justice training centers in the country and they do this will but we've got to make sure in 2017 we make sure every officer has that training to prevent these tragedies. >> moderator: the final piece of the state supreme court's macquarie mandate on school funding is to in the over reliance on local levies. in many cases these levies are paying for teacher salaries which is a state obligation. do you agree with the concept of a levies swap whereby local property tax levies would be lowered and the state property tax levy would be raised to solve this problem? a swap in effect. inslee: i believe in improving the education of our students. that's why we put $5.5.5 billion that money into sports things are doing for kids. now we have to take the last step, it's like climbing mount everest. we've got to get the rest of the way to the summit. it is a way to have some swamp

involved in the solution set. to reduce local levies and make that up in the state levy. but we should not confuse this with a proposal the republicans have put forward which will end up raising the property taxes for half the citizens in the state of washington. so under the proposal, their type of swap, it would raise the property tax and for half of the people in this state and yet put no money into their local schools. i don't believe that's a tenable version. i'm committed to getting this done in 2017 to a believe we can do this. i believe combination of robust economic growth may be close a couple loopholes, we can replace those local levy dollars. i think that can be done. i was shocked when bill said the oother day we can kick the can down the road past 2017. i'll tell you why that was shocking to me is what actually have fashioned a bipartisan commitment both the democrats

and republicans at my request and working on a task force to come up with the price tags we can get this job done. we've had to get this done in 2017. i'm committed doing it at a confident we can get that job done. bryant: it's what you did here is what i think is important to. you heard no plan. kind of insley four years ago said he would have a plan by the can have one during the campaign. rob mckenna had a plan to the governor took out the ads attacking the plan even though he had no plan of the company promptly after getting elected in 2013 but in 2013 he had no plan. in 2014 he had no plan. in 2015 it out action into a 16 but in 26 and all he did was set to commit to promise to work on it before 2017. that committee has met five times. the governor has made half of one of those meetings. he has no plan. she's not engaged. delivering a plan to this

legislative session in 2017 is one of the primary reasons i am running for governor. i've already started working with legislators and education reformers around the state ought a four-pronged plan. the first is equity. right now we have a situation where rich school districts are acceptable to provide their kids with programs that world dissidents neighborhoods are not able to provide. that's not only unconstitutional, it's morally wrong. under the plan on working with legislators on we will ensure that equity that every to regardless of where they grow up is going a going to the same amf money spent on the. the second thing is we need to fully fund education. we will spend 50% of our general fund revenue budget on k-12. the third thing is innovation. we can't just for more gas into a broken engine and expect to get want to go. i want to reinvent the last two years of high school so it's relevant after they graduate. so we are pretty a prodigious

programs and industry certification programs for kids who don't want to going to college. we have to do with uniformity. this governor, we might be to do with through 2020 because we have some teachers -- >> we are out of time. >> let me follow up because i didn't get a clear answer. solving mccleary as a levies swap. bill bryant, where are you on the concept of lowering local property taxes and raising state property tax to solve this over reliance which the supreme court bryant: we have some situations where districts are paying $5 per 100 1000 in property taxes d some wealthier district something $1.20. those folks in that poor district are still even though they're charging themselves $5 per thousand are not able to generate enough money to buy tickets for the same program that gives in which a district it for $1.20. what i'd like to do is look at the hybrid model based on the

massachusetts funding system we have an equal property tax across all districts. that raises whatever it raises in that district and the state backfilled. so many doesn't go to olympia and it gets it bag. it stays in the district but the state interest every kid regardless of what they grow up will have the same amount of money spent on them. >> moderator: government usage or an amenable to some kind of levies swap. please that you please clarify. inslee: this is a complicated issue but i will attempt in 60 seconds. we can reduce the local levies and i property tax areas and also reduce the levy and low property tax area, areas and thereby reduce the local levy burdens on local taxpayers but we can only do it so much because if you do too far you end up increasing the property taxes in the wealthier areas and once we start doing that, i don't believe people will be acceptable to raise property

taxes and end up not putting any additional dollars. we need to put dollars in so we can have apprenticeship programs. bill talks about a lack of plan. we've action. we were starting and apprenticeship program, first one in the state this year. we have full day kindergarten starting this year. we are reducing class sizes this year. this year kids are getting a tuition cut and it's because we have found a way to put my $.5 billion -- >> moderator: move on to our next question. in yakima a federal federal court ruling led to the first time in election of three left the nest to the city council. the court ruled the city at-large voting system was oppressing the representation of their significant let you know population. supporters say the washington voters rights act would make it easier in other cities without court intervention. mr. bryant, what are your views on this bill?

bryant: we need to have a system where every vote counts and where everybody believes that the vote counts. dr. king, martin luther king said that when people feel a strange was the site and separate from it, they don't feel any obligation to that society. he said when that happens, the content of our democracy is emptied. we need a vibrant democracy and that means we will have to in some cases rearranged the line so everyone's vote counts and that's why support legislation for the city a passcode to be able to move their lines around so that every population can be equally represented. but we have a washington state a bigger problem than just redrawing electoral lines. our fastest way demographic population are latinos. only 30%, 30% of latinos will not graduate from high school. if they don't graduate from high school they are more likely to be incarcerated or live in poverty or have health problems.

if that's the case their -- there will be more and more divorced from our community. we need to make every sure it is an active member. we have to focus on high school graduation rates. i'm going to wait until being sworn in. i'm going to pull together minority educated and minority leaders and we'll put together a for your initiative to increase high school graduation rates among our minority communities. inslee: i fully support the washington state voting rights act. i have been diligently attempting to pass it over the objections of the republican party. i do believe this is healthy for democracy. i do believe experience in yakima has been very demonstrably shown that this can really help communities. we have three young latinas, two of them represent districts that are not majority latino. but in order to facilitate that and make it easier or local communities to embrace that farsighted effort to get people

the ability to have their neighborhood decide is going to represent them, we need the voting rights act to make sure that happens. and yes, we do need people and young latino and latinas to get early childhood education. i have put as much money for more in early childhood education. we have 7002 kids. i was delighted to go to mountain view elementary school to see spanish-speaking kids learning to speak in because of the early education to help finance. i love the fact that he knows and latinas are going to get full day kindergarten out so they don't fall behind. i love the fact we will have smaller class sizes now so that in the early grades these kids, the courage of these kids have come to not speaking english is pretty amazing to me. when you see their eyes light up when they get the concept because the etiquette teacher and a smaller classroom good things can happen. >> moderator: joining us tonight to assist in questioning our for local journalist.

>> good evening governor. diana from tacoma submitted this question online. last month i people were killed in a shooting in burlington at the cascade mall. it's a suspected shooter is found guilty and sentenced to death, would you let your moratorium and allow the sentenced to proceed? inslee: this and every other tragedy touches all of our hearts. the pain that these families deal is beyond imagination. i know that because i've spoken to them. in my deliberations about the death penalty i've met with victims of these crimes, some of whom agree with my position and some of them who disagree strongly with my position. and the visiting i take is one that follows the fundamental precept that we should have equal justice under law. i did a lot of research about the death penalty in our state and i found some disturbing things. the fact is that the death

penalty is not anywhere close to use and an equitable measure. one person gets life, the other person gets death, depends on which side of county line you are. the racial aspects enter into this. i don't believe no matter what you believe on the philosophical aspect, whether a new testament or an old testament person, and both are sincere, we've got to have a system that is equal. what i found is that our death penalty machine, if you will, is grossly inequitable. there'there's essentially no dee and about 28 of our counties today because it cost too much. it's a lot cheaper these counties have found to put some in jail for the rest of their life with no possibility of probation or parole, then to go through 20 years of paying lawyers. what i found is we did an equitable system and i will maintain my position is that will have a moratorium on the death penalty while i am

governor. >> moderator: are you for the death penalty? is it appropriate in this case? bryant: i am confused about what the governor did. it seems as if he just sort of woke up one morning and without talking to any of the victims or any prosecutors around the state, decide he's going to impose a moratorium on the death penalty. it's not clear what would happen if a death working for. are you suggesting he would pardon a person or you would set aside the conviction? i'm unclear what you would actually do. let me tell you. what i would as governor. i am very uncomfortable with the state being able to take life. but i didn't think that a governor gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. so as long as it is of the law in washington state, i will enforce it. >> moderator: we go now to laurie williams. >> speaking of the court system, the state of washington has currently two lawsuits filed

against the department of energy related to the nuclear reservation. one is that missing deadlines and in think tanks and treating waste, the other is about seeking worker protections from chemical vapors. mr. bryant, isn't the litigation the best way to achieve cleanup, india support both lawsuits? bryant: i appreciate you asking that because i was spending part of the day talking to different people about that. during this campaign i learned an awful lot. i have more children but i spent three days remaining with people from all sides of the issue. i've talked to employees, previous employees, contractors, members of the federal department of energy. i'm trying to understand from all perspectives what's going on and why we are falling so far behind. all these people have different perspectives on what we need to be doing. there are three elements that ring true through all of them. the first is covered in sleep isn't engaged. are not as intense as the of the

