests as raising money. isn't it hard to walk away from that kind of money? was not to raise money. my job was to legislate and listen, and be a commonsense , andn for my middle-class the people i grew up with in my hometown. i thought about the people i went to high school with, people who lost a job. to some of your callers very

poignant and good questions this morning, i remember a plant 1993, and 1992 or somebody lost their job, and they committed suicide. that job meant everything to them. that was their dignity. that was their way to say to their kids, i'm somebody important, i help provide for this family. this middle-class agenda, and this job creation agenda that we need to get back to so that this country continues to be the and propelledracy forward if we want to do something about money and her politics. tim roemer, of issue one, also former representative of indiana joining us to talk about politics. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents here comes mark from massachusetts. caller: a beautiful good morning, gentlemen. i agree with a lot of what mr. roemer, has been saying. this citizens united decision and they'll in the coffin? like i said, i agree with you. i will let you comment on that a second. , isaking contributions be,inuating that it is a brid or the politicians are some help indebted to the people who have given them money? tpp, youabout the

have covered so much ground in the past half-hour, it is hard to keep track. guest: i don't know if that is a compliment or an insult, but we have covered a lot of ground. caller: about the tpp, isn't the i grew upree trade -- in a manufacturing area too, and there is a reason why we have lost these jobs. people don't want to make i amrts, to use that, what familiar with. guest: great questions. let me try to get to all of them and remember all of them. the citizens united decision, i agree with you, a terrible decision. it builds on buckley versus vallejo. both need to be overturned.

i think buckley is even more important. you used the term, "mel in the nail in the coffin." i think that is why you have seen this group of democrats and , people around the country representing 40 of the , we have to do something about that today, now, we have to get washington, d.c., the beltway people, paying attention to this. 80% of republicans think the system is broken and dysfunctional and needs to be either entirely broken down and th democratsof think that.

back to the decision of buckley and united, we have also heard supreme court justices start to deal, this is not working. maybe even short of a new justice who can help us overturn buckley and united, maybe they would revisit it because they recognize now, even with this , itrent court recognizes this is creating almost the death of democracy. i don't want to overstate it, but we are in a crisis here. secondly, a bribe -- that is a strong term, but it is getting close to the heart of the matter. when you only have so much time in a day as a legislator or presidential candidate -- for instance, i would love to hear one of the moderators tonight say to marco rubio, or when the

democrats are there, bernie sanders, or whoever, how much time every day do you spend raising money? how much a week? how much in the last month? those questions have to be asked . when you are spending all your time with those people, it is , if thatch a bribe is all you are listening to, you are not listening to the middle class, people working in the products toreating build a strong america, where we ,an export to other markets where we compete based on the best product, as we have always done. that is how we will get

ahead. that comes to your last point of manufacturing. i hope we see these presidential candidates in congress, with a plan to restore congress. ceo's that were actually saying they would bring jobs back home based on the climate because wages are going up overseas, trade is more productss, the overseas are not as good as they are in america. they just need the incentive to do it. let's get an agenda that will help businesses decide to do that, and penalize them for taking their tax breaks abroad. host: this is richard for our guest. caller: how are you? thank you for your service.

i think this is excellent, what you and your group is doing. i just had a quick question on planned parenthood. my wife just got a letter along with a pledge form. it said youe form, could mark off $50, $100, etc. planned by pledging to parenthood, you are helping millions of americans with health care, and this money will be used for the coming election to get rid of extremists. that troubled me. attachingave richards a letter as to why the fund should be given to planned parenthood, and why the extremists should be eliminated.

when i heard in congress, when there, all the criticizingwere planned parenthood. my question is, how would you approach a group like planned parenthood sending all these letters to support the group in the name of women's health, but to promote and lobby for their candidates? richards question is much bigger and broader than the specific example he gives. when is a question -- first ran in 1990, i knew what my opponent would

and get on tvd because they were pretty good disclosure laws at that point. we had a record of what he had raised for the previous five elections, or so. i knew what i could raise and still have a reasonable fighting chance to win. we ended up winning, even though we were outspent. now, not only has the money tripled that you have to raise in the senate -- i was talking to tom daschle, and he said when he was majority leader, candidates had to spend 20%-40% of their time running raising jobs. not doing their

