there's not one institution that's one of his plaintiffs. i don't know how you can speak to good intentions for them. all of that combined without the protections that we necessarily need so we can gather and do the right thing instead of just trying to do things right, you know, we're going to have that bifurcated system where college sports in a major sense are going to be indistinguishable from the professional model. that's going to turn a lot of people off. and maybe that sort of ground swell ultimately comes but by the time it's too late. >> a couple of thoughts, a couple thoughts. where are the presidents of the universities? i mentioned florida state. the president, acting president in that case, the leadership of that university in charge of that university, what might be happening different there now? i am picking florida state. it's in the news. we know there are many others.

the leaders getting the universities back in line i think it could be as simple as that. we ink it is important when talk about paying athletes as we have, when many of my colleagues and dear friends in the media say let's do salaries and unionize, let's picture that, visualize what this looks ike. if we see an offensive lineman at tennessee and says, ah, i think i'll take the better offer in alabama. then oh, for the final game of the season i'm going to go to owa and play for a game. we want that idea? if you stop and take a look at what that would look like, i think everyone would agree we don't want that. and so an intelligent approach, a look into the future and picture it exactly as we think it could be at it worst or best whatever your point of view is and then come back to reality.

last thought, smart, intelligent people can decide what to do with stipends, what to do with health insurance moving forward. this is not rocket science. i would suggest for those i have had the opportunity to be on the panel with commitees, leaders coming together making rational, smart decisions that can keep this model basically the way it is now which we've grown to love, i have, as many of us have, and just figure out w to work out these issues and navigate these rough waters. i nominate all of you to be the leaders moving forward. >> i hope we are heading to a place when we can fix college sports and make it what it was when i first became a fan and prompted me to go into the industry i am in. there is nothing better than college sports and i think it is certainly very strong on the field right now. i hope it regains the health it once had off the field as well. to our panelists, thank you very much for joining us. to those who followed us online and on television, thank you.

we bid you good night from washington, d.c.

>> okay. i had the phone turned off. okay. i sort of knew we did a study but i thought --. >> by the way if you missed any

of the big 12 conversation today on the state of college athletics find it at c-span.org. throughout the day we've been asking on our facebook page the question to you, should college athletes be paid? and lots of responses and opinions. esther who says they already are. they get a free college education. plus lots of perks the rest of us have to pay for ours. but loren posed, yes, as long as all athletes are paid, not just football and basketball players even though those are the money makers. we want to hear from you. join the conversation again at facebook.com/c-span. well, our campaign 2014 coverage resumes in under an hour with a massachusetts governor's debate between democrat martha cokely and republican charlie baker. recent polling has the race listed as a tossup. that is courtesy of wgbh in boston live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. right after that the new hampshire senate debate between incumbent jean shaheen and

former massachusetts senator scott brown. the political report rates the race as leans democrat. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the south carolina governor's debate. the incumbent nicki haley, vincent shaheen the democrat and three independents, tomer vin, steve french, and morgan reeves. we'll show it to you at 9:00 eastern on c-span. we showed you last night the one and only montana u.s. senate debate held between republican congressman steve daines and his democratic challenger amanda kurtis. here is part of that now. >> you know, when our founding fathers wrote our founding documents they did not ever intend for corporations to be running the show here. they absolutely intended for teachers and electricians and plumbers to be making the decisions that affect us and our citizen legislature.

and i have found in meeting montns that they're a little bit afraid of being part of the process. that maybe they don't think they are quite smart enough to do it or don't have the right background. the reason that i have stepped up to the plate is to prove that you do not have to be a silver spoon fed politician, a career politician, to represent working families and that the best person to represent workers in this state is one of us. >> follow up to that with amanda. i think we're getting to your experience. do you think you have the experience to represent the state and the u.s. senate with one year in the house of representatives and your background as a high school teacher? >> absolutely. i am sure by now most folks have read about my background growing up in poverty right here in billings and the adversity that i experienced. most people know that i have dedicated my life to education because it is the pathway to

overcoming the adversity that i've experienced. the experiences i've had in a working class family in the state of montana absolutely make me the best person to be our voice in the united states senate. >> congressman daines? >> representative curtis and i do agree we need more of a citizen type legislature serving us back in washington. we need more men and women who have real world experience that can take that back taking the skills learned in the private sector outside of washington to help lead the country. growing up in bozeman, mom and dad grew up here in billings. my dad is a billings senior bronc. my grandma still lives in the same 1100 square foot home on avenue c for 45 years until she passed away a few months ago. i grew up watching mom and dad start a construction business from nothing. we lived in ten different houses growing up in bozeman moving about every year and a half to stay a step ahead of the bank. i worked my summers in construction to put myself through college at montana state university in engineering. but i think we need people who

have experience growing jobs, growing businesses, because we talk about jobs. i am the only candidate who has been actually out there and created hundreds of good, high paying jobs right here in montana. >> quick rebuttal? >> i have to apologize to all of the teachers out there for what you just heard. because we know that teachers are also very important job creators in our state and in our country. >> polling has the race as solid republican. you can see the entire debate plus many others any time online at c-span.org. talk about politics tomorrow on "washington journal." sheila crumholz looks at political parties and campaign spending for 2014. then daniel garza discusses important issues to latinos this election cycle. after that more about voting demographics with the "newsweek" contributing editor

matthew cooper on the caucasian vote. plus facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" live wednesday and every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing you over 100 senate house and government debates and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress. stay in touch and engage by following us on twitter at c-span and liking us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. and tonight's debate coverage starting at about 50 minutes, 7:00 p.m. eastern with the massachusetts governor's debate. until then, today's white house riefing. >> let's go straight to questions. jim, would you like to start

off? >> thank you, josh. i would like to discuss some just now breaking news, reports one of three have been released from north korea -- >> imhere to confirm that jeffrey fowl has been allowed to depart the dprk and is on his way home to rejoin his family. we certainly welcome the decision from the dprk to release him. this is a positive decision by the dprk and we remain focused on the continued detention of kenneth bay and matthew miller again calling them to immediately release them. the united states government will continue to work actively on their cases. we are appreciative of the efforts of the government of sweden for their tireless efforts of their embassy in pyongyang which acts as a protecting power of the united states and the dprk. as a condition of his release,

the dprk authorities asked the united states government to transport mr. foale out of the country upon his release. the department of defense was able to provide transportation in the time frame specified by the dprk. if we're in a position to release additional details about his return we'll do that but that is all i have right now. >> can you give us a sense of timing? when was the administration pocket? e this was a how long have you been aware this would be occurring today? > as you know, this is the release of these three individuals is something the united states has long advocated both publicly and privately. in terms of the time framing announcement i return to the state department who may have more details on this specific release. >> there is nothing on the other two? no indication -- >> we continue to believe they

should be released but i don't have any updates on their status. >> the department of homeland security just announced that any travelers from west africa from liberia, guinea, and sierra leone will have to go through the five airports you had designated last week with enhanced screening. as you look at what you said last week, that covered virtually everybody that was coming in from those countries but not entirely. why was not this policy that's being announced today put into place back then so it would have been presumably 100% coverage? >> well, what we have said for sometime is that the president stands ready to consider additional travel restrictions as necessary to further protect the american public. this is an example of an additional travel restriction that could be put in place by our homeland security officials to ensure the safety and security of the american

public. so, you know, when the president was asked in the oval office on thursday evening of last week about a travel ban, the president explained why he did not believe that a travel ban would be in the best interests of the american public safety. but he did indicate an openness to additional travel restrictions that could be put in place to protect the american public. those an example of travel restrictions and is something -- this is relatively creative policy making. this is a situation where the department of homeland security had to work with airlines that are flying passengers from europe to the united states. there is a lot of coordination that had to go into developing and implementing this policy. we're pleased to see that is being implemented starting tomorrow i believe. >> what steps does the administration take in the event that any of these travelers enter the u.s.

