hampshire, the last call on this topic and that's the end of the show. another addition of "washington at 7:00 comes your way tomorrow morning and thank you for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> well, we have a pretty busy day ahead here for you on c-span. we'll start with our live programming at 12:15 eastern and a pentagon update on operations in afghanistan. that's at 12:15 eastern. a little bit later, we'll bring ou a discussion on the ebola outbreak.

speakers include the head of the c.b.c.'s national center for emerging infectious diseases. that's live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. and then later this afternoon, we'll go back to the pentagon for a joint briefing with chuck hagel and his french counterpart. we expect them to talk about the bombing campaign against isis in syria and iraq. that will be live at 5:00 eastern. tonight we will continue our coverage of campaign 2014 with another debate, one of over 100 we'll be bringing you this campaign season. tonight we'll be focusing on the oklahoma governor's race between joe dorman and mary fallin. live at 8:00 eastern. and looking at the u.s. capitol here on this thursday morning where former secret service director julie pearson testified earlier this week before stepping down. earlier today we spoke with a reporter about her resignation. >> good morning. >> so tell us a little bit about this interview and how you got it?

>> well, it was my colleague who got the interview. he is the author of "raw hide down," about the secret service response to the shooting of president reagan. so he has a long standing relationship the service and was able to get ms. pearson on the phone yesterday for the exclusive interview. >> how did she react from the resignation and everything that we saw on the news yesterday? >> well, she decided that it was time to go, that the noise was getting to a level where it was too much where it was going to be a distraction if she stayed, so she figured it was the right thing to do at that time, given the mounting criticism that had really crescendoed after her testimony two days ago. >> what did she say about her tenure and her oversight of the agency? >> she is very proud of her service. she served for 31 years with the service, and while she was only the director for 18 months, she broke the glass ceiling by being the first female director of the service.

and that's a big deal in a service that is extremely male dominated. >> and she talked about her time, 31 years, you know w. that one agency, a rarity, i guess, as far as that line of work is concerned. what else did she express? >> she's hopeful for the future of the agency. there, of course, is an independent review that's going to be conducted by the department of homeland security, which houses the secret service. so they'll be looking at the fence jumper and the other incidents, and to be clear, the problems with the agency predated her becoming the director. the agency had already been under criticism. she was the one that was supposed to clean it up, and the challenges maybe were a bit too much for one person to fix in a year and a half. >> so now that she's out, who's overseing? >> the temporary replacement is a man named joseph clancy who is a retired agent. he's coming out of retirement, and he's not thought to be the permanent next director of the

secret service, but he's yesterday will -- the press secretary made it clear that mr. clancy does have authority to make changes during the time he's in the role if he sees that fit. >> what does the white house say about its trust in the agency itself? you heard one -- one story from josh earnest, but from what maybe what you looked at talking to other people, what's the level of trust there? >> what josh said yesterday was really telling. up through yesterday morning, the white house, including josh, had been saying that they had confidence. it went from full confidence to confidence. but they were still using the word confidence in the agency. and then yesterday afternoon, obviously, things were completely different. and the white house, obviously, has great trust in the agents who work very hard to protect the president and his family, but the overall agency, i think s. where the problems are, the organization, and the individuals work hard. josh even yesterday afternoon

was careful to praise the men and women of the secret service for doing their jobs well and protecting the president and scores of other heads of state at the u.n. general assembly just a couple weeks ago in new york. but there have been these lapses that led the president to lose confidence in the director and to obviously be upset at the lack of communication between the service and the executive. >> couple lines in the papers this morning that there's a possibility that the next head of the secret service might come from outside its walls. >> it certainly could. the -- the most recent director came from within, but sometimes when an agency needs wholesale change, which it sounds like what is being asked for here, they bring in someone from the outside. we certainly saw that with the veterans administration earlier this year, where shinseki left as director after a more

prolonged debate over whether he was the right person to reform that agency, and president obama baud in somebody from the business world to lead the v.a. so we could see a similar sort of replacement here. >> as someone who travels to the white house object a regular basis, do you notice differences in security? >> yes, there are extra temporary barriers. they sort of look like bike racks, that are set up 10 feet or so outside of the permanent white house fence. and they have signs on them that say police line, do not cross. so that's -- that's the very temporary solution to the fence jump incident, one more barrier. but it's sort of like a large hurdle to cross before you would get onto the white house grounds. but it's not definitely an attractive solution and it's critically important the service balance access, not only for the press and for people that go to the white house regularly, but more importantly for all the ordinary people that come and

visit washington and want to see the white house. balance that with security of the president and everyone else inside the complex. >> what about the points of entry, doors? do you see more security around those? >> well, i had an opportunity yesterday to walk through the door where the fence jumper got in the day that he breached the white house, and there is a lock on that door. so they can certainly lock it if they want to. i would assume that the alarm system that was apparently turned off that night won't be turned off like it used to be. so at the -- the door to the white house is not very different because to get to the door you go through several layers of security already. but there's always measures of security with the secret service that are not obvious to the naked eye either. >> angela on the phone with us to talk about the resignation of the secret service director and other related things. before we let you go, a little bit about the president's speech today on the economy. what do we expect to hear?

>> yeah, today the president is in chicago. he will be speaking this afternoon at northwestern university. and he'll be talking about the economy in that speech. we've got just about a month to go until the elections, so one of the messages that the president is sounding as he tries to help democrats hold onto the senate is that the u.s. economy is good. there are some lines in his speech that we've heard before and will likely hear again today about how the auto industry has recovered. there's less unemployment, and one of the things that we expect to hear today is a message that the u.s. economic progress is better than that of other nations. for sure the economy is a preeminent concern of voters, so we can expect to hear this message between now and election day as well. angela, bloomberg news, white house correspondent. thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> and we'll have live coverage of president obama at northwestern university in illinois this afternoon where he'll talk about the economy

and some other issues. you'll be able to watch it online at c-span.org beginning at about 2:15 eastern. the c-span city's tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. and this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to boulder, california. >> my book is called "the beast in the garden," because it's a book about a large animal that in ancient times or in american history we would have called a beast, the mountain lion, in what is really a garden. and that is boulder, colorado. boulder is a beautiful, seemingly natural place. but in many ways it has been altered by humankind. and when you get this wild animal coming into this artificial landscape, you actually can cause changes in the behavior of that animal. a mountain lion's favorite food is venison. they eat about one deer a week. and then the deer living on the outskirts of this beautiful,

lush city, where we have irrigated gardens and lawns, the city attracted the deer. and so we had a deer herd living in downtown boulder. then the lions move back into the area. they first were in open space ear area. then they discovered there were deer in town. so the deer lured the lions into town. then the lions discovered that they could eat dogs and cats. that's foot for -- food for them. and so the lions were learning, and they have learned that this is where they will find food. yes, there's certainly food up there, too, but there's lots to eat in town. >> a retreat generally in a beautiful place for enrichment, enlight enment, entertainment and coming together. the people who were intended to the audience were really what we would call the middle class. the programs were very similar. a combination of speakers of

the day, also a variety of both what we might consider high brow and low brow entertainment, opera, classical music, and probably what would be considered the vaudeville of that day. >> watch all of our events from boulder saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. >> and more campaign 2014 coverage now with another debate. one of over 100 we'll bring you this campaign season. next, candidates to be minnesota's next governor face off. this debate with mark dayton, republican jeff johnson and independent hannah nicollet took place on september 30. it's about an hour. we'll start with campaign ads that are running in the race. >> things in minnesota weren't going very well. so we got a new coach. he made the tough decisions.

and now things are looking up. we've added over 150,000 new jobs and have one of the fastest growing economies in the nation. investing in education. darn good record, right? darn good coach. >> hi, as governor i'll audit every state program. and i'm pretty thorough. let's double check that. did you read this? mark dayton should be held accountable for wasting our money. his luxury office for politicians and bonuses for failed obamacare brats prove he's out of touch. it's time for a governor who gets it and gets us. >> jeff johnson for governor. >> in a state plagued by partisan dysfunction and special interest, a team of extraordinary candidates has stepped forward to restore minnesota's government back to its people.