to raise $25 million to be a candidate. you are spending most of your and being a banker fundraiser, rather than doing things tried to help the middle class, to create jobs, to address guns, climate change, taxes, or balancing the budget, whether you are liberal or conservative. now wecaller's point, have all these secret organizations that call themselves the coalition first-round america. nobody knows who that is, who funded them. they can come in and advertise against tim roemer and say, tim has a terrible record on foreign policy, he is actually against strong american defense, and we want you to call his office, and tell him what a weak candidate he is on the

defense of the country, national security. that is the secret money the in.s whether it is coming from a liberal group or conservative group, this is usually secret, dark money, and we need to do something about that. that slants the playing field against democracy and people wanting to vote, and thinking their vote makes a difference. host: can states make their own reforms? guest: absolutely. jefferson said we need to incentivize states and show that they can come up with solutions on education, welfare, job and now, campaign reform. we are seeing the across the country. ne just passed a very strong clean up the government

campaign law with better disclosure. i think they have vouchers to help small contributors clay a larger role in the system so it y. not just big mone they have cut it through a business tax credit they claim was not working anyway. it is not a new tax, not a new es on theising tax backs of the middle class. ohio has just passed a new referendum on gerrymandering and fair congressional districts. host: you mentioned seattle. an editorial.t they made this conclusion. seattle with a convoluted system that is unnecessary tedious for

candidates and voters to navigate. guest: i disagree with that. anwill be a reform measure advocate for the small donor, the middle class people. it will clean up the system, have better disclosure laws. for every one of those criticisms, i think you can find 5-7 positive comments about local people take initiative to do something that they care deeply about. host: interviewers want to find out more about your organization, where would you direct them on the web? guest: issueone.org. encourage congress and the presidential candidates to do the same. comermers if you want to give us some ideas as to what we can do to helpongress.

>> "washington journal" continues. guest is also former representative of indiana, a republican that to 2000.om 1995 he is currently the club for growth president. he is david mcintosh. good morning. club for growth -- for those who may not be familiar, what is it? what is your purpose? guest: we are the premier advocate for free market, limited government policy. most of our work is through 's that support and about half of the

freedom caucus members. we support them both with our getting contributions for them, and we have a super pac that spends money in the races. i believe is that when you have champions on capitol hill, pushing for less regulations, less taxes, we will get better policy. host: is donald trump a champion in your mind? guest: he is the opposite of that. he is pretending to be a conservative, but his record is very liberal on all the issues. host: your organization just put out a white paper on donald trump. some of the things you say trump supported the largest tax increase in history, one place where trump hisbeen consistent equally troubling, calling for harmful, the government tariffs. case, he has not

been a public office, but for one decade or more, he has been making statements on public policy, and they are all very little. now, he decided he wanted to run hethe republican primary, so would say he is conservative, but he's not. host: have you put out ads against donald trump or other people? guest: what we do primarily are those white papers. we publish white papers on virtually all the candidates. we think there are very good options. we have not endorsed any one candidate, we have just pointed out which ones are good on economic policy. said,ald's case, we have look, he is brittany to be an economic conservative, but the research shows he isn't. iowa, put out an ad in spending about two and a half weeks telling people about the

record. the poll shows that before, he was in the lead, and after, he had fallen to second place. we are confident that when people know what trump is really focus ourl decide to another candidate. host: do you take credit? guest: we do. i think it made an impact. it showed the idea worked. when people are educated, they make wise decisions. host: as far as tonight's debate, it is about business. what do you think will be highlighted? who are you most interested in hearing from as far as espousing some type of economic plan? guest: there are several that in this a difference debate. you have marco rubio, ted cruz, havepaul, who all innovative ideas on the economy

and how to spur economic growth. i think hearing what their ideas be very helpful. you also people who are new to politics. carly fiorina has not filled out her plans, and our way paper shows -- and we are still researching it -- and her past, she had some good things, but also some questionable things. ben carson has really get to spell out the pac specifics of his plans. for me, it is an opportunity for these men and women to really show people what they would do. host: if you want to see more of those white papers and other things that club for growth has wth.org islubforgro the website. if you want to talk to our guest, and ask him about campaign 2016, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents

you can also pose questions or comments on twitter. "the wall street journal" this morning has a writeup of the various tax plans for the candidates. you mentioned marco rubio, limited taxes,es and part of his bid is appealing to the middle class. guest: yes. what you see there is a combination of the economic approach, creating much larger incentives for capital, spurring growth and jobs for americans. a lot of people will say, what about the middle class? he has done something we did with the contract for america, where we had a child tax credit. he has basically lifted and raised the amount of deductions and tax credit for families to

create what he sees as balance in the tax plan. host: what about a lowering of taxes altogether? would you endorse the simplicity of it? guest: yes. the nice thing about this is you are seeing several different approaches by republicans. marco has that balanced approach. other people like ted cruz and have said, let's just lower the rate for everybody, and go to a flat tax, and maybe have a couple of deductions, but make it very simple to fill out the tax forms. that is another approach that we think is to mislead progrowth -- tremendously progrowth as well. host: this is jean for you. go ahead. caller: good morning. whate you would support was started by president reagan and bush.

