did not arm the moderate syrian army earlier in order to prevent isis from having the ability to grow and recruit, to use the social media that they're doing. they are the most serious terrorist threat facing the country today. we need to take action. time is up. the president does need to bring a plan and i'm ready to support -- first, i have to see what it is, but i'm ready to support and do what needs to be done to take isis out. >> the next question goes to you, senator hagan. health care has been a big topic in the senate race. the affordable care act and also known as obamacare, is currently the law of the land and the problems with its implementation has been will talk minute. senator hagan, you voted for and -- have been well-documented. speaker tillis, you said you wanted to repeal it. what would you do to improve the quality of health care north carolinians receive?

>> people tell me they don't want to go back to the broken system. they want us to fix and improve this law, and that is exactly what i am doing. but when i look at what speaker tillis does, he was to repeal this law. he would take as act to that broken system when seniors would -- back to that broken system when seniors would pay more further coverage than men -- i'm sorry, women would pay more, seniors would pay more than they're paying today. their prescriptions would the more. if you have a pre-existing condition, forget about the availability of health care. that is not what our seniors for the or the american people other thing speaker tillis would support, a budget that would turned medicare into a voucher program. seniors, this would mean financial insecurity, higher out-of-pocket costs, and it would certainly take our seniors back. it is not medicare turning it

into a voucher program is not good for our seniors. i don't think speaker tillis understands the needs of the american people. >> what would you do to improve the quality of health care? >> i would not cast the deciding vote for the single largest are -- tax increase or one of the largest in history. i would not pass obamacare which will bankrupt this country and fail to for fill the promises they made. kay is a little bit about making promises that are not going to be fulfilled. on 24 different occasions when kay was trying to defend it, she said if you like your doctor, you can keep it. 475,000 policy cancellation notices have come across the state. people are not able to keep their health care. i'm wondering if one portman -- at what point in time time or if kay still believes she's keeping the promises she made. it is not only there. obamacare only gets the book's balanced or makes the debt less

worse by taking $700 billion away from medicare to pay for it. it is financially -- it is not sustainable and it will not fulfill the promises. the promises are only broken. it will have an effect on medicare and medicaid and other entitlements that are important to fulfill our promises, particularly to seniors. >> senator hagan, would you like to reply? specifically, to the charge for you said you could keep it? >> some insurance companies were not being upfront with their consumers. as an assistant to my attention last fall, i mediately sponsored legislation allowing those plans to become permanent. and that is what took place in north carolina. i think what we need to look at here is the fact that speaker tillis has denied medicaid expansion in north carolina. that is 500,000 people that could get coverage. these people still get sick. they go to the emergency room where there really just getting episodic treatment and it is the

most expensive care there is. just today in the newspaper in greenville, north carolina, there are talking about how ecu and united are having multiple problems. we are he had one hospital close. speaker tillis is proud of the fact he hasn't expanding medicaid. >> just reminder to keep to the time. would you like to reply to the charge about denying medicaid expansion? >> i want to go back to the more fundamental problem. kay hagan is still the people of north carolina by promising them something that she can't deliver. i want the best health care in the world. we already have it. why are we destabilizing 250 million americans were satisfied with their insurance? kay hagan has basically said the government determined, even though you're satisfied with your health care, she determined it was insufficient and that is why 475,000 households have received cancellation notices.

>> the next question goes to speaker tillis. education funding and teacher pay is a big issue in this campaign. voters have no doubt seen many of the television ads. both of you has stressed the importance of recruiting and retaining qualified and effective teachers. in your view, what is the best way to do that? >> first, i think we have to recognize that we passed this year one of the largest pay increases for teachers in the last generation. we were able to do that because of the our decisions we made when we can in to clean up a lot of the mess kay hagan that behind when she went from raleigh to washington. i was a pta president just eight years ago. i wasn't in politics. i volunteered in public school. my teachers tell me they want freedom to teach the kids. they don't want washington bureaucrats who on average make $102,000 a year, telling teachers how to teach in school.

they are forcing test and reports and taking freedom out of the classroom, preventing teachers from being able to innovate. we need to pay our teachers top salaries and we are working on that. we have done more in this session that has been done in years. we need to add to that but we also need to get the federal government out of the way and stop having them force decisions on their teachers. they know how to educate our children. they're great people. they want to do that for our kids and we should let them. >> your view on the best way to keep teachers? >> we need to respect our teachers and pay them. we've seen an exodus of teachers. i roast a budgets for six years. education has always been a bite partisan priority. i wrote state budget for years and we invested in education every year. during my six years, teachers got a 21% pay raise. every child, every parent knows the value of a great teacher, except speaker tillis. he said teachers don't care

about their kids, don't care about their classrooms. all they care about are there jobs and are pensions. folks, those are his words, not mine. his priorities speak louder than his words. the fact he gave tax cuts to millionaires, he cut education by $500 billion. that means fewer teachers in the classroom, larger class sizes, and outdated textbooks. >> speaker tillis, you could reply. >> two numbers. 7 and 10. 7% pay raise for teachers in north carolina, making us regionally and nationally competitive. 10, the number of years kay hagan served in the legislature and she allowed the kinds of tax breaks that she is talking about to be on the books. instead of repealing them, she decided when times got rough, she would impose a sales tax increase that harms the poor and

working-class more than anyone else. she went further and broke her promise. she said it was going to be temporary and made some of it permanent. i fulfilled a promise when i revealed that tax and i became speaker in 2011. -- when i repealed that tax and i became speaker in 2011. >> we are throwing some numbers out here. let me throw out the number 48. north carolina is 48th in the nation in what we spend per pupil. unbelievable. speaker tillis is bragging about that? for a teacher who is been in the system for many, many years, his 7% raise is a .3% raise. we need to do better by our teachers, by our students, by our parents, and by our state. education is sacred in our state. we did not become the state where the week grow strong in the strong go great by gutting public education. >> the next question is for senator hagan. congress has talked about fixing the immigration system in this country. president obama is said to be

considering executive action that would slow deportations and allow more a document it immigrants to stay in the country. -- undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. what you think of that approach and should the president be able to take such an executive action? >> i've said the president should not take that executive action. it should be a congressional decision. immigration is broken in our country. inaction is not an option. i talked to farmers, business leaders, the chamber of commerce and they all wanted to work together to support a common sense, bipartisan immigration reform bill, which is exactly what i did. i have a feeling speaker tillis is going to talk about border security issues tonight. this bill that we passed that was bipartisan has doubled the number of border security agents and makes a 700 mile fence and enforces the security. this was a conference of bill that worked with democrats and

republicans. senator rubio, senator mccain, senator graham from south carolina all supported this hill. -- this bill. speaker tillis has no plans to solve our immigration system. >> speaker tillis? should the president be able to take us executive action? >> the president right now considers the three branches of government to be the executive branch, his pen and his phone. is completely disregarded the legislative branch and this discussion and failed to address the immigration problem. as a matter of fact, the immigration problem has been a bipartisan failure. for years presidents and congressional members have talked about sealing the border, not allowing amnesty. i don't know were senator hagan's on amnesty, it appears the president is prepared to grant amnesty. i think that is a colossal mistake. we talk about how easy it is to seal the border, but we are not sealing the border. we failed to seal the border dating back to the reagan era.

we need to get serious about it. a strong nation needs a strong border. we have to seal the border. you mention all the other problems that it just as a result of the inaction. kay hagan in 2008 saying she was going to solve immigration and all they got was a bill that went nowhere. >> your reply? >> folks, i think speaker tillis is complaining but he has no plan. this bill is a common sense immigration reform bill. as i said, there would be 40,000 border security agents, 700 mile long fence, using electronic surveillance to follow people with their visas to be sure they leave the country when you're supposed to. and this bill is not amnesty. as i said, it is bipartisan in nature. it is time for the house and congress to take this legislation up. >> speaker tillis? >> there's a difference between what you say in what you do. senator hagan said she wanted to direct the president not to act

unilaterally, yet when republicans try to pass an amendment that would have forced the president to do just that, she voted against it. leadership is something you do, not something you say. you can talk about doing the border, talked about passing bills, but if you get nothing done -- kay hagan is not authored a bill in six years that is going to the president's desk. we need somebody who is going to commit to getting things done and get it done. >> the next question goes to speaker tillis. this summer, the supreme court said hobby lobby could opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees because of the religious objections. do you agree or disagree with this ruling? should all businesses be required to provide contraceptive coverage regardless of their religious belief? >> first, i believe contraception should be available from probably more broadly than it is today. i will come to that. the hobby lobby decision was not about contraception.

