debate ever for a democratic debate. a close second was 10 million tuning in back in 2008. 24 million tuning into the first fox news debate that took place in august in cleveland, ohio. our last call is from tennessee, the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. it bothers me that we have a socialist actually running for president of the united states of america. socialists and timing is an are exactly the same thing -- and communism are exactly the same thing. people need to understand that. i can't understand what people reasoning -- people's reasoning are. they need to check up on what socialists and cap minas really. -- communists really are. about how theys

are going to pay for it. and this infrastructure they talk about? they are talking about crating jobs for that. well, that is using taxpayers' dollars. nobody thinks about that. that is all a have to say. thank you. host: thank you for the call. one last comment on our twitter page. the candidate whose foreign policies is to avoid foreign entanglements gets my vote. we are going to get to a couple more minutes of your phone calls with representative donna edwards. then later in the program, we will turn our attention to new hampshire politics. he is now with the campaign to fix the debt, a debt that is now in excess of $18 trillion. and we are going to get a phone call. good morning. where are you calling from?

caller: i'm calling from albany, georgia. host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: sorry? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning. that was kind of sudden. you guys must be running a little behind. hearyou hear me ok.gov -- me ok? host: i can. i am vamping, as they say in the business. caller: you are doing well. [laughter] about is wecerned have -- we have some -- some really big issues. and they have all been brought -- a lot of them have been brought up, not all, that a lot have been brought up on your program this morning. the supreme court, foreign-policy issues, the mastic issues. like we have had some

dynasties in our presidency. people who would without the to war war even being paid for. there are always people crying about how are you going to pay for this, how are you going to pay for that? we had a war that was not paid for, and then we had another one. we went into two different countries just blind. we just jumped in there. and we jumped into a country that russia had been in, afghanistan. has just a great number of heroin addicts because they served in afghanistan, so s and is our country tempted to

afghanistan, the price of heroin at street level in our country was cut in half. now have an epidemic of heroin, and people are wondering why. it is like taking a stick and punching a hornets nest and wonder why they are coming out and stinging you. host: based on that, who is your candidate? actually, no one has really brought this up because they are afraid of insulting someone. i believe -- well, i'm pretty sure donald trump is not a good candidate to lead our country. what he does speak openly and plainly. he admits -- he does. and when you have people who make just huge mistakes when they are leading, such as going to war, such as knowing we are going to be attacked and letting it happen because a family

friend did it, you are talking about libya. our president took gaddafi son because -- wouldn't come to visit. kadhafi'sadhafi son -- son millions and millions of dollars to take back because he said he had a nuclear program. i have watched what almost -- it was almost comedian to see that their equipment that they had was old military surplus equipment from when the united states air force -- and my family was on the base in 1967 when his father, qaddafi, randy united states out of libya. they took some of that old equipment and immediate up. host: ok, mark, i have to stop

you there. thank you very much for phoning in. we appreciate it. have a good day. again, reminder, we will have live coverage as our programming continues today with governor john kasich. he is giving a speech in new hampshire. he outlined it a little bit earlier in the week. that will get underway today at 10:30 eastern time. all of our coverage available on c-span.org. and tomorrow, hillary clinton in a town hall meeting in new hampshire. since this network first went on air back in 1979, there have been a lot of individuals who have shaped and formed what c-span is all about. from the very beginning, steve has been a close, close friend. his vision has brought thousands of high school students and teachers to the d.c. area to learn how government works. more than 600,000 students have been to washington dc because of the leadership of steve and the work of the foundation.

steve has been helpful to c-span in so many ways, especially in our early days. throughout the years, we have ofered countless hours programming with the students. here is a little bit of his accomplishments, beginning with our founder and chairman. >> listen to this. we hear all the things that people do for others. listen to this. since 1971 when he started his company with six people, he has 620,000to this town young people in high school, including 75,000 teachers. and -- >> [applause] and 180,000 of those students came on fellowships. they didn't have to pay for the trip. the most important part about this is -- and we see a lot of this around town -- i would been

able to come on his program because i was not a great student, i was not in the latest student, i was in the valedictorian of the class, and that is the way steve set up his organization. he wanted people to be able to come who are interested and maybe want the a students to have the experience. i never heard of anybody in this country bring more first-ever -- for civic education than steve. >> of course, we're looking for more exposure to show people across the country how young people got involved in the decision-making process of public policy. and a good friend of mine introduced -- who is also a very good friend of mark -- introduce the two of us. so marjorie, who is the vice president of close-up, and i, went to lunch with brian lamb. and brian said, well, we just started this gavel to gavel coverage. it is tough, it is fun. we would like to do some other

things. we don't have fair much other programming. so i said maybe we could work something together. and brian said that would be great. i have looked at close-up and heard about it. and we would really like to show some of your seminars on television. and he said we don't have any cameras to do so. i said maybe we can work something out. and marjorie and i talked about it. i went to the board of directors and said that this -- there is this new organization called c-span. there would be some capital expense and we would have to figure out a way to get some equipment, but it would give us the opportunity to take our mission into high schools across the country and great some wonderful exposure for how young people get involved in the process. so i was fortunate at that time -- we had a very fine sponsor in -- [indiscernible] i went down and talked to some folks. they were sponsoring us and i explain to them about c-span.

to their credit, they were very, very interested in coding more exposure for young people, in the democratic process of government. and they actually gave us a much larger grant than they normally give us. and i took a portion of that grant with the board's permission and we gave it to c-span. and with that grant, brian lamb was able to buy his first two cameras. that is how the relationship began. and it has never wavered. somebodyve king are, that you may not know, but has been a close friend of c-span over the last 35 plus years. he passed away earlier this week. i sympathies to his wife and family. one of the pioneers of bringing students to washington dc to learn about government and politics. we have been proud to have our long-standing partnership with the close-up foundation. steve janger, who passed away earlier this week, a friend of

this network. donna edwards, good morning. guest: good morning. host: lots to talk about, including who will be the next speaker of the house. but let's talk about what will be an important decision next week, the highway transportation bill. some calling for a five or six year plan. what can we expect? guest: well, there is a mockup that is expected in our house transportation and infrastructure committee. the problem is that there is no funding attached to it. so we are not really clear whether or when the ways and means committee is going to deal with the funding issue. but we do have the bill and front of us next thursday. i haven't seen it yet. i don't think any democrat to seen it yet. so we will have probably a vigorous markup. host: the deadline is october 29. if you don't meet that deadline, what happens next? guest: unfortunately, i think we will be in the situation where

there will be another proposal for another extension. i think there are a growing number of members who are tired of all the extensions. states can't operate like that. our transportation and infrastructure has tremendous needs, and they can't be funded doing it a couple months at a time. i think we have to force our hands now and commit to a long-term transportation infrastructure measure that makes sure that we deal not just with our highways, roads, and bridges, but also with mass transit and all of our infrastructure needs. it is time. and it is time for all of us members to put up for america's infrastructure and for job creation. host: this is the headline from the "wall street journal," lawmakers under pressure to pay for the highway programs. how can you deal with a bill that doesn't have money attached to it? guest: one, we are not addressing committee, but we've