>> together, they are the independents. coming november 4 to a state capitol near you. prepared and paid for by the independent party candidates' committees. >> 2014, minnesota gubernatorial debate. governor mark dayton. republican challenger jeff johnson. and independent challenger hannah nicollette. face off for the first time. tonight's debate highlights issues important to greater minnesota. the final stretch of the 2014 race starts now. the 2014 minnesota gubernatorial debate is hosted by the coalition of greater minnesota cities, the rochester post bulletin and the rochester area chamber of commerce and is

brought to you by the public television stations of minnesota with support from aarp of minnesota. this election season, aarp is focused on making sure older voters know where the candidates stand on issues that matter. find out more at aarp.org/yourvote. alcorn clean fuel. alcorn has been adding value to our investments while producing sustainable, renewable fuel for the world. alcorn. education minnesota. 70,000 teachers, students, staff and primary education faculty working together to prepare our students for successful lives. and ask me minnesota. a union of 43,000 workers who advocate for excellence in public services, dignity in the workplace, and opportunity and

prosperity for all working families. and now from the mayo civic center, the 2014 minnesota gubernatorial debate. >> good evening, and welcome to the civic center in rochester for the first debate of the 2014 campaign for minnesota governor. i'm the managing editor of "the post bulletin" in rochester. the first of five debates to be held around the state. tonight's event was organized by the coalition of greater minnesota cities, the rochester area chamber of commerce and by "the post bulletin." it's being broadcast live on public tv and well beyond. thanks to our public tv sponsors tonight. we're joined by the three major party candidates tonight. the incumbent governor mark dayton, republican candidate

jeff johnson, and independent party candidate hannah nicollette. thank you for being here, and you can applaud. [applause] >> ok, here are the ground rules. i'll read the question. each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond. we have highly skilled timekeepers down in front here to keep us on track. i have the discretion to allow a 30-second rebuttal or i can ask a followup if a candidate hasn't clearly answered the question or addressed the question. so, it behooves the candidate to address the question. halfway through the debate to spice things up, we'll have a lightning round. very quick, yes or no type questions. and the candidates will keep those answers concise. then we'll resume with three or four full-length questions and to wrap it up, each candidate has two minutes to make a closing statement. that's a lot of work to do in one hour. the questions were dreamed up by the debate sponsors and the

candidates have not seen them in advance. hwe determined who gets to respond to the first question. so again, we only have one hour. we have a lot we want to cover and so we'd really appreciate it if you'd hold your applause till the end. the candidates vay lot of friends here, as you know, the best way to help your candidate is by holding your applause to the end. so are we ready to roll? ok. first question is on minnesota's economy and tax-and-spending issues. one of the governor's first tasks at the start of the term is to submit a budget to the state. after the last legislative session, the estimated a surplus of $603 million. here's the question, considering this budget estimate, what changes would you make in minnesota's budget and tax system to enhance minnesota's business climate? commissioner johnson, you won. so you go first, followed by governor dayton. >> all right, thank you.

i just want to thank you and the hosts for putting this together tonight. i do appreciate it. i think here's where you're going see a very fundamental difference between the governor and me as to where we put our priorities when it comes to the economy of minnesota. in particular, i've been told that every state that surrounds us has billboards up saying open for business. come to us. we don't have those billboards in minnesota, and unfortunately, their billboards are actually working. we just learned from the bureau of labor statistics last week that over the past year, minnesota has actually had the worst job growth rate in the midwest and the 41st worst in the country. we also have seen that underemployment in minnesota is at 53%, which means that half the people in this state are working are actually overqualified and probably underpaid. and that all directly relates to our taxing and regulatory and in some cases spending policies in this state. you are going to see me working hard to reform our taxes. i have a strong belief that the

tax system should be low, broad, and simple. and almost any economist will tell that you that's what you need to do. and i suspect you'll see big changes in the second budget rather than the first because we'll only have a few weeks to make these changes. but if we have a lower tax system, we're going to be starting to encourage the growth of the good jobs that we've been losing to the states that surround us these past few years. >> thank you. governor? >> when i took office 3 1/2 years ago, the state projected $6.2 billion deficit. so i'd say the fiscal situation of the state at that time was dire. now we're looking at a surplus of $603 million, additional $400 million that was transferred over to the health care access fund.

we don't owe the schools anything. and we have eliminated most of the rates from the other accounts and state governments. so we got a sound fiscal platform for which to go to the future. now, the next few revenue forecasts in november and the end of february will really set the table for what we have to work with. but i don't see raising anyone's taxes. i think we made taxes less aggressive in minnesota, based on the actions we took in 2013 s we have the cost of government, which has been widely acclaimed in the past as the best of state taxation and spending relative to the people in the state. one of the -- it's been reported. so we have spending under control. we have made new investments in education, in higher education, in early childhood, in all-day kindergarten. and we have strong and robust , 160,000 new th

jobs on which to build further. >> thank you, governor. >> thank you for having me. and as to where we're going, i agree that until the bureau of labor statistics came out with statistics with regard to our pie witt sector job growth. that does concern me for our future. hour economy has grown at about .8% over the past year, and we need -- we need private sector job growth because that's what creates wealth. wealth is services that people actually want. and government jobs aren't usually wealth producing:so the first thing i'd like to do is get rid of the corporate tax. in minnesota it's third highest in the nation. there's nothing we can do about e fact -- a company is going to ireland where they only have 12 1/2%. we could com beat much better if we didn't have the third highest tax in the nation. it's also only 4% of revenue

and it's most costly to collect. so first thing to go, we would put a sale on our having a business in minnesota. and i would expect that then we would actually grow revenue because historically when you make it cheaper to have a business in your state, businesses want to come to your state so that's the first thing. i would also address our burdensome regulations. we have -- we have an abundance of, you know, for instance, if you have a wetteland on your property you want to do something with your property. you're a business, whatever it is, you have to go through nine different state and local agencies and some will conflict. so i say we go to one standard. and the answer is yes or no. >> did a great job of observing the time cards, so we're off to a good start. question number two is on local government aid. it helps communities pay for basic services. it's been successful at narrowing tax based disparities between cities and has helped provide services without tax burdens. in 2014, cities had the third

lowest levy increase in 25 years due to the partial restoration of state aid in 2002. here's the question. uld you make l.g.a. a budget priority and restore the funding to bring it back to 2002 levels? >> i made local government aid a priority because it's essential to providing the kind of services that people depend upon from their government, such as police, fire protection, social services, street plowing and the like. and the way it's been set up in the state of minnesota creates useful governments and sets the terms by which they can operate. and the way it has been established is there's two main sources of revenue for the local governments in minnesota. one is the property tax, and the other is the local government aid. so when you cut local government aid, some of the cities have noted that over the

previous decade to when i arrived, there's no choice but for property taxes to be increased and for services to be cut. we in 2013 and 2014 increased local government aids, the legislature and myself, and the result was as it was noted, one of the lowest increases in property tax rates in the state -- in the history of the last -- this century. d also, gave local governments the wherewithal to make badly needed investments to upgrade their facilities, their equipment and machinery. so you know, local government aid will depend on the budget for the next -- it depends on the revenue forecasts i mentioned earlier. but it will continue to be a strong priority of mine. >> ok. >> i believe it's a priority in the sense that it's an issue of unfunded mandates. the state requires cities to

provide services that they don't pay for. so that's been a problem for cities. they don't actually have the funds to pay for the services that they're required, you know, like child protection, that they're required by the state to provide. so the way that i see it, any service that the state requires a city to provide, you can't require something, anything of anyone that you don't expect to pay for yourself. so i believe that if the, you know, if the state is requiring it of the city, then they should be willing to -- we should be willing to pick up the tab for it. we consider it a mandatory service that the state of minnesota provides, whether it's child protective services is simply under the constitutional responsibilities of state government. we provide for public safety, as a constitutional responsibility. and so child protective services falls under that -- falls under that balloon. thank you. >> ok. >> there was an increase in local government aid last year

under the government that we have. but there is also the largest portion we've seen of the aid going to minneapolis, and that's at the direct expense of communities in greater minnesota. and that has been a pretty common theme. greater minnesota in many ways as become an afterthought in this state. whether you're looking at where we spend our transportation dollars, when you're looking at k-12 education funding formulas, whether you're looking at some of the regulations that are killing our farmers and our miners and our loggers in this state, or whether you look at l.g.a. there's a tremendous metro-centric philosophy at the capitol right now. i believe in the original intent of l.g.a. which was to provide for communities that have a low property tax base the money to provide basic services, like roads and bridges, like police and fire and emergency services. like sewer and water. but i think we've moved far, far away from that, and we're

