impact here. but i see no evidence from numbers or any other numbers that we will seize anytime soon to be that swing group that is not a block that remains extremely important election i suspect that on election night when we are looking at returns, particularly from ohio and pennsylvania and a number of other states but also looking at returns because of latino catholics from colorado and nevada we will be paying a great deal of attention to how catholics vote and that's exactly how pope francis would want it. thank you very much. >>

dan rather arise to go to central command, indicates there and the military guy who was the pr guy says if you don't mind, the chaplain really like to see you before you go into the field. and decent of course i'll need the chaplain. the chaplain was from louisiana. and he said i just had to meet you, mr. rather, because i had to tell you this story. right before i came here i was saying mass and to look to the back of the church and there was a guy who would not been there 20 years at least. i said, jean baptiste, it was lovely to see year, what brought you here? just curious. he said dan rather.

dan rather brought me here. and the priest said really? he said how? why? why did dan rather bring your? he said because every night crisis in the gulf, crisis in the gulf. i figure any minute it will be here. [laughter] >> but i was actually going to start with a different story, also completely true, and asserted picks up where dj left off which was unintentional but happy. which is one that, when jack kennedy was president and jack kennedy's house seat, and they were friends and tip didn't like to ask the president for favors but tips very good friend was head of cyo. cyo was meeting in new york and

the president was going to be in new york anyway. and so tip says, jack, i hate to ask it is but really, would you mind going and just talking to the cyo? they are right there, not going to be a problem. the president suggests, but that's it. no more. because once the cyo is a bear, the rest are there. and so sure enough it gets this message, well, the bishops are meeting down in the ballroom, and also by the way, the nuns are meeting in ballroom d., or probably see. [laughter] and of course they want to see you, and kennedy says, i'll go see the nuns, they vote democratic. those bishops are all republican. [laughter] so this is not new.

i know this will start by saying very from the church doesn't endorse. news to them. [laughter] and so i was very curious as e.j. was to go look at things like the national catholic register, enter right, they are not endorsing exactly but they are served pretty clear that if you vote for somebody who isn't 100% antiabortion that you're going straight to hell, but what was interesting to me was there was not a red hat on that list. so the higher, the people who are nervous about their futures were not represented. and it's true by the way that if you do go in, by the way, cardinals are at least one

cardinal is taking a stand on the world series, but he's done a great thing. he said since we waited an eternity for a win, he said if chicago wins he will send deep dish pizza and baked goods, whatever that means, to all the homeless in cleveland, and leaving the bishop of cleveland of course to say, me too. so with good. that's just the kind of statement that the administration was saying we want to see. it is true, however, that if you just go to google and type in catholic vote, what comes up is a website called catholic vote. and it starts saying that tim kaine does not represent catholic values come and ask you to sign a petition but it doesn't tell you what it is the. and then it has questionnaires,

and once as will you send your best donation right now to help fund this catholic vote battle plan for the 2016 elections that brian burridge outlined to you in his letter to your choices are yes, because i share your views at the 2016 elections very likely our last chance to save america from being destroyed by the anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-life radical left. or no, because i don't care much about elections or who is elected president. [laughter] so it's a problem. and it is still very much out there. and it is something that people feel, and it is very much in parishes, particularly and certain parts of the country. but it is, when you talk about

the catholic vote, you cannot ignore the role of the many members of the hierarchy in our elections and how it is push people to believe that there's only one issue that is a catholic issue. we also know where the nuns are come and they are on the bus. [laughter] [applause] you are here, good. with the fight of his sister carol. and i did look up the sisters of st. joseph put out a wonderful, just a little firmer, just keep in mind that in 1998 the american catholic bishops did put out the seven principal catholic social teachings, you know, care for the vulnerable and the poor, unity, solidarity. human rights and responsibility, the right to food, water, shelter, clothing.

and the catholic is personally responsible for those rights to the importance of family and faith communities, responsible stewardship, human dignity and the rights of workers, all of course rooted in the common good but including the personal obligation to ensure the rights of others. and that is not something we hear even from which is. we outsource to protect which has rights. and that is not something your enough about and that is what she was talking about their young latino catholics, if they start, if they are caring about that, that site was because so far when you talk about that vote, it is not in the catholic vote. it's been the jewish vote. in fact when you do surveys of jewish voters they hardly ever, like 4% said israel matters. actual i just looked at the

numbers. the numbers that say social justice is the most important thing is embarrassingly high for catholics, i have to say, as a catholic married to a nice jewish boy for 50 years. literally. so if young latinos start becoming a social justice catholics, that's not only a good thing in terms of really representing the church more thoroughly, but also keeping the church collide. because the pew numbers on the people who have left catholicism are shocking. you know, 32%, rounding up, say that they were raised catholic in this country. 32% of all americans, and this is a that enormous 35,000 person survey the deeper and out of

those, 41% say they no longer i catholic. only 2% convert to catholicism. so we are losing population. if we don't address these issues. and i think that that is terribly, terribly important to keep in mind. it is true that we tend to focus in terms of voting on white catholics confidence for a reason, which is that they have been the people who have pretty much stayed with the winner, until mccain and romney. because really if you go back, white catholics vote for nixon, carter, reagan, bush, clinton, bush, and then mccain and romney. and so it was always the group are looked at in the electorate because it appeared to be as they went, so what the election. but, of course, the last do that has not been as true. therefore, this election, what i

would suggest looking at your numbers, so your last poll, this was before recent develop it and are undecided are way too high, but really, in the abc last poll before we started tracking by the way it was 51-38 trump, clinton among white catholics. in your last poll it was 48-39 over all, all voters clinton, trump. white catholic men 33 clinton, 58 trump. white catholic women, 49 clinton, 38 trump. so they are tracking it exactly the same numbers as the total poll. so from that what i take is watch white catholic women. forget the men. [laughter] and with that we will take your questions. thank you very much. [applause]

>> media questions first from members of the media, please >> is it fair to look at the white catholic men split and suggest that they tend to sleep during the gospels a wakeup for the homilies? [laughter] >> well, you know, the gospel used to be in latin and they didn't understand it so, you know. there they are. >> i'm russell. i believe one of you mentioned the platforms and suggested either they're both bad weather so difference but i strongly disagree on that. encased in if you don't know, hillary clinton wants to spend several billions for planned parenthood and anyhow wrote congressman, every september --

i do. you need to look at www.of voting info.net and find, you will find the republicans support the-in the. the democrats want to appeal -- repeal the. how can you say there's no difference? [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, cokie. >> i did not say that there was a difference between the two platforms. in fact, i think it's quite obvious there's enormous differences between the two platforms. what i did say in what's unmistakably true is neither party political platforms measure up well with what the church teaches. that is, if we just think about it, it's pretty clear. the whole body of the church's teachings is to be understood as

a single harmonious unit for everything from death penalty and preferential option for the poor to opposing abortion and so when a so forth. it's all one. that whole unfortunately isn't evident in the platforms of either political party. i don't know, so the nature of the rally for catholics is that we always in one sense or another have to engage our prudential judgment and inform our conscience to wrestle with these things and make the best choice that we can based on th that. >> a good example of what i was talking about is that your commitment is on primarily -- sorry. your commitment, i was saying, i'm sorry that the gentleman's view is very representative of a

significant piece of the catholic community. he does represent the part of the catholic community that believes that the abortion issue trump's every other issue and, therefore, has made the choice you have made. and i think of the social justice catholics, some of whom are pro-life as well, make the case that being pro-life not only takes into account what the church teaches on abortion but also with the church teaches about the poor and social justice. this is why we have a running argument among catholics vote in leadership and in the pews. it's a fair -- you here to represent that you. it's in the church. that's the argument we have. i think pope francis emphasis, not that he's abandoned the old church teaching, but i think is emphasis have been quite different than what became accustomed to over the previous

15 or 20 years. >> one more small thing, one of the things that's often overlooked in this conversation is on a pro-life catholic myself. what's, what are the best policies by which we make some progress on pro-life issues? it's interesting over the last seven years the abortion rate in the united states has gone down. i'll just leave that out there. >> one quick add-on. it is notable that most of the country, catholics, white catholic, latino catholics included agree today that neither political party represents their views anymore. so 60% of white catholics and 52% of latino catholics agree with that statement, so that maybe notable to this conversation. >> tom roberts, national catholic reporter. since the bishops have been such a discussion, any polling that reflects whether the bishops have been influential among

catholics one way or the other? do they lead or are their number special catholics are considering what they say? >> so unless numbers went actually we talked about the bishops versus priests, we had a bishops, priests, and we asked about inflows in general. it was around pope france pope ' visit, and basically what we found is that the popes influence far outstrips the bishops influence in the u.s. context. i don't have the direct numbers right in front of me but that was favorability ratings were higher and influence was fired in that survey. >> i think you should add a new question at some point, the influence of your views more, the bishops or the nuns? you may see a very interesting correlation, i suspect.