got to get money attached to it. transportation actually pays for itself. there have been a number of estimates that say when you make an investment in transportation infrastructure, over a very short period of time, it really pays for itself. people working and putting that money back into the economy and having infrastructure that really functions in the 21st century. there have been any number of proposals over the last couple of years about how to pay for it. i'm in favor of a portion of the transactions tax to pay for that. i think week and do it at a very, very minimal cost and still meet our infrastructure needs. we have a couple of trillion dollars in unmet infrastructure needs, and i suppose we could wait for it all to fall apart, people to lose their lives, the costs that we are incurring and the maintenance on our vehicles because we are not investing in our infrastructure, but we need to get to the 21st century. host: when you buy a gallon of

gas, how much goes to the federal government for roads and bridges? guest: of her small amount. $.30 i believe on the dollar. but here is the deal. even if we were to tie that to inflation, it would still than keep is up with some level of peace, but our cars are getting more efficient. so we are not going to be able for all ofa gas tax our funding of our transportation and infrastructure needs. it will have to be some combination of ideas. my colleague has long proposed in infrastructure bank to meet those really needs -- really big needs we have. we need to invest more in maintaining our roads and bridges. maryland has a number of deficient bridges, as there are around the state. we saw the danger, even in the maryland area. on the way out to andrews air force base, or lots of

dignitaries travel, a brick. into a woman's car during rush hour. -- a brick falls down into a woman's car during rush hour. host: i must go back to what you will be dealing with in the house. guest: well, i think, one, obviously, we have no -- [indiscernible] even in the senate version, it is a six-year authorization. but i think only three years of pay force. hoping that we will have more investment in transit to meet the needs of major metropolitan areas around the country. but also invested in our roads and our rural areas. i think we can do all of those things and make sure that, again, we have to be committed to the 21st century. host: our guest is

representative donna edwards, democrat of maryland. our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001-- for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, hi, good morning. i wanted to ask the congresswoman why should doesn't have any high-profile african-americans endorsing her? host: we will get a response. guest: actually, that is not true. in fact, a majority of the county council where you live, caller, have endorsed my campaign. i've have very excited about the campaign we are running. it is a truly grassroots effort. the latest polls show i am five point ahead in the state. we are reaching out to other counties, but also spending a lot of time in baltimore. in fact, i do another part of my

college to work this evening. host: the headline from the the sixton post," debate, the next one scheduled for next month. guest: it has been a tepid response from my opponent, but i understand our teams are sitting down this week to try and work out those details. i think the sooner, the better. we can already see from the democratic presidential debate the other night that was great substantive and spirit to is isat what is that is what -- that is what the voters deserve. host: why do want to serve in the senate? guest: i have enjoyed my term of service. and i think i have been able to accomplish some things in a very short time that others hadn't. and i think i would make a representative in the senate -- i would make an excellent representative in the senate.

as a woman, a mom, and an african-american in the united states, it is that can of the diversity that is sorely missing in the united -- that kind of diversity in the united states senate that is sorely missing. have a multitude of experiences that really lends themselves to the 21st century, lend themselves to how we grow jobs in our economy and our state, and how we met and provide that safety net for those who are doing as well. host: let me pick up on that point because they chair of the committee you serve on had raise the question about the commitment of this administration when it comes to the mars program and other nasa endeavors. i want you to react to what he had to say. [video clip] however, this, proposal contains no budget, it

contains no schedule, no deadlines. it is just some really pretty photographs and some nice words. that is not going to do it. that is not going to get us to mars paid this sounds good -- to mars. this sounds good, but it is a journey to nowhere until he have that the budget and we have the schedule. and i hope the administration will change it posture and decide in the future that it is ryan thankpport a you them on schedule -- orion and keep it on schedule. talk about that, and also your thoughts about the space crew graham -- program to mars. and the discovery that there is water on mars. guest: it is quite an amazing discovery and it tells us that we need a solid roadmap to mars

with -- in that respect, we need a partnership with the administration. but i don't think that chairman smith was being, you know, completely candid about what the problem is. the problem has been a congress that has been quite recalcitrant and making sure that nasa has the kind of authorization that it needs. we are working us having not -- working off of not having an authorization at all right now. we had a budget proposal that came out of the house of representatives at a sitting waiting for action. -- and is sitting waiting for action. i do think the administration has an obligation to lay out marker so that we understand what the measuring points are comes we understand whether we are meeting success. we are going to have to make sure we have the money to do it. it is unfair to expect nasa to meet an expectation of getting us to mars without the resources

to do it. in that respect, i think the congress, and in particular this republican congress, has been quite a failure. host: we are talking with donna edwards. maryland's fourth congressional district. now in her fifth term, she is also running for the u.s. senate. us, elkhart,ing indiana. the republican line. caller: good morning. my question to the representative would be why not defund planned parenthood and use that money for infrastructure? you know the democrats, they are always talking about different things. why don't they vote to take this money away from planned parenthood and use it for road construction and bridges and all the things we need? host: thank you, larry. guest: well, larry, i just think that is a reasonable solution. we need to make should that we fully fund women's health care and the delivery of those

services. and we need to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. it is not a question of either/or. i am fully committed to making sure that women's health care services are provided and would propose -- oppose any effort that were defined women's health care. and at the same time, i understand that i need to meet the responsibility that our infrastructure meets its 21st century goals. right now, we are failing on that count. it is time to act. no more short-term extensions. and let's make sure we can identify the kind of funding that we can -- that is going to be robust. that other nation is doing and not the united states. it will have an impact on our economic liability over these next several decades if we don't do whatever parents' generation did. host: let's go to jim and oxford, maine. good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning, jim.

caller: i just have a question. i just can't believe -- should generate between fuel taxes and tolls almost enough money to fund the whole thing. i used to have road tractors that ran all over. my biggest costs were tolls and fuel. we went through hundreds of gallons a week to get in and out of long island. it was $100 just for bridge tolls. if they get rid of the -- [indiscernible] it is beyond my belief that there isn't enough money. they could do more easy past and get rid of all the people collecting tolls. it would save millions. host: thank you, jim. guest: well, thank you very much, jim. the problem really is not that we are paying a prevailing wage to workers who are rebuilding

our infrastructure. in fact, we want them to make wages so they can put that back into the economy. the problem is we have underfunded and under invested in our nation's infrastructure and maintenance for a couple of decades now. and frankly, it can't all be defunded just by, as i described before, the fuel tax. what has happened over the last couple decades is that our vehicles have become more efficient. and so we are not gathering as much as with the gas tax. on the one hand, that is a good thing for our environment. and on the other hand, it means that we have to multitask and find multiple different ways in which we find our nation's infrastructure. there's not a single dollar that is invested in infrastructure that is wasted money because it creates jobs and money -- growth. host: congressman paul ryan is a

key player. he is also being talked about as a candidate for speaker, something that he says he does not want. but on the issue of taxes and paying for the highway bill, what is his role? orhe serving as a mediator is the one that says we are not going to raise taxes? guest: well, as the chairman of the ways and means committee, he needs to serve as a leader in terms of identifying the sources of funding to fund our nation's infrastructure. our job on our committee should be to come up with an authorization that is a six-year long-term authorization so that states know what they can count on. maryland does even know what it can count on next year from our investment in infrastructure so i can plan the big projects, the long-term projects -- so it can plan the big projects, the long-term projects. our job next week should be to authorize a six-year authorization that is multiyear

so that states know what to expect, and then mr. ryan's job is to hone in the republicans on the ways and means committee and except some of these ideas about ccept some of- a these ideas about how to fund the bill. we continue to get "d" grades for our infrastructure, and it is not until something falls begin to knowthen that we have to continue to invest in our infrastructure. let's not wait until too late to do this. host: and quickly, the price tag of the highway bill? over five or six years. guest: look, the price tag should be a couple hundred billion dollars a year. we have to trillion dollars in trillion in unmet

infrastructure needs. i'm not saying we have to do that all at one time. the senate bill covers three years, but three years is not enough to invest in our infrastructure. host: back to calls, silver spring, maryland, the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question for the congresswoman concerning her campaign. in 2008, you pledged not to take money from corporate tax. but since the 2008 cycle, you have taken almost half a million. why don't you go back on your comment? guest: thank you very much for the question. that was in the, you know, course of the campaign. and i did. frankly, most of my money does not come from corporate taxpayer it comes from organized labor from working people, from women, from environmental organizations, and from individuals who live in my state and across the country.

