the overspending that we are doing. mr. walker is running against that. so i just want you to know that i am a former school teacher and i want to get out my little red pen and i am going to use that line i am veto to veto any duplicate expenses that are wasteful. individual rights are the backbone of the libertarian philosophy and it's the main difference between republicans and libertarians and the main libertarians ween and democrats is that we are always going tore the individual liberty. we don't believe in banning things and we don't believe in preventing people from doing

things that harm no one else. so i want you to understand that i will veto any legislation that interferes with individual liberty. mr. parnell is a big government republican, and a lot of people view him as a represent -- representative of oil companies. mr. walker is an ex republican who represents a lot of the unions and they're going to tell you what you want to hear today. and i won't. the only purpose of government is to protect individual liberties, life, and property. i will let you know that i will protect your rights to electronic and medical privacy, marriage, family and religious decisions, victimless crime, business and free trade and gun rights. sometimes they talk about the libertarian party and they say we're about guns and weed. that's not exactly true, but we do want to protect your rights. so again, i want to emphasize

that i am very different from my opponents and the way that i am different is in the area of social tolerance and i have run out of time. so thank you very much. >> governor parnell. >> thank you and thank you catch can for taking the time -- etchikan for coming in and being here on a sunday. s i look forward, i see blue skies for alaskans. as i think about what was done here in this area with the shipyard, with tourism, with , we are the horizon having a little bit of a step forward her but we are still going to drive for more sales there. just even in the fall picture of this area, our future is brighter today than it was five

years ago. we've made historic progress on a gas line. that's the kind of progress i want to continue growing. it's growing that economic opportunity for us as a people. i want to address a few topics. i did hear some statements from mr. walker about fiscal responsibility and two days ago in juneau we had a big discussion about his desire to cut 16% across the board from the budget. how many ferries is that? probably two or three. bill walker did support building the two ferries here in ketchikan, but on a 16% budget reduction in one year, what that requires is a candidate to put forth a plan as to how to do it. and we have seen no plan. when he spoke about the wonderful bipartisan majority in the senate, those were our big spending years, folks.

what happens when you bring together a bipartisan majority in the senate is they don't have one direction together and so they have to spend their way past their differences. they have to kind of check the tough issues at the door and when they get together in the room they have to spend their way past the differences. we have the highest spending. with this majority i have led in making record-spending reduction. we went from $8 billion to $7 billion and now this year to $5.9 billion. that's being responsible with the people's money. and we did it not by doing across the board cuts. i went after the single biggest cost driver in the operating budget. that single act of paying down our debt and lowering annual payments, that's saving us hundreds of millions of dollars across the next 20 years every year. that's every year savings. so i have belief in our future,

not just because we have the resources but because we have the people, people like you to step forward and grasp the opportunities in front of us. i think we're on the right track for growth. i don't think it's time to change courses midstream. i appreciate your vote on november 4. thank you. >> all right, well -- [applause] >> on c-span.org, you can see debates from around the country as well as campaign ads. here's a look at the kansas city senate debate between pat roberts and his challenger independent greg orman. >> how should be deal with the ebola epidemic -- epidemic? it shows you how we should really secure the border and not be granting amnesty.

why can't we do now what we know we're going to have to do down the road, and that is have a quarantine on west africa, strop the plane traffic, the air traffic from from wetcht africa to the united states? the world health organization just said that if we do not take action within the next 60 days we do clues 10,000 people a week. that's a humanitarian disaster. but again, this all goes back to isis, ebola, and the other problems that we see on the border. we must secure the border and secure the national security of our fellow americans. >> thank you, sir. mr. orman. ebola is obviously a serious issue and i think we need to have a serious coordinated public health response to it that does include sending the best and the brightest over to west africa to deal with that problem. i also believe that we should

suspend air travel with west africa for the time being until the crisis is contained. but this goes back to sort of a crisis in leadership. you know, senator roberts has come back and has made some very strong statements about ebola when he's back this kansas. it just came out the other day had he was in washington last month he skipped a hearing on the ebola virus. and so i think it's inbronet -- inappropriate to talk tough here and yet when you had an opportunity to do something about it, senator, you chose to skip the hearing and i think that's a real problem for kansans. >> rebuttal senator rob roberts. >> the hearing was held in september. nothing came of it. we have a crisis in leadership, all right. with regards to this whole situation. i think the administration, more sferblely the president has been two steps behind and asleep at the wheel. we ought to do now.

he just said that he will have a much more aggressive program. we don't know what it is of course yet butt we are going to have a much more aggressive program. it is the president that i think we have to look to for this kind of leadership and we're looking for his plan or his strategy. we don't know it yet. we have to do this and we have to do it now. >> sir -- >> again, the crisis in leadership in washington is on both sides of the aisle. and senator, while you didn't the hearing on ebola, it's also come out that you didn't attend two out of three hearings in the agriculture committee, a committee you want to lead one day. think that crisis in leadership is a leadership -- >> c-span coverage continues in boston on tuesday. martha coakley and champles baker are looking to replace the

governor of massachusetts. campaign 2014 is bringing in more than 100 debates. follow us on twitter at c-span. nd like us at facebook.com /c-span. house of p next louders on congress. and then the candidates running many mane. incumbent paula page and ndependent elliott cutler. >> on the next "wall street journal," a discussion on gun control leverage this election cycle. our guest is chelsea parson. center for american policy and

firearms director. then we hear hear from former utah governor. he'll talk about the administration's response to ebola in this country and how federal agencies work with state health agencies in hospitals. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on acebook and twitter. create a five to siffen minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. >> former house speaker dennis hastert and former house minority leader richard gephart

discuss the environment now versus when they served. it's an hour and 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. i am honored to moderate this discussion. thank you all for coming out. we had a big crowd. i first want to introduce the two people we'll be talking to his afternoon. speaker hastert served from january 6, 1999 until january 3, 2007 and was the longest serving republican speaker in history. he was elected to the house in 1987 and served illinois 14th congressional district. richard gephart is president and c.e.o. of gep art strategic and affairs. mr. gephart served for 28 years in the house from 1976 to 2004

representing missouri's third congressional district, home to his birthplace, st. louis. he was elected to serve as house democratic lieder for more than 14 years and house majority art, ifrom 19 -- mr. gep want to start with you. you were elected in 1976. how much money did you have to raise to get elected back then? for e grand sum of $70,000 two campaigns, the primary which was highly contested and a general election. $70,000. >> mr. speaker, you were a coach , a high school coach and you were offered a job as a principal and but then you went to congress. how has your role as being a coach helped you in your role as

speakership? >> i think being a coach you had to look at a team and see what was the best thing for the team and how could you move a group of people forward and get things done. i think the skills that you built during those years in coaching and bringing people on and mentoring, are the same skills that you did in leadership. you had to bring people along. you set goals, you try to achieve those goals and you try to move forward. the interesting thing is when i an ffered the job of as thestant principal -- i saw principal work every day. he had the same seven chairs outside his office and the same kid every day. i'm not sure i want to do that. the other side of the office was the teachers. they didn't like these kids in their stude study hall.

