have similar challenges. i hope you continue to do the great work you are doing to shine a light. book, i said your you are the fourth present government -- branch of government. think you free time at. thank you for coming today. we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> our campaign 2014 coverage with a week full of debates. tonight at 8:00, the georgia between nathane deal and jason carter and at 8:00, the montana u.s. senate debate with representative steve daines and amanda curtis. tuesday night at 9:00 on c-span,

the governor's debate between shaheen,ey, vincent tom irvine, steve french, and morgan reeves. and thursday night, the fourth district debate between stephen -- jim mower.r >> in delaware, chris coons is running for election for his first full term. he won a special election four years ago. he is republican kevin wade. as solidly rated democratic. here is a look at the debate from last week. they debated for about one hour.

>> this is delaware debates. >> welcome. on behalf of delaware public media and the university of delaware center for put -- communication, welcome to delaware debates 2014, made possible with the financial support of the american cancer society cancer action network. joining me to moderate this debate is lindsay hoffman. andofessor of medication political silence -- science. the candidates include chris coons, the incumbent, and kevin wade. welcome to both of you. divided intoll be

two parts. following a one minute opening statement, lindsay hoffman and i will pose questions to the candidates. responses are limited to one minute 30 seconds with a one minute rebuttal and then there will be the opportunity for a discussion. the second part of the debate includes questions posed by students. responses in this portion are limited to one minute. each candidate will also have one minute for a closing statement. on thedio audience university of delaware's campus understands there will be no applause during the debate. we did hold a coin toss to determine the order. that determined we will begin with chris coons who has the opening statement. first>> thanks to the university of delaware and delaware public media for hosting. i running for my first full term am in the senate because i want to continue working for creative solutions to the real challenges

we face here and across the country. i worked hard to bring the delaware way to washington. i'm not going to sugarcoat it. washington is a very frustrating place. congress spends most of its time fighting over manufactured crisis. i have done things differently. working with people of both parties. on things that matter. helping the private sector to grow middle-class jobs and increasing access to college and skills training to have a fair shot at the american dream. we are a state of neighbors. we demand principle compromised and values results without fighting. these are the things americans expect from elected officials. also where we hear from candidates in person in a civil discourse to learn about visions and priorities and i've looked forward to that conversation tonight. >> and now the opening statement from kevin wade. >> i am kevin wade my opponent chris coons will speak of his four years in washington and will mention it again and again

his programs and legislative record. he will speak of subcommittees' but will not talk about his success to solve problems of delaware. you and i will have a different conversation. tonight i will be speaking about us and of life that we share here in delaware. i was not lucky enough to be born in delaware but i earned an electrical engineering degree right here at this university and my wife on campus for 36 years is a nurse and a professor to maternal and child health , helping newborn babies but tonight is about you we talk about the problems in common sense solutions to get through these difficult times together.

>> it is my job to keep us on time. i'm not being rude but that is , my responsibility. the first topic is the question to mr. coons about foreign policy. from the handling of a bola, to the threat of isis, you can put a pin on the map of global unrest. the civil war in syria is perhaps a good place for us to start with the implications of u.s. actions. that is the starting the opinion point. piece in "the new york times" asked the question of syria will be president obama is vietnam's. is the u.s. on the edge of that slippery slope of a new phase of military involvement of the region? >> we are at the beginning of a new phase by having started airstrikes against isis in iraq and syria but congress has an

important constitutional role to demand the strategy that has the support of the american people. i have insisted we pay for this war and that we make sure there is a route toward a clear and important victory against this group which has demonstrated the intends to massacre civilians and behead americans. we on the senate foreign relations committee have an important role to insist on a clear strategy, our taking up and voting and voting an authorization of the use of force, and to stay engaged in the oversight in the calm back to against isis. >> one minute rebuttal. the problem is washington, d.c. we have drifted dangerously from

a world that had some elements of common sense and security to a world that is a spinning out of control. violence in the middle east. i don't know how we can consider our foreign relations. there are dangers from every direction. a broken border. ebola. i have not heard a plan that looks like it leads to success. i've heard something that looks less like eisenhower and more like little bighorn. give my yes until i hear we have a plan for success. i know the people are unified and ready for the long and bitter struggle that follows. moving onto another national security issue, the ebola crisis, two thirds of americans are concerned about an epidemic in the united states. with recent news workers are infected. how can you reassure people the

issue is under control? >> we have a significant raging public health crisis in three countries. in order to reassure people it is under control, i want to report i have spoken with the head of the cdc, who is responsible for the public health and safety of the united delaware,d folks from from the hospitals, nurses, public health surface. we have a significant concern and we need to make sure we've got the resources and the training and equipment in hospitals to respond. time except for the full discussion limit. you may contribute to the conversation. >> the first problem is a lack of leadership. my opponent sent a tweet telling america not to freak out about a

single death from ebola. two more people have become -- >> let him clarify. >> mr. wade misunderstands. this was a tweet that was forwarding an article that was entitled don't freak out. take very seriously, even a single death in the united states. the larger point of the article was that we need to tackle ebola where it is out of control in west africa at the same time we are making sure the united states is prepared to respond health workers can contract it. >> could you compare the lack of early response? >> we do not have a confirmed united states surgeon general. that position has been open and by an acting surgeon general for nearly a year. that is not the role of the

house of representatives. that is the senate. has been empty. we don't have leadership in washington. that falls on you, harry reid and the democrat congress. whyo be clear, the reason we do not have a confirmed surgeon general's republican obstructionism. there was a comment about gun violence about -- being a public health crisis. he has been blocked by republicans in the senate. i would agree with mr. wade it is a challenge for us that we have not been able to fill senior positions for years because republicans have refused to allow us to get to a vote. we do need a surgeon general. there is a nominee who could lead in this crisis. >> lindsay will have the first question to you. foreign-policy issues have become a big part of the conversation. jobs in the economy remain one

of the foremost issues on voters' minds. of americans report economic issues as the most important problem in the country. what will you do to ease concerns about the economy? 5000have a plan to put workers to work, blue-collar jobs, welders and pipefitters and electricians and payroll clerks and drivers. i'm an engineer. i know how to run a business. natural gas reserves . it is the cheapest natural gas in the world. we are a port state. we are uniquely positioned and across the ocean are 300 million customers waiting to buy our natural gas. let's put this together and create 5-10,000 jobs right here in delaware. solve the problem. leadership in common sense. i spent eight years in a

successful manufacturing company and i have taken what i learned from that experience and from visiting manufacturers to develop a bipartisan agenda to strengthen manufacturing in the senate. we've had hearings and a number of those bills turned into law. the best way to move forward on the economy is not just focusing ,n one niche like natural gas as desirable as it may be. a broader approach to build the middle class and invest in skills and training, access to capital, export markets, and strengthening the overall economy. >> we can move into a moderated discussion on the economy. >> you said we are in a zombie economy. the most recent federal jobs report found employers actually added 240,000 jobs and the ,nemployment rate dropped crossing 6%. would you describe this as a zombie economy that is not alive and healthy? >> and the stock market dropped

today and in june we created about 284,000 new jobs, until you dig deeply and find 275,000 are part-time. people have full-time bills. the affordable care act is behind a lot of the separation of america into a full-time america and a part-time america. i intend to fix that. misunderstands the affordable care act on providing access to health care. in many cases for the first time for those who are working at the lower rungs of the economy. those who are seeking to get on the first rung of success. let me just say you make a good point. the hundreds of thousands of jobs created, the steady drop in unemployment, point to a strengthening economy. month over month, year over year. we have succeeded in washington in making tough choices that have cut the deficit by two inrds and we have succeeded

delawa in investing the things that private sector needs to grow more strongly. i'm optimistic about our economic future. we have not made progress for all americans. >> is there a concern if you boost to the minimum wage employers will then opt to do more with less? that has been the trend. job creation will begin to slow down because you have to play your -- pay your employees to much. points, but i support raising the minimum wage. it has not been raised in years. the idea folks should work full-time and be in poverty defies common sense that we should reward work. the smarter thing to do is not just raise the minimum wage, but also index it to inflation so we don't go through decades where it is stagnant and loses buying power. is to smarter thing to do create jobs and our. we have seen an erosion of middle-class income. we have seen the impact of affordable care act, congressman

carney had to do a car wash because of the affordable care act. you help firemen. i salute you for that. what an inch you help the rest of the people in delaware? my small business had our health insurance canceled. it was canceled because of obama care. a friend of mine in newark had his final coverage expire because of the obamacare. people are being forced into paying for policies they don't want at prices they can't afford and that is the nature of this two-part economy, full-time and part-time. mr. co want to give ons a chance to respond. >> let's agree that the work i have done make sure that unintended impacts of the on -- was an important effort made possible by bipartisanship.