directing it rue no cities that don't need that help. i've had the question, will you promise to increase local government aid? i won't make that promise, but i will promise to do everything i can to direct the money that's already in government -- the communities that actually need it because that's not happening right now. >> governor, greater minnesota, i'll give you 30 seconds if you want to respond to commissioner johnson on that point. >> commissioner johnson alleges the bill last year, 30% of it went to greater minnesota, 28% to the metro and the rest was statewide projects and 10% went to the state capitol project. unemployment rates right now in rochester are 3.3%. you look at the development projects downtown in both cities as well as st. cloud, the bonding bill, the focus has been on greater minnesota. that's why the economies are

expanding. >> ok. question number three is on the state health insurance exchange and it was in the news today. regional insurance rates vary widely. they're lowest net twin cities this year and people faces fewer choices. the geographical disparity is then linked in part to access the hospital and clinic systems. further changes are ahead in rates. so here's the question. as governor, how would you help make sure the rates and plan options are equitable in all corners of the date? and it's your turn. >> thank you. well, obviously, it's going to be difficult, you know, it just drop e largest enrollee out of the program. and they had the lowest rates. of course, there have been all kinds of administrative

problems, and the whole rollout went out poorly. so we'll probably have to -- we'll probably have to fix it. as long as there is a federal mandate that requires that we have federal health insurance here, and i don't see handing over federal control. we lose the federal subsidies and that is another subject which is -- which is how much we receive back from the federal government already. minnesota sends $90 billion to the federal government and we only receive about $45 million back. we have to jump through hoops to get it. i'm not willing to give it, you know, if we don't have it, then we don't even receive the -- the subsidies that come alongside the, you know, having our own exchange. you don't receive the federal subsidies. so we need to fix it, regardless. we need to implement it.

now if i learned anything as a software developer, it's that you don't reinvent the wheel. so we find -- we find software and administrative handling of, you know, of an exchange that's actually working well and we tailor it to minnesota and implement it we tailor it to mia and implemented here. that would be my suggestion. >> domitian or johnson? .co -- commissioner johnson? governor, you desperately wanted to be the first state in the country to implement obamacare in minnesota and you got everything you wanted and it has been a non-mated -- and unmitigated disaster. lost health care because of minnsure we have the highest deductible in the country. whoave parents with babies

cannot again insurance for months because this thing is such a mess. you had a press conference today and you say we do not lose -- you do not lose sleep over min sure. hundreds of thousands of minnesotans are losing sleep because of it. i will demand a section 1332 waiver under the affordable care and at least that is a starting point because at least we can bring something back. in 2017. get that help i will fire every member of that board and staff because they are incompetent, and i will make rules without -- i will work hard to remove barriers from the private sector to compete. we used to be the best in the country and we are not anymore. thousands of people are being hurt and it is time we had a governor who could do

something about it. >> for the second year in a row, minnesotans will have the lowest rates of any insurance in the country. we should seated in keeping the insurance costs relatively low. thearies from one part of state to the other, and we have not the rate of people who are unemployed, uninsured in minnesota down by 40%. we have the second lowest percentage of people uninsured of any state in the nation, and hundreds of thousands of people had access to health care that they did not have before because of disqualification for pre-existing conditions, because of seo wii's on the total limit -- it opened the door for people to be able to both afford and be insured and have quality care. you can cite statistics that are misleading. are with health

care plans that were not aca compliant and were required to become so. so the insurers had to adjust those plans to offer them something better than they had before. that is one of the purposes of the affordable care act, to ensure people will have coverage to meet their needs, which a lot of people do not find out until it is too late. half of bankruptcy in this country is caused by health care costs that exceed people's needs, and that's that exceed people's means, and most of them do not have insurance. we are looking for a straight up yes or no answer, a sentence or two of elaboration. recently the code was updated to of sprinklerg systems that will add to the cost of new homes. do you support the mandate? >> absolutely not, and that is a

great example of a difference in philosophy between the governor and me. consumers should choose whether or not they want spring please in their homes. >> governor dayton? >> yes, i supported. people who run into a burning building who risk their lives re: nope -- they are in no position to judge. >> ms. nicollet? >> i do not. --elieve it is the work of that every luxury available is -- it is only affordable to the wealthy. if you are lower income, it makes a difference. it illuminates 35,000 people from being able to afford the house. i support affordable housing and

i would mandate it. i don't think any lobby, no matter how great the lobby is or no matter how much we agree with the lobby, should be dictating policy. what it comes down to is exactly what hannah said. because of this new mandate, legislature ofhe most parties did not -- of both parties did not seem to like. >> number two in the lightning round, the state just created a $20 million fund to expand the broadband infrastructure. recently the governor recommended an additional $200 million for the next two years for the infrastructure grant fun. do you support the , governor dayton? >> that is part of the cost. it has to be between it hundred million dollars and $3 billion to complete broadband access.

it is a very expensive proposition, but it is a step in the right direction. i support broadband access throughout rural areas, and i think it is a hindrance to being able to do business in rural as mail service really. our new mail service, our new mode of communication is the internet. but as far as how it is being allocated, my concern is that i we are at-- right now about 99% of people being connected, what the state has determined to be acceptable. download speed at 75%. we are looking at 25% getting up to par on upload speeds. i would rather see -- what we have had problems with is that the government has been competing with private business, so in monticello we had an instance of where they installed cable and then started having a price war with the cable

companies that were already there. i would rather have us focus resources on areas that are not connected. start with the $200 million -- that is an awful lot of money, and it is important, but we are on the cusp of new technology that may not involve laying cable at all. i would be hesitant to go overhead. buildings, we want to make sure all of our schools are hooked up and that they can be hotspots and that all of the areas that are currently not covered are covered. ask -- would you support the task force' $200 million recommendation? >> provided that it is allocated to areas that are not already connected. >> commissioner johnson? >> i do not know where i would end up. broadband conductivity will be

-- broadband connectivity will be a priority of me. every area has the right to be connected. i am not in favor of the coming in as a competitor. >> question number three, do you support the development of high-speed passenger rail between the cities? we are going with ms. nicollet. >> we have a lot of -- the rail that i am most concerned about right now is we have farmers with grain that is sitting on rail and not able to move and it is in a crisis situation. i would like to see that rail issue addressed, and we also have a rhodes crisis. we are looking at -- at a roads crisis. we keep dropping billions on even though ind

have nothing against it, my concern is we are not focusing on our needs and instead focusing more on wants. we need to refocus our priorities. we need the roads and bridges. having good roads and bridges is essential to the economy, so that is where i would focus the effort. weing up with $79 billion -- came up with $4 billion already, so i believe we can easily find the $7 billion to $9 billion that we need. it is setting us back. that would be my primary concern. i am less concerned with rail projects. i think those should be secondary to our roads and bridges, that we address those first. >> commissioner johnson. >> show me the cost benefit analysis, and i will take a look at it. n in favor ofe big rail projects, but i am told

that this one will pay for itself. i am skeptical but my years are open. if someone can prove that -- but my ears are open. if someone can prove that, i would be willing to take a look at it. >> it would be used in conjunction with the medical center in rochester, which i strongly supported. this area is going to be transformed. willte sector employment double in the next 10 or 20 years. it will have a phenomenal impact on our state. between the university of minnesota and mayo, it has the opportunity to be a magnet for that kind of jobs and opportunities. the zip rail line would add to that connection. >> a few more lightning round questions. the most recent proposed amendments to the minnesota

constitute -- constitution were controversial. currently only a simple majority of the legislature is required to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. should that number be raised? commissioner johnson? >> i do not think it should. worksk the system we have well and it has proven to in the past. >> governor dayton? >> no. >> that is very concise. [laughter] >> ms. nicollet. >> no. i guess we are all the same. >> should liquor sales be permitted on sunday? governor dayton? >> my great-grandfather would turn over in his grave, but i do not think we should distinguish liquor from other commodities people want to buy. if people want to shop on sunday, more of our population

has a day of faith on sunday. it is hard to isolate one day and say this, you cannot do that. >> is nicolet? >> -- ms. nicollet? legal product should be sold on ebay. sunday is a holiday for questions. friday night down at sundown is .he sabbath for jewish people think something in particular? -- why did wer pick sunday in particular? it seems unfair. and id not support that, am also against the fact that 60 percent of minnesotans want sunday alcohol sales, so why shouldn't we have it. >> commissioner johnson? >> yes, and this is frustrating because everybody says let's do it, but in the last two years it has being a big push and we

cannot get it done for some reason. we will get it done if i am governor. >> after that brisk exercise, we will go back to long point questions. you will have 90 seconds to answer. this one is about the medical center that is top a. for a specific local investment to occur before approved state funding is released. it is a combination of efforts that will drive regional economic growth and provide a boost from much of the state. someone suggested the plan could serve as a model for targeting economic developments in other parts of the state. do you agree with how its structure -- with how it is structured, and would you support other public-private ownership elsewhere? ms. nicollet, you are up first. it has already been put in place and it is a multiplier, it has already been

promised. promises.ld keep our but what i saw as the larger issue with the problem with the multiplier is that our attorney general and our governor's office are not even in communication right now, which i don't know if you have seen -- as the independence party, we have been working as a team. all five state office candidates pulled together. we are working on issues together. we put our ads together as a team. that is what i believe in, being a team player. that is part of what i see the role of governor as, finding challenge and attacking issues. that is what i would like to see a few of, attacking it as a team. i would like to see us working together as a state to improve the whole thing.

