that difficult circumstance, they owned a home in a safe and stable neighborhood. they left all of their four children better off than themselves and the thing i love about this country, one, this is the only place in the world where they could have done that and two, it is the story of millions of people including people sitting here today and people up on the stage right now. we are all a generation or two removed from that story. and that's what makes us different and what makes us special and that's haas at risk. if we ever lose that, we stop being ab exceptional country. we all experience that. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have about 22 seconds left. >> looks like we wore out the protester. >> we have 16 seconds left. >> let's not encourage him. you guys have been a fantastic

audience. let's hear it for john kasich and marco rubio. >> thank you. michigan governor rick schneider will deliver his sixth state of the state address in lansing tonight. cspan will have live coverage at 7:00 eastern. regional media reporting the governor is expected to focus in large part on addressing the flint water crisis. residents were told there in october to stop drinking the water because of elevated lead levels. the governor declared a stournlg this month and asked for federal

assistance and tomorrow, lor ta lynch will be on capitol hill. a senate appropriations subcommittee will hear from her as well as other officials and advocates. they're going to be talking a tbt justice department's role in implementing the new rules. you'll find live coverage on cspan at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> as i've been watching the campaign this year, it's more interesting to look at the democrat side and that may have something to do with why there's more interest in these candidates and their books. >> sunday night on q and a, carlos discusses books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> so many of them, everyone i think has stories in their lives and politicians, of power and

ideology. could have particularly -- they're sanitized. they're vetted. they're there for sort of minimum controversy. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on cspan's q and a. after the panel's with the republican presidential candidates, msnbc hosts joe scarborough and mika brzezinski reviewed the discussions and heard other ideas for fighting poverty. among the par tis pantses were paul ryan and tim scott. this is just under an hour. >> okay. you u all have been wonderful. this is going to be great and we're certainly hopeful that this will show up on "morning joe" next week.

we're thrilled to have joe scarborough and mika brzezinski from msnbc's "morning joe." please welcome joe and mika. come on, let's go. you're on. >> thank you. >> thank you for having us. >> thank you so much. >> it's a great honor to be here. you know, mika, by the way, very, it's a big deal that mika is here because usually on saturday afternoons in new york city, it's usually when she's speaking to the young marxist league meeting. that's where i was going. >> it's actually kind of, i have to say, this, i'm glad to be here. i was sitting in the back with joe, we were listening to this. this is a republican party that could win the white house. >> yeah. >> i can see it out there.

>> it's very interesting. being a republican sitting back there. and listening to other members of the national press. a lot of people saying we haven't haert this so much in 2015. but it is really, really impressive and it's really the reason why i know you all became conservatives. why a lot of you became republicans. the republican i did was because of people like jack kemp. because people like ronald reagan. and what's so inspiring listening to this. and listening to speaker ryan. by the way, how great does that sound? speaker ryan. when i -- when i first got the congress and i don't know if you guys knew it, but i was in congress. when i first got to congress, little paul ryan was 23 years old.

and he was a staffer who was helping a group of us called the new federalists who were trying to abolish four federal agencies and yes, i can remember what the four were. and i was impressed with the guy the first day so, to turn on the tv set and see that our republican party has paul ryan as speaker, is a very, very exciting thing. >> and he still looks 23. >> he still looks 23. >> you on the other hand, 52. >> i've gotten old. little haggard because i've got to work beside her every day, joking, mika. but you know, the thing about paul and the thing about jack kemp, is these are the people along with so many others that have been up here today, who made me a republican. because they didn't believe we were speaking to 47% or 53%. ronald reagan believed and paul

ryan believes and jack kemp believed that what we believe is not just relevant to 47% of americans. it's relevant to 100% of americans and that it's not just as relevant to a 17-year-old latino working in south central l.a. as a 65-year-old hedge fund manager in greenwich, connecticut, it's more relevant. what we believe lifts 100% of americans and that's why i'm so honored to be here with you guys today. why mika's so honored to be here and listen to this side of the republican party that can take back the white house and will take back the white house. with that, mika, why don't we introduce our panel. >> we'll start with paul ryan. speaker of the house.

featured in the opportunity lives comeback series. no beard. >> no beard. joe, you're there. paul, you're there. so, paul ryan is with us. also, bob woodson, founder and president of the center for neighborhood enterprise known as the god father of the movement to empower neighborhood based organizations and arthur brooks, president of the american enterprise institute. we are calling this by the way, we're going to be calling this what we learn today. so, joe, take it away. >> paul, i want to start with what mika told me as we were listening to you guys listening you moderate several of these panels. she said, i'm a democrat. this republican party could win the white house going away. talk about that. >> well -- >> and why we don't see that every ta. >> hopefully, you'll see it more and more and more because we have our country locked in a

very, very bad trajectory and we're on the wrong track. deeper poverty. more persistent poverty. a weak economy. the world on fire. i won't get into all of the issues, but if we don't have a vibrant, inclusive, inspiring, exciting ma jor tear yan republican party, we will not be able to fix these problems and get us on the right track. >> the party who as you say, has to be for something. >> what you're learning today is that we are not just an opposition party, but a proposition party and what you're learning today is that look, i'm not trying make this, this shouldn't be about party and by the way, wouldn't you if you were a person, wouldn't you like to have both parties compete for your vote no matter what zip code you're in in america? so -- >> so, you're trying to tell me

there's hope for mika. >> there's even hope for mika. without trying to be partisan, i think we owe people an alternative and have better ideas with principles that offer better solutions. the other thing we need to do and this is what my friend here taught me, we need to listen. experience. see what people are experien experiencing, listen, hear and learn and when when we find great ideas and good success stories, back them and get behind them and empower them and take those lessons and affect them as policymakers. >> so, bob, how do we take what we hear today? what we learn from think tanks. what we debate on college campuses. and apply it to the reality. >> real life. >> and make a difference in people's lives. >> first of all, we've got to do what what paul and others said. we've got to go and listen. beth ryan, "wall street journal" here, did an article, last

presidential election, neither candidate visited any of the 100 poorest counties in the country. paul changed that. and so, it is important to go and listen, but also that we should stop distinguishing ourselves by what we're against. people are not motivated to change by always reminding them of injuries to be avoided. they want to know victories that are possible. we also should go among the poor and deal not with what people don't have, but what are they doing with what's left. and so, we should look at the capacity of the poor. go in and ask not how many people in these low income neighborhoods are raising children that are dropping out of jail and drugs, but how many are raising children that are not dropping out of school or in jail or on drugs. they are the real source of new knowledge and innovation of how to address poverty. >> i tell you what, what we've

seen in our, at a lot of the charter schools from a lot of the students, it's not short of extraordinary. zpl it is and when you look tat victories that are possible, it is hard not to avoid some of the systemic problems. from this jail system to other problems, especially pertaininging to race even. that are holding americans back. arthur, can you talk a little bit on that? >> it's pretty encouraging, sitting through these panels and great job, paul. this is a long slog. >> it's really all about ideas. it's terrific. we heard a bunch of great policy ideas. this is extremely encouraging. i'm really optimistic. something else that comes through when we're talking about thesed ideas. it's clear that paul and tim and these candidates, they go beyond just the what of tryinging to figure out what we need to do about poverty. not just the expansion of the

earned income tax credit. what we started to hear a little bit is an optimistic philosophy about the poor as people. bob just mentioned this. it's important to go where poor people are and talk to them as our brothers and sisters, so see them as people. what's happened is kind of interesting. when i was a child, from then until now, over the war on poverty, the metastasis of big government programs that made sort of less poverty, less material poverty, but more dependsy. something bad for the soul. we as people have started to see poor people as liabilities to manage. and that's a terrible thing. we were assets. every single one of us has our oar in the water and we deserve to be part of the american family and be part of the progress and the solutions. beg your pardon.

>> the national media, whether it's on the floor of the house, whether it's from the white house. success is always measured by spending more money on government programs. we as a country spend more per student than any country on the planet. we spend more money per hospital patient. nation on the planet. and yet, we fail miserably. how do we move beyond the national media, the politics of washington, d.c. as measures success by just pouring more money into failing systems. >> you don't measure the inputs into a welfare system. you measure the impacts in terms of people's lives. the conservative movement has always been about impact. always been about seeing the results of things. the problem is that the conservative movement has not been involved enough in poverty

and has given the territory over to the left. the left generally speaking measures in terms of how much you spend in the inputs. the right is about the impact. what do you expect if you give all the territory on poverty to the left? they're going to waste three generations of poor people's lives. that's why we have to be in the game. when we go out of here, look, this is the real challenge. when we go out of here, sometimes in the next day or two days or week or two weeks, we're going to be confronted with actual poor people. what do we take away from this? the reason for the free enterprise system is to help poor people more. the faith we have in god so that we can help people who need us more, that's the kind of impact we can have is the impact mentality that we need to bring the policy to life.

everybody thinking about how the rich are getting richer. the system's rigged against not only poorest americans, but middle class meshes. >> we've got to take responsible for for our contribution to that caricature of us. first of all, we have been on the forefront of like everyone else and that is harvesting the failures of the poor and reporting on our report and then we merchandise and we have created a xhozty out of the poor. where 70 cents of every dollar goes not to the poor, but those who serve people. they ask not which problems are solvable, but which ones are fundab fundable. you'd be hard pressed to go to a republican run state or democratically run state and see any difference in how we treat the poor. there are structural reasons when you create a commodity, it

means that people profit from serving them, so we have people whose income and careers who depend upon others being dependent and they're conservative as well. so that's why we've got to talk about is how do we structurally give the authority to the poor themselves. the leadership in these communities that paul visit ed they are the ones that should be running these programs. bill bennett says when liberals look at the poor, they see a sea of victims. when conservatives do, they see a sea of aliens. >> so, mr. speaker, saw this firsthand and have so many ideas. and yet, one of your concepts is little bit about the government having too much, sometimes to need to get out of the way. isn't that you at this point? how udoh you navigate that? >> you are the government.

>> i always see myself fighting it. i think when you go back at the macro level and see this 50-year experiment of this war on poverty, 80 programs, trillions spent. we're going to create this bureaucracy and this program an have all this stuff and get really smart experts who are going to figure out how to do this. that's basically the government philosophy that's taken over our federal government. it ignores how communities actually are. it crowds out that space between ourselves and the government where we live our lives. it crowds out our communities, our civil society. what you know, it crowds out our responsibilities and tells every other taxpayer out there who's not in poverty, this isn't your problem.

that is wrong and that's what we've done for the last 40, 50 years. i think that philosophy as well intended as it may be, is paternalistic, condescending and arrogant and it ignores thing fact that in our communities are the answers. when you look at a person's problem, it's materialistic. sometimes, just lost a job and need a new one, but a lot of these problems are so much deeper than that. some bureaucrat this washington isn't that answer, so how do we break up this government monopoly, e engage is citizenry, reignite the notion that each and every one of us have a role to play in our communities and how do we revive civil society.

the way i argue about this is this is not a budget cutting exercise. take the same amount of money. it should be a life saving exercise and that means the government can provide resources. it can be the supply lines. but it should not be the front lines in the war on poverty. people, communities, churns, civic groups, that's the front lines, that's the kind of attitude we have to have. >> so, let me ask you, we've had a lot of presidential candidates come on stage. mika and i interviewed some of them. backsta backstage afterwards and we asked what's the one thing you would do. to combat poverty. what's the big idea because you know, there are only so many things that you can prioritize when you step into that office or when you're speaker of the house. if you are the ear of the next president, what would you tell them to get together on and

what's the one big idea to help the poorest among us? >> the most important thing to be thinking about always when you're talking about people who are poor in america today is work. it's always work. you know, it's funny. there are two kinds of people. there are people who believe work is a blessing and those who think it's a punishment. you've got to figure out which you are. on the left, you've got people saying we shouldn't have work requirements on food stafrts. we shouldn't punish the poor. work's not a punishment. there are all kinds of the right who say i'm going to sock it it to them by, this is a mistake. we need policies and a philosophy that says -- they're four sources of happiness. faith, family, community and work. those are the four things in all of our lives that give us happiness. are the poor different? no. they're us.

this is what we're all built on. if you look at the foundations, the founding doctors. the pursuit of -- just riffraff. that's what america's all about. if you can't see, the happy life for poor people just as they are for us, then we're treating them as the others. all has to start -- >> i reject the notion that -- for people in the first two categories, the -- for the people in category four who are poor because moral failings.

drug addicts. prostitut prostitutes. engaging in predatory lifestyles. a job for people like that is not available to them so what they need the transformation. we need to acknowledge that people have character deficits. but that doesn't mean because they do they cannot be redeemed. our grass roots leaders that paul has met around this country have specialized in bringing about major redemption and transformation of some of these very broken people only after they have gone through a process of transformation and redemption can they take advantage of a job or training in anything, but a job does not create redemption in a person, so, what we need to do is provide the resources in those low income neighborhoods to those indigenous leaders who have demonstrated they have their ability to be moral mentors and character coaches and we need to empower them and

therefore attach resources opportunity to a process of personal redemption and transformation. there are four categories. people who are just broke. they lost their job. factories moved on. category two are the poor people who character's in tact, but as you said, they look at the disincentives to work and therefore, they make a decision to withdraw because the price is too hard. category three would be people who are physically or mentally disabed. we need to find a way of taking care f them. category four is the poor person who's poor because they engaged in risky behavior. the one filling the jails and they are the ones who are committing the crime. the people that the center for enabled enterprise serves are those in specialize in category four. they're in some of the most drug infested, crime ridden

neighborhoods and have created island of excellence in these neighborhoods. when jack kemp helped us, for ten years, he helped us generate within the crime ridden public housing, they drove out the drug dealers, sent 600 kids to college, and yet, not one researcher from left or right ever came in that community to examine what these groups did to help themselves. >> talk about that. talk about what jack kemp did in helping you, in finding the moral leaders that could help take a really strong leadership role and make a difference in that community. >> first of all, jack came at a time when there wasn't a politically expedient for him to do so. and all of his friends said why do you care about in? they don't vote for us. but he was a man of principle. he said as paul ryan did, when i asked him, why do you want to go on this tour, he said because

i'm keep ly concerned about thi nation. and so, what jack did, he used his considerable celebrity to listen to this grass roots leaders. he traveled with me as paul has done. to public housing. he said, bob, i'm willing to sponsor legislation, i can get you 100 republicans if you get me one democrat and i recruited walter fontroy, who cosponsored seven amends of the housing agent an we won 92-0 in a senate and over 400 in the house and reagan signed it into law flanked by myself and six resident leaders. i thought the republican party was on its way to redemption itself. but what they did was they walked away in it. they went back to just whining and complaining about what the left is doing. and paul is really i think i'm

so encouraged because he has done the same thing. he has visited more low income high crime neighborhoods than any member of the black caucus even. >> i don't know about that. and but he is, but what he's doing, he went there and said i don't want any press. once he's there, i said, paul, you have got to explain, we did this video because i said you got to show the people what you saw and he has, i keep saying to him, i keep expecting him to blow up in the community. that means become a celebrity and walk away from it. but he has not done that the way other republicans. >> i'll tell you, when i worked with him, he was such a diva. >> all about the hair. >> just the opposite, actually. >> so, paul, how do you arthur wildfire talking about how republicans, conservatives, have other than people like jack kemp and yourself have failed

miserably and focusing on the truly disadvantaged. how are you getting the message back to your brothers and sisters in the republican party about how important this issue is is, not for political gain, but for a moral responsibility? >> we have a moral obligation. most of us are driven to that by our faith, but even still, if you take a look at this country, how polarized it is, how so many people are slipping through the cracks, how we were raised to think that this american idea is beautiful and it's accessible and everyone can get it. but there are so many people who just don't buy that anymore. for generations now. and if that's what continues on, then we will lose what's so precious about this country. we'll become france without an america to back it up. and so. >> wow. >> i've got the say recently, the french have wondered why america hasn't been there. >> amazing.

we digress, but the point is the reason i -- >> the french jokes don't work anymore with barack obama as president. >> all right, you two. >> the reason i wanted to go learn after elections without press was just to ek appearance and to lerp and to see if the party of kemp and reagan can take the same principles, the same principles, which is what we all purport to believe in, and see them on display, see them being driven and put into place and to see the results and then see if we can go apply them rit large and get all conservatives to do so. that's what we're trying to do here. and if we can succeed in doing that and have a conversation in this country where we offer the country a better way forward, a real agenda, that it is based on these principles, then the way i see it is we can give the people a choice, what kind of country do you want.