governor was. disabled in a gubernatorial leadership. the second thing they're saying is he's focused so much on the take studies in effect with a much bigger and immediate threat with some of the properties only 120 yards away from the river. finally, third, to your point, there say because he's largely predicated this issue to the attorney general, we are mired in litigation because that's what the attorney general does. because we have so much litigation going on right now, parties can't talk to each other about how we move forward. we are so focused on getting a lawsuit and a win in court and the appleton issued press release saying we won, that we really not talking to people about how we can move up our timeframe and cleanup business. as governor i want to provide that leadership we need leadership not lawsuits. >> governor, taxpayers are paying both to prosecute and to defend these suits. what decent people who believe that the money would be better

spent cleaning up rather than in the court system? inslee: i totally agree. what would be better is if the federal government fulfills its responsibility to washington citizens. i don't need a lot of education of the senses because of the word on this album for about two decades. formally representing hanford when i sent congress i was a member of the caucus, worked with doc hastings to make sure we've on top of these issues. went to countless briefings. i met with secretary moniz why consider a friend about five weeks in seattle to talk about these and other issues. we are engaged in talking to our federal partners but, frankly, the federal government has let down the people of tri-cities. the people of tri-cities are the most skilled workers in the world and they've done some good work. they have removed about 500 square miles of radioactive material and consolidated it up on the plateau. they have a great time but we've got to give them more safety. they should not be exposed to

fumes. they should not be exposed to reflected the to do. we had several workers get some red act metro just the other day. we do have to provide some mechanism to hold local since the to the perfect it's about four appropriations in the u.s. congress. that battle has to be one if we're going to make sure that we finance the project. there's a tendency to let things get kicked down the road, so sometimes litigation is necessary. i think we're making the right decision working with our federal partners but been insistent that uncle sam does their part for the people in the state of washington and the people in the tri-cities your. ..

in cities across washington are experiencing a surge in homelessness and now that it has reached a crisis level, do you believe it's time to have charge of this issue and organize in court if they response? >> we have increased coordination spirit one of the first things i did was to collect our department congress to focus priorities on homelessness and with my wife trudy's leadership we have a youth homeless-- homelessness bill to deal with youth homelessness, but beyond that it's more important to do things that will help people who are homeless these folks are citizens, neighbors, family members and if they could get a little help they can get back on their feet. than the one, we have been increasing low income housing stock building about 2300 low income housing stock since i've been governor saving about 4000

others on the verge into high rent. second, we have led the country with a thing called rapid rehousing. this is a program that basically instead of getting people into transitional housing where frequently they don't improve we get them to permanent housing more rapidly. the federal government is following this the county is now following our lead and i think this will be helpful. will focus on veteran housing. when i came in their 1400 veterans and i found that an excusable-- who are homeless in the state of washington, so we went to work and how is that those 1400 veterans. there are more veterans that have come in and become homeless. why have they become homeless backs we know there's addiction problems and we will integrate our mental health systems. also, rent is going out and wages are not in her time land goes up a home-- hundred dollars homelessness goes up 15%. we can increase minimum wage.

30% of homeless people in this state are working full time. they don't have an addictive problem or mental health problem , they have a wage problem. i am supporting a minimum wage increase that is on the ballot this year and i look for to help in many ways. >> is it time for a homelessness star in washington? >> no, we need a governor. >> audience, we ask you not to applaud. >> this is a personal issue for me. before i ran for office i was a volunteer night manager at a homeless shelter and i understand the multifaceted reason that people are homeless. we do not have a corrugated approach regardless of what the governor says that there is no coordination between the cities and the state and that has to happen. we are spending twice as much on homeless is now that we were a

few years ago before jay inslee and yet homelessness is exploding. someone in my company came to me and said we have a problem and i'm spending twice as much as we used to in the problem has only got bigger i would say you're not doing your job and you are not doing your job here. if i'm governor we will do six things. we will have a zero tolerance-- tolerance for camping on state land. we will give local law enforcement authority they need to deal with the criminal element of some of these camps and also allow them to clean them up when necessary. , the state needs to look at how the cities are spending state money on homelessness. in seattle, we are spending between 10 and 14004 homeless person. that's more than we spend for the care of some foster kids we need to make sure this money is spent well. we can spend it well by investing in more permanent housing and job counseling and that will require looking at building codes to build more tiny houses for people who are looking to get back on their feet. we also need to provide more

mental health care. under jay inslee our mental health system is ranked 50th. a let that sink in. then, we need to correlate policies between the policy of social health services in the department of commerce. >> thank you. let's move on to the next issue, which is healthcare. open enrollment for individual insurance plans social member first. cost continues to go up. to insurers, united health habit withdrawn from the marketplace and next year the average premium increase will be 13%. is the health-insurance market in washington working and what will you do to slow the premium increases? we will start with you, bill bryant. >> this is a huge issue for whoever walks into the governor's office in january 2017. if we don't get a handle on our health care costs and particularly medicaid, in 10 years it will consume a disproportionate amount of our budget, so we need to make sure

that our healthcare system works. right now it's not. its meeting the needs of some, but a lot of people see their premiums going up in the coverage going down and that is not a pathway forward. one of the other things i hear from patients is that if you want marketplace that works well, you have to be able to provide them with real-time information, so patients can make informed decisions as are doctors can communicate to patients about what their choices are and we don't have that. we need to have that. we also need to combine primary and mental health. right now i'm told in a lot of cases across her going up because if someone comes in for a primary health issue, let's a sore throat, that the doctor realizes there is a mental health issue as well, begins them a prescription for the sore throat tells them to come back and 3040 days for the mental health evaluation, which probably never happens in this the mental health issue we have to deal with it if we want to keep as under control we need to combine primary and mental health.

there are some good models where that's happening there are opportunities to make savings, but it will take an engaged, an activist that are and that's the kind of governor went to be. >> jay inslee. >> we are doing in the state of washington today with the current governor every single thing that bill talked about all of which are good ideas. guess what. we are already doing them. we are leading the united states and maintaining a low medical inflation rates. we would like to have it zero, negative 5%, but we are leading and here's the best evidence. last week the federal government gave my administration, because in my leadership and my team's leadership a waiver to creatively use $1.5 million. here's what we will do with it: one, we are integrating mental and physical health. this is a no-brainer we are leading leading the country and integration of mental and physical health and you don't have to go to different places

for treatment doing your mental and physical health. number two, we are inventing whole new ways of purchasing healthcare, so that we buy value rather than volume. the old way of buying healthcare was to buy a procedure and you would pay the physician per procedure. we want to pay the physician and possible-- hospital for health and we are leading the country and buying value rather than volume. we are increasing the ability-- availability of help for this opioid epidemic we are experiencing. last week i announced our initiative to attack the opioid epidemic. it has to do with making sure that our physicians don't number prescribed, particularly to our youth, providing telemedicine services to primary care physicians. so you can call someone get the latest information. of these things are working today. we are leading the country.

i'm proud of our work and we went to continue it. >> polling, it has become very common in washington as you both know. the 520 bridge, the viaduct tunnel will be told we have hot lanes on 45, i 67. governor jay inslee, do you support expanded use of polls to generate the money used to replace and repair other across the state, which will soon meet-- need major upgrades. is that appropriate? >> we are not made that part of our plan going forward. when i started as governor, new how troublesome congestion is, driving people to destruction many places across as they washington. i decided to focus intensely to build a big infrastructure improvement plan that can reduce congestion, to build more buses, light-rail, single vehicle, overpasses, connections of 05

and 167. we had a lot of opposition for a two years because the folks in the senate did not want to pass the bill, but eventually about the parties together we passed a $60 billion transportation package. this is the largest infrastructure development project in the history of the state of washington and it will help everyone from red mountain interchange to highway 12 in this part of the country and they will finish the north-south freeway in spokane finish highway 67. we did the first groundbreaking to improve the congestion on the 405 just a couple weeks ago, so we have in the pipeline and this is financed not bite trent nine -- toll i'm a but the increase in the gas tax. .gov revenue without that was a fair and best way to do it. now, we are involved in the program, two-year program on toll on the 405 that bill helped

design and we are improving 45 i adding the land so we can reduce congestion. >> bill bryant, where are you on toll? >> i have no idea what the governor is talking about holding me help with the toll. i went to take one of the lancet murder to a general purpose lanes. let me be very clear. you did not get a clear answer with jay inslee and he also here in taking credit for passing the transportation package. that's amazing. in the last month before she left office sheep about 20 of us together and that the in of 16 month period we put together a plan for the next governor. it was ready to go for the next legislative session. governor jay inslee him into town and may transportation a partisan for the first time ever and blew it up and it took many of us three years to put it back together again.