i said i don't want to do this for the next 20 years of my life. i ended up spending six years in the legislature, going to congress, never dreaming i'd ever be in leadership of congress. outside my door were those same people every day, being the principal of the congress. [laughter] >> i want to ask you both this question, congressman gephart. congressional approval ratings are near historic lows, why is that? what's contributed to it? is it the media's fault? is it twitter? is it a broken relationship on capitol hill? >> i think you've got to discuss this discussion by understanding that congress is usually unpopular. congress is the hunal organization. it's 535 people and they're trying to reach agreement on very controversial, emotional

issues in the country. and so it's always hard for them to operate, for them to make those decisions. you know, i always say politics is a substitute for violence. it really is. and when people come here, they find out there's 534 other people in the building and in many countries one person makes the decision. a small group here. we have this huge group and so it's always hard. lately it's been a little harder than usual and i chalk it up to the fact that we had the worst recession since the great depression from 2007 or 8 until just recently and when you have a big recession, a lot of people lose their job, lose their house, lose their pension, they get angry, understandably and they tend to send people to represent them who are equally angry. having made up their mind

that these are the answers and it's going to be my way or the highway. so there's been less willingness to compromise to -- on some important issues. i think people who came with that frame of mind are starting to either change their mind or they're leaving congress. so i'm an optimist. i think in the days ahead you're going to get back to a more normal situation between the congress, within the congress, and with whoever is president and i think you'll get a better atmosphere. but remember, it's always hard. it was hard when we were there. and it was hard when anybody is there because the issues are tough. they're controversial and everybody has a different opinion in that group of 535 on what to do. >> are you optimist as well?

>> yes. this is the best governmental system in the world as far as i'm concerned. if you want real democracy and 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. we were across the aisle but we were also just across the river. his district in st. louis, my district in illinois are pretty close together. i learned a long time ago that when i was serving in the illinois legislature, there's a couple of people in the illinois legislature i couldn't understand where they were coming from. they were anti-farmers and anti-business. i thought just protagonists all the time. one time i got on a train in springfield. and i went from springfield to st. louis and passed through the district these folks came from.

it was called down below. it was all closed down factories and refineries that were closed and broken up and it was very, very dire. so i learned everybody that's in the congress, everybody that's elected comes from someplace. they represent a group of people. and one of the things that you have to realize as being a leader is that everybody has a right to be there. everybody has a right to be heard and everybody has a right to be part of the process and the process isn't always pretty. but it's constantly trying to move people together and i think what the leader did and what i had to do is constantly put people around the table to try to find some consensus to move forward. i'm not sure that's happening today but that will happen. >> right now a lot of the focus is on the midterms and the big question is whether the senate is going to flip. but then on november 5, 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 closely. mr. gephart, you ran for president twice, what is that experience like and how is it different? >> it's a fabulous experience. it's 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, then -- they let you stay in your house. they go to door for you. they give you money, they give you food. it's an incredible experience because of the greatness of this country and the greatness of the people. so both times i really enjoyed it. we put people through a very tough task to be president and i think it's a good task. you've got to go to iowa or new hampshire or south carolina or a variety of states and meet people one-on-one in small

groups like this. and you've got 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's a fabulous system. it really wasn't that much different. i ran in 19 8 and then in 2004. it was the same. the money amounts got bigger because time had gone on, inflation and so on. but the process was very similar and the process candidates go through in 2016 will be very similar to what we did in those years. >> speaker hastert, john boehner who you served with is now the speaker and he's been battling some tea party members. he's struggled to move some fiskal -- fiscal rules.

>> i think the speakership is a tough job and it's 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 a legislation that was passed in 2000. what happened basically that legislation took money out of the parties for various reasons people didn't want -- especially in a presidential race state political parties to be involved to skew the results one way or another. basically the parties were eviscerated as far as a funding source for candidates. the democrat -- people weren't

-- members that gotten elected to the party system weren't too far to the right or too far to the left. they were pretty mainstream. and so what happened is that money was taken out of the political system from the parties and so money finds a place to go. it went to the far left and 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. and these people are looking over their shoulders and listening to these messages and knowing that if they don't listen, they're going to have a primary and they're going to be challenged. i think that creates -- it only takes a small percentage to create this type of back and forth within the party. so i think speaker boehner has a tough job, but that's what speakerships are for people to ave tough jobs to get results.

so his task will be bringing these people to the table. i also found that you have to give people responsibility. there's already some people -- there's always some people in your conference or in your caucus that aren't happy request what you're doing. give them a job. give them some projects and then bring them to the table and see what you can incorporate. it's a technique and i think it's part of what i did through my coaching process. it's not easy. they called me the speaker. they should have calleds me the listener. >> we seen the supreme court get involved with citizens united case. are they a big part of the problem? >> look, there's no magic answer the question of money and politics. we all have different ideas and 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 to freedom of speech in the constitution. and the court has said money eek walls speech. so as long as that's their opinion, if you want to change it, you've got to change the constitution. f course, that's impossible. i don't have any brilliant answer. i have faith in the people. you know, a lot more money has gone into campaign for the last 10 years. and you have super packs on both sides that are coming in with millions of dollars, usually for negative ads against? candidate they're trying to beat. and i've been amazed the public reaction to these ads has not been i think what they expected. people are tired of this and they're just turning it off. in my view a lot of the super pack money is wasted money.

i'm sure the tv stations are happy to have it, but i don't think they're getting the result they want. the american people are smart and they don't want -- you know when they hear negative on this one and negative on that one, i mean they're both horrible. so who do we pick? and 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's the end of our democracy and it's ruining our politics. you know, i can devise a better system but it's the system we have. it is in the constitution that we have freedom of speech and people that have money can speak louder than people who don't. that's the way it is. and we just got to trust the people to ferret their way through all of 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, basically we're tracking 40 to 50 re-election. everybody in the house is up every two years. is that a problem? -- of the critics say it's sometimes it's a bipartisan solution just to protect their incumbents. does this process need to be changed? >> yeah. you've got to go back to the constitution again. it will say that it's up to the states to died how they're going to lay out those apportionment. so unless you change the constitution again, you're not going to change the process. you know, one famous politician once made a speech -- the fact is, it is what it is and you live with it and you work with it and sometimes states lose and

sometimes they win, depending on the give and take. my state of illinois, we lost five seats on the republican ide last time because -- other states have other things that happen. it plays out. what happens is what we really want is the people can elect who they want and get something done. i mean, what i think are fed up with or or tired of this business. everybody blaming somebody else all the time. they want someone to set some goals and say we're going to achieve it. you have to do it on a bipartisan basis. dick and i didn't always agree with each other but while we were there we did pave down $650 billion of public debt. that had never been done before and it hasn't been done since. can you do things on a

bipartisan basis? >> the one thing you can think about is some states are going to bipartisan commissions to draw the line. i agree with the speaker. you know, the jerry mander aocess or the has always been highly political process because people are trying to get more supporters into their district so it's easier for them at election time. before we had computers it was not a precise science. now with computer technology and google maps, we can go down and say, you know, we know his house, he votes democratic. i want him in my district and i want to get rid of the republican. so it's become very precise and very effective i might add. you've got some districts that

are drawing to be 75, 80% republican or democratic. that leads to what the speaker said which is those candidates are only worried about the prinal airy. they're not worried about the general election. we had to listen to the other side. so i think that would help. iowa i think has that process. i think california moved in that direction. so 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. so i wouldn't be very optimistic that a lot is going it change very fast. >> i'm running out of questions. i'm going to ask one more but if you have any questions, please line up at the milks and then we'll call on you.

