batch even as potential nominees for cabinet post or at least a potential kind of undersecretary for whatever whatchamacallit. and the upside having someone from the opposing party in such a group, if you feel that you trust them, is that its information from the other side that you might not have otherwise and it is potential like a friendly communication across the aisle which can be hard to do if you kind of completely holed up with your own people. i'm having a harder time, but help me if i'm wrong, imagining under a trump administration would be the democrats that they would have developed the ties to bring on board. i'm just not thinking of anyone even right now comes to mind who has been someone who the kind of promoted publicly. >> i can't off the top of my

head. >> i think there's also on the subject of confirmation hearings, there's also the unintended consequences, attorney general, the attorney general waited a long time for her confirmation vote in the senate. in part because the senate was mixed up in a political issue that had nothing to do with her, right? >> that goes to a point i was going to make that will make this upcoming round confirmation different from those in the past. confirmations have become and crucially polarized over time. when i first started my career, the president was given deference in putting his team together, and trying to oppose orobust endowment was a very, very rare thing. it's far less rare and now you have a situation, wind, you may know more about this than i do in terms of how it is point out

now, -- ryan -- republicans are still smarting from the fact that harry reid when he was majority leader change the filibuster rules so that you could get through federal judges, other than supreme court judges, on a filibuster proof process. and so they have exacted their revenge by slow walking or even blocking other nominees that president obama has made, even to very, you know, uncontroversial people that passed unanimously out of committee. and i think the republicans whether the inmate minority our majority will continue to do some of the. >> look for confirmations. >> in these presidential picks, up her confirmation hearings, sometimes we wonder if someone's nomination is in trouble because

they haven't paid their taxes or they didn't follow the rules regarding a nanny and how to report that income. what are some of the documents or records that our audience should be looking for we names can up for cabinet positions? are there ways to look up their finances or anything like that? >> it's very hard. they have to turn over tax documents to the senate finance committee and the then finance commission the power and the staff has unique power to review because tax documents are pretty sacrosanct when it comes to federal documents. what i tried to do in the past, and the staff and members are bound not to talk about it, but there's ways of just asking around like do you see any trouble ahead for so-and-so? but there's a lot of the papers

that we don't get to see, but that shouldn't stop you from trying. >> your nodding your head. >> there's some foreign stop. i wrote pisa john brennan's forum gets when he was nominated to head the cia. weird obsession with foreign gifts to american officials. and underexplored world. is also really important to are the big fat committee questionnaires on questions of policy and ideology and the rest of it. and sometimes the trouble can bubble up your a committee will submit 250 questions and one of them is answered offkilter and the committee will steer reporters to the offkilter answer. so there are ways, but yes, asking, a great way of phrasing of the do you see any trouble at kind of question. that's absolutely your friend. >> till the ideas how you found the foreign gifts for the cia director.

>> they can be attached them come in from remember correctly it was a random press release to attach the financial disclosures and a couple of the pages of financial disclosures were foreign gifts. i'm trying to remember what they were. i'm sure you can find it easily defeated an online search. one of them was an insanely lavish clock that he got. but so, you know, i wasn't steered to it at all. just my own weird rookie obsession economy to it. but they do release of this stuff to i will say on the question of you typically can count on the opposition party to be like question number 45. so there are two ways. it's just the regular stand disclosure we have had the patience to go through it and then there's the more held a long-term thing spent the majority and minority staff, depending on who's in charge. want to know either of the legislative director or the communications director for both

sides of the committee staff. and then if it's someone who has a resume, a background that's all public, there are other things that are beyond what's going to get submitted already disclosed. ideally what you want is stuff doesn't get this close to the committee. its previous tv appearances. its previous job jobs they had h a minute to file some disclosure form for that. maybe there's something audited in turn up in the latest disclosure form. once you know it is, if it's someone you're really interesting you can bet them yourselves in your next panel with some from the center for responsive politics will also go over with you how you can find out the actual presidential transition costs which will have to be made public after the election. we have time for just one or two more questions, anyone in the audience? yes. in the front. >> i'm with c-span. i was wondering how the supreme

court is going into the transition and a people lobbying both campaigns to be a nominee? to expect that secretary clinton will continue with judge merrick garland's nomination? >> are you asking me speak with anyone who wants to start. >> let's put it this way. she is not committed to doing that. read what you will and would. i know what i would read into it. but this will become it is not just that there's one vacancy not that it's that you just look at the demographic table the next president will have the whole bunch of those. it's always been baked in the cake for republicans, like you know, is that lame duck period going to be a period where if clinton wins where you figure merrick garland is the safest big you can get, you should just go with it? or is that were so entrenched at this point that it's just not going to happen, you know? but she has not committed in any

way to read nominating him if this year comes and goes. >> but to ask the panelists. do you see anybody in the current obama cabinet is likely to be held over, or who could be held over any democratic presidency? >> for example, i cover the education department and john king has only been the second essence the beginning of this year. there are some stakeholders in education would like to see him stay on so that's one possibility. >> i've asked about this on a couple of cases but have gotten a clear answer to want to go too far. i appointed about jack lew remaining full-time as treasury secretary because hillary clinton loves him. she objected when barack obama brought him. he had been, she had taken to the state department, and when obama granted at the omb director, she objected. i mean, she objected knowing she

was going to lose but she objected. but on the other hand, jack lew desperately wants to get back to private life and reunite with his wife in new york and spend more time with his grandkids. but i think i'm back to the confirmation, if you see some fights, there maybe some people, sort when mr. king, will want to stay on and perhaps provide some continuity. on the supreme court thing, i happen to think, or two things. one, the fact that trump has been alsbeen a sobering this is. that's never been done before. -- has put out so many names is unusual. the second thing to think them in the the majority but i tend to think hillary clinton would try to push merrick garland for the supreme court. he's gotten the highest rating ever from the american bar association panel. the biggest thing, he's not as

liberal as some of the democratic constituent groups but more important piece of 63 i think which is over supreme court nominee. but the next president as i think you said margaret, is going to have a number, i think a number of supreme court spots to fill. she's got so much on her plate come in as president, it makes sense to me because the republicans have indicated people like orrin hatch and others, how much they respect and like merrick garland. i would make the case she goes with them. >> why do you think she's kept her options open so aggressively? >> there are some constituent groups that would like to see someone more liberal because she doesn't maybe one, maybe disadvantage him, that if she gives him her blessing, republicans might otherwise be inclined to vote for him thinking we are going to screw hillary clinton and just not let her put some more liberal person on the court.