if we think we're on the wrong track, which we do, then we have to snap out and say here's what this new track looks lings and you can't if you're leaving the poor behind. and the point he's making about all the varied types of poverty, some is really deep and intractab intractable. that's the one we have to get our minds around and what we learn is our principles. >> it was 1979, i was in northwest florida. finished watching the falcons lose another football game on cbs. and i was walking away from the

tv and then i saw a tease for 60 minutes and it was about this guy. named jack kemp. and they were talking about how in 1980, who knows, maybe he could be a force in presidential politics. i stopped and watched him and i was trans fixed. could you talk in closing about how jack kemp is relevant, not only to our movement and to our party, but to our country in 2016. >> thanks. thanks for asking that question about the great jack kemp. look, just talking about politics here for a second, we're talking about things that are bigger. the moral imperative of helping our brothers and sisters, talking about politics here for a second. is this orientation helpful. is what paul is doing going to

help the republican party? there's day the on this, my friends. we know know that if conservatives capture the traits associated with liberals, empathy and compassion, that fact will swing independent persuadable voters by ten percentage points to the right. that's not something that can win. it's the only thing that will. what's written on your heart will win the election. and the country will come back to conservative ideas and be able to help those people. you've got to be a warrior for the stuff. remember jack kemp, not just because what he did was right, the first vote for republican ticket i ever cast was in 1996 because kemp was on the ticket. oh, that's what i think, right? we get to do that again and win to boot, but we've got to do it together and thank god for paul ryan. >> so, bob, your final thoughts

on why it's important to capture. >> first of all, do you believe what a rock he is? he reduced compassion to a percentage point. i'm very impressed because i'm not good with numbers, went to university of alabama, you know. but then again, when you go to alabama, you don't have to be good at math because every year, we only have to count to number one, roll tide. roll tide. >> how many times i've heard that. >> how many clemson fans are out there? god bless your hearts. poor things. >> you don't need to pander now. >> i'm not pandering. >> oortso, bob, final thoughts jack kemp's legacy. >> for one thing, jack formed really close relationships. i remember to saying to jack when he became secretary, when you go to chicago, you don't go downtown to kai wan is, you go to public housing, you invite

these liberal mayors, because they've never been there. then jack would do that and they were embarrassed and always came. but also, if you look at jack kemp has never been, there's no protest against jack because when he came the bromley heath in boston, a group of people came in a bus, 12 of the brothers stopped him as they were pulling up and said, no, you all got to get out of here because jack had that kind of relationship that he was never, every time he gave testimony, you will see all black faces and brown faces because we filled the room three hours before jack would testify, so, every time jack testified, you see facing behind him shaking. my point is when you show up for grass roots leaders, they are not sunny day friends. they will show up for you. and jack had a passionate support among low income people. because he was the kind of person that showed up for them

and they showed up for him. >> you know, paul ryan made a commitment when he became speaker of the house and i was one of 1,000 people, a million people praying that he would become speaker of the house and he said i'm going to put my family first and i don't think i can be speaker while putting my family first. he somehow figured out how to do it, but told the republican party, i will be home every weekend with my children. i want you guys to know this is the one saturday in the year that paul hasn't been home with his family because that's what jack kemp means to him. and i want you, paul, to close by talking about jack kemp's legacy, not only for 2016, but

for the next 40 years. >> i've got to go catch a flight home in a minute. >> hurry. >> drew me into public service. he's the one who inspired me by taking these beautiful principles, freedom, liberty, free enterprise, the great lesson of american idea in our natural god given rights, these things were written on paper and are founding. but what jack kemp did to me personally is breathe life into them. see what they looked like. to see how they feel, to see how they are azriel vant today as before and more important than that, he breathed life into everybody. he would go into inner cities and pros le size about free government and how it made a difference and could help the country. so, jack kemp took our party and addeded it to reagan's agenda, a

security agenda at the time, and gave us morning in america, gave us an inspiringing, inclusive, majority party and as that spirit, that belief, that enthusiasm, that got me where i am and got me into this in the first place. >> arthur brooks, bob woodson, speaker paul ryan, thank you very much. >> go catch that flight. >> thank you. >> wonderful. thank you very much. good luck. do anything we can to help you. >> appreciate it. >> yeah, absolutely. thank you. we have more to do here. we have another panel. very distinguished. you might know our next guest. you just might know him. senator tim scott. comoderator of the camp forum. grew up in a poor, single parent household in north charleston,

served in the u.s. house from 2011 to 2013. tim scott. put him in the middle? monica watts from southeast washington, d.c. grew up in gang violence, lost two brothers, two boyfriends and many friends and neighbors to violence. she got involved with an antigang non-profit and became the first college graduate in her family. also with us, we have jimmy kim, president of the jack kemp foundation, son of jack kemp. great to have you all with us. >> we begin this panel with a serious problem. >> absolutely. >> the senator has told me he cannot move forward until we resolve the crisis of monday night. alabama or clemson, senator, you have the floor. >> thank you very much. i realize you're from alabama and they have the group alabama singing a song today. >> roll tide.

>> not the one they were sipging. it was sweet home alabama. because when it's all over, the only place will be left, sweet home alabama. clemson is going to win by two touchdowns. >> starting out dirty. >> i believe in miracles. >> my man, that would be a miracle. we shall see. >> all right. >> your story's extraordinary. and it's a story that unfortunately, my party, your party, hasn't heard enough about. talk about the challenges that the republican party has reaching out to the truly disadvantaged, that feel like we aren't listen, we don't care, we don't have solutions and that there aren't enough jack kemps in our midst. >> we need to do a better job of arctic bait lathing our quik

that our conservative principles work. the reason i'm so compassion about it is because i've seen it firsthand. as a kid struggling in high school, having a mentor, who ran the local chick-fil-a, comes into my life and starts teach ing me about entrepreneurship, dreaming the american dream. all that resognated in me. helped to focus and harness my energy the a positive way. what we need to do as republicans is get out of our house, our car, and drive in, walk in to neighborhoods where they're desperate for home. what we've found in the last seven years is if you're desperate for hope, the federal government has not served you well. the policies have been a failure for people trapped in poverty. it's now time for real leadership on the issues of poverty to take a stand. they work every single time. >> by the way, chick-fil-a, we finally got one in manhattan.

my southern children have never been happier. so, you have proven that all good things begin at chick-fil-a. >> monica, we would love if you could, to share your story. certainly a very tough road. especially in the beginning, right? >> yes. like majority of most african-american families that come from public housing have faced similar issues as me. i was homeless. my mother and father was crack addicts, so i came from an addict family, so dysfunctional. so when you come from that time of environment, the community is forced to raise you and guide you to the right direction and the way you should act. they see condition your mind to say this is the way you should be based on what you see in the community. so i came in contact with role models and community leaderships that actually got me to the next step to network to get to know

people that put me in position where i can be able to help and reach my full capacity. so, i really thank the people that i came in contact with that came into my community with the programs and assisted me to be the best that i can. >> how many kids in your family? >> well, my parents had seven kids. two of my brothers passed away now. one is in jail on his 12th year of murder charge. two of my sisters are arrested, locked up. and my last sister, she's, i don't know where she's at because she was arrested when we was young. >> so, how were you able to break through? to get to a point in your lif where you're graduating from college, looking at future? >> basically, believing in something higher than yourself or individual. and coming in contact with people that are constantly motivating you and encouraging you and don't let down on you

just because you make a mistake. just constantly stay around you, even if you fall and make a mistake. just genuine people. that's helped me be the person i am today. >> i met monica through ron motten. he's one of these poverty fighters. received some notoriety, but ron is on the veets an he's engaging young people who think nobody cares about them and i think that's what the discussion is about, how do we make sure we're empowering the folks on the ground an who are able to love when we know government can't love and so, ron investing, i know there were others as well. have given monica a better opportunity than she had and this forum is a big event. we're thrilled with it. we've done other kemp forums on

issues that are really significant on the ground. we've talked about returned citizens an entrepreneurentrepr. exconvicts who have returned to society. and had conversation with them. talked about police community relations. it's the front lines of african-american americans who come across police and what a difficult job police officers have. and those are clearly complicated relationships. and when something goes wrong, we have lots of problems, but we need to have conversations, i know governor kasich has done a lot in ohio talking about how to manage some of those challenges. they've had some unfortunate incidents and here in south carolina with governor hailey, her leadership, that makes a difference. >> how do we do in washington, d.c.? how do you guys do in congress?

like jimmy did getting republicans, democrats, together. finding common ground and making progress on these issues. >> it's difficult at times. there is a reason to be hopeful. there's a silver lining in the quagmire pit known as congress and the reality is we found common ground on some important issues. one is really on the, on criminal justice reform. we've seen outside groups and the koch brothers to the heritage foundation to the aclu and naacp holding hands together. that's a miracle in and of itself, to work on criminal justice reform. now, you have senator, grassley and myself, cruz and lee and others working on reform with folks on the far left. schumer and cory booker and others, so, we found some common ground. this is not celebrated often. another place we find common ground is on apprenticeship

programs. if we want to put people to work when they've already graduated, we're going to have to help people hire folks so they can learn the skill sets necessary to have a successful life. >> monica, are you working now? >> i'm currently a counselor in south carolina, i'm getting my masters at wesley university and still looking for a better job with a better pay in south carolina. >> and if you don't mind, i'd like to ask monica what she thought of today. you heard a lot of candidates talking about issues. and you know, our premise is that doesn't half auch enough. what did you think? >> i thought it was very impressive for you all to point out that the system you had to fix poverty wasn't working and that you are not looking for a way to fix it and rebuild it

acknowledging the fact it wasn't working and you all are able to come up with a system and understand ways to make the system better and able to work for america as the whole. >> and jimmy, talk about today. i want to follow up with what i said at the beginning. mika and i sat in the back. we watched a lot of this before we started interview iing the candidates and mika was blown away by this republican party. by this group of conservatives. talking about poverty. >> real conversation. >> real conversations that we don't seem to be getting on the presidential campaign. was that part of the goal of this an if that was the goal, did you accomplish it and how do you continue after today of spreading that message? >> i certainly appreciate you two being here and i think it's important to have this type of civil competition of ideas. and you know, i know where the number one trending twitter hash

tag, people are going to know about this. thanks to senator scott, speaker ryan and we don't want to just do it, we did invite the democratic candidates to come this evening and they weren't able to join us. we had two democratic moderators. we are going to try to do something with the democrats down the road. i would love to do this with democrats and republicans. wouldn't it be incredible to see that civil comp tig of ideas. that's what the country wants to hear. >> and as you said, john kasich, said it here. and says it all the time. we've got to do that. one party. one governing philosophy can't fix this problem. your dad knew that. better than anybody, right? >> yeah, the best line that he m misappropriated and credited to lincoln was that you serve your party best when you serve your country first.

and -- i think we saw a bunch of national political leaders who embody that phrase and want to put america first and they recognize that the american idea, the american dream, is not a reality if in our inner cities where we have young people like monica coming out, if they don't have equality, don't have a chance, if we can't help people like ron moten, who are helping kids who haven't had a chance, then the american idea is not a reality and so connecting all these dots, that's what we want to do with our kemp forum events and connect the political party. >> there's such a disconnect from what we see every day on the campaign trial and what we're hearing in this forum. and another thing i did say to mika was i said when we were coming here, said you're going to be seeing the cream of the crop. this is a party of the republican party that's not

against something. >> absolutely. >> but that's for something. that wants to make a difference in the country. talk about though how discouraging it is to watch wat presidential campaign, to listen to the negativity, how do you break through that? >> there's no doubt that fear sells. what we've seen is the selling of fear. it's easy to harness. it's easy to identify. that's the challenge we have to overcome. today, we overcame that. we saw candidates on this stage -- [ applause ] >> -- who are all competing for the exact same job, giving deference to each other's ideas. i will tell you as individuals

drilling down into the issues you get a far better richer response and more thorough response to the questions when you have the one on one. it's as if in the middle hlddle debate, you throw some red meat on the floor and they're all tearing each other part. you have two ears and one mouth. go into the communities. listen. monica didn't say anything about the government in response to your question how did you get here. her answer did not include the government. it's not that the government can't play some role in the process. >> there is a place for the government obviously. >> i have two pages of solutions that we heard today from the earned income tax credit to tax reform. we heard a lot about school choice, charter schools.

we talked about criminal justice reform. we have a lot of solutions, but the fact of the matter is if you with soluti problems you repel . if you start with solutions, you attract. >> you lived against monica. now you have a college degree and you want an advanced degree. you have a job. you're looking for a better job. that comes from the concepts of today and ron's inspiration, but also from you. you're amazing. we have a lot of kids. we see a lot of kids that come through, work for us, who couldn't do half of what you've done. there's something really, really incredible that you should take ownership for as well. what an incredible story, jimmy, that she has.

>> it's monica's story. wherever we come from on the socioeconomic scale, each of us needs love and investment. one of the great points i believe my dad ever made was what arthur said, i believe it was arthur, who talked about people being our greatest resource. that reality is something that we all need to embrace and it's different becau difficult because we all know how much challenge we face in ourselves within ourselves, but in this country you're given a chance to be free and to make decisions every day. the last thing i would say is something i said earlier about the quality of political leaders. there's such disdain for washington. but when you get to know your leaders and you actually hear them interact and talk, they are

extraordinary people who are motivated by public service. and each of us is called to serve, so each of us should play our part and get involved. and senator scott is such an incredible example. it's great to have speaker ryan. he is wonderful, but having an african-american republican senator in congress is a wonderful thing. he doesn't lead with that and we have too. there's senator booker. but it shouldn't be such an an anomaly, but we're proud to have senator tim scott serving the state of south carolina. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> senator, i'd love to close with you first of all chanting roll tide as loud as you can. after that, with the kemp family here -- and by the way, when i say the kemp family, i'm talking about all of us.

plus mrs. kemp and the children and grandchildren. >> yes. >> but talk about jack kemp's legacy in 2016, how it lives on with you, how it lives on with so many of us, what the best thing we can do moving forward as we leave this place today to make sure that it continues living on for the next generation with a bit of a revival because we need a revival now more than ever. >> we need a revival. all the people said hallelujah amen. >> it's great to be back in the south. >> you can get involved in this movement at kempforum.com. in 1996 my dream came true. bob dole was running for president. he was looking for someone who

would provide inspiration and hope to the country. he leaned over and chose your dad. i was excited because the one thing i knew about jack kemp was he loved with a color blind kind of love and i saw it on the football field when he was playing. i saw it in politics. and when i grew up in politics, i wanted to be like jack because he had the compassion for people, but he had the mind for policy and numbers. so it wasn't one or the other. it was fusing the two together. today for america to be great it's not for the republican party to be great. it's for the american country. it's for the u.s. to be great. >> amen. >> that requires real leadership. and so for all of us -- if paul was still here, i would say wisconsinites -- for all of us ÷

kempites, it's important for us to feel and think. monica is a classic example for us to follow in the kemp direction. >> monica watts, jimmy kemp, thank you so much. >> go tigers. >> thank you. >> great job. >> picture. >> right here. >> thanks. thank you so much. great job. great job. you all right? thank you. >> thank you, guys, so much. >> well, how many of you guys have had a great day? it's a wonderful day. since you're standing, just remain standing. as the senator for south carolina, it's been my privilege to serve the citizens of south carolina. it's been an amazing privilege to have presidential candidates come back to our state and talk about the issues that truly

motivates people to listen. if we have people listening, they'll be informed. if they're informed, they're educated. if they're educated, they'll make the best decisions for the future of our country. i believe that 2016 will be a pivotal and defining year for the nation. let's make good choices by being opportunity voters. god bless you. enjoy the rest of your day. [ cheering and applause ] american history tv airs every weekend on c-span 3 all day saturday and sunday. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories an interview with conservative commentator armstrong williams. part of the explorations in black leadership project. >> some people recognize my

father. just before he was about to be introduced to strum thurmond, i said hello, i'm senator williams and i hear you're a racist. >> what did he say to you? >> he said if you ever want to come to washington, come work for me. then you can decide if i'm a racist or not. re-enactors recreate the scene at the old meeting house in boston. the 1980 republican campaign with interviews recorded by students at salem high school in new hampshire airing for the first time on national television. at 4:00, on real america 35 years ago this week iran released 52 american hostages

after holding them for 444 days. we'll look back at the iranian hostage crisis and the release of the hostages just minutes after ronald reagan was sworn in as president. go to c-span.org. on the next "washington journal," a look at the progressive agenda and campaign 2016 with adam green, co-founder of the progressive change campaign committee. then russell moore. he talks about the role of evangelicals in the 2016 electio elections. our spotlight on magazines features rachel cohen. her recent story looks at planned parenthood and the abortion debate. "washington journal" is live

every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. as i've been watching the campaign this year, it's far more interesting to look at the republicans than it is to look at the democratic side. and that may have something to do with why there's more interest in these candidates and their books. >> sunday night on q&a, a non-fiction book critic for "the washington post" discusses books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> everyone i think does have interesting stories in their lives. and politicians who are so single minded in this pursuit of power and ideology could have particularly interesting ones, but when they put out these memoi memoirs, they're sanitized.

they're vetted. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on facebook, twitter, and by phone. every campaign we cover is available on our website, c-span.org. for republican presidential candidate john kasich ohio talked to teenagers in new hampshire about alcohol and drug abuse. he was joined by his wife and daughters. this is an hour.