when we call on you if you can identify yourself. one we i want to ask that's very important. when i talk to members of congress they mention this because it's a democrat administration. it happens in all administrations. and basically congressional democrats don't feel like president obama calls them enough. he doesn't usually golf with democrats. george wrrd this when bush was in the white house as well the house and senate was upset and they started to publicly criticize the president for not communicating. is this a problem that the president and this president who served in the senate, is he not communicating enough with capitol f his party on hill or is --

>> you've got to step 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 always has to work closely with congress. the constitution created congress in article one. it is the most important thing they did. and they gave most of the power to the congress. the congress spends the money. the congress declares war or doesn't declare war. it has to sanction all of the candidates the presidents wants to put up for the cabinet and other important positions. there's always been required a lot of time on task for presidents with the congress. and i guess i'd 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're on this little bitty planet. with today's transportation and communications, presidents are wanted to communicate with every other country in the world almost every day. job is a really demanding with demanding requirements. now, you always have to go to the personality of whoever is present e president. everybody is different. some presidents like meeting with congress. bill clinton was one who relished it. he liked it and he did a lot of it and i think he was effective at it. it could be that -- and i don't know, i'm not there. it could be president obama doesn't have that exact type of personality and he wants to do other things that he thinks are equally important. and i'm sure he has more than

enough to do 24-7. so i don't know. always i think i get some complaining from members they don't get enough time with the president. the president and his staff is not spending enough time with them. we've certainly have had a huge range of problems in front of the congress. i don't know. you'll always get that complaint. i think everybody is doing the best they can and as i said a minute ago, i think you're going to get more bipartisan ship in the last two years of the obama administration than maybe you ever did before because he's going to want a legacy. he sees important issues like immigration, the budget doing something about some of the foreign policy problems. they may come together in the last two years more than they did in the years before then.

>> yeah, i think it's an issue of who -- in congress who has the power and who does the president have to work with. if there's a shift which we talk about at the end of bush administration that the shift went to the democrat side, the president has an important thing. to run his government he has to get the budget done and he has to deal with the chairs of the budget committees and the chairs of committees with injures diction -- jurisdiction because that's where he gets his policy and funding for the his government. they have to work with the other party. you have to go to the leadership to get those types of things done. i just think that's a natural movement to power, and you constantly have this push back and forth. but members of congress by in large if they're not being cared

for by the president, especially the president of their party, they're going to be unhappy. sometimes they're going to have to suck it up. i think the real issue here is congress would get back to what i would call -- we really haven't had a budget in a long time passed by the house and passed by the senate. when we were working both on each side of the aisle, we passed a budget and the budget had to be out by the 15th of march. we had to be reconciled with the senate by april 15 and everybody had their numbers for the appropriations process. if that process moves through, everything else kind of moves through with it. when it didn't happen then you end up with your set yourself up i think for a log jam in the congress and that's basically what's happened. as far ass both of --

as your careers, we have members who are going to get into trouble. we had a member stashed $90,000 in his freezer. is that the toughest part when you deal with that? we talk about the 2006 there was a scandal of one of the members in 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 for our nation. we were able to do a lot of stuff the eight years i was there we passed a lot of legislation. some people would argue it's good. some people would argue it's bad. we did pass a huge amount of legislation. and tax reform. we did energy reform. we did health care reform. we did medicare reform. so we did a lot of things that were important to the american people.

so plus we had something after 2001, 9/11, and we had to make sure that this country was secure again. and we wouldn't let those types of episodes ever happen in this country again. we kind of made a pact with ourselves. we went away from a peace time situation to basically a war time situation to make sure this country was safe. that was a whole different aspect. so the job of leadership is many faceted, but i think just my view, working with the members of congress, bringing people together, getting things done i think was the greatest satisfaction i had. you know you had to work with the president on both parties. i was able to do that. and you built those relationships and if -- 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 each other and finally getting a result out of it. it's the relationships that you build. i think that was the biggest thing that i felt as -- is the good relationships we were able to build on both sides of the aisle. >> the toughest thing that i was involved in similar to what speaker said and it was the balancing of the budget over a 10-year period. it took 10 years, the hardest thing i ever got involved with. bob michael was the leader of the republicans and bob dole and then newt gingrich came and then speaker hastert came. so it ran through all of those leader and we all worked together over a 10-year period. it was excruciatingly hard. i want you to understand how hard it was. i mean, we worked on each of those deals for over a year apiece. and 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 and we had to regroup and and put it back together and beg people to vote for it. and hair -- 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're leading a congress and leading the country is getting people to accept things they really don't want to accept for the good of the whole in the long term. that's the issue. and as the speaker said, you're a listener. you have to listen constantly and endlessly to what everybody wants to say. i used to say in the house 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 pay bad result that i did not want. the magic of democracy is that 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 we finally get it done, what you get from all that is that the losers and there are losers on every issue, the losers will want to pick up the rifle or leave the country. that's the magic of democracy, because you put 535 people in

the room and all the viewpoints in the country were heard and then 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. >> that's interesting both mentioned listening as something you have to do. i imagine that a lot of listening you have to refrain your self from rolling your eyes. we have some questions. please identify yourself and ask your question. . hello, my name is alex is both of you had mentioned campaign finance reform and the election process. you mentioned mccain fine gold and the need for constitution address. therefore, i wanted to know your opinion on senate joint resolution 19 which is the

constitutional amendment that should be coming up for a vote after the election that would address this issue. well, i think i said -- it's not a bad issue that come up. it's not wrong to discuss it and to try 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. i think it is because you got to get 2/3 of both houses and three quarters of the state legislatures to approve. i mean you're talking 30 years at least. so it's just really hard. so i look for other things that our -- are constitutional that might help the process.

their ideas for revenue sharing with people if they raise small contributions they get money fin an droppist could give to a -- so they're a number of ideas like that around that might help. that's my thought. the basis of being elected, going out and running, i remember my first campaign i was a school teacher and all of a sudden i had to raise to run for the legislature, $10,000. it was bigger than the salary i had at the time. how do you do this? you give people give you $25 or $50 or maybe $100. a friend of mine gave me $1, thousand it was like wow, christmas all over. so what you have to do is when people give you money or contribute to the campaign, those are the people should who vote for you.