if a profit business decides to open business, they have not suddenly given up their right to religious freedom. let's get back to the contraception issue. i agree with the american medical association that we should make contraception more widely available. i think over the counter oral contraception should be available without a prescription. if you do those kinds of things, it will actually increase the access and reduce the barriers for having more options for women for contraception. kay hagan, i suspect with the support she is getting from the pharmaceutical industry, may have a variety of reasons not to take it from behind the counter and put it on the counter but i think that is something we should work together on because that is how you improve access and reduce cost. >> senator hagan, same question. >> i disagree with the hobby lobby decision. speaker tillis agrees with that. it does allow employers to deny access to birth control for their female employees.

when women's best interests are on the line, i will never back down. i support equal pay for equal work. i did not raise my daughters to think there were worth $.82 on the dollar. speaker tillis kills and equal pay bill. he doesn't understand the needs of women. i have always set up for access to women's health care. speaker tillis doesn't. i support employers being able to give access to birth control for their employees. speaker tillis has defunded planned parenthood. the only state i know of that is actually done that -- i tell you, when i look at speaker tillis's record on women, it is abysmal. i will never back down supporting women. i will fight for them and he will not. >> would you like to reply? >> i think we get back to religious freedom is a very important -- a bedrock principle of this nation.

this is not the only area where kay disagrees with what the founding fathers were thought were very important in founding the station. we need to separate the two issues. when we're talking about taxpayer funding for contraception, that is different than access. she is trying to distort the two. i would like kay hagan to consider making a commitment to find ways to broaden access and lower the cost of contraception. it is something that can be done and it will benefit the very women she pretends suggest she is trying to advocate for. >> once again, speaker tillis doesn't understand the needs of women. prescription drugs include birth control. what he is done is denying women the right that other women have in order to access birth control through their companies employer-sponsored prescription drug plan. he is singling out certain employees, and i think that is indiscriminate and unconstitutional. i totally disagree with speaker tillis's issue. i really think he is out of

touch with women and doesn't understand their needs. >> the next question goes to senator hagan. north carolina is home to 770,000 military veterans and 115,000 active duty service members. president obama and veterans affairs secretary macdonald visited charlotte last week to address the american legion about mismanagement and care at v.a. facilities including getting off wait lists and making referrals to private sector care. what needs to be done? >> north carolina is the most military-friendly state in the nation. i come from a strong military family. my husband is a vietnam veteran, my father-in-law was a major general in the marine corps. my dad and brother were in the navy. i have two. nephews on active duty. one is a fighter jet pilot and the other is a navy seal. i take these issues seriously and personally. veterans have put their lives at risk to support us. their lives should not be a risk when they come home.

i have demanded better for the president. -- from the president. i have demanded the fact we need to support our v.a. but when i saw secret waiting lists, backlogs of to the ceiling, i took direct action. -- up to the ceiling, i took direct action. i worked in winston salem to help solve that issue. i got direct action from fayetteville, north carolina. they have 9000 war veterans. they needed space. i have gotten that taken care of and gotten it done. >> what else needs to be done? >> in 2008, kay stood at the podium similar to this and said the v.a. has problems. it needs to be fixed. for 5.5 years, she has been in washington, i've not heard her pounding the table with barack obama and the veterans administration to fix the problem. the problem has gotten worse. what is unfortunate, and the state that has one of the

largest military institutions in the united states, military presences, we're having some of the worst problems. wait times, waiting lists. these men and women swore an oath to protect us and lay down their lives for our freedom. and to come in here and say, i solved the problem in fayetteville or i answered a phone call here when the final problem, kay hagan knew it was broke in 2008 and she has failed our veterans and north carolina as a result. we need strong leadership and we need to hold this president and the administration accountable for their failure. >> let's talk about results. a marine plus whose daughter -- a marine was stationed at cap lejeune and his daughter died of leukemia based on contaminated toxic water. from the first day i was in office, i worked with him to help find answers and care for the victims. senator byrd, we passed the bipartisan bill which is

allowing health care for the families of victims at camp lejeune. those are direct results. i support our veterans and they know it. >> speaker tillis? >> i think in that case, kay may have done her job. and so many other instances, she has failed to provide proper health care to these veterans. we go in debt of gratitude to -- we owe a debt of gratitude to their service and we need to take care of them and we need to move heaven and earth not for one or two cases, but for the hundreds of cases that we're hearing about from the actor general. -- the inspector general. this is unacceptable. it was unacceptable in 2008 when kay said she was going to washington and fix it and unacceptable in 2014 when the problem has gotten worse. >> the next question for speaker tillis. in april, the u.s. supported against moving forward with a bill that would gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. since then, some states have taken matters into their own hands and raised the minimum

wage. right now north carolina's minimum wage is the same as $7.25 an hour. is that enough for the workers of north carolina? >> other states have taken action and this is something that i believe has been left to the states versus another regulatory overreach which kay hagan is very satisfied to do. she has done with obama care and by supporting the epa regulations that will and $1200 a year and related cost because of energy prices going up. i talked to a business owner just two weeks ago, lastly, actually, in western north carolina. he said if we're not careful between the regulatory overreach and these other burdens being placed on small businesses, he is going to go out of business. his business is only made a profit too much out of the last 12 months. -- two months out of the last felt months. these things, we need to understand the job telling

-- job killing consequences of these policies. it is not something that kay hagan going to washington should agree with washington politicians about how we actually deal with that issue in north carolina. i trust the citizens of north carolina and the businesses to make that decision. >> is $7.25 an off -- enough? >> if kay hagan has her way and the cost of health care goes up 11% and if kay hagan had herway and the epa increases energy costs by $1200 a year, and if kay hagan has her way and allows these other regulatory burdens that not only would that not be enough but 10%, 20%, 50% would not be enough. we're creating this mindset that we have a minimum wage economy. that most people will be on minimum wage. i want an economy where minimum wage is a brief steppingstone to harping jobs so people can realize their dreams. -- two higher-paying jobs so people can realize their dreams. >> senator hagan?

>> i support increasing the minimum wage, which speaker tillis had a really hard time trying to defend that he doesn't. jobs and making the economy work for everyone, especially the middle class, is my number one priority. i do support increasing the minimum wage. speaker tillis said doing that is a dangerous idea and -- these are his words -- we shouldn't even have a federal minimum wage. he said workers in north carolina should not earn the same federal minimum wage as workers in boston. once again, that is what he said. i think the best way to grow the economy and to have good jobs is a good education, is a sound education. look what he has done. he has given tax cuts to the wealthy and he is paying for it by gutting education $500 million. teachers are leaving in droves.

speaker tillis has the wrong priorities for jobs and the economy. >> i grew up and i worked for minimum wage for several years. what i want from government is for it to get out of my way so i can realize my germs. what kay hagan was from -- my dreams. what kay hagan was from government is to give you can't provide you the sense that there is nothing more than minimum wage. who in this country, what leader would settle for economy based on minimum wage? it is a stepping stone. senator hagan doesn't understand the ultimate decision about the minimum wage is a needs to rest in the state. don't turn your back on the state. let's hope you decide what is best for north carolina. >> obviously, he hasn't done anything in this regard, so obviously, is available at seven wage.

-- he is ok with once again, i $7.25. talked to business leaders all the time and their concern about jobs in north carolina because of what speaker tillis has done to our education system. they have teachers leaving, students coming into the college of education system where they can be educated to become teachers. the most important thing for business and economy is sound education and speaker tillis is taking us back. >> senator hagan, in north carolina the unemployment rate is 6.5%. if you take into account those who have stopped looking for work, it is more like 13%. as of july, north carolina office of u.s. with unemployment -- offers the fewest weeks of unemployment benefits at any state in the nation. speaker tillis, you don't with -- you have belt that you have dealt with this as a state level and senator hagan, you have

dealt with this at a federal level. what is the best solution to support the long-term unemployed? >> we're the only state in the nation under his leadership that changed the unemployed insurance formula. 170,000 people in north carolina became knowledgeable to receive -- became an eligible to receive federal an appointment benefits. i'm -- unemployment benefits. folks, he actually said no to $780 million that would have come into north carolina, helped our economies, helped the unemployed. but because he favored helping the business community, he was unable to do that. one of the best ways we can work on creating jobs and growing this economy is being assured we have a fair and more simpler tax system, which i'm certainly working on in congress. and to have a good education system. every ceo that comes into my office in washington says the best thing we have in north carolina as the great work ethic of our people. but they're worried about education. >> your response? >> kay's answer these me to believe she hasn't been in north

carolina lately. we made the difficult decision to not extend the unemployment benefits, long-term unemployment benefits. do you know what the consequence was to go from 10.4% unemployment to 6.5%. reporting people back to work -- we're putting people back to work. we're giving them the motivation to go to school, get greater skills, get off minimum wage. and actually enjoy the fruits of their labor. kay on a prior question said she supports business. the businesses now as a result of that tough decision -- and it is tough when you are a leader you actually do what you say you're going to do. but we did it and we reduced $2.7 billion debt to the federal government. next year it will be paid off. the cost of businesses will go down and even more people will be employed. it is right if some of the best job creation numbers in the southeast and why we're one of the fastest-growing economies under years of stagnation under kay's leadership.