we need to reduce traffic congestion. it will be the top priority for my state department transportation and we don't need to have more megaprojects. the engineer of the department of transportation, and current say you need to have michael solutions. we know there is an on-ramp offramp i was never meant to handle the traffic it's handling out and we need to reconfigure its. they say we know there difficult parts of roads where we need to add a lane. i want to reiterate, we need to remove one of the toll links from that for 05, but we also need to invest in transit that works and that people use because it works and it needs to be able to deliver this within the next six to eight years and that's why my ministration i will add capacity so we can bring in bus rapid transit to communities across the area. >> we go now to edit datsun from newsradio. >> good evening and welcome to the tri-cities. this next question is for both incomes from an audience member who is concerned about water

quality. arguing that the state department of ecology is disregarding the recommendation of scientists who protect lower got them on valley well nitrate solution resulting from big bag. country, how would you respond? >> as some of you know i lived there in the mid- 1980s and early '90s in my company still does business there, so i'm involved with the number of folks struggling with exactly the issues you bring out by now and what they tell me is we are not making decisions based on sound science. went to protect the water quality, but they are saying these are regulations that were written more about over on the coast and what we need a regulations written for here in the valley. they're not against a regulations, they just want make sure before they make huge investments that will yield a result of you today and they are concerned they will be asked to make huge investments in the water quality wants improve it

all. none of us want that. that's why i set on day one i will oppose moratorium on on the regulation until about the garbage can just buy the ones already have. i think he will take us about six months, but by june 2017 we will look at every regulation and see whether it's meeting its objectives to see how you know it's meeting its objectives and how you measure success. if it's successful, what will look differently and four to seven years of as a legislative authority they get you the ability to implement that regulation cracks let's make sure what we are asking people to do all across washington state is based on sound science and actually moving us towards the goal we all want to achieve. if we do that and we can do that , we will have a regulatory system that people have competence and and wanted to invest in. >> thank you. jay inslee. >> the people deserve to have a well where you can give the well water to your three -month-old and not worry about them getting

nitrate poisoning that's simple. in my ministration with adopt a rule that will reduce the amount of nitrates beginning in people's wells to preserve human health and children's health. i have two tell you i just take issue with my opponent does not want to move forward a lot clearly scientifically necessary for health and it is an approach that's not just about wells. we need rules against oriel trains blowing up. we saw the oil trained blowup and we need a rule to help the railroad be safer, expect the rails on a more frequent basis could do other things to help first responders. my opponent wants to stop that rulemaking process. i just don't understand that. i don't understand when we now have the pipeline that ability-- going back to the last issue-- look, we will build a red mountain interchange here, big infrastructure project, $40 million dixie highway 12,

but bill says we don't need to do that. he's just going to do it with some kind of magic in the dot office. i have to disagree with him. we had to build this state. we have 50 or 60000 people moving here because we have the number one economy in the united states. one of the reasons we have a homelessness problem. they are driving up went and we need to build a transportation at the structure project that will accommodate these new people. we need to have rules that will protect our children streaking water. >> let's move on. republican secretary of state kim yn is calling for a law that would require residents to prove us citizenship or legal residents to get state driver's licenses and also ensure that non- citizens don't vote. washington is the only state in the country that does not require legal documentation to get a drivers license or state identification.

civil rights groups argue there is no proof of noncitizens voting is an outburst say this could hurt the state's agricultural industry in need of workers to harvest crops. governor jay inslee, when you stand? >> i'm not sure what the secretary is proposing. is quite unclear to me. if she is proposing that we need to bring our drivers license rules into compliance with the federal real id act, i grew up that have proposed legislation to do that. it really is a very simple piece of legislation, but legislators have not seen fit to pass that and i believe that we can and should pass that. if she's talking about requiring people who started building in 1948, fought in the korean war, so now, we don't let them vote unless they trundled down to the courthouse and show their birth certificate, then no, i don't believe that's necessary because i think there is such minimal congestion.

i think we need more people voting. so, if that is what she is suggesting-- i don't know if it is. she's been ready clear and i'm trying to use nonjudgmental language, but i can't figure out what she's proposing. yes, we need to bring our drivers license system into compliance with the federal law because at some point the federal government will no longer allow us to use our drivers license to get on an airplane and that will be a substantial inconvenience, so i have talked with the administration and most recently that assistant secretary about three weeks about the subject in hopes of federal government can allow us to pass a law that would fix this and i will get that done. >> bill bryant. >> i want to address on the issues because we need to clarify the record. he said i was opposed to any regulations of oil trains, which is flat-out not true and he knows it is it's come up report and saying it over and over again, governor, does not make it true. i was talking to railroad workers today and they are

dissatisfied with the fact that you've not done anything-- >> i want to remind you that the little perverted-- forbid you talking directed to your opponent. >> i will talk to you today to me governor has done-- as your governor i will move forward with laws and regulations that will ensure we have adequate crew on the back of the trains and restrict the train-- train length carrying oil and that we have regular inspections of our cars and our tracks. let's be clear. also, the whole idea i'm not going to finish 509-4167 when i dedicated the last 10 years to getting those built is absurd. i'm not relying on magic. i'm relying on a trust rotation package that you blew up and that we passed three years later >> direct communication. >> in spite of him, so what i can see transportation, will train safety i'm going to defend the interest of the people of washington state. in terms of ensuring we have a voter id, that ensures we have

citizens voting, yes, we have to do it. we are one of 50 states that don't want if we don't take action, you will have to have a passport to get on an airplane and i don't want to have people go by a passport in order to visit their grandparents in california. >> we now welcome tom here in pasco. gentlemen, as a father to little girls, education is important to me and important to many people in the community and the state i'm a but a new report shows in the last five years the demand for new teachers in washington schools has increased by 2150% partly due to the fact that experienced teachers are leaving, so bill bryant, what's your plan to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers? >> i love this question because for me teachers are family. my dad was a teacher. my sister was a teacher and is now a principal in my sister-in-law and brother-in-law are teachers, so this is not just something we study about,

this is something that comes up at family dinners all the time and we have to ensure that we are keeping young innovative teachers in the system and right now to many of them are leaving after three or four years. white? part of it is compensation and this is where buyers are governor went to dedicate increased funding for teachers to go to the new teachers and the young teachers. the governor put through a proposal that would give the most money to teachers that make over $70000 year pick that won't solve the problem and make finding even more difficult, so let's put the funding into new teachers encourage them to stay in the profession and let's also make sure we recruit teachers of color poor communities of color so they can identify with the children and let's figure out how we can compensate excellent teachers. governor, want to build a state where every teacher wants to teach in washington state because they are fairly compensated and they are supported and that's what we have to strive for and that's what i will strive for in four

years. >> jay inslee, same question to you. >> let me tell you what we have done because this is an extremely important issue. we lose that 50% of our teachers for accommodation of the lack of support in the classroom, excess class sizes and in a quiet-- inadequate compensation and i is your governor have moved and have made substantial progress in all three of those things. it is one of the reasons why i'm proud to be endorsed by the 55000 educators-- actually about 70000 educators in the state of washington because they know it's a high priority. my dad was a biology teacher, my brother is a teacher and my sister eliza teacher. here's what we've done, number one-- i thought 101 and have the endorsement of the educators about this to get them a small increase in compensation, but it's not enough. we will need to do more to

attract and retain quality people because they teach for two or three years and they go to work for amazon. high quality people. second, i have provided and i'm pleased by this because this was one of the things i really 54 and mentor ship programs. we throw these young peepers-- teachers into challenging conditions without mentors. my dad always told me that he learned to teach from a mentor that took my data cited tidewater teach, so now our teachers have a mentor ship. we have new teachers and they get a mentor that says the side them and works with them. third, reduce class sizes. it's not fair to a teacher to have to go in and see twice five, 28 charming faces, but there are too many, so we are reducing class size and those are the three most important things we've done. we have done every single one of them and we will keep it up when i'm governor. >> thank you.

gentlemen, you have both opposed a state income tax. however, going forward would you support closing any of washington's many tax braces as a way to meet the state's obligation to schools and other programs. if so, what specific breaks would you close and if not, why? governor inslee. >> i do have supported closing some of the corporate pacs breaks that are no more economically justifiable, are not creating jobs, but making it impossible to educate our children and we have closed the some of them. because we have been able to close some of them we have been able to give every student the tuition break at public schools. we have been able to increase compensation for teachers and now, we want to move forward to extend some of the things we are doing in the four-year colleges to community colleges. we have an opportunity-- a grant program the first of its kind in the nation where we give kids,

mostly minority kids and kids in poverty, if you go to a stamp program you get a free education and increases graduation rate from 55% to 95%. i went to extend that to community college across the state of washington. that may include or require using the revenue coming in because we have such robust economic growth and closing some of these loopholes. i know bill has a different view i know he served per year as a registered federal lobbyist and i know he's close to the oil and gas industry, but i believe the loophole that gives the oil and gas industry $65 million that they don't need, it wasn't even meant for that industry. that should be closed and there are others as well, but i'm out of time. >> bill bryant, what loopholes would you close specifically if any, common favor inputting all loopholes on that table this by with the governor, but he knows that.