>> so the possibility will be someone worse. >> exactly. >> so they play a role in bringing them on. >> went on for one more question for me i guess. >> let's say a democratic senate getting voted in and secretary clinton ends up being the next president. do you see the lame-duck session pushing to merrick garland? if so how is that going to affect the appointment process speak with one thing and the lame-duck session don't forget we have to fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2017. so that's one issue. anyone on the panel want to tackle that question about merrick garland in the lame duck? >> not going to happen. not going to happen. they've got roughly three weeks, right? they've got to fund the government. there are a couple of other pills that senators are much more attached to related to health, health measure to i don't think it will be enough to keep the government open so the idea they could also hold the

senate judiciary committee hearings and also set up a vote, and somehow overcome the objections of senators who are virtually sure to block this nomination. i would be stunned if not impossible but i have heard anything from nobody from mitch mcconnell steam that must be think there's any chance at all merrick garland gets a vote in the lame duck. >> i agree with that. >> there's also the absolute fact that the senate republicans have said the next republican -- president should have the next big. i'm not that i want to thank the panelists for the time ever in such. we've had a good discussion and to help that you find it valuable as you listen to your next panel. i'd like to thank the c-span audience and also the sponsors of this program, the university of maryland, philip merrill college school of journalism as well as my colleagues cq roll

call and the national press foundation. thank you. [applause] spirit we will switch very quickly to the next panel, our next speaker is already. let's get them set up and then we had to bring the screen to but we will be starting the next panel in just a couple of minutes. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as you heard a break year and the next that will be up shortly. they will be continued for some on presidential transitions and anderson of the public and private sectors. we can fill you in on a few of the events coming up later while we wait for the panel to get started. coming up at 1 p.m. eastern, kareem abdul-jabbar talks about his book writings on the wall. that gets underway at 1 p.m. eastern time from the national press club. also road to the white house coverage with donald trump as he holds a rally today in green bay, wisconsin. polls indicate interest hillary clinton by about five points according to real clear politics. it had been scheduled to be on our companion network c-span. right now we have moved over to c-span2 and it will start at 7 p.m. eastern.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again it will be a minute or so before this forum on presidential transitions continues. live coverage on c-span2 when it starts. we want to get you caught up on what's happening with some of the state races as the candidates in several state races are holding debates today. in pennsylvania's u.s. senate race, pat toomey is facing democratic challenger katie mcginty. we will have coverage of that debate tonight on c-span starting at eight eastern. the debate happens at seven and it ends at eight but will have

coverage of the beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. also candidates in the race for florida's senate, senator marco rubio seeking reelection show by democratic caucus but patrick murphy. that starts at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, and the ohio senate race, rob portman at his democratic challenger ohio governor ted strickland starts at 10 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are going to get going with the third and final panel this morning. we are very lucky to have two experts in research from the center for responsive politics which you don't already use it, you should. it's become to place for all

sorts of campaign finance data which i think most people do use but there's all sorts of other information that they are the repository for including disclosure information, lobbyist disclosure information, candidate and officeholders financial information. they're going to talk about the revolving door which they also monitor and what happens to people who are in the administration now, where are they going to end up and what are the restrictions when they do so. first we go with viveca novak who is the editor and communications director and then dan auble who is the revolving door research, the expert over there. they are going to talk between the two of them about 20 minutes and then we left time for q&a. this session will go in till noon. >> so as i know you gather from the other panelists, if you are able to be a fly on the wall or maybe more operably, a drone on

the wall of any of the walls of congressional and administration offices even today, this moment, you would be seeing and hearing an awful lot of people thinking about their futures and putting out feelers and receiving feelers from the outside about what their next job move is. you know, who might want to hire them. and you would see in your on the people in the private sector as well at lobbying shops and beltway bandits and law firms and legal consulting firms scheming about how to get into the new administration into a good congressional office, or about to the best people are too high are coming out, sort of like the nfl draft or something, who are the most desirable draft picks. and to some degree this happens every two years because there are congressional races every two years but every eight years

since most presidents recently have served two terms, is when it really happens. so this is one of those which and years. and you'll be seeing hillary clinton has a universe of people around her a have been in politics for more than 40 years, who will be either angling to get in for two state in or maybe plotting their futures in the private sector and being able to cash in on their intimate knowledge of clinton world. there will be some people i think who would want to step outside and beat in the private sector. it will not want to go into the administration and there will be a lot of people do when i get to decide jobs in the initiation and then we'll decide to step outside and said i might as well make money. and make no mistake, these people are highly prized on the outside.

resisted a couple of years ago where they looked at the salaries of people who came out who had been very well-connected in congress, compared to other lobbyists, for instance. and the people with connections made a good bit more money. at another study showed there's actually a shelf life to that money, which is if you are a member of congress that used to work for retires or is defeated, your salary is no longer going to be going up and make even diminish. so the valuation, there's a very direct cause and effect there. now, one of the best examples i think i've seen of the revolving door action was described in a story by eric lipton and early 2013 in the "new york times." and he wrote about amgen

aggravation they got put into the 2012 fiscal cliff legislation. and amgen really, really wanted a two-year extension actually, an additional two-year extension because they had one already, of a provision that essentially medicare was going to put his controls on some medications. they wanted an exemption for a very lucrative kidney dialysis drug that they made. and they had an army of 74 lobbyists, including the former chief of staff of max baucus whose former chairman of the senate finance committee were all that was being put together. and former chief of staff of mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader. not only that, they had someone who used to be in amgen in house lobbyist who had managed to get a job as orrin hatch is chief

health policy person. and he was the person in charge of meeting with all of the lobbyists who were lobbying on this provision, including amgen. lo and behold, you know, they got the provisions they wanted and nobody even knew it was in there until, you know, most people until eric lipton wrote about it. so the revolving door, the reverse revolving door can be extremely valuable to corporations. this is why you see a lot of companies win their people go to work for an administration or go to the hill, they are often paying exit bonuses those the people they've which, of course, they would not admit was connected to the government service, but there are many suspicions, right? these days one thing besides people have worked in government

and go back to the private sector or people go from the private sector into government, don't forget to look for people who have worked for super pacs or political nonprofits. some of these dark many groups that are much like super pacs that don't have to disclose their donors or charitable foundations that are connected to lawmakers, and there are a number of those. i guess i should probably, the danger as you've probably heard already today of this revolving door is kind of obvious. you have people, well, you have a high degree of closeness between the private sector and government officials who are supposed to be watching over and regulating the private sector. ..

there is also a danger to play devils advocate and assuming that it's always bad when people from industry go into the government and assuming that the public interest won't be served. exhibit a for this may be tom wheeler, the chairman of the fcc who everyone criticized at the beginning because he had been the head of a telecom trade group.

he had lobbied on the hill. he wound up actually being a pretty good chairman and favored net neutrality and a bunch of other policies that people would not have predicted he would favor. so i will hand it off to dan and then we will answer questions "after words". dan will get into more of the rules and regulations. >> so rules and restrictions on where you can go work when you leave the government and incoming from the private sector are relatively straightforward for congress. senators have a two-year cooling off period before lobbying congress. house members have a one-year and then staff pretty much has a one year as well with some

restrictions on them contacting their own offices that they work for. the situation with the executive branch, however, is a little more fluid. recent history basically revolves around executive orders so when a president comes in, they kind of decide how restrictive they want to be. for instance, bill clinton using executive order barred former officials from lobbying the people they worked with for five years which is pretty targeted and not a blanket restriction across the whole executive branch. george bush did not really have a similar policy and of course when obama came in, transparency and good government was something he had made an important part of his campaign

and on his first full day in office he signed a couple executive orders that said people who leave administration to become registered lobbyists can't lobby the executive branch there are underlying rules that were most recently updated in 2008 with the honest leadership and open government act. that kind of sets a baseline of a two-year cooling off period for the executive branch as well obama's restrictions are regarded as pretty restrictive. their efficacy has been questioned. one issue is they apply to registered lobbyists which is a