i mean, those are the people who support you because they like your ideas and you're part of the community. i've always said that if you go to some type of a regimen where you earn at least half your money from your district, from the people who are going to elect you, the people who 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. and the rest you do half from your district and you get the other half wherever you want it to, as long as you had some transparents see -- transparency. i think those two have to be the center piece of it. >> go to this side of the room. >> hi my name is haley. ou both talked about how the american democracy is so great

and it brings everyone to the table and everyone can have a voice. so i was wondering what your experience was working with women and minorities in the house and submit because right now it's -- the house and submit aren't very diverse with women and minorities. i was wonder f-ing you could talk about that and women and minorities in the house and submit and in leadership roles also. >> i think if you would have asked this 30 years ago you would have been more troubled by the lack of diversity in the house and in the leadership of the house. i think it's changed a lot. i think the house is much more representative of the diversity, of the american people. i can't give you the exact numbers. in terms of women it's much larger number. i mean when i came to the house in 1976 you could have put all

the women in a phone booth in the house. now it's a very large number. and minorities similar. it's a much larger number. of course, we've 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 on that floor with 435 people and a big vote where there was a lot of disagreement, it was -- there's nothing more exciting. it's more exciting than basketball or football because it is really -- everything is hanging out. it is all over the place. and everybody is represented. it is a very diverse organization. so i think we've 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. people kept telling me, don't you miss coaching? we had competition every day. you didn't miss the competition. we worked hard to bring women into the leadership realm in the house during my period of speaker. we always had two or three women who sat on our leadership group, but you have to always do better. one of the downfalls i always felt of the republican party, we had a lack of minority groups in we went -- e, and we had h a program where we tried to bring in interns and minority groups it was just tough to do. probably just because of the make up of the parties. that's where we have to strive and that's where i think from our party we're missing the boat on doing some reform on immigration because we have to

be a big 10 party. you can't close down. the tharties who have the best effectiveness are the parties that can open up and bring more people to the program. and 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. constantly have to have programs that lift people and so it works for women and minorities i believe. >> other members have said unless republicans join in immigration reform they're not going to win. one lawmaker said they'll never win another presidency. do you think if republicans win congress that they should put immigration at the top of their agenda in >> well, there's consequences of doing that. if you would ask eric cantor what the consequences are, it's not very gfment you have to face

the real issue out there. i think there's some good answers on the republican side and there's good answers on democrat side. my personal view, i did a lot of years working on illegal drugs coming into the united states because we lost 60,000 kid a year to drug or violence. i learned a lot about the borders because 75% comes across the border. we have to know what's coming across the border. there needs to be border control but yet on the other side you can give here on other issues as well. i think there's -- who knows how many people, 10 million, 14 million, 30 million -- i don't know how many people. in my little district, probably 60 miles west of chicago, a lot of the high schools are 4 hispanic. 46% hiss ere and --

man nick. if you have to -- hispanic. if you have to give them a green card and say you're legitimate in this country. on the other hand if you want to become a citizen, get in line like anybody else and become a citizen. i think there's reasonable answers and reasonable issues to come together and it has to be bipartisan. >> i agree with the speaker and i think something will get done on immigration probably next year and i also think that if 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, i grew up in the 1950's and what civil rights were then and what they are now, it's like a different country. i mean there's no resemblance to

what went on in the 1950's. this is a huge achievement. i'll say one other thing. when people come to this country from anywhere else, it's the only country in the world where people say to themselves the first day they're here, i'm an american. i'm an american. that doesn't happen any -- anywhere else. that is our strength. this is a huge deal for america going forward and i think they'll get it done. >> next question. >> good afternoon. i'm a law student from brazil. i have a question about -- right now the united states has roughly a population of 320 million people and we have a little more than 500 people in the congress. that's a lot of people to represent. my question is isn't it time to improve our system of democracy now that we have access to technology? to eed a way for people

broad issues that congress has to deal with every day. >> i think we believe the representative democracy it the best system. if you're 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. and i think we decided that a long time ago and i don't think that's going to change. i do think that we could improve people's ability to vote in elections. and my personal belief, and i've talked to people in the technology world, is that we're very close to being able to let ople 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. that will be a big improvement. if you can bank online, you ought to be able to vote online. and i think once we get there, you'll have more participation in democracy and that's a good thing. and then if you follow that up with more conversation between the people and their representative in an organized way, i think that's a very ositive thing. >> from the time that i got involved in politics until the time i bowed out in 200 , there's a difference. we can get on a telcom and we could have 10,000 people in a conversation. actually somebody asked you a question and in real time giving you answers and getting people involved. there's a lot of things -- the polling and the things that you could do electronically to

connect people, i think we've really seen a real revolution. matter fact, all of the things that happened, the tweeting and the blogs and everything, i was -- i grew up in the 19 50's too. this is beyond me thfment is new technology. it's time for an old guy to bow out. but today the american youth and the american people have such a great ability to be connected and to exchange ideas and to talk about those ideas i think it's ripe for real democracy. an elected democracy can only get better because of it, i think. >> thank you very much. >> next question. >> good afternoon. my name is emily, i'm a junior at the university of massachusetts. i have a question regarding the recent change in legislation involving campaign contributions. as a middle class college student and i'm sure you know in

the last 20 years or so, the average price of college has gone up over five times. so that being said, with at least for me with the debt i'm in, it's going to be very difficult for me to move pass my current status as a middle class citizen. that being said, i'm a bit concerned about the lack of pessimism and optimism towards this recent change in line because as you said people with more money get to speak more. i'm don't agree with that. i would like to know why it is that you feel this 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've 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 i'm interested in anybody's ideas for how to change it. i think it's very hard to change the constitution. i'm just not at all optimistic about that. so i would look for other solutions that are constitutional that would move the system in the right direction, like if you raise x amount of dollars through small contributions you would have a fill an thropic fund that would match that to you as a candidate . you would raise little contributions for people in your district. that to me is moving it in the right direction but it would pass constitutional muster. >> within of the issues she raised about rising cost of tuition. that is something i think both parties haven't talked a lot about because i know a lot of people, including around our

kitchen table, we talk about it. is it something that policymakers need to focus on because as she mentioned, tuition has tripled, quad rupeled? >> it's a real issue. i was talking to janet nap all -- i was talking to the head of system -- they say half of the students come or families in of $50,000 less and it is picked up by the loans or hrough scholarships. i understand if you come out with loans, you're going to be working a long time. we have had active programs at

the federal level. we've had pell grants and so forth. we probably need more of that. we'd also in my view i'd like to see a plan where if a graduate -- graduate gives kind in public service whether it's amayor core or the military or if you're a doctor and you go to a rural practice for a certain period of time, that would forgive a lot of the loan that you had to take. that to me makes great sense. if people get an education, they are going to be more successful economically. we know that for a fact. those facts are well-known. so the more as a country we can do to help people get an education and then not be burdened with 10 years or 20 years of debt payment, the better off we're all going to be. i think it's the best investment

