in connecticut, we are making progress. we are moving forward. we should be proud of that. i'm proud to talk about connecticut in very strong fashion about how far we have come and how far we have yet to go, but people will make predictions based on tom's record and my record, and i suppose it will be discussed. >> ambassador foley. >> it's extremely important, both truthfulness and integrity, which is related to ethics. the governor of any state, but the governor of connecticut is the single most important person having an impact on the people's lives in the state. and so, it is critical to that role and to leadership that that be a person who is trusted both in what they say, that what they say is factual, that what they say doesn't misrepresent the truth or misrepresent the

situation, and i have talked about malloy because i think the governor and his staff have repeatedly tried to distort what is going on in the state. we will talk more about that tonight. i think that is a lack of truthfulness that discredits a leader. i think ethics is extremely important because if the citizens don't believe that their government is serving their interests and representing them well and that there are deals being done, money is being spent for insiders to dictate policy and that the government isn't serving the interests of ordinary, everyday citizens, that lack of public confidence compromises somebody possibility to lead. both are absolutely essential. i don't recall the governor saying he thought i did not tell the truth.

i have questions for the governor ethically. i think they will be important issues to the campaign. >> let me remind everybody there are three of us on the stage and only one of us has violated the law in connecticut with respect to elections and paid a fine this year because of that. i think you are absolutely right. history is a precursor to the future. with respect to the issues we will debate back and forth, i want to be very clear that i don't think you have told the truth about it. you never did and i don't think you're telling it as of today. >> let's move on. this race is gaining national attention. quite a bit of rest in the back row.

largely because of the gun issue. i would like to spend a minute or two looking at that. here is a question i have not heard either one of you address. in february of this year. 200 citizens reminding them or informing them that their application to register their assault weapon or high-capacity magazine was rejected. we have a list. names, addresses, we know how -- what weapons and how many. we also have a law that says if you're in possession of unregistered weapons, it's a felony. are we going to enforce that law? >> i think we are enforcing the law. a number of those issues were resolved. i did not know you were going to ask that question and i don't have an exact number for you.

>> 208. >> let me be very clear. i believe no person with a felony should be able to buy a gun in connecticut. i believe that everyone should be subject to a background check. if i can't get on a plane without someone doing a background check on me, i don't think that should be having people buying guns without background checks. some of those folks have mental illness, some of those folks have recent -- this is unbelievable. they have recent domestic orders against them and they were trying to buy a gun. i believe we save the life and i think that legislation is important.

what we've done is make connecticut safer. i can point to real statistics. crime is down. homicides are down. only the fourth time in 45 years that homicides have been less than 100 and they are at 83. and this very year we are sitting on the stage, we are running at the same rate we were last year. cousin mobley we would have the fifth year. making schools safer and teachers safer. if that is what this fight is about, let them be joined. >> you will not seek a repeal of this law and you see no reason to try to spend time changing it. so would be safe in assuming that if you get elected, you take the oaths of office and uphold the laws in the state of connecticut, you will enforce

the law and get those guns? >> afore we answer that, let me talk about guns because this is important. we have a terrible tragedy in this state in the news around the world. i consider the state part of that community. we are deeply affected by that. there is a response from the government and the leadership. i said to governor malloy, please respond to this, the needy citizens in the state that want something done. the governor did not do that. and he didn't do things to prevent another new town from happening. i don't think we are safer based on the bill that he passed.

i don't know what his motive was for overreaching, possibly a progressive agenda he is trying to experiment with and maybe there are other issues at hand. this was so overreaching that it went way beyond what would have been an appropriate response. you asked him about law-abiding citizens that were interested in self protection. you say if you don't do something within two or three months, you will be a felon. what were you thinking? that aspect of the law i would change. law-abiding citizens were responsible people, and flip something on them so there is something they did in the past that turns them into appellant is simply unacceptable and is not good leadership and his grandstanding. >> you're only taking time away

from the candidates will give you plenty of time to clap at the end. there are 200 citizens sitting up there and they know they are on a list. they know that they can show up at their door at any moment with an arrest warrant. don't they deserve to know what you're going to do? maybe they are law-abiding. maybe they got rid of them. i am happy to get you an update on what those numbers are and if some of those folks have