>> there's room for about three people in there. >> there he is. [ applause ] >> where am i supposed to go? >> right there. i'm going to introduce you. >> okay. >> this is governor kasich. we'd like to welcome governor kasich and his family, his daughters emma and reese, and wife karen. they've traveled -- >> there's my third daughter megan. >> i'm sorry. this is katy. it's communities for alcohol and drug-free youth. it's a small nonprofit. our board members in attendance today include michelle, mary, who is over here, leslie who is

in the entryway, mike, amy, and paul. our executive director she would definitely be here, except she's on vacation. >> where is she? >> florida. >> let me make a recommendation. i think you ought to add a couple people to the board who are famous people in new hampshire, particularly athletes. i don't know if you have. i'm sure you do. do we have any former dartmouth football or basketball player? we've got to have -- but what i'm really for is creditability with these kids. i think you need to have some youth, even if you put them on

the board and you make them honorary board members or whatever because we've got to be in all the schools. that's where you get to these kids. there's got to be somebody that can really relate to them. am i right, girls? >> because no one is going to listen -- >> to adults. right. think about that a little bit. >> all right. well, our youth advisory and advocacy council are going to do a little thing for you. >> great names here. >> would you move over? mollie brown, nora doyle, rosa bailey, christian bixby, and our staff members. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you because

they're talking. how do you want to do this? >> put that on your collar. >> i don't have a collar. would you do it? >> i'll put this right here. >> these two young ladies are going to make a presentation. >> this young man. >> okay. who are you guys? tell me. >> my name is mollie brown. i'm 17 and home schooled. >> i'm nora doyle. i'm 17. i'm a student at plymouth regional high school. >> i'm matt doyle and i also go to plymouth regional high school. >> okay. let's hear it. >> first of all, thank you very much for coming and investing your time to speak with us about this really important issue of

the opiate drug crisis. it's an honor to have you here and to be able to speak to you about what we see and experience as teenagers every day. we're the community for alcohol and drug-free youth youth advisory council. >> the program encourages us to inspire our peers. this past october we were honored to accept the 2015 youth in action advocacy award for a project we completed this last year. >> during the education component, we are provided with the background information on a topic that we're interested in and we research and discuss the issue to better understand the problem. we develop skills needed to create change. some skills we've learned include using media tools, gathering research-based

information and data, and organization of these facts into presentations and learning how to speak to people will listen. >> we then take action. we're provided with opportunities to put our leadership skills into use. in april 2015 we testified in front of the new hampshire state finance committee to increase funding for prevention -- >> the three of you did? >> one other person with us. >> so four of you? good. >> i was not there. >> so the alcohol fund originally took 5% of growth sales and was invested back into the prevention and treatment programs. over the years alcohol sales increased, but the alcohol fund was never fully funded for prevention or treatment. most prevention programs were defunded. >> what happened there, young lady? >> the alcohol fund was designed to take 5% of gross profits and put it back into prevention and

treatment programs. and over the years the alcohol sales increased, but the alcohol fund was never fully funded, so we testified to bring funding back up to prevention programs. >> tom -- >> see if you can step back in. >> thank you. that's an interesting point. we need to make a note of that. tom? he's not here yet. he knows all these people. so it was supposed to be 5% and even though the amount grew, the 5% is not 5% anymore. >> correct. >> the way it works, i'm a state representative -- >> you are?

perfect. >> what happened was ned gordan, who is a judge in new hampshire, originally he was a senator. he put in this provision that 5% of the liquor profits would go toward prevention. >> right. >> and services, but the way new hampshire works we had very limited budget. we have no income or sales tax. >> right. >> there's totally unwilling -- there's no political will to change that. >> but it was established at 5%, it should have grown. they took some of the money away from it? >> every year we changed the percentage and robbed the money that should have been gone -- and sometimes completely robbed it. >> when i look at the alcohol and the 5% -- while alcohol is a big issue for us, that 5% could be used to fight the prescription drug and houses and

treatment and all that. so they took some of the 5% and divert some of it. >> they divert it mostly, yeah. >> we're famous for that. >> well, the thing is when you get yourself in a bind, it's kind of easy to ignore what you view as some of these soft things, but it is like pay me now or pay me later. >> exactly. very interesting. the other thing new hampshire people that they did here that you know is expanding medicaid was a big plus. i kind of think that brought a lot of resources to help on this issue. >> we're continunting on that. >> yeah, that's good. i'm learning. you don't mind if i ask questions? >> no. >> the sales are part of the issue. we make them farther of the solution as well. >> good. >> that was the goal for that. >> so we also got a chance to

mentor. we also produce videos and psas to raise awareness. this past october we completed a social norms campaign during red ribbon week which took place october 23rd through the 30th. this campaign showed the majority of teenagers at plymouth regional high school do not use alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. it empowers us all to ask questions and to really think about issues and to know why we shouldn't do drugs. ultimately we're prevention leaders. >> this isn't necessary the fact for other communities. adolescence substance use is america's number one public health problem. 90% of americans with a substance abuse problem started smoking, drinking, or using other drugs before the age of

18. we would like to share with you some information specifically about new hampshire, but they're just as prevalent nationwide. >> new hampshire ranks in the top states among marijuana use. one in six new hampshire teens have abused prescription drugs. >> one in six? >> yes, sir. >> we think it is unwise for new hampshire to legalize marijuana. in this time where there's a national drug crisis the solution is definitely not to legalize another drug. >> in the upcoming session of the new hampshire legislature a marijuana decriminalization bill is coming up again. perception of risk is a strong prevention strategy. we're concerned about the message if marijuana is decriminalized. will it lower the perception of

risk? will the use of marijuana climb higher than it already is? >> a teenager's brain is wired to take risks. i'm sure this is not surprising to anyone. michael a national speaker on brain research presented risky busy, why adolescents love risk taking and how we can help manage it. >> three of the facts that he shared with us really stuck with all of us. one was our emotional intensity is two to four times greater than adults. when something happens positive or negative, we feel it two to four times greater. two, we seek out emotional rewards. if something feels to us, that's what we'll be doing. number three, our brains are focused on the here and now. we don't think a lot about future consequences. that's where adults come in. in order to keep us safe, perception of risk and disapproval needs to be way

higher, not lower. parents, adults, policymakers and leaders need to be aware that young people need guidance. >> marijuana is a gateway drug. the fact is marijuana introduces kids to a high that can lead to drug dependency. marijuana puts kids around people who use hard drugs. marijuana is a gateway drug. in fact, it was their gateway drug. certainly not everyone who used marijuana becomes addicted, but the vast majority in treatment began their use with marijuana. >> thc levels were only 2% to 3% in the 70s. thc levels have increased to 13% and the levels continue to rise. this past year 2015 thc levels were averaging 23% to 30%. marijuana use continues to

evolve. it is becoming more risky with how it is being used. >> substance abuse should not be looked at as harmless and a rite of passage. if adults attitude are permissi permissive, than the perception of risk is low. the human brain isn't fully developed into the mid 20s. adults need to remember the teen brain is a work in progress. when drugs are introduced at a young age, it wires their brain for addiction. any substance abuthat many youn person uses affects their lives and in some sad cases ends them. >> if you look at this image, it shows the escalation of drug use during the teen years. this is known as the escalator chart. nine out of ten individuals struggling with addiction began

drinking, smoking, and using other drugs before the age of 18. if we can prevent teen drug abuse, and we can, then we can prevent drug addiction. >> in new hampshire and nationally the number one reason why youth are using drugs is stress. teenagers are self-medicated. the need for the substance also increased. this is called dependency and it leads to addiction. more stress equals moriou more it becomes an unending cycle. they need to learn healthy coping mechanisms and strategies. >> there are a lot of pressures being a teenager. if we don't have the proper tools to deal with the stress, many will continue to self-medicate. remember our brains are a work in process. >> there has been an alarming

increase in drug-related deaths in new hampshire. substance abuse does not discriminate. it crosses all socioeconomic sectors, races, and religions. drug-relat drug-related deaths have been steadily increased. >> the solution to the problem is prevention. that's why we're here. prevention breaks the cycle crime, protects children, saves lives, and contains costs. >> we believe the solution is the game whack-a-mole. it shows how we are reacting to the heroin epidemic. but the singular reaction is not a solution because the heroin epidemic stems from a larger substance abuse problem. the heroin epidemic was

preventable. it resulted from overprescribing painkillers. once hooked on opioids, the next stop was heroin because it is far cheaper, easier to access, and essentially a bigger bang for the buck. what's interesting about this whack-a-mole image is that all drug problems are still present, but because they're not seen as a crisis, they're overlooked as less problematic because we're focused on only one thing at a time. heroin use is part of the larger substance abuse problem. nearly all people who are addicted to heroin also use at least one other drug. most use at least three other drugs before experimenting with heroin. all drug use is dangerous and can lead to heroin use. people who are addicted to alcohol are two times more likely to be addicted to heroin, marijuana three times more likely, and prescription painkillers 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin.

yes, we are comparing whack-a-mole to the national drug kcrisis, but substance abue is not a game. i do not take to the rules and just use the padded hammer. i go in with two hands and with a couple of friends. in other words, i build a whole team to conquer the whack-a-mole game, but let's talk about prevention playing whack-a-mole. prevention has only a single person equipped with a very heavy padded hammer and this is not good enough because prevention also needs a team approach. >> another example on how our country reacts to whack-a-mole theory is remediation. this is also known as the cleaning up the mess. instead of investing in smart, sensible, cost-effective

solutions we wait until we have a devastating mess and are forced to throw a whole lot of money at the problem. if we can prevent addiction, then we can save lives and money. >> prevention in new hampshire and across the nation could benefit from increased youth prevention programs by implementiimplement ing curriculums to help adults. because isolation is also a major risk factor. >> we need to greatly expand outreach. prevention is going up against the multimillion dollar megaphone. katy has an innovative media campaign tool kit that we're marketing to increase awareness of the substance abuse problem and to connect the dots to the

solutions. prevention needs a strong team nationally for maximum influence and the first step to increase community awareness of the problem and engage the grass roots and policy makers like we're doing right now. >> we're examples of why and how prevention works. we've learned not only how it affects our brains and our bodies, but how detrimental it is to our health, relationships, and our future success. we know as a presidential candidate you have many issues at the forefront other than the drug crisis, but we believe the addiction crisis in large part begins with young people and effects other issues like education, the workforce, and the general health, safety, and welfare of our country. we want our peers to know what we know, to have the opportunities that we all have, and to be able to lead healthy successful lives.

we see this issue as a generational crisis. we're very concerned about our future. we need to fix this problem before the trend continues to grow. we know as governor you've been a national leader and we really thank you for that. addiction affects everyone. it's been called a family disease. now we see it more like a national disease. it touches everyone really. drug addiction is limiting the potential of our peers and ultimately the future of our entire nation. i care about prevention because i lost an aunt as well as a cousin to substance abuse. i also care about prevention because i want to raise awareness. >> i care because drug and alcohol use is affecting us personally. it's taking away our generation's potential and leaving behind addiction and mental illness in our place. >> we want to have a secure,

sustainable, and successful future. prevention programs give an alternative to following the crowd or believing that everyone is using substances. it debunks myths and empowers us to be part of the solution. prevention is powerful education. it gives us the choice after we know the facts and weigh our options. we're better informed and we're able to make better decisions. >> we're always told don't do drugs and just say no, but prevention programs explain why and not just because i said so. speaking as a teenager, it is confusing. there are a lot of conflicting messages in the media and in school and it can really hard to say no. many see alcohol and drugs as a rite of passage because marijuana is being legalized. alcohol and other drugs are glorified in the media, music, television. >> some kids are lucky enough to have parents that talk to them about not using drugs or

alcohol, but many don't have that support system at home. prevention is not just a feel good method of information. it answers for us real-life important questions that we need to know in this extremely confusing world. it's time to support youth prevention programs. our potential is limitless. we just need investment of sound policy and practice and we'll be empowered to make good choices. our country needs a leader who wants to protect all of us that includes investing in promising solutions. we want a leader to encourage us and to inspire us to lead healthy and successful lives and focus on what is really important, our future. thank you for having us. [ applause ] >> governor kasich -- >> let me wife talk. she's been involved in a lot of this too. >> i can really appreciate what you're saying. i'm impressed with the three of

you too. you're very poised. >> thank you. >> in ohio one of the things the governor's administration has started is a program called start talking because the research, as you probably know, shows that young people are 50% less likely to start using drugs if an adult, a respected adult in their lives, starts talking to them at an early age why, why not to use these drugs. the start talking program puts together all the resources that are out there in the state and in various venues, gets them to teachers, to families, to people in the community who come in contact with youth and help them do just that, start talking about why this is not a good idea. that's one of the programs we have seen work and that i've been involved with. it always touches me because when we do go out to start doing a start talking presentation, we usually have a family member who

has lost someone due to the effects of an overdose. it touches me that they would take their time to come out and share their experience to save others. >> i think one thing we've got to do is we've got to pick this up. today is martin luther king day. he was a heck of a leader. mind if i stick this over here on this easel? can we fit it on here too? probably knock the thing down here. here we go. so sweetie, you're right. you're right about the schools, but i have to tell you we invited 5,000 people, the attorney general and i, on a call because we have the start talking program. i'm going to be very interested in what you think the most important messages are. we invited 5,000 people that were some sort of school entity.

i think we had 200 that got on the call. we were not taken seriously. i can just tell you in my state i'm disappointed. how can we have -- we know that these programs of -- they say they need to have descriptions of why they shouldn't do drugs. actually what the evidence says is they just hear don't do drugs they won't do it. 50% less chance. now i'm going to be interested in hearing what they all say about what's the most effective message. but the schools are the place to go. by the way, i figured out who you should ask to be on the board. seth meyers. he's on television. ask him to be an honorary board member of this. let these young people send him a note. if they can't get through to him, we'll help. i think it would be great to have a guy like seth meyers

talking about the need to fight this. you know who he is? he's a big tv star. you don't know who he is. i was with leo last week. i would get him, but i'm not that close to him. leo dicaprio. any of you, what do you think is the most effective thing that you can hear when you're a young person about not doing drugs? >> there's actually a presentation that came to our school a few months ago that was done by an emt from the city of manchester about heroin because as we have mentioned, that is a very prevalent issue at the moment. the presentation, i believe, was perfectly engineered for a high school audience because this man was intervening. it was a little comical in some places, but there was a fear factor involved as well, which is something that increases

creditability when you're talking to a young audience because they don't take a lot of things seriously. he had a powerpoint and some of the images of people who had done heroin after they overdosed and were all bloated. it is disgusting. i scared people into not doing heroin. this is such a big issue that this is not an extreme and it's something that has to be done. >> if you girls were at a party and somebody said, here, take this pill. what would you think, reese? >> what would i think? >> why would you not do it or would you do it? i know you wouldn't. why? because i told you not to. >> that's really it. >> is that really it? how about you, emma? you would say because i told you not to do it. i say it all the time. >> i think people if you go to a school, you can't have someone

older, middle-age or up. i think you have to have younger hip people. when people come into our school and they're middle-aged men, which are usually the only ones coming in, people take them as a joke. why should i listen to you? >> how about a cool, hip middle-aged guy like me? but here's the thing. see what we do is in regard to the youth -- is what we do is we send talking points and the teacher delivers the message. not somebody else that comes into the school. or their peers. we also have a program where the chief -- and i think we've shared a lot of this with your folks up here -- where we take our highway patrol and they talk to the student athletes. they recruit them as ambassadors in the school. then they tell their friends don't be doing drugs. how about you, megan? you see it in the cool, don't

you? >> oh, yeah. i go to public school, so things are a lot different. since they're taught about the bible and god and stuff, a lot of the people in their school have their mind-set straight on more of the right things to do, but a lot of kids in my school just kind of do whatever they want. their parents don't guide them as well because they don't have god and stuff in their lives. >> how come you don't do drugs megan? >> i think it can really mess up your future. >> who told you that, your mom? your mom will kill you. >> governor, we had a program ca t cati helped put together. alex, he's now in college. he kicked heroin, but he was a middle-class kid. >> that's right. >> no problem.

he started in grade school and started with marijuana. he kept being offered more and more. his parents had no idea what was going on. he suggested what he thought one of the biggest deterrents is just what you were saying, rocki reese. you show people in detox. show what it is really like. not i just went and did this and followed up. show them what it's really like. >> the deal is take that young man or take sam, our friend, and take so many parents and everything, there's not enough of them to go around. that's why you've got to create a network. it should be in every church, every synagogue, where they ought to talk about this like a couple times a month. and also in the schools because all you have to do is have an

e-mail that gives you talking points for the week. and the teacher just looks at it. you don't need a lot of money to do this. let me explain to you. if you get hooked on these drugs, your future is going to be ruined because you're going to have weight on your back that'll you'll never be able to let go of. this is a haunting, horrible thing. kids will hear it. if your third grade teacher is telling you don't do drugs, you're going to listen to your third grade teacher. yet, we've not been able to fully engage the schools in this. it drives me insane because it doesn't take much. if i hasn't had a call about how we're going to spend some more money, i would have had $5,000 people on the call. what are you going to do? where else are you going to go? we send e-mails to the parents, but it's kind of hard -- we're doing everything we can possibly do, but these big organizations

where kids are are the ones that have to hear it. just last week i was up here at hotel washington. we weren't there, tom, but bruce was there and gordan was there. this guy comes up to me and he says, my daughter -- i think it was the daughter. my daughter is a recovering heroin addict and her daughter 13 years old was there. i see this little girl. i put my arm around here. maybe i got her a little bit spooked, but probably not. i just looked at her and i told her aunt -- and we got our people. we said this girl needs help. you're 13 years old and your mother is a heroin addict. what do you think is going to happen with you if somebody doesn't talk to you? you've got counseling now that's involved here. we've got friends who are very

wealthy. our friend's sister has a son and a daughter all of whom overdosed, right, and they've got four kids. think about the extent of this. >> had four kids. >> they've been taken now, the four kids. we could tell a billion stories about this. i think everybody knows it's real. now what do we do. i think this is a really great program that you've organized like this. maybe we could have them start something like this, but i have to keep doubling down on the schools. >> governor, the kids mentioned cati has put together what we call the tool kit. it is this huge thing that other schools have purchased. they have thumb drives and everything for messages to go out every week. there are articles in the paper and information and a lot of schools are saying, good, we want a prevention program.

we didn't know just how to go about it. it's been sold around the country. >> i would find out how many of your schools are doing it. mine have not shown the kind of interest that they should. we had a superintendent in the school district who said drugs are not an issue in our school. am i right? now we've got the best guy, paul inhofe. he's the best and he gets it. >> he has a totally different attitude. >> we would want to look at the packet, but you've got to use large organizations, the boys club, the girls club. if we can get the information out there, we'll solve this problem. let me tell you what's really happened. i've been working on this for years. what happened was doctors were willy nilly young people -- you know what they did? you go to the dentist and they

take out your wisdom teeth and they give you 20 oxycontin. now that the whole country is focused on how we can limit prescription drugs, you can't get them. we've been seeing prescribing dosage drop because now we have protocols. if you write a prescription, we know if you're out of bounds. and the limits have been set by physicians, so if you have chronic pain or acute pain, we're watching you. and we also have a medical board. now we'll take your license away. we're not screwing around with this. you can no longer go from emergency room to emergency room. you can't do it anymore. then we have a link that hooks the pharmacy with the pharmacy board so we can monitor everything. used to be you had to log out and log on again to report. now there's an interface where you go right to the pharmacy

board and we fixed the pharmacy board too. these are all really great things. what's happening now is the price of prescription drugs, because we've limited the supply, has gone up. so people can get heroin next to nothing. grandma, clean out your cabinets. clean out those cabinets because i believe the single biggest entry to heroin, the fastest way to get there is prescription drugs. i can't get them. i can't get oxycontin. so now i go to heroin. now we have a problem in ohio with another drug. listen how wacky this is. there's a drug that they give you if you're dying of cancer. it's called fentanyl. i may have said it wrong. i may not have pronounced it

right, but they can take that drug and lace it with heroin to give you an even stronger effect. that means that there are people that are actually taking this stuff making money taking it out of the hospitals. i mean, it's just nuts. every time you get your hand on it there's another ameba out here, but i believe it's busting the drug dealers. el chapo, right? you wait and watch how they try to glamorize this guy. i like what you said about this multiple messages. you watch a movie today. i've watched a couple movies on the plane. you know what they're all about? violence and drugs. that's what they're all about and it's crap because it just keeps sending messages to these

young people. anyway, we've got a great band the girl's school. they're called 21 pilots. have you ever heard of them? they know this founder of the band. they don't glamorize any of that stuff. you like 21 pilots? >> well, they're pretty good. >> well, it's all about being stressed out. that's their song, but they talk about how to deal with it. we'll have you meet them sometime. i've said enough. i love what these young people are doing, but we've got to bust the drug dealers. we have to rehab people when they are on drugs. let me tell you, mary, what we've been able to do. by taking dollars -- frankly, we've moved our addiction services into the prisons and we treat people and we release them into the community and our

recidivism rate is less than 20%, so there are really significant things happening, but we've got a real raging crisis. but we know it now, so i think we're going to move -- i think we're not going to be here. i think we're all beginning to realize it, but we have to get the network in place that sends the same message out over and over and over again. if you have better luck with your schools than we're having, you tell me what the secret is because i've got to figure it out. we've got to take it to the colleges and universities now too. and they will be more cooperative because i will make them more cooperative. we have to stick more things in the budget and get these local schools. >> great thing about cati is we use the college interns to work with cati and to work with the kids. >> i think it's great. girls, you want to say anything more?