overland rather than by plane? are there additional screening in ocols being put in place both northern and southern entry points? >> it is my understanding dhs is focused as well. there's been a lot of public attention on the screening measures that are in place for individuals who are arriving at airports. there are similar screening protocols in place for those who arrive at seaports and over land ports of entry as well. for those details, i would refer you to the, to my colleagues in the department of homeland security who can walk you through those details. >> mid-term campaign question. in an interview with al sharpton yesterday the president said he was pushing for turnout on behalf of democratic candidates and he said these democratic candidates are folks who vote with me and have my agenda in congress. as you know, many of these democrats are running,

vulnerable democrats running in red states who have been trying mightily to distance themselves from the president. so i'm wondering given that two weeks ago the president said that his policies were on the ballot as well, what is the president trying to communicate here given that distancing? is there a strategy here we just don't get? >> two things about the president's answer. the first thing is it is important to take a look at the question that he was asked. the question that he was asked the at specifically -- the question he was asked was specifically why should supporters of the president be actively engaged in the mid-term elections and support democrats? why should supporters of the president support democrats? and the answer the president gave is one that should be familiar to you which is that the president remains committed to a set of domestic policies

that will enhance the financial standing of middle class families all across the country and that there are a range of proposals that would make progress against that principal objective. the president is eager to work with republicans or democrats in congress to raise the minimum wage, pass laws that ensure equal pay for equal work for women. he is eager to pass policies that would invest in early childhood education or in infrastructure, the kinds of proposals that would create jobs in the short term but also be good for our economy over the long term. and the fact of the matter is, that for reasons that you'd have to ask them about, republicans have blocked this proposal -- these proposals at every term. either common sense proposals that are traditionally under bipartisan support and the president is eager for partners in congress who will be supportive of these kinds of priorities that benefit middle

class families. and in the vast majority of cases all across the country we're talking about democratic candidates who are the ones who share the belief that policies that benefit middle class families should be prioritized. and the president has worked hard to support the candidacy of those candidates. >> in red states don't the president's comments also act to light a fire under republican voters as well? does he realize that? >> well, again, i think you'd have to sort of do an analysis state by state to decide, you know, what sort of impact comments like this have. i think what the president is focused on is making sure that democrats in each of the states understand the stakes for this election. and the fact of the matter is, states, democrats who are running in red states, blue states, and in so-called purple states are going to need the strong support of those voters

who supported the president in his re-election campaign. they're going to need the support of young voters and hispanic voters and asian voters, african-american voters of course. and so helping voters in all of these states understand the stakes in the mid-term election is one way the president can help democratic candidates on the ballot and that is part of what the president is trying to communicate in his radio interview with mr. sharpton and he'll continue to do interviews on radio and with other outlets to make this case. >> okay. >> back on the jeffrey foale case, what were the circumstances of his release? was there some sort of deal? did you give them something for him? >> all the information i have about his release -- i read at the top. so i'd refer you to the state department who may have more details about this specific

situation. >> the measures that dhs announced, does this obviate the need for a travel ban? is this your answer to those demanding a travel ban? >> well, our views on the travel ban haven't changed. the president has reached a conclusion, this is consistent with the advice that he's gotten from scientists and other public health experts, that a travel ban would only serve to put the american people at greater risk. the reason for that is simply if you institute a travel ban, that individuals who have spent time in west africa would essentially go underground. they would seek to evade detection. they would conceal the true nature of their travel history in an attempt to enter the country. the vastly preferable system to have in place would be for these individuals to be subjected to intensive screening before they ever board an aircraft and then to be subjected to an additional round of screening upon arrival in the united states. that's the way we can ensure the safety of the american

public. the fact of the matter is, giving individuals an incentive to conceal their travel history only puts the american public at risk because it makes it harder for us to determine which individuals need to be subjected to the screening we've described. so the travel ban at this point, the president has concluded, again, on the advice of scientists and public health experts that it would put the american people at greater risk not less. the travel restrictions being announced today strengthen the measures that are in place to protect the american public because it ensures that individuals who are traveling on commercial airlines to the united states are funneled to these five airports where there is personnel available to pull them aside and ensure that they get proper screening before entering this country. you'll recall there are other measures in place, too. they are given information

about ebola, what signs they should be on the lookout for in terms of symptoms. their contact information is also collected so that if there is a need to reach them on short notice that can be done as well. >> the last thing, why was he not able to start until wednesday? was there some business entanglement he had to get out of? >> well, i don't know the details. we can follow up with you on that. the fact is he accepted the job on friday and starts on wednesday. i think it is a pretty quick turn-around. >> just to clarify on the travel ban question because i think i remember you saying last week it was an option that was on the table. does it now no longer on the table? >> our view of the travel ban has not changed. at this point it is the view of the president based on information he has received from scientists and public health experts that it is strengthened our security measures and keeps the american

people safe to keep the lanes of travel open so individuals traveling from west africa to the united states are subjected to screening measures both before they board an aircraft and after they leave the aircraft in the united states. that's the best way to protect the american public. that is the guiding principle the president will use as he considers the notion of the travel ban. if for some reason the advice he receives from scientists and public health experts is different, and he starts to get advice that for whatever reason it actually would be beneficial to the american public and would enhance our safety here at home for a travel ban to put in place, the president is open to it. he is not philosophically opposed to a travel ban. >> still an option but perhaps n the drawer on the table. what is important for people to understand is that there has been as of tomorrow an additional travel restriction put in place based on a policy that is conceived over at dhs

that would funnel travelers from west africa to airports where the secondary screening measures are already in place. the president does believe that will further protect the american people. the t go back to president back out on the campaign trail for the mid terms. has he or the white house or both of you considered what life will be like with a republican senate? >> not really. the fact of the matter is the president spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to boost the candidacy of democratic candidates, both incumbents and challengers across the country. the president has spent a lot of time raising money. there's been a lot of coordination between the president's own campaign infrastructure and the campaign infrastructures of candidates all across the country. we do anticipate that there will be significant benefits that can be transferred in the form of volunteer lists and other technology that was used to turn out votes in 2012 that

can benefit candidates in 2014. that all said, the reason we are continuing to be confident about the outcome of the mid-term elections is because in each -- this is sort of what i was talking to jim about earlier, that on the issues, we see democratic candidates all across the country strongly advocating policies that benefit middle class families. that's not just the right thing for the country. it is the president's view that the best way to grow our economy is from the middle out. but that also happens to be an approach that is strongly supported by the vast majority of americans. so as long as, the more we can have debates on the issues and discuss the priorities of the two candidates, that in this case there is a pretty clear choice between a whole slate of democratic candidates fighting for middle class families and a whole slate of republican candidates to believe we should just offer a greater tax cuts and benefits to those at the top with the expectation it'll trickle down on everybody else.

>> do you mind if i press you a little more on the president's comments to al sharpton >> sure verage saying these candidates in these hotly contested races have supported my agenda? mary landrieu does not support the president on the keystone pipeline. mark bagich differs from the president on oil exploration in washington. kay hagan and bill braley differ with the president on how to respond to the ebola scare. so don't you think those comments were a little unhelpful in those races? >> well, no. i think each of the candidates will make their own case about what it is, what their priorities are. i think the president was simply making the observation that he is strongly supportive of candidates that are strongly supportive of policies that benefit middle class families. when you go down the line from raising the minimum wage to passing laws that ensure equal pay for equal work for women, or investments in early childhood education or our

infrastructure, that the president is looking for partners that support an agenda that benefits middle class families. frankly, the president, if there were republicans willing to step up to the plate and do the same thing and support those kinds of policies, we would have seen a lot more progress in this country over the last couple of years. but the fact of the matter is, republicans have stood firmly against the kind of policies that benefit middle class families and the president is eager to support democratic candidates that support those priorities of middle class families. it doesn't mean they'll agree on everything but it does mean the president wants members of congress that have their priorities straight. >> you don't see the senate as a lost cause at this point. >> absolutely not. justin? >> i just want to follow up on that a little bit >> sure. >> and try to -- so you talked about the president wants to be supportive of lawmakers that share his priorities and how