i set on day one will identify strategic objectives for every department and then we will look at every program, agency and every tax incentive, every loophole and if they are not moving us towards that objective , we fix them or eliminate them, everything is on the table. will, he says he does not support income tax, fine. this is a guy who said he would veto any tax increase for years ago and within weeks from getting an office proposed over a billion dollars in new taxes, a tax carbon, a tax on bottled water, a tax on beer, a tax on certain types of income. he said he does not support income tax, but i have asked-- asked him will you veto a tax on income it lands on your desk and he won't to say no. a few weeks ago in vancouver he said he would consider a tax on certain kinds of income. we need to close loopholes. ladies and gentlemen, closing loopholes will not provide us the billion dollars we need to

find-- we need a program to fund education across our state and it will be much more complicated than the governor thinks and that's why my four pronged plan where we do with equity, increase funding to 80% of the general fund and look at innovation and where we deal with uniformity between school districts is how we will get it done. is hard work and hard to talk about in a minute and 60 seconds , but it's the kind of work i'm dedicating myself to as your governor. >> we have reached the point now where we are at the end of our questions, so it's time now, for each of you to provide your closing statements and we begin with bill bryant. >> i appreciate this opportunity to come in on this debate and i appreciate you, governor, being a part of it. i know you don't like them that much, but they are important our democracy and gives people a choice in this year you really do have a choice between two different types of people. i don't know if we reelect jay inslee what will change because

if you listen to the debate tonight think about what you did not hear. you had a lot of about what he has done and how much money we have spent, but he never said this is where we will go with education. i can give you a four-point plan. you did not get one from him. when we talked about what we should do on transportation he talked about what he has done and took credit for a lot of other people's work, but he did not talk about how we will get rid of trough-- traffic congestion or how we will recover salmon runs or really about what we want to do with the homeless and i give you a six-point plan. what do you think will really be different if we reelect governor jay inslee. we will continue to good luck on olympia and our highways. if you elect me i want to be an activist governor, to make sure we have an education system that meets the needs of every kid pic i went to ensure we work with employers to provide jobs to communities in washington state that suffer from eight to 9% unemployment and i will be dedicated to ensuring we reduce

traffic jams so people can get to work on time and get home to see their kids and i want us all to dedicate ourselves to rebuilding our mental health system. these are the kinds of things that we can do. it's not a partisan or ideological agenda. it's just about all of us. republicans and democrats and independents coming together so people can get a good job here and afford a house here and raise a family and retire in this natural beauty we all love and want to protect. that's what i want to do later governor. i'm asking for your vote. join me. >> governor inslee. >> thank you to all, to my opponent. i love debates. i don't know where bill got guided night due. i would like taking the oath of office even more, so i would be honored if you could help me in that regard and i want to tell you why that is. the last four years i have gotten up every single morning and i have tried to figure out

what i could do to help those of washington realize a dream and they realize a lot of their dream because of the work i had done on a bipartisan fashion. most all of our success in the last four years has been on a bipartisan fashion because we have divided government in the legislature. i think it's a bipartisan joint is really a personal joy of mine when i can go to an elementary school and see a young child who might have a speech difficulty, who if she didn't get help with her speech difficulty might end up never reaching her full potential and now she will do that by the thousands because of the success we have in early childhood education. ..

you are going to have more scholarships. you a better early education and yes, you have less oil transit lower. i think all those things are good things. i would be very appreciative of your vote. good luck. let's remain a confident state. >> thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> we would very much like to thank our audience here at columbia basin college. thank you for joining us. have a good evening. >> road to the white house coverage later today as donald trump campaigns in pennsylvania.

five recent state and national polls gathered by real clear politics have hillary clinton leading by over five points in the state. around his life at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. hillary clinton is in cleveland holding a rally at high altitude of the college in a state where most polls show a tight. live coverage at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. in the wisconsin senate race and come with republican ron johnson and former democratic senator russ feingold abate the economy, student loans, health care, trade, the supreme court, middle east policy and immigration. mr. feingold has a lead of about five points in five out of six polls.

>> the u.s. senate debate in partnership with marquette university law school. wisconsin can't this is one of the most watched in the nation. republican incumbent ron johnson. >> fighting to win a second term. democratic challenger russ feingold. >> trying to win back his old job. the outcome will determine control of the senate. tonight the candidates on health care, national security at the top of their ticket. a 90 minute debate about the direction of the country. and now live from the marquette university law school, here is tonight's moderator. [applause]

>> and good evening, everyone and welcome to our debate with the candidate for united states senator we are joined tonight from marquette university law school where i work as a fellow in law and public policy. we will be hearing from the major party candidate for u.s. senate. senator ron johnson and his democratic challenger for u.s. senator russ feingold. are rules are pretty simple. it's the conversation. i will be asking about their views on important issues facing the state and the country. we've asked them to answer questions directly and concisely and to stay on point. no filibusters. the candidates can talk to one another but i will be mentioned the time on any given topic and we will have the freedom to move the conversation. toward the end, each candidate will be asked to make a closing statement so we have a lot to get to tonight and the first question goes to senator johnson. thanks very much for being with us tonight. and the same to mr. feingold. same question for both of you.

it's safe to say this race as well as a number of races has been somewhat overshadowed by our presidential contest. let's begin by giving the people at home and in this room your take on what's at stake in this u.s. senate race. >> first of all i want to thank marquette university for hosting this debate. what i think is a stake is the future of this country. literally what hospice president obama before he got elected he said if i did will fundamentally transform the nation. i'm chairman on holistic you of government affairs. i get the pressed, the problems, the threats that face this nation. we have got to address those. we have to fix these problems. fundamentally transforming america is not what we need. we need to return to our founding principles of limited government, that is primarily designed to protect our individual liberty and freedom. return to the benefits of a free market competitive system that

guarantees three things, the best possible price, quality, level of customer service. i had to compete. i would've loved to been a monopolist so we have to understand what made this country great. it's the american people, the folks in wisconsin who wake up, work hard. they need to be left alone as much as possible. they need to be able to keep as much of hard earned money as possible. that's what made this country great. >> what's at stake from your perspective. >> i've have gone out to listen to the people in the state and all 72 counties and they told me. i see it as their decision what we should be working on. what i hear is that middle income and working families are wondering when i'm going to get fairness. if you like it can't pay their bills. even the people at the top are doing extremely well, wall street is that the basic the highest point it's ever been. unemployment is lower but their wages are at stake and he wanted when will they get a minimum wage increase the when are they

going to have paid family leave? when is the cost of pharmaceutical medicine plan to go down. we were going to do something about the student loan programs. what i see at stake is i would stand with the people of the state are concerned about that and, frankly, senator johnson is voted with the corporations and the billionaires and multimillionaires who don't see it that way. to me that's a fair statement of the choice. >> the presidential contest in your eyes, both of you, does it have anything -- doesn't have any bearing on this race because i've got to refute what he just said. i've listened to the false attack ads visit him in the pocket of big business adecco for corporate interest. i started out in my working career $1.45 an hour as a dishwasher. i'm proud of that for the last 30 years before they can a senator i helped start, build and grow a very successful wisconsin family business. i not only installed the equipment. once we had it installed working with the mill rights and the plumbers and electricians

operated equipment. on night shift, so the fact senator feingold attacks on his campaign has been one of false attacks, i understand what it's like to work. he says he's for the working men and women for the middle class. i am the working men. i worked hard all my life. to answer your question sure i think the president campaign will have an effect on this but on big issues, growing our economy, strengthen military can defeating ices, securing our borders, appointing judges to the supreme court that had the integrity for the law and constitution. i think were on the right side of the issue. >> i hope i can respond to that. >> will talk a lot about what you mentioned that what you just mentioned but go ahead. >> i'm confused. why would star john to respond to what i said in that way? all i said was we have different voting records in the past and certainly his voting record is what i said, he votes with the corporations and the vote for

the big business interests. he votes against the things i talked about. this was in a personal comment to get something that people have a right to say. who is this guy going to vote with? is acquitted but with th beer summit ellsberg that's the fundamental issue. who is he going to vote with? i think i stand on firm ground that he votes for the interest and i doubt i would. >> you have tried to tie him in some of your tweets on twitter to donald trump. is that important industries or is that important industry for easy as is that important industries or is he is on its because i don't know that i've tried. it's not very hard. let's face it senator johnson is going to vote for and support the man for president of the united states do just that everybody in the heart of hearts knows should be president. he's not qualified. he doesn't have the temperament. is gotten where he is by dividing people against each other sink the unfortunate things about latinos and muslims. and dispersal context seems inappropriate.

his colleagues in the senate some of whom are in some pretty tough races themselves, republicans have said enough is enough. there comes a point and the senator from new hampshire, ohio, alaska have all withdrawn their support but senator johnson continue to take every possible step to supporting. what we need to do is best for america. that means put party aside, your own desire to get elected aside a distance yourself from some about donald trump who should not be president. >> first of all every phone i've taken, the way i've conducted myself is always what's in the best interest of wisconsin, wisconsin workers. i'm beholden to special interest. i'm the one that has announced this'll be my last term. i said i was always tell you the truth, never thought my reelection in my. i never intended to run for a second term. i was hoping to get a series president to work with me, tell the american people the truth, let me take the tough votes to fix these problems. that didn't happen from running again.