there are things we should do, but 8 million more americans having health insurance and having access to quality health care is a good thing. >> balancing the budget is washington's unicorn. it sounds good and speeches and it does please the constituency. is it realistic? especially considering the uncertainty of the economy and the political climate in washington? balancingver heard the budget described as a unicorn before. for is a new mental issue me to take into the meetings. actuallyy that balancing the budget again, which we did in 2000, where we had a surplus, will take and norma's sacrifice and very difficult choices. at a time when we are going back to war in the middle east and we have a number of veterans returning home after 14 years of conflict and an aging population, we have significant

cost on the balance sheet. the progress we have made in reducing the deficit is well worth noting. going forward, i do not expect us to achieve a balanced budget in the next five years because the changes we would have to make to medicaid and social security are unacceptable and would not be supported by the american people. the depth of the cuts we would have to make would be unsustainable. i do not foresee a balanced budget in the short term. >> well, we can't balance the budget in a short term but we can get started immediately over the long-term. penny per line. i've asked washington to do what moms and dads can do and that is to cut one penny from each dollar in federal spending and make that cut once he year. cut one penny out of each dollar this year and we will give washington 12 months to find the second penny.

year by year, one penny by one penny, while we let revenues increase, and somewhere between six and 10 years from now, we will have zero deficit and then we can get to work on the real year plan toe 50 eliminate the federal debt. we need to get started and it needs to be based on commonsense. that is the penny plan. >> we are now into the portion of moderated discussion. i don't know if you want to respond to that. >> the penny plan, which was proposed by senator and's he of wyoming, is appealing in simplicity. it misses a basic point. costve steadily increasing facing the government. to take the baseline and cut misses the fact to meet our obligations to the veterans and are seniors, to those who rely on medicare and social security, which is more than a third of all delawareans, can't be

achieved by cutting from the baseline. >> lindsay hoffman can move us to a different point. >> sequestration. we talked about the unicorn. maybe the elephant. it resulted from a failure to reach a deal in 2011 and has led to automatic defense cuts. given the violet nature in syria and iraq, should more money to be allocated to the armed forces? >> yes. took a chainsaw to something that needed a scalpel. washington had months and years to address spending problems in washington. they reached a quick deal the president was behind and later complained about. it is going to leave us with an army with fewer troops than we had in 1940 and a navy smaller than in 1915. cuts to be found in defense. there are cuts to be found everywhere.

there is waste, fraud, and abuse. we have to do some real thinking to come up with real priorities for our nation today in this crisis and down the road into the future. we are not getting that out of washington. >> where does infrastructure fit into this? if you ask any civil engineer, the clock is ticking and we are on the verge of a huge infrastructure crisis on the highways. is it just going to stay on the back burner? >> i hope not. we got a bill passed in the recent senate. and we do agree on a bipartisan basis we need to increase public investment and private investment to make sure we catch up on some of our outdated infrastructure. it is not fast enough. to makestments we need in order for america to be competitive again. against countries like china that are investing in world-class infrastructure.

the united states needs to invest in education, research, to be competitive. >> is the only engineer sitting 2009, $850 billion was authorized for a stimulus program and the primary focus was infrastructure. what happened to $850 billion? management in washington. we need a new path. >> we have talked about health care. buford will have -- the affordable health care act. grade the impact and explain your position. >> i started a small business on a kitchen table. it gives me a perspective about making decisions and coming up with engineering solutions that work. of 2013, afterr 30 years of providing

high-quality insurance to our employees at no cost, i received a cancellation noticed. i said what is going on? obamacare.it is i said i have less than 50 employers. the president told me i could keep my insurance. the insurance industry is in chaos and turmoil. you and many other small businesses are being canceled. it is not a benefit to most people. 12,000 policies were canceled. i was speaking to an iron worker . his premiums have gone to $2400 a month. senator. you assigned a partial waiver for your staff and you. needs a waiver. all of us need a waiver. it is a beast and it needs to be put down. it hurts people today. to be repealed and we need to bring back the

market-based insurance system to provide ahealth way for people who want insurance to earn it in the community by voluntary service. let's go back to where we were before the affordable care act and remind folks 90,000 delawareans had no health insurance and tens of thousands of delawareans who had health insurance only discovered it did not work when they really needed it. three existing conditions, so folks who survived cancer would a reward insurance as for having survived cancer. women could be discriminated against for being women. pregnancy could be a pre-existing condition. discover they have a lifetime cap or in annual cap. hadinsurance program significant problems. there are challenges for small

business. i'm working with the insurance commissioner and have legislation to deal with some of the impacts on small business. the larger goal of expanding access to health care is something we have made progress in meeting. about the neighbor health program, use a people should be able to obtain affordable health care and have proposed to this volunteer program in exchange for health insurance. 20 hours a month. how would you enact this program? >> by leadership. talking to my colleagues in the u.s. senate and in the house. knocking on the door of the white house and say we have an idea america wants. people who have lost of their job have not lost their working skills. if you are a bookkeeper, you have bookkeeping skills. every community has needs. who haveput the people

those job skills but don't have jobs to work in the community. if they choose that and return for 20 or 30 hours a month, we will pay their health insurance premium. it is free. it is voluntary. allow the rest of us to get back to something that we can afford. if obamacare was so good, why did he ask for a waiver? >> i want to make sure we get discussion on this point. lets me speak to an untruth mr. wade has repeated. the members of commerce -- of congress are covered by it. we had to use the exchanges. i had the experience of going online and trying to buy through the exchanges and some of the frustrations. the affordable care act, enacted by the senate two years before i got there, is not perfect. it has made realistic progress toward a major goal.

making the insurance many of us are in really work when we need it and provide access to affordable insurance for those who did not have it. >> how can you improve the affordable care act? bills.e are a number of the taxhem expands credits available to small employers so they can afford to continue provide health insurance. some of the minimum coverage requirements of the affordable care act mean you have to provide broader and more robust coverage than you would have before. so making that affordable is a key piece that we are working out the details. a way to make exemptions for religious organizations. that they do not access the modern health care system. disappointed, our republican cosponsors walked away from the bill. it is my hope after the election i will have a chance to work

across the aisle on many of the ways we can deal with the and-time, full-time problem the cost for small business. >> we are going to move on to our next topic. this is about education. common core is under fire. even though it was initiated at the state level by the national governor's association, it is seen as a precursor to a federal takeover of the public education system. dubbing its are obama core. how valid do you see this criticism since it could be argued it is somewhat on point the goal of common core is to set a baseline standard nationally? >> the idea of a baseline standard for the skills young people it should get upon , whereing high school that standard has been developed in a conversation between education leaders and governors, does not frighten me.

what i hear from educators and manufacturers up and down the state is there has been a yearning for a clear roadmap for what it is young people should be learning so that we can measure their skills and progress. mandatenot a washington or takeover of education. it is important to be attentive to that as a concern. we don't have a centralized education bureaucracy. education is funded and driven at the state level. in delaware, we have a governor and a secretary of education and a union that represents most of our teachers that have worked well together to implement changes. i'm optimistic as long as we keep on an equal basis the importance of educating children and respecting teachers as professionals while providing , that werivate sector can make progress.