act in 1988. that effort was supported by john hopkins university, and m.i.t. study on what to do with natural gas, and of course a nobel laureate that spoke on the methanol economy. andrtunately, it stopped, the sale of methanol was prevented at the pump. if i may, to give you a quote, this is two sentences from president reagan, why would he support such a thing -- the force of energy encouraged by this bill is already used in methanol. for example, it is used in the indianapolis 500 because it

simultaneously enhances performance and safety. cars that run on methanol can improve efficiency. host: we will let our guest response to this. onst: you know how to tug my heartstrings with the indianapolis 500. what it points to is disastrous policy of preferences for ethanol that has terrible ,ffects on the market for food the market for energy because it actually takes more energies to create ethanol and produce it. it is a net loser for us. with the decline in the price oil, let's do that. i would be all in favor of removing those regulations and

removing that artificial coverage for one type over the other. host: this is jerry from houston, mississippi. caller: good morning. -- the man on before you refer to the former speaker. he is supposed to be an informer, not a lobbyist. i'm confused because he kept referring to a democracy and we live in a representative republic. i'm not confuse, but i've been to washington, and i know the city, and i've been on it with motorcycles, and other things. i do what i do. i've got common sense because the creator gave it to me, not

some club. i don't miss it anybody. i'm just tired of people pretending to be principled, and they're not principle. there is only one principle. they need to know him, and i know you do, because you are smiling. you don't make up what you have to. represent the republican under god. there will be no d's and r 's. guest: you are right. my smile reveals, i think, a shared faith in our creator. the club for growth, the i leave focused on economic issues. that is what we report about the leaders here in washington. i want to mention another thing that you said. it happens time and again, full from america are set here as representatives to represent the people in forming policy and

laws in our country. .hey decide they like it their ambition is to hold onto that power and ambition, and fairly soon, they become corrupted by the process of how do i respond to the washington constituency and not the folks back home? we cannot change that system, but what we do is report on what they are up to. our scorecard will let people see, did they vote the way they promised they would vote, or did they start to line up with the establishment in washington and really become part of the problem? our view is tell people what is going on here, and maybe the people, the people outside of washington, will decide on someone new. host: "the wall street journal"

says, democrats are primed to make the case that the bold republican plans would provide the biggest benefits to the wealthiest households and federal deficit. guest: that is the classic democratic response to go to class warfare. the reality is when you create economic growth, it is middle america that benefits the most. when you have a system of taxes that try to punish people that are successful, you end up where we are today -- a sluggish economy, very little hope for young people, a huge percentage of young people are unemployed or underemployed today. their response will be the same old message that has failed us. host: from columbus, wisconsin, here is scott, democrats line.

.aller: good morning, gentlemen mr. mcintosh, i thought it was first of all very odd how you left off the name of who you support in the very beginning. you on the left off mr. scott walker. the club for growth here in wisconsin has spent, i think, over $9 million to make sure mr. scott walker was still in office. you are one of his biggest backers. he proposed to make 250,000 jobs , and aftert year four years has not even created half of that. abysmal.d is we are losing jobs all the time, especially when compared to other states around us. it is a terrible track record, especially here in washington -- wisconsin. you are part of the john doe investigation, or were.

guest: if i can energetic, there is a club for growth in wisconsin, but it is actually a separate entity. we have said that scott walker had a strong growth on economic policies. if he has only done half of jobs that is 125,000 more than there was before. what americans liked about scott walker, before he dropped out of the race, is he said what he was going to do. he was going to change the public bargaining system to make it more fair, actually let people keep more of their money, and not have compulsory state .nion dues

he did it, and did in the face s and publicest threats. people are looking for leaders like walker who say, this is wrong, it must be changed, and do something. host: mariann from new york, independent line. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: good morning. , how can cruzg run for president if he was not born in america? he was born in canada. guest: he is an american citizen. that is why he is qualified to be president. caller: these are not the things that was originally by the constitution, right? the laws that they decided -- born american.