[inaudible] >> i believe one of his books was called a flock of shepherds, which is a great title. >> i am a latina, a hispanic, really don't like the term looking at. i think as political connotations. i am an intentional catholic. the reason why i'm standing up is to ask a couple of questions. one, how long ago were al all of the surveys conducted? and i'm just wondering if you believe some of the recent developments may have altered the outcome of those numbers, to how our lady has been defined in the context of service that you conducted? and generally trying to tie everything together. do you generally believe as was mentioned that most catholics, particularly the melinda catholics, and it appears if i'm reading all of you correctly or

interpreting all you correctly, that latino catholics are much more natural catholics and focus of voting ideology over the leaf system over that core catholic upbringing. and do you think that there's anything that can be done to address that? and on the issue of social justice, is it an interpretation by the millennials, the young latinas, that social justice is something that needs to be addressed by the state, or are they believers in the individual personal responsibility that the church does teach with respect to love thy neighbor. i know it's a lot, a couple of questions, but i just try to make sure that i interpreting all i am listening directly to the presentations. >> let me just throw one number out before my more learned colleagues address that. and that is that in the

catholic, american catholic church as a whole, again in the big pew survey, only 22% our millennial, which is a shocking number. because the millennial population is the biggest population in the country. so the baby boomers are at 38% and the millennials are 32%. that's a problem for the church. whatever the reason for that, that is a problem. so the fact that latinos, hispanics, whatever, people who dissent from the iberian peninsula have many more millennials in their midst and the church as a whole, and that's something that needs to be understood, addressed, and in my view, celebrated. >> i think it just when we take a step back, one of the reasons when you talk about social justice and social equity really

relates to young millennials in general, let you know millennials, is that they are among the highest poverty rates in the country. they literally have 24% of, to live in poverty. when you look at our classrooms today, 51% of k-12 our children of color, disproportionately they are first generation immigrants and they are the very first time where 51% of our kids were actually living below the poverty line. when you start talk about social equity, they are living it today. the latino vote is incredibly complex and i don't want to say blanket lay where they are, but for the most part a lot of these children of immigrants have experienced that level of poverty. they are basically seeing their parents working two or three hours, two or three jobs, working very, below minimum-wage

jobs and all of a sudden they find themselves giving a voice and navigating social justice and social equity for the families. they don't see it necessary as food the political process. you will see vendor act about the local level. they have some of the highest levels of volunteering, the highest levels of giving back and trie trying to make sense ot america is because i simply been speaking english air expected to understand america. i will throw one tidbit there. in our public school system, only eight out of 50 states require civic education to graduate and get your high school diploma. it's a national tragedy, and if you're expecting a whole generation of first generation immigrants to learn the levers of power, they are not. if they don't understand democratic building. what we try to do is teach them provide information. and disproportionally the young

people that are active when it comes to politics happen to be from the dreamer population or the of the family member that is mixed status if that is where a lot of the information that we glean. a lot of the folks we start talking to young latinas, and i mentioned that at the very end of my remarks, you have a large defection of the ugly just because they don't see a reflection. i think that's why pope francis have given them a reason to come back to the church or at least be primed to go back to the church because he is speaking their language. >> this might help of her our latest numbers based on 80,000 images we conducted last year, so 2050 numbers show latinos are 42% of catholics now. it's really approaching parity. and fast. to give you a sense of the demographics, the same survey of almost 82000 people, white catholics under the age of 50

are 39% white catholics are under the age of 50. 71% of latino catholics are under the age of 50. that gives you a sense of the demographic shift. >> could i just say real quickly, first of all, if you were asking do we know yet whether the jim comey letter has had an impact? i don't believe are going to know that for another couple of days because holding over begins is very vexed. [inaudible] >> it is showing up but a don't think we'll see its full effect for a couple of days. on the question -- [inaudible] >> okay. that's how i heard it. sticky mention the polls were conducted last year, i was just wondering, in light of the debates and -- [inaudible]

>> and the abc numbers are all postdebate and we are now doing nightly tracking. so it's right to the minute. >> the point i want to make was on the social justice question you asked. there's a lot of talk saying catholic social teaching is very different from traditional new deal liberalism. in fact, there is a wonderful piece about a guy called lew daly who runs research who argued the whole new deal could be seen as coming out of the catholic bishops 1919 program for social reconstruction. and that there has been within the catholic tradition a kind of christian democratic tradition that's not dissimilar from his social democratic tradition, that really does see a substantial role for government in ensuring social justice. catholics are very interested in

mediating institutions. obviously, we care a lot about all of his social service programs that are run not only by the catholic church of all kinds of other religious traditions in a country. so there's concerned about them, but the catholic tradition is a pro-government tradition in the sense that it believes in limited government but it also believes there is a vital role for government to play in social justice. i don't think that's a debatable. you can debate around the edges to give a talk about the emphasis at different times. you can say certainly status systems like those in eastern europe were violated the catholic tradition as well, but i think there is a substantial role for government within the long social teaching of the church going back to the 1890s. >> something to clarify, that while the majority, they do believe in a strong government. they believe there's a role for government to provide services, you get a list of all the

demographics in america to take advantage of those services. it has a lot to do with this idea that they should be able to be taken care of without being disseminated. put aside. something else will talk about the many vote and the latino vote in general, something i didn't mention is the average latino vote is 27. 44% of the latino vote is under the age of 35. when cokie was mentioning the millennia vote, voter, generation is bigger than the baby boomers, this is the first year generations he will be able to vote as well and they are the larger and larger than the millennial, as little generation also the most diverse but it's also going to be the last generation that is majority white. so basically as was a type of these different social issues and how you actually start great leadership hig high point withie church from within cover, with

this look at 25 years to ensure that this new generation of americans are primed and ready to take on these leadership positions. >> as one of the members of a small but fervent a group called jews for catholic social thought -- [laughter] as cokie pointed out that we are afforded because we believe in it. [laughter] i do have to ask a skeptical question, insinuated itself into my mind increasingly over the past couple of years. if white evangelical protestants really meant what they been saying the past two generations, ted cruz would be the nominee of the republican party. and i am beginning to wonder, here's my analytical question, to what extent is religion

actually an independent variable in shaping beliefs and political activity, as opposed to simply a function of providence, identity, socioeconomic status, et cetera? when you correct for all of that, is there any religion left over? that's a dead serious question and i'm beginning to wonder whether american exceptionalism is all that it's cracked up to be. >> i am very worried that religion is becoming more a form of tribal identity that it is a tradition, a set of traditions that leads people to reflect on how their politics connects to the faith they process. -- profess. if you talk of evangelicals and the split between trump and cruise, there's a lot of talk that the churchgoing evangelicals were more pro-ted cruz although i wanted some of

that is gender gap where it was an anti-trump vote on the part of more churchgoing evangelical women. but i also think, and you see in the difference between russell more who's been very critical of trump, and the pastor of the first baptist church in dallas whose name -- jeffers, where he gave a sermon, i do want him misrepresented what it was essentially that these are tough times, we are on the ropes, we are being pushed out of the culture and sometimes you need a strong, in perfect handed event is. and i think that robbie called in nostalgia voters, but they are people who believe things are so messed up that we are willing to risk a guy like trump because that's what it takes to preserve our role in this. lastly, whenever you were talking about white voters, i say that as a white voter, there was always an element of race

that's been in this picture throughout the history of our republic, and that there has been a certain movement of white voters away from the democratic party, particularly but not exclusively in the south since the civil rights era, and that just wouldn't is part of this story. it's not to say all these people are racists. i'm not saying that. i just think that if you ignore the role of race, you can understand some of the shifts. >> i think vijay is exactly right about this religious tribal identity, it becomes unreflective, sort of us and then kind of dynamic. but the other thing i think is going on, we will look at all kinds of dynamics in the election and what we conclude is that in some ways this election is about the future of the country. it's about what the country looks like and whether that's good or bad, all these demographic changes, all these cultural changes.

does looking back look better? doesn't make america great again, this backward looking thing, or is a leading into the changes and celebrating them? we had a question, i'll show you the catholic break them because this may have as much to do without they are falling. we asked a question around is the city think the country has changed for the better or change for the worst since the 1950s? it turns out that 57% of white catholics believe it is change for the worse, and 65% of us than the catholics say it's change for the better. that's one of the big -- [inaudible] >> i had it right. >> i would have to look it up but the bigger divide -- the gender split is not that big. >> its 1950 or -- >> we said 1950 or 2050, question mark, kind of the type

of report last week with our partners at brookings. >> i have it right here should you want it. >> catholic news service. i know it's been a really long election season but we have seen over the course of the past year and a half some softening of support where you would not expect to see such softening. the rise of third parties, some tectonic shifts. is it possible that after the dust settles from this that there is room for like a christian democratic party, as is in europe, that would espouse the full range of catholic social teaching? or are we so wedded to the two major political parties that shifting is not possible? >> could i ask steve to answer that after cokie because i still want to hear what you say. i'm just curious. >> go ahead.