calling common core obama core a fox newso glom on cynical take to something that was started on a state level and has promise. >> i would like to ask the senator, on what state level was it applied? this is a recipe to teach every kid the same thing in the same way without distinguishing between louisiana, florida and alaska. the moon andd on returned those men home, we did not have common core. common core lays the onset from -- eighth grade of algebra the onset of algebra to the eighth grade. one of the advocates is bill gates. he has created millions of jobs. he is a brilliant man and a college dropout. to take important thing

away is bill gates sends his children to one of the most exclusive private schools on the west coast. that schools says we do not teach common core. in our discussion, you do not need to wait. you are allowed to discuss the questions. whatt me ask both of you education choices have you made for your families? where have your children attended school? i believe your grandchildren as well. children go to wilmington friends school. my wife is catholic. she grew up in parochial schools. as we started raising our children, we looked at public and private schools and ended up at wilmington friends. we like it's educational excellence. daughter went to a parochial school. we are protestant. foundation they

used to teach and the principles that live in that school. unfortunately a closed because the economy made it too difficult for too many parents to get tuition. now she is married with two grandchildren and they are in public school in middletown. but they have decided they want to maybe get out of the public school system. they are disappointed with common core. that reaction is taking place across delaware. it is a centralized system designed by washington. it is obamacare for education. was actually released today which finds residents give mediocre grades to the public schools and higher grades to the private school system. what would you do to ensure a good education for all children? simple,i've proposed a

equal opportunity, universal vouchers. every parent has one chance to educate his children. one chance. cost $14,000 to educate a child. in public schools, a $10,000 voucher is available to every parent and allows them to have the full range of opportunities. what would i do to insure equality of opportunity and to strengthen our schools? in teachers.nvest respected teaching as a profession. second, do more to engage parents in education. parents today are often stretch, working two jobs, working different schools, the national pta gave me an award for parent-teacher engagement. i've introduce legislation to strengthen our investment in

parent engagement centers in our schools. better align employers and the future needs of the work force what we are teaching in schools. schools werearter private schools, we need to have a sense of what the skills are that are needed in the martyred workforce and make sure we are making children aware of the cost of higher education and making access to college more affordable and equal. wade, a poll released to the numbers on the ratings of congress. measureds the lowest before in midterm elections since 1974. if republicans gained control this election, we can expect to see even more partisanship on capitol hill. how do you plan to fulfill your campaign promise in such a climate? >> i have told people up and down delaware, i'm not going there to be the republican senator.

i certainly won't be the democrat senator. i promise to be the independent voice. my opponent has voted with his party ship leadership 97% of the time. that is being part of the logjam. work with anyone who has a solution. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican. want to get i behind it. we need common sense solutions. it is my promise to delaware. i have a real record to talk about. as a freshman senator, i committed myself to doing my 2010g with each of classmates. 13 of whom were republicans. i was named the third most partisan senator. i've introduce legislation with 35 members of the republican caucus. my opponent might cite some rating in terms of voting with my leader. that is correct about confirming judges, ambassadors, but in some

way the vote will be the one on the first day. will he be voting for mitch mcconnell for leader? i suspect he will. by democratic values. i will continue to fight for raising the minimum wage, dealing with the equality gap, investing in manufacturing, and strengthening the economy. >> those are the things delaware expects of me. >>why should it fall a log party lines -- follow along party lines? the hobby lobby could opt out for religious reasons. do you agree or disagree with this decision? >> i disagree. the recent developments by the extend tourt to corporations first amendment rights that i think were understated as only attaching to is an unfortunate direction for the courts. hobby lobby is not some small family craft store. it is a multibillion dollar company.

while i respect to the religious views of the family, decisions about a woman's access to contraception should be made in her doctor's office. not a boardroom. i don't follow the logic of the supreme court in this case or in citizens united where they insist corporations -- >> let me set the record straight. that decision denied no woman birth control. not a single woman was denied birth control because of that. it was a decision about freedom. it was a decision about freedom. wereyees of hobby lobby not prevented from going to a and buying inexpensive birth control. let's not frame it that way. it was about freedom, senator. let me bring up the point george will, a columnist, who writes for the washington post, as anically named you

extremist for attempting to redefine the first amendment of the constitution. it was about freedom. that was a good ruling. many senators supporting an amendment that would restore the previous united before citizens that allowed for reasonable regulations on campaign contributions. moreens united took out than a century of precedent and has opened a floodgate to hundreds of millions of dollars of secret campaign contributions from corporations and individuals. while i've respect our difference of opinion come in to suggest i'm an extremist for trying to restore some balance and get back to a place where a flood of campaign cash should not be allowed to influence elections is not extreme. >> i would like to respond to that. george will is no extremist. a columnist.

you have raised $9 million in campaign donations the past four or five years. i would like to ask the audience to raise their hand -- >> we are not. >> i will ask the tv audience. rage your hand if you are $9 million better off. it is interesting he brings up the flood of cash in politics. $9 million, senator. >> i wish i had raised a $9 million. >> that is a part of the public record. >> that is inaccurate. >> we need to wrap up. all of my contributions are transparent and publicly available in terms of who made them, where, what citizens united made possible is millions of dollars of seeker contributions where the public has no idea from whence they come. move on tooing to student questions. our first question -- >> do we have a generic students? very good. comes from aion

freshman political science major from the university of delaware. what do you think congress can do to support the movement against sexual assault on college campuses? it is important congress join campus leaders in making our campuses safe for young women and young men to insist on accountability and transparency and make sure those campuses that rely on federal funds, whether for grants for education or investments in research, they abide by the law and investigate, prosecute, and deal with sexual assault on campus. this is an important initiative. the safety zone beyond the campus. i had an opportunity to speak to

a young woman a few weeks ago. she heads an organization called me to me at the weld. she is supporting women who have to prostitute themselves because they have no place to go. world of violence and fear. if we are going to private had a safe son, let's make it everywhere. that is a good question, but expanded for every woman. the issue of immigration reform. seniorstion comes from a political science major. >> what is your view on immigration reform and what action do you plan to advocate for if elected into office? the opportunity to learn a great lesson by going to the southern border five or six weeks ago. i met with ranchers and shopkeepers, law enforcement. we have a broken border.

it is hurting people on both sides. because we don't have effective border security, it has created a vacuum. the vacuum is being filled by the gulf cartels who control passage from the southern side. everyone who crosses must pay hundreds and thousands of dollars. or carry drugs. and with women, they have to use their body. it is an ugly scene. we have to secure the borders so we can stop hurting people on both sides. we have to get realistic about that because that is first in the minds of the people in america. have a border security issue that deserves to be addressed. as a senator, i have worked with republican senators like john mccain and marco rubio to introduce and strengthen and

passed a comprehensive integration -- immigration reform bill. it invests in strengthening border security and doubling the size of the border patrol and also in providing a path forward for the 12 million people in the united states that allows us to identify and report those who are dangerous and to set a long-term path where those who are here can confess to their crime, learning wish, and go to the back of the line. you learn english, and go to the back of the line. follow-up question from lindsay hoffman to mr. coons. >> on the issue of children crossing the border, some of them are finding refuge in delaware. what should be done in this situation and what does it tell us? >> it tell us we -- tells us we have broken situations in the

law and in the border. fortunately the last couple of months and number of young children coming from a central american countries where there is drug and violence has dropped because we have strengthened the border patrol and invested in speeding up the immigration review. we are sifting those with legitimate claims from those who return and partly because we have invested their parents that they are not guaranteed to stay here. they don't have a free pass toward citizenship. what do we need to do? we need to respect and enforce the law as it exists on the books which requires husband get at asylum claims chance at the financier and those that don't have legitimate claims get returned to their countries of origin. this is a difficult situation, but one i am proud and panathinaikos best traditions of ofasive -- i am proud

keeping with the best traditions. 300 million americans would like to be first in their own lives. our priority is to stop this path at home it is. sheriff. -- their daughter found a piece of paper with of the rio grande. note from the paint -- there as a note from teh bank. we have a broken border. it is not working, chris and washington is not working. it is time to delawareans first. is a voice, but their voice. that is desperately.