we can make. >> thank you. i do apologize if i came off as anything other than courteous. >> next question. >> i'm dakota. i'm from texas christian university. i was wondering if you believe it would be beneficial to establish term limits within the house and the senate to resolve? of the issues that we face today? > when we did the contract for americor -- that was one of the term -- term limit was one of the 10 issues. it's the only one that really didn't get passed. i remember a guy had been there for 36 years, he was for term limits. they always voted for him. it never happened. to ously, i think if you go

a doctor and he's been practicing for 10 or 12 years very wellws his craft i think you would have a better service than somebody who just came out of medical school. i think 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? when 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 istrict, then, you know, he probably deserves to be re-elected. that's up to the people who elect him. that's an issue for his constituency. >> i agree with that. i used to get asked this question all the time in town eetings. 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 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. and i think you will find in 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 will stop them and stop use the cronyms. 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

have a -- 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 oes that happen. that's when the congress really 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. people say, hastert rule, the 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. and you have to allow for that. so our system has division of power. our ancestors dispersed the power 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 errymandering 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%, 80% 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 come up with a lot of 80% d, or 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. >> right now mr. hastert and mr. gephart have prior engagementsments, so we will continue to ask questions after that, but please thank speaker hastert and speaker gephart for eing here today.

>> 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 congress, and there was an outcry from seniors. and seniors always vote. and that is very important. they did not like the rising ost of prescription drugs. seniors use a lot of drugs, and it was not paid for, so you have to have an expansion of the government. remember, we are going into 2004, president george w. bush was up for reelection, and he was running against john kerry, and what happened was that the conservatives did not like the expansion of the drug benefits, and the democrats did not like the bill itself, and so by a large, you had the struggle to

get 218 votes. it was called the longest phot because votes usually go 15 minutes, and this went for over three hours, and george w. bush had to be woke up in the middle of the night to make calls for people who were not voting. how do you wake up the president? who goes in? o you shake him?

>> it is interesting. it is really an interesting study of the dynamics. when medicare was put into place, that was in the 1970's, there was a need for senior health care costs, and basically in the 1970's, the health care costs were divided between two roups, doctors and hospitals. in 1972, if you had a heart attack, you probably died. today, people are expected to live, partly because of the pharmaceuticals, the drugs, that are keeping people alive and keeping people healthy. at the cost of the drugs were not allowed in medicare, they were not involved in medicare, and that was not an issue back in the 1970's. i thought, whatever happens in the economic aspects, whatever happens to the economic side of thing, there is also a political side of thing. people were working. seniors were not taking the drugs that were prescribed to them because they could not afford them. a senior had to make a decision if they could afford their diabetes drug or their heart condition drug or get their groceries. in other words, they had to make that decision of what it was going to be. so for good politics, we had to do something on an economic basis, and that was to find a way to add a prescription drug benefit onto medicare.

democrats did not like republicans going out and trying to find a solution, they felt that we were going into their territory, but the fact of the matter is, it was really an economic thing. that way, people could buy their insulin or their drugs for diabetes, and if you had diabetes, you probably had a limb cut off or would have renal analysis, or if you are a heart patient you would have triple bypass, and that is something that would cost the government or the doctors are the hospitals hundreds of thousands of dollars. but yet you could prevented by giving them $30 a month of insulin and prevent that thing. so i was a preventative thing, and i thought it was very important to have health care for seniors that would have that

third part of the benefit. we went through that legislation three times in a house before we were ever able to get the senate to pick it up. first of all, you had a group -- and this is a really political situation, this is how things really happened -- i had some of my folks are voting with democrats because they wanted to reimport drugs from canada. now the drugs that were sent from canada was because of a deal that was cut from the linton administration. canadians were buying their rugs that we use it at a discount, basically. if you reimported those drugs back to the united states, first of all, people would not get the drugs they were supposed to and it was going to screw up the market. it would not know where those drugs were coming from, it could become a from bangladesh, or india, and you do not know if they are legitimate drugs are

not. they were in legitimately and philosophically there. like i say, the update -- the ability to get things that was a poor, and so we had 200 and 16 votes, and we had a couple people gone, so the democrats were under leader policy, and they said that she was not going to give us any votes. i knew i had up to 20 democrats who wanted to vote for this bill. so the week before -- there was a deadline -- a week before the vote, i had asked the president to meet with some of our people, because there was a concern. they were holding off and they wanted to talk to the president. the president went off to the ink -- to england to visit the

queen or something. so he was gone for a week. so the night of the vote, he comes back, and we can't get him to get him to make the call to get those other phone calls. so by the time we have everything together and the amendments and the changes in the things written out and distributed, it was 1:00 in the morning. we are up against a deadline, it was the last day of congress. so we open the vote at 1:00. i can't get a hold of the president. i finally get a hold of the president of 4:00 in the morning, three hours later. he called the senators, they were satisfied with the answer they got, so they walk over to the senate, and they give us the vote that they need. the fact is, if you had to do this by yourself, it is pretty tough. the fact that you believe that this is a really important issue and if you did not get it done now, you are never going to get it done.

there was no constraint on how long the vote was open. there was a tradition but not restrained. you had to do what you had to do to get things done. if you look over the things that we did over that eight years, that was probably the most important votes that we did for congress and the american people. >> do you think they would have won the election had you ailed? the democrats would have hammered you had you not got that done. >> that was more issues between the president and the contention of the democrats rather than what the legislation dead. -- legislation did. >> i was told there was an interesting story behind where you were during the attacks on /11. could you tell me where you were during the time leading up to the attacks?

>> during 9/11, i had to be here in d.c., it was a beautiful tuesday. usually congress does not come in until later in the day on tuesday, people are usually traveling back to their -- ask from their districts, and i was doing that to. we had a tough economic situation, and i wanted to talk to the president about ringing economist in and looking over the horizon, and how we should treat our tax situation on investment. we had lost, at that point, $250,000 on revenue from capital gains, so that was a discussion that we were having. so i knew the president was not going to be there on tuesday, so i got in there on monday afternoon. so i was in my office early on tuesday morning, and all of a sudden there was a knock on the door, saying mr. speaker, there is something happening at the

world trade center, there is a plane or a fire or something. so i went into my office and i walked in just as i saw the second plane go into the second tower. it was pretty evident that this was not an accident, this is some type of terrorist attack. we did not know why, we did not know who, we did not who the players were, we had her suspicions, but we did not know. it was an interesting day because we were supposed to have a joint session in congress that day with the prime minister of australia, john howard, and it really show the commitment from both governments to bring these leaders together. so i was thinking that maybe this is not a good idea, this joint session of congress, you have both houses of the congress, you have the joint chiefs of staff, you have the president, you have the supreme court, as you have the prime minister of australia all in the

same room at the same time. though it was probably not a good idea, especially if you do have a terrorist attack out there, people are flying planes into things, so i think it is not a good idea. so i know the president is out in air force one someplace. so we are trying to get every play -- plane in the sky down, getting them down on the ground, and we had planes across the tlantic, coming across the acific, planes coming across the caribbean, and they had to get down immediately. and so i am trying to get a hold of vice president cheney, and he has security going, and i have security going, and we had to push buttons and turn a key, and we just cannot get through. i had a secure phone on my desk, and a red phone, and every time there is a call on it a light goes off, and the light went off, so they put cheney through on the red phone. and i said, hello?