>> is always easier to proceed hope he rather than to follow her. [laughter] >> i thought you might feel that way. >> in response to your question first and that i want to come back to bill's question. now, i don't think there's a chance for the emergence in american politics of any kind of new political movement that incorporates the full range of the catholic teachings, whether it's a christian social justice, i just don't see it as a possibility. i think, in fact, alliance of the polarization -- the lines -- that exist in american politics are so sharp and so deep that skating over those linkages is impossible in american politics right now. nevertheless, i do that maybe a little bit more hope come it's

interesting these two questions come so close together. there are voters for whom religion really matters and for whom the teachings of their faith really matter in the political engagement. i'm tempted at this point maybe to pass the mic to sister simone campbell, she stepped out? from guns on the bus, who found all over the country -- nuns on the bus. for networked organizations outreach on exactly these kinds of things. i think those voters are there but like you, i think that by large for the vast majority of americans, religion just becomes the means to rationalize voting decisions and policy decisions that are made on a variety of other grounds. >> to weigh in on a third party

briefly, because we're getting late. if ever there were a year when a third party might have emerged, this was it. you see where they are. the two combined are lower than 10%. so it's just not, it just doesn't happen. and ross perot can do because -- if donald trump would run as a third party he would have some numbers, but the fact is, and i've actually no data to support those, and i love data and said this is bad, but i have come to believe that we sort of inchoate understand that if we start split into a bunch of political parties that we would really be in a mess. because -- now. there is the possibility of doing something.

i mean, the country is so big and so diverse in so many ways, not just ethnically and religiously at all about, but economically. and so i think that we sort of, we gravitate toward our politics being very centralized in these two parties. the parties themselves, however, can change a lot. and we've seen that over the course of certainly of my lifetime, and i think we will see it as a result of this election. that's where i think the change comes, is internally inside the parties. >> i've always thought the churches job in politics in life was to make everybody feel guilty about something and, therefore, when you look at catholic social teaching, it runs crosswise to conventional liberalism in some ways and conventional conservatism in

other ways. the problem is that a lot of people who are more liberal on one side did not take the church's position on the other. the ap reporter who went on to other things later wrote this wonderful story many, many years ago about the very small number of people in the new state legislator who voted pro-life on abortion, against abortion, and also against the death penalty. he was able to fit them all in the store because they were such a small overall percentage of the state legislature. and the press makes for a christian that -- are very low because of what robbie suggested, which is the disaffiliation of so many young people from religion altogether. so that this party would even have problems among the over 65 is right now. breading alone what it would be difficult for a lot of christian democratic parties are in

trouble around the world because of its secularization. >> last question. >> i feel very privileged. could the panel speak briefly about how the catholic vote may break down ballot? >> robbie, you've got the numbers. >> you know, it tends to be bistate. i mean, it's not, so to the degree that we have ended ticket splitting in this country, not a big issue will be different, but then, lets me see if i can get these numbers right. in 1972, 44% of the voters voted one way for president at another way for congress. in 2012, it was 6%. we have pretty much ended ticket

splitting, but the push before the jim comey letter had been that republicans asking voters to split their ballots to check hillary clinton. so there's no reason to think catholics would be any different than any other voters in that particular arrangement. since the jim comey letter immediately upon the release of the jim comey letter, many of the same republican candidates started running ads just saying vote for me, vote for trump. they stop disassociating themselves from trump. >> i think it will vary by state. there's a distinctive group of probably republican leaning independents and republicans who up to now have not been able to get you drunk. the percentage of the north catholic will probably depend heavily on the demographics of the state and not any peculiar catholic component.

>> i basically agree with what's been said. one area where are you might notice little bit of a difference down ballot is in regards to stronger pro-life voters, some of whom, a good portion of whom are catholic. and they are i think you might see some people voting for local pro-life candidates even though they might vote against trump at the top of the ticket. but again i think you need to look at it on a state-by-state, almost a case-by-case basis. >> thank you, everybody very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> political scientist larry sabado university of virginia center for politics has released his predictions for tomorrow's elections. in the senate he predicts democrats picking up forced to making 50 senators that are democratic and 50 republicans, democrats regain control of the senate didn't giv then if tim ks vice president. as for governorships, his crystal ball predicts no net change with 31 states having a republican governor. 18 states democratic governors and one state with an independent. and a sailor clinton is likely to get 322 electoral votes winning the election. election. the professor as possible state florida, dr. lim, virginia and

pennsylvania all going democratic although all out, iowa, arizona and utah would go republican. tonight c-span will take you live to philadelphia for a campaign run with president obama and the first lady. hillary clinton and former president bill clinton. c-span love donald trump's rally in grand rapids, michigan, and hillary clinton again at 11:45 p.m. eastern as she stops in raleigh, north carolina. here's a look at some the ads that went in the final days of the election. >> she has some bad hombres you're ever going to get them out. they're bringing drugs, bringing crime. >> they will be deported. >> this is a country where we speak english, not spanish. >> we're rounding them up in droves. >> threaten peaceful citizens spirit who is doing the raping of? somebody is doing the raping. >> i happen to disagree with all concept. the whole thing with the anchor

babies >> we need to elect a strong leader who will renew our inner-city communities. our country needs a president who will focus on making our communities safer and rebuilding our infrastructure. donald trump is the leader who will stimulate economic growth,

generate opportunities for businesses and create jobs in urban communities. is urban renewal agenda is an extension of the long honest conversation. he's been having with leaders throughout the african-american communities are cities across the country will benefit from the ideas he is presented. yes, i'm with trump. spent election night on c-span, watch the results and apart of a national conversation about the outcome, the location of the clinton and donald trump election night headquarters i want to victory and concession speeches in key senate, house and governor races starting live 18 eastern as wrote the following 24 hours to watch live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> this week on the

communication a look at some of the tech issues being discussed in campaign 2016, and a look at the potential tech policy agenda of a president clinton or a president trumpet joining us to discuss these issue, jeffrey eisenbach is with the american enterprise institute and craig aaron who is president and ceo of free press. what in a sentence or two would you describe as hillary clinton's tech agenda? >> guest: base some of the campaign has put out so far and because want to start by saying i met here as a representative of hillary clinton and i have a lot to see in praise and plan to criticize but i would say the key elements that interest me most our commitment to really expand broadband access with a lot of talk about competition and bring the benefits of broadband to all americans, and then i think there's another strong theme running around the idea of inclusive innovation.

in other words, how do we make sure that the entire country, everyone actually shares in the benefits of the internet economy, of all the big, huge silo changes happening as a result, what do we do to make sure not too many people are left behind? post but how would you describe donald trump's tech agenda? >> guest: mostly awol. i'm missing a lot of it, very little written down. i will say i was pleasantly surprised to see mr. trump come out strong against the at&t time warner merger on day one with some very strong language about too much media power in too few hands. not sure i'm capable to analyze where they came from but i find it very interesting to see the candidates moving in that direction, of criticizing that kind of media concentration. otherwise i think with trump you had to read between the lines. maybe my colleague can shed some more light on what we've seen is a lot of things off-the-cuff,

some dogma shutting down the internet. not a lot of details prospect jeff isamu, same questions? >> guest: first of all, same disclaimer. committee representing the trump campaign or mr. company would and i have some criticism as well as some praise on that front. as far as mr. trump's policies are concerned, i think there's a lot of sharing of goals and objectives will want to see thee good, the benefits of the it be made available to all. i think we want to see more rapid innovation. i think want to see lower prices. i think what mr. trump is saying is that the path to those objectives is less regulation, lower taxation and so forth. if you are able to in government as an instrument of achieving those goals, as many democrats are, then you're going to have a bullet point agenda as secretary clinton does. they're so question that purple point agenda is much longer and

more expensive than president, candidate comes agenda is. the question is whether it will be more effective and to think that trump folks would argue less regulation, lower taxation is an across the board policy that will achieve good results on the internet as elsewhere. >> host: craig aaron also bought the fact that donald trump a spoken already against the proposed at&t time warner merger. what did you think of that? >> guest: we've seen a number of big mergers in recent years. we've seen comcast-nbc. we've seen, which was approved. we then saw comcast seek to take over time warner and kind of my reading of the fcc's review, particularly the fcc's review of that is it's not obvious to me that this fcc would've approved the comcast-nbc merger. i think it didn't quite say we got it wrong, which we hadn't done that by this reset will not