>> by jenna tax cuts for the -- by doing that tax cuts for the wealthy, europe and the burden on everybody else. the art income tax cuts helped -- the unearned tax cut helped 64,000 military families in our state. speaker tillis did away with the college savings tax plan that helps families save for college. he gave an added sales tax to college students meal plan. once again, hurting that individual that is trying so hard to get a degree so they can move forward. speaker tillis continually has the wrong priorities. >> 7% pay raise, one of the largest pay raises in a generation, that is reality. that is something kay needs to accept. 10 years. these tax cuts she is talking about are largely the things she is using in her ads attacking me. as a matter of fact, she is gone so negative, she is attacking

herself, attacking a policy that she supported as a state senator. it was kay, not thom tillis, who imposed the sales tax promising to make it temporary and then making it permanent. another broken promise. >> in the wake of the unrest in ferguson, missouri following the shooting death of an unarmed african-american teenager by white officer, there is been a discussion over whether police departments have begun -- become to militarized because of providing military, to law enforcement. north carolina has received thousands of pieces of military equipment, armored vehicles, assault rifles and others. in your view, do you see the so-called militarization of the police as a problem? should the program continue? >> i think we need to recognize the tragedy in ferguson was a tragedy regardless of the circumstances. it was a tragedy for the community and the families. my heart goes out to them.

we need to look at the first responders, in particular, police officers. like our military, every day they wake of willing to fulfill and oh that they will a down -- an oath that they will lay down their lives to protect someone else. i'm one believe it to police officers -- i'm going to leave it to police officers, rank-and-file members, the municipalities to determine the best way that you can keep the peace but keep these law enforcement officers say. we know which of them to make sure they're protected. i'm not going to rethink what is necessary but what i do know is we all the police officers across the u.s. a debt of gratitude for what they do every single day. >> should the program continue? >> i support our police and share --sheriffs and first responders, but i think the militarization is gone too far and we need to be looking at that program. i also know in many communities,

especially in north carolina, we have great citizens, great communities that work together. in guilford county, the national conference for community's injustice brings together a dialogue to help solve these kinds of problems before they get started. i want to go back to speaker tillis's earlier comment. this has to do with math. i am insulted by his comments. i was a vice president at a bank. i wrote billion dollars state budget in the state of north carolina. i understand math. even when i was a teenager, i worked at my death tire store and delay way for people -- when i worked at my debts tire store i worked at layaway and did math. i value math teachers in the state and speaker tillis doesn't. >> do you want to reply? >> in 2008, senator hagan echoed president obama's comments that $10 trillion was a national disgrace.

when she went to washington, she rubberstamped barack obama's policies and now our debt is $17 trillion. that is simple math. it is getting to the point where it is stifling growth. it is a debt dragging down economy. if it continues, it is going to harm the teachers and other folks that we need to pay to do the very important jobs they are doing. >> i think speaker tillis has done such damage in north carolina from his failed policies, from his favoring tax cuts to the wealthy, gutting our education system, having to pay for that by doing away with the earned income tax credit, helping the unemployed of north carolina. all of these other burdens that are now being put on the middle class. i think that is wrong and i think the fact he did not expand medicaid, that is going to have one of the most disastrous consequences on this state because of his actions.

>> we've reached the portion of the debate where the candidates will have an opportunity to ask each other questions. the candidate asking the question will also have a chance to respond. it is been agreed upon that speaker tillis will receive the first candidate question. senator hagan? >> my question is about education. speaker tillis, please explain to the people of north carolina why your budget cuts $500 million from education spending in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy. >> kay, if you actually read the budget, i soon when you are in the legislature you did, you had to of red hours. we have a 7% pay increase, one of the largest to teachers, in the last 20 years. we actually reduced classroom sizes as a result of our proposal by that one student. it is not enough, but it is progress. when i have a bill that i

personally was responsible for helping move to the house, we had 117-0 vote. every single democrat in the house chamber voted for appropriations measure that sent a very clear message to teachers in north carolina. you are our priority. we made absolutely certain when we had a respectable disagreement with the senate that we were standing firm on maintaining classroom funding. i am proud of what we have done and kay's math doesn't add up. >> i think people in north carolina would find that incredulous. all of the cuts that it into our education system are harming the system. i think you should respond on why teachers are leaving in droves. 44% increase from before. we're the former superintendent in houston coming to north carolina and be very successful recruiting our teachers. listening to your comment about the budget, i do want to say that speaker tillis, you don't

understand my record in congress. i have gotten things done. my jobs training bill passed. my camp lejeune water contamination bill passed. all of these bills were bipartisan. i worked with republicans to get them done. that is effective legislation. >> speaker tillis? >> i think that senator hagan really needs to understand and maybe spend some more time back in the state understanding the great things we have done in the state by making the difficult decisions in 2011, we're able to provide the single largest pay increase for teachers in 20 years. it is a fact. an average of 7%. we're working on classroom funding. the problem remains that kay hagan support the department of educations overreach has taken money out of the classrooms and given it to bureaucrats who make $102,000 year. >> you have the next question

for senator hagan. >> in 2008, you said someone who votes with the president 92% of the time doesn't work here in north carolina, yet since you have been in washington, you photo with president obama 95% of the time. -- you voted with president obama 95% of the time. do you believe president obama has done great things for north carolina and do you support what he is done for the citizens of the north carolina? >> folks, speaker tillis is certainly misleading you about my record and he is certainly misleading you about his record, too. i'm going to jump back to the other question. his 7% raise? if you were a senior teacher, meaning over 20 to 25 years, you would get a .3%. he is done away with longevity scales. even the individuals in the department of education and the state of north carolina said the way you have calculated these issues has changed for the first time since 1933, and the worst thing that ever seen in north

carolina. now let me talk about what you're saying about the president. i want people to know, i am the most moderate senator in the nation. the nonpartisan national journal has ranked me that because of my ability to work across the aisle and get things done. i stand with the president when it is right for north carolina. it let me tell you, i stand with the people of north carolina when it is right for the people of north carolina. i voted against the president and my party. trade deals sent too many manufacturing jobs overseas. i told the president when he did build the keystone pipeline. >> kay hagan voted with president obama 95% of the time and promised she would be different, and she is broken a promise. she did not answer the question. the real answer is, she probably regrets the fact she is been rubberstamper for president obama and harry reid. you can't vote 95% of the time with the president and say you're a moderate. the independent i've seen in kay hagan over the last two years is

-- it seems like she's got a represent washington's interest and not ours. she is still the people of north carolina because she is missed the fact it matters to be here. it matters to talk to those businesses. it matters to provide a historic pay raise. these are things kay hagan needs to come back into the great things we are doing. >> would you like to address the charge you voted for the president 95% of the time? >> certainly. i've stood up to the president and my party when it is right for north carolina. i voted against trade deals that sent too many manufacturing jobs overseas. i told the president we need to build the keystone pipeline. i voted against by all parties budget when there were too deep of cuts to our military. i've stood up for the people of north carolina. i held a town hall meeting in every 100 counties in north carolina. i know the people of north

carolina. i support them. a represent them. i am therefore is in the senate. >> your next question for speaker tillis? >> you have consistently made it more difficult for women to access birth control. you defunded planned parenthood and of said employers should be able to deny coverage of birth control. speaker tillis, it is 2014. why have you worked to make birth control so inaccessible? >> you may not of been paying attention in the earlier question, but what i said is, we need to provide broader access and work to lower the cost of contraception. that is what i said. as a matter of fact, maybe we should talk about the extent to which you can separate yourself from big pharmaceutical companies who are clearly supporting our campaign and start talking about providing lower-cost alternatives and

broader access through over-the-counter oral contraception. the american medical association has said that they are safe, effective, and should be allowed to be provided. we all know when you provide broader access, that prices go down. this is the way that you actually increase access and provide more women more opportunities and more choices. >> i think once again, speaker and tillis doesn't understand in the needs of women. the fact he supports the hobby lobby decision that does allow an employer to deny access to birth control for their employees. in i would surly support over-the-counter contraception. but i wanted to be part of the prescription drug plan if these individuals are working for a for-profit company. that is was speaker tillis would deny. women, we're stuck holding the bill once again. we would have to pay out-of-pocket, which all of the other situations would not. i think speaker tillis has the

wrong priorities. >> would you like to reply to how you would allow broader access? >> it is fascinating because if you weren't paying attention, you may not have heard it. what kay did there is what she did on obamacare. on one hand she says she supports broad access over-the-counter and on the other hand, she says it needs to be rolled into a prescription drug program. that seems to be saying one thing and doing another. that is not new to kay. look at kay of 2008 and kay of 2014. kay 1.0 and kay 2.0. she has failed the citizens of north carolina on this and many other sources. >> speaker tillis, your question to senator hagan? >> when you are out selling obamacare, you would before the public on 20 for different occasions and you said, if you like your health care, you can keep it.