no? no? no? why aren't you in school today? sweetie, what else? why don't you wrap it up? >> i don't have anything else to say. >> yeah, you do. you've got questions, yes. >> there's always going to be one person dealing with one other person. >> you are right. >> and you can do all the stuff from the top you want to do until you get the people whose boots are on the ground to do it one on one or one on two. you're not going to get anywhere. >> speaking of dr. king and all that message, we are our neighbor neighbors' keepers. maybe we don't think we are, but we better be. we better keep an eye on what's happening around us. you're right about that. you know, i think there is -- i

wrote a book many years ago and i talked about what's called the home run theory. if we can't hit a home run with the bases loaded, many times we think we shouldn't even bat. the fact is if you save one life, if you talk to one kid one at a time, two, three, you're right. you're right. so you need to stick your nose in these kids' business when you're at the restaurant. you go see them. all you say is please don't do drugs because i don't want to see you get crushed. stay away from the drugs. you know what my staff tells me? when you go to a school, don't tell them not to do drugs because you sound like an old man and that's not appealing. forget it. who cares? if by my saying that there's one kid that doesn't do drugs, he might come up with a cure for

alzheimer's. i'm going to keep telling them. >> in the alex story, when he talks to the kids in schools, after he does his presentation, it's done within actress that represents the story. then he takes questions. after the program, then they start dribbling back in and say where can i get help. i have a friend. i have a sister. >> it's just heartbreaking. >> we realize we need to have someone there to say go to so and so. here's a number to call because it's affecting everybody. >> yeah. when you think about that, the heartache and the heartbreak -- i mean this little 13-year-old girl i'm looking at her and i can see she's ready to collapse. her mom is a heroin addict.

think about what it would be like if your mother was a heroin addict. >> our superintendent is here today. superintendent mark halloran. >> of the school? >> yes. cati is very much a part of our school. the work that the kids do is in our building every day. >> that's great. >> it's a terrific opportunity. i kn i don't know about those ohio superintendents. >> the schools have so many things that are going on, right? the open rate has been pretty good. you think i'm standing up here saying this i'm not going to get a bunch of people angry another me in ohio. you think i don't know that? but it doesn't matter to me because this is a crisis. we have the open rate. it's pretty good open rate. to invite 5,000 people on a call and you get 200, tell me how you would feel. that doesn't mean we don't have

great superintendents out there. maybe part of it is they don't think they can make a difference. i don't know what explains it, but i don't like it. i've got to keep at it and at it and i give a lot of credit to the attorney general because he thinks about this all the time as our lieutenant governor does, our highway patrol. we have to do better. why have you paid so much attention to it? >> because it's here in our community and it's important that in the schools that we address all of our community issues. not an academic education, but also how to be a good citizen and the responsibility you have as an adult. and i think the work that nora and mack and all the kids here do is just incredible because their peers listen to them. i was particularly pleased to hear you talk about the presentation we had from the manchester emt. we got a lot of grief for that presentation. it was too gory. a number of parents were very

upset, but i still think it was the right thing to do. i got the message out there and it showed people at the end of this -- and i think we did the right thing. >> it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter if they get mad at you, right? >> absolutely. >> what are you going to do? go hide in a hole somewhere? life is short. >> you're right. >> life is short. you know, it's got to be followed on though because they hear a presentation and then two months later -- it's like they say. they're wired for risk. it's a really good point, so we have to be constantly going, right? once we get beyond it, because i think i think the prescription drugs are extremely serious. i agree with the other issues. i agree with all that, but that prescription drug problem, we can crank that down over time.

i think we're going to have better results. that's my sense of it. do you agree with is ththat? >> i agree with that. i think the state licenses people, i think those interfaces are huge. i think for a number of years people act as islands. as you said, if you had your wisdom teeth taken out, here's your prescription and call me if you have dry socket or if you have this or you have that. they were pretty free and easy. and now -- >> and in our state the medical board looked the other way. i appointed a guy who is not a doctor to the medical board. his name is don kenny. he does not tolerate any nonsense out of our physicians. if you violate the hippocratic oath, there's going to be consequences. this interface, the way i understand this is if you're a pharmacist, okay, and you need to report to the pharmacy board,

just until now long ago you would have to log out, contact the pharmacy board, log back in. now we have the interface where they don't have to log out and log back in which makes their life >> i think it's catching on. you don't have kroe grks er up here, do you? kroeger is a grocery chain. and they've done a fantastic job. and the ceo of that chain has been awesome. so all the pharmacies in the kroegers in the state have been doing this. and we're trying to find out, is everybody doing it? it's interface and reporting. the other thing that we did is this was a couple years ago. i had this lady who runs the department of ageing. and she is unbelievable. you get in her way, she'll run right over you. i asked her to meet with all the prescribers. and they originally wanted me to plan date a law on how they could prescribe. i said oh, wait a minute. why don't we just get everybody together. get anybody who's involved in

prescribing and see if we can get a voluntary situation. if we get a voluntary u it's a lot better than if we hammer somebody. that's what we've done. it's really working. everybody understands the problem. yes? >> i understand the importance of value. i think another huge issue which you can't neglect is marijuana. >> no, i think that's right. >> it is addictive. and a lot of cases, and i know ohio just went through it, but it's going to happen. it's going to come up again. and this is a very big issue. and, i can see it, you know, coming in the back door with medical marijuana and the ranks of the state, you know, federally, civilly. i think that's a huge issue that can't be neglected. >> i think that's right. it's just that when i look at the problem and where the most acute problem is, i find it in the other. i'm not going to tell you that that doesn't matter.

i mean, i was so thrilled when the people of ohio voted it down. >> don't you think it's because it's trackable? the illegal use of marijuana is not as trackable. >> and i don't know enough about what they said about thc levels and all of that. but i know that i have found in looking at all of the things that we know, that the prescription drug gives you the kind of high that you want to sustain with heroin. that's what i know. they said exactly what i've been saying, which is you don't want to legalize marijuana because you don't want to send a mixed message. don't do drugs, but, by the way, this drug is okay. look, i mean, part of this -- one of the perverse ideas about this is, well, we can make money and have money money for budgets if we legalize it. that's nuts, to me. okay. aren't you all glad i talk the way i always talk? nothing is anything different. my wife is going to say john, tone it down.

but, you know, i don't agree with that. and, now, medical marijuana is a different issue. now, what i've told people in the state is we can't use it as a back door. but, you know, if a doctor were to -- if doctors were to come to me and say, you know, is there is an element of that that can be used to deal with the problem of seizures, because some of the young people, you know, they can have, like, 30 seizures a day. but it should be somewhat controlled. but the other issue, like looking the other way like they do in colorado, i just don't agree with it. and i'm glad that they turned it down. >> you know, governor, we had medical marijuana taken three years to get a system in place. but it's very tightly secured. >> we're probably going to look at it.

if you put that on the ballot, you're look e likely to pass it even if it has loopholes that say oh, our legislature is beginning. we're going to see what we do on that. but i appreciate what you're saying. yes, sir? >> governor, i want to thank you for your campaign. you are qualified on one of your delegates. so i hope i see you again. but it has been a wonderful campaign. >> well, you know, by the way, they're coming to trash me, you know. they're already starting. jeb, mr. high ground, he's bringing his negativity and his trash. i guess when you've got a lot of billionaire friends, you can go ahead and do stuff like that. but it's all half truths. and that's all politics is.

but, anyway, you know, i have a lot of press around. they all want to know, what are you going to do to break out? okay? what am i supposed to do? lower the bar? what about my daughters and my wife? my wife says to me you have seen the family for 20 minutes since the third of january. if i'm up here being a goof ball, than it isn't worth it. but if i can raise the bar and get people to realize that, you know, that there is a way to improve our country, you don't have to be a yeller, screamer or negative, then i'm proud of what i've done, win or lose. win or lose, it doesn't matter. and i'm going to do my best. look, i'm, like, we all have seen it.

i'm not going to tell you that i don't have the capability of doing something dumb, but i'm going to do my best. i believe life is short. so thank you for being a delegate. i believe life is short. so i want to have a good legacy. winning an election isn't all that matters in life. i don't want to get cross wised with him, believe me. >> we're proud of you. >> thank you. i so much appreciate -- >> you know, last night, we came in, there were 50 volunteers at the airport. and they got this car and they had the head lights turned. it was like a movie. they shined a light on all of these volunteers, i got to meet them all and talk to them. some of them a hug. about believing that we believe -- i've been around politics a long time.

and my idealism hasn't been chipped one little bit. i am a believer. one of you reporters just asked me, don't you think politic sds zero-sum game? that in order for someone to win, someone else has to lose. it is just the opposite. if we're in this business to help people's lives, everybody wins. and i have to tell you, one of the things that has most happened is we've had some tough court cases in cleveland. i've encouraged protests, but nonviolence. we've gotten through it and we're moving to the next thing. that meant that everybody worked together.

we don't want to be driving negativity. that's what i think. >> thank you again for coming today. i love what you said about family and community. >> there's a community that needs to be embraced so we can have one mass community working towards what it looks like. so i just want to know, if you will put more funding towards treatment, intervention and recovery. prevention and recovery are the biggest bang we can get for our money nowadays. >> look, you don't know this,

but i've been absolutely hammered because i brought resources back to ohio to treat the mentally ill. you know how i feel? i feel great that i did it. we now have the resources that have freed up the local community to be in a position where they can treat people. not with just those who are poor. this should speak for itself. this is a national issue. while i believe that -- look, balanced budgets, you have to have priorities. she said it. they all said it, you know. pay me now or pay me a heck of a lot more later if you don't get on top of these issues. but i want to go back to what she said. it's family. it's community.

it's the state. and she'll tell you that this state has changed because of this crisis. and when the movie comes out on el chappo, don't go. sorry, sean penn, you're out of luck. [ applause ]

c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and, as always, every campaign event we cover is available on our web site, c-span.org. the senate armed services committee meets wednesday morning to discuss u.s. policy in the middle east.

including retired general jack king and former ambassador to afghanistan, ryan crocker. tune in 930 a.m. eastern right here on c-span3. sunday, republican senator ted cruz spoke. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> american history tv airs every week end on c-span three. all day and on sunday. some of the highlights include saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral history and interview with conservative commentator williams. >> and we wanted to recognize him because he had a strong reputation for the county.

>> and the senator said to me, when you graduate from high school, if you ever wanted to intern for me, come work for me. >> and, a little after 9:00, on the anniversary of the 1773 boston tea party, recreate the scene in boston. and, at 4:00 on real america, 35 years ago this week, iran released 52 american hostages after holding them for 444 days. through article kooifl photos and videos will look back at the

iranian hostage crisis, including president carter's announcement of the rescue attempt and the release of the hosages just minutes after ronald reagan was sworn in as president. >> sunday, ted cruz spoke to voters in new hampshire. this is about an hour and ten minutes. [ applause ]

ladies and gentlemen, we know that we cannot, once again,

listen to campaign conservatives who become elected liberals. we need someone who doesn't just talk the the talk or walk the walk. we need ted krooiz. thank you. well, thank you so very, very much. god bless the great state of new hampshire. i'm thrilled to be up here. i'm thrilled to be with so many friends. how about those patriots? you guys are playing some foot ball. and, by the way, for the record, tom brady was framed. i'm not willing to pander on much. but on that, tom brady was framed.

and i have it on good authority that hillary clinton was responsible. why else do you think she destroyed her e-mails. i appreciate you all coming out tonight. we're at a time when our country is in crisis. we are bankrupting our kids and grand kids. and, yet, i'm here tonight with a word of hope and encouragement. all akroz cross the state of new hampshire, all across this country, people are wakening up. there is a spirit of revival that is sweeping this country.

i want to ask everyone here to look forward. look forward to january 2017. if i am elected president, let me tell you what i intend to do the first day in office. the first thing i intend to do is rescind every single illegal and unconstitution nal executiv action taken by this president. just a week ago, president obama signed more illegal executive actions, this time, trying to undermine our second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

you live by the pen and die by the pen. and as you rightly noted, my pen has got an eraser. the second thing i intend to do -- oh, he'll already be out. and, by the way, if anyone wants to take up a collection to pay for his greens fees every day for the next year, i actually think he does far less damage on the golf course. but the second thing i want to do is instruct the department of justice to open an investigation into planned parent hood on these horrible facilities. the administration of justice should be blind to party ideology.

the only fidelity should be to the laws and the constitution of the united states. >> the third thing i intend to do on the first day of office is instruct the department of justice and the irs and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. that means that every serviceman and woman has the right to seek out all mighty good and their superior officer has nothing to say about it. the fourth thing i intend to do

is rip to shreds this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. listen, today, all of us are celebrating the return of five americans. let me give thanks to god. [ applause ] >> i've gotten to know his wife, who i spoke to briefly yesterday, she and her two little kids have lived without their husband for three years. he was sentence d to eight year in prison in iran for the crime of preaching the gospel. so we are thrilled he's coming home. we're thrilled the other americans are coming home. but, at the same time, let me tell you, this deal that was

cut, releasing 7 terrorists who have been helping iran acquire nuclear technology promises not to prosecute another 14 terrorists, that's 21 terrorists all together. it sadly patterns the administration. an individual now facing court marshal and, yet, the administration released five senior taliban terrorists in exchange for him. this is a dangerous signal to the world. it is a sign, it is frankly an incentive. for every bad actor on earth to go and kidnap an american. what we're telling the

terrorists is if you capture and american, it's open season. the single biggest threat of facing a nuclear iran. and we need a commander in chief who will stand up and say une kwif cably, under no circumstances will the nation of iran, led by a thee cattic iatola who chants death to ameri america, under no circumstances will they ever be allowed to acquire nuclear whens. [ applause [ applause ] and every one of us was horrified last week to see ten american sailors on their knees with their hands on their head. i'll tell you, that image will sum up in one picture the absolute failures of the obama-clinton foreign policy.

and i'll tell you this, if i'm elected president, american sailors will never be on their knees to a foreign power. the fifth thing i intend to do is begin the process to jerusalem who wants an internal capital of israel. [ applause [ applause ] now that's day one. there are 365 days in a year. four years in a president shl term. and four years in a second term.

[ applause ] every one of those days is going to be spent defending the constitution. as j.f.k. would say, with vigor. >> by the end of eight years, there's going to be a whole lot of newspaper reporters and editors and journalists who have checked themselves into therapy. [ laughter ] in the days that follow, i will go to congress and we will repeal every word of obamacare. [ applause ] we'll pass common sense health

care reform to make health insurance personal and affordable and keeps government from getting in between us and our doctors. in the days that follow, i will instruct the department of education that common core ends today. in the days that follow, we will finally, finally, finally secure the borders and end sank chew ware city. there are 3670 sank chew ware jurisdictions in this country. every one of them is going to find their federal taxpayer dollars cut off.

and, as you rightly noted, we will build a wall. and i've got somebody in mind to build it. >> in the days that follow, we will rebuild the military. and we will honor the sacred commitment to every soldier and sailor, airman and marine.

in january, 2017, that will end. we will fundamentally reform the v.a. to protect every veteran's right to choose his or her doctor. and we'll protect every serviceman and woman's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. so the next time a jihadist walks into a recruiting center in chttanooga,he's going to feel

the business end of firearms wielded by a dozen marines. we will have a commander in chief that stands up and says to the world, we will defeat radical terrorism. we'll have a president willing to utter the words radical islamic terrorism. and we will not weaken. we will not degrade. we will utterly and completely destroy isis. the days that follow, we'll take on the epa.

and the cfpw aj=e alphabet soup of federal agencies that have descended like locusts on farmers and ranchers and small businesses all across this country. you know, i'm reminded a few years ago, i said what's the difference between regulators and locusts. i said, well, the thing is, you can't use pesticides on the regulators. and this old west texas farnler, he leaned back and said you want to bet? and in the days that follow, i will go to congress and we will pass fundamental tax reform.

we will pass a schism flat tax. where every american can fill out your taxes on a postcard. and when we do that, we should abolish the ira. >> now, some of you all might be thinking, all of this makes sense to me: it's basic common sense. live -- those words, bernie and common sense. it's sort of like matter and antimatter. they do come to exist. but that's not bad. i can't say that.

but you can. simple principles. live within your means. follow the constitution. but can it be done? can we do it? scripture tells us there's nothing new under the sun. i think where we are today is very, very much like 1970, the jimmy carter administration. same failed economic policy. same policy in '94. in fact, the very same countries. russia and iran, openly laughing at and mocking the president of the united states.