host: get your reaction to some news this morning, the president today expected to announce his policy in afghanistan, keeping as many as 5500 troops in afghanistan through the end of his term in january of 2017. what are your thoughts? guest: i have just heard this proposal. i'm looking forward to seeing the president's remarks about this. i do think we have a security situation in afghanistan, especially in the context of the broader region that is quite difficult. i think what the president is wrestling with now is not wanting it to become iraq. there is an argument that you leave, you know, enough service members there in order to do the counterinsurgency work, but we also have to make sure that they are protected. so i want to hear the president has remarks and i spun nation --

before a's remarks counter a conclusion. i think it has been unfortunate that the president hasn't been able to maintain his commitment -- and this happens, i guess. you started out at the beginning saying all troops will be withdrawn before the end of his presidency. it looks like that is not the case. and we will have to see what he proposes for those 5500 troops. host: our guest also serves as the cochair of the democratic policy committee. the republican line. caller: good morning. i have got a couple of things. first, obama about three or four months ago went to afghanistan and gave $122 billion to reconstruct their country. they built doctors clinics, they

built schools that we never tore up, we never tore anything up. this money should be coming to the united states instead of these foreign countries. we don't own these people anything. -- owe these people anything. he keeps giving them money. and this -- [indiscernible] you want to spend billions of dollars going to mars and millions and millions of miles away, and you'll never do anything with it if you ever do get there. i don't even believe they have ever been to the moon. and they need to keep our money here and quit paying these illegal aliens all this money and these muslims that is coming here and they are paying them now to come in here and putting them on welfare out of our money. this needs to be stopped and

start taking care of the american people. host: thank you, john. guest: well, you know, john, like some americans, pretty much doesn't believe that we should be investing in anything. i like investing in the state hospira graham -- state program because it is about investing in the future. our investment in science have benefited the american economy, and i think that should continue. i think we are in exploring nation, -- we are an exploring nation, after all. nasa's budget accounts for less than 2% of our federal budget. so we have work to do in this country to set our priorities and make sure we are really -- make sure we are meeting the needs of the american people, that we continue to grow the middle class, that we continue to raise the wage base so people feel like their children are

going to do better than they did. and i think it is important for somebody like me with a perspective of somebody who worked for a living to be and politics, to reinforce the need to create jobs and grow the middle class, and you that any responsible way. which is why i think the importance of investing in our nation's infrastructure where you if you invest $1 billion in infrastructure, you create something like 35,000 jobs up and down the infrastructure -- income stream. host: let's go back to the gas tax. it is 8.4 cents per gallon. it is time to raise the gas tax by a dime. do you think there would be support among his republican colleagues in the house to do that? guest: i think when i spoke earlier, i was adding what we do at a state level to that. i have supported the idea of raising the gas tax, but also adding an inflationary tied to

it. i think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is having it not keep up with inflation. but i also believe that if you look at both the gas tax and the way that all of that highway trust fund goes into highway infrastructure, we also need to make sure that we have other parts of our infrastructure needs. mass transit, for example. that we can meet those needs, too, which is why i believe it is going to be several pieces of funding formula that is going to result in us meeting our transportation and infrastructure needs. and the gas tax, frankly, is only a part of that. host: we are talking about the highway trust bill that will take place next week in the house. also, the nasa program and troops staying in afghanistan. our guest is john edwards.

pj is joining us from douglasville, georgia. the democrats line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead. caller: ok. the first one is -- a statement actually. [indiscernible] -- $.26 a gallon on our gasoline tax for infrastructure here in georgia. reuse the samest place to get the to match whatever they spread -- spent. i want to know why you literally -- i don't hear any republicans really discussing it seriously -- that there is global warming and i want to know why we are doing space travel instead of trying to save our earth before it is too late? because to me, that is the first priority for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren.

host: thank you, pj. guest: let's remember, steve, that the highway trust fund is for use on federal projects. so it is really different from what states do. sometimes states creates their own structure to deal with state and local roads and to meet those needs. and we have to meet all of them. and so we can't confuse apples and oranges when it comes to the highway trust fund. as to our investments in science and technology, and particularly the and, one of the components i am very supportive of is the investigations into earth science because it is what helps us understand what is happening with the earth so that we can deal with issues like sea level rises. i just read a report that our largest estuary in the nation, the chesapeake bay, is warming at a more rapid rate than we have known. and so that leads to a question about whether the chesapeake bay is going to continue to be the

kind of economic engine that it has been for five states and for our region. because we haven't dealt effectively with global warming. i think it is a serious issue. when the pope was here, he talked about it, too. it is particularly important for poor communities when they are not investing in making sure we deal with climate change. and the work that we do through nasa and the investigations that we do help us understand what is happening here. host: your former governor has supported you and your reelection bid. he is now running for president. has you endorse -- have you endorsed him? guest: no, i haven't. i asked a don't recall my former governor supported me, but that is another story. i think they all did really well. i am very proud of the fields that we have on the democratic side.

believe in diversity of the united states senate, and i believe in diversity in the present as well. host: so he did not support you? guest: well, i don't think i ever saw endorsement. and that is why i say that. i have mostly gone out there and asked the voters for endorsement. out there and seek them necessarily. host: how is the campaign going? guest: the campaign is going really well. i am five point ahead in the latest polls that were done. an internal poll that were released publicly. we feel really good we are, organizing all around the state. really heavily investing in making sure that we reach out and touch voters across the board. been meeting with veterans and seniors and women. as i said, college tours as well. getting out to all the colleges and universities around the

state. i mostly have known my state because we are quite regional and we are quite a different state. hiking,ostly noted by biking, fishing, and camping. host: and has brother michael ski given you any advice -- barbara mikulski given you any advice? guest: of, she has. it is really she and her service, the way that she never forgot she was a social worker. just as i never forget that i came out of the nonprofit sector working in communities. and i think that has grounded her in her service to maryland and thinking about what maryland needs in addition to her service for the nation. she has given that can of advice to really get out there and know the state and know the different personalities. and i'm trying to do that. host: andrew is next, the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, donna.

it is nice to talk to you again. guest: hi. caller: i want to point out to you that you guys done in washington dc you have a blind spot. and the blind spot is this: you are swimming in money already. you just don't spend it very well. you are terribly inefficient. and you could -- i think it would be great to do all kinds of work on the infrastructure, that you already said you are heavily moneyed by the unions. and they don't -- they're whole thing is line our pockets first, and then we will do the job later. so it is not going to go very well for you, donna, ok? unless you start to reform. you guys are so blind to the situation that the country is going to elect donald trump, for crying out loud. and you guys don't get it because you have a big blind spot. you are swimming in money. i know because i grew up in washington dc.