i put myself in position as chairman of the senate committee on government affairs to accomplish things. i've done a lot. i want to finish the term as chairman and want to address these problems. i don't know what he's talking about, is he quite honestly. the fact of the matter is i've got a real record of being independent and voted with the best interest of wisconsin in mind and by the way, coming from the private sector i know how hard it is, i know how much part of the federal government makes with the overregulation. senator feingold has favored in favor of tax greece a two under favor of tax grace of 270 countries taking your career. he's running for a fourth term. is he willing to say he will limit himself to four terms, five, six? i'm the guy that is not worried about the election giunta guy that seriously concerned about this country and willing to vote to solve these problems. >> two quick questions for each of you. in the most recent poll, 70% of the people polled said that they did not really donald trump

showed good judgment. tonight do you think your party's nominee shows good judgment? >> i'm not going to defend the indefensible. i've been very up front what i disagree with the candidate. i'm not sure the same thing be said about senator feingold. he must be the only american who thinks secretary clinton is trustworthy. we haven't even talked about her decades of corruption and lying, rivera much o of duty in gaza to cost four brave americans their lives and then we should welcome the dead bodies back to the car back she looked surviving family members in the i, lied boldfaced to the and take a look at or e-mail scandal. put america's top national security secrets at risk because she was trying to avoid the foia laws. yes no problem supporting her. you should be asking that. >> do you think as you party's nominee sick music election is rigged. do you believe it is rigged?

>> i think the deck is stacked against them. but now i don't think election is rate. we need pollwatchers concerned about voter fraud. it does exist. i don't want to any legitimate the marginalized by a fraudulent vote. that's a legitimate concern and it's a legitimate point to talk about the bias in the media concentrate all his problems and completely ignoring almost completely dark all the corruption to mobilize of secretary clinton. >> let me ask you about your support of your party's nominee, hillary clinton. you have said she's reliable and trustworthy and yet the sample i referenced a moment ago showed 66% in the state do not think she's honest. how can you support someone people of the state finally -- funny really don't believe is on his? >> i'm going to talk about donald trump. senator johnson completely pivot

away from talking about donald trump because he knows it's wrong to supporting for president. senator johnson is an excellent businessman. there's no way he would ever hire donald trump at his business or ever let him run loose in his plastics manufacturing company. because he's an irresponsible person who you can't deal with. let me first say that you can't have it both ways. you can't say i'm for this guy and distance yourself. he's refused to a. with the donald trump although he still pretends he wants to be -- let me answer the question about hillary clinton. i have had a number of experience working with hillary clinton unique opportunity. i worked with her when she was first lady. i remember being here in wisconsin a while back on health care issue. i worked with her when she was in the senate and also worked with the winches secretary of state. what i said is that in each encounter i've had with her she's been reliable and trustworthy.

that's my experience. i believe should be an excellent president. she's extremely well-informed. on both domestic and international issues. she has good judgment. she's tough, lord knows she's not perfect but on balance she's about as qualified a president of the united states as anyone. >> any concerns about the way she held the e-mails? any concerns when she speaks to require group of wall street this is wall street reform should begin with wall street or that she favors open trade and open borders? does that give you any -- >> i disagree on a number of occasions that i disagree on issues of the iraq war were i opposed the war and she was 40. i disagreed with her sometimes on campaign finance reform. we have differing views. i think or president should be want it is as open and as transparent as possible. she regrets some of the things she did with regard to this issue and should be open about it. she's not perfect but she's so much better than donald trump who frankly i think will destabilize the world.

if they see this person become president it will be very frightening to the world. because they will not know what to expect from the united states and that sort of trump's everything if you will. >> first of all the realized secretary clinton probably could not get a security clearance based on are extremely careless i would call grossly negligent i would say unbelievably reckless behavior with those e-mails? i doubt if she was just a normal person, of course we are a two-tiered of justice. that's obvious by the fact james comey decided not to recommend

that for the wisconsin sport is far greater, with more support from outside, senator johnson as opposed to 11 to 12 windows and

outside attack ads, four times more than my camping. if the question is who is wisconsin-based and who isn't, clearly i am more so. >> in 1992 when he first ran, he said he wasn't going to washington and look for those packs are now suddenly he said he would always raise the majority of his campaign fund right in wisconsin. he said that was a pledge for the future. earlier when you pressed and he said no, that was a pledge for this term. what was become a pledge for the future for this term? let's face the raise $10 million, spend it on himself, paid his campaign staff, paid himself a salary, bought leather bound books out of that. didn't spend it on candidates. so those, he set up that exact those paths that he tried to outlaw. what we are talking about between senator feingold and hillary clinton, the american people looking for a dramatic change. they are not a nominee as a

change agent i am a change agent to develop the status quo, even think everything is wonderful in washington into possible a 34 year career politician like senator feingold. if you want to change, if you want our economy to realize his full potential you will elect people that know how hard is it, come from the private sector and will change washington. >> just like friday night he is saying things he knows not to be true. the fact is the group is talking about progress his unit was created to fight the corporate domination of our political system that senator johnson supports. it did many things. the case of contributions to other candidates but that wasn't the purpose. every purpose was to raise contributions to the males indirectly the candidates which was successful and even more important it was to make sure tens of thousands of e-mails could go in for example, in social security was on the chopping block in washington, progress is unanimous success on raising the alarm. with interest at that senator

johnson supports were tried to take when to tell the on the internet, this organization was effected. 100% ethical and effective and all the things he said about personal benefit of it are completely false pictures the point. he's trying to change the subject from what matters which is the families of the state want a senator who is going to vote for things that raising the minimum wage. instead he wants to engage in these -- >> i can quickly close this out. his pacs are basically moneymaking machine to fill than spending money to develop a donor list which progressive united sold, check this out, to the feingold campaign which is why he's been a would raise all this outside money. 70% of his contributions of outside the state. you can be the judge. >> do you favor change in our current system the way the campaigns are run? >> we should try to get back to a system where campaign contributions float into the

campaigns where there accountable. senator feingold high profile spectacular theater, campaign finance reform. it simply didn't work at all. a lot of it has been ruled unconstitutional. he's got a lot of plans but this up the good work. spectacular failure. >> senator has been in office almost excuse to case not done anything whatsoever to try to change the campaign finance system. because he loves it the way it is. he is benefiting enormously from this corrupt system, from these hidden contributions that are not reported he does want to change it otherwise would've been something to do. i worked on a bipartisan basis with john mccain. that law still stands, the main provision of it is politicians like senator johnson can't call up special interest directly and ask them for direct contributions. if we can overturn citizens united which i believe we will be able to in the next few years, the mccain-feingold law would have the effect of preventing these kinds of corrupt contributions. we should demand that i think

congress should pass a law requiring these disclosures. the supreme court said we should know what these contributions are coming from. senator johnson doesn't support that. he compares it to the needs of the naacp did not have the membership list revealed. the people of this country and the state deserve to know where all this money for supporting senator johnson is coming from. it wouldn't be pretty. >> i want to move onto topic both of you mentioned in your introductory remarks. it seems like there's a theme we'll talk about tonight and its security, asking about security, national security, foreign policy but also economic security. let's walk through a number of these issues. i'll begin by talking about economic security. this is interesting, sixers ago we sat in this room at about the same time come the unemployment rate was seven or 8%. today it is 4.2% of the economy thousand improved and get we see

recent survey why marketplace that says people feel a growing sense of economic anxiety. we see a marquette law school policies 53% of the people feel they are either just getting by are struggling. i begin with you senator johnson. give a couple examples of things you think people in the u.s. senate can do to better the lives of those people who feel the economic angst spirit they are feeling reality. drinking ages of the obama administration wages have stagnated. we are still at a meeting household income below 2006-2007 levels. they are right to feel the pinch. unemployment is lower but so many people dropped out. let me show you come if we go from 2% to 3%, this is the slowest recovery, recession post-world war ii period last quarter was 1.4.