now, why does that analogy give me so much hope and optimism? because we know how that story ended. all across this country, millions of men and women rose up and became the reagan revolution. and it didn't come from washington. washington despised ronald reagan. by the way, if you see a candidate who washington embraces, run and hide. it came from the american people and it turned this country around. we went to millions lifted out of poverty in the prosperity in the american dream. we went from hostages in iran to

winning the cold war and tearing the berlin wall to the ground. why am i so optimistic? because the same thing is happening again. all across this country, people are waking up. the washington elites despise him. i kind of thought that was the whole point of the campaign. listen, if you think things in washington are doing great, then we need to keep headed in the same, basic direction, just fiddling around the edges, then i ain't your guy. on the other hand, if you think washington is fundamentally broken, that there is a

bipartisan corruption of career politicians of both parties that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interests and grow and grow and grow government and we need to take power out of washington and back to we the people, that is what this campaign is all about. [ applause ] >> let me close with this. you know, for all of us here, freedom is not some abstract concept we read about in a school book. that's exactly right. freedom is real. it's personal. it's our lives. it's our family.

for me, i think about my dad. when he was a teenager, he was imprisoned and tortured. he found himself on the floor of a cuban jail cell. covered in mud and blood and grime. his teeth were shattered out of his mouth. and he remembers thinking, i don't have any kids. nobody depend on me. it doesn't matter if i live or if i die. and, yet, thankfully, god had timpbt plans for my father. he was released from that jail cell. and, in 1957, my father fled to america. when he got here, he was 18 years old. couldn't speak english. had nothing, had a hundred dollars sewn into his underwear.

i actually don't advise carrying money in your underwear. and he got a job. he and my mom went onto start a new business together. i saw the ups and downs, the fry um ofs and challenges of running a small family business. today, my dad is a pastor. he travels the country preaching the gospel. >> when i was a kid, my dad used to say to me over and over again, when we faced oppression in cuba, i had a place to flee to. if we lose our freedom here,

where do we go? that is why all of us are here tonight. we are not willing to go quietly into the night. we are not prepared to give up on our kids and grand kids. and i tell you this, if we defend the judeo christian values that build this country, if we stand as we, the people, then we will bring back, we will resto restore that last best hope for mankind, that shining city on a hill that is the united states.

well, with that, i am happy to answer or dodge any question you like. >> that's a very good question. after i commented about new york values, which is how donald described his own values, well,

it was interesting, our friends in the media, seems like they lit their hair on fire. they were very confused. well, what are these new york values of which you speak? and i would say and the rest of america, people know exactly what that means. but then, the sort of out rage got louder and lout louder and donald trump and hillary clinton and quo moe all demanded an apology. so i said all right, i am happy to apologize. i apologize to all the millions of new yorkers who have been abandoned by left wing, liberal politicians. i apologize to all the working men and women in new york who'd like to provide for their families, but fraking has been banned so they don't get the high-paying jobs that are just south of the state of

pennsylvania. i apologize to all the pro-life and prosecond amendment new yorkers who andrew quo moe said, "have no place in the state of new york." and i apologize to all the african american school children who the mayor tried to throw out of their charter schools that were providing them lifelines to the american dream. and, full-timely, i apologize to all the cops and firefighters and 9/11 heroes who were forced to stand and turn their back on mayor deblasio because over and over and over again, he sides with the looters and the criminals instead of the brave men and women in blue: [ applause ] >> now, i'm not sure if that's exactly the apology they were looking for.

glf ma'am, you are exactly right. for those of you all who couldn't hear the question, the question was do i think washington, democrats and republicans, get how angry the american people are after seven years. and the answer is no, they don't get it at all. and the most common thing you hear as you travel the country, and you hear this from republicans, democrat x, independents libertarians. they go to washington and they stopped listening to us. they get in bed with washington.

last year, i wrote a book. and the book spends a lot of time talking about what i call the washington cartel, which is the career politicians in both parties that get in bed in washington. we had a great example just a couple of weeks ago. where republican leadership had a trillion dollar omnibus bill, funded 100% of barack obama's big government agenda. funded all of am mesty. and it was republican leadership who took the lead. they all publicly crowed how the republican leadership has just

funded all of their big government agenda. that is nuts. and it's why people are fed up with washington. but it's also why we are saying so many conservatives unite behind our campaign. the natural next question is, okay, who has stood up to washingto washington? and who's taken on not just democrats, but leaders of our own party. that's what we've got to do. we've got to stand with the american people against the bipartisan corruption of washington.

and, by d way, the way we win the general is very, very simple. we run a populous campaign of hard working men and women, people who want to believe again in the promise of america. and we run it against the bipartisan corruption of washington that has embodied by hillary clinton. good question. how do i plan to demolish america's debt. i like your choice of verbs. that is an incredibly important question. so, back in 2012, i spoke at the republican national convention down in tampa. and i talked about our national dealt. when i got back to the hotel and

i pulled out my iphone, it turned out that paula poundstone, the comedian, was watching that night. i guess she had nothing better to do. and she sent a tweet. she said ted cruz just said when his daughter was born, the national debt was 10 trillion dlarsz. now it's $16 trillion. what the heck did she do? gll heidi and i laughed pretty hard. but, you know, caroline is seven. i want you to think our national dealt has gone from $10 trillion to over $18 trillion. it's larger than the size of our economy. and what we're doing right now, it is fundmently immoral. if we don't stop it, your

generation, will spend the rest of your life not working to meet the needs of the future, not working to meet your priorities, the challenges that come, but simply working to pay off the debt from your deadbeat parents and grandparents. in no generation has the history of america done this before. the only way to change it, you've got to break the washington cartel. you've got to stop the cronies and the mandates.

in the irs code. every loophole, every fail rottism, and that empowers washington. you get rid of that with a postcard, the beauty of a postcard, you can't fit very much text on a postcard. the laws of physics are on our side at that point. the only way to take on the washington cartel is to have the movement come from the people. it's got to be a grass roots movement from the people. i'm a numbers guy. if you look at the federal budget, the most important factor is economic growth. since world war ii, our economy has grown, on average, 3.3% a year: if we don't turn around

what i call the obama stagnation, if we stay at 1 and 2% growth, we can't solve these problems. on the other hand, if we get back to historic levels, that enables us to grow. it enables us to rebuild our military, to strepgten and preserve social security and medicare. growth is priority. j.f.k. campaigned on 5% economic growth. he got in, cut taxes, limited regulations and small businesses took off and he achieved economic growth of 5%.

j.f.k. would be a republican today. he stood for religious liberty and he would be tarred and feathered by the modern democratic party. some men see things as they are and ask why. i see things that never were and ask why not? these are the principles that work. we get booming economic growth and take on the cartel and reigning government. that's the only way to turn around our national debt. two final questions, yes, from right here. a great question. can you get my autograph? absolutely yes. in one second, when when we finish up, i promise, i'll be happy to do it.

>> how do you intend to get some of those things done? or what are the realistic ones that you could do even without support? >> it's a great question. her question was, i heard the things you want to do on day one. what is realistic to get accomplished? how do we actually turn things around? >> there's nothing we can do. we can't win. we can't turn the country around. and, even if we win, we can't change. it's complete nonsense. any president coming in has three pins pl levers to change the direction of government. the first is executive power. now, we've seen president obama abusing executive power over and over and over again. here's the silver lining.

everything done with executive power can be undone with executive power. so if you look at the first three things i promised to do on day one, rescind every unconstitutional kpiktive action, a president can do that. you don't need congress. you don't need anybody else. all you need is a pen with an eraser. the second, again, within full executive power. a president can and i will do that on day one. and the third is protecting religious liberty. so a president can. and, as president, i will end that assault on day one. every one of those can be accomplished before midnight on the very first day.

the second avenue is foreign policy. foreign policy, likewise, can change over night: that's the difference a strong commander in chief can make. so the next rips to shreds this nuclear deal. a president can do that on his own. he never submitted it to congress. so you can undo it as president. congress passed some time go legislation mandating that. so each president keeps waiving that. well, on day one, i'm going to

unwaive it and we're going to start moving the embassy to jerusalem. it had final lever of presidential powers legislation. now, it takes time. it's why, for example, i don't promise to repeal obamacare on the first day. as much as i would like to, and there's no one who wants to repeal obamacare more than i do, but a president doesn't have the power to do that on day one. that's not a question of executive power. the two major ledge slative niche tifrs, and we talked about this just minutes ago, are repealing obamacare and passing a syrup flat tax. if you ask the questions can we get obama to two along, no.

if i tried to do that today, it wouldn't happen. the only way to change it, think of the last time we beat the washington cartel. it was 1980, it was the reagan revolution. and it was because there's this massive grass roots movement from the people that changed the incentives from washington. there's an old joke that politics is hollywood for ugly people. my wife says i resemble that remark. but the way you change the dynamic, think about it. in 1981, reagan comes into office. tip o'neil, told ronald reagan, do not even bother sending your tax plan over to the house. it is dead on arrival. he said i've got 20 democratic votes to kill your tax plan.

now, reagan didn't head over to the capitol and pour a drink and used legendary irish wit. that wasn't going to move tip. he went to the congress and the american people and the america. and suddenly, tip's 20 votes became 19 votes, became 18 votes, became 17 votes. and we ended up under reagan's leadership, because the american people rose up, going from a top marginal rate of 70% cutting it all the way to 28%. that's the only way you repeal obamacare and get a flat tax, is if you have a mandate from the people so that it becomes politically more dangerous for the politicians to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing. yes, ma'am. >>. [ inaudible ] how do we who have family members who are on the t, not ted team, how do i convince

these people to stop looking at the shiny objects and to understand who is the constitutional candidate? >> proven conservative right there. >> so it's a great question. okay. so it's a great question. which was how do we, if there are folks, family members, friends, who are supporting mr. trump, how do you convince them to come over to this side? and let me give you a very simple question that i would suggest you pose them. have you ever been burned by a politician? >> barack obama. >> have you ever seen a politician who says one thing and does another? and every one of us has seen that over and over again. it's why we're frustrated out of our minds. now how do you distinguish between politicians who are follow through on what they're saying and those who are just talking a good game? listen, a republican primary, everyone says they're a conservative. you notice nobody on that debate

stage stands up and says, "i'm a squishy establishment moderate. i stand for nothing." [ laughter ] nobody says that. every one of them claims to be a conservative. so how do we distinguish? and the way to distinguish -- you know, the scripture says "you shall know them by their fruits." so i would suggest that you urge your friends who are looking at any other candidate, don't listen to what they say or what i say. ignore what all of us say on the campaign trail. look to our actions. so, for example, every candidate says they oppose obamacare. in 2013, we had as reagan would put it, a time for choosing. a major dragout, knockdown battle on obamacare, where millions of americans rose up. i was proud to lead that fight. and i will point out, the other folks on that stage, none of them were anywhere to be found. so if they say today they oppose

obamacare, the natural question is, where were you in 2013 when the fight was being fought? also in 2013, after sandy hook, when barack obama and harry reid came after our second amendment right to bear arms, millions of us rose up to protect the second amendment. i was proud to lead that fight. we defeated their gun control proposals on the floor of the senate. if you look at the other individuals on that debate stage, none of them were anywhere to be found. they didn't stand and fight to defend the second amendment. let's take immigration. there are candidates today who say they care deeply about immigration. they care deeply about amnesty. well how do you test that? also in 2013. we had a knockdown, dragout fight. barack obama and chuck schumer and the democrats joined with a bunch of establishment republicans in pushing a massive

amnesty plan. now that plan made it through the senate and republican leadership was prepared to take it up in the house, pass it with the democrats and barack obama would have signed it. we were on the verge of losing amnesty. amnesty would have been granted to 12 million people across this country. the only reason it was beaten is because millions of americans rose up. i was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with jeff sessions and steve king, and we led the battle to defeat it, and defeated it and stopped amnesty. now i'll if i have give a very simple point you can make to your friends. the other individuals on that stage were nowhere to be found. it was like they were in witness protection. and let me tell you something. if when the battle is being fought, when it's on the verge of amnesty being passed, you

don't stand up and show up to fight, then your credibility when you're a presidential candidate, when you say, gosh, i really care about amnesty, becomes a little suspect. and that is what is so encouraging is what we're seeing. and it's the great thing about new hampshire. it's the great thing about iowa and south carolina. listen, you all take this seriously. the responsibility to vet the candidates, to look them in the eyes. say, all right, who is telling the truth, who is blowing smoke? and to distinguish who has a record of having walked the walk. let me close with this. if you all agree with me, that it's now or never, that we are at the edge of a cliff, and if we keep going in this direction, for another four, eight more years, we risk losing the greatest country in the history of the world.

if you agree with that, then i want to ask each of you to do three things. number one, join us. commit tonight to stand up and vote in the new hampshire primary and stand with us. the second thing i want to ask of each of you. is that you volunteer. you sign up tonight. we have volunteers who can take names. sign up to be a precinct leader. sign up to be a county leader. commit tonight to pick up the phone and call your mom. that's actually a good idea anyway. call your sister, your son, your college roommate for your business partner. and say this election matters. it matters for me, for my future. it matters for my kids. it matters for my grandkids.

i want to ask everyone here to vote for me ten times. now listen, we're not democrats. i'm not suggesting voter fraud. but if every one of you gets nine other people to show up on voter primary day, you will have voted ten times. and those of you who aren't 18, if you get ten people to show up and vote who are, you will have voted ten times. and the third and final thing i want to ask of each of you is that you pray. that you lift up this country and pray and commit today each day from now to election day. spend just one minute a day. when you get up in the morning, when you're shaving, when you're having lunch, when you're putting your kids down to sleep.

when you're laying down to go to bed, simply say, "father god, please continue this awakening, this revival. awaken the body of christ that we might pull back from this abyss." we are standing on the promises of second chronicles 7:14. if my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then i will hear their prayer. and will forgive their sins. and i will heal their lands. let me tell you a bit of history. that our friends in the media will never share with you. in january 1981, when ronald reagan took the oath of office,

his left hand was resting on second chronicles 7:14. a very concrete manifestation of those promises from scripture. we have done it before, the american people, pulling this country back from the abyss. we have done it before. and if we stand together, we will do it again. thank you.

>> let me turn around a little bit and squeeze in here. excellent. thank you very much. god bless you. how are you doing, sir? thank you. god bless you.

>> i just want three single -- >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i just want to understand your position on second amendment. with the cullen decision, i think it appears the second amendment is not unlimited. and it does open up, you know, opportunity for the state to have some regulations. i'm an independent. and i'm actually -- i'm considering you, because i like your position about reigning in spending, i like your position about iran. with that is there any regulation on the second amendment you would be in favor of? >> well, for example the supreme court points to the prohibition

on felons. and if you look at the history, we have had prohibition from selling felons. the supreme court concluded that is a permissible regulation and needs to be enforced. it's an example where i think the obama administration gets it wrong. where every time there is violence, their approach, you know -- is to go after the constitutional right to keep and bear arms falls by the wayside. i think that's the wrong focus. we ought to focus on the murderer or terrorist and protect the constitution. >> i agree with that too. very good. thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you so much.

>> i have a question for you, sir. >> this way. >> thank you. >> i'm a tenth amendment guy. if the state decides to adopt it -- i don't support it, but i can i think it's legitimate for each state and i trust the people in the state. >> senator cruz, this is my mom. >> oh. great to see you. >> nice to meet you. >> hey, guys. >> tell your name. >> rosie, r-o-s-i-e.

. >> excellent. >> i'm the dad. >> i kind of figured that. but what's the matter, your dad doesn't merit an introduction? i understand. being a dad, half the time -- >> thank you so much. i'll see you later this week. >> excellent. >> this is bruce. >> are you missing any teeth? just lost two -- sudden hee the teeth start falling out.

i'm glad you're here. >> thank you for coming out. >> thank you. what's your name? and how old are you? excellent. here, you guys want to get a picture? all right. >> thank you. good luck. >> thank you, bonnie. >> hi! >> how are you doing? >> good, how are you? thank you. >> who is the kid? >> hello. i'm mary. >> hi, mary. >> i'm a member of your strike force. i wanted -- [ inaudible [ inaudible ] nice to meet you. >> thank you. >> yeah, of course.

no problem. >> can i get a photo? >> yeah, of course. bruce. excellent. thank you very much. >> how are you doing, sir? what's your name? >> christian. >> christian. good to meet you. matt, good to meet you. thank you very much. god bless you. how are you doing, sir? >> great. how are you? >> i'm doing terrific. what's your name? >> mike. >> mike, good to see you. >> same here. listening to you on mark levin all of the time. good luck. give them hell. >> you've got my word on it. >> thank you, sir. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> i loved when you were speaking. >> thank you.

>> those are the notes, he said. the things to do. >> excellent. >> thank you, sir. >> good to see you. >> good to see you is too. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you! >> thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, sir! >> absolutely. >> good to see you. thank you for being here. thank you, sir. >> you've got to get in there. are you ready? >> we love you, ted. thank you. >> thank you very much. god bless you. thank you so much. god bless you.