rectified the situation. i can't drive a car without a license. i can't sell insurance without a license. tom and i haven't had a conversation about this issue ever. so when tom says he's telling me something, he's not telling the truth. if we had a conversation, i would have asked you should a person be able to buy a gun without a background check? should a person be able to buy a gun without a background check? yes or no. >> no. >> should a person with a mental illness be able to buy a gun without a background check? >> it would depend on the severity of the mental illness and with the diagnosis was. >> what about someone who has a recent order against them? a protective order? >> you want to go over the whole bill? >> it's the first opportunity they have had to ask you. >> the things we say that we are

interviewed in the press are available in the press. if you're not looking at it, your staff can tell you i did tell you this. >> you admit we never had a conversation? >> we have conversations all the time in the press. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's about these two guys. it give them the respect and let them have this conversation so that we are better informed. >> to go one step further, there is an organization that has or is about to endorse tom foley for governor. on the basis of his gun position. the president of that organization said that they had that discussion with tom foley where he says they would sign an appeal of that legislation i have heard tom say that they

would consider signing an appeal. let me be very clear. if an appeal comes to mean, i will never sign a repeal. i will have a discussion about how to make that law better and the discussion how to make it work easier for folks. it has led to lower crime, fewer homicides, safer schools, teachers, administrators, they will be very clear. >> this is where you're twisting the truth again. what i said is that if the legislature handed me a repeal provision, i would sign it. that's not saying i would seek repeal of the bill. i have looked at what it would take to be able to pardon anybody who was pursued for one of these felonies and the governor doesn't pardon people directly but he appoints commissioners to the pardoning board. if i am governor, if anybody is

pursued under this law for not having registered a firearm, i will make sure they are not prosecuted. >> you clearly didn't read the legislation that governs -- or the provisions that govern pardons. you have to be really specific about this stuff. you should tell us about the other litmus tests that you have at some point. you accuse people of a career politician.

that answer you just gave was a career politician answer. i don't know if it will get to me, but if it gets to me i will sign it. it get it done, have it get before me. which is a very different position. >> will you get your questions in today? the governor talked about crime rates. violent crime rates have gone down across the country. we have three of the top six cities with the highest crime rates in the country. hartford and new haven. for the governor to be going around saying that crime is low and not a problem is insulting to those communities. we have to get crime rates down. people are afraid to leave their homes at night.

young people are being shot and killed and businesses are being affected. the governor says everything is fine with crime. >> i did not say everything is fine with crime. that is why i was in new haven last friday with a mother who lost her son and her sister who had lost his son 10 years before. that is why i am encouraging communities to be reinvested in community police. something that is leading to a larger drop in crime for the national average. that is why we brought project longevity which are leading in the decline in the national average. we are down for the fourth time in 45 years and we are going to do it again this year by all reports. that is real progress and i am

proud of it. we are proud of the efforts they are putting in to make schools stronger and make housing stronger. if you want to know what causes crime, it's the failure in many cases of public housing project that we are allowed to deteriorate to become really dance. -- dense. i get excited about the possibilities of connecticut. if you want to lead with the fact that those communities have high crime, i understand that. but they're also dropping that crime very substantially. the mayor of new haven, the mayor of bridgeport, they should be proud. >> the governor describes progress which i would not consider progress. we're the only state that has three cities in the crime rate statistics.