in some cases you said if you like her doctor, you can keep it. and now we all know that that wasn't true. my question to you, that was a promise made to the citizens of north carolina. at what point did you realize it wasn't true and why didn't you explain yourself at that point? >> you must be paying attention. some insurance companies were nothing up front with their consumers. as soon as i found that out last fall, i took action. i sponsored legislation to allow those plans to be made permanent. speaker tillis, if you are really following what is happening in north carolina, you would know that people in north carolina are allowed to keep those plans. but what i think people in north carolina and need to really understand, speaker tillis would take us back to a broken system. he would take us back to a time when seniors paid more for prescription coverage than they do today. women, once again, would automatically pay more for their coverage than men.

if you had a pre-existing condition, forget about the availability of health insurance. speaker tillis also would reopen the donut hole. he supports a budget that would turn medicare into a voucher program, which would mean financial insecurity for our seniors. speaker tillis once to take us back to a broken system. >> do you want to address that charge? >> senator hagan probably knows 85% of all health care decisions made and households are made by women. she needs to talk to these women and explain why the government has determined health care policy they were satisfied with is no longer fitting the bill and that justifies her broken promise. that is what she said. you need to see what is happening here tonight. we are justifying someone who broke a promise to the citizens of north carolina. if i like my health care, why do i care what kay hagan things about it? if i'm satisfied with it, if it is serving my family's need, the

women who opened up -- there were thousands of cancellation notices were wondering why. now i know my policy is when a change. in september and october, you will see your insurance rates go up by 11% because kay knows best. i don't believe that. i believe you know best. >> once again, speaker tillis would turn seniors' medicare into financial insecurity. speaker tillis denies access to medicaid coverage for 500,000 people in this state. it is having a destabilizing condition, especially in our rural communities. people need help. the facts speaker tillis said no, the problem is, that is going to increase cost. people still get sick and will go to the emergency room and that is where everybody's cost increases. >> with that, we have concluded the candidate question part of

the debate. now we're going to ask each candidate to take 90 seconds for closing statements. we will begin with senator hagan. >> thank you. i want to give a story. i want to tell a story about results. i heard from our men and women in duty at fort bragg that they were going to lose a tuition assistance benefit that allow them to take one college class a semester. they found out due to see question, that they would be -- denied this. due to sequestration that they would be denied this. i immediately got to work on this problem. i worked with republican senator jim inhofe from oklahoma. within two weeks, we had in a moment on the senate floor. -- we had an amendment on the senate floor. it passed and passed the house and was signed into law by the president. within two weeks, it shows once again that i am the most moderate senator that i can work across the aisle and get things done, get results for the people of north carolina. the most amazing thing, i landed

that we can, coming home from washington back to north carolina, and i had more mothers and more wives who came up to me at the airport, sought me out and said, senator hagan, we were so worried about -- one woman said, senator hagan, i'm so worried about how my son was going to finish his college degree. thank you. do you know, folks, over 50,000 men and women have gotten a college degree under this program? i know how important it is because i know how important education is. voters, i asked for your support so i can continue representing you, putting the middle class first and making the economy work for everyone. thank you. >> speaker tillis? >> i want to thank you and everybody for joining us tonight. we have very different visions for america and very different ways to do it president obama

and the washington establishment. i had a wonderful childhood, but it wasn't easy. i've been a paperboy and short order cook. when i graduated high school, i was working in a warehouse and living in a trailer park. i finally received my degree. along the way, i met my beautiful wife, susan, and had two wonderful children. i'm a living example of somebody who is realize the american dream. i want to go to washington and make sure every single american has the same opportunity to realize their american dream. when kay hagan went to washington, she merely became a part of the washington establishment -- she immediately became a part of the washington establishment. she has failed the people of north carolina. that is why i'm running for the u.s. senate. i worked with the establishment, show them respect and over a few short years, they elected me

speaker of the house. i want to bring that same leadership to washington. i want to make america great again. we live on the greatest and in the greatest nation on the face of this earth. we can return this nation to greatness. i am thom tillis. i'm asking for your vote. thank you, god bless you, god bless the united states of america. >> we want to thank both senator kay hagan and speaker tom tillis for their participation. they will participate in a second debate on october 7. this public service program was brought to by the north carolina association of broadcasters educational foundation. on behalf of all of us, thank you for watching and don't forget to vote. >> as you heard, the candidates face over again just over a month and you can check our website live the sponsor coverage. both candidates have released a number of ads over the past

several weeks. some are touting their credentials and others are attacking their opponent. here is a look at several of the more recent ads. >> tired of being disgusted by the news? washington is completely losing touch with workers in america. the federal budget is a joke. i am tom tillis, i came up in the real world, i have been a paperboy, short order cook, warehouse clerk and eventually, partner at ibm. the senate can use more people that have sweated for a living and fewer politicians that made this mess. i am tom tellis, i approve this message. let's make this right. >> hi, i am kay hagan. one of the things i love about north carolina is that unless you are talking basketball commute don't have to pick a team. that is how i get results for folks here at home, republican or democrat. if an idea works for middle-class families, i am all for it. i approve this message because i was so proud of the nonpartisan

national journal ranking me the most moderate senator. not too far left, not too far right, just right for north carolina. >> black and white, house speaker tom tillis through a bull's-eye on public schools, cutting nearly $500 million. he sliced and diced education, creating chaos in our classrooms and hurting middle-class families while giving tax breaks to the yachts and jet owners. tom tellis, cutting our schools and giving breaks to the wealthy. democratic senatorial campaign committee is responsible for this advertising. >> in the private sector, businesses are built on accountability accountability is a foreign-language in washington. admitsident will not that the debt is out of control and neither party has stopped this. they hagan enabled president obama's worst ideas and refuses to clean up his mess. you and i have to clean up hers.

i am tom tellis, i approve this message and that's why i'm running for u.s. senate. c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues tonight. we'll take you live to california for a debate in the states governors race and jerry brown is facing off against his republican challenger, carry. sklari. ka >> tonight's debate is the first and likely only debate between the two in this general election. joining us on the phone is a veteran political columnist dan walters of "the sector meant to be." >> you're welcome. -- "the sacramento bee." >> you're welcome. we are looking for any opportunity for kashkari to put anything on jerry brown. jerry brown is a skilled wordsmith.

he uses latin and greek references, for example. he has developed a little bit of a short fuse. it will be interesting to see whether kashkari can do that -- get under his skin. >> a brief biography of jerry brown's career in california politics. >> he has been in politics forever. his father was the governor of california for two terms in the 1950's and 1960's. about that time, jerry brown ran for the los angeles community college district board. he became the secretary of the state and then governor in 1974. he ran for president in 1976, reelection in 1978. then again in 1980.

-- president again in the u.s. 1980. senate in 1982 and lost. he dropped out of politics for a number of years. he came back in a state party chairman and then dropped out again and became a radio talkshow host, ran for president again in 1992, then ran for mayor of oakland in 1998 and one that -- won that. he ran for attorney general again. then back into the governorship in 2010. >> who is neel kashkari? why is he running and what kind of campaign is he waiting thus far? ?>> he is a son of indian immigrants. he is a hindu, which is unusual for anyone in politics, especially a republican. he is a banker by trade. he worked on wall street. he was the director of the bank bailout program under president bush and president obama. he came back to california and dabbled in banking again.

there are no party primaries. he decided he wanted to run for governor. he wound up placing second. we have a situation where all candidates appear on the same ballot in the primary so there are no party primaries anymore. he beat out another republican to get the right to challenge jerry brown in the fall election. he has waged a kind of geurilla campaign. but he is young and articulate. he does a lot of radio talk shows. he is up and down the state all the time. he is on twitter. he is everywhere he can to make himself visible. he is chiding jerry brown on not doing enough to relieve poverty in california. california has the worst poverty situation in america, almost a quarter of the states population is in poverty. at one point, kashkari went underground and spend a week in

fresno as a homeless person experiencing the plight of the homeless and the poor and wrote about it extensively afterwards. it has been a guerrilla campaign. he has very little money. he put some of his own money into it. he is not wealthy in any super terms, but he has a few million dollars. he hopes that he can kind of make a slash. -- splash. >> california is the most extensive media state in the country. how much will be spent? >> jerry brown has about $30 million and is not going to be hurting for money. as everyone knows, he is leading in all the polls. the consensus is that he is a slam dunk to win reelection and that unless he does something to undermine his own campaign it is probably going to be a fourth term. it is probably going to be a very light spending campaign.