the place is millionaire city. it is crazy how much money you guys have, and all you say is we need more money, we need more money. you need to start spending it more -- you know -- you need to start spending it better. do you understand what i'm saying, donna? guest: i really appreciate the comment. i have to tell you, i am not a millionaire. whenever they look at finances, i probably at the very bottom when it comes to the congress. i came to congress having lived and worked in my community in maryland. i grew up in a military family. we have lived in -- we lived in every region of the country. it led me to believe that most people want the same things. they want to go to a good job, be paid the same wage, and they want their children to do better than they did. i think that is what of quintessential american. it is what my family wanted, and i believe that is the kind of dream that i have lived. unfortunately, that kind of

middle-class dream is really slipping away for too many americans. .oo many of marylanders some people have just gone away with boatloads of money. i think that is the frustration you hear from some callers. and we have to restore that american dream for people by making sure they can go to a decent job that pays them a decent wage. host: we will go to gym next -- jim next. caller: good morning. think of taking my call. guest: good morning. caller: last week, oregon legalized recreational marijuana. and made over $11 million. if every state had done that, couldn't we fix our bridges and our roads? i mean, that is my question for you. thanks. guest: well, i think there are a lot of states out there that are really experimenting with both

medical and recreational marijuana, and how to regulate that. i do think that even maryland is going down that line. i think what is going to happen is that we have to have a more national system. you can't have all of the state having a bunch of different laws when it comes to marijuana. and i have supported that kind of legislation in the house of representatives. host: from maryland, michael is next. the independent line. good morning, mike. caller: hello? host: yes, you're on the air. caller: good morning. my question is -- several years back, we had an economic stimulus package that was supposed to create all these shovel ready jobs. and all these shovel ready projects bidding get done, or most of them didn't get done. and the money was spent elsewhere. recently, governor martin o'malley and his

democratic legislature had to pass a rain tax here in the state of maryland. and the reason why they passed this rain tax is because they misspent the money from the highway trust fund and had to replenish it so they could even do the bare minimum. so my question is this: there is always taxes that people want to levy, but the money is generally misspent. thingsep coming up with that the american people need, and then the money is appropriated, but nobody follows through to make sure it is spent for the appropriate purposes. host: michael, thanks for the call. iuest: one of the things -- don't know if michael realizes this -- but i actually supported spending more of that stimulus package in infrastructure. i don't think we put enough in

infrastructure when we passed the stimulus package. host: -- spending elsewhere? guest: we did have a pretty huge stimulus package. i was arguing at the time that a greater proportion of that should of been toward infrastructure. our water resources needs and water and so infrastructure met in the different way through the water resources development act. we just passed a bipartisan -- and out on the committee along with senator ben carson. goeshat is actually what to meet federal responsibilities when it comes to our water infrastructure. but just like i described that we have a deficit when it comes to spending on our highway infrastructure, a deficit in terms of unmet needs, we also have a similar deficit when it comes to unmet needs for our

water and sewer infrastructure. it is why we are seeing so many more water mains break, water mains that are over 100 years old in some cases and some of our older cities. and some of our suburban areas as well. again, if we don't meet those needs in terms of taking care of our water infrastructure, all of that goes into our groundwater, which that goes into the bay, into the chesapeake bay, and then we have a further problem in the chesapeake bay. these things are all connected, and i think what was not fully explained,explained when the tan maryland was levied was that it was supposed to meet those kinds of unmet water infrastructure needs. we still have a deficit in terms andur net needs in maryland across the country. i was reading an article just a few weeks ago about the unmet

needs just in the city of baltimore alone. if we were to actually pay out would be bills, that at extraordinary cost and so obviously you want to stretch that over a. of time.ver a period just like a couple years ago, the washington mall -- metropolitan region, a water main breaks and the entire beltway shuts down. that cuts down all commercial ,raffic from maine to florida all the goods that are being delivered, that is shut off to. there is a consequence when we do not meet our infrastructure needs. better to meet that now and meet them for the next couple of decades that it is to wait until they all fall away -- apart. michigan, outside of detroit. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. representative edwards, you mentioned earlier that for every dollar that is spent, only 30% goes to roads. a couple of questions. i have lived in detroit all my

life so i have had some experience. go?e does the other $.70 in 1963 when the great society came out the idea of the liberal democrats was to help people. it seems that since 1963 things have gotten worse and we have spent billions and billions -- one of the unmarked -- previous collars said $.26 per gallon goes to estate taxes, then you put the government tax. $.18. you got $.44. if i've got four dollars in gas -- if i get $20 in gas i does give you a dollars and $.80. let me just correct something for the record. when i was speaking about that number it actually was combining our state tax and our federal

tax in terms of meeting needs. fund, everytrust single dime of the highway trust fund money goes into funding infrastructure that are federal project. sometimes state proposed. differences are different to pending on where you are. maryland has a different tax than virginia does. sometimes there are special project that need to be funded and a state will impose a tax for the purpose of funding those infrastructure projects. the state money goes to meet infrastructure needs for state roads,nd for county because it goes down to the counties in some instances, like in maryland. and theral money highway trust fund, all of it goes to meet our highway infrastructure needs, which is why it is important to invest it. most people will save you, if all of it is going to the highway trust fund, then i am

happy to have that, because otherwise i'm spending all my maintenance on my car because i'm getting potholes, because the roads are not being maintained. there is a real cost and there is tremendous research that has been done into investment in infrastructure that really does show that from an economic perspective our investment in infrastructure actually pay this back. they fully meet the needs. when we invest in infrastructure we are investing in the economy and we are meeting our needs at cost. i think it is a good investment for us, it is what our parents generation did. they created the interstate highway system. theuse we are not making advancements we need, we're letting it all fell apart. host: is amtrak part of this, or is that separate? guest: there are some needs that can be met with amtrak but we

thathave an authorization covers our railways as well. there are mass transit needs, for example, on metro systems where we actually have to add resources to make sure that we are covering transit as well. we want to cover our roads, our bridges, our transit and make sure that we need those needs. representative donna edwards from maryland's fourth congressional district, thank you very much for stopping by. guest: thank you. host: we are going to continue our conversation with former joining usd gregg from new hampshire as we talk about his campaign to fix the debt. now in excess of $18 trillion. and also presidential politics. will be joining us on an issue involving the purchasing power of the federal government. you are listening to c-span "washington journal".

we are back in a moment. >> known as the city of good neighborhoods, this weekend our bypan cities to her, joined time warner cable, explores the history and literary life of buffalo, new york. on booktv we will visit the mark twain room at the buffalo and erie county library, whose ascent of these are the original pages of "the adventures of huckleberry finn." then we will feature tim bellin's book, "against the grain come cap about the history of buffalo's first war. >> the irish settled in this neighborhood because they were asked -- desperate after the famine. it would take maybe one relative to find out about jobs along the waterfront, working in the grain elevators and in the mill.

and then word would go back to ireland. he wants to come to buffalo. you were going to become rich but you are going to have steady employment. so they came to this neighborhood, called the first board. ward. -- first it has its name because buffalo was divided into five political boards -- wards. >> on september 6, 1901 president william mckinley was assassinated in buffalo. the buffalo history museum exploring the mckinley exhibit that features events surrounding his death and the gun used to shoot the president. the discovery the history of the ball -- buffalo waterfront and how it has adapted to modern redevelopment. >> this is a collection of grain elevators built along the buffalo river, originally built for different companies.