little different than what a lot of people conceive of lobbyists that are very specific definitions you must meet in terms of how much money you are making from a client. you have to have more than 20% of your time in the registration quarter spent that client so especially that 20% number, it's a big opening as a loophole for people to unregistered. one of the reactions to obama's restrictions was a drop in the number of registered lobbyists. it went from about 14000 to 12 12000 in his first term, the number of registered lobbyists and there's not much reason to believe there are people who totally left the influence industry. a lot of them, the people who left the registration rolls were

still working in the same firms under a similar title and were clearly still involved in government affairs but had just technically not met the registration requirement. in the past, there was a most a pride of being a lobbyist and people would register out of abundant thing cautioned to not go afoul of the rules. that changed around 2008 and after obama's new policies, if you could get around registering, a lot of people would not register so they would not have to face these restrictions. they also applied to incoming officials into the administration and they were restricted pretty heavily on

what they could work on. basically they made a hard to work in the obama administration if you had been a registered lobbyist. looking for the future, what hillary clinton or donald trump would do is kind of a big question because the president has a lot of sway over what the policy is. it's been reported that hillary clinton transition team has a ban on lobbyists working in the transition team so we could maybe's foresee a similar policy to obama, but it's really not clear whether obama's policies will carry over. at the end of bill clinton's administration, he actually

rescinded the restrictions he had and i think it was after the election, the 2000 election, but basically that's something that obama potentially could do because of course over the last year i'm sure people who work in the white house have been looking for jobs in the private sector and that process would be easier for them if there weren't such limited restrictions on them. that's kind of the landscape of the rules. i want to talk about what we do with regard to the revolving door and show you a little bit of what's on our website.

there isn't a central government database that has everyone who has been through the revolving door so one of the things we do is we track the news and law firm press releases and twitter accounts and we sometimes get tips from people as to who is moving. we use some data including staff directories from the hill and whether then they show up in the lobbying, registration to propagate our revolving door section of the open secrets that work, but when you land in the section, you will see the rules

are out of date but to someone in the news or we think is pretty important, we will write up a little bio and we talk about implications from their move of government into private sector and vice a versa and are looking at whether or not they have made campaign contradict contributions. the most important thing you will find here are the profiles of revolvers. you will find a graphical timeline of where they have worked and then a table below of where they worked and when and provides links if they are registered lobbyists or if they work for a lobbying firm.

it will show what members they worked for and whatnot. if you are looking for stories, you probably want to check out a bunch of these other top lists in terms of what numbers, what agencies do you find, where the people work for the committees, how many people there are, so if you're interested in a particular state, you might might want to go check out your state's delegation and see who has worked there and what firms or companies they went to work for and then you can see some of

the other pieces including who their lobbying and who they work for and how does that industry tie into your members. we cover all lot of grounds in campaign contributions and super pacs and extensive lobbying profiles and they are other things you will find on open secrets. i think that's my overview, so if we are ready for questions. >> we have time for questions. if i could ask just one definite thing on the definition of a lobbyist more than 20% of the work. if a lobbyist has five clients all at 20% they would be

registered under all of them, if they register as a lobbyist for any of the? >> that's actually true. this is a very big role. how do you define what 20% is? [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> i'm thinking about mike flynn who i think would be likely to be defense secretary for mr. trump. >> i don't know anything specific or anything different. >> okay, thank you. >> you mentioned the obama administration rule on not hiring lobbyist. would that affect that loophole that chris brought up. >> there are waivers and there have been a few dozen of those. it wasn't really widespread but

they are certainly examples. >> if you are registered and they want to bring you in, you could bring a waiver which is something that becomes public, of course. >> there were some that pretty clearly in the obama administration had gone into other administrations. >> okay, let's go back there. >> could you give us a sense of where lobbying and influencing was particularly strong and where they are weak and the ramifications of those two environments.

are they strong at the fcc and week elsewhere? what comes to mind? >> in generally, the disclosure of laws are relatively strong and worth reporting, however the registration loopholes we talked about and those kind of definitions of things varied. i'm not particularly familiar with the agencies of the rules that are lacking. >> the rules are the rules. they apply across the board so

you don't have some rules that one agency versus another. as far as i know. >> there are certainly agencies that look more favorably, i think, on people who have been lobbyists depending on who is leading the agency, but i know know there are a lot of revolving activity and there has been in the past at the fcc. there's a bunch of others, but the rules are the rules across the board. >> can you talk a little bit about wall street and the treasury department. >> one names brings to mind which is goldman sacs and that

is quite a font of jobs coming out and helping people who come into the administration. wall street has been very important for both of those agencies. >> do you want show goldman fax. >> sure. >> sure. so, as you saw, there is is also

a more extensive search page you can go to but you can search by a company that you are interested in and you will get a list of all the people who either currently work there or previously worked there and have been through the revolving door. if you are taking a look at a company, this is a good place to go and explore the profiles that more extensively lays out when they were there and if they happen to work at fcc or the finance committee or wherever. that would be a good entry point if you're looking at a company. of course, you can look at it by agencies as well if you wanted

to come into the other way and look at the fcc and you will get a similar list of people who have been through the revolving door. >> can you give me a sense, when did you start building this. >> we began in 2006 and we began with influence people and we've been building on it since then. there are people in here who worked for the ford administration but definitely the last ten or 15 years or older. >> more questions?

>> lobbying has been part of washington since the beginning. where are we now? has there been any sort of fallback? i guess the obama administration would signal that there is some resistance to it. >> i think it's part of the fabric of washington and as you say, it has been for a long time. it's very hard to measure. now, as jan said, you have you have a lot fewer people actually registering as lobbyists. that doesn't mean their strategic advisors or providing some other service that in the past they might have registered as a lobbyist because of that but because lobbying has become

more of a dirty word, especially under the obama administration, they're not doing it. there are a lot of people making a living and it's just very hard to get any metrics on it. the end of your marks on capitol hill which were not really the end of your marks, but some kind of your marks and it was something that may have contributed to the drop in the number of lobbyists, but probably not by a lot. there are various ways that the administration were congress tries to implement to reduce the influence that the public sees as being an onerous thing. it's sort of like money and politics. it's like water. there are always ways around it

and we live in a capitalistic society. there are always going to be private interests out there trying to make their case and trying to find a way to make more money using policy. >> back there. do you think obama's rules were mis- guided in a way? is that true? >> to some extent that is true, there's definitely two sides of a coin. it wasn't universally good but i think his policy is served its purpose. they were successful for what they wanted to do. it is not ideal that the result

was driving people off the roll and learning less about it, on the whole i think it was a positive positive thing but it certainly had consequences. >> i'm just curious, i guess my question is it seems like with the revolving door, the flow going out is bigger than the flow coming in. it seems like you hear a lot of lawmakers who if they get ousted, they go register as a lobbyist. i'm curious, is that true or is the flow a little more balanced and maybe people we don't hear about are going to the private sector. >> the flow out is more intense especially with members who have

lost elections or have just decided there's a change of administration on the executive side. as mentioned, there's basically a salary incentive to having these connections and that's what the whole section revolves around. there is some incentive and we see this relatively frequently for people to go in and out of public service and public sector which, if you're cynical, you can say they are just renewing that currency that they have of connection and influence with people who are currently in government and writing policy.