i think somebody who came to america, but was -- host: talking about ted cruz and his tax proposals. he and mr. paul want to eliminate payroll in favor of a on consumption. what you think about that approach? guest: economist would say that a value added, consumption, tax is more efficient. i'm weary -- i trust senator ,ruz and paul to keep that low but i can see 20 years from now, increasingesident

that rate. that is what has happened in europe. i think thatplan -- is part of the plan that they have to explain. host: how should corporate taxes be treated? guest: i think the best thing to do there is start to eliminate the double taxation where they tax in both as a corporate entity and shareholders, and all the money is passed on to consumers. the idea of lowering the rate is at schmidt's place to start. one of the effects we have seen of high tax rates here is companies are keeping their capital overseas because they are not taxed when it is overseas. many of them would like to bring that money back to the united , but the tax code is the biggest barrier to them doing that.

the general idea, let's lower the rate, is what we need to do. preacher -- a repatriated tax, would you agree with that? guest: when they bring it back, it would be a reduced tax rate that they pay on it. you would see a tremendous benefit there. host: from new mexico, temp, independent line. caller: hello, david. all, why do you call yourself club for growth when you might as well call yourself koch industries because that is who you represent. with the value added tax, that is a regressive tax. that hurts poor people more than it does rich people. in this trickle-down theory that reagan started, you know, that

does not work. it has been shown to not work. the middle class is disappearing because of it. i would like to get your comments. guest: i think the biggest reason we are seeing a struggling middle class is actually this notion that we should increase our regulatory programs, make welfare a very rich safety net, rather than temporary assistance for people, and there is no hope said that if you work hard, save your money, try to have a better life for your family that you will get ahead. i think the reagan era reversed temporarily, and started with president clinton, and some of his policies, increased regulation, and certainly present obama's efforts -- president obama's efforts where forcedidized banks, but costs forto have huge

epath care, and regulations, all of that is what has deprived the middle-class of at high pay.obs caller: how are you? guest: good. , my point isn nothing in this country is going to work until we start to get thisf the infection in his government. the man behind the curtain. that we start to look at and do something about it, nothing, i don't care what programs you want to put up in this country, it is all dysfunctional because it comes from an infected government.

you know as well as i do. i'm looking you debt in the high, and you know it, sir. fed needs tot go. it is destroying this country. we are at the doorstep of a freaking financial collapse in this country, and i don't see one thing on the media because they are all bought and paid for . you know it. the walberg's -- they run the whole thing. you've got the freaking guy from freaking israel coming here. i don't even want to mention his name. i'm so upset with this country and the congress that has allowed it to come to this point. let me finish. he's coming over here and once $4 billion, and we already oh $20 trillion in debt. all of this talk that you are talking about, taxes -- it is all baloney. none of it is going to work. none of it is going to work.

guest: one idea on the federal reserve that i think has come for is rand paul's notion that there should be a full audit. that we don't need a government entity that is setting monetary policy to do it behind closed doors without an audit for what is being used to purchase securities in the marketplace. how much debt do they doing? too many of us in looks like they are printing money. but i think a true audit to disclose that to the american people is exactly what we need. washington journal says that john kasich favors full of media write-offs for company capital costs and the elimination of tax breaks. guest: both of those would be progrowth elements. there features that have been used in other tax reforms in the past.

i guess i would worry is that he forosing the opportunity what we have now to take special preferences out of the tax code. butould take some of them the real way to do that is to reform the lower rate and that would force him to remove all of those. probably the ones that would survive the political process would be the tax preference for home mortgages and the charitable deduction. is the line748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans and (202) 748-8002 is the line for independents. mark from ohio, go ahead. caller: good morning, david. i can't figure republicans out. mr. romo was honored there

before you and he was talking about how everybody dislikes the citizens united decision. ok. but the citizens united decision -- and republicans are always saying that we have to get more people on the supreme court -- but the republican justices on the supreme court are the ones who voted for the citizens united decision. so you can't have it both ways. that it hasing messed up the country and so you need to elect more conservative justices. but it doesn't make sense. first, i think that tim is the republican decision, not the conservative decision. that peopleway