jerry brown does not like to spend money. if he does not have to spend it, he probably won't. there is no much else going on in california to attract big-money. it is likely to be a very light spending election in california and a light turnout election, as well. that has some democrats worried about some of the congressional offices. >> the kashkari campaign called for 10 debates. jerry brown's camp says this will be the first and only debate. >> that is in keeping with most incumbents. they do not like to debate. why give your challenger an opening and a free platform? he is doing it because he wants to say, you can't say i didn't debate. the state was chosen to be the -- the date was chosen to be the opening night of professional

football. that is one thing that will limit the audience. it is an interesting event, but probably not a very significant one. >> dan walters is joining us from sacramento, a calm -- columnist for the "sacramento bee." thank you for the preview. >> you're welcome. >> that debate comes up tonight at 7:00 p.m. pacific. live here on c-span. ahead of that, we will take a look at the latest efforts to combat rising childhood obesity by improving the nutrition in school meals. the president-elect of the school nutrition association is part of a panel that testifies before the senate agriculture committee. next, doctors and global health here is a preview. >> kids don't like whole grains. they like sugar even more. you give your child a choice to have sugar for lunch or have

fruit and vegetables and they will pick sugar. it's what they like. . but we have to be the adults in the room. we just don't give kids the foods they want. you have to give them and teach them how to eat well for their whole lives. that takes leadership. it takes determination, it takes creativity. i love the fact that you told your school district to pick three colors every day. i was teaching about nutrition, my children, that's how we did it. how many colors can you put on your plate grid that is -- they love that. fed my children steamed vegetables as children and they only like steamed vegetables they don't want butter or cream or cheese on it. they want steamed vegetables. they have been eating for did every meals as they were babies. as a consequence my kids were introduced to healthy foods, they prefer healthy foods. for a lot of these kids, they are not getting healthy foods at home. they are getting refined carbohydrates at every meal.

a typical meal will be a burger and fries. of course they prefer a burger and fries. that's what they have been fed said they were little. we have to do more. , it is easy to have flexibility, people like grits they have had since there are kids but let's not serve refined foods at lunch. let's actually push them to eat something healthy that makes them healthy and reach their full potential. when a kid is obis coming you does not reach his full potential. he cannot concentrate in class. he is often made fun of. he has low self-esteem. it does not reach his full potential. she does not reach her full potential. i am grateful that all of you have thought outside the box figuring out how to solve these robins in the nutrition standards. i do not want to back off nutrition standards. let's figure it out. can figure it out. >> more from that senate agriculture committee coming up

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next up, we will take you live to the national press club in washington for remarks from consumer advocate and former presidential candidate ralph nader along with americans for tax reform president grover norquist speaking on the topic of bipartisanship in a session that should get underway shortly at the national press club. i want to remind you that coming up in 1.5 hours at 2:30 p.m. eastern, news conference with attorney general eric holder will provide was being termed a significant update on the justice department's efforts in ferguson, missouri and that is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. and we will have it live.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] good afternoon, and welcome. i am the president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading organization for asrnalists, with events such this while fostering a free press worldwide.

on behalf of our members, i would like to welcome our speaker's. speakers. if you hear and flaws in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending , so it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. welcome our to c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter. guests'speeches, we will have a question and answer period. i would like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced, and from your right, skip, an independent journalist and who organized rough nader's luncheon -- ralph nader's

luncheon. a guest of grover norquist. a video producer. nader.ire host, and air force reporter and a member who helped organize today's event. i am sorry, we changed the routine because of two speakers. i will introduce you in a moment. for "usa today," vice chair of the speakers committee. anpping over mr. nader, account supervisor at a committee member who helped organize the luncheon. wife of grover norquist.

economics reporter at investors business daily. a guest of ralph nader. political reporter and former president of the national press club. [applause] ralph nader and grover norquist might not seem like natural allies, but throughout their careers they have fought for a singular goal -- good, responsive government. how they defined a good response of government and how they get there is what the consumer champion part ways. today they say there can be a common cause. nader, who founded public citizen in 1971, fight to protect consumers from a

collusion of corporate and government interests. norquist wants to protect americans from overbearing government interests too quick to tax and to quick descent. long ago nader passed beyond single concerns with seatbelts. he is built a national network of citizen groups that have had a nature impact in tax reform, nuclear energy, and health and safety programs. in his latest book, he warns the united states is at a pivotal moment. americans are more disillusioned with their political leaders than never, and large majorities save a corporations have too much political power. norquist established americans for tax reform in 1985. that group works to limit the size of government and opposes higher taxes at all levels of government. he is best known for his anti-tax pledge to which he says 113thwmakers of the

congress swore to uphold. he recently advocated for the government to stay out of the proposed comcast-time warner merger, saying the marketplace is adjusting to consumer demand and the government should not meddle in a free market transaction. today we will hear our guest left and righthe to come together to work for a better america. please welcome ralph nader and grover norquist, and by mutual agreement, and i stress by mutual agreement, it was agreed that mr. nader will go first and will speak for 12 minutes, and will be followed by mr. norquist for 12 minutes, and then we will have the traditional question and answer session. mr. nader? [applause] thank you very much, myron, distinguished guests, and audience. representing various views.

i think the issue here comes immobilized society. people want to get things done in this country. but the powers that become as they have for thousands of years, have learned that the best strategy to block the will of the people is to divide and rule. as a result, we hear article after article about how polarized our society is, red state, blue state, republican, democrat, left, right, and there are many divisions and disagreements, to be sure. there are disagreements on reproductive rights, then control, school prayer, on constitutionally required talents budgets, taxes, on kinds of regulations, and those will probably remain. however, there are huge areas and very fundamental ones in terms of constitutional procedures as well as substantive policies where there

is a large left-right convergence majority in this country. it starts with the public a bleak and said, with public sentiment you can do anything, and without it, you cannot do anything at all. his already out there in the minds of tens of millions of americans want to call progressives or libertarians. they agree on a whole host of issues. i first came across this agreement going functional, going operational, from their opinion into political action when we develop a coalition in 1983 to fight the raider reactor, which already had piled up one $.3 billion and they have not dubbed a shovel on the shores of the clinch river in tennessee. our site was not getting very far, and the senator from

arkansas -- the senator called up from arkansas, and said why don't you call these right wing groups. they're worried about this because there is a huge budget buster for my prediction it will go to eight dollars billion. so we formed a taxpayers group against the clinch river breeder reactor. we had some formidable foes, ronald reagan was for it, senator howard baker was for it, the general electric and westinghouse were for it, and it was quite an uphill fight. but in a stunning defeat of the clinch river, we won in the senate 56-40. i was in 1983. in 1986 come against lobbyists, there was a convergence between senator grassley, republican of bergin, tohoward pass the false claims act which would give the government officials and opportunity if they blow the whistle,

government employees, to share in the recovery that would be pursued by the justice department. and that has saved tens of billions of dollars. and we see other examples. this is not pie in the sky. we are not sugarcoating this convergence. we have examples. as of last year, for example, there was a left-right up for on to stop another war in syria. the left-right in defiance of john boehner and nancy pelosi and house almost got a bill through blocking the nsa from dragnet snooping. they lost by 12 votes on that. and at the state level, a lot of interesting things are going on. 15 legislatures have passed juvenile justice reform, only possibly because of left-right legislators. when a decision came down saying it was ok for new london to

expropriate my whole neighborhood and destroy it and give it to pfizer, 25 step a varietyes passed of law saying quickly not in the state you're going to take private property, condemn it, and give it to corporations, other kind of private property. so in doing this book, i go through the history of conservative philosophers and lo and behold, and a lot of them from adam smith to russell kirk were not exactly the corporatists who distorted their philosophy would have us believe. againstte they were government planning, to be sure, but they were for a safety net, leading to milton friedman's minimum income plan and mix in it. that heritage goes all the way back to henry citizens, the

founder of the chicago school of economics, and it goes back to frederick hayek, who thought there needed to be a safety net. public works was fostered by these conservative philosophers or is he did not like monopolies, very eloquent in busting up monopolies. so we have a doctrinal basis here as well as current operational figures, some politicians, some writers, but most important, back there in the country where people live, work, and raise their children, the ideological schisms are not quite as a parent because these people back home are facing reality. so we have a great deal of disagreement between left, right on reproductive rights and school prayer and gun control and balanced budgets, as i said, but we also have eerie fundamental agreement. and it was illustrated in an

interview in the book with the libertarian founder of the cato institute when he said, ralph, i am against all corporate subsidies, unconstitutional laws, liberty-restricted aspects of the patriot act, and the federal reserve run amok. i said that is a pretty good start, ed. the twot to focus on areas of agreement categorically. one is a procedure, civil liberties, protection of privacy, to not engage in dragnet snooping, etc. in wars ofot engage aggression. he did not interfere with international law and constitutional law and federal law and go anywhere in the world going up and tires and bases in 120 countries. you do not allow the pentagon to automatically get huge budget through congress without following normal appropriation

committee procedures, like the budget for the iraq war, the budget for the afghan war. that is a very important area. that is where there is very, very solid basis here, as grover will point out. of collaboration between left, right, the american civil liberties union and right-leaning groups. in the substantive area, there are quite remarkable convergences. sometimes i think half of what the government does is shovel out subsidies, handouts, giveaways,rivileges come economic privileges in the marketplace, and bailouts, and this is called crony capitalism by the rights. it is called corporate welfare by us. that is a huge slice of the federal budget. the patriot act comes up for confirmation repeat next year.