>> we have time for a couple more questions. let me ask one. another definitional question. you said the rules for congress for senators is a two-year cooling off. what's the definition of cooling off. no activity or how do they restrict, how do they define the activity? >> it involves being a registered lobbyist and there are definitions of contacts and covered officials, but essentially they can't be making more than one contact with government officials on behalf of their clients. >> other questions? >> you all have been watching this issue for a long time and you are a reporter covering it

at some point in your reporting career. tell these young journalists, what what is the coolest story that you can remember? he talked about the eric lipton story, but what's one really memorable story and if you have any idea how the reporter conceptualized and reported, help us figure out how to execute one of the stories. >> often this is a piece of a bigger story. we have notable people like tom daschle as an example which is frequently given of somebody who everybody knows was basically being advised to hire people as

a strategic advisor and doing a lot of activity that people would call lobbying but he wasn't actually calling folks on the hill so he didn't have to register. he recently did register. >> i think a lot of this is, you see something funny going on and you start to dig into it. it sourcing on capitol hill or the administration, some kind of provision in a bill, again i go back to the example that was so classic. this weird little thing that came up, i don't know how eric

got onto that story. it could well have been that somebody on the hill, some staffers said, you know, look at this weird thing that is in the fiscal cliff bill and he started digging into it because it clearly benefited, even though m john wasn't named it clearly benefited one company. you know, you start pulling threads and you see the connections. i think whenever you see something that appears to be casting favors in one direction or another, you start looking. >> thank you very much for your time. as i said, this is a great resource for all kinds of political money stories. for paul muller, we now retire

from here and head back to our offices. lunch will be waiting for you. our first panel is talking about budget issues starting at 1:15 p.m. for non-paul miller's in the audience, thank you for coming out and joining us tonight i want to thank the university of maryland college of journalism and cspan for helping us put on this event today. so that is it for this morning. i will see all the paul miller's over at the foundation pad make your way there and we will see you in 15 or 20 minutes. thank you very much.

>> if you missed any of this forum on presidential transitions, you can see it in its entirety later in the cspan library. go to cspan.org. coming up later on the cspan network, mba hall of famer kareem abdul-jabbar talks about his new book writings on the wall, search searching for a new equality beyond black and white. it's expected to begin in about an hour on one pm eastern from the national press club.

donald trump holds a rally later today in green bay, wisconsin, the state were polls, over the last month, are indicating he is trailing hillary clinton by about five points. we will have that rally live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> cspan brings you more than debates this week from key u.s. senate races. tonight, three debates starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. first, from pennsylvania, republican faces democrat. then go rubio seeking reelection challenged by patrick murphy. from ohio, rob portman today's democratic governor and ted strickland. tuesday, live coverage on c-span2. a debate between dan coates who is not seeking reelection. republican representative todd young faces former democratic senator evan by. that's five at 70 string. after that, another debate to succeed a retiring member of the

senate, louisiana republican. several candidates will take the stage including john kennedy, republican congressman charles and democrat caroline they are. that's why the 80s turned on c-span2. senator rob portman and ted strickland live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. from now until election day, follow key debates from house, senate and governors races on the cspan networks, cspan.org and on the cspan radio app. cspan, where history unfolds daily. >> in the race for arkansas senate, they debate education policy, gridlock gridlock in washington and the presidential election.

good evening everyone and welcome to this third and final night of debate week here on the arkansas educational television network. we begin this evening with the race for the united states senate. our candidates, in alphabetical order. john bluesman the account met and republican nominee, connie eldridge, the democratic nominee and frank gilbert for the libertarian party. they will be questioned tonight by a panel of arkansas journalist. public radio and talk business and politics and kelly kissel of the associated press. each candidate will have two

minutes for an opening statement. each will have two minutes to respond while rebuttals are limited to one minute. at the conclusion each will have two minutes for a closing statement. the order of opening statements, questions, closing statements, all determine prior to the broadcast by our drawing in which the candidates or their representatives participated. our timekeeper tonight is sandra sherman. with that, our first opening statement comes from john boozman. >> thank you so much and thank you for having us. the setting is fabulous. we are looking forward to a good debate tonight but i want to thank 80 for the work they do. i think this programming is a great example of the writing up they bring to our site. for those of you who are trying

to find your favorite pole graham, if i was tuning in trying to find antiques roadshow i would be upset, but it's not my fault. as i go around the state and listen to all kinds of people, it doesn't matter where were at, the, the two things that are on people's mind, our jobs jobs job in the economy. if you don't have a job, if you can't take care of your family, if you don't make a living wage, everything else is felt unimportant. along with that, that, what i hear is regulation after regulation is killing the economy. we've got to deal with that, we've got to deal with the regulations coming out of the obama administration and also with things like obamacare that are adding to the burden. the other other thing i hear about is national security. i've got three growing daughters and i would do anything in the world to protect them. i can't protect them from isis.

he can't do that either. the only one that can do that is the federal government and that should be the number one priority. so again, we need to do whatever it takes to build our defense to keep our nation safe as we move forward. sadly the middle east is in turmoil and hopefully we will be talking about these things because again, this is what is on the people's mind at the present time. thank you. >> i care deeply about the people of arkansas and our country. i believe the job is to stand up, speak out and get things done and cut through the partisan rhetoric and the bickering and the blaming and really make a difference on real problems that face regular people at their kitchen table. that's leadership. that's why i'm in this race and

that's where i will be if i am fortunate enough to serve you. that's what i did as a prosecutor, going into communities across the state, with lisa deal with violence and crime and horrible situations that should not affect our kids that i care deeply about. there's a big distinction in this race. my opponent has been a nice man but he's been in washington for 15 years. during that time he has not done a lot. he has renamed a few post offices and been on foreign trips and he's a nice man but i want to do something different in this race and proceed of arkansas. that's why i will be a strong new leader and why i am seeking to serve you. senator campaign reflected that. he's either been silent or mention obama.

he brings up obama casitas want doesn't want folks to focus on his record and if he says that enough you will write me off because i served as a prosecutor during the time obama was in offices. that's ridiculous and it's more of the rhetoric retired up. let me tell you why i'm in this race. i want to serve all people in arkansas including the single mom working hard to raise three kids making $22000 a year on a schoolteacher salary in a house with one bathroom trying to balance a check that doesn't bounce. that's my mom and that's why i'm here. i will fight for regular folks tooth and nail, just like my mom >> mr. gilbert. >> i would like to add to the sentiment of thanks to those involved in the debate. you have done a great job this year and i sincerely appreciate it. i've been involved in county township and minnis bull

government often for many years in arkansas. i've enjoyed every one of those positions. i believe i did a good job in every case. as we go forward in this debate and we talk about jobs and we talk about security and we talk about regulations, there is another issue that overrides all every part of this debate, every part of our lives, everything that impacts our citizens these days is overshadowed by a 20 trillion-dollar debt. that's why i'm here today, not as a former mayor but as a father and grandfather because what we have done is transferred that to future generations. we have done so in a massive

fashion. there is no way this generation, the next or the next will ever be able to dig their way out of the debt that straddles the american taxpayer now. our presidential candidate gary johnson has said in his speeches , we may never agree about all the little things but we have to agree about the great things. the important things are debt, jobs, all the other smaller things, but the overriding issue, the one that matters most is the debt hanging over my grandchildren's head. >> thank you. our first question tonight comes from michael and it goes first to mr. bluesman.