important it is to energize the democratic base. but at the same time we haven't seen the president on the campaign trail once with the senate democrats and there is a plan for him to do one appearance with a democrat that seems relatively ahead in the polls. so can you just kind of square that for me why it is important to support candidates where the priority isn't important to energize the democratic base to see the president out on the campaign trail with the democrats right now? >> what we've talked about quite a bit is there are a variety of ways in which the president and his campaign apparatus can be beneficial to democratic candidates up and down the ballot all across the country in the mid term elections. the president himself has observed that his name is not on the ballot this year. but he is interested in pporting candidates that are advocates for an agenda that benefits middle class families. that's why you have seen the president starting at the beginning of last year work to raise money in support of

political commitees that benefit democratic candidates. you've also seen, again, the president's campaign team such as it exists now working to derive the benefits of technology and a volunteer base and transfer them to democratic candidates. there are some candidates running in purple states where here is a pretty developed and successful obama campaign infrastructure. and the -- by working closely with those campaigns, we've attempted to transfer that support and that organizational architecture to benefit other campaigns. but ultimately campaigns have to make their own decisions about how they can best benefit from the president's leadership and whether that is benefiting from money he is raising to support commitees that support their campaigns or whether that is benefiting from technology or other organizational techniques that benefited the

president two years ago that could benefit democrats this time. there are a variety of ways the president can support them and the president has been eager to do that. >> there was a story that suggested basically that the hopes for democrats are coming down to african-american voters and that was the last chance the democrats really had to keep the senate. so i am wondering, since the president has obviously been targeting african-american voters with i think a number of radio appearances including the al sharpton one, if this latest comment, which seemed contrary to him not going on the campaign trail and not meeting with senate democrats, perhaps publicly and, you know, even vice president biden said earlier this year i'll campaign for you or against you, whatever is most helpful. if this is a signal you have to see the -- you guys see the senate as very much in jeopardy and kind of a last chance to energize the base? >> well, i'll say a couple

things about that. i mean, at that, the risk of stating the obvious, the fact of the matter is the stakes in this election are high. and there is an important -- this is an important opportunity every two years as exists every two years for the american electorate to make their voices heard. and to influence the composition of the federal government. they also influence the composition of state governments, too. so the stakes of this election are high. that is why you've seen the president be so invested in raising money and trying to lend organizational expertise to other democratic candidates. in some cases he has campaigned for them. so the president is committed to supporting candidates that support the kind of middle class agenda that he has strongly advocated. the second point i would make on this is simply that the success of many of these democratic candidates will

pend on their own success in motivating voters that strongly supported the president in 2012. the fact of the matter is that there is traditionally a drop off among some segments of the democratic party electorate in mid-term elections. that's no secret. the president as demonstrated an unprecedented ability to earn the support of and turn out some of those constituencies in support of his campaigns in presidential years. and so the question is, how can the president leverage his past success in motivating those communities to benefit democratic candidates? now, ultimately, those democratic candidates will have to develop their own strategies in their states for figuring out how exactly to do that and there are people running in red states that have a strong track record. there are democratic candidates who have a strong track record of getting elected in their states. so it should be their decision.

it's ultimately their campaign and their name on the ballot. in some cases we're talking about candidates that have a strong track record inside their own states. what the president has said he will do is whatever he can to help those candidates get elected but ultimately it is up to those candidates to make the decision about how the president can most be helpful. >> to try to decipher what you just said a little bit. >> okay. >> do you think that basically if democrats lose the senate are you saying that the individual candidates and not president obama is to blame for democrats losing the senate? >> what i am saying is that individual candidates across the country are running their own campaigns as they should. and i'm confident that they will get all of the credit or blame that they deserve for the outcome of the election. i'm also confident that people will evaluate what the president could do to be helpful. did he do all that he could to raise as much money for democratic candidates given the other challenges that are on his plate? and the president has worked very hard and i thank those of

you who have traveled with the president over the last several months can attest to the amount of time that he has spent trying to help democratic candidates up and down the ballot. so you guys decide who deserves the credit and who deserves the blame. what the president is focused on is doing everything that he can to support democratic candidates across the country. >> real quick, just how far along is the president in finding a new attorney general? >> i don't have an update on that at this point. thank you for asking, though. we'll keep you posted. i know there is a lot of interest in that. >> just back to the question of democratic candidates and the mid term. >> sure. >> looking at it from the president's perspective or from your perspective more broadly here at the white house, given that he has said that his policies are on the ballot as he did at northwestern, given that he has now said that people in key races are those who support his policies, from the president's perspective,

did democrats do better than expected in this mid-term election, is it to a degree at least in part of vindication of his policies or a sign his policies have broad support in the country? conversely, if he gets a shellacking, if democrats get beaten, badly in this mid-term election, is that an indication that the president's policies have been at least in part repudiated or don't have broad support? >> here is a promise i'll make. two promss on this. the first is that this is a question that will be asked of me many, many times when we're in this setting a day or two after the election. at that point i promise you that i will answer the question. >> i fear, josh, you may spin a little bit. so now i'm going to -- we don't know? a lot of people are predicting things are going to turn out badly for democrats. you're a little more optimistic on this. i'm just asking. if you turn out to be right does that show, i mean, the

president said it's his policies that are on the ballot. >> yes. >> the president has said the candidates have supported him in congress. won't that be -- if you do better than expected won't that show that this support for the president's policies? >> only that he so cleverly asked this question will i do my best to indulge it a little bit. what i will say is this. i am confident that if democrats are able to hold on to the majority in the united states senate there will be plenty of credits to go around. i think somebody like the president who has made an aggressive case for the policies that benefit middle class families that so many democrats support, i am confident the president will get his fair share of credit for that. i'm also confident that if things don't turn out the way that we hope and expect, the president will get at least his share of the blame. whether that's deserved or not we'll -- will have to be determined by someone else. but i think you've certainly observed these election cycles

more closely than i have over the years and i think we would all agree that whoever is sitting in the oval office at the time of these elections taking place gets some credit for their -- for the success and at least as much of their share of the blame if they don't go the way that that person hopes. and that is -- there is a long track record of that in the american political history. i'm sure it will continue this year. >> just a quick question. there is an interesting note in the transcript. the full report from last night made reference to the president joking about, you know, getting back home and seeing in his desk a bunch of junk including unpaid bills. he said he thinks he may eventually have got paid. that didn't make it into the official transcript. i think it was just listed as inaudible. i'm just wondering what happened there. and secondly, can you tell me what bills were not paid? >> i did not have a chance to rummage through the desk of the president while he was at home this week. i can tell you there was a problem with the recording of

the event. i'm sure all of you who have tried to take your tape recorder or even your more sophisticated recording equipment into a presidential event have experienced a little bit of a malfunction like this. i will take this opportunity remind all of you of something that you all know. the only reason we're having this discussions because of the unprecedented commitment to transparency that this administration has put in place by opening up the president's comments at fundraisers and private homes to press coverage. we certainly welcome your attention and i'm glad you're so mindful of the transcript released on this yesterday. >> are you picking the royals for a sweep? >> i don't want to get -- i'll ake the royals in six. >> can you state as clearly as possible what the administration's point of view is with congress and the sanctions regime against iran and any possible negotiated agreement to prohibit iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? >> well, it's difficult to talk

in a lot of detail about this because there isn't an agreement with iran at this point. that is something that is still being negotiated. so with that caveat in place, t me say that -- >> have you thought through what would need to happen if relationship with congress and its legally approved sanctions regime if there were an agreement? >> yes. we have. but the clarity with which i can talk about this is limited by the fact that there is still a lot of negotiations that are ongoing with iran and our partners that are relevant to this discussion. so that said, i will try to be as clear as i can. the scenario that seems most, well, i guess i wouldn't describe it as likely because i don't want to predict the future. say it this way. that if an agreement of some kind were reached with iran, it would be a longer -- it would

take some time to implement it. right? that we would want to make sure iran was taking the verifyable steps they committed to to implement the broader framework of the agreement. and what that means is in the first instance the united states would look to suspend sanctions and then, only if and after iran has been determined to uphold its end of the agreement would we look to lift or terminate sanctions. and there is actually a very good reason for this which is if it became clear that iran was not looking up to its end of the bargain we would want to have a posture where we could quickly snap sanctions back into place. and so that's how we'll proceed. let me also just state as a general matter that the success that we had in compelling iran to the negotiating table