>> they were tops before i was governor. >> we can move onto the next one. education. i think i received more e-mails from people that wanted me to have you folks talk about education. you have criticized this administration for education funding based on a percentage of the overall budget over these four years. if you look at the actual dollars being spent, it has increased each year. why do you feel that the percentage of education funding is more important than the actual dollars? >> it shows the commitment and priority of the governor. he has failed to do anything about state spending so it is skyrocketing. he squandered the tax increase

that he put on connecticut citizens in 2011. we are already spending more than that. if they are slowing down in terms of the rate of growth, it is less of a priority for you than the things you're speeding up. i look at performance. in the performance in our schools is actually dropped. i was the one who started talking about the need to fix schools in 2010. we have the largest achievement gap. it is simply inexcusable. the assessments used to measure the achievement gap, on one of them we approved -- improved and others we got worse. we have slipped. we will get real performance. they initiated real education reform and were eight best in the nation and we were six. since then, massachusetts is

going to number one. we have lost further ground under governor malloy and this will be a top priority. the promise of america is fairness. an opportunity. they are not getting a decent education. the level of funding has decreased. >> if your plan to control state spending is to keep funding level for the first two years, how do you correct what you obviously see as a problem of the percentage of money going to education?

>> you have to have smarter policies. not all things that affect educational outcomes cost money. some of these are policy related. he is doing things that basically don't work and we know from the experience of other states, they don't work. other things have been done in other states that do work that he is not doing. as a measure of the priority that he places. >> i sense that you have something to say. >> i do. we haven't heard a specific proposal on education. and we have this kind of convoluted argument about whether we are spending the same

percentage or a higher percentage. to get to the number you get to, you are including all of the additional money coming to connecticut. not for education, primarily medicaid, but 500,000 people that the state cares for because of mental illness because of age and disease. you are including all of that. in fact, the average increase -- we have found hundreds of millions of dollars to send to school districts.

let me say what we are doing. we are working with the school to turn it around. the principles, the boards of education, a complete teacher bias. to make sure that school does things better and has the resources necessary to turn itself around. it is paramount for success in school. we created a thousand additional spots. in the state of connecticut, they would not have a prekindergarten experience. we know what works in education. thousands and thousands of teachers and parents would've

lost their jobs. last size would balloon. the new haven community that you say that you care about would be hit the hardest. we are doing things to turn education around. that is why we now rank number one in reading. that is why we now rank number one tied with two other states. and the number of students taking advanced placement tests and their performance including 13.5% of those people that come from poor backgrounds. i am proud of that, i am proud graduation rates have gone up every single year since i have been governor. i am proud of the progress we are making that the kids are making and that the administrators are making and that the board of education are making. this is important stuff.

if you want to talk about economic development, it's not overnight. it's built line by line, career by career. school by school. that is what we are doing. >> let me stay on that point if i can. your education reform has had some serious pushback. how much of that do you attribute to your remark about teacher tenure that they only have to show up? >> i should admit that was bad language and it was not actually about them. you have a time in which it becomes very important and it is treated differently. i shouldn't have said it and i apologize for saying that. let's go back to the reference to governor wells. what we are doing under my administration is what massachusetts did in the 1990's under that administration. the same thing. access to prekindergarten, smaller classroom size.

extended days when applicable. schools closer to where the kids are living. holding people accountable. not just teachers. administrators, kids, and parents. to point out governor wells success for something he started in the 90's and say massachusetts is making progress, you're absolutely right. it has been done over time. there is this other thing that tom sometimes uses when he describes educational reform. he says i am education reform light. he wants to bring in other systems that he hasn't said a single word about, about what he would do. >> i have a couple things to say here. first of all, you have just introduced maloy madness into the debate.

you say spending has only gone up by 28% but you have taken out of the budget a very significant amount of money which is the federal portion of medicaid. you have taken it out of the revenue side and spending side so you're not being truthful with the audience here. if you add that spending back end or if you take it out of the base year budget, it's gone up while -- over 4.5%. you're simply misleading people and twisting the numbers. stop doing it because the citizens deserve to know what is going on. if you're going to change something important to the schools, why wouldn't you include teachers and the dialogue -- in the dialogue echo teachers have the highest impact

on educational outcomes. we need teachers, good teachers. we need them to feel appreciated and we need them to be well compensated. you came up with a proposal and rammed it down everybody's throats without consulting. they are the ones that will have to implement this. it's not going to work. there is a little bit of style here that's a problem. you had engage people in the dialogue. you have to believe in it. and you mandated from the capital that we are going to tell everybody what to do. guess what? under local control, a lot of schools are doing a great job in connecticut. go to the problem and fix the schools that are broken.