this question comes from is the nichols university. as it government provide military style weapons? >> mr. wade? >> the answer is no. we do not want to militarize our police force. they should be representing the best and nature of those in our society. we don't need heavy weapons. we do not need armored vehicles. some forces are getting them. we are building a wall of separation between the people and their police forces. we do not militarize the police. it is a simple answer. >> it is important we understand the premise of the question. a heartrending situation in missouri where the visual image of the police response to protesters was one

where they were seen to be aggressive and militarized. we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. there is a program of taking surplus equipment and providing it to law enforcement. as someone who has met with police chiefs, i can tell you some of that equipment has been essential to our safety. so in some communities where a humvee is provided, it is used to evacuate a seaside community. is that militarizing the police? so. think we need to separate that equipment that is uniquely military that should not be provided to local police and that equipment which provides capacity to respond to crises. >> let's have a follow-up on this point. >> talking about gun deaths in the u.s. had more guns and

gun deaths than any other developed country in the world. what can we do to reduce gun violence? law enforcement in calling for a system of background checks and making sure we don't allow those who are mentally ill, those who are intent on causing harm to others, to have easy access to weapons. we have to balance the fundamental freedoms of the with keepingent, communities safe. nobody wants to take away the guns those who have them for sport or production who are law abiding. we could and should do more to knock down purchases that allow those prevented from buying guns to get them and to work with local communities to combat the things that lead to violent crime and to ensure we are not allowing guns to get in the hands of clinical's -- criminals as easily as we do. these tragic outburst of

violence we have seen around the tied directly to untreated and serious mental illness. not the national rifle association. it is not the second amendment. it is not local ownership of a firearm. who aretoo many people seriously mentally ill and they can't get the treatment they need to help them. it is a mental health issue. it is a leadership issue. it is a public health issue. >> the next question comes from a junior energy policy major. this is about the sea level rise. was wondering if you could elaborate on your plan to mitigate the effects of sea level rise. >> mr. wade. >> i live in a very old town here.

the dutch have an expression in holland, i have worked there, god made the world but the dutch made holland. the first thing they did when they came to newcastle 300 years to was to build a levy actually drain some of the swamps. with water, man has rivers, the seacoast is never-ending. it has always been with us. as an engineer who needs to follow the science and the data i remain veryads, skeptical in terms of man-made global warming driving a rise in sea level. there is a study that has been used unfortunately by some people in delaware to alarm people about a potential five foot rise in the sea level. the study concludes the sea level is rising off the coast of delaware, but not new york city. i can't balance this is good

science. too much to respond to. world, bute made the man is making the world change. we have subsidence that is causing the land to go down the water is rising. that accounts to the distinction to what is happening off the coast of delaware. towns like newcastle, wilmington, and many others have the lowest mean elevation in the country. they will face impacts from climate change in the coming decades. i have worked hard as a member of the energy committee to propose and seek passage of the clean energy standard, new ways to finance clean energy, and ways to responsibly step up and deal on an international basis with the challenge to the future of the world. it is my hope we can find a bipartisan path going forward and those who claim to be well

grounded and still skeptics over an area where there is overwhelming consensus are disappointing because they stand as barriers in the way of progress. >> i would like to respond. i have worked -- >> in the interest -- i need you yourke that point in closing statement. i need to move on. i need to move on. out of respect to the rules we agreed upon. the next question on ethanol comes from a biochemistry major. >> considering the role of big think [inaudible] point, i'm very optimistic ethanol and other where dupont and other companies in delaware are will eventually replace

gasoline. although the scale is dramatic. we are in the early stages of developing production of things like bio butonol. it will be a long time before they can replace gasoline. i'm optimistic point-based fuels in the long-term will be the most reliable and renewable and sustainable source of fuel for our future. as the only engineer, it will never happen. the amount of fuel we need to propel the economy outstrips our ability to raise cellulose, corn . i believe in an energy policy that includes all sources, but they have to be competitive. they have to meet our needs. washington can't pick winners and losers because it always gets it wrong. we have an abundance of oil. we have become the largest oil producer. the starting wage in north

an hour. $15 this is what a booming economy does. we can't close our eyes to the possibilities of the treasures that it lay beneath the ground in this country. i like pipe dreams but only in children's novels. to a will move on student question. the question is about college to us in rates. student, i'm concerned with the rise in to wish in rates. i was wondering what your positions were on how to cope with that. ask thenk we need to administrator of this university to understand it is someone's money they are charging. they have allowed tuition rate to rise faster than the cost of living over the past 10 and 20

years. it is a reaction to people trying to find a path forward in their lives because of the lack of blue-collar jobs. people rush to college and are willing to pay anything to get the degree. too many people graduate unable to find a job much different than they would have gotten coming out of high school. but burdened with the debt. we need to talk to our leaders in academia and ask them to do a little bit more with a little bit less to give a break to our students. we need to strengthen the federal state partnership in providing funding for higher education. as the government continues its role in providing pal grants billions of dollars to make higher education affordable, states have actually receded in terms of their support for higher education. so we've got this difficult situation where tuition continues to rise and the amount of support continues to drop and the cost of higher education and its importance increasing -- in

the economy only go up. i have legislation that would give access to lower interest guaranteed loans, and that would seek to penalize those for-profit colleges which are not to doing the best. there is more we can and should do to reduce the rate of growth of tuition, but sustaining the federal role in providing higher education is my first priority. >> we have lots of issues we would like to follow-up on, but we are at that point for closing statements. each of you will have one minute for a closing statement. we begin with you, kevin wade. ou for being with me tonight. the problem in america is that our leaders in washington no longer believe in us. other andieve in each all of us, together, will see we get our way through this most

dangerous and disturbing time we are in with ebola and broken borders and isis. i went to work in a steel mill three days after high school. i climbed the ladder of opportunity here in delaware. every good thing in my life happened because of that klein. i spent 40 years in manufacturing. i know how to create high wage jobs. parents aneed to give choice in education. that is the voucher. we need to secure the border. i know the threat of the bowler. and islamist terrorists. we need honest, experienced leadership in washington. send a message we are going to set things right. we will not live in fear. we will not be deceived. god bless all of you and may god save the united states of america. thanks to everyone who listened and to watched.

about myu learned more vision for delaware and about why i'm seeking my first full term in the senate. i believe in delaware's workers. i believe we can make things in the state again. that is why i'm fighting hard to help the private sector create jobs. i believe every young deserves the same opportunity to succeed, which means more kids can afford college. it is not easy to get things done in washington. when i'm able to break through the gridlock and help the fire service get relief for secure funding to save our state's child advocacy center's, i know i'm making a difference. the only way we are going to get things done in washington is to work together. on novemberur vote 4, i will keep working to find common ground, reach across the aisle, and get things done for this great state of vice. this greatu -- for

state of hours. >> thank you very much. also to our audience. on behalf of delaware public fm, and the center for political to medication, thank you very much for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] delaware debates is a joint initiative of the center for political communication and wdbe fm, delaware public media, with support from the american cancer society cancer action network and the william p frank foundation of delaware. >> c-span takes you to the washington center for remarks by dennis hastert. joining richard gephardt and right now bob is doing the

introductions. >> he served from january 6, 1999 and was the longest-serving republican speaker in history. he was elected to the house in 987 and served the >> richard gephart provides strategic advice before the house, executive, and legislative branch. mr. gephart served 28 years in 2004 use from 1976 to rementing st. louis, missouri. he was house majority leader 1989 to 1995, and minority leader 1995 to 2003. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and

accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> mr. speaker, you were a coach, howl coach, and you were offered a job, i believe, as a principal. but then you went to congress. how did your role as being a coach help you in your role as speakership? >> i think first of all, in your role as coach you had to look at what was the best thing for the team and how do you move a group of people forward and get things done. i think the skills you built during the those days of coaching are the same skills you did in leadership. had you to bring people along. you set goals, you tried to achieve those goals, and you