first quarter was 28%. on average since the great depression of the american economy is good about 3.2%. you go from 2% to 3%, at $14 trillion in just 10 years. two to 4% to $29 million. federal government has increased by $1.1 trillion. all of our public policy ought to be directed toward unleashing the innovation, creativity of americans. we have to reduce the records would burden. in my committee, we should mention the invasion statement. to enhance america. one of our subcommittees was all about regulatory reform. it cost $2 trillion. there's a big reason why wages has stayed stagnant. what i would ask the listeners can which would have at $14,800

heating and massive inefficient ineffective government bureaucracy, or your paycheck feeding and providing for your coming. he supports the growth of regulation. he put the vp in charge of 90% of landmass which will be devastating sibilance to rule government which is going to require more taxes out of their paycheck. i want to go the private sector by reducing the size of government. i want to make sure wisconsinites keep more of their hard earned money. >> i think this sort of trickle-down approach that somehow we just grow the economy for those at the top it will trickle down to those in the middle and at the bottom, that isn't what's happened. as i can't all parts of the state people told me no matter if you're in milwaukee or chippewa falls, they're telling me that doesn't happen. what we need to do? we need to do the opposite of what senator johnson has proposed. we need to increase minimum wage substantial. it is at $7.25 which is have a

family of more than one efforts to or for, that's below the poverty level. senator johnson doesn't even support raising it from $7.25. in fact, you said in the past he doesn't even think we really should have a federal minimum wage. secondly, when you get paid family leave. we need to make sure when you have a child, you opportunity to a few weeks off to bond with a jumper i think it's better for the employer. we can join the rest of the countries in the world. that would make a measurable difference in a lot of young families life. another specific do you know how work the people of the state archive the older people who stay are? they are working sick about the cost of these pharmaceutical medicines. it's overwhelming. sometimes people have a $400 bills and a person is tempted to cut that bill in half in order to make sure they can still pay their food and rent. senator johnson stood against

him with, he stands with the pharmaceutical industry i believe we should pass a law outlawing the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices under medicare. that would save $123 billion. out of these measures he has zero specifics because you will only stand for those things that the corporations -- >> on your show when asked about the minimum wages, the number of studies that would cost the american economy six to 7 million jobs. for father not having a job, or some very serious negative unintended consequences. allowing medicare to negotiate prices, we have that medicare part b we have a single-payer government-run bureaucratic hell this isn't like he wants for all of our economy, for all of the american people like the va health care system. they'll have access to the 82% of drugs. medicare at least has access to about 95% of drugs because they

allow for different providers in medicare part b to negotiate the prices. cbo director says that negotiation would save negligible amounts of money. the bottom line is what he's proposing is more government, more plans that simply don't pay out, very negative unintended consequences. concentrate on some dislocations by raising the minimum wage. that's unbelievably callous. >> the senator doesn't we push of a minimum wage that comes up to the poverty level. represent the people of wisconsin. and having them say that having medicare negotiate at the federal level for lower drug prices does is sav save money, s an official estimate of $123 billion it would say. the senator has voted to open a that doughnut hole again. i thought toward make sure our seniors wouldn't have a gap in the coverage on prescription medicine. caseload to open up that doughnut hole again.

what do you tell a scene in the state is desperately scared about the prescription medicine? he says there's really nothing we can do about it. >> let's talk about how we need to grow the economy. i provide hundreds of wisconsin it's good paying jobs. i've taken them middle income wisconsin it's. he seems to have a problem with the. i don't think anybody should apologize are working hard and succeeding. i succeed and grow an economy is get the government out of the way. reduce the mass -- massive regulatory burden. senator feingold supports the policies of president obama who advocate it says -- would sky rocket. he couldn't pass those laws to legislation so now he's passing the same policies through regulation, circumvented congress. we need to reduce the burden, having a better tax system and utilize our god-given energy resources to keep wisconsin workers competitive. we all want a clean environment but the fact that the matter is

the policies he promotes makes wisconsin workers less competitive. that's what makes world competitors more competitive and cost us jobs overseas. >> let's be clear here this is very simple. senator johnson paid himself $700,000 for 10 years for his time at his company after he went to the city. he described as reasonable. he doesn't think raising the minimum wage to $7.25 is reasonable. every wisconsin should see that. >> let me ask you -- >> i need to respond to the. nobody should apologize for working hard and succeeding in the american economy. i'm proud of that i work with some great people at my company, built a great visit that provide all those good paying jobs and that's a fact. those 13 years right didn't take a salary, let the money built into this is so of the build, create additional jobs. it's sad that he says he studied by the middle class.

my business provided great paying jobs, careers. some of those people are still with me after 30 years. i don't know why he is a problem with successful family manufacturers that export all kinds of different countries. i don't think anybody should have to apologize for working hard and succeeding. he seems to do that. i have never suggested do a with the minimum wage but i'll be happy to look at reasonable proposals. i'm just not supportive of dramatic increases that actually caused families jobs and opportunities. peaceful that any calls that dislocation. >> nobody said a thing about your visit for who you hard. all i said was you will not even raise the minimum wage one nickel. speak i guess i would be willing to do it on the indexing basis. >> your position, you voted against raising it at all. that's the record. that's the fact that for the people of wisconsin need to know spent i would ask a question that is a think of interest to some of our students in the

audience. it is about affordability of college. mr. feingold you have talked about the need to allow students to refinance their loans debt. you also talked about having free tuition for families making under $125,000. briefly, the first question, why do student loans need to be tackled? >> is the crisis ended where you go in the state if you want a one issue within the context of cost of living, the problems of making a living, the thing you're most is the frightening aspect of student loans. the average student coming out of wisconsin madison with student loans is about $28,000 in debt. spent half of them come out with no debt. >> 28,000 many other people come in with much more. this is very expensive. i have filled meetings and

roundtables with students all over the state to tell me this is very disturbing the senator johnson says they think it's free money. now they don't. they think it's very disturbing and attention avoid up to start their life. one of the young women at the university of wisconsin milwaukee sent to me you have to understand that sometimes and go out on a first date this is what you talk about. i like to say there's got to be a better icebreaker than that. that's the way for generation to be treated the senator johnson does respond to that. with elizabeth warren had a straightforward bill that would allow the renegotiation of interest rates, but you can do on a mortgage, he voted no. it was very close. they were within a couple of those. he prevented it. i also do believe we should have a goal of making it that people can graduate from college at least debt-free when it comes to tuition. that is something i would like to see happen. >> how do we pay for that? we've got a $19 trillion debt,

increasing pressure because of her aging demographics on social security and medicare. how do we pay for free college tuition? >> i've offered a plan that is up to $1 trillion in pay-fors. that's what this initiative. senator johnson -- >> explained spirit as we close a loophole like a carried interest and use it for something like student loans or reduce the deficit the senator johnson doesn't do this. what he does is talk about how much the debt will be in 30 years. i've offered a specific plan that's all about closing the kind of corporate loopholes these voted for, cutting spending. the job of a sender isn't just to say the system is bad or come it's to say this is how we should pay for i've done the work, specifically proposal would do. he spent on essentially any -- >> let me give you a chance respond to the student in question. >> it's all about college affordability and he is exhibit a why call it is so unaffordable he come you spend $160,000,

almost a thousand dollars a lecture lecturing stanford out in california. when colleges have that much money to pay a guest lecturer community what the college, the cost -- what is so different about what colleges and education and the money on? the federal reserve bank of new york answered. they said the federal government poured money into higher education in a limited supply. for every dollar the federal government poured into in student loans, tuition increased i 65,505 cents. about $2.1 trillion. times about 60%, $1.3 trillion which just happens to be the not a student at that's outstanding. that federal government with the best of intentions have a very negative unintended consequences of making college much less affordable making much less accessible. the solution is, is drive competition and drive productivity and education.

>> what does that look like? >> using technology. we are operating on a 19th century model. we have an explosion of information age of computers, technology, best practices and recently don't utilize it. he for a became a senator i was involved as a volunteer in education in oshkosh. we did something with the county school system called academic excellence system. education productivity. i type into my yahoo! search educational of productivity. i got zero results. what we need to do is when you to drive a democratization of technology into higher education. things like massive online courses, move toward, away from a degree model to a certification model. is an example. i don't care how you got educated to be up to pass a certified public accounting test. it's not an easy test that he can pass it, you are a cpa. if we do that, you put pressure,

for all kinds of innovation. we are seeing it in things like the khan academy. because he has a higher education cartel we are not seeing those types of advances in improving education which is why you see college so unaffordable. $8000 a lecture, that's not exactly -- >> we will talk about that right now. senator johnson's specific i get a higher education if we should get rid of professors and just -- i'm going to finish the equity in -- on a civil and a progress apparently hope people in case they don't see. let's talk about something else. is talk about -- >> i was a professor. he's talking about this school. he refuses to acknowledge that tighter at this wonderful law school for a year. i was paid the same money and your tackling it the same way. he's submitting the work of this wonderful faculty that i the chance to be a part of the

professors are not paid by the class time alone. but that's the game he is playing he's not on mr. let me finish please. the other day i was in wausau and that a chance to be a nice press conference on my ideas about social security the senator johnson's desire to privatize so this could be. a young man walked up to me and he said you taught me at marquette and than have my own law firm right across the street from city hall. that demand was one of the smartest students. he was modicum lot and onto law review. that's what i was doing teaching the senator johnson to meet higher education. he demeans the professors he's pretending what they do isn't real work. i think you should be ashamed. >> there are not enough minutes for me to refute all the false charges and attacks. i was not even come close to say

we should replace teachers. what is it is teachers should use the excellent documentary, an excellent documentary called technology to utilize that i suppressed -- best practice. proctor that type of stuff. it's about actually using a business person's approach, innovate, productivity gains. actually utilize technology to lower the cost but that's what i expensed and the private sector. i had to compete. because i had to compete in the free market system my prices were a lot lower, my quality was higher. wouldn't we love that in health care? wouldn't we love that in education? we've driven those disciplines out of those areas. all the wants to do is grow government come impose more government control the city will not work. on to the things that will work. >> i want to spend a couple minutes on the affordable care at or obam obamacare depending n your political point of view.