>> you haven't withdrawn your support for donald trump. i understand going along with your party's nominee, but given everything that donald trump has said during this campaign, do you think he has the temperament to serve as commander-in-chief. >> i think we are in a situation where we have two very flawed candidates, but it is the circumstances that we find ourselves in. both of these were nominated by their parties and as we go forward, the things i have have to look at is the total package. my concern is the supreme court, as you mentioned. i've got granddaughter that is

sitting out here now, she is four years old, we are talking about 25, 30 year terms. this will affect will affect her until she is 29, 35 years old. it really is very, very important. donald trump has come forward and said he would take and nominate people. in fact he has provided a list of people that will look at the constitution, try to interpret the law as the riders of the constitution or the riders of the legislation intended and act appropriately. it was interesting, the other night when hillary did her thing and they asked her about who she would choose. she made references to who she wanted people who got along with others. she never mention the constitution. she never mention the law. what she wants to do is put people in that will again understand and interpret things as they feel they should be and disregarding the law, making new law.

the other thing is hillary clinton is running a third term of replacing president obama, she has made no bones about that i think most of our listeners out there that are listening understand that simply is unacceptable. this country cannot take another third term of president obama. all of the policies that he has put in place. for those reasons, again, i am supporting mr. trump and voting for him. >> donald trump is an embarrassment to the american people. to think that our allies and our enemies as well, we'll see what he is saying and doing in this country makes us look like a third world banana republic. i hate that.

the senator is correct, they are our candidates. hillary's baggage is well known in this state, probably better here than anywhere in the world and a lot of us know she is not fit to be president either. we are fortunate that the libertarian party has nominated to former governors. a two-term governor of massachusetts as a blue governor and the gentlemen were reelected after serving their first term. they are men of good character, of confidence and of a steady nature that we need right now. i would encourage every american

and every arkansan to consider gary johnson for a viable alternative to the two candidates that the old parties have nominated. >> trump does not have the temperament to serve. that has been made abundantly clear throughout this race. it comes back to what i heard and he set i voted for both parties from time to time. he said i'm not going to vote for a guy that i can't trust with the form policy that my son is in the military and have to live by. i think that's where the rubber meets the road for me. we should not give donald trump an open mic with form policy. we should not give him the nuclear codes. he has shown time and again that should not happen. i'm in this race because i want to put country over party.

i would call on senator bowes and to withdraw his support for trumpet he should do that. sixteen other republican republican senators have done that. 160 republicans. i heard the other day, a set i'm a republican, i can't do do that, it's not the right thing for the country. i want to put the country first. i'm willing to put party aside. there are things i agree and disagree with both presidential candidates and whoever is elected be a strong senator from [inaudible] webers in the white house, i will take them if it's the right thing for the state in this country. i care about my kids. i think we can agree that this affects our kids. i just can't stand by some of the things mr. trump has said, but we have to look at we are

working for today. to really stand up for the future that my little boys, that his grandkids and all of our kids will have to live by. that's why i'm in this race. >> i've listened to the attack on mr. trump on several occasions. the problem is, he has never addressed what's going on with hillary clinton. you have a lady that is an old prosecutor. he knows if i was in the situation, doing the things she's done with classified material, were talking about putting in a private server in a townhouse in the bathroom closet i would be in big trouble. he has not called her out on that a bit. the other thing has to do with benghazi. here's a lady that gets the call at 3:00 o'clock in the morning and instead of being concerned

about the people on the ground in benghazi, it appears in the wiki leaks information that we got, her first concern was covering her rear end and not being concerned about those people. the foundation as an old prosecutor, this is a lady that in the course of doing business in the state department chose to give preferential treatment to people who were giving money to the foundation and it was essentially a clinton slush fund >> the next question comes first from mr. brown and goes first to mr. gilbert. >> mr. gilbert you have openly criticized both parties for gridlock in washington d.c. and putting their own interest above the nation. what would you or your party do differently to bring back the trust to the american people in our political system?

>> the first thing that any politician needs to do, whether he's the president or the justice of the peace, is prove to his constituents that he cares about them. he must have their interest at heart and be and not be up to other interest that override theirs. generally, that is where we are in congress. we can look and see two eminent professors from two different universities that did a study comparing votes that were taken in congress two poles of the public's position on those same issues over a couple of decades. they title that article that congress doesn't give a damn what you think, and they don't. it has been proven over and over that the folks that give millions of dollars to political

candidates get the favors. those who are in the republican and democratic party are wed to those parties through those kind of donations and other money and favors that the party directly can give to their candidates. the american people understand what has happened. they know we have an out of control congress that the government of the united states is not looking out for their interest. it is abundantly evident. the solution to that is to elect someone from another party. a democrat is a democrat, a republican is a republican. the libertarians aren't either. the libertarian party and 50 years may be as corrupt as the democrats and republicans are, but right now the libertarian party is a viable alternative with a viable candidate who will do what the american people

really want. >> thank you. >> the key point is trust. we have to restore trust in washington. both parties are to blame. the entire national dialogue is to blame for that. i will go to washington and take on anybody in either party to stand up to for the public trust. i uphold that trust as a prosecutor and i am proud of the work we have done. this is the way washington should work. we came together, we tackle that issue, we made the community safer and nobody asked what political party summary was in. that's the kind of leadership we need in washington. that is what i will take to the senate.

that's the leadership we need. that's why will take to the senate. i'm not going to fall in anybody's line were fit in anybody's box. it's time we get off these washington rhetoric talking points. i would invite senator boseman to do that. this is about the future of this country and i want to go to bat for regular posts in this state every day. let me give you a few examples. one case i prosecuted included a county judge and he happened to be a democrat. it didn't matter to me, but he was a democrat. i prosecuted him and put him in prison because he sat in his county judge's office and solicited a bride. you can't tolerate that at all. i can tolerate you, i will take that on in washington. we really do have, in some respects, institutionalized wrongdoing because the campaign finance system.

i will take that on and i think we ought to change it and i support the disclose act. i will return citizens united. we have a major problem with money and politics in this country. i will take that on and all of these challenges just as i did as prosecutor. we need that common sense, no-nonsense, dedicated to work for a positive vision for this country and that can overcome all of this distrust and rhetoric in washington. >> thank you. >> this is so very important. after i won my first election, many years ago, john paul membership called me. there's not democrats and republicans, there's there's just the people of arkansas and you need to take care of them. if you look at my record in washington, if you you visit with anybody in washington, you know our work very hard to try to find common ground. the me give you an example. i was put on the environment and public works committee when i first came to congress.

i was put on a green jobs committee. senator sanders was the chairman of that committee and i became the ranking member, the the head republican. we work together very closely trying to find common ground and for us that was hard. he is very different in his beliefs but he is a nice man. we worked hard and found common ground and wound up sponsoring a bill together that had to do with the zoning. it was for solar energy. you can do that. i'm pleased and i chose these committee because they are very bipartisan pet i'm on the agriculture committee. we work really hard in relation to agriculture, not for democrats and republicans, that's making that's making sure all the sectors of agriculture are included. they worked very hard as did i

to get a highway bill passed. the list goes on and on. veterans affairs, one of the last ills that the president has signed into law recently was a bill that senator and i, taking it, placing it into a larger bill so that it would become law made it such that it reauthorized the veterans homeless initiative, which was about to run out. that's how you act, that's how you operate into really can get a lot of things done. >> backed mr. gilbert. one minute. >> thank you. i think it's constructive that in the previous question republican had nothing nice to say about the democrat in the democrat had nothing nice to say about the republican but they both criticize the other party's candidate. the truth of the matter is, neither of these gentlemen can afford to, standing here today, criticize the nominee of their

party they need the parties help in gaining influence through the chairmanships and assistant chairmanships that the senator spoke of. it's all a game of us against them and it has to end. >> next question is from mr. kissel and goes first to mr. eldridge. >> you spent a large part of the campaign criticizing mr. boseman for the love of the gop nominee. at the same time, polling shows that mr. trump will likely carry arkansas. is your criticism of the senator to sizing your fellow citizens and would you consider them part of the basket of the pourable they vote for mr. trump? >> no, he is right about one thing, hillary clinton should be called out for that.