double, leading comcast even bigger. they did about at&t, they didn't allow at&t to purchase t-mobile. they did about it to purchase of directv. so i think at this point all of these mergers are going to be looked at very carefully but i think the notion that all republicans are complete lies a fit when it comes to antitrust policy i don't think is accurate. -- loss i fear. most people look at the republican party as a more likely to approve mergers. i don't think trump is not far off base or outside of them to say this is one we will take a close look at post back here to help us dig into some of the specific issues in tech policy is amir nasr of the morning council. >> one thing he mentioned was broadband deployment. i was interested, i know this isn't very were in the past especially in congress it's brought republicans and democrats together. secretary clinton has discussion wants to be secretary clinton has discussion once did anyone

ever secretary clinton has discussion once did anyone ever so helpful to online by 2020. the gop platform talks about building private and public partnerships to bring rural america online. i'm just curious from both of your perspectives, is this an area where we can see the most, it's most likely to bring consensus in the next administration, the next congress? >> guest: i think that's a good question to issue the consensus. i think had a baseline the notion the internet is not a necessity. that's something that even clinton said. i think there's growing agreement that while the internet may not quite be up there with water or electricity, it ranks right along hot water in terms of people's needs and imports. i would like to see that kind of agreement coming from both parties. one of the challenges will be who's willing to confront the problem? the problem as i see public of the changing nature of the digital divide, there are some areas that don't have access to

we need to address those but the biggest barrier seems to be priced the it just costs too much. the price is too high and that requires more competition, is one proven way to bring down prices. we need to see debt. there are other ways you could look at the ultimate i think that's what's keeping most of folks off-line. it's not that they don't want it, it's not that they don't need for their jobs, education and every life. it's that they simply can't afford it. >> i do think we're all in favor of expanded opportunity for people to get online. i think maybe different views than the parties have different views in terms of what that means. if you look at internet penetration, it's leveled off under the obama administration at about 80%, wireline and internet penetration. the fcc still making internet penetration is people who have a wireline connection. the question is do the other 20% of people want or need an internet connection as opposed to smart phones?

my 4 4g smartphone is off as fat as my wireline internet connection, depending on where in connecting. one question is how are we going to define internet penetration? another question is how are they going to define competition. for the most part the democrats have taken the position that more competition ca could be defined as having more competitors. they have advanced the model where you take the people who invested in infrastructure and say you need to resell your infrastructure that you spent billions of dollars to people who will compete against you and we will define all those people as competitors. there's more competition because we've created these resellers who are going to resell the product at a lower price. my wife at the moment is in school at oxford and i mentioned that because i'm a broadband consumer in the united kingdom which is sort of the poster child for pursuing that set a policy. both wireline and wireless. there's a direct line between

the set of policies. the effect of those policies is discouraging. the british are suffering terribly from the and he terribly from the antidote to the council he appeared as your plan to improve broadband connectivity to rollout or fiber and so far the five year plan is like most five year plans, have not been very successful. >> this seems like other folks have bartered some of those good old policies everything from the consumer end, talk about the recent market, clearly there is a market that is being served in the wireless market, for example, to some of those products being able to offer different things that it's created in a more penetration and a lot more availability. that's missing on the wired site. i guess i've yet to see a better answer than competition means more competitors. we seem to need more into something as important as that internet connection, i hope we'll start to see. if it really is a monopoly else is just a whole different set of

policies speed of the question is how do you think about competition in the internet. if you think about other aspects of the internet ecosystem that you know how to work, you know we have one comment search engine, google. we've got one from an online search shopping site, amazon. one comment social network on facebook are now witnessing we need a government faced the commission or a government amazon commission or a government googl google permisso come and break those companies out or to force them to resell their services but i guess you guys tried that at the ftc but for the most part people realize that those companies are competing with one another. they're competing with one another with very dynamic business strategies. when you see comcast and charter and at&t and verizon and t-mobile and sprint, that's a lot of competitors in a market like this, all of them competing vigorously with one another. one for my talk about his t-mobile's zero rating plan. very popular with consumers can

now so popular with some liberal public interest advocates. that's the innovation that current levels of competition are creating everything in a very healthy way. >> one thing this brings up is open internet issues. secretary clinton came out in strong support of the net that god wills of last year and she is, in the package and pledge to fight an open-ended rules abroad as well. i'm curious, i know that in congress, senator thurmond, -- senator thune has discussed want to rewrite the communications act for the internet age of the net neutrality rules somewhat undermines that. under a republican white house, if they managed to keep the majority, do you think there's a possibility of that resurfacing, the movement to rewrite the communications act? >> guest: i think there's a consensus. first of all, in the trump

campaign, it seems to me and again without going down a long list of bolton policy initiatives as far as telecom policy is concerned, has made clear that wasteful spending, unnecessary regulations out to be reduced and cut back. i think in general you've got a predilection. certainly got the republican platform and what republican members of congress tried to do, the notion of a less intrusive fcc more focused on enforcing rules and must focus on writing new ones. there's a long list of things coming out from the fcc over the course of the next, the last couple of months and the coming months. let's focus on writing new rules and more focused on enforcing existing ones. probably you would see support for them. >> it's interesting to see having no policy details as sort of a positive.

a lot of us look at, asking for those details because this is the one chance you have to sort of decide which administrators going to be in making all of these decisions. i think they're going to be huge decisions for a lot of things chef tess raise. the power of the new gatekeepers. that's something we need to be looking at. it doesn't mean the same rules apply as they would to wireline telecommunications carrier i think people all over the country are very concerned about how much power this book or google or amazon has, what are they doing with their private information. those of the important questions. there are also differences and i think one of those big differences is no matter how important facebook might be in my life, i can make that choice to go away from facebook to turn off and get my information elsewhere. that's a lot harder to do it comes to my internet service provider. i have maybe at most two choices them a lot of americans only one choice virtually high-speed broadband at it's important like

i think that requires a different set of answers. i hope the clinton administration thinks that in many ways a lot of what the we the regime has done is a real model. they stepped up to protect consumers. they challenged some of the powerful industry lobby in town. having gotte done everything ri. they have to play the politics perfectly every time but when you look back over the course of what they've done i think it's a lot to be proud of and i would hope the next administration is looking to build on that and not tear down. >> host: one of the questions ..

this juncture to predict who is going to be, partly because i don't know, it's a really big job and a lot of times what happens to administration is people coming and everybody thinks they should be commerce secretary or secretary of state and once those jobs are handed out, the f cc chairman starts to look better. i see names banded about that are a lot of telecom insiders and i think some of them are well qualified for the job and others probably wouldn't be my first choice but a lot to be determined starting on november 9 >> any names you want to offer? >> let's move on and what are we to glean from the candidates on cyber security? >> mister trump gave a speech on cyber and talked about the need to be more aggressive on that front and if you look at the republican platform, it goes into still more detail.

so he does understand and this campaign has certainly brought out the importance of cyber security between secretary clinton's emails and the hacking of the dnc which is all over the daily news. the daily grind in politics all of a sudden, the importance of cyber security is evident even to the candidates who otherwise may not pay attention to it. ifyou look at the republican platform, it's clear in calling for a more aggressive posture against foreign attacks and of the republican platform , i think there's work that we put out on ai this summer calling for a more forward leaning approach that both looks at the sources of cyber attacks, attributes them and where appropriate, retaliates, imposes consequences on countries that are engaged in attacks or enabling such attacks by criminal groups. and even begins to

contemplate the notion of preemptive action when we can see an attack coming and i've heard something from ai yesterday. we have not yet experienced a serious kinetic cyber attack in the united states. what we've experienced is a lowball in new york that was tampered with but the potential for a connecticut attack is there, if you take what happened on friday last week which is was a very widespread attack enabled by internet of things devices and think about that happening to the financial system or a different kind of attack attacking a controlled system at airports. you can easily see loss of life. and we do have the capacity to see those coming. we have very capable folks, we mostly have them sitting on the sidelines the past eight years. the current rule is before

they can engage in any way, they have to go through a bureaucratic process that can take days or weeks. that was off for more than a week during the time that attack was going on because they were negotiating a bureaucratic memorandum of understanding so i think you would see a republican administration wanting to cut through the red tape there and get our a-team on the field defending america. >> i'll say first of all that i don't purport to be a cyber security expert so we have a lot of that to digest but without question anybody who's going to be in the white housenext, this is going to be high on the list , certainly watching the attack last week, anybody who's going to be sitting in that chair, this is going to be one of the big problems that needs to be solved. the attacks are going away. i will also share some overarching concerns which have to do with spying and surveillance and who would the nsa be spending their time watching and i think

those are really big questions the next president will have to see. and i think there's a lot of work to do there as we look at what's worked and what hasn't in the patriot act with some of those authorizations coming up and a whole set of things to strike that balancebetween detections , what do we need on these networks and not just leaving out millions of people who are innocent and a huge magnet. >> i think this is an area for potential, there are not very many bipartisanship, at least look at that but when we released the report, the ai report on cyber security and strategy issues, we had cory gardner and mike warner get together on capitol hill and they are now cochairing the federal cyber security, they announced they released that report so i think the potential to reach across party lines, everybody understands the threat and the urgency, many people