i'll begin with mr. feingold. we talked about that after about six should go. still talking about it today. you have been a strong defender of the vote in favor of the affordable care act. and yet some of the criticism has come from democrats. uniform are president clinton who said i like the idea of obamacare, i was in favor of the law but this is the craziest thing, people who are small business owners are don't make enough money to qualify for subsidy are getting killed by rising premiums. premiums. you heard the governor of minnesota, a democratic governor have their own exchange, he said the affordable care act is no longer affordable. you can see that it does not work exactly as you envisioned. >> i think it's essential that you make sure everybody in this country has health care that's affordable and is accessible. that's the goal. that's the thing i most heard when i was a senator and did town meetings. that was the number one request.

what the health care reform bill did was some very important things that we would not want to give a. senator johnson wants to completely repeal it. if he had his way we would be in a situation where the 20 million people who are now covered because of the successes of health care bill would no longer be covered. that saves a lot of money for the system. ask the hospitals. asks the clinics. not having people come in sick is one of the best ways to save money through the system. secondly, senator johnson has his way and repeal said, we will once again have a situation where people can be denied insurance based on a preexisting condition and that means cancer people, heart condition people and others. and if he has his way young people who are graduating high school will not be able to stay on the pair split until they're 26. those are all things that i think our successes. moving forward we have to work in a bipartisan basis of the how to make it better. there's a family glitch problem where the evaluation of

eligibility is based on an individual rather than family. we need to get rid of the so-called cadillac tax. we need to do something to do with the cost of prescription medicine and went to get away to control deductibles. this is the greatest concern i've heard. that can only happen by conceding the law is here to stay which it is the senator johnson wants to go back six years, get rid of whole thing and start over. that will not work. it's time for us to work together on a bipartisan basis to make it more affordable. that should be the goal. >> let me bring it up this way -- i will give you plenty of time to talk about but given that you refer to obamacare as a massive consumer fraud. my question is essentially this, is there value in having 20 million people or that number injured today he were not injured in -- >> i misspoke yesterday, on friday. before the affordable care act wasn't permitted, 94% of

wisconsin at richard now it's 95%. it's got a little bit higher. it has been, it has been, it has been a disaster a young mom who had to quit her part-time job, leave the kids, get a full-time job because her premiums went from $500 a month to $1200 a month. of patient protection and affordable care act has not lived up to its name. there are three basic promise of. he made a couple of these. he wrote an op-ed that said there's nothing in the health care law that will force you off the plan july. the supremes would be reduced. like president obama said, families, premiums, families would pay less. if you like a doctor you can keep it. none of those things turned out. the fact of the matter is thousands lost their health care plans they could for he said he knew what was in it. he should have known that obamacare basically eliminate the high risk corporate that's 20,000 wisconsinites right there

and yet he promised wisconsinites if you like your health care plan you can keep it. it was a mass consumer fraud. .. i would cut premiums to half of what they are today. i would put patients back in charge and give them the freedom and the choice rather than thence unworkable system that is completely in a death spiral right now. >> the real fraud is to pretend what senator johnson was doing that there wasn't a problem with premium and deductibles deductibles before the health

reform act. in a lot of cases insurance companies are ripping people off right and left. the idea that this started in 2011 is ridiculous and he knows it. the fact is, we have an opportunity here to broaden this program which would be better for everybody. he won't raise minimum wage, he won't help out with student loan, he said 200,000 wisconsin ours health care coverage is just a little bit. >> you may have healthcare coverage but they didn't and you just do miss it. >> we could've covered them without remaking the whole healthcare delivery system. it's been a disaster. on your show, here's a quote, it's really not as bad as some people were pretending it was. trust me, they are not pretending. the premiums who went up to $787

a month or not pretending month are not pretending. the couple with cancer, she was age four and he with prostate cancer who lost their insurance on the high-risk plan called me panicked because they couldn't log onto healthcare.gov, couldn't even set up a website spending half $1 billion a billion dollars trying to do it. they were in a panic, stress for cancer patients isn't a good thing. that was a result of huge health care plan and you bet i would repeal it in a heartbeat and concentrate on what actually works. interject free market discipline and health saving accounts and allow states to regulate insurance and allow people to purchase insurance across state line. you can handle pre-existing positions using risk pools and we didn't have to spend trillions of dollars on the scheme that is a complete disaster and is actually harming people. >> what he is going to do is

repeal this and what he just said was it's a lot of stress when you have cancer and you can't get health care coverage. he's going to eliminate the provision to make sure you can be denied healthcare based on a pre-existing condition pretty's going to stress out a whole lot of people. >> i want to ask you a question about about trade. this has become a big issue in this race and in the presidential context. were talking about the trains specific partnership. he thinks it would be a good idea to open up markets in the pacific rim countries and he thinks it would be a good idea. when you announced her candidacy mr. feingold, you said right off the bat, this is a long complex agreement and use that i'm against it. why are you against that? >> anybody who has been following this subject over the years, as i've i've had an opportunity to do knows that these all have a calming

characteristic. they are corporate handshakes. they're not legitimate deals between countries where workers and other concerned representatives, they're done in secret and they always benefit the big corporation. nafta and the other agreements have cost wisconsin 75000 jobs over the years. that is certified by the government. >> it was not all one nation, it's not companies picking up and moving. >> what i said was 75,000 were certified by the government to have been related to trade because you can't get the ta benefits. there may be others of course that were affected by what you just mentioned but that's specific to trade. the ttp, there was tons of publicity. there were protests in countries around the world and without a doubt, i can see see this was the same kind of thing. a deal that says are companies in the united states, why don't you move somewhere else where there's lower wages, you don't have to pay the workers a fair price, you don't have a file the environmental regulation. senator johnson has refused to even tell his position on it.

think about that. he's a senator from the state, he's had access since last december and he said it's complicated i just can't decide until after the election. again, he stands against the workers of the state who i know have figured out that these trade deals are a raw deal in their senator has supported him every chance he's got. >> unlike senator feingold, actually noting talking talk about when it comes to trade. i expert to 25 different countries. what will always guide my decision is what's in the best decision of wisconsin workers. it's vitally important, you're right, it's a knee-jerk reaction but i actually went through the thoughtful process, hard work. i'm actually reaching out to the very complex and how does that complex document affect very

complex businesses. the fact the matter is both presidential candidates, i'm happy to elect the fair trade deal, but i understand it's in the best interest of wisconsin workers to keep those markets open and in order to do that you have to negotiate trade deals. i'd be willing to insist on fair trade. there's no doubt about it. we been taken advantage of. donald trump is actually right on that. we have to make sure that doesn't happen in the future. i am happy to support the new president and negotiate a better yield but we have to keep those overseas markets open. >> he is doing what politician does. it's a. political ploy. the other senators around the country have come out against the steel. he is hiding because he's

worried about his reelection. he will not tell us where he stands. it's just a game, a political game. >> is going to be a close call. we have to keep these overseas markets. one thing that i do it i've done it repeatedly is a bring in the agriculture and the manufacturing interests and others and find out where it is. we are a long ways from that. i'm not going to make a snap judgment based on a 60 page wiki leak version of these things. how close minded is that. >> he doesn't understand the private sector or how important overseas markets are to the economy of wisconsin. >> i want to spend a couple minutes on the supreme court. there are estimates we could be talking about three appointments to the court and i want to get a sense of each of you whether there are certain things you absolutely must have or cannot

have in a new justice. >> they don't have the entirety of the written law and the constitution and people like scalia, this is why the election is for all the marbles. it's for the election and the presidency and the supreme court this is for the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and protect members of their own home. we have some crowing about the majority has now been lost and she can't wait, and the liberal wing will find a vote for these judges that voted against landmark decision that made the second amendment in individual right to bear arms. they can't wait to overturn the decision. i'm concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. these freedoms are under assault and i will only vote to confirm judges, people that have the

record like justice scalia had, where he realized that the first amendment trumped his desire for a result. i won't vote to control those super legislatures. he'll be voting for them all the time. >> it's amazing he would answer in that way when he has been a key part of denying the president of the united states his role in the constitution to have an appointment considered. i did teach a course here at marquette. the course was about the role of the senate and the constitution. students were real good in understanding that the constitution doesn't give the president and the senate the option to deal with supreme court justices. it said the senate shall advise and consent. the president shall nominate and the senate shall advise and consent.