tried to move forward. the interesting thing is when i was offered a job of a prince pal, assistant principal, you know, i looked at the principal's office where i worked, i saw him work every day. he had the same seven or eight chairs every day with the same kids in them. smoking in the johns, raising problems on the school bus. and i thought, i'm not sure i want to do that. the other side were the teachers. they didn't want to ride the fan bus on friday night, they wanted to move somebody out of their class. i said, i didn't want to do this the rest of my life. i ended up running for legislature, never dreaming i would end up as leadership of ngress and never dreamed i would be speaker of the house. and out my door were the same

seven or eight chairs every day with the same seven or eight people. [laughter] lows. there are historic what is the cause of that? is it the media's fault? is it twitter? >> i think you have to start this discussion by understanding that congress is usually unpopular. there is a good reason for it. congress is a huge organization. it is 535 people, and they are trying to reach agreement on very controversial, emotional issues in the country. so it is always hard for them to operate, for them to make those decisions. i always say, politics is a substitute for violence. it really is. when people come here, they find out there are 534 other people in the building. in many countries, one person

makes the decisions or a small group. here we have this huge group. so it is always hard. lately it has been a little harder than usual. i chalk it up to the fact that we had the worst recession since 2007 at depression from or 2008 until just recently. when you have a big recession, a lot of people lose their jobs, lose their house, lose their pensions. they get angry, understandably, and they tend to send people to represent them who are equally angry, and having made up their minds that these are the answers, and it's going to be my way or the highway. so there has been less willingness to compromise on some of the important issues. i think that's changing as we speak. i think people who came with that frame of mind are starting to either change their mind or they are leaving congress. so i'm an optimist.

i think in the days ahead, you are going to get back to a more normal situation stwen the congress, within the congress and with whoever is president. and i think you will get a better atmosphere. but remember, it is always hard. it was hard when we were there, and it was hard when anybody is there because the issues are tough, they are controversial, and everybody has a different opinion in that group of 535 of what to do. >> are you optimistic as well? >> yeah, i'm optimistic. look, this is the best governmental system in the world, as far as i'm concerned. you can talk about the problems that we have. yet, if you want real democracy, real participation, this is where it's at. i think most people around the world, if they had the opportunity, they would be here in this country. i see some of the same problems that my colleague sees. we were just across the river.

his district in zhruse st. louis, my district of illinois are pretty close together. you know, i learned a long time ago that when i was serving in the illinois legislature, i took a -- there are a couple people in the illinois legislature, i just couldn't understand where they were coming from. they were always getting up, they were anti-farmer, anti-business, and they were just, i thought, protaganists all the time. so i got on a train in springfield, went from springfield to st. louis, and i passed through the district these folks came from. i was down in what they call "gob down below." it was all closed down factories. it was refineries that were closed and broken up. it was very, very dire. i learned, you know, everybody that's in the congress, everybody that's elected comes from some place. they represent a group of people. one thing you have to realize, being a leader, everybody has a right to be there, so everybody

has a right to be heard, and everybody has a right to be part of the process. the process isn't always pretty, but it is constantly trying to move people together. i think what the leader did and what i had to do is constantly put people around the table to ry to fine some con sessous -- concensus to move forward. i'm not sure that's happening today. >> one of the questions is if the senate will flip. on the day after the 2014 election, we'll be talking about 2016 politics, will hillary run. of course the answer to that is yes, but everyone is watching her very closely. [laughter] mr. gephart, you ran for president twice. what was that like? how was it different in the two times that you ran? >> well, it was a terrific experience. it is a fabulous country and the people are fabulous. that's all i can tell you. when you go out and try to get people to help you and people do

without asking for anything. they don't want anything, they just want good government, they let you stay in their house, they go door-to-door for you. they give you money, they give you food. it is an incredible experience because of the greatness of this country and the greatness of the both times i really enjoyed it. we put people to a tough test. it's a good test. we have to go through new hampshire, south carolina, a variety of states, and meet people one-on-one and in small groups like this. you have to make your argument, and let them know who you are, let them into why you want to do this and what your goals are, and what motivates you to do this. it is a fabulous system. it really wasn't that much different. i ran in 1988 and then in 2004. it was largely the same.

the money amounts got bigger, because you know, time had gone on, inflation and so on. but the process was very similar, and the process candidates go through in 2016 will be similar to what they did in those years. hastert, hafert, -- tom boehner is now the speaker, and he's been battling some tea party members, and he's been struggling to move some bills, especially fiscal bills. your name has been invoked a lot. they talk about the hastert rule. does speaker boehner have the toughest job in washington? >> look, i think the speakership is a tough job. it is a job where you constantly have to bring people with different sides together to find a solution. i see this unhappy discourse that goes on in politics today somewhat as a result of legislation that passed in 200 and it was called the mccain

feingold eform -- reform. quote, "reform" unquote. people thought the rulse results in skewed one way or another. so basically, the parties were eadvice rated -- eviscerated as far as a funding source for candidates. what i always thought was, the democratic party or the republican party was kind of a moderator. people elected to the two-party system weren't too far to the right or too far to the left. they are pretty mainstream, center-right or center-left. so what happened was, money was taken out of the political system from the parties, so money finds a place to go, and it went to the far left and the far right. not the choosing of the candidates, but the messages

that are out there are paid for by people from the far right and the far left. these people are looking over realizing, rs and if they don't listen, they will have a primary, and they will be challenged. it only takes a small percentage to create this kind of back-and-forth within the party. so i think speaker boehner has a tough job, but i thi think that's what speakerships are for, for people to have tough jobs and get results. constantly his task will be bringing these people to the table. i also found you have to give people responsibility. there are artisan people in the caucus that aren't happy what they are doing, but you have to give them a stake. get them involved. give them projects and then bring them to the table and see what you can incorporate. so it is a technique, and i think it is part of what i did

in my coaching process. it is not easy, but it is, you know, they called me the speaker, they should have called me "the listener." [laughter] >> we've seen the supreme court get involved with the citizens united case. richard gephart, super pac's, are a a part of the problem? are they a big part of the problem? >> there is no question about the problems with money and politics. we all have an idea of how important it is and what to do about it. in fact, one time long ago, i presented a constitutional amendment, which is the only way to really deal with it, if you want to deal with it, because we have freedom ever speech in the constitution. and the court has said, money equals speech. so as long as that's their opinion, if you are going to change this, if you want to change it, you have to change the constitution. so that's well ny to impossible. i don't have a brilliant answer.

i have face in the people. you know, a lot more money has gone into campaigns in the last 10 years. have you super p.a.c.'s on both sides coming in with millions of dollars usually for negative ads against some candidate they are trying to beat, and i have been amatesed that the public reaction to these ads has not been what i think they expected. people are tired of this, and they are just turning it off. in my view, a lot of the super p.a.c. money is wasted money. i'm sure the tv stations are happy to have it, but i don't think they are getting the result they want. the american people are smart. they don't want -- you know, when they hear negative on this one and negative on that one, you know, they are both horrible. who do we pick? so they start getting information from other sources about who they want to vote for. so i'm not so pessimistic about

this whole thing. a lot of people think it is the end of our democracy, and it is ruining our politics. i can device a better system. it is the system that we have. it is in the constitution that we have freedom of speech and people who have money can speak louder than people that don't. it's the way it is. and we just have to trust the people to ferret their way through all this information and make good decisions. i think they will do that. >> there are 435 seats in the house, and even though this congress has been called one of the worst congresses run by republicans in the house, democrats in the senate, as far as the house, 435 seats, and basically at the hill right now we are tracking 40 to 50 re-election rates. everybody in the house's spot is up every two years. is that a problem? ome of the critics say it is

gerrymandering and you have these districts skewed to one side or another. speaker hastert, does this need to be changed? >> you have to go back to the constitution. the constitution says it is up to the states to decide how they are going to reapportion. unless you change the constitution, again, you are not going to change the process. one famentse politician once made a speech, but the fact is, it is what it is. you work with it, you live with it, sometimes states lose, sometimes they win, depending on the give and take. my state of illinois, we lost five seats on the republican side last time because people -- ou know, jerry manned erg -- gerrymandering, reportionment. it plays out. what we really want is that people elect who they want and get something done.