>> thank you. commissioner johnson? is veryieve the dnc good for rochester and for minnesota, and i believe the governor does have a role to play in infrastructure upgrades and paying for things like roads and bridges. i would have had a difference of opinion on the definition of infrastructure. legislator, and not able to change it, i likely would not have supported it. if i had been governor, however, i would have sat down with the authors and works that difference out. i think it is something that is important. as hanna mentioned, it will likely come up again next year because we apparently had another misunderstanding of what was in the bill from the governor's office, and there is a disagreement with the attorney general's office, and it will have the be fixed next year. an easy fix to

anything when you open anything controversial. but i will work to get it done as governor. >> thank you. governor dayton? >> it would not need to be fixed if it did not exist at all. that would be the situation when the mayo clinic executives said we have this vision for the future of rochester and the state of minnesota. if i as governor and the legislative leaders were bipartisan, representation is if we said we are on board and we want to partner with the city, the county, and you would not have anything to fix. then this case, we will get matter resolved in the next legislative session. it is not a difficult matter. it will be phenomenal for the state of minnesota, and should

it be a model for other partnerships? absolutely. forlieve there is a role the government to provide incentives and partner with the private sector to make these projects happen. you can look all over the state, there are projects that have been moved forward because we have made investments along with it. same kind of seating, it is crucial to get the project forward and expanding. >> commissioner johnson, do you think this model works, and can you envision it being used on other parts of the state? >> i can see it being used in other parts of the state as long as the definition of infrastructure is truly about infrastructure path role in particular -- about infrastructure's role in

particular. >> i would agree that when we provide what we promise to provide for a new infrastructure -- roads, sewage, all that -- then it is absolutely effective and broadband media with that also. provider that we are providing transportation and infrastructure. >> ok. that leads nicely into the next question, on transportation. minnesota faces transportation funding challenge on every level. year a commerce program was created to reduce bottlenecks and increase key capacity on highways. also a task force of 20 mayors from smaller cities are working to develop programs and plans to fund local municipal road improvements. for is your vision

investing in minnesota's transportation system, including local communities large and small, and how with the vision be funded? kind of a big question. commissioner johnson, you get the first crack at this, allah -- followeda been by governor dayton and ms. nicolette. >> i haven't to believe we do not spend enough money on roads. the problem is in the last couple of years, all of the energy, all of the focus is on everything but roads and bridges. it is on light rail, commuter rail. sidewalks, and everything but the street. that is exactly backwards. we all rely upon roads and bridges, by far more than anything else. even if you do not drive a car, you rely on roads and bridges to get your goods to your grocery store that you can buy or to get

the fire truck to your house if you have a fire. onfocus will lean heavily roads and bridges, and, yes, we do have a funding problem with that. the gas tax by itself will not cover what we need to do. part of that is about priorities, about saying we will put this at the top, and rather than spending on all these other things ahead of it, we will say this is where we will spend first and worry about these other things later. i am also willing to support more significant bonding when it comes to transportation projects. that might require a constitutional change to do, but i will be willing to push that forward. we have to focus on roads and bridges over all these other forms of transportation. >> governor dayton? >> i agree again with mr. johnson about the need to increase expenditures and increase the bonding capacity. right now transportation pays up to 27% of its revenue for bonds that are already issued.

it is something that needs to be addressed in the next legislative session. there is a 6 million. -- a $6 billion gap. withllion over 10 years what we need to spend just to keep the system as it is now, maintaining the status quo, which we all know has deteriorated over the last couple of decades. more accidents, more fatalities. tot session, we will face up are we going to come up with additional money. say we will just get administrative efficiency out of the department of transportation, which is an important aspect of it, but it will not come close to the additional expenditure necessary. so the people of minnesota have to decide through their representatives, are they satisfied with the things that they are?

are they willing to pay additional money in order to be break even, or do we want to improve things? or are we willing to let things continue to deteriorate, it will happen unless the overall investments are increased. >> commissioner johnson, before we move onto ms. nicollet, do you want to respond? >> when i say we need to actually prioritize, my answer was not that we need to find efficiencies, although i agree with the governor we need to do do that. problem is we have not made this a priority, particularly in the last two years. i would love to talk about the senate legislative office building. we are spending more on that than on roads and bridges in the bonding bill. so the priorities are not there and we need to put this at the top of the list. that is the only way we will get it done. >> ms. nicolette, on to you. under the constitution,

transportation, one of the responsibilities of government, we have not been doing it. it is truly in the public good, because not taken care of our roads and bridges costs every minnesota and money. you pay for it directly or indirectly, via emergency services. the return on investment for every dollar that you put toward cost-benefit basis, toward roads and bridges, comes back to you three dollars or four dollars each. versus light rail where you get $.42 on every dollar. the cost benefit is not something that benefits all of minnesota, plus it is another the twin cities and up getting the lion's share. we need to move those priorities. somehow we mind to find -- somehow we managed to find $4 billion on vikings stadium and light rail, all these things we are throwing money at. seen anything like

this, and i have spent my entire life here. i am 40, so i have been here quite a file. i would like to see us, however we get it done, we need to make it a priority. we need to reprioritize. after that, if we need to increase the gas tax, we need to make it happen. >> thank you. the next question is on the workforce. according to minnesota's , jobtment of th employment creation has been uneven since 2010. employers across greater minnesota, including here in rochester, say it is tough to find qualified employees for many types of jobs. projected0 more jobs in the area, there is concern whether people will be here to

step into those jobs. here is the question. an employer focused job-training program puts on a focus towards job training solutions, the governor supports -- would you support this $10 billion program? but if you could do your best. mr. dayton, you are first. followed by ms. nicolett and mr. johnson. say economic growth is we docurring, and them not have housing for workers. of the all a result state of minnesota that want to expand and create more jobs. looking for assistance to increase housing for people they want to hire, and down on the iowa border, jackson, kent,

cannot expand because of water deficiency which the bonding bill is focused on correcting. we don't have good healthy economic growth going on all much theesota, very same kind of moving forward. so, yes, we need to free people for jobs. for welders, engineers, technicians in order to span. absolutely, we need to resign -- realign the training program in high schools and junior high schools and get them aligned with campuses and train people for the jobs of the future rather than jobs of the past. bringing modern technology and equipment to those facilities. it is one we should pursue. are you in favor of the $10

million program? >> yes. the federal government has myriad job-training programs. the state has its own on top of that. i am not sure there is a lack of funds right now, so in that respect the lack of funding is campuses, for the equipment, technology, and building improvements that are necessary so that the training that does go on his training people for the state-of-the-art jobs that are out there. >> ms. nicollet? >> would you repeat the question with regard to the $10 million program? >> sure. program that was introduced legislation last year, $10 i would be used for job training solutions. more generally, what would you do to generate more training programs for workers? also mentioned economic

development economic development is the first thing, and as i said, i would like to give the corporate tax. that was hard for is little areas as well as the twin cities. that will affect all areas equally. we also do need to get all areas in the state connected to the internet. that is another area where we are deficient. we need to address the achievement gap in education. we have schools that have major problems that we have not addressed, and once again, we can look at -- we do not need to reinvent the wheel. there are areas of the country that have a tremendous success, and we could implement what they have done, divided that we are willing to make the changes here. and not be student focused in our policies. so we attack education, we go after the business taxes that

have been prohibited. we get rid of those. i believe we would start flourishing. as a state, we provide for good infrastructure. all of that provided in the rural area, connection, education, and we would see economic growth in the rural areas without a doubt there is >> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> when the governor said that economic growth is going gang busters in minnesota, it is not, laste just learned that week from the bureau of labor and statistics. that is the obama administration. they told us we were the worst. the kauffman foundation shows that if you look at the last four years, minnesota has created beefy was number of new businesses in the cap -- has the fewest number of businesses per capita.