maybe there will be a struggle instead of just rubberstamping it as it has been renewed twice by a rubber stamp. we have on some esoteric issues, perhaps, a collaboration, left -right wants to audit the pentagon. billion on audited every year. not the way a business would run it. that is why you lose $9 billion a year, 6 billion there. there's no accounting. there's also a left-right on procurement. the government is the biggest higher. why not establish standards for efficiency and national goals like controlling pollution, advancing auto safety? and here in the audience, the former head of the general services administration, and when we hit a stone wall on the airbag, you know george will and others came out for mandatory airbag installation in the mid-1980's, i went out to see

gerald who is a very conservative public and from new hampshire -- republican from new hampshire, and he was in the auto post as this, not in the -- auto parts business, and i said if you have airbags in government cars, and they buy 40,000, 50 thousand a year for government employees, it will reduce accidents, injuries, and claims and costs and lost work. and that appealed to him, in addition to the life-saving aspect of it. and to make a long story short, against the opposition of all the auto companies except ford, he put out a request to bid for 5000 airbags in tempo -- four tempos, the government wanted to that helped the momentum to get the airbag in all cars, and now it is on side airbags and front seat airbags.

that is the use of the government buying cars. and that is what is so important that is not just a more dramatic issues. it is also the issues of proper functioning of government. there is going to be and thement on taxes other converging area. i do not know whether grover agrees with this, but there is a left-right coalition and 7080% to restore the minimum wage, to take it up close to where it was adjusted for inflation. 30 million workers who make less today than they made in 1968, adjusted for inflation. 30 million workers. and so whether you are conservative or liberal or worker in walmart, i do not think you will fall on your sword ideologically and say, no, we want to continue at eight bucks an hour, while the boss is making $11,000 an hour every hour, eight hours a day, throughout the year. so in two hours on january 2, he makes more than a worker makes in the entire year, even before

the martini lunch. conclude byt to noting that this book does not sugarcoat the obstacles, and what we really need here to kickstart this big time, although there is not left-right alliance on prison reform, which grover was involved in with you to gingrich, called right on crime:, there's a lot going on that is not getting a lot of attention compared to the division, the divisive areas. thatn this book, i argue there are a lot of obstacles that have to be face, but they are overcomeable if we have a number of civic groups established whose only concern is convergence and left-right alliance advocacy. because there is a lot of convergence, cato and heritage, progressive policies, they have all come out with reports

against corporate welfare. that is not their top priority, not where the grants and contributions expect to be done. they go to work every day, and that is not their top priority. it is where the grants in the targeted issues often are in conflict with left-right. that is their priority. we need to similar focus, and i have a chapter called here billion there, and i am looking for some very rich person to -- billionaire, and i am looking for some rich person to fund these nonprofit civic groups. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for holding to our 12-minute request. and now i have the pleasure to turn it over to grover norquist. [applause] >> thank you, myron. the last time ralph and i were on a stage together, we were competing at funniest celebrities in d.c.

i will be the straight man today. weant to make it clear that talked, when rough and i both talk about left-right coalition, that is different than heretional bipartisanship in washington, d.c., and state capitals. traditional bipartisanship is republican politicians and democrat it all editions and resizing their class interests as politicians deciding to raise their pay. [laughter] give themselves pensions or invent new ways to kneecap additional challengers running for reelection, and there are class interests is that officials have, and they can tearfully be part partisan in defense of those. decades.for you get some, i get them. we all still some and we shared with our friends. but i'm talking about what ralph and i have worked together on, issues where right and left, people of principle that are not willing to sacrifice -- this is

not like moving to the center and giving the other guy something that nobody should have in return for something good. this is about issues where right and left both agree on what they want done. for instance, the in shoe of transparency. but right and left to the states, and this is moved across dozens and dozens of states, making state budgets completely transparent. i do not mean a printed budget after it is done. i mean every check as it goes out, every contract at hiit is written, every grant given online so everyone can see it now, not the people who can hire lobbyists who happen to live in the state capital where the federal capital, but to make it available. it is all legally public. shoe boxes in filing cabinets and it is not accessible to the average person. we are looking to do those issues where right and left both of principle can move forward. spending at all

contracts were made transparent so every american, every person in the world can go look at them, i am under the impression that people would look at it and say let's spend less money. ralph thinks that some would look at and say, martha, look at how wisely they are spending their money. let's send them more. we could have that argument, but each of us believes that a transparent government would be a better government. i believe it will be a more limited government. ralph believes it would be more expensive. the transparency we can agree on an often people in power are not cheerful about that. right left coalitions are areas of principled agreement on perhaps procedure or even goals, not a compromise where somebody walks in and gives a big part of their soul in order to get something and moves they think slightly in the wrong direction in the hope of doing something else. i want to point out that as

ralph alluded to this is not something that might happen. this is not an interesting theory. ralph nader has not written a book about what might in three people could do this, if you imagine them. i want to go to a list of thing where this has already happened and where it is happen in seven states it can happen in more. we are looking now at the term limit movement. in my least successful press conference was where ralph nader and i in 1992 had one on term limits where in two weeks 14 states would pass with 75% of the vote and not a single reporter showed up because of official washington had zero interest in term limits, and it has revolutionized state government, the committee system, by having this sort of rotating french revolution every six years where the leadership moves on. so term limits has gone across the country, both at the state

level and the government and it shows appear, not only at the presidential level, but in terms of the midi chairs -- of committee chairs. right on crime, where i was working with a group of folks who said we need -- we thought it was 2000, it turns out it was 4000 federal laws -- who we need to keep 75-year-old former bank robbers in prison for the rest of their lives? it cost $50,000 to put some imprisoned for one year in california, $25,000 in florida. those are expensive. you are disrupting communities, families, taking the breadwinner out, you're making it difficult for people to move forward. tough on crime. i am all in favor of executing murderers. i think some people should be in prison on their lives, but not the 2 million we have now. we need to look at what the mandatory minimums are doing. this is where there has been a very good right-left coalition on working, and we have moved this to quite a number of

states, often starting in texas. one of the reasons why there is a problem with right-left illusions all crime is people on the left are afraid they will be called weak on crime, people on calledht will be weak on crime by the right f urther. texas is continuing to reduce the crime rate more rapidly than other states by having two people in prison and perhaps more people under parole or probation, but also asking yourself how many people are you actually want to have in prison. welfaree of corporate is one that we can agree on and we have worked together on this many ago when john kasich is taking lead in coming up with a series of suggestions when both groups on the right and left could agree on. government ought not be stealing people's money and handing it to somebody else, period. we made some progress on that. there's work to be done. earmarks was real progress. right on defense, similar efforts were people were saying,

and the sequester is going to be a help -- the sequester is going to write as people who can say is important to have a strong national defense, a dangerous world out there, advocate the canadians on their side of the , you want to have a strong national defense. but you do not have to waste money. there's a new piece of legislation that i think is very intriguing, but a republican from congress from california that will reduce the number of civilian employees at the pentagon by 100,000. experts say you to do 200,000 still have a strong and robust national defense. there are going to be a series of efforts along these lines the cause the sequester puts a cap for 10 years on the pentagon's budget. the people who want more tanks had better figure out how to reform the procurement system. those people who want more planes had better participate and help when we suggest when we

suggest perhaps we need a compensation system that pays soldiers more and frontload a lot of the resources that we and available to soldiers sailors. so we can reduce the cost of national defense while making it more effective. the sequester is certainly an important project in making that continued. civil liberties. lot ofeft sure a interest. the government, the party of government, friends of government, what they used called loyalists during the revolutionary war, the friends of government always like government have more power because they're convinced government would never abuse it. and i think it is important for republicans to say to their conservative allies, do you really want hillary clinton to have this power you're not planning to give to george w. bush, because at some point he moves on. we trusted him, but do you trust the next guy?