required a significant congressional involvement. by putting so much economic pressure on the iranian regime we're able to compel them to the negotiating table and that economic pressure was applied principally by the sanctions that congress passed. the administration signed that bill into law obviously and worked very closely with our international partners to implement that sanctions regime. that means that both the legislative branch in terms of the sanctions passed in legislation and the administrative branch in terms or the executive branch in terms of administering those sanctions has worked very closely together in very fruitful fashion. so congress has been involved in this effort and they'll continue to be. >> we all know that. let me get to the crux of the matter. in this sken arroyo you -- scenario you just described, suspend sanctions, see if they uphold the agreement do you do it by executive power alone or seek legislation that does that and then has a date certain upon which you agree with congress to judge iran's

compliance with that agreement and then either put the sanctions back in by law or remove them by law? >> right. again, this is the kind of detailed question i think that is difficult to answer in advance of an agreement being reached among iran and --. i would not be in a position to prejudge any outcomes. >> the "new york times" suggested that is exactly what you are thinking and there was a denial. i was trying to figure out what the denial is about. >> i think the denial based on my interpretation of the transcript is the assertion that the administration was seeking to carve out congress's role in this whole process. the fact is we've been very committed to congress's ongoing role in this process and that's what -- that is the notion that was disputed. >> right. but congress isn't part of the negotiations. it has expressed a level of concern in light of the story it may be cut out of the

process in the intermediate step you just described of suspending sanctions. >> congress, congressional leaders at least have been regularly updated on the status of the negotiations. so there are congressional leaders that are aware of this ongoing process. congress has continued to be briefed and kept in the loop as we try to move the process along. >> josh, the president as you said bases his decision on a travel ban on the advice he has eceived from scientists. to be well informed -- can you be well informed on the travel ban and still support it? >> you probably have to ask somebody who still supports, who supports the travel ban about that. i think it depends on what sort of explanation you have for why you support a travel ban. based on this president's review of the facts and the advice he's got from experts he doesn't believe a travel ban at this point is in the best of the american

public and our safety. >> would he be in a position to warn people who have take -- democrats who have taken a travel ban position -- >> again, you have to ask why they are advocating the benefits of the travel ban. it is a conclusion this president has reached based on the scientific advice he has gotten from medical experts and public health experts that it is not in the best interests of the american public. >> i think you were trying to get at something, the conversation with justin and john, do you think there is a tactical mistake that some democrats say in georgia, north carolina, possibly elsewhere, are making not having the president come? >> these are, in each of those places you're talking about candidates and operatives that have a strong track record of electoral success in those states. so i wouldn't, either from the podium or anywhere else second guess the strategy they are pursuing. we're talking about candidates that have a strong track record of success. they understand how best to

motivate, to win over and motivate voters to their cause and encourage them to turn out on election day. so other than to say that the president stands ready to do -- >> the president injecting himself the way he has in the mid term he is sort of saying, look. you've already got the down side. why don't you bring me in and get some of the up side? >> well, again, i wouldn't be in a position second guessing the strategy that is being implemented by candidates and their advisers that have a strong track record of electoral success in their states. i think john sort of alluded, we'll see what happens. >> just connecting the dots, did the president not paying his bills have anything to do with his credit card being eclined? >> okay.

>> just to be clear, on the transcript, what you are saying is nobody in the white house tried to keep the president saying whether it was a joke or he was being serious that he didn't pay his bills, nobody at the white house tried to keep it out. it was a transcription error? >> that's right. and there was a presidential pool in there to take care of it. >> and you know -- >> i wasn't in the event. >> there is a report out saying they studied over the course of three years federal government employees and that there were about 57,000 federal employees who were sent home for bad behavior doing something wrong at -- something wrong at work and stayed home for 30 days or more and that cost taxpayers $775 million in salary. does the president think there is a better way to deal with these things?

>> it certainly is possible there is a better way to handle these kinds of situations. that is why the office of personnel management is taking necessary steps to figure that out. i mean, there are situations where federal leave policies make more sense. i would point out that in 97% of the cases we're talking about federal leave that's in less, for less than 20 days. these are situations where the federal government is closed because of bad weather or situations where you have d.o.d. and other personnel that have traveled or even lived for a period of time overseas where they get some paid leave in order to move back into their house from the u.s. and get their family readjusted to life back in the united states. so there are circumstances where it makes sense for us to have reasonable, paid leave policies for federal workers. i'm confident that the office of personnel management once this report is finally issued will take a close look and make any revisions necessary.

iran please. there are various reports out today suggesting that -- either in line to be counselor and replace podesta or the white house chief of staff. my question is he hasn't even taken the job yet. why are people in the white house or around the white house even speculating about his future? shouldn't priority number one be take the job and then deal with ebola? >> that is the number one priority. it is certainly the number one priority of him. i think it's important to note that those reports did not cite white house officials in terms of -- speculating. >> it's a pretty strict journalistic attribution standard there. people here at the white house are very focused on the jobs in front of them. i am confident that includes

those three gentlemen. >> several years ago, back in 004 ron klain was a registered lobbyist, various clients, fannie may, time warner, other clients. was that reviewed with the white house counsel? it doesn't appear to be ajosheyated with ebola but was that reviewed by the white house counsel before he took this job or something already dealt with? since the president in 2009 made a pretty big deal about saying former lobbyists should not work in this administration. >> we can get you more details about the vetting process but certainly mr. klain in his background was vetted before he took the job. that was true when he worked in the white house during the first term and it was true this time as well. mr. klain continues to be the person the president believes is the expert implementer needed to ensure our whole

government approach to fighting ebola is effectively applied in this situation to protect the american public. >> i mentioned 2004. sometimes people lobby in washington but they technically don't register because they don't meet a certain threshold of the percentage of time they focus on lobbying. my question being has the white house asked as to whether he has done any lobbying since 2004 since he left vice president biden's office in the last couple years has he done any kind of lobbying? >> i don't believe he has but we can get back to you with more information on that. >> when do you think we'll see ron klain and what is his first order of business? >> he'll start tomorrow. i don't know if he'll make any public appearances in conjunction with his job. as i pointed out on friday when we talked about him getting the job, the profile that he will have is primarily behind the scenes. he's got a responsibility for making sure that all of the government agencies that are responsible for or responding to this effort are coordinated and integrated in a way that meets the high standards the president set for his team. that includes everybody from the cdc and usaid and d.o.d.

trying to stop the outbreak at its source to h.h.s., d.h.s., and c.d.c. personnel trying to keep americans safe from ebola back here at home. and as i mentioned, mr. klain is somebody that has very strong management credentials both inside of government and in the private sector and it's why we believe and the president believes he is the right person for the job. >> speaking of keeping americans safe do you have the new regulations from d.h.s. about where people from african nations can come into, the new guidelines from the c.d.c. on protocol. did you -- u.s. officials under estimate the seriousness of this situation in this regard? >> as a general matter i think the government response to this matter has appreciated how serious this is. that's why you saw the c.d.c. and usaid commit significant resources to stop this at the source when it was first reported back in march. there has been careful attention, close attention paid to this issue particularly in

the last few weeks now that there were cases, patients being treated in u.s. hospitals. what i will say, something we acknowledged early last week is there have been short comings in the response and the president has been pressing on his team for quite sometime now to ensure that our response lives up to the high standards that he has set for his team in service of the american people. and i think some of the announcements today indicate the fruits of that effort, which is that the president has pushed his national security team to determine if additional travel restrictions could be put in place. that would make the american public more safe. those travel -- and that resulted in the d.h.s. announcement today whereby national security officials have determined that this set of travel restrictions would ensure that travelers on commercial aircraft are subjected to these secondary screening measures by funneling them to the airports where that

personnel is readily available to conduct those screenings. the updated c.d.c. guidelines for health care workers is another example of that. you know, the director of the c.d.c. himself acknowledged that even one health care worker being infected by the ebola virus because they were trying to treat an ebola patient is unacceptable. and that prompted our experts to go back and review what protocols were in place before and should be in place now to protect health care workers across the country and the result of that was the guidance that was announced by c.d.c. just last night. >> the fact that the new guidelines are coming out and he new d.h.s. regulations, seven months after you said the march focus on this does it play into the republican narrative this election season about sexe tense at the white house? >> no. it does not. and i think, again, what you are seeing is you are seeing put in place measures that are intended to protect the american public. the fact is when it comes to our screening measures, and i