understand the urgency and we can see some cooperation there. >> other issues are definitely going to have traction, that's a couple of years of encryption. i know that it's difficult for lawmakers to really forge a specific either we need strong encryption, notwithstanding the need for law enforcement to get into some of these encrypted messaging applications but i'm serious from both a republican party platform mentioned decryption but didn't really stake out a strong one way or the other position and clinton's package talks about the idea of a commission. i'm curious what you guys think of the opportunity for bipartisanship is there? >> i think this would be an area where i be critical of the agenda. they punted on the issue in

sort of classic washington fashion of let's have a commission. i would certainly like them to move much more strongly toward really supporting encryption.i think around the world it's important that we have these technologies that may not be easy for the government or anybody else to break into our phones or devices that carry so much of our lives now. i would like to see a stronger position out of the new administration. i don't think that's reflected in the agenda. i think that probably does reflect the views, especially of a candidate who spends so much time in the state department and elsewhere that that would be an area that i think this administration would need a lot of attention, really the whole suite of surveillance issues but absolutely including encryption where they are going to need to hear from a lot of people. the obama administration , especially around apple and everything in san bernardino. >> we have a commission underway, private mccall and the bipartisan commission are working on trying to address

what's really a very gnarly problem at the end of the day, unsolvable. i think as i look at the weights, the republicans and democrats are on different sides of this issue and i think it's instinctively, one says if you are apple and if you have the capacity to assist in law enforcement investigation involving a terrorist who's killed a lot of people, you have to find a way to do that. i think you then drill down more deeply into that and you realize that involves opening a pandora's box and kind of allowing everyone into everything and putting american companies at a terrible disadvantage in the trade environment. i think the weight of republican opinion is at the same place where votes are which is as much as you'd like to be able to have the secret key hiding in the safe that the fbi or someplace, if they've got it, is likely

somebody else is going to find it and that's a slippery slope. >> there's another issue that come up a lot this election cycle is trade and i know it's important to the tech industry that there's free data flows internationally and that the strong support from the tech industry for tpp. i'm curious, the directives sound like both candidates say they are against it. what does that mean for the tech industry and how do you see that moving forward, how would you react?>> politically i think you are right. obviously secretary clinton made a big change in response to a lot of the pressure from the sanders campaign and elsewhere so i think in terms of giving the opportunity to weigh in, i don't see how it could go the other direction. again, we are getting at the edges of my specific area of expertise but i think that

both candidates really the real anxiety that people everywhere across the country are feeling about trade and feeling about the stuff even inside the trade deal. if they can't see it, they are not sure what it is, affecting lots of areas in ways that don't feel very democratic and feeling the benefit in their communities of these deals and i think that's going to people in one of the big challenges to whoever's in the white house is what are you doing to all those folks, to all of those anxieties about fundamental changes that are real in everyone's lives and actually how do we get the benefits of silicon valley of the internet economy to actually reach most americans. and not just if you happen to be a phd form stanford or whoever i guess a couple of things , i agree with almost everything credit said in terms of the impact of nafta

or our current trade policies on the rust belt in america has been very damaging. and certainly people in most states perceive that and most of the candidates are responding to it. one perspective i think in thinking about the candidates and about the outcomes they are, it is important to put the candidates in the context of their parties area so with secretary clinton we see someone who according to wikileaks was reluctant to embrace net neutrality regulation and it took a more free-market approach than that apparently in her heart of hearts . >> maybe. but i think that is consistent with the position she had over the years and then under pressure from a party is forced the other direction, the same with tpp. with a trumpet

administration, i think you contextualize a potential president trump with the context of the republican party. both parties are split on trade but on balance the republican party has been more free trade if you look at who votes for trade agreements. and it's a nonpolitical thing to say in the environment but i think that's more in the republican field. the other point i think that is worth pointing out is china is a real challenge to the united states on trade . any one of our scholars on trade, literally 30 years is a free trader as you could ever run into. an economist who is a true believer and claude has now come out and said we are continuing to turn the other cheek with chinese digital rental is in and intellectual property theft. >> i would jump in to say that i think, this resembles the net neutrality email which the secretary was describing, i was ambivalent

on the issue but i came out very strongly in support of net neutrality long afterwards so we are ending up ambivalent on some issues or not knowing everything about them but persuadable, i will take that every time and i think the outcome if you look at evolution on some of these issues which is in response to the public views, that to me is a good outcome so if we see actual politicians from the very top down moving into response of hearing from their constituents, 4 million people, they change their position. secretary clinton is changing her position, evolving her position, that's a wonderful outcome. >> if there were a president trump, would net neutrality be reversed if there were a president trump, would multi-stakeholder and i can be reversed? >> candidate trump has said clearly through his preferred policy expression on twitter that he's opposed to net neutrality. he's opposed to net neutrality regulations.

what i don't think a president trump would do and would hope you wouldn't do is intervene to instruct an independent regulatory agency to regulation, i don't think what president obama did in his a lot was the right way to go about it. so i in general i'm thinking his broader views on regulation into account, you would expect it to go to the fcc would be inclined to take a less regulatory position. >> we have one minute left, last question. >> in terms of looking forward to this administration, what do you think the biggest policy goal in tech will be from your perspective? >> the biggest challenge that the new administration i hope will pick up his affordable broadband.

i think we have to figure out how do we makeinternet affordable and available to everyone . i think any administration, in making that a priority from day one would be right's i think at the end of the day, both administrations, whoever is elected president is going to be forced to confront directly the chinese challenge to american supremacy online. we are all living off a 25-year-old advantage in a world in which apple, amazon, microsoft our players. but the chinese have a bigger ecosystem. it's not because they are communists, they can't innovate, they are innovating rapidly so i think we are going to be in a position where we are trying to put in place policies that make it possible for america's very successful innovators to innovate in the global market. >> not just ai, craig aaron's president and ceo of free press and am your master is technology reporter for the board and colleague.

>> donald trump is holding a rally right now in north carolina, one of five campaign stops he is making today. we have live coverage of a couple of them including his in scranton pennsylvania at 5:30 eastern and tonight, c-span takes you to philadelphia for a campaign rally with president obama and the first lady. also hillary clinton and bill clinton. at 11 eastern, c-span will have trump's rally in grand rapids michigan and at 11:45 eastern, a stop in raleigh north carolina. election night on c-span watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome . be on location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and what victory and concession speeches in key senate house and governor races. it starts live at 8 pm

eastern and through the following 24 hours. watch live on demand that c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span.org radio app. >> larry sabado with the university of virginia's center for politics has released his productions for tomorrow's elections and he says democrats are likely to gain 13 seats in the house but that's not enough to gain control. they need to pick up 30 seats. one of the seats expected to remain republican of porting according to fester sabado is minnesota's third congressional district with congressman eric paulsen recently debated democratic state senator terry on off on tax policy, the affordable care act, donald trump and national security. we now go to a debate hosted by kstp tv, eyewitness news. >> the third congressional district covers the west metro. here you will find cities like eden prairie, bloomington, maple grove. a variety of injuries call this home including several

medical and agricultural technologies. republican erik paulsen was elected to the sea in 2008 after serving as house majority leader in the state legislature. this year he's facing democratic challenger terri bonoff who served a decade in the minnesota senate. and now we have representative erik paulsen and state senator terri bonoff hear from the third district. thank you for coming into this debate as we saw from our last one, we have more of a conversation here, thank you for coming in. senator bonoff, let's start with you.>> i am running for congress because i believe in the promise of our country and as people. i think it is more important now than ever before that we elect courageous leaders, leaders who can bring people together on both sides of the aisle together to tackle a very weak real challenge. the minnesota senate i've earned reputation for doing just that as a pro-business democrats, i work with the minnesota chamber to create

the minnesota pipeline project, that was about getting rid of student debt and about addressing the sales gap that connected students with employers to get on the job training, they get paid wages while they are getting their directory. when they have a job. that work has been written about twice in the last year by forbes magazine.it's that kind of bold leadership that i would bring meet with me to congress where it is sorely lacking. congressman paulsen, you've been there for years and you've enabled part of that lack of congress and i also believe that you have voted too often on the wrong side of history with the extreme part of the right-wing part of your party and so i believe that i have the values and vision to represent this district. i was proud to be endorsed by ecm publishers and there's a group that has all the local community newspapers and what they said when he endorsed me as i represented in my