they rammed assessment at, core down our schools and communities that already have very good assessments, you loaded a whole new set of parameters on top of them to take away from teaching time. i'm not surprised you got some pushback. >> you have been running for governor for five years. and you don't really understand the legislative process. we have a bill that people agreed to. in fact, the review process was led by teachers. we always have to work with teachers. and they have ignored them for times, leaving teachers in the lurch. every step of the way, nancy has met with teacher groups and individual teachers with heads of the associations to have

those very discussions. and you want by district school choice and that will happen your one. what do you think it does to their pride? hartford, new haven, and bridgeport. and you're happy to ignore them when it works for you. tom, people have looked at what you have said and what i have said about education spending. everyone says that when you said i was spending less money that you are not telling the truth. it is less than the percentage would be. but you're talking about federal program dollars. i take pride in the fact we have introduced obamacare better than

any other state in the nation. and we started years before hand. and it cause federal dollars to come into the state and tom says we should compare. >> let me point out your down to 10 minutes now. >>

we are talking about a lot of things. when you talk about education reform, it's all about doing a better job for children. to make better choices on behalf of the children, i'm for it. the governor apparently isn't. i do have an education policy and a plan that restoring pride and prosperity, maybe you haven't read it. i have a lot of initiatives for education reform that i think will make schools better and better things that you didn't do. we will see. >> give us your take about what happened in sprague, what did you do there? >> it is promoting the governor, he is complicit in it. i went in support of the hundred 45 people -- 145 people that lost their jobs there. they are contributing to driving jobs out of connecticut.

i was met by senator austin who was sent there i assume by the governor and the staff. she was a heckler. she was heckling me, and got a little tired after the first few minutes. they contribute to those jobs being lost. i went there for that reason. it has nothing to do with the big company. there are two members of the union there, i don't know if they work there or just members of the union leadership.

and the senator and the press corps, and one other person is a registered republican. i said that senator austin had failed because she was involved in some of the policy decisions. when i say it failed, it simply not true. they were saying that they had tried to negotiate a better deal. it has failed. the leaders had failed to keep their jobs there. >> what happened there? >> i don't know quite what the

governor is talking about, suggesting that i shut down a mill that was shut down several years after i sold it. it was a growth of 3000 jobs in that company. he is suggesting it's a $20 million and i don't know where he gets this stuff here it is nothing like that going on. i didn't even pay myself a salary. there are no domestic manufacturers that the company made now.

so, listen, i think i did a very good job with that company, losing $14 million or $50 million when i bought it. it would have gone under if i hadn't gotten involved, i kept

it going for another 11 years. we protected the benefits and employment of the workers that were there and the deal that was reached. they sold to another company and closed it in 1998 or 1999. it was integrated to another company that eventually failed. to blame me for that is simply

untrue. >> briefly before we go on to another subject. >> in 1995, you said you closed two mills and consolidated others. you are being quoted. what a to tell people who the subsequent owners were? bond owners you had defaulted on with a $9 million loan payment. as you were running the company into the ground and taking fees. you were quoted by a reporter that had another conversation with you about your continuation of taking fees as late as 1994 and 1995. you were a 90% owner of the company and when all of that transpired and the bondholders took stock because they were not going to be paid in bonds, your percentage went over 90% to 5%. you were on the board when another factory closed. so when i say -- by the way, you

looked at her worker and told them it was their fault. when those factories in the south, you left out that you bought another company -- [indiscernible] and you split off things along the way and kept some, right? [talking over each other] did you keep one of the things? >> you are the governor of the state of connecticut. people are feeling a huge squeeze in this state. their incomes might be level or declining and the cost of living is going up. a lot of people can't afford to live in this state anymore. way too many people are unemployed. why are you spending so much

time looking at some deal i supposedly did in the 1990's? you must've spent hours on that. [applause] >> leaves. -- please. >> why are you insulting voters with ads about something you claim happened and i claim didn't happen with a very different story on television and have a real interest in knowing about the future of

connecticut. it is insulting to voters. stop the negative ads. >> let me be very clear. you admitted that the company was in trouble as of 1988 after you purchased -- >> so you spent more time on it? >> you told us it will take eight years. and you leave out that you defaulted to your bondholders. i think it is important.