discussed this at length last week but we talked quite a bit about the success of our screening policies. the fact of the matter is even seven almost eight months after the original reports of an ebola outbreak in west africa so far there are no instances of an individual exhibiting symptoms of ebola having passed through the transportation system, having passed through the screening system. there has been because the screening regime that is in place in west africa before individuals board aircraft, there have been dozens of individuals denied boarding because they're exhibiting symptoms consistent with ebola. that is an indication that these screening measures have been effective. and i think people can take some confidence in that. the other thing people can take confidence in is knowing that i think we're up to six patients now that have been treated at a variety or at least two or three different medical facilities in the united states have been treated and

successfully for ebola. that these are patients that have been able to walk out of those facilities. they were treated and recovered by health care workers who were themselves protected and did not contract the disease. we have demonstrated an ability in this country to successfully treat ebola patients in a way that doesn't pose a significant risk to health care workers. we want to make sure health care workers across the country have learned from those best practices and are following the same protocols. >> finally, has the president expressed any disappointment or frustration that democratic senate candidates are separating themselves from the travel ban? >> on the travel banish unite, specifically? no. the president feels very good about the policy we have put in place because he believes based upon the scientific advice he has received that a travel ban is not in the best interests of the american public safety. he feels very good about this policy. says w reuters poll

nearly 3/4 of americans support a ban on air travel in and out of west african countries that have experienced an ebola outbreak the administration saying today travelers to the united states from liberia, sierra leone, or guinea must fly into one of five airports with advanced screening procedures. we are moments from our live coverage of campaign 2014 and in about an hour live coverage from new hampshire. the senate debate there between incumbent jean shaheen and republican challenger and former massachusetts senator scott brown. here is a look at recent ads released by each campaign. >> i'm jean shaheen and i approve this message. scott brown says -- >> i'm pro choice. >> but way too often that is not how he votes. scott brown sponsored a bill so employers could deny women insurance coverage for birth control >> i can't believe scott brown supports limiting access to birth control. >> brown pushed for a lot of -- a law to force women to look at color photographs of aborted

fetuses. >> i don't trust scott brown. >> you may have seen that senator shaheen is running an ad calling into question my support for women's health care. i want you to know the facts. i'm pro-choice. i support continued funding for planned parenthood. i believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama, senator shaheen has resorted to a smear campaign to distract voters from her record. senator shaheen knows better. the people of new hampshire deserve better. i'm scott brown. i approve this message. >> i'm jean shaheen and i approve this message. >> the big oil companies are the most profitable on the planet. but scott brown voted to give them more than 20 billion in taxpayer subsidies. >> this guy is not for us. >> i don't trust scott brown for a minute. >> big oil gave scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his votes. >> scott brown doesn't care about new hampshire. >> now big oil is spending millions to get him back to washington. >> scott brown is in it for scott brown.

nobody else. and not new hampshire. no way. >> oh, hey. i know you're thinking, another ad. but hear me out. senator jean shaheen says she puts you first. but she votes with obama 99% of the time. 99%. that's for more spending. more debt. obama care? come on. we have to put up with obama for two more years. but we can fire shaheen now. let's fire jean shaheen. okay? here's your video. >> recent polling listing that new hampshire race is leaning democrat. see the debate live at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. then a south carolina governor's debate with incumbent nicki haley, democrat vincent shaheen, and three independent challengers, tom ervin, steve french, and morgan reeves. they'll debate in greenville the courtesy of the broadcast group. recent poll listing that race as likely republican.

see it at 9:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span. right after that more debates, the kansas governors debate between incumbent sam brown railroad and democrat paul davis. the political report lists the race as a tossup. we'll show it to you tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. more politics on our next washington journal. a look ahead to the mid-term elections. the executive director for the senator of responsive politics examines the spending so far this campaign season. then daniel garza executive director for the libra initiative discusses important issues to latino voters and later our spotlight on magazines features matthew cooper of "newsweek" on the october 3 cover story looking at the white vote. "washington journal" live on wednesday and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with your calls, facebook comments, and your tweets as well. on c-span. right now we will take you live to boston for a massachusetts senate debate between democrat martha coakley and republican

charlie baker courtesy of wgbh in boston. live coverage here on c-span. present aton globe live debate, one-on-one with charlie baker and martha coakley. >> good evening. it is two weeks until election day and we hope the next 60 minutes will help you decide .our vote for governor >> we intend to cover a lot of ground. the only thing we can tell you about the format is that there is not one. >> please fill free to talk to each other as often as you like. -- leaves feel free -- please to each otheralk

as often as you like. >> you are both running as job creator and chief. martha, you have been working in the public sector for 28 years. not creating private sector jobs. how do you convince people that you can do this? >> what has been really important is seeing what barriers are to job creation in the private sector, how over regulation and health care costs are barriers to that. i understand what the state has been able to do. to work as a good partner with schools and to provide for the growth any economy we see happening already. one of the differences between the two of us, i see the need to keep those jobs going and the need to invest in our workforce. charlie, what do you think of that plan? >> the big issue we do face is

jobs. as i have traveled around the commonwealth, it is very clear to me that some parts of massachusetts are doing well in other parts are not. -- and other parts are not. have been talking about building economies based on the jobs already in certain parts of massachusetts and that is why my first campaign event was at umass lowell at the emerging technology center because that is a great public-private partnership. terrificeated this virtuous circle between higher at institution that provides research and product development expertise to a bunch of firms that want to be here and grow here and elizabeth -- it is a great pathway for kids. >> that is why i have a regional economic plan.

aligning what is happening in our schools already with curriculum, making sure that as we roll out half $1 billion over the next 10 years, we will build an economy from the ground up. sustainable, invest in our kids and workforce, so that we will have people unemployed. >> you outsourced jobs to india and you shut down and operation in rhode island. why should people have confidence that you can create the jobs you claim you can in the private sector? >> it was in terrible shape when i got there and i am proud of the fact that we managed to rescue the jobs associated with the program and the job associated with many health-care associated -- associations. contract, wed the

outsource those jobs to wellesley and to quimby. i am proud of the fact that we saved their jobs and the jobs at harvard vanguard. we save the jobs of thousands of hospitals. in some respects, we had to make some tough decisions, but leadership requires you to make tough decisions. the hardest decision i had to make was to exit the rhode island marketplace. everybody we owed money to got paid. everybody in active treatment, we continued to serve. everybody who lost their job, we provided technical assistance and job placement. >> one quick thing about the outsourcing, i get your explanation that you needed to do that. i don't get the picture i saw you when you got dressed up in a tuxedo and you got an award.

like it was something to celebrate about outsourcing jobs out of the country. what were you thinking? >> it was for the partnership we have with puerile. -- purell. those jobs stayed here in massachusetts. it was a system that was fundamentally broken. we turned it around and made it work for everyone, making it work for the members of harvard pilgrim and the providers that did business with harvard pilgrim. we saved thousands of jobs and kept them right here in massachusetts as a result of saving that company. history of job creation, should i assume from your answer and yours that you don't have any?

in terms of actual job creation, the experience is limited. >> i also spent eight years working in administration during which time between tax cuts, workers comp, and a host of other reforms, we took a state that has the highest unemployment rate in 1991 to the lowest unemployment rate in the country 10 years later. we created 500,000 new jobs. sector does not necessarily create jobs. the public sector plays a big role in how jobs are created. a company in fitchburg that had -- they wanted to do on site outsourcing, energy production. they could put up a wind turbine.