>> if you can back right up. >> right here. >> go right out the door. right out the door. >> interstate reciprocity. >> tell me your question real quick. [ inaudible question ] >> my job has been outsourced three times overseas, insourced by my work. so there's no united states. >> you are absolutely right. it's why i focus on economic growth and the two levers of tax reform and regulatory reform. so if you look at for example the simple flat tax i've introduced. go to the website and read the details. there are a lot of aspects. for individuals, it's a 10% tax for a family of four. everything else goes away. >> all right. >> on business side, if we get

rid of the corporate income tax, the death tax and payroll tax, the biggest tax, and the obamacare tax. and replace it with a 16% business flat tax that applies universally to everyone. here's a piece that's really important for what you're facing with this job being outsourced. the business flat tax is what's called border adjustment. which means if you're exported, they're tax-free. any exports -- if you're manufacturing goods or sending abroad, they're tax-free, which gives u.s. manufacturers a huge advantage in competing on the world stage. and the flip side of that is all influence. >> right. >> so that they're competing on a level playing field. what that will do -- particularly combined with dealing with obamacare and regulations is allow small businesses to grow and it is the middle class, the working men and women who are getting hammered right now. >> yeah. >> and those are the jobs we'll bring back. and you're right. if we don't bring it back, the

economy doesn't turn around. >> right. >> and so that is my single-minded focus is bringing back the middle class to working men and women who felting getting hammered. >> all right. young conservative. >> thank you for being here. >> i have a question for you. what do you think about this cold weather? >> well, al gore promises global warming, but it hasn't been happening. >> thanks a lot. good luck. >> thank you! >> i'll give it to my dad and he'll love it. >> got a new jacket. >> thank you very much. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone.

and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website, c-span.org. with io governor terry bran instead's announcement he wants to see senator cruz lose the iowa caucuses and sarah palin's endorsement of donald trump, a busy day two weeks before the iowa caucuses. joining us is catherine lucey, ap reporter for government and politics. thank you for being with us. >> great to be here. thanks. >> walk us through the events of the day and how both of these events unfolded. >> yes. busy day, obviously. earlier today, the io governor, br bransted who traditionally does not make any endorsement in iowa, it a press conference with some reporters at a conference about -- for renewable fuel. so like ethanol. it's a conference dealing with

that industry. and he said that iowans should reject cruz because cruz supports phasing out a federal standard for the fuel. when he was directly asked would he like to see cruz defeated in iowa, he said yes. so this -- not an endorsement. he's not making an endorsement, oh, but -- sending a strong signal about who he doesn't want to see elected here in iowa. >> so is this as much an issue about the renewable fuels for iowan voters or a larger issue of ted cruz and the republican party? >> you know, i can't see inside his heart and mind, obviously. what he is officially talking about is his concern for renewable fuels. that said, bransted is someone who certainly identifies more with the establishment wing of the republican party here who really hasn't coalesced around a candidate and there is hand-wringing about the fact that trump and cruz are battling it out here to win the caucus it

at the moment. >> will governor bransted endorse anyone before the caucuses on monday, february 1st? >> as far as i know, he has repeatedly said that he will not make an enforcement, and he did not say anything different today, so i would be surprised if he did. but we're in a very weird year so it's not impossible. but he has not traditionally endorsed. >> catherine lucey, after days of speculation, it's now official. sarah palin supporting donald trump in iowa. does this in any way affect the caucuses? >> you know, that's a big question, and i think we're going to have to see how it plays out. you know, i think endorsements only mean so much. you know, obviously, she's somebody who has support and interest here, and you know, trump is hoping this will kind of push him over the edge. i think it's going to continue to be a tight race between cruz and trump here as we go into the

final days. >> you are following the candidates on the ground across iowa. what are you sensing in this republican field? >> you know, i think there really is a lot of frustration and anger and people who really want to see a change. and so i think both -- in different ways, both trump and cruz are tapping into that. i mean, the thing that's different about them and i think will be interesting to see on caucus night is they have approached this in different ways, and they're going to some different audiences. so if cruz has a more traditional caucus campaign, he spent a lot of time trying to reach out to churches, to pastors, to build a very traditional and impressive ground operation whereas trump is holding giant rallies, huge events, and is really pulling in lots of people who don't traditionally participate at all in these events. so his success is predicated on getting new people out to

caucuses. >> and, of course, as you well know, political experts saying there are essentially three, maybe four tickets out of iowa. so right now, who is that third candidate? >> you know, the more interesting thing going on right now in iowa is the race for third, or the so-called i guess establishment race. right now, rubio -- senator marco rubio appears to be in a good position. he is coming in third in the polls. but certainly chris christie, jeb bush, and then carson are all pushing here, trying to see if they can -- perform better than expected. >> and, of course, as we have seen in the past, the last two weeks before the caucuses, can see some significant changes in the polls. >> absolutely. the polls -- polls can change. iowa voters tend to break late, so there's definitely give still in the field. and in addition to the three or four tickets out, there is sort

of the expectation. so someone could come in, but if they -- there is a little bit of that going on too. you do perform better than people think you will. >> catherine lucey, who is covering this presidential campaign and the iowa caucuses specifically, she writes for the associated press, joining us from des moines. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. wednesday, a panel of mayors, including rahm emanuel of chicago, mitch landrieu of new orleans, and baltimore's stephanie rawlings blake talk about policing in their cities. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern. on monday, the c-span bus is at the jefferson street baptist church in nashville, tennessee, for a rally commemorating the life of dr. martin luther king jr. harold love toured the bus during community events on

martin luther king day in nashville. find out when the c-span bus will visit your community online at c-span.org/bus. as i've been watching the campaign this year, it's far more interesting to look at the republicans than it is to look at the democratic side. and that may have some -- that may have something to do with why there's more interest in these candidates and their books. >> sunday night on q & a, carlos lozata discusses books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> so many of them -- everyone i think does have interesting stories in their lives, and politicians, you know, who are so single-minded in this pursuit of power and ideology. could have particularly interesting ones. but when they put out these memoirs, you know, they're just -- they're sanitized.

they're vetted, you know. they're there for sort of minimum controversy. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q & a." utah's house speaker joins a panel on federal land management in the west. roughly 65% of utah's land is owned by the federal government. this is about an hour and 20 minutes, and took place at the heritage foundation. so we have to push -- push in to speak, he guess. >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation, and our douglas and sara allison auditorium. we welcome those online and all of these occasions. i would ask for a courtesy check

that cell phones have been sometimes silenced. it is appreciated. our internet viewers are simply reminded you can e-mail speaker heritage.org. opening our discussion is becky norton dunlap, vice president for external relations. she oversees heritage as strategic outreach and communication and both nationally and internationally to conservative policy organizations, our leadership organizations, as well as policy activists. prior to joining heritage, she served in the cabinet of governor george allen, as secretary of natural resources. she has also been a senior official in the reagan administration, servesing in the office of presidential personnel as deputy assistant director and special assistant to the president for his cabinet office. she has been a special assistant to attorney general ed meese, and for purposes of today's program as well, she was deputy undersecretary of the department of the interior, and an

assistant secretary for fish wildlife and parks. please join me in welcoming becky norton dunlap. bucky? [ applause ] thank you very much, john, and let me add my words of welcome to the group we have here today on behalf of the heritage foundation. of you know, the heritage foundation is an organization, a research and education organization, that finds its policy roots in the constitution of the united states of america. and i think that's a very important point when it comes to having a discussion, such as the one we're going to have today. we think that if you're an originalist, that you don't look to prior court decisions. you look to the constitution. and what does the constitution say how we should behave and act in this country today? we have a great conversation that we're going to have today. it's -- it's one we need to have

more often these days. given the challenges that we're facing and given the opportunities that we have. it's certainly particularly timely, and it's my privilege to introduce the person who is going to it moderate the discussion today, stan rasmussen from the southerland foundation. southerland has been active in the discussion and legal background on this very important issue of who should be in charge of the lands in the several states. the southerland institute has hosted a number of conferences on this and also done a lot of the support of the legal work. it also is the home of our -- let's say the face of this battle these days, ken ivory, who is also with us. but stan directs the southerland

institute's legislative efforts on utah's capitol hill, and coordinates the actions with the governor's office and other state and local leaders. he has a tall order today, because we have a whole table full of wonderful speakers. but let me introduce stan, who will take over from here and introduce our various speakers and then make sure we have a robust discussion. stan rasmussen, welcome to the heritage foundation. >> thanks to john and to becky. and to your heritage foundation colleagues for welcoming us here today. and for hosting this important and timely discussion, as you mentioned. america is a land of promise. the american promise asserts that government exists to secure equal opportunity, fundamental fairness and the inalienable rights of freedom. the right and control of property and the right of individuals to determine their own destiny. to protect life and liberty, but

to take away the right and control of property, which is the fruit and the badge of that liberty, is to shatter this promise, leaving states and their peoples as second-class citizens. at this point in time, in january 2016, the federal government still controls more than 50% of all the lands west of the rocky mountains. but less than 5% of the lands east of this continental divide. this inequality and fundamental unfairness breeds political exploitation, harms the environment, depresses western communities, stifles national opportunity and undermines our constitutional system where self reliant states provide a double security to the rights of the people. our history atests that until we realign the american promise with the american promise, there will always be dissonance, d discord and frustration. the solution is for congress to transfer to willing states all multiple use federal lands for more effective, local care,

management and leadership. today, presenting overviews of the legal, environmental, economic and taxpayer impacts of this inequality and fundamental unfairness, we will be hearing from dr. robert nelson, mr. matthew anderson, professor ronald rotunda and from mr. george wentz. speaker of the utah house of representatives, gregory hughes, will describe efforts undertaken to date and the remaining work necessary to be done to redress these harms. following speaker hughes, we will take a few minutes for question and answer for those of you who are with us here in the allison audit sore tore yum. we will force look at the environmental elements. a long standing pattern of prioritizing policy over people. as is particularly evident in the state of utah, and throughout the west. among the most articulate and persistent voices addressing these issues is dr. robert h. nelson, professor of environmental policy in the

school of public policy at the university of maryland. professor nelson. >> i'm pleased to be here. this is an important meeting, and seems as though we might be on the verge or hopefully on the verge of some, now you know, mainly new developments on public lands. i'm going to talk, actually, more about history than economics, even though i'm an economist by training. but i've long had the view that a historical perspective is critical to public policy making. so i'll start with a little personal history, and then present some broad picture of overall public lands history. it will have to be very broad, given the amount of time i have. and anyway, i came to the interior department as a young staff economist in the office of the secretary of interior in

1975. and one of my first assignments was to study the blm grazing program. and not having been raised in the rural west, i was surprised to discover that the federal government was deciding the specific pastures where cattle should graze in various specific months of the year over tens of millions of federal acres in the west. as i thought -- as it struck me, it hardly looked like a federal question. i was wondering, what we were doing. and then later i looked into another thing that influenced my thinking was the financial aspects of western public land management. i looked at the grazing program. grazing fees were bringing in about 15 million a year, while the costs of the grazing program easily exceeded $100 million a year. and this was symptomatic of the whole federal land presence in the west.

so by the early 1980s, i was arguing, still in the interior department, and a surprising number of my economist colleagues in the interior department agreed with me that we should simply get rid of much of the federal lands in the west. not the national parks but the vast areas of what you might call ordinary public lands and multiple use public lands. since public recreation was the most valuable use of these lands, i proposed to give them away to the states. this is in the early 1980s. where easy public access could be maintained. privatization, i came to understand, was a sure loser. at that time, westerners complained that saudi sheikhs, then rolling in money, would become their new landlords. and so i was encouraged when ronald reagan declared that he was a sage brush rebel in 1980.

this is when i started learning, however, that things could be complicated. i did not interact much personally with james watt, but the head of my office did. and so i had access in that way to watt himself. but to my surprise, watt was not interested. he said, based on his information, that the states did not really want the lands. they were concerned that the management costs would be too high, and so the land transfer ideas and privatization proposals of the early 1980s went nowhere. so i decided to take a longer strategy of thinking and writing about the future of the public lands. if any major public land reform was going to happen, a lot more public knowledge and understanding apparently would be necessary. so i've been working on this

project now for more than 30 years, including three books. one in 2000, with the title "a burning issue: a case for abolishing the u.s. forest service." and by then i had moved to the school of public policy at the university of maryland, where i'm still based today. besides the books, 20 or 30 articles and other publications, over 30 years are posted at my school website. i would also like to say, the recent developments in the west -- this goes back to the old fiscal impact issue of the 1980s. have brought me back to the old question, the fiscal impacts on the federal government and the states of transferring much of the ordinary public lands to the western states. fortunately, the state of utah issued a 732-page report in november 2014 that made it

possible to answer this question with a brand-new degree of accuracy. at least for utah. the bottom line is that -- and despite the arguments of -- and even the fears of many people, assuming all the federal minimal rights are transferred to utah, but the federal government continues to pay for wild fire suppression and protection, the fiscal impacts come close to a wash. about a plus $20 million from a comprehensive land transfer for the federal government, and a minus $20 million for utah. so there are no major financial obstacles to a comprehensive land transfer. and i think this is a very important point to make clear in the continuing public debate. so the question of federal lands really comes down then to a basic question of american

federalism. and i think the answer is pretty obvious that the federal government owning 66% of utah is not exactly compatible with traditional american federalism thinking. so i'm going to turn now to the broader issue of the history of the public lands. which i've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about over the last 40 years. on the whole, i've -- some time ago, came to recognize that federal land management over the past 200 years has been a history of failure. the roots of that failure lie in american national ignorance of the real circumstances in the west. time and again, members of congress and the wider american public have projected utopian

fantasies on the west, and then enacted laws supposedly designed to realize these fantasies. then being left to westerners to try to find a way of living with these misguided laws. the first washington fantasy concerns the disposal of federal lands in the 19th century. federal officials wanted a publicly planned, orderly process of land settlement. another key idea was that since the lands were federal property, their disposal should raise large revenues to fund the federal government. but even then, washington was dysfunctional. it's not a new thing. and the whole federal officials were very slow to work out their plans and put them into action. at the same time, millions of americans, many recent immigrants wanted some hand land of their own. i'm willing to wait for a

cumbersome federal government to act. they simply moved on to the lands in large waves of occupancy. large parts of the midwest and the west in the united states were settled by squatters. congress would then engage in fierce debates about whether illegal acts should be rewarded by granting the squatters retroactive property right. in the end, they always capitulated to the squatters. with the homestead act, congress effectively gave up. you might call it the legalized squatting act of 1862. but as so often has been the case, official washington got it wrong again. in the aftermath of the homestead act, settlement was moving into the arid, wild areas of the west where 160 acres, which was a limitation in the homestead act, was all together

unworkable. westerners in fact late 19th and early 20th century were dealing with new forms of the federal land laws. the next utopian fantasy projected on the west was shaped by the progressive movement the at the end of the 19th and early 20th century. its guiding theme was the scientific management of american society. displacing the crude interest group politics of the gilded era. a core idea was that american governments could be separated into two distinct domains. one of democratic politics to set the broad directions and another of expert implementation of the politically determined goals. american universities then were gearing up to provide the technical knowledge and professional personnel to put it into practice. the yale school of forestry, for example, was created in 1900 to supply the federal forests with

the necessary forestry professionals. on the federal lands, all this meant the year of disposal and arrival of a new era of progressive management. the forest service was created in 1905. the first wildlife refuge was established in 1903. the federal government ceased disposing of oil and gas and coal rights in 1910, and the park service was created in 1916. by the 1950s, however, leading american scholars were describing the progressive governing scheme as unworkable in practice. public land management, as a leading example, turned out not to be scientific management, but political management. the leading land agencies sought to create appealing images designed to maximize their political support. smoky bear was a great public

relations success, although prominent scientists even then were warning of the problems of total fire suppression. we're dealing with the consequences now, but the forest service itself as always finds a way to survive, now spending half its budget on wildfire suppression and prevention. by the 21st century, it was daung on increasing numbers of americans that federal scientific management really meant dysfunctional management. in his recent grand treatise, political order and political decay, the forest service was offered a leading case example. the most recent of the great public land fantasies took shape in the 1960s, as reflected in the wilderness act of 1964. instead of the old progressive

movement, we now saw the emergence of the environmental movement. the core idea was that pristine nature was being trampled by the american headline pursuit of industrialization and other forms of growth and economic progress. the resulting harms were seen as essentially a moral evil committed against nature itself. implicitly, a part of nature little touched by human hand was a remaining part of god's creation. in disturbing the natural areas, human beings were stepping into the role of god. divine retribution, typically in the form of an environmental calamity, was sure to follow. it was all very biblical. a secular duty ron me, you might

see. the same power of christian fundamentalism. they both agreed on one thing. the god of economic progress, as had won so many converts in the 20th century, was a false god. the triumph of environmentalism was symbolized in the 1990s by a fundamental shift in the official management goals of the federal land agencies. for decades, reflecting progressive era thinking, the federal lands had been guided by the utilitarian goal of multiple use and sustained yield. from the 1990s, however, the new purpose would be ecosystem management. focused on new objectives, such as protecting the intrensic value of wild nature and biodiversity from human impacts or, quote, assaults in the language of the environmental

movement. instead of new ski resorts, instead of new recreational roads easily accessible to most americans, the clinton administration would commit itself to doubling the size of roadless areas in the public -- in the national forests. secular environmental religion never had enough public support to win official approval from congress. instead, ecosystem management was put into practice in both the clinton and obama administrations by aggressive executive action. but even more influential was the american judiciary, which in the 1970s, effectively replaced the forest service and the vlm as the leading driver of public policy.

the clash of environmentalism with scientific knowledge is now increasingly recognized even by many american environmentalists themselves. we live in what is increasingly being recognized as an anthropacine age. so this has all been something of a very happy illusion. the obama administration sees itself as the virtuous spokesperson for american higher values. the rest of us are country bumkins. but it is the obama administration that fails to recognize that the grounds of its supposed high ideals have been crumbling in the 21st century. but projecting fantasies on the west is admittedly nothing new. as i've been describing.