that remark was wrong and as frank mentioned, the problem with washington is that people are willing to call out most parties and be honest. that's not how i am and that's not how i'm wired as a prosecutor. i think that term was horrific. she should not have used that. she has made a lot of mistakes, e-mail, we can go on and on. we are in this race for the u.s. senate to make a difference for the people of our state and i believe in the people of this state. the people i have met are frustrated with both parties, with everybody in washington and i am willing to be a strong new

voice that will get past all of that and go to washington with an eye of getting things done. that's why the work i did as a prosecutor is something i'm so proud of because i worked with police officers across the state and we never once talked about partisan politics. that's what's wrong with washington. people are caught up with fighting each other and blaming and all this rhetoric and it should stop. when i'm a senator from the state, it will stop as far as i'm concerned. i look forward to working with all of our citizens. i understand that people are frustrated. they are frustrated with washington and politics and i'm running for the first time as a prosecutor experience to be a new voice for the states. >> two minutes. >> i guess the question is should he do this or not.

>> the question was along the lines. [inaudible] the question for him was would he find them among the basket of deplorable if he would vote for mr. trump? you can support mr. trump. >> i do support to him and i am going to vote for mr. trumpet i never said unconditional love by any means. i have been as tough on him as anybody, perhaps tougher on some occasion. in regard to the connors not criticizing hillary clinton, again, the saying is that it's denied but that hasn't been the case as we've come along. we've had to make up, but i

don't see any press release coming out. his old boss coming untran, when he worked for him, countless things where they overstepped and had been declared unconstitutional, out of line, things like the amnesty proposal of the president which i am very much against, which the supreme court has on hold because of the fact it is so unconstitutional. : >> a look at what the senator is saying about ms. clinton and

what honor is thing about mr. trump, i can agree with everything they both say, and that a pox on both their houses. there is another alternative though, and people in arkansas are incredibly lucky this time because everybody in the world knows that we're going to vote for 12. are six electoral votes will be cast for the donald. no matter what you or i or anyone else votes. that die has been cast and it's over. >> what that allows us to do is make a statement. i talk to people everyday who say i don't like donald trump but we can't have hillary clinton in charge of the military, or leaking supreme court appointments -- making it on the other side you talk to people who say, i hate hillary. i know her too well but i've got to vote for, otherwise that

foulmouthed egotistical, and to go from there is going to become the president of the united states. your other alternative is to cast a vote for gary johnson, the libertarian candidate for president. is qualified. is more executive experience in government than anybody on either of the other two tickets. and we have demand for vice president who is just as qualified as he is. if you want to get washington's attention, if you want the president, whoever it is come january, to look and say this may not work this way in the next election, we may not be able to triangulate the voters and force them into a false choice. let them hear you. cast your vote, not only for gary of for every returning on the ballot. >> moderator: rebuttal time

and it is mr. eldridge, one minute. eldridge: dyno senator boozman has been absent a lot, been signed a lot of this campaign. but what i've gotten that question i have answered it with what i believe. and that is that both parties are want to both parties have missed the boat. washington has messed up, and i have called out both candidates in this race, and that's something that senator boozman must have missed in his absence. but the point is we have to rise above all that. and after the presidential race, let's be clear. he is supporting, senator boozman to support his party over the best interest of this country. i believe there's only one candidate that i would trust with the nuclear codes. i told you all here we go again, obama, obama, obama. i told you he would say that. it's a tactic, a distraction, a political tactic from washington

that we are tired of. i industries to put country over party, to make a difference for the future of this country in a way that is have anything to do with party tonight question for senator boozman. >> you mentioned in your opening statement all the regulation in washington, d.c., particularly mentioned obamacare or the affordable care act. in december you voted in a largely ceremonial of you voted to repeal obamacare in a vote of 52-47, i think that the vote. let's see under the new president comes in and obamacare is repealed, what are they going to do about those 20 million or so people who now have health care, in arkansas about 300,000, what am i going to do about that? are we going to provide an alternative to obamacare that republicans have not done a good job explaining what they will do in replacing obamacare. boozman: that was not a

ceremonial vote. that went to the president's desk and he vetoed it. so if we had a republican president that would be signed into law and we would've gotten rid of obamacare. the problem with health care with all this came into place was affordability. and instead got obamacare, affordability wasn't addressed. so what you did was you take the old system and basically dump a whole bunch more people into it, and as a result those people are paying the insurance for the ones who didn't have it. bill clinton summed it up best. democrats are working their hearts out, many of our viewers identify with this. their premiums have skyrocketed. their deductibles have gone through the roof. most arkansans now have five, 10,000-dollar deductibles. as a result, that's of interest to that's catastrophic insurance. we can fix this. we can use free market principles. we don't have to take and screw

everybody else is insurance up to fix those that are being covered. eventually ripped $700 billion coming out of medicare. that's what it's getting more and more difficult to provide a medicare provider. what did you is the number. use of the free market. you've got to put competition in the system. the geico commercial at nights, i can shop around it was a want for my car insurance. you can't do that outside of the state. there is a third of the counties in america that have one insurance provider. we need competition. we need reform. we need to make sure we get rid of the nuisance lawsuits. we need to allow my barber to contain with thousands of other barbers in a very simple way, to get together, get the same deal but a major corporation makes. health savings accounts would be another thing. these are the principles that we

need to use. if we do that then we can control costs. gilbert: it's hard to remember when we discussed this that we are talking about health care. we talk about insurance rather than health care. the crisis is in health care, not in insurance. and i believe the senator is correct. there are free market alternatives, competitive changes that would make it all better. but whatever we do, it has got to be better than what we are doing now. i don't think it's, i think it's one of those things that we can't make worse. the affordable care act, obamacare is an abomination. to steal some else's obliteration -- illiterate sugar i'm not going for it but you want to deal with health care rather than insurance, let's cut out the insurance folks. let's not give them any money.