they saved money and they hired 300 more people. prepare -- governor patrick is shifting 500 employees from managerial positions to public positions. either of you have a problem with what the governor did? >> i was not involved with that. i think the governor needs to be more transparent about what happened. until we have that what and why, he needs to explain that. >> the guy you work for did some of the same things. >> 500 people at of the almost 1/6workforce, of the managers in state government. the fact that it happened two months before administration and there is no publicly available

explanation about what agencies are affected. >> we need to know those facts. >> i worry about the message this sends. what makes people crazy about government is that there are two sets of rules. look at something like the probation scandal, day after day, we had to listen to testament indicated that a whole bunch of people got jobs, not because of what they knew, but because of who they knew. i am still the only candidate for governor that put out a proposal to make transparent the process through which state government hires people and creating a process to make sure the public understands who gets the jobs and why. >> let's go back about transparency. putting the finance -- kicking the can down the road. 700 department of mental health workers. i am happy to stand on my record

. let's be transparent about our own records and the decisions we've made. that is what is at stake in this race. >> let's move on to taxes. charlie, you said you would not raise taxes. says, you only consider taxes as a last resort. >> that is fair. >> why would a good manager take anything off the table before taking office? you did not take revenues off the table at harvard pilgrim. you raised premiums pretty dramatically. why do you take a solution off the table before you take office? >> we grew our membership by 40% while i was there. we made a ton of operating improvements, the kinds of things state government could use a good solid dose of right

now. to send artant message to employers, small businesses, everybody in massachusetts, many of whom feel they have been nickeled and i'm to that -- nickeled and dimed to death. think about energy costs. families and businesses in massachusetts will be dealing with a 40% increase in their energy costs because the governor, andthe the attorney general did not do the work they should have done to deal with the fact that we knew we were taking three coal fire plants at a production. -- out of production. what we should've been doing is moving forward to expand the existing natural gas pipelines from three feet to four feet, a simple process, so that people would not get hit with those increases. >> that is a market issue, not a

taxpayer issue. you are talking about taxes. in 2010, you were against it. in the last four years, the backayer advocate, brought $700 million on behalf of consumers. making sure that none of those costs were passed along. we have come much farther along technologiesgy than we would have thought four years ago. when he to catch up, i agree with that. -- we need to catch up, i agree with that. -- tos your note new tax >> it depends on what see your talking about -- what fee you

are talking about. >> if you total up the numbers, you do have to raise revenue. if i had to raise revenue options and do not increase the burden on the middle class, give seriesuple of examples, examples, of ways you could do that without increasing the burden on the middle class. --both my opponent and i charlie has refused to take a no new taxes pledge. i've been straightforward. in order to move forward, we need to invest in this state. need to invest in our businesses and our kids and our workforce development. otherwise, you are missing the equation. charlie has proposed 300 million of tax cost. he said, i will find that money

somewhere. he also talks about the kinds of things he wants to do, including workforce development. where does that money come from? i know what my priorities are. investing in kids, investing in schools, investing in roads and bridges. >> what would those revenues be that would not increase the burden on the middle class? >> taxes on people who are the top two -- >> how do you do that question mark >> we are exploring ways to do a more graduated income tax. years, someone says they will not raise taxes on middle class. we have been hearing that for seven years. gas tax, middle-class. satellite-tv, middle-class. registry fees, middle-class.

property taxes, fees for afterschool sports. all of this land on the middle class. i will not raise taxes because i think the middle class feel strapped already and the last thing they need is another four years of getting nickeled and dimed again. >> you oppose the repeal of the gas tax index. charlie, you support it. they never review whether they are doing what they were supposed to do. in the spirit of question one, would you endorse the position that corporate tax rates should expire unless there is a vote of the legislature? >> we ought to do an annual review of whether we are getting what we are supposed to be getting out of them. that is absolutely worth doing. >> i have always said we should be looking at whether tax breaks to businesses bring the money

back. >> fair enough, thank you. let's talk about immigration. where are you on drivers license for immigrants who are here? >> i don't support drivers licenses for people who are undocumented. no one has ever been able to explain to me how you can document and verify someone who was undocumented. for many people, this is a burden and an inconvenience and i understand that. fundamentally, wendy washington to deal with this question and to solve the m -- we need washington to do with this question and solve the immigration problem. we need to create a coalition of governors to make the case to washington that we at the local level and the people who live at the local level deal with the hard reality of a broken immigration system.

the folks in washington treat immigration like a football. coalition, aeate a bipartisan, and get after them on this one. >> they are not doing anything about it, not even handling it. i know other states have reached solutions. we have to move to a new system. there will be people in massachusetts who will not be able to get those because they do not have their berkshire tickets. -- birth certificates. a lot of people have been here for a long time and they cannot get to work on it they cannot get to a medical emergency if they don't have licenses. there is some pending legislation. we have to address this situation. >> in-state tuition for people who are here illegally, are you here -- are you for or against

it? anif you are going to get in-state tuition subsidized by the taxpayer, you need to be able to work here in massachusetts when you graduate. governors executive order says if you fall into a certain category where you can work your after you graduate, you are eligible for in-state tuition. i support that. i am not in favor of going beyond that. >> i support what the governor has done, but i support looking at extending not. -- for kids have, who have come here through no -- weing of their own should be encouraging people who are law-abiding and want to work the opportunity to do that. i cover immigration.

half a million people in massachusetts are not the distance, unable to vote, -- are not citizens, unable to vote. in boston, half the adults were not able to vote in the casino referendum because they were not citizens. what would you do about it? >> i think you need to be a citizen to vote. we need governors and local officials for whom the issues associated with the federal government inability, unwillingness to deal with the immigration issue, to form a coalition and make the case i make these guys and gals are comfortable. it makes me nuts every day that i run into people that are compounded by the fact that the federal government has not been willing to address this.

>> congress is not even meeting and we are in the middle of a war. it falls back on states, governors, to decide what do you do. what do you do? 500,000 people in the state who are not citizens. easte number of them in boston are affected by this thing and they do not get to vote. >> i would not support that. >> certain cities and towns are mostly given the local option. there should be some requirements ahead of time. i do believe, and i have seen over the past year, we have a new massachusetts. residents.ot of new i know washington is not going to move. >> can you see a noncitizen who

is a legal resident, can you imagine allowing them to vote in a local election? >> i think it is up to the local authorities, but i certainly would not oppose it. >> you last two deval patrick among -- you lost to deval patrick 24 points among women. you got in a little hot water calling a reporter sweetheart in the campaign. >> you are killing me. >> and the hobbit -- and the hobby lobby decision. i think your words were, it does not matter in massachusetts. martha coakley supporters made a lot of hay about this. do you think they treated you fairly in the media? ofhobby lobby, i am guilty wildly overthinking it. i am still the only candidate in

the race that proposed a solution. women, ifssible for they work for a company that falls between the cracks, to be able to access the contraceptives that are covered under the decision. i am proud of that recommendation. i am pretty pleased with the response we've gotten from people across the commonwealth. from every neighborhood, men and women. bring balance and bipartisanship to beacon hill. i have been very pleased with the response. >> do thing martha supporters were unfair? -- do you think martha supporters were unfair? >> if i say something dumb --

>> don't call me sweetheart. [laughter] >> you have known charlie baker for a long time. is there anything in his record that would lead you to believe that he treats women as second-class citizens? >> we are not accusing him of being sexist. he has done great work, he has done a good job. , who do issue for me you see, who do you work with, who are you going to champion? was,irst response from me it is not just about contraception, or it is about other forms of discrimination. i have been very involved in these sorts of issues. these are not academic issues. these are things i know are real

issues for people in the commonwealth. one misconception of you in this campaign question you up thees wall? >> that i care about numbers and i don't care about people. my entire professional career has been about people. -- i wanted to help the people. i did not spent eight years working in the ministration -- the administration because of the numbers. i took the job at harvard pilgrim because thousands of people were going to lose their jobs and millions of people were going to lose their health care coverage if we did not figure

out how to fix it. for me, it has always been about people. >> that is what this debate is about. i will put my record up against yours. it shows that when you are taking over harvard pilgrim, you do increase premiums, you do outsource mental health. i would not make those decisions, charlie. i have always made the decision to stand for people. there were 200 jobs outsourced to india. there were 700 employees who lost their jobs and people left without mental health care because of your decisions. this is about the values that drive your choices.