the most recent example of all this was the announcement just last week by the obama administration that is suspending federal coal leasing. it was under pressure foryñc[ñ current environmentalists who increasingly demanded america must soon become fossil fuel-free. and they are also pressing to keep it in the ground in the west. halting coal leasing is a symbolic incremental step towards the realization of that goal. as always, the public lands in the west are a guinea pig for projection of the latest idealistic fantasies of the truly natural world. such projections are easier to make when the land is public, and subject to federal decisions in washington. they -- it would be much more difficult to try to put these

fantasies into effect if the land is privately owned. but in the west, i don't see any prospect for privatization. so the state transfer is what we have to look for. in conclusion, i remain an optimist that a new dose of reality can be introduced into federal land management. about 30% of federal lands are now being managed for the protection of their supposed character. it may be a fiction, but a lot of people still believe it. it's a political compromise i would be willing to accept their continued federal ownership. in fact, the utah proposals essentially do that, exempting the natural parks and wilderness areas. for the rest of the land, it seems to me quite compelling -- of course, i've been saying this since the early 1980s, so it's not exactly -- i've given you sort of the rationales of how i came to the conclusion, but it

seems rather obvious that if we were to apply any normal understanding of american federalism principles, we would simply transfer the ordinary or the multiple use public lands to the states. orue-.q multiple use public lans to the states. [ applause ] >> thank you, dr. nelson. next examining the revenues associated with federal land management and comparing them with state trust management in several western states, we'll hear from mr. matthew anderson, a policy analyst with the coalition of self-government of the west, an organization based in salt lake city. he'll briefly describe the experiences in western states when the importance of absentee bureaucrats are compared to

those whose livelihoods depend on the care and management of lands. mr. anderson. >> hi, everyone. it's an honor to be here today at the heritage foundation and at our nation's capital. today i've been charged to talk about the economic impacts that federal lands have on the united states. 90% of all federal lands are located in the western united states with one out of two acres being managed and controlled by the federal government. that's one out of every two acres being controlled by bureaucrats 2,000 miles away from people who own the land. dr. nelson just talked about the environmental impacts that has. polluted skies, smoke, decimated wildlife a reality, but the economic ramifications are just as real. we see our oil and gas industry as well as our other energy

development industries are languishing under heavy federal regulation. what's this doing? well, those in our rural communities are experiencing a mass exodus out of our state to other communities where jobs are abundant westerne westerners, especially in their pocketbooks. to begin with -- got to make sure this works. there we go. from 2008 to 2014, pennsylvania experienced a 2,000% increase in the production of national gas. my home state of utah 1%. this isn't a matter of geology in pennsylvania compared to utah. the federal government only controls 2% of the state of pennsylvania. my home state of utah 66%. huge difference. so when we consider that, we

also need to consider how long it takes for these oil and gas wells, their permits to be approved. in 2011, it took an average of 307 days to approve a new oil or gas well permit. 307 days, almost an entire year. that's when permits do get approved. that's just when it actually happens. so when we combine this backlog with all the federal lands that are considered off-limits by the federal government, isn't it any surprise that utah is languishing? let's ask ourselves the question what if the federal government loosened its grip and we had the opportunity to use these lands? in his 2013 study, he proposes

three scenarios based on the amount of oil and gas well lease permits that are up as well as the economic impacts it would have if the federal government were to approve these. he gives a high, medium, and a low scenario as you can see over there on the powerpoint. underneath the medium scenario, the approval of permits would go back to the original level they were at before 2008. 2008 saw a huge shift in the amount of permits that were being approved. and under that we would see a huge increase to the economic benefit to states in the rocky mountain region. over 600 gas and oil wells will be drilled every year. that would be $10.6 billion in increased revenue from oil and gas. 87,000 jobs and more than $3 billion in tax and royalty payments to state and local governments. that is an exorbitant amount of money that's being backlogged by

the federal government. this is unlikely to happen under federal management. we're unlikely to see this become a reality. last march, there was a study released examining the revenues of state managed lands versus the federal government. pardon me. montana, idaho, new mexico, and arizona. they have very different economies, very different state management agencies as well as natural resources. came as no surprise that lands managed their lands more effectively than the federal government did. the federal government lost $2 million every year on their land management in the western united states. states on the other hand were producing substantial amounts of

revenue. as you can see on my powerpoint over here, for every dollar that the state spent on land management, they produced $14.51 whereas the federal, well, they were losing 27 cents on every dollar only producing 73 cents. that's amazing. the federal government does not have the same insentives that states do to produce economic benefits. they don't control for costs the way states do. they don't produce the revenue. the reason for this they cannot keep the revenues that they generally produce. you can see the federal government spends nearly six times as much per acre as states do for their management. so there's huge economic ramifications that occur here. oftentimes in the federal lands debate we hear the question, if these lands were transferred over to the state, how would you manage them? how could you afford to do it?

i think the real question should be asked how the feds managing to do this? the simple answer? taxes. this isn't just a western problem. this is a problem that impacts all of us. utah is paying for this. arizona, colorado, sure, but maryland, florida, new york and other eastern states are as well. the simple fact is these lands need to be transferred to the states, states that have the capability, know-how and the desire to manage these lands responsibly and economically. thank you. >> thank you, matt. focusing now on the legal dimensions, on december 9th, 2015, an acclaimed team presented a landmark legal analysis on utah's claims to compel the federal government to transfer multiuse federal lands to the state. the exhaustive analysis of the history, constitutional

construction, concluded the intent of the property clause of the u.s. constitution was to dispose of public lands, not to forever retain them. we will now view a brief videotape message by a member of that legal team, eminent constitutional scholar. we will be pleased to hear from mr. robert -- pardon me, mr. george r. wence. >> i want to thank the good people at heritage for inviting me. i'm sorry i can't be there in person, but i can't be in two places at once. i've been involved in constitutional law since i graduated from law school in 1970. this is one of the most exciting cases i've worked on because it

relates to a basic principal of states rights. in a way it's not to give rights to states. it's a way to give rights to us the people. some states had very little land, rhode island. virginia claimed land from the eastern shore all the way to the west coast. in fact, part of california was originally part of virginia according to the title it got from the king. well, people did not want that to happen and they didn't want some states to be unequal to others. they should be equal in sovereign powers. they should have the same powers over their land that other states had, so they had this principle which the supreme court has called the equal footing doctrine. all states come in on equal footing. we knew how to acquire land, but the framers wanted to make sure that there was this power,

indeed, obligation to dispose of the land as a way of developing the nation. the idea was that they would turn over the land to the federal government, the unappropriated land, the public lands to the federal government so it could give clear titles. everyone understood that the federal government would engage in the regular disposition of the land and they did that at first. they did this for 38 states. maine, texas, tennessee, vermont, kentucky, hawaii. in all of those the federal government turned over to the states the public lands when they became states. not so for utah, oregon, and other states. 12 are distinctly orphan like position. they're less equal than others. if you drew a lodge tud nal line through denver, you'd find to

the right of that line the federal government owns hardly anything. to the left of that line, the federal government owns at least half or substantially more than that in the states. if you subtract from all that land the national parks, that's minuscule. for example, in utah the federal government owns more land than the entire state of new york. one of the counties owns an amount of land greater than the entire state of kconnecticut. the legislature agree they could not string a fiberoptic cable across the state without getting permission from a bunch of faceless federal bureaucrats in washington, d.c. that's not what the framers intended. it's not the way it was in this

country until about 1976. people don't seem to understand that. now what the federal land policy and management act tells us in 1976 is that 12 of the 50 states are going to be treated second rate, not on equal footing. we didn't know that at first. the way it's been interpreted we have figured out that the federal government is not about to allow these 12 states to be like all of the others. here we have this problem. what needs to be done? what we don't have to do is what they're doing in oregon now, which is take over a federal building. the constitution has given us a remedy provided the states have the power to see the federal government for violation of their rights. i'm pleased to be working with a great team of lawyers. there's john howard, who is a lawyer in california, who has been working on land problems for years, has a tremendous knowledge of the early history

and the case law in this area. jim jardean. richard simmons, professor at the university of idaho. he's argued over a dozen cases, 15 or more cases, before the u.s. supreme court and an expert on supreme court practice. george wince, who has his law firm in louisiana, very knowledgeable about the areas. then there's little ole me. there is a good solid case. and what the federal government is going is wrong. the western states uniformly object to the federal control. they know how to take care of the land and they can do a better job than people several thousand miles away. >> so they went back to my high school year back for that picture. i'm george wince.

if i get that to work, i'll start rocking and rolling here. there we go. okay. >> law school 1970. >> all right. they gave me 15 minutes to cover 400 years of history and jurispruden jurisprudence. i think the professor has shined a light on what's going on here very well. utah is treated very, very differently than 38 other states. today, we're going to talk a lot about the equality of the states, the sovereignty of the states, and the way the state's governments interact with the federal government, the federal government that the states themselves created. but we know nobody ever went fishing with a state. nobody ever sat down to dinner with a state. when it comes down to it, what we're talking about is the issue of kids, their future. this is my son rob. when we talk about these legal

theories, i want you to understand that all of these legal theories that we're going to discuss are designed to protect the life, liberty, and property of kids like my son rob. you know, over the course of my lifetime the biggest change i've seen is the progressive growth of the federal government. at this point i think the concentration of power in washington, d.c. is probably the largest threat to my son's future. so when i talk about federalism, the structure of the constitution, a lot of thought went into that by the founders to protect that kid's future. so let's talk about the equal sovereignty principle. according to an unbroken line of supreme court cases, the states of the union -- you can see the states there -- they created the federal government in order for the system to work. the states have to be equal in sovereign power.

here's how chief justice roberts put it in 2013 in shelby county v. holder. not only the states retain sovereignty under the constitution. there's also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. over 100 years ago this court explained this nation was a unity of states. the constitutional equality of the states is essential to the scheme of which the republic was organized. it remains highly pertinent in subsequent disparate treatment of states. it makes perfect sense when you consider we are a federal republic. we are a federation of states. the central government was

created by independent sovereign states that had fought long and hard and defeated the most powerful military in the world to get their independence and their sovereignty. they were not about to go into a union where they had to give that up. they were going to be equal. now, the government takes the position that dominion over land within the borders of a state has absolutely nothing to do with state sovereignty. nothing to do whatsoever. so let me show you where this thing all started, where the states started first arguing about equal sovereignty. you got it. dominion over land. under its 1609 charter, virginia claimed a massive swath of land all the way out to california. and maryland was this little land bound locked state over to the right. maryland said, we're not joining a state where we're going to be

swallowed up by this behemoth virginia. we're also not willing to join a union of states where virginia can create subsequent vessel states. you vote the way i tell you to vote. they could stack the deck in congress. so maryland was extremely worried about this. they held out in joining the union over this. six states had western land claims. not just virginia. they were conflicted. they were all over the place. tod france was standing by to join the fight against the british, but they were not going to join until the united states got their act together and formed an effective government. so maryland insisted that the states with western land claims give those up. the question rose, give them up to whom, to what. the only answer out there was to give them up to the new central

government they were formed to be divided out into new states that would become equal members of the union. so in 1780, maryland held out long enough to get congress to pass this resolution. that the unappropriated lands that may be relinquished to the united states shall be disposed off for the common benefit of the united states and be settled and formed into distinct republican states and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states. maryland finally relented in march of 1781 after virginia and the other states with western land claims agreed to this resolution. almost immediately after that, france sent over 20,000 troops. they sent over their fleet. and within five months of maryland signing the articles of

confederation, guess what. the war was over. i don't know how many men died while maryland held out for the principle of equal sovereignty, but it is a fundamental funding principle of our nation. it's in the fabric of the way we were constructed. equal equality of the states. in addition to the rulings of the supreme court that i read to you, history also dictates that the states must be equal in sovereign power and the states from the beginning have seen that equality as having an awful lot to do with dominion over the land within their borders. so as a matter of history, the government's position that dominion over the land within our borders has nothing to do with sovereignty is wrong, but i believe they're also wrong as a matter of constitutional law. in a federal system, as you can see on the screen, the states create the central powers i've said. it only works if each one of those states when they're

bargaining with each other can protect their interests. and that only works if they have equal sovereignty. if you have weak states that can't protect their interests, they would be ganged up by the larger states. once again the deck gets stacked up in congress. is utah weaker than new york because utah does not have dominion over its land when new york does? the answer is absolutely. absolutely. let's talk about two rights the supreme court has recognized as fundamental sovereign state rights. taxes and self-governance. taxes are the fuel of self-governance, but utah can't tax 66.5% of its land, so it gets a welfare check called p.i. l.t. payment in lieu of taxes.

do you think there's any political pressure in congress associated with congress issuing those welfare checks to utah? that maybe some strong arming going o goes on? here's what he said. here's the beginning of the quote. congress lauds its power over western communities to extort political concessions from them like some two bit racket. nice school your kids have. be a shame if anything should happen to it. these states and communities are looking for nothing more than certainty and equality under the law. yet congress treats these not as rights to be protected, but as vulnerabilities to be exploited. closed quote. this is not what the framers had in mind. our federal system simply can't work as designed where some states are weak and their votes in congress can be controlled by

the strong states. the citizens of the weak states will never be equal to the citizens of the strong states. and this is happening now throughout the west. so second, the federal system is based on a concept called dual sovereignty. you see the federal government up top. the states down below. there's a duality in this system. what's that all about? that's all about protecting the citizens of the states from tyranny and protecting their individual liberty. once again, it comes down to protecting the people. here's how the roberts court put it in the first obamacare case. i'm sorry for the density of that slide. state sovereignty is not just an end of itself. federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the defusion of sovereign power. because the police power is controlled by 50 different states instead of one national sovereign the facets of

governing that touch on citizens' daily lives are administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. the independent power of the states also serves as a check on the power of the federal government. by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. so how does that work when you've got the federal government owning 66.5% of your state? well, you know what? it doesn't work. the dual sovereignty is swept away. unelected federal bureaucrats thousands of miles away exercise police power over far more of

utah than governor herbert. and the citizens of utah can't vote out unelected federal bureaucrats if they don't like what they're doing, so utah citizens do not have the same protection from arbitrary sovereign power that new york citizens do. it's a huge problem. utah is also denied the same sovereign power to take lands. you've heard of condemnation proceedings. you want to build a road. well, you know, utah is 66.5% is federal land. you can't throw a stone without hitting federal land. you can't condemn it. try to build a highway. try to string a broadband system. you can't do it. you can do it in new york. you cannot do it over here in utah, so that's another sovereign right taken away, but think about that right. commerce attracts industry, population growth, okay?

highways and broadbands make commerce. now let's ask this. how is federal political power doled out among the states? the way it's doled out among the states is through the census every ten years on the basis of population. so we increase our population, we get more house seats and we get more votes for the president in the electoral college. but because we have no sovereign power and we can't create highways and broadband and other things to attract commerce and industry, we can't increase our population. no population. no political power. no dominion over land. no ability to develop commerce. no commerce, no population. no population, no political power. so it's a vicious cycle. if you look at this map, if you wanted to gerrymander the nation so that the west would be permanently denied political power in washington, d.c., you'd

do exactly this. so the government, i believe, when it says dominion has nothing to do with sovereign rights, i believe they're wrong. there's another doctrine that we rely on called the equal footing doctrine. it stems from the equal sovereignty principle that i discussed in the shelby case earlier. it's only logical if everybody in the club has to be equal, if you bring a new member into the club, they've got to be equal too, right? that's a pretty simple concept i think we can all agree. those western states, do they look equal? let's go through the equal footing doctrine. let's talk about it with relationship to dominion over land.

one, we know historically in every instance ownership of the unappropriated lands are an inherent right of sovereignty that they get. sovereign gets the unappropriated lands. the crown and all the unappropriated lands in the 13 colonies is an inherent incident of sovereignty. upon independence the original 13 states succeeded the ownership of the unappropriated lands within their borders as an inherent incident of sovereignty. i can quit right now. utah gets its land, right? there's no way utah didn't get its land, but utah didn't get its land. so what happened? what went wrong? what we're missing is a little piece of history called the compact theory. the deal was that the federal government was holding the land in order to dispose of it and dole it out into states, right?

so the new states were brought in with the explicit understanding that they would get the land over time through the disposal of the land and grow to become equal. here's what the supreme court said. whenever the united states shall have fully executed these trusts -- they were holding it in trusts. that's the trust the supreme court is talking about -- the municipal sovereignty of the new states will be complete throughout their respective borders and they the original states will be upon equal footing. that is exactly what happened from 1785 until about 1913. do you know what happened in 1913? we passed the 16th amendment and we created income tax. we gave the feds a new source of revenue and suddenly they last all interest in liberating western lands. but not only did they lose interest in liberating western

lands, congress somehow discovered instead of holding the land in trust it was really theirs and congress owned it and they were going to keep it and not give it out. the admission compact they made with the 12 western states went out the window and the mechanism for doing it, the compact clause, was breached. we have now united states will never fully execute these trusts. the sovereignty of these 12 states will never be complete. they and the original states will never be upon an equal footing in all respects. whatever. we talk about three theories, but it's really one theory. you've got the base equal sovereignty. if they're equal, they've got to be equal and they come in. the compact theory is at the top. it means we're going to allow the new states to grow into equality. if you breach the compact, then you have violated two bedrock

constitutional principles, the equal footing doctrine and the equal sovereignty doctrine. utah deserves to allow this come bacteria to go forward and to grow into an equal sovereignty. >> thank you, mr. wince. as they have explained, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to treat western lands like second-class citizens. the legal analysis makes clear that congress lacked the authority to halt land disposal. the framers of the constitution intended to grant the power to regulate public lands only in the context of their disposal, not to permanently retain the majority of the land in their state. in a moment we will have the opportunity to listen as gregory

h. hughes, speaker of the utah house of representatives, explains what has been done and where do we go from here. under the leadership of speaker hughes, the utah legislature has led the way in addressing lands-related issues. in the interest of time, we will forego the introduction by his colleague and acknowledge his persons here today. ken was the sponsor of the utah transfer public lands act enacted in 2012 and has continued to be the champion of it. we're pleased to welcome speaker grant hughes. [ applause ] >> thank you, stan. thanks for -- i want to thank the heritage foundation for formats like this and the opportunity for us from utah come out here and talk in the beltway and talk about things that impact this whole country. i have to admit i'm not originally from utah. i grew up in pittsburgh,

pennsylvania. my mother is a single mother and went out west to go to college. i met my wife from utah and that made me a utahan. i only bring that up to give you the perspective i'm a city boy. utah, our issue are about lands and land sovereignty that have come from our rural folks. these are the folks that are out there trying to interact with the bureau of federal land management. i'm here to tell you the impact of a growing federal government in our states, particularly as you saw that map the western states, it hits us and impacts our communities down to our urban districts of house districts and your suburban districts. there's a guy in here from mt. lebanon high school. when i was a little kid, mt. lebanon high school was like the swanky high school. they were the first high school to have artificial turf for their football field. we're all playing on dirt in the

middle of the 50-yard line. mt. lebanon had artificial turf. why was that the case? it was because the property tax in the mt. lebanon school district afforded them the ability to have football fields with artificial turf. if you look at this country, most of education funding is from our property tax. it's the fuel that drives the classrooms and these teachers' salaries. when you get to a state like utah and shows there's very little property that is available to be taxed, how does a state like ours fund our public education system in the throes of the depression because there wasn't a lot of available funds the state legislature enacted a state income tax.