now being regenerated for many different purposes, for art, for music. we do history tours are we take people around the grain elevators and tell the story. there are theatrical productions down here, opera, poetry readings. see all of our programs from buffalo allen saturday at 6 p.m. eastern and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. to her,an cities working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the campus of saint andrews college in new hampshire is former governor, former senator judd gregg, now with the campaign to fix the debt, serving as cochair. think you very much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me

on. host: let's talk about the debt, now in excess of $18 trillion. it has doubled over the last seven -- 7.5 years. why? guest: we are spending a lot more money than we are taking in. it is being driven by a couple of factors. i can do thousand nine 2010 when it really exploded, when we are running trillion dollar deficits as a result of the banking crisis, now it is really a function more of the fact that you have a massive demographic shift in this country. we are going from 35 million retired people to 70 million retired people as the baby boom generation moves up. that generation will be fully retired in 2017, theoretically. that is putting tremendous stress on the entitlement programs which are built around how old you are. medicare, specifically, is probably the primary driver of

the deficit right now. have a $60 trillion unfunded liability in medicare but social security is equally significant and its unfunded liability. as a result our deficits are going up because we are spending more on these entitlement programs than we have historically spent and we have not figured out a way to bring them into some sort of fiscally manageable structure. i think a couple numbers that are important here is that our national debt as a percentage of gdp is around 74%. in the post-world war ii. a -- in the post-world war ii about 30%. the applications of that is very serious because if you look at countries that have got through massive restructuring as a result of having too much debt and they are japan, iceland, ireland, italy, belgium. all of these countries basically

had debt to gdp ratios in the range that we are in or higher. greece of course. area, in a very tentative we have not had the same type of crisis as greece and ireland because we have a stronger economy and people have more confidence in the american economy. they are willing to invest more running room. the civil fact is that we continue to run up debt at a rate that is essentially unsustainable. at some point we are going to have an economic crisis due to excessive debt and that will lead to a lower standard of living for our people and especially for our children. host: as we move into the 2016 campaign do you think that the candidates are adequately addressing the debt issue, if you go to debt clock -- debtclock.org, the cost per taxpayer is about in excess of $150,000. guest: another number is if you are under 21, if you are just starting to participate in american culture and getting a

$250,000. closer to so essentially a young person today, you are going to have to pay off more debt -- federal government debt -- then you are probably going to have as your basic assets as an individual as you go to work and start to develop your own personal resources. it is really a stress factor that is very significant on the next generation. it is really unfair what we are doing. our generation, my generation is running up this massive debt and passing it on to our kids and our kids are going to have to pay it off which means they will have less opportunity to buy houses, send their kids to college, buy cars, do things that will make their lives enjoyable. it is a very serious program -- problem. it is not being addressed by very many people. in some of the campaign it is being negatively addressed because they are talking about extending it even further, the obligations under the entitlement program.

there are a couple, and i give them credit, who have stepped up. they start to wrestle with the issue of how you make medicare a better programmer delivers better health care. you can do that if you have the courage. bush, just ae, jeb couple of days ago put out a really good approach. really beenot highlighted, it has not been highlighted in the debates. you have had very few questions about it. and yes, if you think about it, it is probably -- outside of the threat of a terrorist attacking this country with a weapon of mass distraction -- probably the most significant threat going forward. host: let's talk about new hampshire and its role in the presidential process. you and your father and many political activists are trying to fix your role. this is a statement iran's previous with regard -- rants priebus.--reince

your reaction? guest: my reaction is this. a legitimate have debate about who is going to be president you have to start from where those folks who want to be president actually have to meet people and take questions from people. if you go to a big state, the campaign will simply be media events. if you go to a regional primary, campaign will simply be media events. in iowa and new hampshire, and to some degree in south carolina, the candidates have to get out and meet people. they actually have to go into people's homes, rotary clubs, townhall meetings. they have to take questions from everyday citizens on the topics

that are affecting everyday citizens lives. that does not happen anywhere else in this whole process. it is managed and presented in a format of a commercial. the questions have been absolutely irrelevant to the progress -- process of how we govern people. this is where people get to ask these questions, in iowa and new hampshire especially. and they do ask the questions. , i suspect in iowa, and i know in new hampshire, the folks who go to these meetings take this very seriously. take veryeople seriously their role of actually putting these candidates through the hoops. they have questions about what are they going to do about improving school systems, what are they going to do about adjusting the debt? what are they going to do about making sure we remain a strong nation are creating jobs? these are really tough questions. you talk to any of these candidates and they will say this is quite an exercise because they do have to answer

questions from just everyday people. and yesterday we had live coverage of ohio governor john kasich, actually senator marco rubio. john kasich is giving a speech today in nashua, new hampshire. we were also live last night with former florida governor jeb bush. tomorrow's hillary clinton is going to be in keene, new hampshire. that meeting getting underway at just past noon eastern time. our guest is former senator judd gregg who is also cochair of the campaign to fix the debt. tyler is joining us from hartford, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering, how long would you think it would take for us to completely balance the budget, get us out of this debt, and get back to where we were as a nation under long time ago? guest: it would take about five who0 years, depending on the president was and whether the congress is willing to make

tough decisions. fact, a commission was put together which did exactly what we needed to do. it put out a set of proposals that was a bipartisan commission . those proposals, if they had been a. did, would have reduced the federal deficit down to about 60% of gdp. stabilized.e that is a very sustainable level. it could be done. it is very doable. it just takes the courage of leadership. host: john is next in sumter, south carolina. democrat line. good morning. caller: there is something i don't quite understand. you keep saying the debt. we be in so much debt

when anything goes up anywhere in the world we have to go? we have beeney -- training afghan troops for 14 years. look at all the money we spent and where has he gotten that -- gotten us? we can train one of our own troops in eight weeks and he is ready to go to war. we have been training there for 14 years. syria, for example. i look at all the so-called refugees. 70% of them are men. stop them right there at the border, train them for eight weeks, give them a gun and send them back home. why do we have to lose our lives and send our young guys, men and women, to die for these people that won't fight? host: thank you very we will get

a response. guest: i think that question had a number of points to it. how do we deal with the debt we are spending so much money on national defense. i would simply note that national defense as a percentage of our spending is really not very high, it is about 15% of our total federal budget and historically it has been much higher. it was at one time the largest element of our federal spending back in the 50's and 60's and now is bent down -- down to about 15% and has basely been frozen. the second question was, why are we in afghanistan? training people in afghanistan to fight for themselves and they don't fight for themselves? we are training them because it is in our national security interests. afghanistan was the place where the taliban ruled and gave century and support to al qaeda. training camps in

that led to the attack on the united states on 9/11. we are there not to protect afghanistan, we are there to make sure that we don't have that type of situation again where afghanistan becomes a sanctuary for people who hate america, who desire to attack us and to harm us and are able to train with immunity. support, very strongly, our commitment to be in afghanistan and be there as a force to make sure he does not become a sanctuary for people who want to attack us. yes. expensive, is it expensive compared to the attack on 9/11? no. bear incost we have to a world were there are a lot of evil people who want to do is harm. we have to spend the money necessary in order to find those people before they attack us and deal with them. it takes money to that, but it is something we have to do. pentagon and the president basically telegraphing in advance the announcement

today that as many as 5500 troops will stay in afghanistan through the end of president obama's term next year, basically going back on an earlier commitment to pull out of afghanistan completely. this change of course by the ministration -- administration and officials. what is your reaction? guest: it is a reflection that reality has finally dawned on this administration. if you abandon afghanistan as we abandon iraq you end up in a much more serious situation. the forces that are there that are basically -- their basic goal is to go back to the taliban rule, and therefore the, once again a major threat to us. they will be able to rise up largeand take control of sections of the country. that is something we cannot afford to happen. the precipitous withdrawal which was driven by a calendar invite by aitical agenda -- political agenda made no sense to begin with.