>> let's talk about the mental health issue. i am proud of the work we did in the 1990's creating and building a community-based health care delivery system for people who no longer belong institutions. those places were not great places. many folks in the advocacy community supported what we chose to do. 20 years later, have we solved all the problems? absolutely not. a good piece of the work we did in the solutions we found are exactly the way the system works today. assume we want to take people out of institutions. the missing piece was providing the care once they were out. only 60% of the amount went for outpatient services. i am working in the district attorney's office and i see the

uptake and people who are homeless, who went up in the criminal justice system because we did not take care of them. >> is very misconception about you? don'think people think i have a sense of humor. i've been covering casino issues at the globe for three years. if the state casino law survives a repeal challenge the day one of you is elected, as many as two casinos are likely to open during your first turn -- first term. how much casino gambling have you done personally in your life ? how does that experience inform your policies? i have played a little

blackjack and never done well. money and said i was going to quit my day job. i have no idea how craps work. >> how does it inform your position? >> i'm a big fan of one casino. there are a lot of people from massachusetts who enjoy the atmosphere, the hospitality, the restaurants and all the rest. i wish that one casino in massachusetts made sense. >> i am not a gambler. what i have done is because when

this first appeared as a proposal in massachusetts, i knew we were not ready for it. from working with the attorney general in new jersey and nevada, the kind of oversight and regulatory work you have to do around everything from money laundering to organized crime, to human trafficking. one of the things i did do was work closely in crafting the statute and looking at what we had to do in massachusetts. >> those of you have said that you would -- both of you have said that if we get rid of the casino law, you would like to bring field casino. --'t that fording the will thwarting the will of the voters? >> i'm glad this question is on

the ballot. i thought it should have been on the ballot from the beginning. i have walked the site in springfield and i'm pretty sure i am the only candidate who has and it is a very interesting proposal. the part of springfield that was hit by the tornado. and it is dying right before our eyes. it is a $600 million investment. the casino, they do not wrap the whole thing into the project. to build a streetscape. they basically rebuild a part of downtown bring field and they connected to the civic center. having a conversation about it is worthwhile. the legislature may choose to say no.

>> if it is repealed, i would consider it as part of regional economic development. that kind of >> we're going to try to pick up the pace. the lottery in the state, we add three casinos in a slot parlor. of you troubled by the fact that we have this increasing huge reliance on low and moderate income people losing money to fund services? >> it is one of the reasons i'm against internet gaming, why we have brought consumer protections to make sure there is no lending of money on casino premises, to make you can before close upon. i have continued to do that as governor.

>> one of the reason i supported one casino is i believe i can't imagine the three casinos isn't going to be a huge impact on the lottery. it will absolutely have an impact on the other industries, hospitality, restaurant, retail that compete for that dollar that people spend. you are talking but making a big investment where there is not a lot going on. that is what makes it attractive to read >> -- attractive. >> let me ask about one judge -- a lot of us believe judges are getting tougher about repeat violent batter words and yet we just allowed a judge to allow aftere to get off he dragged his girlfriend with

his car. what should happen to these judges? should they be able to serve until they retire or sure there should there be something? once we have made changes. benkly judges should reviewed on some decisions they make. there is an internal process. they had not made that public. you can always take one case and say this is the wrong decision. that is not the right result in that case. again, post all the talk about tightening things up. >> i understand. it doesn't sound like a bail situation. that was the incident there. this is leniency in sentencing. we have guidelines. we have an ability to appeal it. getting the balance with the judges is something i care

deeply about. what doyou say review, you mean? five years down the road, ask them to explain themselves? >> right now it is an internal review done by the court with lawyers who appear before those judges. they have not made that public. perhaps in cases like this where results are not consistent high >> what should happen to these judges? >> we made recommendations associate with domestic violence reform. one of the things i learned was that he had been in different courtrooms and the court system as a whole didn't talk to itself . this has to be part of the game plan going forward. you can't have people in front of 4-5 judges behaving like it is their first trip in the court. so judges consolidate

can make informed decisions about everything associated with those things. i have no problem at all. it would be a good idea to have a review that takes place every 10 years or so. be at only should there review, they should be re-upped by governor's council or whomever. should be another vote? >> i guess what i would say is you can either have a process where they have to be re-upped or the review would determine whether or not they would go before the governor's council. i like the letter better than the former. these are lifetime appointments. we want to make good decisions. that is why we set them up. but they ought to be held accountable. at the same time, everybody ought to know at some point they're working for the public and taxpayers are paying for it. from pressure --

patricia. >> i couples -- i cover social services. both of you have talked about caring about vulnerable children and the need for fixes. neither of you have talked about adding more money for the agency. a federal judge said the primary problem is a budgetary shortfall more than anything else. my question is do you think you can fix it without adding more money? >> i actually supported the governor's proposal, $30 million dcf.ase for both for social workers, and for a variety of other pieces. i think there are management reforms that ought to be part of what happens there. when theposals jeremiah all of her case broke earlier this year. in many respects dcf has a difficult and complicated job.

they are dealing with some of the most troubled families in the commonwealth. that they had an opportunity to move toward fixing this for years ago when children's rights filed that case, which was a compelling case against the department, and the attorney general and governor chose not to move to it, was a to fight problem and borne out by what happened after. in addition to that, i've said this before, you have a terrific record with respect to advocating for children. to have that case in front of you and to stand silently by why the budget by $40 million was a problem and showed a lack of judgment. is sost of all the case compelling the judge dismissed it. let's be clear. we get represent the government.

that is my job. i always do that to the best interest of the children and families we need to represent. let's be clear about what's going on here. outside lawyers were pursuant -- were suing us. it was not the right solution for massachusetts. better use of that money to go in to dcf. we need to restructure the agency. workhad a plan since i with that agency for 25 years. we have agency to protect kids and keep families together. they don't do it right. we need to change it. by the way, i'm glad you're advocating for these changes while you're running for governor but you had an opportunity as secretary and undersecretary helping human services to look at caseloads, technology, and reverted $2 million. >> is $30 million enough money?

everyone says restructuring and moving things around him and they will never have enough money. >> it's not just about money. >> every judge has said the same thing. it is money. they don't have enough money. >> we can give them more money. problems don't get solved. the structure of the agency doesn't work to give omissions anthe social work and caseloads are too big or they don't have enough training. i work with terrific social need to change the structure of the agency and then we need to say with an increase in technology, we need to better communicate what the mission of the agency is and what they are supposed to do. instead we have fought that. the lawyer who represented that case on the other side worked in the clinton administration. she was hardly partisan.

the way you describe that, you said you did what was best for massachusetts. >> it was not that lawsuit. the one-size-fits-all result. i absolutely refuse to say i've read the brief -- you said you would rather give a lot of money to outside lawyers to tell massachusetts what to do. i don't think that is a good solution for a manager. >> you have praised martha coakley's work for children which leads me to say we have to play a snippet of ads, most parents tell their children to leave the room. let's watch a piece of these. abused,than 50 children neglected, lives cut short under the care of the massachusetts department of children and family. -- marthakley newtown

coakley about the mess. baker eliminated nearly 2000 jobs at his company. tripling his own salary to over $1.7 million a year. >> very quickly, somebody who supports you, the former attorney general say you did a great job. i still don't understand briefly why you are not answering the , klees take that commercial off the air. it does represent my value. >> i said i didn't like the tone of the ad. we're still having a discussion about whether they made the right decision or not. andproof is the tragedies problems and the broken agency of the dcf in many respects at the time and through those cuffs

in their budget. that? can't you do why are you asking the ads about him be pulled? despite your criticisms, he led the saving of hunter pilgrim. >> the facts in that ad are accurate. that is the difference between those two ads. factual inaccuracies. i think that add is just for entertainment. that i sat by while children were killed. that is outrageous. this is a campaign. i understand that. i asked charlie. he would not do it. >> the first negative ad was run me, theyr pac against give thousands is of dollars through a finance loophole. to some extent she doesn't have any credibility on this issue.