number one is infrastructure. let's fund loans in greater minnesota. and let's work to expand broadband. another piece is economic development in general, having a governor who will be a cheerleader for greater minnesota. i was born here. my wife was, too, and we went to school in morehead. be out here cheering for greater minnesota. the big difference between the governor and the? -- between the governor and me -- we have the opportunity to create great job. one of them is mining in upper minnesota. those are hundreds of really good paying jobs, and they are desperate for those jobs up on the range. they are slow walking that process. if the governor israel acted, i would do everything i can to get it reopened if i am elected. >> i will give you 30 seconds to

respond to the last part of that comment. decidedommissioner has before the review process is complete that he has jumped on be the finalch may outcome and the proper one. but to jump in at this point before the review process and the environmental impact process , to jump in whole hog and say we will forget about all the environmental considerations, he is going to pander to minnesotans. that is irresponsible. >> governor, i did not say that we should ignore the regulatory process. we have been through seven years of the regulatory process, spent millions of dollars, and we have

seen we can do it in an environmentally friendly way. i think let's at least push through it to make sure it happens in a timely and fair way. i think we are dragging this out so that we can say after the election we are not going to open this thing. to -- the last environmental impact study gave it a rating on par with the green line. so we are at a point where we can go ahead. my only concern is that in some declared, many have bankruptcy because of the costs on the latter and. million.$200 provided the money is set aside and we know it is available and it will not be abandoned, then absolutely, we needed for economic growth. >> thank you. that is it for questions, longform questions. now each candidate it's those commits for a closing -- now each candidate gets two minutes for a closing statement.

we have a little time for "texas hold 'em" later, perhaps. goes first.let >> i want to really thank the monitor rate or's -- the moderators and the people who help this debate for having me. i thank you for that because this is the only debate that i have been confirmed to participate in. i should probably introduce myself. i am a mom of two kids. my three-year-old and seven-year-old are over here, my husband is over here. i am a former software developer, and people probably wonder with, what does that have to do with being governor? well, i love to solve problems and build teams. to look into --

i believe in team building. that is why we are all working from the independence party, working as a team together and that is why we like to solve problems as a state. why minnesota? i love my state, and this is absolutely my dream job. i would rather be governor of minnesota then president of the united states. as such, i think that we can work together much better than with the special interests. i believe the independent party needs a voice and minnesota because we need -- because we represent the people. when 68% of the people said they wanted the viking stadium entirely privately funded, what about "entirely privately funded " do legislators not understand? the they cannot get it past referendum, then they have back room deals. if you have more than four people in a meeting, well, they only had four people in a

meeting. they were talking about fishing regulations, all to give us what do not want. you should not need a high paid lobbyists to represent you at the capital. in my administration, you would not. >> thanks very much. [applause] do that after closing statements. commissioner johnson, you are next. dark up thank you, and thank you a -- .> thank you, jay i am pleased we are having this first debate, because i will be honest it has been frustrating governor,he lies, that you and some of your supporters have had on tv about me the last couple of months, whether it is i will cut the minimum wage. i have never said that. whether i would cut education

funding. i never did that. visionsce to share our directly to people and let them choose on their own. let me tell you what my vision is. it is a vision of a state where every kid in the state has access to a great education, regardless of where the kid lives or how rich or poor his or her parents are. and that patients and doctors are making health care decisions, not insurance companies and not government bureaucrats. we in the middle class work really hard for our money, and they spend it as carefully as though it is coming out of their own pocket -- we are not seeing that now. it is a state where entrepreneurs want to start a business in minnesota and where existing businesses want to expand here. isre every minnesotan willing to work hard and has access to a good paying full-time job.

host importantly, i have a vision of a state where we had ended the bitterness and envy over income differences. richoor are poor and the are rich and all we can do is move around the money -- instead, we are celebrating people who are successful, and we are never giving up on people who are poor and we are preaching every single day that the poor can become the middle class and the middle class can become rich, and everyone who starts with nothing can still achieve anything in this state. that is my vision for minnesota, and that is why i am running for governor. , and you for being here thank you for your support. [cheers and applause] >> governor dayton? ms. nicollet, i think you should be in the other debates.

horner participated in our debates four years ago, and i think you should be given the opportunity. the question at hand, i was born and raised in minnesota, and obviously the state has been very good to my family and myself. i started running for governor in 2009 because i was convinced the state was headed in the wrong direction. of a nationaldst recession, the tax system was was notve, and it generating enough revenue to meet the needs of our public education system from early childhood through higher education. in january, 2011. we were in a fiscal mess. schools $2.8 million. the republican majority in the , we cuture and myself

$2 billion of spending, permanent cuts in state expenditures. we raised taxes only on the wealthiest 2%. the middle income taxpayers receive an income tax cut. we invested the money in education, which in minnesota has been slacking relative to their needs. due to early childhood education, all day kindergarten. two of the ways we addressed it was the achievement gap and the that is the vision i have for the future of the state, and that is one i wish to continue as governor. [applause]

thank you, governor. we are done, and we did a great job. we wrapped up before the satellite moved on, so i appreciate the audience control. the debatef sponsors, we appreciate your efforts and we wish you the best as the campaign goes forward. we would like to think of this as the best of the five debates. respectful for a campaign. the election will be november 4, but you can vote right now. thank you and good night. [applause] made possible with support from aarp of minnesota. this election season, aarp is focused on making sure older voters know where the candidates stand on issues that matter. find out more at aarp.org/your

vote. clean fuel in clermont. -corn -- in clermont, minnesota. minnesota, 70,000 teachers, school staff, and workingducation faculty together to prepare our students for successful lives. and ask me minnesota, counsel five, a union of 43,000 workers, advocating for excellence in public services, dignity in the workplace, and opportunity and prosperity for all working families. this has been a coproduction of pioneer public television and ksmq public television, austin rochester.

>> we have more campaign 2014 coverage coming up tonight. we will show you the oklahoma governor's debate the between democrat joe dorman and republican governor mary fallin. candidates for nebraska next governor will face off, 8:00 eastern on c-span2. over 100 debates we will be bringing you this campaign season. here are a few of the comments we received from our viewers recently. the c-span q&aed interview with sally quinn. i enjoyed the interview and her comments. she is inspiring. her comments about spirituality,

i would really like to see another interview with here. >> i would like to complement c-span on their coverage of the gutierrez from texas. that was a wonderful segment. i thoroughly enjoyed it. >> i just watched a segment that you guys had eli lake from "the said that he is a frequent guest. scope --o wide in your please widen your scope. i will likely tell you how ofh i enjoyed and how much this cap parents i was pushed kevinarents -- this ha

behrens guy was. >> e-mail us at comments @c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. a debate now between two of the candidates for idaho's next governor. wednesday, a.j. balukoff, and his challenger, libertarian john bujak, took to the stage for a second debate in twin falls, idaho. this race is listed as solid republican. butch otter declined to take part. this is about one hour. >> good evening from the auditorium of canyon ridge high school in twin falls. i am autumn phillips, and welcome to the second debate of the 2014 idaho general election season. tonight we will hear from two

candidates for idaho governor. todid invite governor otter the debate. he turned us down, but we decided that in my chrissy is about more than the incumbent. so i am looking forward to a good -- we decided that democracy is more than the incumbent. please join me in welcoming them now. to my right is libertarian .andidate john bujak - [applause] to my left is democratic candidate a.j. balukoff. [applause] so we will begin the debate tonight with three minute opening remarks. the coin tosswon tonight, and he chose to let john bujak begin opening remarks. then a.j. balukoff will take the