and the people when clinton was accumulating power, it is like this, do you want to hand this to the other team? we can make some progress in limiting the government snooping, the government's mega data collection, and making sure that our civil liberties are taken seriously, and that almost only happens in a left-right coalition because all the people who trust the government always do the right thing do not see anything wrong with the government continually accumulating more and more power. one of the reasons why i think not only did we have this about six or seven fields, and it is moving through various states, some of uit is happening at the federal government, i would testify at a difficult issue, reducing the disparity between how long you are sent to prison for a crack cocaine versus white powder cocaine,100-1 ratio, and it was reduced to 18-1. i testify, and there was this

dance between republican and democrat commander of hopkins said we would be delighted to get rid of this bill, but democrats had passed it and introduced it, and if the rich kratz said if you stop mentioning it was our day, we would like to get out of it to. everybody was afraid we would attack them for being afraid of crack cocaine if they reduced the disparity. 18-1, where that came from, i do not know. said weators... and we will take it. and there you have it, a broad-left right coalition, and looking at mandatory minimums. all the minimums for federal crimes, treason is five years mandatory minimum, ok? things dealing with naked pictures of pictures are 35 years. this was driven by how many people you could get to your press conference when you announced that you -- a message i care, i really do not like carjacking. didke in the 57 states, we

not have laws against carjacking at the time, but some congressmen decided we are going to have to have a press conference so we have a federal law, just have the press conference, but a federal law to make carjacking a federal crime with a miniature and minimum even though states are capable of handling that. to the mandatory and imams were real -- so the mandatory minimums were press conferences, when you look what is important that have a mandatory minimum for. i want to suggest the movement that rough major has written about and that many on the right and the left have begun to participate in is going to grow in strength an. one reason is we have had success. when you see people walk out on the ice and they do not falter, more people are willing to go out there. when politicians hear that right on crime has gotten a series of reductions in how long you have to keep how many people in prison and how much you have to

spend doing it and crime did not and thingst fell, got better and most importantly, nobody lost an election, that they are more willing to move this forward in their own state. the other reason it is going to move is there is nothing else to do in this town. on the negative issues, we are going to raise taxes or cut axis, spend more or less money, that is settled, and as long as you are obama's president and a republican house, we are not raising taxes, but we are not eliminating any eight-government programs, but creating any more, but not cutting taxes either. but on mega issues, nothing moves. it is like two sumo wrestlers for the next two years. they are absolutely equally matched, nobody's getting knocked out of the ring. all of the energy component and state in bc legislatures can look over at the successes that left-right coalition's have had on right on

crime and right on defense and transparency and civil liberties, and i think you will see a lot of the energy and opportunity and talent move into those zones cause for the next two years, the next 20 years, that is an area where we can make real progress for all americans, and i look forward to working with ralph and a lot of other people in this field. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. wor norquist. thek you for according to 12-minute limit we impose it we could have more time for questions. let's start with some questions for both of you, and some people say that the partisan divide is deeper today than it has ever been. do the two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be narrowed? i know you might have touched on this in some of your works, but if we could have a 16th answer to that question. to that two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be

narrowed? yeah, the partisan difference is much greater. year after year the government got bigger, vigor, but always just somewhat bigger. it is easy to agree if you are all heading in the same direction. just a question of speed. cap now have -- we now have two parties, one wants bigger government, one wants smaller government. what would a bipartisan cover buys the? there is no way to do that. they are fundamentally at odds. do that, ralpho and i were work on the other issues. [laughter] precedent, which i know mr. nader will follow, please be the point. >> the partisan divide is in the congress. of people want0%

to prosecute a wall street crooks. there is a real mall street into -- wall street antipathy here. yet innot hit congress terms of any operational momentum. that is what we have to talk about, feeling that cap, pushing this public sentiment of convergence into operational mode. court'se supreme decision -- citizens united decision a good thing or a bad thing for the country? do both of you regard money as free, just like the supreme court did? best as free speech, just like the supreme court did? >> i think everybody should be free to do anything they want, and that includes spending money as they wanted buying ice cream

cones or engaging in politics or making movies or films. yeah, i think the supreme court decision went in the right direction,. just noticed own money in politics, no forced union dues, no taxpayer money. voluntary, fine. >> disagree. i think public elections should be publicly funded patent can be done on a voluntary manner. i think mccain-feingold is an example of the convergence, it has been eroded by 5-4 decisions of the supreme court. money is very corrupting. the idea that money is speech would horrify our founders. and i draw the. decision between corporations and individuals i think corporations are artificial individuals -- entities. they should be subordinated lly to theona

people. the supreme court's revolutionary decisions time and time again are correcting a system in our political economy where operations are supreme over individuals. and that is obviously in my mind a subversion of our democratic process. >> for the next few christians, we will have mr. nader answer first to keep a balance. his apostle have a government of, by, by, and for the people in this country -- is it possible to have the government of, by, and for the people of this country without meaningful campaign reform? because itt, intimidates people who otherwise might you forward them either to run for office or just to be active. when they see mountains of money on the other side and in tv ads, radio ads, and all kinds of apparatus. i think the important thing to remember is if there is no money

in politics, there would still be a problem of mobilizing citizens. they have been so stomped on over the years, we do not teach civic education or civic experience in our schools. youngsters are taught to believe not to think, to obey, not to challenge, that that is always going to remain a problem. and it has in many other countries as well. for money onelixir politics, but certainly we have to start there. it is just getting worse and worse, and it is impeding a variety of candidates from even trying to run. i think it is important that campaign finance reform in order to have her elections. in wisconsin they have taken a step towards that. prior to at 10 passing, public school teacher paid $50,000 a year, had a thousand dollars taken of force without his or her person -- his or her permission by the union. they never voted to join the

united they could not do anything about it. they took a thousand dollars and spent it out as a teacher might want, but as the government wanted to. that law was changed at all dues were voluntary. the unions could not take her money and spend it on whenever they wanted to pick the most important thing in politics is no stolen money in politics, no taxpayer dollars taken from you, and then spent on politics, and no union dues taken through coerced union dues. voluntary union dues, all they want to spend, that is fine. >> last question addressed to both of you, and then i will go into a session of ascii you individually -- of asking you questions. could you concede a left-right candidacy which could focus on attacking the nsa, not the type of trade deals and the federal reserve? mr. nader? yeah, it is this what they

stand for. i do not care what their labels are. barney frank and ron paul had a caucus in the house in 2010 to reduce the military budget. you could not have people further apart on that, but they were very sincere in that area. grover, i never discussed this with you and investor rights versus management. corporations spend money in political campaigns, and do the shareholders have a right to approve or disapprove? would you agree they should? >> yeah, it is easy for an investor to do decide not to other general motors stock or another. it is not easy for a teacher in wisconsin to change jobs. that is a government monopoly that they are working for. i see a distinction there. what was the question? i'm sorry. ron paul has not been the burning man yet.

i think it is unlikely to have the left-right effort show up inside a presidential race, but certainly there are individual pairings on individual issues that are interesting. dog andrt of man bites the president more interested when you can have her pocket and democrat, very conservative free-market republican, liberal together.h that raises these issues and makes the job easier when there are difficult topics. >> now some question for mr. nader. let me say on behalf of everybody, i appreciate the 16th substantive questions that are relative -- the 16th substantive questions. now some question for mr. nader. as having run for the member of how wouldparty,

you rate our two-party system of government can and doesn't need to be overhauled so other parties and some sort of a fair chance, and if so, how? >> i think there is a convergence on ballot access and instant runoff voting. you have libertarian party and green party and green party often collaborating on lawsuits at the state level. they want to open up the system. i the most people in this country regardless of how they vote, hereditary voters, republican, democrat, they want to see more choice, more voice on the ballot. it will bring up more people to vote, and it will be more exciting and more meaningful campaign. that is one. the second is i think in many one the two parties are corporate party with two heads wearing different makeup. we have a convergence on the other side. it is the convergence of corporate democrats and corporate republicans building the corporate state, or as grover said, corporate stateism.

france and called that fascism when heay, in 1938. sent a message of congress to start an investigation commission on concentrated corporate power. he said when private economic power controls government that is fascism. they harass people, getting petitions on the street, they try to wear them down, we were sued 24 times in 2004 in 12 weeks by the democratic party or their allies to get off one state ballot after another. it was pretty depleting for anybody who wants to have a campaign for more that eight weeks after everyday. this combination of corporatism that gets the parties dialing

for the same commercial dollars is getting tighter and tighter. on have the clintons are now the record, their wall street, areoratists, and they militarists. hillary clinton has not seen a war she doesn't not like. this is what we have to really face up to. the law -- we all have different rhetoric on services. there are differences on real things like reproductive rights and school prayer. but on the frontal issues of empire, constitutional observance among civil liberties, maine street versus -- main street versus wall street, on terms of where the government -- the budget will go, necessities of the people, these two parties are converging very great tightly, and we have to break them up and get more competition with other parties and other independent candidates

and break them up in ways that is quickly and functional at the local level, where you can have more choice at the local government level and starts bubbling up to the state and federal. your 2000 race for president is widely acknowledged w.the election to george bush. do you regret running that year, and why or why not? [laughter] >> last i heard bush got more votes from gore than i did. that is a minor thing. i do not think third parties are second-class citizens. if we all have equal rights to run for election, then we are all trying to get votes from one er are allo we eith spoilers are none of us are. when you say spoilers are just been party and it is, anti-slavery, women's right to vote, worker rights, former