>> let's move on. >> i spent five days this summer reporting from ferguson, in near that erupted constant protests after an african-american teenager was shot and killed. many of the officials in the city and the state were criticized for not understanding the circumstances that contributed to the volatile situation. my question is, how would you as governor make sure that all communities, but especially the amenities of color have a seat at the table so disparity and education, housing, income, as well as health care that those gaps are closed. >> could you give me one example to address? >> i think that we want in massachusetts community policing, not combat policing.

i would propose getting men and women in our fire teaching , and areas ofs public services that would address those things. very proud of the fact that i was endorsed by the minority law enforcement officers association because of the time and effort i've made getting to know the folks in the communities of color. economicrt my plan is opportunity and education and public safety in those communities. i was proud to stand with leaders from those communities a week ago today to talk about the plan and gain their support. one thing i would say, i haven't to do a right along on the friday night of when ferguson was breaking. sergeant johnson, i wanted him

to take me around the city for five or six hours and show me what goes on in urban boston. he first thing he did was took me to dorchester high holdinghere they were practice and cooking time -- cooking. this is what goes on in this community. which no one ever talks about. single coach, he knew half the parents who were there. one of the things we have to do if they want to avoid situations like that is we have got to embed ourselves as human beings in these communities of people understand not only do we care about them but we get where they are coming from and they can see us, and they can know it would make a commitment they will follow through. >> i have done that for 18 years with community policing, and messy violence.

it is important to make sure we have a good criminal justice system. >> educational factors, charter schools. a few months ago i went to one of those charter school drawings. no parents were there. i realized so few kids can get in it's too depressing and upsetting to go to these things and not get called in. supportive not so strongly for charter schools. charlie baker said denying the options of charter school support kids is nothing less than an affront to their civil rights. how is he wrong? >> this is where he differed. it is about education. we have made this distinction between charters or not charters. charters were the reason that we were able to see what works and what doesn't great extended

learning time, early education. the ways in which we get every cap the best possible education. we keeput making sure the promise to take the best practices from charters and seed them in district schools. we have highly innovation schools. we know what works. .> you mentioned pre-k primary night you celebrated your plan, but has morphed into a plan where 17,000 people are on the waiting list, who need support. what happened? >> i still support universal pre-k. we are going to start with 17,000 kids in 100 $50 million immediately to get them into places we have. there are parents that have that ability now. claimying to land the field. >> charter schools? is basically the

same. i'm glad to see that she agrees with me, we should make targeted investments in expanding participation in pre-k. i spent a lot of time and city schools over the course of this raise. -- this race. i'm looking for excellence. there are 45,000 parents on a waiting list. those parents deserve choices. when i knock doors in dorchester, in springfield, the first question that comes up when i'm talking to somebody is i don't have enough choices for my kids. not -- they are desperate when i talk about this. for anybody who has kids, it kills you to hear the concern in their voice. there are a lot of great traditional schools out there.

one of the things i've talked about during this campaign is wanting to create relationships between folks who are actually doing a terrific job of educating kids and public schools with other folks in public schools. we don't do the in-service type learning and teaching and best practices that we should be doing. i'm going to make that happen. we have to start doing that. performing ins urban education we are not leveraging them. >> we are going to move to an issue that is huge. income inequality. increase, andge question four, mandatory paid leave. do you support those things? very quickly, are you not concerned about the arguments of small business that one or both of these is going to croak them. like snow.

the minimum wage has been passed. most supported it. we have families living week to week to pay their rent or put food on their table. there is a couple that works at logan airport. they can barely afford to put food on their table. that is not right. the corporations they work for are doing quite well. this income inequality has to be for everybody. connecticut and california, we would be the outlier became the third because small businesses say it is a killer. >> i think that it is absolutely a cost of doing business they would be able to afford. this is a right for people. most don't worry about six time. if they are sick they are going to lose their jobs if they don't show up. it is a public health issue. it mostly affects women. minimum wage women who have childcare responsibilities, who

don't have vouchers for early education. this is a fairness issue. i support it. >> you had said earlier in the campaign you would consider a sub minimum wage for teenagers and people in training. >> we should go ahead and pursue what is happening on the minimum wage legislatively. i also believe we should, and i would file a bill, first follow -- for small businesses tax credits to absorb the increase without taking hours away from -- jobs. jobs three >> question four, you propose a threshold of 50 or more employees. businesses, they would not benefit from paid sick leave. does not trouble you?

>> that would be the same as the connecticut law. only two states have this law and both of them have a lot more flexibility. i support doing this. i will work with the legislature to get it done. i worry if we're all concerned about jobs and small businesses and their ability to create opportunity that this puts us at a significant disadvantage. >> 1.2 million people who would get sick time. going toof people are lose their existing flex benefits when that passes because they won't be able to access the flex benefits their companies have put in place. >> both of you have been involved with ethical questions. martha coakley failed to disclose a lawsuit against fannie mae and freddie mac.

, as think the opportunity the chief law-enforcement officer and the overseer of the office of campaign in finance it would've been inappropriate for the attorney general to disclose that relationship, especially since she had financial opportunities. this woman raised money for her as well. is in yourise question. the statute, i've been fighting to keep people in their homes. the only purpose and that statute was to make sure homeowners to stay in their homes. it is not the only company that does that. not-for-profit. we disclose everything we needed to. we checked and checked again. we did what we needed. we did everything we needed to do. youome have suggested

engaged in pay to play. --en months before [inaudible] receive $50 million from the pension fund. should voters be concerned about that? those facts indicate at least from my point of view a reason to investigate. he said under 33 different times he filed and was a partner of it. he is in violation of the law. if he is not he should disclose his contract. today, that chris christie and the treasure of new jersey appointed by chris christie, a supporter of yours, is holding up the lease of the investigation about this page plaything until several days

after the election in massachusetts. would you use this opportunity to urge christie to disclose what their investigation is? -- i can'tntrol control. i stay as far away from it as i can get, which is appropriate. they will issue their report when the issue with. fact that i the was working for general catalyst. i've been transparent. i've never tried to hide any ng. -- anything. i gave all the documentation and said if there is something you need to do here tell me. it.ote a brief on i made that brief publicly available to anybody who wanted to see it. --the governor of new jersey should the voters of massachusetts -- [indiscernible]

>> the pension board is want to make their decision whenever they finished their study. as far as i can tell based on the work that was done, i have done nothing wrong. >> he can resolve it by disclosing his employment contract. >> we are short on time. >> there is only one person at this table who is paid a campaign violations find. the attorney general. >> i've been completely transparent when we have had errors that have been pointed out. we have fixed them. we refer to the money to where it should have gone. i always have done that. that is the transparency. >> we are going to release the tension. from the boston globe. a serious question about taxes. he is going to ask you one quick question.

>> who would play you in the movie of this campaign? who would lay your opponent? >> reese witherspoon. >> they are looking at each other. [laughter] >> liam neeson. thisme question, most of has been about power you have. let's talk about our you don't have. the bully pulpit of the governor's office that you would advance. you just use your position as governor to try to move the

public on. what would that be? thingseed to create more at night for kids to do in urban communities. i would like to put together a coalition of folks who were involved in all kinds of recreational a community-based theetic activities across commonwealth involving urban communities and come up with things kids can do at night. that's a big problem. -- he legislature >> i am most concerned about , others a not-for-profit sittings that don't have the resources to get what they need, not just sports but social work, mental health. there are troubled kids in the state that need help. >> thank you both. we appreciate your time. that is all the time we have. [applause]

charlie baker and martha coakley. >> thank you for tuning in tonight. [applause] >> we will be in new hampshire next. camping 2014 coverage continues with a south carolina governor's nikki haley, vincent shaheen, an independent challengers.

debatell meet in a courtesy of the sinclair broadcast group. that is likely a republican race. .ur coverage on c-span a kansas governor's debate davisn sam brown and paul . the race is a tossup. we will show it to you tonight. ben bradley died today. he was 93 years old. one of theites, greatest consequences was in their reporting that ended in the resignation of a u.s. president in u.s. history. ben bradlee dead today at the

age of 83 -- 93 years old. courtesye comes to us of new england cable news and is moderated by meet the press chuck todd. this is live coverage here. >> the capitol center for the arts, and the university of new hampshire. seat,or the u.s. senate jeanne shaheen and scott brown. journalists, of alison king, dante scala, and allie morris. chuck