let's cut out the politicians and let's not give them any control. you could for the amount of money we're spending on the affordable care act, build i believe a free clinic in every county of arkansas. we could address the crisis in health care without even talking about insurance. that is a drastic approach, especially for libertarian to even think about, let alone discuss in public. but i do that because libertarians are not green eyed frogs. we are not monsters from outer space. we are just people who have a little different take on how to fix the problems that we have. we always look to government first -- we don't. we don't always a regulator could make things better. there are things we can do to address health care problems in arkansas without even violating the rights of the american

people or ripping off their pocketbooks. >> moderator: mr. eldridge, two minutes. eldridge: don't let anyone tell you, you are a green eyed frog. we've had a couple of these debates. i'm glad senator boozman joined us for this one. i am opposed to repeal of obamacare because 300,000 people, as you point out in your question, have health insurance today that did not happen before. i just don't think we should walk out the street and look one out of 10 people in arkansas and say they should lose their health insurance. senator boozman says he is now cost about that. we had to give its opinion on this issue. and i think there are serious problems with health care system. there are series problems with the affordable care act. we need to fix those, deal with those. all these press releases that are issued with the name obama into to talk about repeal, they are just press releases. i found it interesting senator

boozman they basically the same anentity when he first ran for e senate. so what should happen the past several years is that we should have engaged, this is what i will do in the city, we should engage in a boppers away to tackle the real issues in our health care system. that the issue boils down to cost. we don't deal with that by kicking $300,000 arkansans off their interest. we don't do without the closing rural hospitals which is what would happen. i went to the white county hospital, have good friends that work there and they told me that if the affordable care act repealed at senator boozman wants to do, a lot of people would lose their health insurance and their hospital was closed. i'm not going to allow that to happen. what should happen is we should do with the cost. to our number of ways we can do that. we've got to expand pools, spread out risk, get innovative, harness the entrepreneurial spirit, get rid of regulation to do with that problem. those are the approaches i would advocate with republican and democratic senators were interested in doing the hard

work of changing and making a difference on a serious cost problem we have in our health care system. boozman: we spent $1 trillion, we've taken $700 billion out of medicare. we should have a few more million people insured for sure. again as i said earlier you don't have to ruin everybody else's health insurance to do that. i've never said i have no qualms about taking 3000 people off of the program. what i do if qualms about is ruining everyone else's health care. and get our visitors can identify with this as an effort to take care come we can do a much more efficient way as outlined earlier. the answer to the administration's idea of reforming obamacare if you listen, it's more obamacare. they're talking about the private, the government option, pushing, talking about pushing us into a single-payer system.

and i would disagree about our community hospitals. the only way you can save the money is to consolidate and what we are seeing like what we've seen in the uk, like we've seen in canada, they don't have any hospitals. it's like the va system. we have two great these systems will really have too. look at indian health care. what we'll see is the loss of our hospitals in the future. the pub is also the best jobs in town. those are the things that people look at as they're going to settle in an area. you lose your community hospital, you lose your community. >> mr. gilbert, when asked about national education policies but first some context. practices such as common core and upstanders that very states have adopted by whatever other name, made it possible for students who may be moved from state aid to state the to be pretty much on the same plane when he arrives at his new

school. if we were to do away with the is department of education and not have a national policy, what would be the benefit of having thousands of autonomous school districts? gilbert: autonomous school districts almost the antithesis of the opposition of the department of education in washington, d.c. that control that the department of education exerts on local schools through the use of common core, through the money that they put into the school lunch programs is, frankly, unbelievable. i would not have believed it if i had not seen it firsthand. i did 20 years in private business. never occurred to me to go to work for a government school. but about 70 years ago i had the opportunity to do so, and it's been instructed to me.

the teachers are among the hardest work years -- workers, the most dedicated and most able people i've ever met. the problem is that they're putting all of those resources into trying to row a boat that is made of concrete. and most of that concrete comes from little rock and washington, d.c. those two departments of education saddle the public schools with the regulations, rules and requirements, every teacher in every school district spends more and more time every year filling out more paperwork for some government bureaucrat. it may all be about accountability, i don't know. it may be about control. i think it might be you. what i know is the solution is to empower the people on the ground, the local teachers, the parents of the students and the

students themselves. windows people call the shots, things will get better. and as long as we have a trickle-down theory in education, it cannot succeed. eldridge: my perspective on education comes from two things. it comes from a mom who is here with me tonight, or today. she was a fifth grade teacher. i mentioned her in my opening. may 22000 a year teaching public school, and races in a house with one bathroom and work hard and invested in their kids. so any education issue, including the question that you asked that comes up, i always go back under you should pick up the phone at a caller but i go back to that memory that gives osha investigator kids. that's really what we've got to support, build up and you at every level at the local, state and federal levels. we've got to support and empower

the teachers in our schools. the other what i approach this question is through the eyes of my nine year old who was in third grade in public school right now. what i dropped them off at school the other day, he took off running and hope he went into the schoolhouse door everyday as long as he can. i know it's going to change someday but it's a beautiful thing to see. that's what i want for all kids. that's why we talk about education policy. that's why we make sure we give local teachers like my mom the control they need in their classrooms to educate the kids that come before them. but we've got to also make sure that every child in arkansas, every child in america has that opportunity to succeed. i'm proud to work with public schools and law enforcement to start the program in six carries in arkansas. this program make sure that kids who have police i been their hoe for domestic violence which happens all too often, that the

teacher, principal and counsel will be notified by the next billy. that's life-changing to get in trouble kids to help they need to have a chance. as a senator, my focus will be in making sure that the government really pays attention to the serious problems that we face and doesn't just create a bunch more progress he. boozman: -- bureaucracy. boozman: i was on the school board for seven years. i've got three daughters, they were all in the system. i wanted to get involved, i wanted to be helpful. i'm an eye doctor by training so lots of young people in the course of doing that but really wanted to lend my expertise begin ingesting helpful. we don't need a national school board. there's to its and starbucks and a true the direction we were going. no child left behind was asked many, many years ago. there was a lot of good things in the bill in the sense that helps us identify young people at a much, much earlier age of struggling, having problems but

it really did have all kinds of national control i would say the greatest argument in the sense of didn't work or not completely as the schoolteachers. having to do with all the testing of all the things that were coming out of washington to so now you need a local control for the school board level, you need it at the state level and in that way people like me when i was in church, somebody would grab it and say john, what are you doing? you need to do this or that. we refined the no child left behind law, repealed and replaced with another law. some say that the greatest comeback in power in the last 25 years from the federal agency. so it's good to. we look and see how it does. it right down there implement it. we will watch very closely to make sure the implementation is as we reflected. it was so sad. we would be in situations. i would go into school and

present them with an award, pat them on the back, tell them how wonderful they were doing and then two weeks later they would be put on the needs improvement list or some other thing. so again when it local control, state control. one size doesn't fit all throughout our nation. gilbert: the senator is correct. no child left behind did not work, and it was changed. it was a republican program. the one that replaced it was a democrat program, and the only difference that i can see is who the administrators are at the federal level. the democrats appoint new administrators who do basically the same thing as the republicans had done before them. and i can tell the senator now that if they get an honest accounting of what the current change is doing, it will be that it is failing miserably.

because the senate may act with the best of intent, but the department of education is there constantly sending out produce those and interpretations that the educators on the ground facing the students then have to decide do we follow the law? do we follow this program that the department of education tells us is what the law says? it is creating problems. competition will help. >> moderator: thank you, sir. we will have reached that portion into cds proceedings for closing statements which were as we staye stated at the f the broadcast decided earlier this evening. prior to this program by a drawing. mr. guzman, you our first. boozman: thank you very much. it's been a real pleasure to get to talk about, as i said earlier in my opening statements, some of the things that are so important for country. i'm blessed. i product of the american dream.