right, when you just say that third party candidates are spoilers, that is political bigotry. lame the electoral college 500,000 moreut votes nationwide. the only country in the world where you can come in first and lose the election because of the electoral college. and blame florida, blame the thieves in florida, blame the supreme court. you cannot blame someone exercising constitutional rights to challenge the two parties on at least 15 issues that they are totally ignoring, will not discuss, but have majoritarian support. i have left my website opened document that. ader.org.o to votena this is where there is a nice convergence because it is a civil liberties issue. a very nice convergence. right now there is a left-right convergence to get rid of the electronic college by

interstate compacts, and they have not reached 168 electoral votes. states have passed laws saying we will throw our electoral votes behind whoever wins the popular vote in the united states running for president. so it is only a matter of a couple of years before the electoral college is history. [applause] >> and one last direct question before we go and ask mr. norquist some. mr.idering mr. nader why are you partnering with him on anything? [laughter] we can win on things we agree on. it is very simple. issues.ree on abcd issues.ree on xyz

why should we indulge on this kind of political vanity and be overwhelmed by what i call the yuck factor. this is what liberals have to theover, the yuck factor, liberal intelligentsia, because they do not feel the need out there, they do not have the empathy. they're too busy writing articles and being in the top 1% or 2% in this country to get over it. they are not affected by this. but millions as millions of people can be a media in one area after another. rigid onals are more all these issues i have found that people who are really conservatives,. corporatists in conservative garb. you can see that in the question of the question of the 2000 campaign. get over it. the democratic party could have blocked which on iraq, from the

tax, they succumbed to bush, they could have blocked him. look at what the republicans are doing to obama. get over it. stop's a coding the been party. stop finding an alibi before you're not standing up to the american people and their rights instead of dialing for the same commercial dollars that the republicans do. [applause] questions fore mr. norquist. before rock neighbor came along, the free market has acknowledged a lousy job of protecting consumers from flawed automobiles and corporations ripping them off. why do you think things will be different now if you realize your dream as the questioner asked of drowning government in a bathtub? quote is you want the government to be small enough where you can drag it in the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub it is a question of how

intent, for one's dramatic effect. i think if you look at the history of big government of at&tsm, monopolies like did not exist until the government gave them a government monopoly. on our bellies are created and enforced by the state. i think we -- monopolies are created and enforced by the state. we worked on this together. trucking, on regulation on buses to keep prices high, and airlines as buses, all of these issues, the government came in and set prices on floors, not ceilings. i am not in favor of ceiling zither, but ate like to pretend they're coming into help consumers reap the cost of state interference in the economy is not to make things better, and if you look at the larger not do ats, they do

better job at these things. i think consumers working voluntarily without violence, without the threat of force him to hundred million americans decide how they want to approach things from a consumer's demand increased safety or in products and government can get it. the government can't tell you how to be safe moving away from something that is does not work anymore, just as quickly as congress. i want the economy to be able to predict when safety and health are at risk, to be able to move not as quickly as the fda, but or thekly as microsoft guys who make your iphones. you want the taxi guys fixing things or uber? choose. >> for someone who hates government, why do you support only those candidates who want to use government to control women's health by outlawing abortion in all circumstances as

the republican platform demand? -- demands? >> yeah, why do you hate government? this is the oddest thing. when people who want a limited government are called antigovernment, ok? cancer doctors are not anti- cell. they like cells. some archer for him to do good things. some cells would produce so quickly they hurt you and can kill you, ok? government, where you have some modest and minimal rules i keep your hands on your own stuff and do not touch other people and otherwise you're free to live your life and believe what you want and do what you want, that big -- there is a difference between disagreeing with the government -- with big government and not liking any government. we had wars against people who

were masters at take government. we do not want government that they. we wanted more limited government like we have, and i think our government has gotten too big. many of those 4000 loss, nor can i tell you what they are, and you can be put in prison. we have too many laws, regulations, government should be small. that has nothing to do with hating government. the government created by the constitution is actually a thing of beauty and makes things, people more free. so i am not there with that. i work on tax issues, and i work with candidates who want to keep taxes and spending more limited, and that is what we work on. asking the abortion question again. >> right. why dobrief follow-up,

you support only those candidates who want to use government to control women's health by outlawing abortion in all circumstances? >> i don't. i support a lot of candidates who work there. i focus on tax and spending side of government. candidates come with a big package of issue. the central issue of our day is the total size and scope of government. and reducing that as an overall cost in how people operate, that is what we work on. >> [indiscernible] well, we asked the question and he answered it as he wishes. i'm still been asking about for a more specific response -- >> there is a false premise in the question. i will not do that. --taxture reform when

reform went nowhere in this congress. don't you think that you're no new taxes pledge inhibits lawmakers from devising a better, fairer tax system? >> the question was does the taxpayer protection pledge get in the way of tax reform. no. as a matter fact, if we remember back in 1986, the only reason we could do the tax reform act of 86 was that the pledge existed. it is why i created it about because there was a very few told a bunch of congressmen to go into a smoke-filled room and think something up, what they brought back, because they would move all the little pieces back and forth come at the end of the day, it would be a trojan horse for higher tax. no matter how much did it, what they would bring back would be a net tax increase. reagan said i will veto the next membersease and i got

to say they will not vote for a but that was enough to force tax reform, revenue neutral, lower rates, run the base. pledge, youhout the do not get tax reform. you just get tax increases. the pledge is why we got the sequester, because the president could not talk people into a trillion tax increase, which is what we he was asking from a supercommittee. $1.4 trillion in higher taxes. obama wanted another $400 billion in spending, and we agreed it could be cut. i was taken aback by the $1.4 trillion tax increase. i would love to focus on that. when do we get to talk about the $200 billion spending cuts we all agree on? percentages of

the republican party getting elected by promising to their constituents that they would not raise no net tax increase, and promised me, and harry reid sometimes the states that, i am sure by mistake, the pledge, if you read it online, is to the voters of your states and to the american people. that i will oppose efforts to raise taxes. only if you convince the people that the tax reform you're talking about is not a trojan youe for a tax increase can ever get a consensus to do tax or form. i would argue that is the opposite of what the premise that somebody tried to put into the question. only when happens taxpayers are convinced that it is not a hidden tax increase. two more questions for each of you, if we could keep the answers brief, and i thank you both for doing that. i have one last question for both of you.

stir norquist, do you think the republicans who shut down the government again, if president obama does not accede to their policy demands? >> no, i do not think they should take the approach that was taken last year. i think what it would have been better to have passed shorter bills. the idea shutting down the government and thinking that the press will focus on the issue you want them to focus on instead of the shutdown is historically inaccurate and not a good idea. and besides, we are taking the senate in a couple months, so hold your horses. >> mr. nader, if you could briefly say, what is your most serious disagreement with mr. norquist. me.xcuse reg elation. a health and safety -- regulation. health and safety standards are absolutely essential because people cannot discern the degree of pollution in the air, water, food come in missions from nuclear plants, all the things

that are invisible forms of violence. i even got milton friedman, when debating him once in pittsburgh, to agree them he was against all regulation, including licensing of doctors. i said, you mean a barber can put a sign up and say cardiovascular surgery, social price? people, sooner or later will find that. sooner or later. [laughter] he did agree pollution had to be regulated because there's a sensory -- there is no sensory -- there's nothing that people can detect. cannotmonoxide, you smell or taste it. that is an area i think i can persuade a lot of people, including grover, because last i heard he breathes. he smells. he eats. he drinks. and the more we can get together on the things we already agree upon in principle, the easier it will be to enlighten each other. i think they will enlighten us

on some of the real wasteful programs that we have been very fearful of challenging for fear that they will all go down the drain 100%. it undermines the support the for these programs. more of this will come if you subscribe to my column f say,der.org, and i want to grover, i will pay for one full-time person if you pay for one full-time person and we will start right on the spot in a few weeks, the first totally committed convergent advocacy group in america. we're almost out of time, but for asking laceration, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would remind you of our upcoming events. ken burns, september 16. ceo of wells

fargo. mr. norquist and mr. nader, you're welcome to come back and join the audience answered the questions. i would like to present our guests with the traditional national press club mug. mr. nader, i hope you got 110 years ago. you can add this to the collection. mr. norquist, here's your first one, i believe, and i am sure you will be back for another one. can you each take 30 seconds to answer the following. i know we are a democratic republic, but if you were emperor of america for one day, what would you do? mr. norquist, you first -- >> shoot the emperor. no emperors, never. [laughter] >> and mr. nader? >> abdicate. [laughter] i like his answer better.

comingk you again for today. thank you especially to our very special guest of honor. we are adjourned. [applause] [applause] >> a quick pogrom update. the justice department plans to open