opening question. >> i would like to thank the times news and kmbt for sponsoring the event. i name is john bujak. i am a libertarian candidate for governor. i am 45 years old. i am married, have four children. i live in eagle, idaho. i grew up in the central idaho mountains. i went to the college of idaho in caldwell. i served in the u.s. navy. after my time in the navy, i came back to idaho and went to law school. during my time after law school i worked as a deputy prosecuting attorney. then as a deputy attorney general, and then i had my own firm where i practiced for 10 years. then i decided to enter politics and ran on the republican ticket , the seat as the elected county prosecutor in canyon county,

idaho. i am running for governor because it is time that the good old boy network get rounded out of boise. i heard the good old boys called a lot of things, everything from the boise mafia to otter's crew. they are causing a lot of problems in idaho. in addition to the corruption and the cronyism that exists boisetter's crew and the mafia -- let me stop for a minute because i do not want to seem disrespectful. there was a time when i really positions,im and his and i even voted for the man. but i cannot support him anymore because he has implemented democratic policies in idaho. idaho is the only republican state that adopted the health care exchange under obamacare. if he stays in office, medicaid expansion is around the corner,

and that puts idaho in a precarious situation. what we need is conservative leadership in idaho. i was elected to serve as prosecutor on the republican ticket, and i understand what conservative government is about. i understand the value of small government that respects the constitutional rights of the people and allows the free market to determine its economic destiny. that is what idaho needs. during the course of the debate, i look forward to proving to you that i am the right conservative leader for the job, proving that a third-party candidate can win the election for governor this time around. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] all right, you have three minutes. [inaudible]

it is an honor to be here. kmbt.d like to thank i would like to thank john bujak for participating. i wish mr. otter would be here to explain his poor record on education and jobs. we can understand why he does not want to be here. thatuld have to understand she would have to explain why idaho is winning the race to the bottom. explain whyhave to idaho is winning the race to the bottom. bottom in thee rate our graduates are going to college. 95 school districts have raised their own taxes because the state has shirked its constitutional responsibility to support public education.

falls, youin twin had to raise your taxes to support your children's education. the day has been cut back to -- it has been cut back to a four-day's cool week. exceptbehind every state one, mississippi. that is not acceptable. it is the result of a career politician putting the demands of special interests ahead of people. i am not a career politician. i am a businessman. successful cpa firm, and today i am part owner of the centurylink arena and the idaho hockey team. nonprofitved on many boards of directors, helping to turn around troubled as this is. in business, i learned that the

best redactor of future behavior is past behavior. if we do not change, without a change in leadership, we will continue our spiral to the bottom. the stakes are high. yearsnot afford four more of moving in the wrong direction. , but it willbetter take new leadership at the top. that is why i am running for governor. >> thank you. [applause] question appears to be in your wheelhouse. last night we hosted a debate between the two candidates for superintendent of public instruction, and a major focus was education funding. budget,year's proposed governor otter recommended $54.7

million to begin funding the 20 recommendations. the task force requested $350 million. he wouldotter says fund over five years. if you were elected governor, would you continue to approach funding, and what other things would you do to restore funding for education in idaho? to take a looke at governor otter's record with education. he did not have a good history of listening to the people. with laws in the face of overwhelming opposition. when the laws were repealed, he a task force that came up with 20 good recommendations on funding public education. but he has disengaged with that process. he has not attended one task force meeting, and then he talks about implementing those

recommendations over five years. his budget last year recommended $100 million for rainy day funds and unspecified tax relief. that shows me that education is not his top priority. i am goingovernor, to listen to teachers and taxpayers, parents, and education will be the top priority. we need to stop the waste going on in government right now, the pending lawsuits that should never have happened in the first place, having to fund investigations of wrongdoing at the prison. we need to stop that waste. then we need to change our priorities. i would make education a top priority, more of a priority then the rainy day fund and more of a priority than tax relief. is how i would run things differently. .co thank you. you have one minute rebuttal. isthis education issue

complex because educating our children is one of our most important duties and something government should take seriously. i have heard a lot of people talk about we need to throw more money at the problem. the answer is education requires more funding. that may be true, but one thing we need to look at before we start throwing more funding at education is how the education dollars are being spent now. when i talk to teachers around the state, their primary complaint -- one, they do not have enough training on how to implement common core, and they say it doesn't make sense. number two, not enough money makes it to the classroom. we need to take a hard look at the education budget and make sure the dollars get to the classroom as quickly and efficiently as possible. a one minute response. >> i would like to clarify.

besides giving stable and reliable funding, it is important how we spend the money. you do not -- idaho teachers are paid the lowest salary in the entire northwest, if not the entire country. it is going to be very difficult to retain good teachers if we pay them lower than anyplace else. as i have traveled around the state visiting school district and superintendents, they talk about how difficult it is to retain teachers. we lose them to wyoming, to montana, oregon, washington, and utah. isgree with john that it important how we spend the money, but you have to have adequate funding. >> thank you. this one goes to you. have reputations as being urban guys.

if you were elected, what would you do to inform yourselves about the agriculture in the valley? eagle, andn professionally i have lived in treasure valley for years. but i have lived in mccall, and i will not sell you on the fact that i am an agricultural and rural guy. but i have changed pipe in mccall. company, so i know a little bit about the day to day operations, but i am not an expert. the one thing i am particularly and it goest, hand-in-hand with the problem we have with the federal government controlling too much of idaho's lands -- we have to protect our waterways. that is not given enough attention, and it has to be important when you think about the continuing viability in

agriculture. is certainlyways something i would keep on the forefront of my mind as governor when i think about agriculture. the other thing that is important is that the government act efficiently and quickly when our folks in agriculture, our farmers need help. i have seen in the past where governor otter's administration has not been quick enough in declaring states of emergency for farmers, and they have lost a lot of the critical help, idaho farmers here in the state. i would keep my eye on that ball when i serve as your governor. .co one minute. waiting for the election to inform myself on agricultural issues. people inn visiting the agricultural industry right now -- farmers and ranchers. leaders tossociation inform myself of the issues

facing agriculture around the in thend particularly magic valley. it seems like in the magic valley, the number one issue is water. there has been good progress the issue is what happens in low-water years. a big issue that is very important is the waters of the u.s., where they are talking about redefining and maybe even irrigation canals, giving authority to the federal government and the epa over that. we'd to be very aware of that and take -- we need to be very aware of that and take a proactive approach on the water issues in our state. >> do you want to take another minute? >> no, i think i am ready. >> the next question if we want to keep the conversation going, it is about water.

most important thing, one of them, in the magic valley. sethe governor's budget, he aside 15 million dollars for aquifer research project. what do to shore up future magic valley cost product? >>/magic valley's water? definition, you will have water shortages because you have -- because wesert have at the edge of a desert with the laws of the man throw have available water. agricultural -- we need to get the city together with the surface users and talk about a good approach to recharging,ater, to and to whether or not we expand capacity of the dam

in high water years to recharge the aquifer. we need to be proactive again about approaching the water issues that we know we are going to have because we live on the edge of a desert. >> water issues are complex. we have your watermaster's here in the valley that are experts on those issues. i need to defer to those experts here in the magic valley, people who are informed on water issues and how the water is being used. i'm also particularly concerned about preserving idaho's water rights because the enteral government is stepping in, wanting to control the land, wanting to stake a greater claim on idaho water and idaho's resources. as governor, i would make sure that they do not take any additional control over idaho's waters. anotheru want to take minute? >> know, pass. >> all right.

i will give you a little background -- not that you need it -- but the idaho constitutional defense fund was created in 1995 to defend the state plus legal rights against the government. last year, the idaho legislature set aside $1 million for the fund. the attorney general said that money would not be used to on same-sex's ban marriage, even though that's the biggest constitutional challenge the state faces right now. as governor, you would be part of the council that oversees the fund. how should the fund be used? told you vote to use it defend idaho's same-sex marriage ban? >> with the same-sex marriage ban, i think regardless of what an individuals beliefs are about whether we should have same-sex marriage in idaho, the fight is not one that idaho can currently win. i think that that money that was used to fight the lawsuit is money thrown down the drain.