our state income tax is devoted to our state education. so we see -- we feel the impacts of not being able to access the land or use some of the other practices and other policies that other states are able to use to fund something as critical as our public schools. if the environment is something that you care passionately about and i believe much of the stewardship or the idea we would stop disposing of land, i think the 76th legislation was done in regards regards in trying to improve or protect the environment. today we can show you that the state management of lands protects the environment, makes sure that those forest fires don't rage beyond innumerable acres that are damaged. on environmental concerns, you

can make an absolute verifiable argument that we can better stewards of the land when the local states are able to control and manage those lands. you can show for our case, at least in utah, our education system would be turned around overnight with the ability to do what 38 states in our country have already done. why does this matter to anyone here that doesn't live necessarily in utah or even live in a western state? it was mentioned in here we have these payment in lieu of taxes. when they decided we're going to stop these rules, we're going to stop doing it the way we've always done it, we'll give you some money for your trouble. there's an acknowledgment that we should han't, but we're not. they're pennies on the dollar. the question becomes, the reason why you saw a lot of that disposal of land over the time is because the treasury in the federal government needed those dollars. you see at some point with a new federal income tax that came on the books and other sources the

need for the treasury to see those lands disposed of in the pace and in the way that they were had become not so urgent. with $19 trillion of debt, i think this treasury might not need to send p.i.l.t. payments to states any longer. taxpayers across this country no longer need to send to states what they're sending in payments in law of taxes. there's a way for the states that manage their lands to see resources from those lands and revenue. we're losing -- the federal government loses dollars as they attempt to manage our lands. my point today -- and i'll try to be brief -- is that i think we're all in this together. i was elected in 2002 into a state legislature. i served as a public education

standing committee chair for two terms. i was our majority whip for two terms. last year i became the speaker of the house. i will put my money on the states and their legislatures of this country every single time and i'm not just talking the republican states. i'm talking every state, republican majorities, democrat majorities, they balance their budgets. they manage the tasks, the policies in front of them, and we, as a nation, need to look at our states wherever we live and say we know those dually elected representatives, assembly members, senators, they can do this job. they do do the job. i look at the 38 states and i see in the state that i grew up in a great opportunity, tools in the tool box, to be able to do the job of representing the people and letting the people enjoy those things that an organized government would

provide, public education, public transportation infrastructure. we have worked with other states that have been impacted this way, but this is a conversation that has to be much broader. you heard from mr. rotunda on the video. you've heard from george. what we did as a state, we said we've had this political discussion for a long time, before i ever arrived in the legislature. we needed to do something different. we did it through an rfp. we asked for requests for proposals to propose a way to review in a dispassionate and scholarly way. if these issues that we've brought up today is something we should pursue. you've seen the product of that in our discussions today that we have an exhaustive body of work and a case to be made that in fact there is something we should be doing as a country on this front.

so our commission -- let me get to the name. the commission for the stewardship of public lands is a -- it has republicans and democrats that serve on this commission in our state legislature. there was an rfp that was done. i think it's a dream team. i think this is one of the strongest cases legal cases you'll ever hear about why 12 states in this country are not on equal footing and are not having the opportunity and citizenry are not having the same opportunities afforded them as 38 other states and that's just not the way it was designed. so we're moving forward in that case and this is broad. i'll just say this. you don't know what you don't know. i am absolutely convinced that the stakeholders in this issue are a lot more than we realize. i really believe that if you're an advocate for good and quality

public education, you should be paying attention to this issue. if you care about the stewardship and being good stewards of our environment, you should care about this issue. if you believe in the transportation -- we've got to get fiber. we have to get these technology nativ natives, kids born where they don't know a world without technology. we have to be able to get the information technology infrastructure to these schools. that's something the federal lands keep us from doing. there's so many different stakeholders in this that i don't see this as a partisan issue. i think this is bipartisan. i think any state in this country regardless of the makeup of their state legislatures would do well to have this kind of autonomy and be a state on equal footing, and that's why i'm here today. and truly as you go back wherever you're from, i think a

robust discussion about this even in the questions and answers we've had today challenging what we've spoke about today, let's do that because i think there's critical issues that face all of us and i thank you for your time. [ applause ] >> thank you, speaker hughes. in just a moment we'll talk the opportunity for those of you here in the auditorium to pose some questions, but join me in thanking our panelists. [ applause ] >> becky, you can indicate how long we can go here, but we'll open it up to some questions. questions anyone here might want to pose to members of our panel. right here. >> you mentioned on the federal lands of oil and gas

[ inaudible ] 306 days or something. what would be the average day on, say, utah lands, state lands in utah? >> could you clarify? average day if it was changed over or as it currently sits? >> yeah. you were saying how long that was with the feds to get a simple permit through. how long would it take on your lands today? >> i don't know that. that study didn't break it down. it just had that 307 days total for all permits regardless of which state it was in, so i don't know the answer for utah specific. >> got a question right here. >> i read your legal report. it's great and it's very convincing. i would like to ask you another legal aspect about the federal lands, which is the assertion by

the federal land managers that they have police power on the federal lands, this seems to me to be a huge problem and it's a growing problem and their police power to me seems to be -- their claim seems to me to be illegitimate. i wonder if you can discuss that and perhaps discuss how the state of utah might somehow reassert its own police powers on the federal lands through the state legislature and the governorship. >> that's probably in my court. okay. good question. you know, the case the federal government is always going to for property clause issues -- thurgood marshall right there was a plenary power to regulate. they've never addressed our issue, but even in that case justice marshall recognized the

extent of the property clause has not been fully supported by the court. he also said that there was an overlap of jurisdiction and that the states had co-terminus jurisdiction over federal lands as well as the federal government. so if i look at the case law, there is an indication that the power that you've discussed is not legitimately exercised. if i look at the case law discussing the federal system and the way it works for the protection of individual liberty that the roberts court has everyone sized so frequently, i don't see how in the world the federal government exercises police power. it's the dual sovereignty issue that i discussed. it's an illegitimate exercise. you go to mexico city. you'll see federal police. they carry guns and they're policing. their system is very, very different from ours.

we have never had federal police. show us your papers, mr. vince? that's not how we do it. but now you go in -- when i moved from louisiana out to idaho after katrina and i went to the west, you see vehicles on the side and it says federal police. never had i seen that. i don't believe that power should exist. i don't know it's been challenged, but the exercise of the police powers has always been reserved to the states. why? so we can vote them out if we don't like what they're doing. every bureaucrat i've met has a fa face, but unelected bureaucrats should not be exercising police powers within in tthe borders o state. in a sovereign state, no can do.

>> thank you. another question back here. >> hi. so i guess the question is you've got this great legal analysis, this document, what are the next steps either legally and/or legislatively? where is this going? >> i'm going to continue to refer to our council, but i will say that there is a legal path that needs to be pursued. there is a legal path. i'll let george talk about that, but the critical thing for us is we absolutely have to have that game plan. not just speaking about how important this issue is, but how do we get something different than what we've already had. let me give you the opportunity to describe that. >> this matter is current --

>> do you have a live mike? thank you. >> this matter has basically been referred to the attorney general by the legislature and the attorney general and the governor of the state of utah are the executive officers that would make the decision as to whether a suit is filed. the ball is in their court. the recommendation has been made that they seriously consider this by the legislature. now, if they were to do it, what would they do? if the attorney general was to say, yeah, i'm for it, it's a go, the path that would make sense is to file a motion for leave. that would be the fastest route. it would probably be referred to a special master. it could take several years. it's not an easy clean shot, but that's probably the way that the

state would move were it to move forward with litigation. >> i think as a legislative body we think the ball is in our court. this is a responsibility for legislators and the house and the senate to come together. we think it's our duty to do this. we would love some friends. we would love to have other states and others that are interested in this issue and understand its broader ramifications to join our efforts in going to the supreme court and making this case. >> at this point in time we're working with members of other states. i was in boise on friday meeting with state legislators as well as our senators in idaho and our state representatives in idaho. we have some folks here from idaho today. but it really needs to a coalition of western states to bring this to the attention of the nation, but when the federal system isn't working, you've got

a problem. it needs to be corrected. it impacts the entire country. not just the west. if you want to do a study of the last farm bill, that's not how we want to see things go. that's not the way it was designed to work. and we need to fix it. it's a national problem. >> thank you. another question right here down toward the front. >> my name is bob white. i came back to washington. my name is bob wider. i came to washington in 1982 with utah senator jake garn, one of the original supporters of the heritage foundation, i should say. i now represent 35 counties in five western states all of whom are the recipients of this disconnect between the federal government and local governments all of whom are dependent upon

p.i.l.t. payments. what i'm hearing here is that this issue is not ripe yet for congress to weigh in and act with legislation. we haven't educated congress. we haven't had these kinds of discussions with each member of congress. we need to do that in order to succeed in something this complicated. however, i think there are things that congress can be doing in the meantime while this new legal strategy plays out. one of the ideas that i've had that's received some good feedback and would be interested in your take on it, i have learned the united states government has never done a formal audit of its land holdings in a comprehensive way. we have oil and gas figures offshore and onshore and those numbers are pretty good, but we don't have all of the comprehensive information that

comes from national park entrance fees, from grazing fees, from power line corridor fees, from all these remote places that the federal lands are supposed to produce. i'm a believer that if you paint a picture of the situation, the next questions will automatically come forward. for example, i think this audit, if done in a comprehensive bipartisan way and conducted by the general accounting administration, could paint the picture of lands that are grossly underutilized, mismanaged, and those eastern friends of ours who always say they have ownership of the western lands, they would have a dog in the fight in the mismanagement, the lack of management, would all of a sudden become an important thing

for them to weigh into. i think that's something we do over the next couple of years while we're waiting for the legal strategy to play out. i think we can confidently assume that the results, if we do it in a bipartisan request, will paint that picture of the disconnect between federal land management and private land management. anyway, i think that's an idea to set the table for the political debate that ultimately has to occur here in the congress. just throw that out. >> thank you for the question. speaker hughes or mr. wince, would you like to respond? >> i have one question. what planet did you want this bipartisan -- i was just curious. was this in d.c.? >> i think, for example -- >> that was a joke. it wasn't a serious question. you don't see bipartisanship very often going on right now. >> jason took his democratic

counterpart to utah and then he returned the favor in baltimore. there are guys that get along. >> we need more of it, you know. >> in that spirit if you upfront were to get a bipartisan request in to do this audit, then you could argue after the audit results come in what to do about it. >> yeah. i actually think it's a great idea. i think the evidence would show, as you say -- i live out west. i couldn't ride my bike in the mountains this summer. my kids couldn't play football outside or swim because the lake we live on was so filled with smoke from the mismanagement of federal lands. so i think that the results of such a study would be supportive and it would be a good idea. if you could build -- this should not at all be a partisan

issue. it's just a lack of bipartisan -- i think we all see. i think we all want to see more people working together for common ends. >> can i say i will promise you that most of us when we talk about the lands, our minds can't get around the expanse of land that we're talking about. when we talk about the environmental impacts or whether there could be revenue generated from this land versus protecting it, there's this image that you have these oil rigs under beautiful natural arches or you're taking away or scalping the land cape. we have as policymakers been in national guard helicopters and gone to the states different armories which take you around the state in a very unique way.

when you're driving on a road, your eye can see the horizon. when you're in a commercial plane, you can't make out what anything is. when you're at that unique height and you're going around the entire state, you can take new york and drop it as a whole state inside this federal land. you can't imagine how much land. if i hated the environment and just wanted to pave the world, you could start in utah and you wouldn't be seen in 300 years because there's that much out there. the idea you can be good stewards of the environment, work and manage this land in responsible ways, see revenue, it can happen. it can absolutely happen. that bipartisan -- i just think people don't appreciate some of those things that are out there that are opportunities for all of us. >> i can see the headlines

speaker hughes makes the proposal to pave all the lands of utah. >> utah has actually done something very similar. they didn't call it an audit, but they produced a 732-page report examining the impacts on utah in which they went through the things you just mentioned. they're the only western state so far that's done it, but a number of western states have been debating in the legislature whether they're going to authorize similar kinds of studies. some of them are getting close to it. i'm not sure whether any of them have actually gone ahead and authorized what you would call a comprehensive study. the first thing to do would be to take this utah study because you can do a great analysis of the whole public land situation

in utah that was impossible to do until that study was released in november of 2014. so an alternative to your vision was actually a series of state sponsored studies and that might be more appropriate than a federally sponsored audit of the whole west. it would also be part of the political process within each state where they started moving forward towards thinking more seriously about all these questions. >> let me suggest with that we'll conclude now. i'm sure our panelists will be pleased to stay and respond to questions privately after our event. becky, we thank you very much for your hospitality and with that, we'll conclude today. thank you for being with us. [ applause ] c-span will probably discontinue their taping, but if you have any other questions

you'd like to present, you can. anything else? anyone like to pose a question here? thank you very much. on the next "washington journal" a look at the progressive agenda and campaign 2016 with adam green, co-founder of the progressive change campaign committee. then russell moore, he talks about the role of evangelicals in the 2016 elections. later our spotlight on magazines features rachel cohen of the american prospect. her recent story looks at planned parenthood and the abortion debate 42 years after the supreme court decision in roe v. wade. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. wednesday, a panel of mayors

including rahm emanuel of chicago, mitch landrieu of new orleans, and stephanie rawlings blake of baltimore talk about policing in their states. "american history tv" airs every weekend on c-span 3 all day saturday and sunday. saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, an interview with conservative commentator armstrong williams, part of the explorations in black leadership project. >> and we -- some people didn't recognize my father. just before he was about to be introduced to strum thurmond, i extended my hand. i said hello senator, i hear you're a racist. >> what did thurmond say? >> the senator said to me you sound like a bright young man. when you graduate from high

school, if you ever want to come to washington, intern with me and then decide if i'm a racist or not. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind the 1980 republican campaign with interviews of ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, john anderson, and howard baker recorded by students at salem high school in new hampshire airing for the first time on national television. at 4:00 on real america 35 years ago this week iran released 52 american hostages after holding them for 444 days. through photos and videos, we'll look back at the iranian hostage crisis, including president c t cart carter's announcement of a failed rescue attempt. for the complete schedule, go to

c-span.org. san francisco writer and radio host wanda sabir interviewed sonja williams about a recent book "word warrior: richard durham, radio, and freedom." the museum of the african diaspora hosted this conversation. >> so very happy to be presenting voices of freedom, black journalism in history and literature. we regret due to a family emergency that la shshanda is unable to be here tonight. sonja williams is the author of

"word warrior: richard durham, radio, and freedom," which has interviews with family and colleagues to illuminate durham's astounding career. durham paved the way for black journalists as a star investigative reporter for "the chicago defender" and "mohammad speaks." "word warrior" tells the story of a tireless champion. sonja d. williams is a professor in the department of media, journalism, and film at howard university. her credits include the radio series "wade in the water," "black radio, telling it like it

was." she'll be interviewing wanda sabir. she's raised in san francisco and is a new orleans native. and we do have copies of "word warrior" as well as ms. barnett's book that will be for sale after the program. i know sonja would be happy to sign copies of the book as well. so please join me in welcoming sonja williams and wanda sabir. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. i have a few preamble words before we get into the questions. author sonja williams of "word warrior: richard durham, radio, and freedom" is within itself a masterpiece. the combination of storytelling and research from the opening

pages makes one want to know more about the man. i think he tells a family member early on in his life they have a lot to accomplish and not a lot of time to get his work done. his time -- it's a show that's available to us also to listen to as an added bonus. the live broadcast now archived show thextends one life beyond temporal dimension. the show addresses topics americans are still addressing today, family, community, and the black american place in a nation that often forgets the story of men like knock-kneed

men, lena horn. i listened in delight to these gems. another favorite of mine was "railroad to freedom." richard durham was certainly a word warrior, a soldier who used his pen as a sword. you mention in your book that he was a pragmatic optimist. what do you mean by that? >> good question. richard durham really was an optimist. even though freedom, justice, and equality were principles that had to be continually fought for, but he felt once people came together and consistently worked towards those principles it was attainable. that was his optimism. he was pragmatic that you had to work. it wasn't just going to just come because we wanted it or people needed it. it was something that had to be

fought for and you could fought for it through your words and through organization and action. >> i was going to ask you a little later on, but i think people wonder how do you get like that. who was his family? where'd he come from? >> he was born in mississippi and he was born in mississippi in 1917. his family was really part of the great migration. they eventually moved from mississippi, rural mississippi -- they were actually kind of unique. his father owned the farm that they lived on. if you're looking at mississippi in the early 20th century, the number of black people that owned their own land in the south was minute cousculminuscu pretty unique in that regard. but his father and his mother were dedicated educational advocates. they loved to read. they loved information and they loved sharing it. so they shared that love with

their children and they had eight children, seven of whom survived into adulthood. he comes out of that tradition. i say in the book that education was almost like a mantra in the durham family, that you were going to get educated and then use that education to move forward. >> right. he's the most famous in that he was the most public figure within the family, but his siblings were pretty notable as well, right? >> yeah, his youngest brother, his name was earl durham. he became a professor at the university of chicago. they all were accomplished. his older sister became a supervisor at providence hospital, which was the all black hospital in chicago. his younger brother caldwell became an engineer and worked here in l.a. he's living in l.a. today. his next oldest sister actually

worked in the building that i teach in now at howard university because she moved to washington, d.c. and worked at howard hospital as a supervisor in bacteriology, so she was really into science. another sister taught in the public school system in chicago. so you had siblings who may not have gone into the media and as public, but they were accomplished. >> right. your book reminds me in this presentation of james baldwin's "the price of the ticket" which begins with a ceremony. tell us about your rhetorical choices and the drama and the poetry that begins most of the chapters? you can start with durham's many names, if not faces. >> richard durham was not born richard durham.

he was born isador durham. he didn't really like his birth name. they called him isy. he took on different pen names. he was vern durham for a while. people ask where did vern durham come from. when he was 13 or 14, somewhere in there, he joined the boxing club. he was going to become the next heavyweight boxer of the world, at least that's what he told everyone. there was a young kid on the boxing team who was the best boxer and his name was vern, veteran patterson. he figured this guy is the best and i want to be the best, so maybe i'll use this as my pen name but something happened with that because he wrote to langston hughes who was by this poi