should exercise free speech rights is to contribute to groups that will speak for them. we agree with that with the club for growth. from thispping back debate, i don't have a problem with americans spending money in the political process, talking about what the future of our country should look like. he cited some statistics about how few people actually did that. to me, the problem is that we need more people who will decide what matters for the future of our children and the country and community. tothey can contribute money clubs they believe in, or they could volunteer and work in the campaigns. i think we should have an open system with an equal playing field where everybody knows what is going on at everybody has the same pool for how they can participate. i think then we will get a better result in the election. host: here is robert from

virginia beach. caller: good morning. say that i think these primary elections -- i would like to see the conservative candidates not forget about the christian right wing of the party. not so much focusing on the business wing, but to remember to appeal to the evangelical base of the publican party. that is something i have not seen too much of. -- some peoplen who are not pulling that well, marco rubio, ted cruz, they have been doing the best job at attempting to mobilize the evangelical christian base of the conservatives. robert, i think you will see more of that. our group does not participate in those issues.

we focus on the economic ones. which by the way, i think that -- thatp the citizens frees up the citizens. frees them up to give to churches and local community groups and create a society where your goals and values are better reflected. host: while i have you, i want to get your response to the president's turning down the approval of the keystone xl pipeline. guest: yeah, i thought it was an incredible political maneuver. it is not a surprise, he is that everything he could to delay that. he has done it to the price were natural gas prices are so low that there isn't an economic driver for that anymore. a symbol saying that

he is for government control of the energy sector. host: at the white house last week, he gave some of the economic reasons why it should not be approved. i want you to give responses to that. president obama: it would not make a meaningful contribution to our economy. so with congress is serious jobs,wanting to create this was not the way to do it. if they want to do it, which we should be doing is creating a bipartisan him for structure plans that in the short term, could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run, it would benefit the economy and workers for decades to come. our business has created 260,000 jobs last month. we have created millions of new jobs over the past longest streak on record.

the unemployment rate fell to 5%. this congress should pass and infrastructure plan and keep those jobs coming. that would make a difference. the pipeline would not have made a serious impact on those numbers. think about his arguments, david mcintosh? that the views government should decide which jobs should be created and which should be destroyed. advance his political agenda, in this case, radical environmentalism, he wants to forgo the jobs creating the pipeline, but he wants to paramount -- he wants to promote his government takeover of health care, and then he was willing to take over millions of jobs of small employers who couldn't afford to provide health care to their employees, so they started shrinking the role. that is diametrically opposed to what we think the go -- the role

of government is. government should provide enforcement of property rights and contracts but let the private sector decide, do we want to build a pipeline? do we want to build a road? we have a tradition in this country of government-sponsored infrastructure. our view is to turn off back to the states and sent the funding to them and let them develop the best plan to do that. but keep it in the private sector for how you do it and what to do. host: from oklahoma, isaiah is up next. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: hello, isaiah. host: caller, go ahead please. in we will go to jim indianapolis. guest: hello, jim. caller: how are you doing, mr.

david mcintosh? -- aere pretty good mediocre representative of the state of indiana. guest: can i go with pretty good? [laughter] the fact of the matter is -- caller: the fact of the jet matter is that jobs are created by bright people. most of our jobs now are training people overseas and giving them their jobs. this will make things difficult for the educated in this country. i don't know if it is a front for another lobbyist outfit. give me your opinion on that. guest: sure.

basically, that does not engage in the immigration debate. we focus on it a lot of the other priorities that i was sharing with you. our progrowth tax policy. reducing spending in the debt. and promoting free trade. and creating jobs and opportunities here. so we have not taken a position. host: i want to ask you about the new house speaker, paul ryan. do you think he will bring fiscal reform to our congress? paul, heserved with was on my committee when he was a freshman member. heis a breath of fresh air has an opportunity to focus on and it willreform allow congress to get out of the stalemate they have gotten into.

they love nancy pelosi to dictate the process. -- they have allowed nancy pelosi to dictate the process. the first of to do that is to change the rules that they used to govern or lead as a speaker. speaker boehner made a terrible mistake several years ago in deciding to punish people who disagreed with him. when i was there, newt gingrich was the speaker and we would disagree with him and he would tell us we were wrong but he would give us a chance to persuade people if we could get a vote. boehner started saying that if you don't agree with me and the way i want to run the house, we will cut you off from being able to raise money. we will take you off of the committee. and my hope is that speaker will -- my hope is that paul ryan will change that.