when you show up to the town, not having called the mayor or anybody to make a point about me, and you're blaming water bills that are municipal and not state. when the company that you own failed, did you go to their governors and blame them? [cheers and applause]

>> you are not helping anybody, you are really not. please, quiet. let them talk. you get your chance on november 4. >> we grew 3000 jobs when i owned it, the company was much better off as a result of my ownership. if the governor wants to spend hours studying this, i don't think voters care. when you talk about the future of connecticut. >> tom, before you even closed 3on that purchase, you had agreed to sell -- >> we are talking weeks you must've spent on this. >> tell us how you grew those

jobs. you never said that before. you acquired other firms which, by the way, is what ultimately caused it to fail. >> let's move on. one of the questions i get asked more than any other question is why does the state of connecticut take hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the company move from one city to

the next? >> we don't. we don't in my administration. in a prior administration we did hate to move. -- pay to move. any deal requires the addition of jobs. in 1000 jobs in the case you're talking about. incomes far in excess of $100,000. so when tom says people are hurting, i'm trying to do things to bring jobs to the state. let's talk about reality. when we started our recovery in the state of connecticut in february of 10, we have grown more than any other state in new england. we are 22 percentage points ahead on new housing starts.

the commerce department came out just recently, stating last quarter growth. we were better than every other state in new england and we knocked the socks off of most of them. you can get people to come to your state or keep them in your state and try to get jobs. there are other things you have to do. i have done that on your behalf. this is a lot of long-term hard work. i was mayor stanford for 14 years. >> this is really simple. the governor is driving jobs out of state and is having to bribe people to stay here. he is antibusiness, he has antibusiness policies. overzealous regulation. he taxes the citizens and has driven up the cost of energy. other mandates and employers. the rhetoric, if i were to listen to him, i would really be

upset. multiple billions of dollars at this point. to help people get reelected. they have something to do with people assessing his performance. he is using taxpayer money to get businesses to stay here. there isn't anybody that has taken a course in economics that would make sense for a state to pay $1 million to bring the job to the state. he is doing this. what about bridgewater? you can't say you didn't try. >> for 1000 additional jobs, in excess of $100,000. >> you are a businessman. you know that there are 49 other governors in the state with an incentive package ready to hand over any company that would move into their state. when governor christie started luring companies, what did you do to keep them here. >> like stepping on the accelerator. he is antibusiness policies and rhetoric. all he has to do is take the foot off the brake. and having policies -- >> struggling with extra cost. have a progrowth agenda that is not antibusiness, it's

supportive of employers. you have to make sure you're trying to bring employers here. that is not everybody. the taxpayer dollars are being passed as well. once these incentives were off, they are going to leave if they are not already here. >> if other states are not competing for the jobs, we know that is not the case. just in california, they passed a new package because we are getting some of their jobs, appropriating $329 million. in bc sports moved from new york city and came to connecticut. our investment we got 35 jobs from your friends. we are building strength in the future. that is what we are doing.

we have taken their playbook. they talk about small business. and i became governor, there were no tools to help small business. that is why we created the small business express. we made them with and and over 1200 firms. creating 4000 jobs. we save those small businesses because we were doing that at a time that we could not get any money from traditional banks. i am proud that black men and hispanic women and caucasian men

and women have all kinds of people finding jobs in the state of connecticut, good paying jobs. i don't want to be served in a restaurant by somebody. i don't want did be having someone show up at a nursing home who has the flu can get other people sick. when we were running for governor, and i ran saying i am supported of this. they did not have that benefit, they went to work sick because they were afraid they would lose their job. they took care of the grandmother in the nursing home. >> when i hear you talk and i hear all the people i am talking to going around the state running for governor, sometimes i wonder if we live in a

different state. you're talking about creating jobs and this is working well. it has only grown 1%, not 1% a year. 1%. on your website there is a place that says they picked up 10,000 jobs. but the job increase we are using, they picked up the year before you became governor after the recession. while you have been governor, we have picked up 15,000 jobs a year. and last year, 9200 jobs. we have one of the worst recovery rates in the country. massachusetts has grown 11%. it is not reasonable.