>> what are you guys doing up on capitol hill? you guys are charging too much and there are koreans everywhere. >> and i said who is this? and he would not tell me who he was an i figured it was a wrong number. i am thinking that suddenly here is something as i'm a window and there is smoke coming across the national mall, so i am trying to figure out that there is a real problem, so i get back to my office and i say, sam, go figure out what is happening. i said i don't know, but i will be back in a second. and then he told me that a third plane had just gone into the pentagon.

i could not find anybody in the senate, it was too early in the morning to find anybody around, so i made a unilateral decision that we are going to close down congress. i don't know if that had ever been made before. that i was very adamant that he should be done, because i did not want anyone in the government going on. i figured anyone would understand this. so i was in my office and the speaker pro tem, who later became head of the cia, was in my office, and i said we're oing to close down, and we had a visiting chaplin, -- and i alking across the hall and all of a sudden i had two of my security guys grabbed me, one on its side, and they just kind of scurvy through the hallways and

down into the stairways and down into a tunnel and across over to the rayburn building, and next thing you know i am in the back of this suv suburban and hurtling across the back streets of washington, and i said what is going on? and they told me that there was a fourth plane that was out, and so people five fourth plane was going to go into the capital. so they told people just get out and go run and just get away. people in the white house and the old executive offices, because the smoke was coming down along the state department, that area, they said get out of there, go north, run north, get away. so it was just kind of a panic. so i am out at andrews air force base, and i got a hold of the vice president at that point, and he said we have all of the planes down in the united states, and there are three planes going across the atlantic

that do not have their transparent -- transponders on. if we don't -- if we can't get these planes down, we have to shoot them down, and we don't want to do that. so all of this drama was going on, and i said i am going to have to put you in his undisclosed location. and the next thing i know i am in this helicopter flying across the southern portion of d.c., and you look down, and there is nothing moving, no traffic, nothing on the bridge, everything is kind of dead, and we get over to reagan international airport, and you can see all of the planes are stacked up on the tarmac. there are not enough gates to take care of all of the planes. i can't never seen anything like that before in all of my life. all of these helicopters were going across to the airport, and there is the pentagon, and this lieu black -- blue-black smoke

and a dark orange flame underneath pushing it up, coming across the northern suburbs of virginia. this is a beautiful, crisp september morning. and i am thinking to myself, ow, i taught history, u.s. history, taught about the burning of washington in 1814 in the war of 1812, and now i am the speaker of the house and someone is doing the same thing now. how can this happen? all of the leadership ended up in a " undisclosed location" cross the state. we were trying to figure out what happened that we did not have any intelligent source, and i talked to the vice president probably two or three times that day, and the final conversation was is that we were going to get the leaders of the house and the

senate to come back and land in the capital at 6:30, and the president is coming in at 6:00, so you are coming in at 6:30, we are going to land you there in helicopters. so i came out of my undisclosed location, and came across the north lawn of the capital, and senator daschle was the president pro tem of the senate, and i was the speaker, and we were each going to give 15 or 20 seconds to the mic. it was going to be outside on the senate steps, we walk around to the senate steps, and there must've been 250 members of congress, house members, senate members, democrats, republicans, all on the stairs. so we walk on the stairs, and daschle has his 20 seconds, and then i say we have a lot of work to do, and we will be back to work tomorrow to try and solve these problems, and this country will stand shoulder to shoulder,

and as i turn around after that, somebody broke out into a group song of "god bless america," and chills went down my spine with a happened. and then i thought, this country will be ok, we are going to be k. every time i stand and look out my window, i think of that smoke coming across the national lawn -- national mall, and i think about how great our country is. i think about the firemen who went up into the towers and the police and people trying to save lives, really great americans who wear uniforms, and we also have people who wear uniforms or don't wear uniforms who are also hear a. i went to the celebration of flight 93 last september, and going there and talking to those families, those people, the 10, or nine, or eight, or seven, we

don't know how many people, those people actually took down for of these terrorists who were armed in some way, and they took control of the plane, and they knew they could not fly. they were on the telephones and talking back to their loved ones in their offices and they knew what was going on in washington and they knew what was going on in new york and they knew what their fate was. and those people stood up and made a difference. and we know today because of the sow we hearings that that plane was -- masowi hearings, that play was probably headed to the capital building and headed to my front window. i looked out my window over the next five years and always thought about those people who were the real heroes, and those of the people were sitting across from you at in -- in an airplane or at a restaurant,

those are people everywhere. those are people that i will never forget and they in my mind all the time. >> i am afraid that is all the time we have, and i would like to thank speaker dennis has to. -- dennis hastert. [applause]

>> up next on c-span from gheorghe the governor's debate. . en from maine the debate and later a discussion about the media coverage of event in ferguson, missouri after the shooting of michael brown. >> be part of c-span's campaign

2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, key clip moments, c-span is bringing you over 100 senate, house and governor debates and you can instantly share your reactions to what candidates are saying, battle for control of congress. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook. >> on c-span.org you can see debates around the country as well as campaign ads. re is a look at the iowa senate debate. >> i'm a bridge builder not a bridge burner. i spend a lot of my time getting to know the people that i serve with in congress. republicans and democrats. i have them over for dinner so i get to know where they came from. i get to learn about their families.

the work they did before they came to congress. and that's why i've had so much success working with republicans to pass legislation that's been beneficial to iowans. when the iowa national guard came home from iraq and was denied benefits for g.i. bill benefits and hardship pay by the pentagon, i worked with republicans from minnesota to get their orders changed so they got paid the benefits they deserved. when i had a constituent named andrew connelly who was denied a v.a. adaptability grant, i helped him get that so he could stay in his home. then i had him come to washington and testify in front of the veterans affairs committee and introduced a bill that other veterans would have those same benefits because the program is going to expire. that's what iowans expect from their senator, somebody like senator grassley and senator harkin who can bring people together not drive them apart. >> let's turn to you. what unique thing is there about you that sets you apart? >> i would say i am a public servant. again, i have served in my community.