i think it is appropriate that they have concluded that that is incorrect and they are going to keep enough troops there so that a responsible government can actually manage itself. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio which is heard on xm and streamed on the web. our guest is former senator judd gregg and richard is joining us from capitol heights, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. wasr to 9/11 defense budget unregulated. you're telling us we need to cut , and we for the people can't keep spending the money we're spending. this whole deficit is going to and defense contractors,

killing four people in other countries. please explain to us why that makes any sense? please explain that. guest: first off, your question makes no sense. matter.very practical investment bankers are not fromng the money taxpayers, they are getting money from the money they earn. whichwas a proposal basically stabilized the financial industry of the ice financialso -- industry of the united states and of the world and actually returned money to taxpayers. national defense is the first obligation of a nation. that is the first obligation of the federal government. right now our biggest threat is terrorist activity which would occur and would bring a weapon of mass destruction into the united states and to be used against them. the only way you can really

anticipate and deal with that kind of attack is to have a defense establishment which has very robust intelligence gathering capabilities so that we can find those folks before and deliverre lethal force. we need a robust defense establishment. is defense spending a major driver of our deficit? know it is not. it simply is not. it is 16% of our federal budget. 60% of our federal budget is entitlement spending. the growth is being driven primarily by this demographic shift where you have 35 million people retired going to 70 million retired who demand -- who require, and who we want to make sure get, significant health care and a good retirement lifestyle. we have got to adjust our

retirement system benefit structure to deliver better quality of better cost. it can be done and they can be done without affecting the quality of life people have in their retirement and we can do it by improving their life. there are a lot of good ideas out there. idea that it is defense and investment bankers who are driving the cost of the federal government is absurd. served in thegg house of representatives and was elected as governor of new hampshire. he is joining us from new hampshire and our next caller is from the state capital. nancy, good morning. caller: i have a question. both of us -- those of us who are over 60 who have actually want real news before it became updated news, and the money that was sent during 9/11, we did a lot of what was called supplemental spending. i don't think people understand

that that we used a credit card and we did not call it that, even though we were racking up leaves of dollars in debt during the war on terror. obama put that money that we owed it to our debts and said we owed this money, and now he is being blamed for spending the money. i also know that we hired independent contractors during the war on terror, so we don't have military anymore because we had private contractors. we just spent a lot of money and give it away, and we no longer have employees that our soldiers because they were private contractors. all that money is gone. supplemental spending is still being talked about today and that means we are using a credit card. we are not actually calling it our debt. at what point do our politicians just be honest with the public? supplemental spending means we are spending money, we are just

pretending that we don't i went to anybody. please its plan that. thank you. well, i am not sure what you are referring to. i chaired the budget committee and i was chairman of this effort to try to get our deficit under control. all this deficit spending is scored. all this spending that occurred after 9/11 on fighting the war against terror in afghanistan and iraq, and independent of that, that all went to the ledger and it was all marked down as debt. when the debt increased it was a function of the fact that we were spending money that we did not have in that area. when medicare spending jumped significantly it scored. there is a very significant and very forthright and very open process of knowing what the federal debt is.

you could argue, i suppose, that the one place that we don't publicly disclose the debt is in the social security trust fund, because there is no trust fund. thecally what happens is dollar that you pay in social security taxes is supposed to go into a trust fund which is then supposed to be available to you when you retire. yearsas happened over the is that the dollars in the trust to the government tell that operate on a daily basis and then the trust fund gets back and iou from the government. when you retire and you start drawing money out of the trust fund for your retirement, what happens is those trust fund ious get paid off. how do they get paid off? they get paid off by people paying taxes today. it is really a phantom trust fund, for all intents and

purposes. , thosefar as gimmicks go are the big ones. matter, every year we know exactly how much we take in and how much we spend, and that is the deficit. the news's talk about here in washington. hideo think is going to be the next speaker of the house? who do you think is going to be the next speaker? guest: i have a tremendous regard for paul ryan i think he is one of the most brilliant people in our party. he works in a very bipartisan way. he has done some really good work. he was the chairman -- the ranking member of the budget committee and the senate -- in the senate. he has a very good proposal with ron weissman, the ranking democratic member on the finance

committee with regard to medicare reform, and he has his own excellent proposal on tax reform. i think he is one of the most creative thinkers in our party and of the -- one of the people who actually tries to govern. should he take the speakership? i would tell him no, unless he froman absolute commitment this group in the house that they are going to support him. if they are going to stop him in the back of a they did speaker boehner, then why would he take the job? if you are going to leave the party and the house you need to have the party supporting your. even though he is probably by the most talented individual thinking about the job, i would recommend he not take it unless he has a commitment for these folks -- from the folks that he is going -- that they are going to stand with him. if you are the majority party you have a responsibility to

govern. unfortunately there are some of these folks who are in the majority party who don't believe they have to govern. that is a massive failure on our part, as a party, to allow that to happen. what is going to happen here is the american people will throw up their hands and say, if you don't want to govern you should not be the majority party. it won't affect the folks who are the most disruptive unless they just can't lose because they gerrymandered district. it will affect people in my home district. i think it is time for the republican party to start governing. that is the job, that is what the american people hired them to do. that is why congress is all republican right now. we need a speaker who has the support of the membership of the house, his republican members, in order to do that. is paul ryan can get that kind of commitment from his fellow members and he should be the speaker. but if he can't, i would be very hesitant to recommend him. host: if not, could you see a scenario in which john boehner

speaker, and if so would he be in a stronger position than he was just a few weeks ago? guest: i suppose he could stay on but i don't think it be a smart thing for him to. he has announced he is retiring. he is essentially a lame duck i think he is ready to move on. i don't think that is a good resolution. i think there has to be a meeting of the republican member's of the house and they have to come to a conclusion. do they want to govern and be the majority party or do they want to devolve into a dysfunctional organization and lose their ability to be majority party? i think it is pretty obvious that what they should do, but then i am not them. host: there is an article by pat buchanan that said the speakership today is almost like accepting a poisoned chalice. guest: that is my question. you shouldn't -- that is my point. you should not take this bigger ship until you have gotten a

commitment from the folks were wandering around the hall with their daggers that there is going to be no more attempt to basically eviscerate the capacity to govern. host: this is ralph joining us from battle creek, michigan. good morning. yes.r: as far as i understand the last time we had a balanced budget was under bill clinton in the last two years of his presidency . during the clinton administration they raised taxes somewhat, and the deficit started to come down. the reagan deficits were becoming unmanageable at that clintonnd the administration raised taxes and balanced the budget near the end of the term. that george bush came in and said we had too much money, and he said let's cut taxes again, like we did under reagan. the deficit went through the roof.