what i think people are fed up with is this business of everybody blaming everybody else. set some goals, and work toward it. you have to do it on a ipartisan basis. dick and i didn't always agree with each other, we were sometimes on the other side of the aisle, but while we were there we paid down $50 billion in public debt. that hadn't been done before and it hasn't been done since. so you can do things on a bipartisan basis. mr. gephart, what do you think of the idea of working together on a bipartisan basis? >> yes, i think you can. i agree with the speaker. the redistricting

process has always been a political process because people are trying to get more people in their districts. before we had computers, it was not a precise science. now with computer technology and google maps, we can go down and say, we know his house, he votes democrat. i want him in my district, and i want to get rid of her because she's a republican. i'll give her to the republican. so it has become very previce, and very effective, i might add. districts that are 85%, 90% republican or democrat.

there is a movement to try to take this away from legislatures and give it to bipartisan commissions. but that's going to be a very hard process because legislatures and political parties don't want to give up that power. i wouldn't be optimistic that a lot will change very fast. >> it is interesting the people who draw up the maps end up in congress. >> imagine that. >> i have just one more question, but if you have any questions, line up at the mics, and when we call on you, you can identify yourselves. one thing i wanted to ask, it is very important, when i talk to members of congress, they mention this. and because of the democratic administration, and it has happened in all administrations. basically, congress congressional democrats don't feel like president obama calls them enough. he doesn't usually golf with democrats, and is this a case --

certainly we heard this when george w. bush was in the white house as well. congressional republicans, especially when the house was launched in 2006, they were upset, and they started to publicly criticize the president for not communicating better. mr. gep hard -- gephart, is this a problem that the president, and he served in the senate, is he not communicating enough with his own party on capitol hill, or is this lawmakers that basically want to have their ego stroked? >> well, you have to sit back and look at this job we call president and what it requires somebody to do today. i think it is by far the toughest job in the world. it always has been a tough job

because the president has to work closely with congress. the constitution created a lot of power in title 1. and it has to be, because the congress gives money. the congress declares war or not war. he congress sets up the gab -- approves the cabinet and other important positions. so there has always been a lot of time on task for presidents with the congress. and i guess i would say, presidents can't meet with them often enough. but we also have charged the president to be in charge of foreign policy in a world in which you are on this little itty planet today. with today's transportation and communication, presidents are expected to talk with almost

every country every day. it is a demanding job with demanding requirements. now, you always have to go to the personality of whoever is president. you know, everybody istive. some presidents like meeting with congress. bill clinton was one who relished in it, and he liked it, and he did a lot of it. think he was effective at it. it could be, and i don't know, i'm not there, it could be president obama doesn't have that exact personality and he wants to do other things that he thinks are equally important. i'm sure he has more than enough o do 24-seven. so i don't know. you always get some complaining, i think, from members that they don't get enough time with the president and the president is not spending enough time with them. we certainly have a huge range of problems in front of the

congress. i don't know. you will always get that complaint. i think everybody is doing the best they can. i think you will get more bipartisanship in the last two years of the obama administration than you have seen before, because he will want a legacy. he sees important issues like immigration, the budget, doing something about some of the they may y problems come together in the last two years more than they did in the years before them. >> i think it is an issue of who in congress has the power and who does the president have to work with. if there is a shift, which you talked about at the end of the bush administration, the shift went to the democrat side, the president has important things. to run his government, he has to get the budget done, and he has to deal with the people chairing

the budget committees and chairing the plifrls -- plifrls committee, and chairing his jurisdiction. that's where he has to get his funding for his government. if it is in republican hands, that's where they have to go. if it is in democratic hands, that's where they have to go. you have to go to the leadership to get those types of things done. i think it is a natural movement o power. you constantly have this pushing back and forth. but members of congress, if they are not getting the attention they think they should, they will get angry. i think it is time to get back to a call to order. we really haven't had a budget for a long time passed by the ouse and bass -- passed by the

senate. when we worked with the congress, the budget had to be out by march, we had to be reconciled with the senate by april 18, and everybody had their numbers. so that process went through. if that process moves through, everything else moves through with it. when it doesn't happen, then you end up with -- you set yourself up, i think, for a long jam in the congress, and i think that's basically what happened. >> as far as both of your careers, you know, we've seen that as a leader, you are going to have members who are going to get into trouble. they are going to get into scandal. we have famously a former member that stashed $90,000 in his freezer. you can only imagine, when the leader gets that news, he did what? is that the toughest part when you deal with that? we talk about the 2000 election. there was a scandal in the house election process? is that the toughest part? conversely, what's the most

rewarding part, speaker hastert, of being a leader. >> i think the most rewarding part is actually getting things done and seeing things happen that are good things for the american people and our nation. we were able to do a lot of stuff the eight years i was there. we pass aid lot of legislation. some people would argue it was good, some people would argue it was bad, but we did pass a huge amount of legislation. tax reform, we did energy reform, we did health care reform, we did medicare reform. so we did a lot of things important to the american people. plus, we had something after 2001 and 9/11, we had to make sure this country was secure again. and that we wouldn't let those kinds of episodes ever happen in this country again. so we went from a peace time situation in this country to basically a war time situation to make sure the country was

safe. so the job of leadership is many faceted. but i think, in my view, in working with the members of congress, bringing people together and getting things done, i think was the greatest satisfaction i had. we had to work with the president on both parties. i was able to do that. ou built those relationships and you find, i think, politics is how people treat each other. politics, whatever form or level you take it, is people relating to each other and being able to express to each other and finally getting a result out of it. so it's the relationships that you build. so i think that was the biggest thing that i felt, that the good relationships that we were able to build on both sides of the aisle. >> speaker gephart. >> the toughest thing i was involved in was similar to what the speaker said, and it was the balancing of the budget over a

10-year period. it took 10 years. it was the hardest thing i ever got involved in. -- bob michael was the leader of the republicans, and then bob dole, and then newt gingrich game and speaker hastert game. so it ran through all of those leaders. and we all worked together over a 10-year period. it was excruciatingly hard. i want you to understand how hard it was. we worked on each of those deals for over a year apiece. sometimes after we had gotten all the work done and everybody was totally unhappy, which is the definition of a compromise, we took it out on the floor and lost. many times. we had to regroup, recanoiter and put it back together and beg people to vote for it. harry truman said leadership is

getting people to do things they really don't want to do. that's a lot of what you deal with when you are leading the congress and leading the country. it's getting people to accept things they really don't want to accept for the good of the whole n the long term. that's the issue. and as the speaker said, you are a listener. you have to listen constantly and endlessly to what everybody wants to say. i used to say in the hospital, process is everything. why did i say that? because the process means, whoever i am, i feel i was fairly heard, and i had a chance to win, and even if i didn't, the process was fair. so i'll put up with a bad result that i did not want. the magic of democracy is that will you go through all this

disagreement, and all this time, and part of the reason people hate congress is because it takes so long to make a decision. people think congress is like one person. it's 535. and so when they finally get it done, what you get from all that is that the losers -- and there are losers on every issue. to pick up n't want a rifle or leave the country. that's the magic of democracy. because you put 535 people in the room, and all the view points were heard, and they voted, and there was an outcome, and you move on. and the losers don't want to leave in anger, and you can have another vote another day and go on to other issues and make the country better. >> interesting you both mentioned listening as something that you have to do.

and i imagine, too, with a lot of listening you have to refrain from groaning and rolling your eyes. we have some questions. please identify yourselves and ask your questions. >> hello. from --is aexa, and i'm you mentioned the election process. you mentioned mccain-feingold and the need for a constitutional amendment to address campaign finance reform. i wanted to address senate 19 which is the constitutional amendment that should be coming up as a vote after this election which should address this issue. >> well, i think it is well nye to impossible to pass a constitutional amendment, and that is what i believe. it is not a bad issue to come up. it is not wrong to discuss it and to fry to do things, and there are lots of different ideas for campaign reform, but

as i said, probably to be effective, you've got to change something in the constitution to do that. tohink it's because you have get 2/3 of both houses and then the state legislature tozz approve? whoa. you're talking 30 years at least. so it is just really hard. i look for other things that are constitutional that might help the process. there are ideas for revenue sharing with people if they ise small strixes they get money, that philanthropists could give funds. there are ways funds could be moved around. that's my thought. >> i remember my first campaign, i was a school teacher.