even though the republican governors in neighboring states like nevada saw the wisdom in not pursuing that litigation any further, i certainly would not have it are marked that money for litigation on gay marriage. i think the writing is on the wall, and there are just some things idaho cannot afford to do in these hard economic times. >> all right. >> idaho's ban was found to violate the united states constitution. again, however people feel personally about same-sex believe ine also honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law. there's ben, i think, 18 judges thatd the united states have found it pretty similar to what judge dale found here in idaho. others say through fighting and appealing with the supreme court. we are a small state with limited funds, and that money

would be better used to support higher priorities like education or to build our economy. and letwe should wait the supreme court weigh in on that issue. >> you have one minute. >> i have nothing else to add. >> this one is for you. bigdaho these days, another power of the governor is as leader of the state's republican party. as a democrat or a libertarian, you would not wield that influence, which, frankly, is substantial. where else would you seek influence? >> well, keep in mind that when we are elected, we represent all of the people in idaho, and i think the paradigm we have used if you are in the majority, you are on offense, and if you are in the minority, you are on defense, and the offense tries

, that's the wrong model. the more appropriate metaphor is as an orchestra. during the election, we all compete for seats in the orchestra, but once the election is over and we have our seats, we should be working together to create beautiful music. that's the way i worked in business and on the school board and another nonprofit organizations, bringing people together. parties should be a secondary concern. we should work together as representatives of the people of idaho and work toward solving problems as opposed to furthering or blocking a partisan agenda. >> this question illustrates the problem with the two-party system. no matter how much people might have good intentions once they are elected in office, when you have republicans versus democrats, they cannot work together and will oppose one another because their agenda is

set not just here locally but on a national level. that's the advantage of having someone like me, a libertarian, in office. i don't have any dog in that fight. my goal is to represent the people in the state of idaho in bringing conservative values back to state house. so i will be able to work with whoever is in the legislature, whether it be a democrat or a republican because one thing is universal here in idaho -- we believe in conservative values. with that one guiding principle, we can move at a hole in a positive direction and take us we havehis quagmire been in since governor otter's liberal agenda. >> in my 17 years on the school board, i didn't down to the legislature every year to testify on bills that affect education, so i have worked with both democrats and republicans on school bills. i have relationships with a

number of those legislators already, and i continue to maintain those relationships during this campaign. i can work with republicans, and i can work with democrats, and i can even work with libertarians. i'm pragmatic. we are looking at what we need to do for the state of idaho, what we need to have to make people's lives better and solve problems, and if we make that our priority, we will be successful, and we will bring people together. >> all right. this one goes to you. budgetthe governor's manages $2 million to idaho's roles. in the final budget, $400 theion was allocated for wolf control board. as governor, how great with the priority be on wolf control in your budget, and what approach should idaho be taking towards management of its wolf population?

problem needs to be aggressively addressed, but i do not think you need to throw all this money at it in order to address it. we have one of the greatest resources here in idaho that we can utilize in a cost-effective way to deal with the wolf problem, and that is idaho hunters. i do not see any reason why we cannot have controlled hunts. some of the hunters in idaho are some of the best hunters in the united states, probably in the world. give me some good idaho hunters, a controlled hunt, and idaho fish and game, and i would not need $400,000 of taxpayer money to control the wolf problem in idaho. >> i agree. we do not need to spend $2 million to eradicate wolves. if we are not careful, they will be back on the federal protected list again, just like happened in wyoming recently. manages ande controls other predators --

bears, mountain lions coyotes. they are perfectly capable of managing wolves. they have wildlife managers that can adequately manage the wolves in consultation with farmers and ranchers. i know there are ways to allow farmers and ranchers to protect withoutvestock exterminating the wolves, so my approach would be to engage gameng game -- fish and and the cattlemen in this associations to get together and develop a good wolf management plan for our state. >> do you want to say anything more? you have a minute. >> no, i think we can move on. >> we are getting through some pretty big topics pretty quickly. i want to read you a bit of a letter that governor otter sent in july when hundreds of children were crossing the border illegally. he sent this letter to the federal government saying he

wanted to "immediately eliminate the chance of the federal government using idaho as a destination or staging area for the influx of unaccompanied and a legal immigrants entering the united states through our southern border." he wrote that it should be understood that the state of idaho will not be actively involved in addressing the humanitarian crisis the federal government has created. as governor -- here's the question -- >> ok. >> as governor, you would not have direct influence over immigration policy, but as otter showed with his letter, you could set the tone. , whatge issue in idaho would your message be to the state and federal government and to our congressional delegation? >> first of all, governor otter set the wrong tone. immigration is very important to our state, very important to the agricultural industry here, especially the dairy industry in the magic valley.

we need to set the right town that we need sensible immigration reforms that allow workers to come here and fill in jobs that need to be done the agricultural industry and some other industries. that is done by congress, but the governor can urge our delegation and congress to work on it, to stop ignoring the problem, stop kicking the can down the road, and do some meaningful immigration reform that would allow guest workers to come here and the bill the senate proposed had some pretty good provisions in it to allow people who are here who are undocumented aliens to come forward and submit themselves to a criminal background check, and if they pass that, they would have a clean background that they could then have a five-year work permit.

they would also agree to pay any back taxes that they for the time they were here and working. those kinds of sensible solutions to immigration reform to thee a great help farmers and ranchers of idaho and to the magic valley, and i think we need to encourage intelligent solutions and not grandstand with letters like what governor otter sent. >> all right, you want to take a minute? forovernor otter's letter me was just a bunch of political grandstanding. it was inappropriate to use these children who were dumped him the united states doorsteps as political fodder. that said, there has to be a strong stance taken on the immigration issue. i do not know why -- even of the message he sent repeatedly back to washington, d.c. -- they are unable and willing to secure our borders and unable and unwilling to pass any kind of immigration policy that makes any kind of

sense. there needs to be a guest worker program. there's no doubt that people who come here from mexico to work at to the viability of idaho's economy, no doubt about it, but they have to come here legally, and they should not be rewarded for coming here illegally. i would also encourage local governments to cooperate with the federal law enforcement. i do not think we need to become an arm of the federal government, but i do think that when people come within the purview of the federal justice system, their fingerprints are to be checked -- and they are in some counties now -- and that people who are here illegally committing crimes need to be removed. >> you can have another minute if you want. >> nope. >> all right. here's another question for you. you knew this was coming. there's a movement for idaho to take over management of federal public lands. is that an idea you support? what would it look like? if you do not support the idea, what can idaho do to support the ? nding of public schools

>> i support idaho taking back control of its land. there's two approaches, and as a lawyer, i recognize this. there's two approaches you can use -- a judicial approach going through the court, and a political approach where you approach congress about getting control of our lands back. because of the history of lands in idaho over the years, it's going to be a difficult journey, but it's not an impossible one. i think that idaho's governor needs to stand firm and lead the way on reclaiming those lands. i personally would prefer -- and i think it would be more successful and more efficient to go the political and congressional route, and as governor, i would work with the delegation in d.c. to help make that happen. >> all right. when minute. >> idaho cannot financially afford to own those federal lands. right now, we own them in partnership with the rest of the citizens of the united states, and they help pay for the management and the fire protection.

if we had owned the lands by ourselves, the beaver creek fire last year would have bankrupted the state. we cannot financially afford them. we also cannot legally take them. idaho act that admitted to the union, we agreed not to ask for the federal lands. i would prefer an approach that encourages local communities to have a voice in the way lands are managed. we work with the federal managers, the service that currently manages those federal lands. there's a good model with the clearwater basin collaborative of getting diverse interests together to come to an agreement . i do not think any of us want our lands locked up so we are cut out of them. the don't support becoming

federal government's arm here managing land in idaho. if we take back the land in a responsible way, maybe a county at a time, and we use the land we take back and realize the profit attentional from the natural resources that are there, when we can manage the property in a way that you do not end up with outrageous forest fires, and we can generate a boon to the economy that would allow us to be able as a state to afford to manage those lands. that's the key -- take it back a piece at a time, take it back responsibly. if we do not, we will see places like been a wok county turn into the silver valley where they cannot mine anymore, and they approach those logging jobs as men among wage service jobs. we need access to the resources in those lands. that's not the way idaho ought to go. >> all right. you might not think this is political, but i see panic in people's eyes when i have asked this question. there's been a lot of talk over the years about reforming idaho's tax code.