it is what you are doing. you're hurting the citizens of the state with your policies and if you don't believe it, go talk to the people i have been talking to losing jobs. people that lost jobs because of your policies and have had to take on lower paying jobs or retired people that thought they would be able to retire at 65 and are still working at 70 because the cost of living is going up. i think you have a driver that takes you around and you need to get out and talk to the citizens of connecticut because they don't feel your policies are working. >> you made a reference, you have created your own mathematics. every time you say that isn't true, somebody looks at it and they say, it is true.

an independent person. newspapers, columnists, they've all done the numbers. i understand that what you have to do is make everyone feel as bad as they can. and make things out as bad as they possibly can. we are working really hard to sustain connecticut in the future path of creating jobs of investing in infrastructure. we are doing it as rapidly as we can for ourselves, for future generations. the idea that someone, after working 120 hours could accumulate one hour of sick time for every 40 hours they work. you talk about where i live, you live in a great place. i love it. but people in glass houses

probably shouldn't throw stones. [applause] when i went to sprague, i did not get out of the backseat of the bmw. >> let me talk about the labor numbers because they really are important. there is a nonfarm labor number. the private sector wages have gone down. the gdp -- if he has created 70,000 jobs, that means average incomes have gone down. it's not really a great story.

there is another set of data called connecticut resident employment. the nonfarm data is by employers. the resident employment numbers are filled out by households, connecticut residents. the governor is including jobs in connecticut that are actually people that live in massachusetts and rhode island and new york. many of those construction jobs are going to people that live in massachusetts. this is with connecticut taxpayer dollars. he is including people that live in other states and leaving out people who work on farms, people who are self-employed, and a host of other people your are connecticut citizens who i assume you represent.

that 10,000 job number since you were elected governors, that is the number i would look at. we shouldn't be spending to create jobs for people in other states. they should be looking after everybody in the state, not just people who work on farms and big companies. >> i want to ask one last question. i want to and this on a positive note. i think the three of us can agree that connecticut is a great place to live. you have 30 seconds. how do you make connecticut even better? >> we continue to invest in education and infrastructure. i don't believe you think only 10,000 have gone to connecticut residents.

they make the kinds of investments that can be competitive, in bioscience, and higher education that is making great progress and employing more people. >> how do we make connecticut even better? >> we have a skill to work for us, other universities and institutions, a beautiful shoreline and a rich history. we have so many things going for us but we have leadership taking us in the wrong direction. it is like the captain of the ship that is trying to get to the caribbean and the passengers are seeing icebergs. most people would say, let's get a new captain. we should be doing much better, we can do much better. >> we reach the point where it is time for the closing remarks.

ambassador foley, you go first. let me make sure martin here has his timer set and ready. >> thank you for listening to us tonight and i want to thank ray for hosting us. this is his last election. governor malloy and the one-party rule have brought us where we are. we have anemic job and economic growth partly because of the large tax increase in 2011. people in connecticut are hard-working. i call it the big squeeze. incomes are declining and the cost of living is skyrocketing. many people feel they can't afford to live here anymore. spending is continuing to rise out of control. we have squandered the 2011 tax increase and he has no plan to

get control over spending. he will have to raise taxes and that will make these problems even worse. i have been traveling around the state and talking to people. they think governor malloy has had his chance. they think is progressive policy experiment hasn't worked, isn't working, and has put a terrible burden on the citizens. they want change. what do we do about it? we need to get control over spending. we need to reduce taxes for working families. we make the environment more supportive. i have a plan for doing so.