i've served my state. i've served my nation in many different capacities, worked with many volunteer organizations at the community level, and i still serve as a sunday school animation teacher in the church -- and confirmation teacher in the church that i grew up in. so i remain committed to my hometown and my home communities. but i've also served my state and my nation in the army reserves and the iowa army national guard. i don't do these things for personal gain. i do them because i believe in serving the public whether it's a time of flood in eastern or western iowa, whether it's during winter storms, making sure that iowans are safe is important. but i've also served overseas during a time of war in combat in kuwait and iraq. i believe that is important. but sound bites do have consequences. i believe that i have a pure heart and am willing to serve iowans where congressman braley behind closed doors has

poked fun at our senior senator chuck grassley. i don't call that building bridges. i would say that's burning bridges, congressman. >> thank you. we'll move on. we have a couple questions here. we want to get to know you -- >> the senator knows i didn't poke fun at senator grassley and she knows i talked to him that same day and apologized to him and i apologized to iowa farmers because that's what people expect iowans to do. so if you're questioning my pure heart, senator, i can tell you i've been an elder in my church. i've taught sunday school to adults and children, i've never seen a corporation sitting next to me in the church pew. and, yet, you believe that their interests outweigh those of women and iowa when it comes to contraception. >> oh, again, very misleading. i have said i will support a woman's right to contraception. but what you say behind those closed doors really does matter to iowans and maybe you did apologize to chuck grassley, but my father is a farmer, also,

without a law degree, and i think he's done very well. and, again, i contribute to my community, my state, and my nation. i am ready to serve the people of iowa. >> if you want to talk about what goes on behind closed doors tell us about the meeting you had with -- >> we're going to jump in now. governor's eorgia debate.

? >> the 2014 atlanta press club loudermilk young debate series brought to you live from georgia public broadcasting. the race for governor. >> good evening, i am brenda wood. we would like to welcome you and our live studio audience to the atlanta press club loudermilk young debate series, originating from the studios of georgia public broadcasting in atlanta. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia's governor. let's meet the candidates. they are in alphabetical order, jason carter, who has represented the 42nd senate district in the georgia state legislature since 2010. incumbent nathan deal has been the governor since 2011 and andrew hunt is the founder and former ceo of a nano technology company. let's meet our analysts. jim galloway writes "political insider," a political column for the "atlanta-journal constitution. christopher king is a reporter with cbs in atlanta. 46 sandra parrish is a reporter covering political and legislative news. this debate will consist of

three rounds and for more information on the rules, please visit atlantapressclub.org. let's get started. in the first round, each panelist will pose a question to ach -- to one candidate. >> mr. deal, with marie university and the cdc putting georgia in the spotlight and the outbreak of ebola, you signed an executive order for an ebola response team. tell others what it will intel and does georgia have a network in place to handle ebola utbreak. >> i did issue an executive order and we will be having the first meeting, an ebola response team and it will be old public and private individuals -- both public and private individuals included in marie university. -- emory university. t might be associated with

responding and identifying someone who is potentially infected with the virus. i believe we have the resources available and if we need additional, we will try to make ure those are available. we take this seriously. it is something we want to be prepared for. we do not have control over travel restrictions and we have identified the counties where residents from the three primary countries are located and we are making preparations to identify people such as students who may be going home to their home countries and we believe we will be prepared. >> christopher king, your turn. >> mr. hot, you said you do not want to increase the minimum wage. you want to establish a plan for the state to reimburse on every higher paid more than $11 per our, will it cost more money

and why not just raise the minimum wage? > you need to have a system of freedom and that is what we need to have. a free enterprise system where the way that people do business is regulated and directed toward the way maximum productivity. we needed to have more jobs to bring people out of poverty. we have one of the highest poverty levels in the nation. we need higher-paying jobs. too many people are heading to part-time jobs. with had a decrease of $1500 and at the last four years, the -- we have had a decrease of $1500 in the last four years in middle-class families. we will go for one of the highest unemployment states in the nation. we have to stop at this. we have to correct and we need a strong plan.

mine is a strong and aggressive plan. >> jim galloway, you may ask ason carter. >> mr. carter, when you first arrived in the senate each championed an eligibility cap for the hope scholarship. j he wearing you told a magazine you were backing away and an income tax was too blunt an nstrument. my question simply, should any kind of means testing be applied to the hope scholarship and if so, how would it work? >> thank you for your question. before we began, i want to take one moment and say added by the cool has ever worked on a campaign knows how quickly it becomes a family. i recognize that the deal campaign suffered a loss and want to take a moment to acknowledge matt burgess and

send condolences to his family and my prayers are with both his family and governor deal's team. with respect to the hope scholarship, i have fought every day against the governor and the cuts were deep and they impacted the middle class and there are 80,000 less recipients. i believe those cuts were wrong. i believe we must make sure we maximize the number of students who were able to afford college and that is how we get the kind of economy we want and that kind of people that are prosperous in moving forward. >> it concludes the first round. the candidates will ask one question to each of their opponents. each will have 30 seconds to ask a question and 60 seconds to respond and 30 seconds for a rebuttal. we begin with andrew hunt and your question of four jason carter.

>> i get to choose? >> you get to ask a question of jason carter. i have been told, you do get to choose. [laughter] >> mr. deal, sadly, a bottom 10 list. we have the highest unemployment rate in the highest poverty and poor education, expensive health care, night highest income tax you promised to cut. high incarceration rates, $1500 decrease in of the income, terrible atlanta traffic. you promised limited overnment. you beautifully glossed over this, but can you acknowledging these facts? > i reject your facts. family income, household income has increased in the state every year since i have been governor. we have been in the top 10

states in terms of job creation. last year, we were number six in terms of total new jobs. we are seeing our state to grow and we have grown and population of a about 180,000 people. we have gone to the eighth largest state and we have been recognized for the first time in our history as the best state in the nation in which to do business. we are coming out of this great recession and we have team revenues grow. -- seen revenues grow. they have grown every year under my administration and we believe we set the course in the right direction. we have emphasized education and made reforms both at k-12 and technical levels and colleges and universities. we believe we have set a pattern. >> mr. hunt, your rebuttal? >> that was very, very smooth at how you would expect a lawyer to

nswer. we need to take georgia out of bad policies and build them back up again. we needed to end the reign of career politicians because this is what we get. e get the smooth over. we need to and we have to make a change this year. we need to do it. you can do it. hunt for hot on the ballot -- hunt on the ballot. >> you have to have a question for jason carter. >> well, ok. mr. carter, once again, i will come to the education policy and back to the realm where we have the issue where you want to bring back our employment and state through education. it takes many years for those people to graduate and a changeup that teachers and quality teachers. i like some of your things but

it will not get us back to the job creation, we are the highest unemployment. we have to turn this around. >> thank you, dr. hunt. i believe to build a foundation of war and economy and vibrant job creation system we have to begin with education and it allows us to have prosperous people and our state has every ingredient in these to be an absolute powerhouse. now the educational institutions and global access and we are going to have the biggest report on the east coast. with all of those dynamics and people, not just in atlanta but rural georgia and food -- and the route of the agricultural economy, we have the ingredients o be a powerhouse. we are dead last in unemployment and how fast the recovery from the recession. i believe if we invest in our

people and create jobs through small businesses, innovative and dynamic entrepreneurs and ensuring we can build durable jobs including an agricultural economy, we would drive this ate forward. >> 30 seconds for your rebuttal. >> i heard you address the state of georgia and how we need to urn things around. you did not point out in any way how you will create jobs through better education in the near term. i would like to see this plan put out that is so important that we must, must turn this around and get rid of the poverty cycle. education is one of the ways to do it, i agree. >> mr. deal, you may ask your question. >> dr. hunt, libertarians are fears opponents of government pending.