senator johnson has refused to do his job. just like in the trade deal. he won't else where he stands. he said i will meet with the guy and won't consider him, but he also said something else. he said if mitt romney had won the election it might be a different story. in other words, what what he's pretending is it somehow about the person but it doesn't create a three-year term, it's a four-year term. he has broken the all-time record with his colic of not having a vote on the supreme court nominee. the notion that i wouldn't vote for people that republicans would want, when i was in the senate, i did the opposite. president bush had two nominations. i met with them for an hour each. i did the for five days of hearings before the committee and i made my judgment. i voted against one and by the way i voted for chief justice roberts. chief justice roberts voted on the right to bear arms along with justice scalia. your statement about that is

completely wrong. i think justice scalia would be completely horrified to see the u.s. senate doing this terrible damage to one of the most important institutions in our country. >> in full disclosure here, they're not required to hold hearings or take about. it said they shall advise and consent. if they do not, as you can see the historical record, this is the most extreme politicization that has ever occurred, 125 days hundred 25 days. they are required to tax action of some side and all they've done is refuse -- >> it's like there are two branches involved, president obama has the responsibility to nominate. senate is supposed to advise and

consent. since were so close to the election, the american people want some type of say. if i would've voted i would've voted to withhold my consent. we are advising president obama not to send someone. [inaudible] >> is a good for america to have , justice scalia passed away in february of this year and the nomination came in march of this year, it's quite possible we could go another number of months. is that a good thing for americans. >> he said the supreme court has been operating just fine. if they deadlock for - 4, that shows that the issue is really

bipartisan. that's a shame. if you have a split decision, the appellate courts ruling stands. no, justice breyer said the pre-mccord's operating just operating just fine and it's not a pass-through through crisis or crisis on supreme court. i've been doing my job because the justice would flip it and have a activist court, and it does threaten your amendment rights. >> having someone decide in advance what judge garland's views would be without even giving him a hearing, not even doing the simple job of having a person come before the judiciary committee and having a hearing. he's a very distinguished moderate judge to many

republicans have voted for the past. for political reasons senator johnson said no because he is voting on the basis of ideology and acting on the basis of ideology instead of following the constitution. the constitution contemplates that he should do his job here. he sat on his hands and knees joined with others and maybe he'll say will get new justice is because this process will not end. >> i will give you a chance to respond. >> i am fulfill for filling my role. them and tell you, there's no guarantee will get a conservative president to go through the list. donald trump provided a list of judges and it could go the other way. i can't think of a more fair process from that standpoint. >> he's not to let her have anything because he does not

have regard for her as president. he will disregard her. >> it's a totally different situation because the american people will have spoken. >> let's talk about foreign policy. i want to talk about what's happening with isis. we are at this fairly important moment where iraqi forces, with the help of american forces are trying to retake the city of mosul. in the past, i think we have all talked about what is the proper role for the u.s. in trying to deal with the threat of isis. i do want to spend some time on that tonight. i'll begin with you. what is the proper role at this moment in time? are we doing enough to defeat isis simply by using airstrikes or special operations forces to assist rocky trips troops are coalition forces. >> this is the most disgusting organization and has to be destroyed. there is no question. although steps have been taken, i feel strongly strongly that more has to be done.

that's why i have been specific. i've talked about it before. as a civic plan to enhance with being done because some progress is being made but it needs to increase. we need special operations that are already existing and already have the number two guy and isis. that needs to be accelerated soon. the only way that's going to work as if we have greater human intelligence, more spies that are on the ground in places like syria and iraq so we can identify where these places are. we have to be even more aggressive in cutting off their ability to have this state or caliphate and that means cutting off their oil supply, the ability to produce it and transport it. we need to cut off their finances. i've worked in the intelligence committee for five years with the treasury department with ways in which we can do that more effectively. we need to make sure they can get arms coming to the turkish work border. there's been some progress and the border has been closed up, there's been land taken away from isis both in syria and interact, but we have to make

sure that we do all these things by the way, we need to stop funding saudi arabia and say there are friend on one hand and export an ideology or religion that causes people to start believing that americans are evil and should be killed. senator johnson had a chance recently to vote for resolution that would cause the saudi's to have to think twice before they got arms about some of the things they're doing. he voted no. it was a bipartisan resolution and he voted no. i believe these plans are necessary. senator johnson has no plan. >> first of all you have to understand that president obama laid out. [inaudible] president obama's plan is not working. it's not not anywhere close to adequate enough. don't just take my word, listen listen to cia director whose testified in july.

all of our efforts have not reduced them. they remain a threat. isis is a growing, evolving, and from my standpoint, a more dangerous threat than ever has been and we have not been addressing that. >> in his plan, this is important to understand. his plan has elements of things he voted against during his 18 year career in the senate. he voted against authorizing the government from the military. five of those years the authorization passed by unanimous consent. he only twice voted affirmatively where special ops are authorized parties the only senator to vote against giving law-enforcement the enforcement the tools they need to combat against international terrace. he has a very phony record when

it comes to these plans and the support. we are hollowing our military. we have to strengthen our economy and our military and america's leadership is void and lovely world right now. they have a plan, it's it's called peace through withdrawal. he was the first senator to call for the strategic blunder of withdrawing troops from iraq. we should've done that in iraq but because we didn't they were able to arise from the ashes of the defeated al qaeda in iraq and that's why were dealing with that right now. we have to strengthen our military and lead a meaning coalition. >> do we need more american soldiers in that part of the world? >> we arty have 6000 american troops right now. that's the estimate. those troops, we have left a

stabilizing force in harm's way. we have to provide air cover and get it right. i'm not saying this is easy. two years that isis is had to train additional operatives, little children to become savages and barbaric. that's that's what we have done by allowing isis to exist for another two years. the plan that he supports will not do the job. >> senator johnson was asked to give his plan. he has no plan.

[inaudible] can you beat isis with airstrikes? you've talked about other things, can you beat isis with airstrike. >> not alone. that's why told you the other things they need to do. they are making progress. our our brave people are in mosul risking their lives. they are making enormous progress, but there has to be more progress. he said just last week or two weeks ago he thinks we should send a force their. that is the worst possible idea. that is exactly what isis wants. he has not learned the lesson of the mistake of a rack. that was a mistake and i guarantee you isis was created because we went into a rack, not because we laughed. >> i said the struggle is a generational struggle which is true. the islamic terrorist declared

wars against america in the 1990s. this is going to be a generational struggle. this will not be easy. we have to commit ourselves to success. we have to do beat isis and remain tenacious at tracking down islamic terrorists wherever they reside and then we need to defeat them. he wants to close down guantánamo so we don't gather that human intelligence. we have to get serious about this. the longer we delay on this, the longer we will be able to train. let me remind you, to people from milwaukee were arrested in texas trying to get to syria. >> the homeland security has had the opportunity to raise the budget so they could get more agents. there's a proposal out there right now that will provide 225 counterterrorism agents but they need those resources so they can do these investigations.

he has not acted in a way that he can in the same thing goes for the intelligence budget. >> we are always fighting for more funding to the defend this nation and homeland. the problem is fighting for defense. they have held up the appropriation bill because they hold it hostage for all these training programs and things that simply don't work. we have to divide in this country. they wanted to spend more domestically on domestic programs. >> on ask you what's going on in syria. we've seen these terrible images from aleppo where they have suffered greatly with the war in syria. your party's nominee has talked about increasing the number of

refugees allotted in this country. you favor this? >> we can learn more about these individuals before they come over here. i think were sort of missing the book on that. tragedy is something that has to be addressed. we have to take more serious action. they have not provided leadership on this. there are things we can do. i have felt for many years the moderate groups of rebels should be given some arms. there should be restraint but they can have antiaircraft artillery given to them that would be helpful. they could have more sanctions. >> you support 65000 more

refugees? >> i'm interested in having more scrutiny and making sure we know who they are before they get here. >> event since syria would've not strong out of control if we hadn't been in iran. we bugged out of iraq. again that is a problem. what we should be doing, rather than talking about bringing more refugees, let's stop the flow and have safe zones and no fly zones. >> what i did is i met with delegations of the arab states

around the region. they are begging for american leadership. they will provide the boots on the ground. if you can change the dynamic on the ground you might end up with a settlement but unless we provide the air coverage in the know fly zone, were not going to save. >> i understand what you're saying, but why hasn't he done anything, why hasn't he made proposals. senators can make proposals. senator johnson just criticized the president but you don't do your own job. provide the president with the authority to do some of these things and maybe use it or maybe

he won't but johnson is just talking about this, he hasn't acted. it's the minority leader that is blocking that. that's why we are left with resolutions and it's a terrible way to address government. we've been trying to bring appropriation bills but they continue to be blocked. bottom line is, they're the obstructionist. we've been trying to do this and i want to prioritize spending. from ice can point, i'm a guy in this race that understands and senator is the guy who voted against authorizing the military. >> i will respond to that but.

[inaudible] >> harry reid can't stop you from introducing a bill. everybody knows there is thousands of provisions in these bills. on a number of occasions, i was not the only one to vote against it. a number of republicans did including john mccain. he said friday night, his job is to review legislation and see if it's wasteful spending. they have to justify their legislation. when it's good they vote for it when it's bad they don't. the idea that he will vote for it no matter what. >> men and women are in harms way and you bet i'm going