my dad started working when he was nine, grew up during the depression, decided to join the national guard when he was 17. little did he know that they've been in almost called him up to get ready for world war ii. he bowed out as a gunner, got to the end he came home and he and my mother did a tremendous job of trying to get us in a situation, my dad went on in state in the military, retired as a master sergeant after 27 years. he wanted my brother and sister and i to have the opportunity that he did not have. never felt like you had a childhood, again didn't have the educational opportunities. so i went to school at fort smith, went to the university of arkansas, played for the razorbacks, learned the value of team, working with the, goal, giving things a conference. went to a topic school, became an optometrist.

my brother and i started a little click that became a great big clinic. you can do anything to be successful. we were blessed. the sad thing now, and again, ran for the school board, went to congress, now innocent. and sad thing now that in the polling, more people for the first time ever believe that the american dream is not going to be there for the children and grandchildren. so this is something that we have to restore confidence in our institutions. we have to restore confidence in government. as i said earlier the way that you do that is you truly do work together. i've done that throughout my entire career, whether it was on the school board or being a razorbacks are now being in the united states senate that said you get things done. i also mentioned john's admonition to there's not democrats, there's the republicans, just the people of arkansas. you need to take care of them. >> moderator: senator, thank you.

mr. eldridge. eldridge: thank you. i appreciate everybody's effort tonight. you know, this election is about vision and the future. it should be a rejection of the status quo and the time in washington over the past 15 years that hasn't made a difference. i am in this race to make a difference on issue after issue by taking the same no-nonsense commonsense approach i used to equip police officer and community leaders across this state the senator, i want to tell you, you're a nice man and i think nothing of good things person but i think it's time we do something different and that's what i got in this race. i'm industries to turn the page, to turn the page on both a medical parties on all the gamesmanship and rhetoric in washington, and go to washington and try to get the right thing done on issue after issue. that can be done. we have to believe it can be, that's what i'm industries. i would ask that we put aside

all of this washington talking points and rhetoric. i've got 10 came here with me tonight and every time there's an attempt to disparage the service of prosecutors and law enforcement, it really is something and it just speaks to him a senator barton have been in washington and now that way of speaking and fighting has just permeated. kim lost her daughter and i was proud to get to work on that case, a hard-fought case -- those are serious issues. our country faces serious issues. they demand leadership. i'm industries to provide that leadership in senator, we did get to talk about a lot of issues. i would advise you to debate us again. frank and i will be there. we will be there, but to do that. i think all of us on this stage should agree with this at all 75 counties every year where innocent. we are not ask a new when i publish i will do that because i'm committed to being a strong

voice showing up in every nook and cranny and a state, and to serving the people of the state by putting america at arkansas over party and rhetoric and all the talk in washington. a few very much. >> moderator: mr. eldridge, thank you. mr. gilbert. gilbert: thank you to aetntv for this opportunity. i hope it has been instructive for the listeners and viewers. our dog and pony show is over and you're left with one question i believe. do you feel like the united states of america is in great shape, that we can march forward to a quieter future? maybe a few tweaks here and there, just to make it even better? if you do then you can go for either one of these gentlemen. it won't make a bit of difference which wonderful for. nothing will change. reelecting a republican senator from a republican state won't even mean anything in the senate's control. now, sending a junior senator

from arkansas who is a democrat will get some talk out of the democrats. they may get control of the senate with that. if you want to have a real impact, if you want to give the republicans and democrats working together on something, send frank gilbert, a libertarian to the senate. i guarantee you they will come together quick, because they cannot afford to have an outsider, somebody who is not part of the game, who hasn't been bought and paid for in advance, who is in part of everything that has gone on most of my life. that will make a difference. i hope you remember what the gary johnson, our presidential candidate said, we may never agree about the little things, but we have to get the big things right. and the big things start with a national debt that is out of control. somebody needs to remind the

senators and congressmen that if you're in a hole and you want to get out, the first thing you do is quit digging. we need to quit digging our deficits so our debt will not kill our grandchildren. >> moderator: mr. guzman, mr. eldridge, mr. gilbert, we thanthank you for participating tonight and her senatorial debate. very much appreciate your coming in. as always thanks to our panel of journalists for the questions tonight. and thanks to you for watching. if you'll stick in we will be back in just a moment with the candidates from the second congressional district. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> road to the white house continues today as donald trump holds about in green bay, wisconsin, where polls are indicating he is trailing hillary clinton by about five points. we will have that live starting at 70 eastern on c-span2.

nba hall of famer and author kareem abdul-jabbar talks about his book writings on the wall. that's you at the national press club. .. our guest today is the legendary mba player kareem abdul-jabbar. i would like to welcome public radio and c-span audience. i will remind you you can follow the action live on twitter using # and pc life. now it's time to introduce our gas. please stand as your name is

announced and hold your applause. from your right, mr. wilber, or spun it the l.a. time who covers the justice department. national reporter at the washington post, margaret richardson, development for airbnb. bruce johnson, reporter and anchor at w usa tv. john hughes, editor for bloomberg news and the 108th president of the national press club. eric holden, attorney general of the united states. skipping over our speaker for just a moment, allison kojak, and pr. chairwoman of the press club board of governors and the speaker committee to organize today's luncheon. thank you allison. debra morales, founder and chief executive author of the international consulting firm representing our speaker and his manager.

claire, staff writer at the ringer. and senior staff writer for diverse issues in higher education. thank you all. [applause] [applause] >> it's not often at our podium we have someone who is a major celebrity, a star athlete athlete and an accomplished journalist. today we do. kareem abdul-jabbar is known to most of the world is one of the greatest basketball players of all time. he led ucla to three consecutive championships and then burst into the mba in 1969. with his trademark skyhook, he dominated the league winning six championships and being named an all-star in 19 of his 20 years of his career. even though he hasn't played professionally in 30 years he remains the mba all-time leading scorer. that would've been enough to invite him to speak here today but it wasn't enough for him. since he left basketball he has

become a best-selling author of more than a dozen books from world war ii history to the graphic novel about sherlock homes brother. his latest work's writings on the wall, searching for new equalities beyond black and white. he writes regularly for the washington post and "time" magazine and recently wrote an article about the 49er quarterback who protest violence against black men by taking a knee during the national anthem. through his writing, he converted to islam when he was 24 years old and has become a leading thinker and activist for the rights of african-americans and muslims in the united states through his foundation, he is working to improve the lives of low income kids by bringing educational opportunities into their community. if all this weren't enough, let's, let's not forget he will also appear in several films including the 1980 comedy airplane. he said he would like his due book to start a dialogue about social injustices in america.

we hope this will be part of the conversation. ladies and gentlemen, these give a welcome to the tallest man ever to stand behind this podium, kareem abdul-jabbar. [applause] >> good afternoon everyone and thank you so much, think you for a great introduction. i guess a lot of people are curious to know why a brought this book. usually they expect expect me to write about hoops or one of my other favorite subjects that goes through my fevered brain, but i had to do this book because it was very important to me because what i've seen going on in our country. it's interesting that i got a chance to talk with my good

friend eric older about some of these issues because it's something that has affected our nation for such a long time and we are just now at the point where we can talk about these things and try to find a solution. that's really my motivation. i have several suggestions in the book about how we can deal with some of the issues that i talk about. i talk about all types of things, race, aging, a little bit about hoops and just how we've gotten to a point where we can't. >> guest: each other. i have been inspired by the founding fathers and the way they were able to come to a consensus and figure out how to leave us with a document to have this great nation that we have.