in our last debate, you indicated you would expand medicare under obamacare. i understand you took a $37 million in private-sector grants funded by the taxpayers of this country to make sure your business did not go into bankruptcy. how do you reconcile those positions with your party's positions? >> we need to clarify and make sure everybody understands. first of all, the georgians paid into the federal system and we are not getting the money back. one of the reasons we are hurting and so many ways. do i agree with obamacare? no. do i want state rights? yes.

we need to get that to that. but as a republic, each state has the programs themselves. until we do that, we have to get our tax dollars back and bring them back into the system. these grants my company receives are the same away. competitive grants, no lobbying, under scientific merit and review and are considered honor badges. my company received many honors badges of high technological capability and i have 50 patents. and have worked with ntimicrobials. >> you know, dr. hunt wants to expand medicaid and an entitlement program. it is in title programs that are killing our country. you are wrong, we are not -- we are borrowing that money. i believe we have to be esponsible by the way we spend taxpayers dollars and icu have

benefited from taxpayer-funded grants and i understand your position on that, but it does not seem to reconcile itself with being a libertarian. >> senator carter, you have never had a leadership position in the legislature or leadership position in private business. you of never passed a bill, never offered an amendment. why should georgians a vote for you with this absolute lack of leadership experience? >> governor, you and i both know what you said is not true. here are 21 bills that have my

name on it that you signed into law. an attack on my leadership is frankly an attempt to pass of the buck. the bottom line of what we need in this state is a governor who ill stand up and say, i take responsibility for the middle class. for the fact that $1400 has been taken out of the average person's pocket. it is a number that is real. the facts will show out. the middle class is falling behind and our education system has been undermined. we have a 9000 fewer teachers. and a vision for the future is the most important thing we can provide and this state has languished enough. >> your rebuttal? >> senator carter has been in the legislature as long as i've been governor. his colleagues who have known him back have never given him a position and leadership -- best have never given him a position leadership. he has never been an author of a bill that has passed. he criticizes budget he voted for. e has never offered an

amendment to anything that budgets this date. chris may i respond? >> we are out of time. >> dr. hunt, you are a scientist and you have heard the governor's report of a appointed a task force on ebola. what are your thoughts? >> that is a very good one. the governor actually quoted that water kills ebola. we cannot have our leaders making such statements and then not retracting them. i never saw a public retraction. that is bad. i have many years of working in antimicrobials and i find it very bad we have a leadership that will go in that way. he is assigning a task team but does not the capability or knowledge to know which people have the right ways of doing it. i can bp on a pair with the people addressing these issues

-- be peer on peer with the people addressing these issues and we will put out the right safety measures for our state to be protected. >> mr. carter, care to rebut? >> i think he has put it out well. what we can do in respect to handling the ebola crisis is making sure our health care system and leaders have credibility. i've lived in africa in times of outbreak and is important that our top leadership is communicating effectively and our top leadership expert on appropriate information and i believe it was inappropriate last week for the governor to save water killed ebola. >> governor deal, we asked supporters on facebook what they would like to ask you. ut to this question comes from y friend, robert, who is

here. here it is. it is football season. we would not stand for it if our football team was getting beaten by tennessee, florida, mississippi, louisiana, south carolina, and the entire rest of the country. being dead last in respect to nemployment -- >> and you are out of time. please get your question. >> why shouldn't it cost you your's? > unemployment numbers are outliers. the critical area is how many jobs are being created. we have created jobs -- and more ust than all of the states you name. last year, we were sixth in the nation. we are on the right track. what you are saying is simply

quoted statistics. he bureau of labour statistics s now saying that if are finally going to and just their model. -- and just -- adjust their model. the only problem is they do not adjust it until they do in audit in february. i am confident they will come back and say our unemployment rate was not the figure as they imploded. it does not reconcile it at major economists are saying it does not make common sense. >> your rebuttal? >> i do not believe it is about statistics but the governor cannot blame the statisticians for the fact that the middle lass is hurting. for the fact there are 380,000 georgians are being left behind. we cannot wait until february to

generate jobs to bring our state back to where it should be. we have every ingredient we need to be a powerhouse and it is governor has led us to the bottom in so many ways. it is inappropriate and i know with a true vision that supports the middle class, we can move our state forward. >> will make one exception and i will give nathan deal an opportunity for a rebuttal on the ebola question and comment that was made. >> we have a competent ndividual, dr. brian fitzgerald, head of public health. she admitted she gave me misinformation. she has put together a comprehensive effort to fight ebola and she is talking with hospitals and making sure that first responders know exactly what they are working with. i believe i've shot responsible leadership to bring all of the public -- on responsible leadership to bring all of the public to make sure our state is

protected. >> that is enough. we must move on. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia governor. we will go to our third and final round. in this round, i will ask a question submitted by the public and turn to our panelists for questions to follow. we will continue this cycle until we run out of time. i will ask all of the candidates if you would take a moment to answer the question. we will give you 60 seconds to answer each. i begin with mr. hunt and we can go down the line. a question for each of you. if elected, will you fight for marriage equality and medical cannabis or will you continue to support the status quo? mr. hunt? >> i will be a strong proponent of medical cannabis. it can cure so many things. it is a natural remedy and has

fewer side effects than the expensive drugs we are putting people on the are so addictive. this a less addictive, better cure for many areas including our veterans who are suffering from ptsd and we need to take care of our veterans dearly. on the same-sex marriage area, this is an area that will be determined by the courts and is happening right now. i when i want to waste tax money -- i would not want to waste tax money on laws. each organization should decide who they believe is worthy of being married or not. that is how it was in the founding of our company. smaller government, less rules and regulations and that way we maximize our freedoms that we should have. >> mr. deal? >> in 2004 when the people voted for a constitutional amendment that said marriage was between a man and a woman, i took an old of office to support and uphold the constitution and laws of the state and that is what i intend to do.

in regards to medical cannabis, i entered an executive order which has put us far ahead of many other states. we are cooperating through our department with a private company that is doing clinical trials and we are going to be approved by the food and drug administration for georgia through our university to conduct clinical trials. i have sympathy for these families and individuals who are seeing children suffering from seizures and i will work with the general assembly as i have done to make sure we have a good, solid answer. i am not going to be in a position off seeing georgia be, like colorado.