we started two wars that were unfunded, as the previous caller said. they were off budget. my understanding is, just the war in iraq alone is going to cost $2 trillion. you add the $2 trillion and then we are still in afghanistan 10 years later. i don't think those wars have ever been paid for. under reagan and george w. bush the deficits and the debt has skyrocketed. maybe judd gregg can explain that to me. guest: well that's not accurate. the budget was balanced at the end of the clinton administration and he deserves considerable credit for that, but so does the congress jacks i spent the money, and the congress was republican. it was a decision made by the congress which i think actually drove the president to move in that direction, although i give president clinton a lot of credit for having seen that that was a good direction to go in.

what drove the balanced-budget? basically an explosively strong economy that was just starting into the internet level and we started to see revenues coming up very significantly. it was interesting that in that period the chairman of the federal reserve was going to congress and saying our biggest the federal- iserve's basic concern -- that basically we'll reduce the liquidity of the world. they were concerned we were going to be running up too high a deficit. into office,h came he did cut taxes and i think it was a very good decision because a goodd up being decision and sent -- in the sense of the timing of it. the internet double-breasted 2000 causing a serious it -- fairly significant recession. then we had 9/11. that through the country into a

very deep recession. the country's -- tax cuts were asked a stimulus to that and if they had not been in place we probably would've had an even deeper recession. the reason we started running deficits was not necessarily the tax cuts, it was the fact that we had a recession that was german first by the internet bubble and second by the attack , and meals and had a defense budget to fight the wars which we had to pursue as a result. it was a much more competent situation then i think the caller outlined. it was not one parties actions debt, it wasut of not uniquely president bush who drove us into a deficit situation. it was events such as the internet bubble and 9/11, the need to fight the wars against terrorism, they did that.

this however. at the end of the bush administration are deficits were $450 billion. 2008. in the first two years of the obama administration are deficits were over $1 trillion every year. that was not entirely president obama's fault either. some of it was because of the stimulus package which was totally misdirected, but that was a function of the banking and the very deep recession, almost discretionary levels of recession that we went into. it drove up the need to spend money on the safety net and drove down economic activity. as a result of that the economy went through a massive slowdown and we saw the deficits rise radically. again, not entirely the fault of the presidency, but it occurred under his watch. so if you're going to claim that george w was responsible for the increase in the debt on their

term, i guess you have to give president obama credit for the increase in deficit under his term. i think either argument is a professional. host: we go to chicago next, sherry, republican line, good morning. caller: i am glad my call was on hold so i could listen to the caller before me. i agree 100% with the question he just asked congressman gregg. why would we be giving tax breaks to people well we are deficit spending for wars overseas? it just makes no sense. you save money for a rainy day. why couldn't we save that money in anticipation of an external event that might happen in another country or to a group of people if we get attacked the way we did in 2001 on 9/11? or we handgive away out tax breaks like candy and

cut checks, and then you turn around -- i turned on the show just when you are telling all of us that we all owed $250,000 -- guest: you don't, you are over 21. go $150,000.ell i that is your way of looking at things. i don't see it that way. i think there is a whole different way we can go about getting rid of our deficit. it does not include more tax percent. the .01 that is supply-side economics, coupled with deficit spending to fund these wars. i do blame president obama. we have continued to spend on wars overseas. host: we will get a response. guest: i am not sure how the caller is structuring this. breaks inargest tax our individual tax system are

home ownership interest deduction. two, deductibility of insurance. three, the deductibility of charitable contributions. and four, the electability of state and local taxes. out as you get into higher income. they represent by far the largest breaks in the tax code. 85% of americans taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. they are paying taxes at a very high level. america is rate in 42.5% if you throw in medicare, and if you live in a city like new york the top tax rate is around 65% when you talk about state and local, city taxes. significantery progressive tax system in this country but when it comes to tax -- textedtax to dr.

actions, the primary beneficiary are middle income americans. i am totally supportive of a total reform of our taxes. i propose one and worked with ron white to enact one, but you are going to have to deduce the tax reductions that exist and in my pity new are going to have to reduce the mortgage interest tax reduction and travel reduction as well as state and local reduction. taxll then have to reduce rates overall but still maintain a progressive system. that to me is the best way to address our tax laws. really sure what she was talking about because the majority of breaks go to middle income americans. host: you and your father were involved in so many new

hampshire races over the years, and i want to remind our audiences about the makeup of the new hampshire voters. this is from "the wall street journal" which points out that close to half of the 800,000 voters are registered as undeclared, and that allows them primary.n either how does that impact the get out the vote effort by democrats and republicans leading up to the next primary? we think it is going to be february 8, correct? i think it is the ninth, but something like that. very significantly, because it means that our vote -- it is the first election. iowa is the caucus. caucuses tend to be dominated by groups of people who are very focused on their issues and they are very small in number. this is a very open election where a large percentage of our electorate will vote. swingdependent vote does both so the republican side and the democratic side in the primaries.

election, if the primary does not change -- in other words, if it is still hillary clinton versus bernie sanders and you don't get joe biden in the race, you are probably going to get more independent voters going into the new hampshire republican primary where there are a lot more choices and it is a lot more -- there is a lot more activity. you did see 30, 30 5% of the republican party being -- primary being independent voters. that's great. as a republican i think that is exciting. i also think one of the effects with donald trump has been that he is brought into the whole process a lot of people who would be ignoring the process today were he not in the race. i honestly find some of his

positions to be unusual, but as a practical matter i give him a credit for bringing a lot of people's attention to the process of electing the president and getting them engaged in it. most of those folks are suspect are going to come into the primary and vote. ado think we are going to see very significant independent vote and i will have an impact on who does well here in new hampshire. host: our guest also served as a distant with fellow in dartmouth college in new hampshire. when will you endorse somebody in this republican primary? guest: part of being from enhancer is to get engaged and involved. i expect to endorse somebody fairly soon. i want to listen. there are a lot of good people. that is one of the nice things about this race, we have a lot of talented people. there are a lot of people to look at and evaluate and hear their thoughts before you make a decision. host: you have been friends with the bush family for many years. have you talked to either former

president george herbert walker bush or former president george w. bush? have a talks to you about their brother or son jeb bush running have they talked to you about their brother or son jeb bush running? guest: i have not talked to 41 although they have been nice to have kathy and myself up last summer to meet and talk and tell stories. president 43, george w. bush, i have talked to him. i still talk to him on a regular basis. we talk about everything, but i don't talk to when i talk to him about. we go to aaron, democrats line. caller: during world war ii we on the gross 122% domestic product, and by the time jimmy carter left office we had no debt. reagan promised a balanced budget and he tripled the under $1 trillion debt to almost $3

trillion, and it went up under daddy bush to another $5 trillion and down under clinton. happenedime this is the tax rate, the marginal rate went to 35% under ronald reagan clinton up to 38% under and back down to 35% under george junior. most of the debt we have operates in the area of pensions and treasuries. it is all primarily to ourselves. when those pensions get in trouble because interest rates youso low -- too low -- have a problem paying debt. what it is that to ourselves we have to look down at the sources of our debt. when you say that the military bigt 50%, there is a very black book called the cia, and many people you leave -- believe