-- in a democratic seat, he is a democratic candidate. paul ryan can now say that you are part of a team, you're back with us, we will campaign for you. he can send signals that he is going to do things directly by taking steps like that. host: the first thing out of the gate was the highway bill. was that something that you supported? guest: we did not support the bill. andccepted the status quo we are going to keep it as a large federal program. it is a six year program but only half of it is paid for, which violates his own principles of trying to get hold of the runaway spending. and also have a provision that bringingis terrible of back to life the export-import banks. so we did like this first bill, but i think we will watch and see. if he continues to govern that way then he will be the same as john boehner. but if he shows that he will

change traction with entitlement reform and work on tax reform, then i think he has an opportunity to succeed. host: the budget bill that was just past, where did club for growth stand on that? was $120 billion of unpaid for spending. it says a new debt ceiling at $1.5 trillion higher and we are rdf $18 trillion of debt in this country. and we strongly oppose that. the vast majority of republicans also opposed that. my hope is that this is the last republicans let nancy pelosi right their bills. on the democrat line, go ahead. caller: we are talking about the budget, we are sending money to

different countries and i have raised this point before. the thing about it is that we need to start investing in education. the children who are out here now, you are talking about jobs and people being trained in other countries, and we need to invest more in education and less in trying to put money into israel's hands. i don't know why everybody has why are webout -- still backing somebody who after 40 years is still occupying the country, but if anyone else did it, we would cut them off. but we are still having the money and now they want extra money. guest: i think what we have seen today is record amounts of government money in the educational system. for absolutely no real efforts to reform the way that it is used. the best way to do that is to empower parents to control where that money goes. so you set up a school choice choose and parents can

different public school or at school. and immediately what you see, you see the leaders of the school pay attention to what the students need rather than running the school for their benefit. and that would be the best way we could get a lot more education for the dollars that we spend. host: here is mike from new york. you never answered the second part of that previous caller's question. you say that you want to inform the entitlements program, why do i never hear anymore reform about corporate welfare? about the money we give to big businesses? you never mentioned that. guest: a fair question. on foreign policy, it is not what our group focuses on. so i didn't answer is because i am not a good expert to tell you about that.

asked, second thing you what are we doing about corporate welfare? you are right on that it is something that gets overlooked. the first effort on that has summer, butry last now it is about to be done -- to be undone. it was to stop government funding of the export-import bank. basically that says big corporations can have loan guarantees if they sell their equipment to risky customers in africa and overseas. they can send them to iran if they want to and give the federal taxpayer a guarantee. losers. winners and it should be abolished and it was but it now has been allowed to expire. the walking dead agency because it is like a zombie coming back to life with the highway bill.

hopefully we will be able to take it out forever at some point in the future. you mention things like the agriculture subsidies, you are right about that. one of the bills that the club for growth supported was an effort to split the agriculture bill from the food stamp welfare bill. so that both of them could be reformed. there is no reason that the united states taxpayers should be supporting agriculture with huge subsidies to an industry that is profitable and successful in our country. it has used technology to increase the amount of harvest that we get and therefore the efficiency of the farming industry. and so we need to have a market-based approach to that. and family need to use trade agreements to open up markets around the world so that our farmers can sell their goods everywhere, rather than having a limited market here which has been been subsidized to make it up off it. in michigan. diane

guest: hi, diane. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring to the attention of all americans -- i am a christian. religionn't use our for politics. it should stay out of it. and i wondered how many evangelists know that the money that we sent to israel, they have free health care and they can get abortions for free down the street. do you know that? guest: i did not know that. once and israel understand that they are our best ally in the middle east because they do share our values as a democratic country with free markets where people can choose to make their living the way they want to.

we probably disagree on health care policies and other policies taxpayer, i'm against subsidies for abortions, so i do share that with you. but i do think israel is surrounded by countries and isis entities that want to destroy them and ultimately, want to destroy western civilization and the united states. so they are an important ally. especially with efforts to preserve the democratic value. we don't meet with democrats one-on-one, but we have invited them to our conference. several came to the last one in florida and we will invite them next february although i expect they will be out on the campaign trail. we have gotten to know them that way. preview ofk them to their plans with us. if they want to, they can.

but we analyze them after they are released to give a fair assessment on which one is appropriate. host: and that's can be seen online? clubforgrow you can join for free andth.org.

onal observance program and alive

program begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> british foreign secretary philip hammond talked about energy and climate change policy at the american enterprise institute and he also highlighted the efforts of the u.s. and the uk. this is 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm president of the american enterprise institute and i'm honored to be with the honorable philip hammond on energy and climate policy. a few quick words about our guest, he is a secretary of state for one and c