candidacy real hope and change and so i have been a courageous leader in the business world, in the minnesota senate and i would be that in washington. >> thank you. >> senator paulsen? >> thanks for hosting the debate with kstp.i'm running for congress once again. minnesota's elected leaders more than at any other time to work across the island. transcend partisan politics and i've got a great record of doing that. i'm going to continue to do that whetherit's repealing the medical device tax which is focusing on keeping high-paying jobs here in the states . high-paying jobs that are so critical in all of minnesota. i worked with senator kobe shark and i was persistent, it took five years to get across the finish line , to spend tax so sometimes it can take a while or sometimes it may be an issue that moves quicker such as ending human

trafficking or sex trafficking. i'm also a very bipartisan issue where we were able to get that done and literally saving lives. recently i passed a missing children's bill that would help us find missing children and help put sex offenders behind bars so we are at a time now where put partisan politics and i want to be part of a constructivist solution to move the ball forward. it's one of the reasons i was endorsed by the minneapolis tribune and endorsed by the business organizations such as nfib or twin with chamber and i'm going to continue to work along that mold. i'm one of 34 members this year that had a bill signed into law from either party of either party by the president and that's what minnesotans expect, i'm going to continue to do that if i'm elected next week. >> thank you all for being here. let's get into some of these questions and focus on the economy. the third district is home to a mix of industries, there are large corporations, small businesses, technology

startups as well so what needs to be done to make sure that their district specifically continues to create jobs and continues to be economically viable, representative paulsen. >> there's no doubt our economy should be performing better than it is right now. it's the worst economic recovery in the history of the country. we have record numbers of people working part-time that would prefer to work full-time, we are in a growth. we got first time, a third of folks that are a 18 to 31 living at home with their parents. that's the biggest percentage in 40 years, in four decades and it's the first time in history during an economic recovery where we literally have had median incomes fall so i believe we need tax reform. we need tax reform to help international corporations do more competitiveness, bring jobs back home so they don't transfer jobs overseas, keep the headquarters here, keep the job here, keep the innovation here but it means we have to help small businesses and mainstreet companies and that means

lowering their business tax rates. kerry has a different record because she has voted for a fourth year income tax and when you have fourth-year income tax, that it's small business hard so we have a different view on pocketbook issues but tax reform is needed if we are going to create more jobs here in our local economy. >> senator bonoff. >> there's nothing more important as i look at the job of what a congressman would be then making sure we have a strong economy and grow jobs.we also have impressive unemployment right now. 3.7 percent but that's not the whole story because there are those who have found out after the recession never got back back into the jobs force so we have to do all we can to ensure a strong economy area i think the most important thing we can do looking long term is focused on the next race and that is why i shared about my work with regards to the project but really small businesses are the engine of our economy so in the senate, that's what i focused on. i was chief author of the angelinvestment startup ,

angel investment tax startup and also the r and d investment credit and worked with jennifer luna, republican and senior community from the house to do the equity crowd funding, allowing young people particularly investors to be able to invest online so that startups have more access to capital. i do believe we need to do significant tax reform. you are blessed to have fortune 500 companies in our midst and we need to reform our tax code so they can ring their processes back. we need them to be able to repatriate their money and your comments, i do have to address this fourth year. the only tax that i voted for with regard to income tax was back in 2009 when we had a deficit and a constitutional obligation to balance the budget and it never happened area the governor proposed a fourth year that became law and i was one of those few democrats that voted against and because of that and

several other votes that i've taken, i have been endorsed and reelected by the minnesota chamber, between west chamber, i've gotten the guardian of small business award, each of my last elections including this past summer so i don't believe the answer is to increase the tax burden and i did say that the net endorsement, they said that congressman paulson mischaracterized my record and in fact i have a record of fiscal restraint. >> to be clear, you did vote for a fourth year in,, a billion-dollar tax increase that hit small businesses at a time when small businesses can't afford anymore. were going to talk about insurance in a little bit as well and every single one of the business organizations have endorsed my candidacy because they understand the difference so i will continue to work across the aisle on bipartisan issues to get our party going on tax reform. >> you deliberately distort my record and you bought a domain name called taxing

kerry which is uncharacteristic of a congressman but it kind of takes a page out of the playbook of donald trump where you call people names but what i would say is i want everybody to know that i didn't vote for the recent tax increase but when we were faced with a very difficult choice, how are you going to close this budget and have a constitutional obligation to balance the budget, we had a choice. cut schools or raise taxes. to on the bill that said we would raise taxes, the governor vetoed it area i voted for the fourth year tax cut. our communities that are now experiencing a bill or work on a bill to extend small businesses from that fourth tier rate because i think it is a burden on small businesses. i think we have to take the burn away from small businesses . >> let's talkabout the medical device tax . congressman paulson, i know you have been a supporter of extending the medical device tax with the affordable care act which we will get into

that in a moment. senator, what passes as support for the future of medical device tax? >> i support a permanent repeal. it is important to our community that happened and so i appreciate congressman paulson's leadership on that and i think it is a bigger question is what is the future of the affordable care and how we are going to pay for it so i welcome getting into that discussion if you'd like. >> and what about you representative? would you support this repeal of the tax. >> absolutely. it took five years to get there, to get across the finish line and the only reason we were able to get across the finish line because of the bipartisan work and leadership i was able to do in the house with senator publisher and the entire delegation was on board. we eventually, because this is such a bad policy, it was tax innovation, hurting patients and hurting jobs, we ended up with a veto from a margin despite the president's objections at

portions of the affordable care act where we were able to get this courtesan built across the finish line and with the 40,000 jobs in minnesota we are seeing them follow thatmoney back into research and development, innovation, it's going to help life improvement technology that will help our patients and our jobs . >> you both want to talk about the affordable care act. let's dig into this a little bit. in minnesota we've seen the cost of health insurance on the individual market going up 67 percent area some say the affordable care act is not affordable anymore and representative paulsen, you voted to repeal the aca. what is the solution to that? is it getting ready the whole thing or is it making changes? were going to have to start over in a number of respects. you have a system that has no competition. you have some some states offer one provider or one

carrier so course they will have skyrocketing rates.you may have counties in minnesota that are able to offer insurance to their constituents which would be a disaster. this is a crisis issue facing families. you have to have insurance companies being able to buy and sell across state lines. you need to make sure health insurance should be affordable so youcan take it with you. you should not be job a lot to your career or job and have to rely on your employer, you should be able to take it with you . the stages of your life always read your career. more wellness and preventative with coordinated care and care management is the direction to go. terry voted for bringing obamacare to minnesota and it has been an utter disaster. it is hurting minnesota families. i never voted for obama care and we need to start over on more effective solutions. >> eric has run tv commercials that have said i voted for it literally saying i voted for obama care and that's chilling because

obamacare was in congress and i'm not in congress so i didn't vote for obama care and when the federal government mandated that states have that exchange and the first thing democrats proposed the form of the exchange, i voted no in the start of you that listed all the vote and it said all the democrats voted for it except secretary bonoff and that's because i have a great relationship with the company's in the health industry and they showed me concerns about that and so i used the strength of my vote to actually shave it and it did get better, not all the way for sure but this increase in premiums, who i hold accountable is congress. the reason i do is because eric voted 60 times, over 60 times to repeal the affordable care act. you had eight years to reform that. now you are feeling the pressure of what's happening in this race to say all the things he would do but 60 times repeal when you could have a significant reform to

this thing. it's good to repeal the medical device tax but where were you on it telling the federal government that they should negotiate drug prices? where were you on making sure the republicans and democrats came together and made real reform? now it reminds me of special and when the federal government says everybody deserves a high quality equal education and we agree with that and the fed says they are going to pay for it and they don't follow through because your tax of accountability would actually reform this thing has put the burden back on the states and so now the state should have a special session and they should buydown premiums and do whatever it is to take the hurt away from families but we should hold our congress leaders accountable for the mess that we find ourselves in. >> just to be clear if people are in the affordable care act was put into place, you have a president that wanted to do it all his way. he didn't want any bipartisan buy-in. nancy pelosi passedthe bill , said find out what's in it

and you promised your healthcare, keep your doctor. we found out that's not true and i see many stories of cancer patients that relinquished their network of doctors. it is a tragic situation and at the same time, terri, you voted to bring under the final agreement and bonuses and it's been an absolute disaster and now we are seeing the results of people and the consequences of high premiums, losing their doctor and we need to fix that and go in a different direction. >> eric, i start off by saying what president obama said when it was passed. it was eight years ago and i know leaders in the u.s. senate said the most important thing they could do for the next four years is to make sure barack obama didn't have a second term and that's in abdication of duty because what should be the most important thing now and always is doing all we can do to the american people first. so it's not okay to say eight years later that now he would take all these actions to