all of a sudden, i had to raise to run for legislature $10,000. for me $10,000 was a huge amount of money. it was bigger than the salary i had at the time. how do you do this? you go out and you give people $25? $50? one time a friend of mine gave me $1,000. it was like, wow, it's christmas all over. what you have to do when people give you money or contribute to their campaign, those people who vote for you. i mean, those are the people who support you because they like your ideas and you are part of the community. i have always said, if you go through some type of regimine where you earned at least half -- you raised about half of your money from the district, from the people who will elect you, the people that went to the polls and supported you and had the ability to build an organization out of those

people, that's where money really talks. you know, the rest you do have from your district, you raise the other half wherever you wanted to, as long as you had it ut where you had it in subtransparency. i think those are the two things, local support and transparancy. however you get to election reform, i think those two have to be the centerpiece of it. >> to this side of the room. >> hi. my name is haley horrison and i go to st. lawrence university. you both talked about the how the american democracy is so great because it brings everybody to the table and everyone can have a voice. i wonder what your experience was working with women and minorities in the house and senate because right now the house and senate are not very diverse with women and minorities. i was wondering if you could talk a little about about that, and also women and minorities in

ouse leadership and senate leadership as well. >> i think if you had asked this 30 years ago you would have been more troubled about the lack of leadership and the diversity in leadership in the house. it has changed a lot. i think the house today is much, much more representative of the diversity, of the american people. i can't give you the exact numbers. maybe the speaker would know them. in terms of women, it is a much larger number. i mean, when i came to the house n 1976, you could have put all the -- all the women in a phone book in the house. now it is a much larger number. minority, similar. of course we have had court cases on civil rights as it applies to redistricting in the house, and that has made it possible for many more minorities to win office. one of the things i loved about

the house was that it really did represent the american people. i mean, when you are out on that floor with 435 people and a big vote, where there was a lot of disagreement, it was -- there is -- there is nothing more exciting. it was more exciting than basketball or football. because it is really -- everything is hanging out. everything is all over the place and every -- everybody is represented, and it is a very diverse organization. so i think we have come a long way in the right direction, and i'm really proud of what's happened in the country. >> just to play off that, you know, when people kept coming, they said, don't you miss coaching. well, we had competition every day. if you didn't miss the competition, you know, we worked hard to bring women into the leadership relm into the house. we always had two or three women that sat on our leadership group.

but you always have to do better. and one of the downfalls, i felt in the republican party, we had a lack of minority groups in our conference. boy, we had a program where we tried to bring in interns and minority groups. it was tough to do. partly just because of the make-up of the parties. but, you know, that's where we have to strive. that's when i think from my side, our party, we're missing the boat on doing some reform on immigration. we have to be a big 10 party. you can't close down. the parties who have the best effectiveness are the parties that can open up and bring more people to the program. if a republican is ever going to get elected as president, he has to appeal to conservative democrats and to independents. you just can't do your own small group of people. we constantly have to work to open up to minorities, spr

programs that lift people, and so it works for women and minorities, i believe. >> there are been a number of members who said unless americans join in immigration reform, they are not going to win -- one lawmaker said they will never win another presidency. speaker hastert, do you think if women win in congress, they should put l law making at the front of their agenda? ,> if you had asked eric cantor it was an issue that -- i think there are good answers on the republican side and good answers on the democrat side. you have to take a little bit of each. i did a lot of years working on illegal drugs coming into the united states because we lost 60,000 kids a year from drugs or drug violence. i learned a lot about the borders because 75% of it comes across the border.

we have to have good border security. we have to have the places to bring them in and to know. there needs to be border control. yet, on the other side, you can give here on other issues as well. who knows, how many people. 10 million, 14 million? i don't know how many people there are. but the little town i live in, a miles west of shigor. our high school is 43% hispanic. they are there. you have to legitimize those people and give them a green

card or char truce card or whatever rblings,000 people. there are reasonable issues to come together, and they have to come together, and do it in a bipartisan way. >> i agree with the speaker. i think something will get done on immigration probably next year. if also think, if you -- people really stop and think about it, the diversity of our country is our greatest strength. it is our greatest strength. when i think back over my lifetime, you know, i grew up in the 1950's, and what civil rights were then and what they are now, it's like a different country. there is no resemiblens to what nt on -- resemblance to what went on in the 1950's. this is the only country in the world where people say to themselves the first day they are here, "i'm an american. i'm an american."

that is a huge strength. this is a huge deal for americans going forward, and i think they will get it done. >> hello. i am from brazil. i have a question about representatives. right now the united states has a population of roughly 320 million and a little more than 500 people in congress. that's a lot of interests to represent. so my question is, isn't it time for us to improve our system of democracy now that we have access to technology? isn't it time to come up with some inventive way that allows people to deal with this broad and complex issues that the congress has to deal with every day? >> well, i think we believe in and believe the representative democracy is the best system. if you are asking, should we go to direct democracy and have all the population vote on all the issues, i don't think that's a good solution. that's my opinion.

i think we decided that a long time ago. i don't think that's going to change. i do think we could improve people's ability to vote in elections. and my personal meach belief, and i've talked to people in the technology world, is that we're very close to being able to let people vote online for a candidate and maybe express views to representatives about issues without fraud and without worrying that people are misusing the system. and i really believe we can get there. and that will be a big improvement. if you can bank online, you ought to be able to vote online. i think once we get there, you will have more participation in democracy, and that's a good thing. then if you follow that up with more conversation between the

people and their elected officials in an organized way, i think that's a positive thing. >> as long as you don't overdraw your account, right? [laughter] >> from the time i got involved in politics until the time i bowed out in about 2008, we could get on a teleconference and have about 10,000 people in the conversation. someone asking questions and in real-time getting answers and getting people involved. there are a lot of things -- the polling and the things that you an do electroncally -- electronically to connect people, i think we've really seen a revolution. all the things that happen, the tweeting and the blogs and everything, i grew up in the 1950's, too. this is beyond me. this is a new technology. it is time for an old guy to bow out. but today, the american youth d the american people are so

lucky to have such a great opportunity to be connected and talk about ideas. think it is ripe for real democracy. democracy can only get better because of it, i think. >> good afternoon. my name is emily dacey and i'm a junior at the university of massachusetts. i have a question regarding the latest change in legislation and regarding campaign contributions. as a middle class college student, and i'm sure you know, the last 20 years the average price of college has gone up over five times. that being said, at least for me with the debt i'm in, it is going to be very difficult for me to move past my current status as a middle class citizen. that being said, i'm a bit of concerned by the lack of pessimism and dairy say optimism toward this recent change in

law. i believe you said people with more money get to speak more, that's just how it is. and to be frarving, i'm really not ok with that because i see that as my voicing less. so i would just like to ask why you feel that way? >> i wasn't saying i feel that way, i was saying the supreme court feels that way, and their opinion has more weight than mine. they have decided the case, and until a court in the future changes that ruling, that's the law of the land. that's the way the constitution has been interpreted. i said, you know, i'm interested in anybody's ideas for how to change it. i think it is very hard to change the constitution, i'm just not at all optimistic about that. i would look for other solutions that are constitutional that would move the system in the right direction. like, you know, if you raise x amount of dollars through small

contributions you would raise a philanthropic fund that would match that to you as a candidate if you -- candidate. if you spent the time as the speaker did and i did, raising contributions in lieu of contributions from your district. that is moving in the right direction, but it would pass constitutional muster. >> one of the issues she raised is about the rising cost of tuition. that is something many people haven't talked about. i know a lot of people, around our kitchen table, we talk about it. is this something policymakers need toll focus on? as she mentioned tuition has trippled or quadrupled. >> i was talking to janet napalatano the other day. she's at the university of california.