it's called the "restoring pride and prosperity to connecticut." it talks about how we will get this done. >> times up, sir. >> i hope you read it and i look forward to taking connecticut in a better direction. >> governor, you get two minutes. >> ambassador, thank you for participating. the other day i was at a school that had been closed. today, we opened it. there are kids that want to go into a trade. you can say as many nasty things about me and you want, i take pride in making sure that young people have a pathway to success. they help support the family that he was part of. he would be 100 to today -- 102

today. he would be impressed. i can look at myself in the mirror and say, dad, i am trying to do what you would do. no shortcuts. get control of spending -- we are doing that. it control of taxes -- we are doing that. make important investments -- we are doing that. i have done about 70 town hall meetings in the time that tom has been running for governor. this is about real people and lifting them up. 60,000 jobs created, $10.10 for base salary. no american should work 35 or 40 hours a week and still live in

poverty. and i am proud that we are going to move forward. i am very clear, nobody sick should be made to go to work except perhaps in some alternate universe where that makes sense. i am proud of what we are doing. we are investing in the future. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, now you may applaud. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> c-span's campaign 2014

coverage will continue every weekend until election day. will air sunday beginning at noon eastern here on c-span. midterm elections were a topic that president obama spoke about what he was asked about it possible majority change in the senate. the elections matter, i think votes matter. the punditryt that felt that this was going to be a good year for senate republicans because the ints that were up were

states that were tilting or republicanly majorities, if democrats hold the senate i think that should again --licans to once >> it sends a message. >> it sends a message to republicans that people want to tuff done. that their strategy of obstructing and saying no to legislationof that might help, that that is an agenda of the american people reject. and that might give us room for some compromises. ihave said it before, when was asked what i wanted in august for my birth day i wanted a loyal opposition that had some cents.

drsense. >> both chambers of congress return after their recess. the house also returns. they begin by considering a series of bills. > host: he's the senior editor t cq roll call. majority leader kevin mccarthy released a memo with the agenda on what the house is going to be working on. your paper reported on one of those items. the headline is, house republicans plan a vote condemning obama for bowe bergdahl swap. what is the aim here?

guest: it's a resolution for blaming obama for not following the proper channel. it is a way of embarrassing the administration. there is as republican narrative that he is somehow going above the law. one of the items not on the agenda was the house gunning for vote of military strike against isis. you have an article with them laying groundwork. what do you think will happen there? >> i think there will he a lot.

we're hearing some democrats been tooat this has feeble into does organize. hill.re coming up to the there's going to be some effort sure he has proper legal authority should he decide to do anymore bombing strikes. in termsthey really do of any kind of strike? it ultimately does rest with the executive. this'll be a forum to critique or defend the administration's efforts. >> they are looking at votes on both jobs and energy bills. as your people point out, that would change the senate. what are some of the details. how might house democrats respond? >> this in the will --this in no

way will be signed into law before mid term elections. i think you will probably see partyline votes from democrats in swing districts facing tough elections. we will see this all year long. i would expect the hand to ignore everything that the house passes. for a senate is looking procedural vote on a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending. ?hy is this coming up now bring up iner to something that raises money and politics. raised by aces assured to mexico who comes through the supreme court movement that he

really did increase the role of money in politics. it gives congress a much more role in controlling outside spending. this really resonates with people in the real america. it also runs into potential first amendment issues. republicans will say it read -- on free speech. >> you tweeted about something that actually could go somewhere. this is the spending bill expected in the house next week. is the status? what are some of these must have bills. >> we think the only thing that will be passed before the mid-time is the stop gap spending bill that will carry this until the new fiscal year. the question is how many

leadersus issues the are willing to allow into that. there's the reauthorization of the tank eared will they deal with the migrant crisis. tol they make extra money rate?s the ebola out the administration has put forward a wish list of spending anomalies that is like if you want to make changes this is what we think should happen. it will be up to a lame duck session of congress to take the funding where they want to. choose.r they >> it is the late-night holiday

season. >> thank you for the information. we will follow your paper. congressionaleek leaders will meet with the president tuesday to discuss a range of foreign-policy issues. this is likely to top all. the meeting will occur one day before the president gives a speech. you can let for this wednesday on the c-span networks. this was part of a recent theussion with those from obama administration. they discussed whether they were contributing factors escalating tensions. over one hour. >> thank