reform it because people are hurting area i needed you to solve the problem. so for example, small businesses. if we could give them free tax dollars so that they don't have to administer it, then you can send healthy people to the exchanges, that would help expand the pool and bring the cost down and you are saying that would allow for portability. if you could deprive people in the individual market, you would have competition. you would have wanted to be in that market so that our solution. if i am in congress i promise you i would work with republicans and democrats just like i've done in the senate and i would do that to make real change. >> let's talk about who may be there, who may be in washington dc. according to our survey, voters in the third district are favoring hillary clinton over donald trump 48 to 35 percent, 65 percent going for a third-party candidate or undecided. senator obama, you were, some

of the other organizations have been running ads talking about representative paulsen supporting donald trump. representatives, you've gone on to say since then you are no longer supporting donald trump and senator bonoff, is that fair to continue to say that he is supporting trump when he has now said he is not? >> i have no control over what outside groups do. i actually changed and add to say supported because he said he now disavows in but i do want to talk about why i have connected erik paulsen to donald trump and i think that's a fair question. let me address that. donald trump candidacy poses a real threat to our country and the way he has campaign has really reminded me of very dark times in our world history when dictators have come to the forefront and they wouldn't have been able to do that if people had stood up and said this is unacceptable so i partly got

into the race to tell the public because i wasn't hearing that my congressman that i think donald trump poses a danger and threat to america. putting that aside, your own record, i do believe that your votes reflect in some ways where donald trump stands so for example, you are not pro-choice, it's a personal choice but you are actually a leader in wanting to defund planned parenthood and i saw a letter sent to president obama that you were one of the planners calling roby wade a tragedy and i disagree , i resoundingly rejected the gay marriage ban and i came back and with was a co-author on the freedom to marry bill but you got an award for your effort to put that man into the constitution. i know donald trump stands with the nra but you voted 26 times to not even bring up gun violence prevention issues and you've done

nothing on climate change so this isn't about donald trump, it's actually that you are on the wrong side of history on too many votes and your vote with the right wing of your party. >> to be clear, i never endorsed donald trump. i was expecting to be able to vote for the nominee at one time and i said he would have to earn my vote when he became the nominee and has said since he cannot earn my vote. i endorsed marco rubio. i am the only one who has not endorsed either candidates and we have to flaunt candidates running unfortunately. i think a lot of the issues that terry brought up, folks know that i focus on issues where we have bipartisan support, that there is consensus. she wants to talk about divisive issues, i think people are tired about single issue politics.

i'll continue to work and have my track record focusing on issues where we come together to move the ball forward. >> you want to publicly support a candidate for president? >> i endorsed marco rubio so i'm likely to write in marco rubio as the candidate but i will say this is that terry had the opportunity to make sure all of those organizations that came in associating me with donald trump and she's admitted that erik paulsen that she said he is nothing like those ads and we had the ability to keep that negative money out of minnesota but here it is. >> i'm going to go back to that. you're talking about the pledge to keep everything outside in and i said i'd do that unless giving you already raised several million dollars in the race, have you give back all your special interest tax money and then it will be a level playing field and i'm happy to take that pledge because i saw the fcc report that said 60 percent of your donations were special interest so you would still have obviously a big head start but it would have been level.i want to go back to what you said about divisive issues. you have eight sandy hook shooting where 20 children

lost their lives.this is not a divisive issue. we have not addressed done violence prevention. we have tragedy after tragedy and so i don't think this is about a divisive wedge issue. this is about putting the people first and making common sense gun violence prevention laws and with regard to women's choice, you have a republican party platform that says they want to roll back roe versus wade. that's not divisive, that is demeaning to women. i look at everything i do through the lens of is it good for kids, is good for our state and nation and will it build on their jobs and strengthen our economy? talking about overturning roe v wade, that's something the next generation of women have much interest in and i don't think that's a divisive issue, that's being a responsible leader. and with regard to your vote for rubio, we have a lot of says unless the money has requested to be a write in candidate, it can't count so

as a leader, we have choices. what's right, what's wrong and in this particular case there's just two choices and talk to anyone, any young person and they will say hillary clinton or donald trump so if you want to throw your vote away, i don't call that leadership. >> you talk to any person they will say they're not happy with either choice and you never throw your vote away when you vote and there's no bigger special interest that's spent money in this race and nancy pelosi's super pack and there's been $4 million that has come into this state for your campaign with candidate ads and has been proven by this tv station to have a d or d- rating. >> eric, your own tv ad against me and it was right away trying to say i was this tax on tax one when i was giving you my proof but i want to go back there, he took a test i said in the debate and that was kind of a

theme then of your commercial and so it was when the bridge collapsed and it was obviously one of the greatest tragedies our state has had and i was a real leader in bringing folks together through transportation and in fact, deputy commissioner connie who lived in eden prairie, the has endorsed my candidacy because of the leadership role i played when that bridge collapsed and that's what i was talking about when you got that clip and put it out of context in your ad. they all said you distorted my record and took my words out of context and i can't vote for that transportation bill when the bridge collapsed and again, i think that points to a lack of courage and being on the wrong side of history with regards to your vote because we do always to the people of our state to invest in infrastructure. >> i agree and i did not vote for that tax increase as you did or any of the sales in praxis you did for the increase you did but i did vote for a five-year federal

transportation bill now in place and for the first time in a decade we have long-term federal transportation policies. it's a five-year bill, and there's four more years ago, it's fully funded. >> let's talk a little more about transportation. he voted for, what is your big priority for a long-term transportation? we know it's important especially in minnesota? >> there is nothing changing faster than our transportation system and infrastructure needs because it's a game changer. you've got three who are working on having signs for our cars. you've got this whole movement around driverless cars so seeming to modernize our infrastructure. it's one thing to make sure it's safe and we know that to the next generation but we also have to take into account ranging technology and making sure that you are doing all we can to keep up

with in this exciting time because i see cars obviously are going to be more efficient. the tax is going to be outdated quickly so we have to be creative. we have to be innovative and listen to the experts but i will not advocate my responsibility and the last thing on transportation is i know our young people and millennial's, i have four kids. i have two in dc, one in la. i want to back them and they expect comprehensive transit and that's why i do support this light rail and i support a multimodal transport approach, i think our country needs to modernize our approach to transportation. >> we only have a few minutes left and we move on to another topic. >> i was a real quick is that transportation infrastructure is critical to our economy, it's critical to having jobs and moving people.

we have a highway six opening recently which is very bipartisan and we got a five-year bill in place but the next answer where we should go is looking at more using energy royalties. there is not a lot of support for increasing gas tax but we should look at energy royalties and putting that money forfuture energy developments in the infrastructure, into transportation and i think that's a long-term plan i'd like to see happen. we talked about that . >> it's the royalties because people don't know what that is is if you are drilling for oil on federal land, if you are drilling for assets, the royalties on transportation, that's not a reliable, sustainable gain. >> it's reliable as the largest investment in infrastructure in the history of the country and we talked about that. >> we got three minutes left and we have to touch on national security. we had a crisis in fired attack in st. cloud minnesota, it's a real issue in minnesota with minnesotans traveling to join isis. let's focus on this. what needs to be done on the federal level to stop attacks

here at home, in minnesota and the us and abroad as well? >> radicalization and indoctrination of terror, particularly young people is in grave danger because they are getting on the internet, but getting through social media so we have to do all we can to root out this everywhere that it is so we talk about it at home but you also have to be addressing it in syria where you have the greatest attacks from isis so we are arming the people in syria, we're doing everything we can to root out isis. there's been processed in a level but we have to partner with our allies around the globe so that we use our intelligence capabilities to find out where the terrorist cells are and then how we use that information to make sure that we are addressing that in our communities and really one of the great problems is that many times, those allies

around the world, for example, their muslim majority countries like indonesia is not helpful when you have a donald trump saying we are not going to let muslims into our country we have to be careful to keep the doors of communication open so that we can partner with our eyes and make sure that we root out the threats of terror everywhere . >> we have no greater duty than to protect the homeland and our citizens. and we had more incidents here, domestically with terrorism and it's absolutely appropriate that we review and make sure our vetting process is appropriate, refugees no matter where they're coming from whether it area or anywhere else. we have to recognize fundamentalism for what it is, work with our law enforcement agencies in minnesota where we've identified situations where folks have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing. folks traveling back to

somalia, we need to be aware of that because there's threats are going to continue to be real and we lack leadership at the top to be honest and we need to understand that isis, the threat is real. >> one thing we didn't talk about is climate change so i want to let the voters know because i haven't said anything about that, i do see that it's urgent and it's real and i would take action on that and i'm proud to have been endorsed by the league of conservation voters and the sierra club. >> we has 15 seconds left. >> i will say clean energy and new development of cleaner energy is the direction to go as we look for nuclear and biofuel and wind and solar. >> are going to leave it here, thank you for joining us and we will be back here for eyewitness news at 10 tonight. >> what you mclean on five eyewitness news at 10. >> election night on c-span. watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. the on location at the hillary clinton and donald

trump election night headquarters and what injury and concession speeches in the senate, house and governor races starting live at 8 pm eastern and through the following 24 hours. watch it live on c-span, on demand c-span.org or listen for live coverage on the c-span radio app. >> are road to the white house coverage leading up to tomorrow's election continues live on c-span. 4:45 eastern, president obama in new hampshire campaigning for hillary clinton. at 5:30, donald trump hold a rally in the battleground state of pennsylvania, the republican nominee will be in scranton and tonight at eight president and michelle obama along with hillary and bill clinton campaign together in philadelphia. donald trump is in rapids michigan live tonight at 11 and hillary clinton in raleigh north carolina tonight at 11:45. that's all on c-span tonight.