what exemptions would you support adding or in limiting, and what taxes would you like to see cut or increased? >> i'm very much in favor of a comprehensive evaluation of our entire tax code. that has been a different approach than what governor otter has taken. he has allowed special interests to dictate exemptions that benefit certain industries or certain companies. over the years, that has gotten our tax code out of balance and made it more inefficient. when we first moved here, people used to talk about the stability of the three legged stool of income tax, sales tax, and property tax, where the strength of one offset the problems and weaknesses of another. our tax code has been fiddled with so much over the years that we are out of balance. we need to take a good look at that to make sure that our tax across all sectors

of the economy, make sure it uses technology to keep the administrative burden to a minimum, and it collects the right amount of tax -- not too much and not too little. that can be accomplished, and as we look at and evaluate not just the exceptions, but the whole we fund the different responsibilities of our government and decide whether it is appropriate to fund education with sales tax or more appropriate to do some of that funding with property tax in a more stable and predictable way than we currently do it today. grocery credit is another good we are carrying over a policy or a procedure .hat is from the 1960's with barcodes, we could exempt groceries and not have to file a grocery tax credit. >> all right, do you want to

respond? >> there are too many taxes in idaho to begin with. what i would support is getting rid of all tax exemptions. tax-exempt and's or just another way that the government manipulates the free market. i think taxes need to be low, fair across the board, and predictable, and the way you get there is to impose a flat tax. that way, everybody knows what they have to pay, and everybody pays their fair share. to have these tax exemptions and place the way they are currently in place allows the burden to be shifted -- in those cases from big business who are given from thes to come here state providing minimum wage jobs a lot of the time, and pushing that word and onto the .mall tax owners i would get rid of all existence. flat tax is the way to go. i would like to see the sales tax disappear in fact. >> i will point out one example of how tax has shifted from businesses to people.

it helps businesses that have shifted that tax to homeowners. you can look at the school district where every year, the total tax we have levied and collected has decreased with the exception of the year that we found the supplemental levy with 71% of the vote. every other year, the total taxes decrease. gonethe tax on a home has up, and that's because governor otter in the legislature exempted business property and shifted the burden to homeowners . >> this is kind of along the same vein. some people would argue that large companies are attracted to invest and grow in idaho because of our low wages. should idaho increase its minimum wage? >> i saw some statistics recently that idaho's minimum wage is so are below the livable

that for a family without any kids it was half of what you idaho. live in even so, i do not think the answer to the problem is mandating an increase in the minimum wage. rather, we have to strengthen the economy and strengthen who hire employees, and those of the small businesses, the lifeblood of idaho's economy. we need to stop giving exceptions and benefits to the big businesses who come here. they do not see it employees as anything other than a commodity. toy are not generally loyal employees. small businesses on the other hand are connected to their communities and have a vested interest in doing the right thing by the people who live in those communities. they tend to pay high wages because they want to pay a livable wage and want people to stay in the businesses in the communities. again, we need to change the structure in idaho, in particular, the tax structure so

that small businesses get the same benefits as big as this is, and as the free market has been allowed to develop, you will see as the economy increases, wages will increase along with it. along theve traveled state, i have asked small business owners how raising the minimum wage will affect their business. i first asked the question if the minimal wage were raised to $10 an hour how that would affect the business, and they said it would not, they already pay their people tend dollars an hour. i asked the same question to a restaurant owner in boise, and he gave me the same answer. he said he pays kitchens that in dollars and hour as a starting salary. if there is memo wage to $10 an hour it would not affect his business. the real answer -- i believe we should raise the minimum wage, but the real answer is educating people so they are qualified for more than a minimum wage job. if we do that and concentrate on helping those businesses --

though small businesses already in the state pay more than a minimum wage, that will help the entire economy and will help the workers that are in those businesses. >> from my experience traveling around the state, there may be some businesses that have been established long enough to pay those higher wages, but there are other small businesses struggling to get by, and when i asked them the same question, the answer i got from them was you raise the minimum wage and make them pay more at this stage of the game, and they'll go out of business. we do not want to drive small businesses out of business here in idaho. >> all right. to you.s how do you plan to work with the legislature to address the continued backlog of tonsportation projects feature safe and efficient howways in idaho, and should this project be funded? >> this is another example where governor otter has not shown

leadership. he tried to propose funding to take care or at least make a dent in the roads and bridges, and the legislature resisted, and he did not go in there and do what he needed to to get people on board. i would bring people together to talk about the deferred maintenance on our roads and bridges. that is costing our state a lot a bridgebecause when is past its life, they do not block the bridge, and it's not going to collapse and cause problems. they put weights on a, and that causes trucks to take products to market or bring products to market to your community to take a longer route. it increases the cost of doing is passed on that to the consumers that buy those products. toneed to spend the money keep our bridges in good repair, to keep our roads in good repair, and that will help and be a good thing for business.

when i asked people about roads and bridges, most people -- you know, the county commissioners are very concerned about that, and they wonder where they will to fund it roads and bridges. the gas taxraised since 1996, i believe. almost 20 years. if that had been indexed to inflation, the gas tax would be about $.37 a gallon today. we also need to look at things .ike the vehicle fees they are very low in idaho, and maybe those need to increase, but we do need to find a way to increase the funding for maintenance on our roads and bridges. >> all right. >> i think maintenance to the roads and bridges is important, but i do not think the answer, as governor otter suggested, is raising the gas tax, raising fees. that is not the way to do it.

there's a lot of fat in the budget, and i will give you an example -- the budget basically has three huge components. education, which is about 65%, medical care, which is 20%, and aboutorrections, which is 10%. we spend entirely too much time locking up nonviolent offenders. last time i looked at the data, onwas about $42,000 we spend some of them prison over the course of the year. that's money that could be used other places in the budget. i would take a look at the budget, reshuffle where money is being spent, ask the legislature to look at passing some sentencing guidelines to give judges some direction about which people need to be incarcerated and which people do not, start saving money where we can, and putting that money to better use. >> ok.

all right, this is not specifically about the magic valley, but it affects the whole state. idaho has a developing natural gas play. nuven regulations are being thosed, and we should see or more of them in the next legislative session. as governor, you have the power to veto or sign any legislation that comes forward. what environmental or bonding regulations would you like to see come across your desk if you were elected governor? >> i would rely on the scientists and the people in that industry to give me the advice on what the safest and best way is to make use of the natural resources that occur in our state. it's not only the magic valley, but all over my part of the state in the western part of .anyon county there is potential for natural

, and people have talked about drilling those wells. if the resources are there and available for our use, if we can do that in a safe and environmentally friendly way, then we ought to take advantage of those resources, but we need to rely on good, sound science in what we are doing so we are careful not to damage the and not to contaminate groundwater, for example, so i would rely on our scientists and the experts in the field to advise me on how to approach those issues. >> when you say in the field, do you mean from the industry itself? >> yes, as well as the people environmental groups that may have an opposing viewpoint. but we need to hear people from all sides who have opinions and are knowledgeable about the .ssues involved in that >> all right. >> i would because it's about

trusting data from people in the industry. first of all, it's important that idaho start realizing its potential as an energy exporter. when you look at states doing well, pulling out of this last recession, states like texas, are doingta, they well because they are energy exporters, and idaho do is to join those ranks, and that's why it's important we get control of all the lands in our state. when it comes to being responsible about extracting those resources, we have to be careful because idaho has a lot of natural beauty, and we need to protect the environment as well. for example, i would support wanting so if there is any damage done to the environment, there would be adequate funding available to clean that up. i would also support studies into the techniques people are using in order to harvest the resources here. for example, i have a big question in my mind about whether fracking makes sense. i have seen data that suggests that's the long way to extract natural gas, but we need to get informed, make sure the

environment is protected, but still protect our ability to be an energy exporter. >> your response? all right. this goes to you. what role do you think the government should play an economic development? how would you assist existing businesses and expansion, and while you're at it, what kind of businesses would you target for idaho? >> first of all, i don't think it's the job of government to improve business. i think it's the job of government to set a low regulatory scheme, low tax scheme, and then get out of the way and let the free market take care of itself. the only thing government needs is process whatever it needs to do in order to be an administrator. if there are permits that need to be issued, government needs to do that effectively and efficiently, but the government should not be in the business of trying to recruit company's to

come here, should not be in the business of trying to promote one industry over another. that's the job of the free market, the job of private industry, not the role of the government. >> you know, governor ader's approach has the wrong focus -- governor otter's approach has the wrong focus. they've been looking to bring big businesses and hopefully get good jobs. we are competing, with all due respect, and our competition is to offer low taxes or tax incentives. we have over 40,000 small businesses in our state. we need to find ways to help them thrive and grow. if 10% of those businesses would add one employee, that's 4000 new jobs over the state. i was in phoenix spoken with the mayor, and he said the cheese fay