46 campuses. she was saying half of the students in the system come from families that earn $50,000 a year or less and they virtually spend no money on their education. so it is picked up either by the state or through scholarships or loans or other things. and i understand what you are saying about loans. if you come out of college with huge amounts of loans, you will be working a long time to get out of debt. there is no simple, easy answer to it. we have had active loan programs at the federal level. we have had grant programs, pell grants, so on and so forth. we probably need more of that. we also, i know in my view, i'd like to see a plan where if a graduate gives time in public ,ervice, whatever that might be whether it is americorps or the

military or if you are a doctor, you go to a rural area for a certain period of time, that to a forgive the loan large extent. that would make sense to me. if people owe less, they do well economic clifment we know that for a fact. the more we can do to help people get an education and then not be burdened with 2010 years, 20 years of debt payment, the better off we're all going to be. >> thank you. i do apologize if i came off as anything other than courteous. >> thank you. >> i'm dakota. i'm from texas christian university. i wonder if you think it would increase term

limits in the house or the senate? >> term limits have been around for a long time. when we did the contract for america, that was one of the -- term limits was one of the things that was in that, one of the 10 issues. it's the only one that really did get passed. a as members -- i remember guy that had been here 36 years and it got passed he always voted for it, but it never got passed. i think if you go to a doctor and he's been practicing for 10 or 12 years and he knows his craft very well, i think you probably have a better service than someone that just came right out of med school. i think there is a value of people who are in and work to learn and go through the system. now, glanted, there are some people that get into congress, and i call them "plops" they get

into congress and they just kind of plop there and don't do anything. but you have a primary and a general. so you have to go back and convince people that are you doing the job they elected you to do. that's a responsibility for every congressperson. you have to do that twice. i think there is a real term limit, and that's called the election. i think -- what should it be? 20 years? 10 years? 8 years? whether is a person most effective. as long as a person goes to work and keeps in touch with his constituency and tries to do good things for his district, then, you know, he probably deserves to be re-elected. that's up to the people who elect him. issue for his constituency. >> i agree with that. i used to get asked this

question all the time in town meetings. i would say i'm for term limits. we have them. they are two years, and then the people decide. i don't know wr why we want to take that decision away from the people. that's what we are doing with term limits saying you can only be there six years. are you really saying to the people of the district, your decision no longer holds after six years. you have to make a decision. i think it is undemocratic. i don't think it makes any sense. i also agree with the speaker. you know, if you were going to get your brain operated on, you would ask the surgeon if he had ever done it before, not "i hope this is your first operation." so i think being in congress is as hard as being a brain surgeon. maybe harder and more cons consequential for more people's lives. i think we ought to leave it to the people. i think the system the way it is can work well. >> i think there is another

detriment, too, that happens. if a person cycles and can only be in the house four years or six years, the senate six years, all of a sudden the people making decisions are the bureaucrats or the staff that's been there forever. they all of a sudden become controling. find in k you will some states with term limits, the staff of the people are the people making the decisions because of the institutional knowledge, and the people cycling through don't have it. so i think there's a real detriment. >> a big function of congress is oversight. a lot of members have said that some in the intelligence committee have said, certainly there is a new member on the intelligence committee. they don't understand the lingo. it is the smart congressmen who ill stop them and stop use the acronyms. a lot of people think the executive branch has too much power now.

i just know a lot of people would not want their congressman doing brain surgery on them. that's for sure. [laughter] >> over the past couple years we've seen some of the dangers, shall we say, of a divided congress and what that can do to a system. can you see what happens if the senate flips this election and we have a united congress under one party, but a different party in the power and the presidency. >> well, first of all, if you -- if, if.et's say i'm not going to say it's going to happen. but if you have a republican senate and a republican house, in order to get anything done, you still have to negotiate something with the president who has veto power. so there is a balance. maybe there will be less things done. probably the maximum time to get things done is to have a party

of both the house and the senate and the president, but rarely does that happen. that's when the congress really could get -- achieve a lot of things. but you are usually going to have a lot of -- a divided congress or a divided congress as opposed to the executive office. then you have the checks and balances of the constitution. that's really why our forefathers wrote the constitution the way they did so that nobody has unbridled power. usually it is divided. that means it is a lot of wringing of hands and counting votes. , the say, hastert rule hastert vote is 218 votes, you can move on. if you don't have 218 votes, you can't move it. constantly what the process is in the house and the senate is finding enough votes to move your legislation and then of course, it gets passed in the

senate, coming back to a real conference committee, and having that result be able to move again through the house and the senate. it is a long process to move a piece of legislation, especially big legislation. but ultimately, you would have to be able to negotiate with the executive department to make sure that something that even after th all this work can be signed. you can't go through all that work and not have it signed. it's for not. >> i think it is important to look at a parliamentary system as opposed to our system. there is a real big difference, as the speaker just said. in britain or in france or in germany, the head of the party in the parliament is the prime minister. they run the government. and if you are a member of the ruling party in those systems, you autumn vote together. you are expected to vote together, yes, on the party's

position on every vote. there is nobody off the reservation. it is a very simple system. it is designed to move a little faster than our system. i don't think it would work here, and i don't think it is the right system for the united states because we are a large country -- 320 million people, on our way to 400 million, maybe a half a billion -- we are the most diverse country in the world. we probably have more division and variances in opinion of any country in the world. nd you have to allow for that. so our system has division of power. our ancestors dispersed the ower to a fair the well, and i'm glad they did because nobody can get their hands on the wheel

and run the bus alone. the president has to have the congress and a vote and you have to review what you have to go through. you can get the house to vote for something, then you have to get the senate to vote for it, and they have the filibuster and all of that, which means you need a super majority probably in the senate. then, when they get done, they have to reconcile their differences. then, if they can do that and get another vote in both houses that the reconciliation is acceptable, thn you go -- then you go to the president. and if he says "no," you start all over again. you are back to go. i mean, it is incredibly difficult to get anything done. but that, again, allows people, i believe, when it is all said and done, if i lose in that process, i don't want to leave the country or pick up a rifle. and that's what we cane from all that trouble that we go through. i think it is the right system

for us. the other system may be better for other countries. that's their business. but i think this is the best system for america. >> i think in the 1990's, i know some of the people in this room were probably in their diapers in the 1990's, but you had a democratic president with a wrin republican congress and a fair amount got done -- the balanced budget act, welfare reform -- so we could be headed for that dynamic again, but we shall see. >> i'm daniel salazar. i go to texas christian university. my question is both about gerrymandering and term limits. i was wondering, how can a system with no term limits be useful when 70% to 80% of the house is decided in the primaries. they are not even decided in the general election. you don't have the full voting bloch. >> i have an answer with that.

i had breakfast with a good friend about six months ago. he said, what happens today -- it used to be about april you started looking over your shoulder and you wonder who your general opponent is going to be. now you look over your shoulder to see who your primary opponent is going to be. it is just the nature of the situation. it is tougher. it puts -- most people are in a situation where you have two elections. you have a primary election, and then you have a general election. if you are not towing the line, if you are not conservative enough or moderate enough, someone is going to come after you. so the primaries have become very, very focused or very contested lately. especially in a district where you talk about districts that get p.a.c. if districts that get p.a.c., if you are in the other party, you want to put all your adversaries in one group and it opens up more opportunity for your party

to be in a majority, gerrymandering. so if you are in a district with 75%, 08% of your party, you know in the primary, you are going to draw people against you, same thing on the democratic side. >> i'm not sure that i agree that 70% are only worried about the primary. i think it is a greater percentage than it used to be, but i don't think it is that high. when you talk about gerrymandering, we talked a minute ago about that, and my thought was, if you want to change that, you really got to get more of these bipartisan commissions in states to draw the line. so you get more 50-50 districts. i think that's a good idea. i think that's where we need to go. i don't like the fact that we've d, or with a lot of 08% 80% r districts. i think that's the only way you

can change it, and i agree it should be begun done. >> i think an even democracy means you have an ability to compete, and if all of a sudden things are skewed one way or another, you really don't have a chance to compete. and mr. now mr. hastert gephart have prior engagements [applause]we will continue to >> i want to go back to one time during the house, i was a health care reporter in 2003, and the politics at the time were that a republican -- that republicans control both parts of