>> tonight on the communicators, craig aaron, president and ceo of free press and jeffrey eisenhardt, director of the center for internet medications and technology policy talk about the technology issues that hillary clinton and donald trump have discussed on the campaign trail. also the top tech issues for congress and the next administration to address area they are interviewed by technology reporter for the morning counsel, i'm you're not there. >> key elements that interest me are her commitment to really expand broadband access with a lot of talk about competition and bringing the benefits of broadband to all americans and i think there's another strong theme running through the idea ofinclusive innovation, in other words how do we make sure that the entire country, everyone actually shares in the benefits of the internet economy . >> trumps policies are

concerned. there's a lot of sharing of goals andobjectives. i think we all want to see the benefits of the internet be made available to all . i think we want to see more rapid innovation. we want to see lower prices. what mister trump is saying is that the path to those objectives is less regulation, lower taxation. >> watch the communicators tonight at eastern on c-span two. >> now to look at efforts by colorado and other states to decriminalize the use of marijuana from the 10th circuit judicial conference, this is 90 minutes. >>. >> i'm pleased to have a chance to introduce you to our next session which is current and emerging issues of legalized marijuana. when i think about the panel tonight, what in the world am i doing here moderating a panel on marijuana?

jim, you probably drew the short end of the stick. [laughter] and just to clarify things, like our mindfulness session we had yesterday, this will not be an interactive session. [laughter] it's undeniable over the last decade we have witnessed a tremendous shift in the legalization of marijuana in various forms among the states. as of today, for states, colorado, washington, oregon and alaska and the district of columbia have legalized the recreational use of marijuana and in another 25 states, medical marijuana decriminalize marijuana possession. it's a testament to the timeliness of the profession, voters in at least nine states will decide the various measures of legalization this november.

california, maine, massachusetts, nevada are considering legalizing recreational marijuana as well. arkansas, florida, montana and arizona are considering medical marijuana but our fascination with marijuana is not a new phenomenon. marijuana's existence dates back over 10,000 years and came to the united states before the american revolution. early revolutionaries actively would do strains of cannabis for mass and production. closer to home, we became a state in 1976, held in marijuana legal and had multiple uses. in 1917 as part of a growing movement, colorado criminalized the use of marijuana as a misdemeanor and latermade it a felony. that situation lasted for 40 years . and nobody over the age of 60 knows that the use of marijuana existed in the 1900s especially on our college campuses. i'm only 15 and a half so i'm not sure what we're talking about here.

in 1970, recreational possession was downgraded in colorado to a misdemeanor and in 1975 we made possession and private use of less than an ounce a felony offense. as for the legalization movement, colorado has been the leader in the united states. in the late 1970s and early 1980s, colorado passed measures to legalize medical marijuana but those efforts never got off the ground due to federal laws passed by marijuana as a schedule one substance in 1970. that brings us to the current state of law in colorado. in 2000, colorado passed an amendment 20 which amended the state constitution to allow for the medical use of marijuana. and then in november 2012, colorado a minute 64 seeking colorado along with washington one of the first state in the union to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. now for a few quick statistics. in 2015, marijuana sales in

colorado came in at nearly $1 billion which is up from nearly $700 million in 2014. i'm sure our panel will, but we are on track for $2 billion in sales this year. that's produce over $135 million in tax revenues so far. currently there are 698 marijuana dispensaries, storefronts in colorado. what that number in perspective, that's more than the number of mcdonald's, starbucks , 7-eleven's combined. notably, legalization is a policy which means that individual cities can decide or not to allow or not allow marijuana business in their cities. of the 321 jurisdictions in colorado, 71 percent already banned medical or recreational marijuana business. so with that review i'd like to recognize our very distinguished panel speakers. importantly, our panel members represent the bar so

i hope you can walk away with both the theoretical and practical understanding of their experiences . our first speaker is professor robert michaels. he is a professor of vanderbilt university where he teaches constitutional law, federalism and marijuana law and policy. officer michaels is the leading expert on marijuana law and policy and is written , justified and lectured specifically on state constitutional authority to legalize marijuana. several state marijuana reforms and these in the process of completing a textbook on marijuana law and policy later this year and at my alma mater, his textbook will be in theclassrooms next fall. professor michaels is a former clerk to chief justice michael boudin and the first circuit and we welcome you . our second speaker is well known to colorado, professor sam sam kamin.

he is the university professor of marijuana law and policy at the university of durham college of law. professor kamin is an expert on marijuana law reform and was a member of the colorado governors amendment 64 implementation task force. he has published over a dozen scholarly articles on the subject of marijuana law, reform and co-authored inside colorado's marijuana economy. our next speaker is general steve michaels, attorney general of the state of wyoming. he was the chief deputy attorney general and was also senior citizen attorney general to providing the water law section of natural resource division of the wyoming attorney general's office and he is joined by greg phillips who was wyoming attorney general before him. continuing, mister michaels is in the wyoming supreme court.our next speaker is a

special introduction for me to read frederick yarger. solicitor general of the state of colorado and this is upbeat because he's one of my former clerks. solicitor general's supervise and determine the legal strategy to reveal as well as a constitutional litigation. before becoming solicitor general, fred was the solicitor general and worked at gibson durum in denver. he's a graduate of dartmouth college and the university of chicago law school and in addition to working for me, he worked for judge mark phillips in the district court for the northern district online and i might add that fred has a rare treat this year in addition to speaking at his first bar conference set up an argument in the us supreme court. our next speaker is mithun

mansinghani his deputy solicitor general in oklahoma, that means he litigates on behalf of the state. prior to joining the oklahoma's general's office, mister mansinghani worked in washington specializing in the field of administrative law cases. a former clerk to judge jerry smith on the fifth circuit, we welcome you today. with those introductions let's get started with professor robert mikos. iq for that kind introduction. thank you to the conference for inviting me out here. there is a rich and fascinating body of laws that develop over the last 20 years. to understand these laws, we need to understand the constraints that have imposed on the state by federal government because these features of state law are really quite peculiar and they represent efforts by the state to work around this

federal constraint, what i call workarounds. i'm going to talk about three examples of these workarounds to illustrate the point and i want to briefly discuss why some of these workarounds may be problematic from both the federal and state perspective . before doing that, i want to give you a very quick overview of what the state has been doing over the past 20 years. and this is really a 20,000 foot view or since we're in colorado springs, maybe the 25,000 view of the last 20 years of state marijuana reform. this started back in 1996, these modern reforms that glorious passage on the left-hand side of the chart, california's passage of proposition 215 which is what i call medical marijuana law. that was a law that permitted some people to use marijuana for medical purposes. that particular type of reform proliferated across other states in the ensuing

years. as depicted in the chart, you see that red bar growing, the red bar represents, the red portion of that bar represents those medical marijuana states so states with medical marijuana reform. they progressed steadily, picked up a bit in 2009, 2010 and then you also saw new reforms emerge as well. perhaps most notably here in colorado and in washington state in 2012, those two states allow people to use marijuana for recreational purposes as well, it's really a purposes they might have wanted those state reforms represented in green up on the graph. and then in 2014, it's also noteworthy that you saw a number of more maybe conservative states jump into the fray. they were reluctant to legalize even medical marijuana but these states did legalize cvd's which is

one chemical found in the marijuana plants, they legalize it for certain medical purposes represented up there in the black so it's a little hard to tell them really from the prohibition state. but one remarkable thing that you see on this chart up there is that as of 2016, we have 43 states that allow some people to use marijuana legally. in other words, they gone beyond mere decriminalization. they allow some people to use and possess the drug legally. even though throughout this entire period, the content of federal law has remained unchanged. of course, federal law bans the use and possession of marijuana. i want to suggest to you that the states have found ways to work around federal obstacles and let me give you three examples of that. so thefirst one , the states

get doctors to help police the medical use of marijuana. without exposing those doctors to federal sanctions. this is absolutely critical in those early days of reforms, critical for the medical marijuana states that wanted to limit access to the drugs. in other words they wanted to allow people to use it for medical purposes but didn't want to be from nonmedical privileges and for other drugs, or other controlled substances, they commonly used positions as gatekeepers . >>