you can double the debt on the cia. this is a sham, military and endless wars. complex,ary-industrial which eisenhower warned us about. we are in this silly situation regimesg down people's and not taxing for it. grover norquist has done a lot of damage. we need to raise taxes and take the cap off social security. host: i'm going to jump in. you put a lot on the table. we will give it a senator a chance to respond. guest: you do put a lot on the table. let's begin with the issue of tax burden. our tax system is extremely progressive, as i said before. 85% of the tax burden is paid by the top 20% of income. people a system where

who make a lot of income pay a lot of taxes. that has been true whether we had the rate at 42% or whether , whichthe rate at 28% was the reagan rate. it was not 35%. the advantage however, having the rates at 28% versus 42%, is that people do a lot less tax avoidance. they don't go out to avoid taxes, they go out to invest and make money. that makes for a much more efficient economy. you get the right to 42% of people reduce their activities, create activities based on their desire to avoid taxes versus their desire to make money, which is the desire to create more jobs and economic activity. it is a very inefficient way to handle the economy. you get a skewed economy and you get skewed investment decisions. if you can generate the same about the revenue at 28% from the same groups of people, the

high income folks still pay 85% of the tax burden, that is a good tax law and that is what ronald reagan did with the support of the democratic majority in the house at the time, which was led by tip o'neill and dan ross. it made sense. the second issue of national defense, that has been seen throughout most of these calls. we are saying too much on national defense, too much money. we should not spend so much on national defense. i just go back to the point i made. the first obligation of the federal government is to defend the country. today we have a very unique threat. we have not seen this type of threat before. we are not threatened by nationstates, we are threatened by individual groups driven by fanaticism, muslim fundamentalism, who genuinely believe that they should destroy the western cultures and genuinely believe that we beat the western culture and therefore we are their target. they are the fourth against us.

the only way you can deal with these people is to have an extremely robust cia, an extremely robust national security agency which collects intimate -- information on these folks. way you can get to these people before they get dallas is through intelligence gathering. this is a very different type of threat that we confront. this is not we are fighting germany or we are fighting japan. it is not even as if we were fighting iraq. we are basically in the post-9/11 event. we are fighting folks who have no nation identity, have no nationalist identity, but are very much linked together by their basic believe that western culture is bad and that they should bring it down. we have to have a different type of defense establishment and we have to have a very robust commitment to intelligence gathering. we have identify where these folks are to get to them for

they get to us. we need a very effective military. host: in our remaining minute i will preface this question with the latest polls showing that donald trump and ben carson now account for about half of the support among republican voters in early primary and caucus states. based on that, finish this sentence. the state of the republican party today is what jacket -- is what? guest: it is robust and lively and filled with a lot of folks who are taking the issues that concern are a lot of people getting involved in the political process who are getting involved because they are frustrated. i think that is healthy. neverr, these polls, i took a blow when i ran for office and iran for nine major offices. think they mean a

lot this early in the election cycle. when people walk into the polling place, at least here in new hampshire, they're very serious. they don't want to waste their votes. they make a very thoughtful decision. i don't think the polls today will have any meaning as to what is actually going to happen in february. host: in new hampshire it is home of thent a's, institute of politics in the granite state. always a pleasure, thank you for taking our calls. we appreciate it. also the cochair of the campaign to fix the debt, warmer senator and governor. we will keep track of who he endorses. so the issue of the second order that came up in the debate on tuesday has come up into republican debates. gregory korte will discuss how the president is using the power of executive orders as "washington journal" continues on this thursday morning, october 15. we are back in a moment.

>> he said from the beginning, i look in the mirror and i don't see a president. our response to that was, quit looking in the mirror. he from the very beginning just said, this is something i never thought about. >> this sunday night on q&a, about executive director his longtime friend mitch daniels and his decision not to run for president in 2012. >> i became convinced of the cambridge the end of the process that he is very competitive and that he made a decision to do it that he would have had his heart and soul in it. but from the very beginning it is not something he ever really thirsted after. >> sundays at eight about eastern and pacific on c-span q&a.y -- q and a --

>> this sunday on c-span's new cases," themark breeding ground around the mississippi had become a breeding ground for cholera. to address this problem louisiana allowed only one government run slaughterhouse to operate in the city district, and the other houses took them to court. follow the slaughterhouse cases of 1873. we are joined by the former solicitor general and constitutional law attorney, and michael ross to help tell this story of the state of things in new orleans. a look at the supreme term -- supreme court attorneys and justices involved. we will take your calls, tweets, and facebook comments during the program. live monday on c-span, c-span3,

and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available for a 95 -- for $8.95 less shipping. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome greg korte, who covers the white house for "usa today." let's begin with some definitions. what is an executive order? guest: an executive order is an action the president can take, thatly authorizing -- gives him some authority to take action without further action by congress. from giveanything federal employees the day after christmas off, determine which cabinet department is going to be responsible for a certain federal duty. it can impose it sanctions on a

third country, or it can determine federal purchasing lots. host: we have heard this term purchaser in chief, how federal buying power can give him some of this authority. that: it is something maybe i coined, maybe someone else came up with before me. it is a way to describe how the president uses executive make purchasing policy for the federal government. president obama has been particularly aggressive about this in terms of dictating to working conditions, hiring and firing policies of federal contractors, exec a minimum wage. nondiscrimination for lesbian and gay employees. was the most recent one, he finds that one on labor day this year to ensure that federal contractors get employees a certain number of days off, sick leave, family leave. and also paycheck fairness.

making sure that women get paid the same as men for the same job. president obama would love to do these things in the economy as large, but congress won't give him the authority to do that. and so he is using his executive authority on the part of the economy that the federal government does control, and that is federal employees and federal contractors. these are the numbers on the screen, the 5.5 years of the and then thency, recent two-term presidency of ronald reagan, 381. you can see the breakdown between his first and second term. bill clinton, 364. george w. bush, 291. .arack obama so far, 219 so much attention on executive orders, he has fewer executive orders based on these numbers, you are saying those numbers are little bit misleading.

he is roughly comparable in the number of executive orders. he is roughly comparable in the number of executive orders. what this doesn't include is the presidential memorandum. you think of executive orders as having a number on them, we are around 13,000. memorandum is used a little bit early. some are executive orders and are memorandums, and presidential memorandum president obama has issued more of those than any president in history. you can't really judge the extent of how a president uses executive power just by counting the sheer number of executive orders or presidential memorandum. you really have to look at how far he's actually go.

the executive order, giving federal employees the day after christmas off does not have the same sort of effect on the economy as the executive order requiring minimum wage for all federal contractors. host: and the president argument is that congress is getting nothing done and so it is incumbent on him to try to use the force of the executive branch to achieve something. is that a fair arguments? guest: that is exactly the argument, it is a very clintonesque strategy. it is exactly what clinton did during his second term to do whatever he could using the levers that he had to legally move the ball without congress taking action. host: here is what the president said at a news conference following the shooting in oregon that resulted in nine deaths in addition to the shooter. he says he wants to take another look at the power he has when it comes to guns in america. [video clip] in terms ofama: what i can do, i have asked my

team, as i have in the past, to examine what kind of authority we have to enforce the laws that we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminal. there are additional actions that we can take that might prevent even a handful of these tragic deaths from taking place. but, as i said last night, this will not change until the politics change in the behavior of elected officials changes. the president saying he wants to scrub the books to see what were you can do legally under his authority as president of the united. guest: we have been through this before. after sandy hook, the president and vice president established a task force to look at what executive actions the president could take. he came up with a list of 23 executive actions. things like improving the federal background check database they use when you try to buy a gun to include more

records of felons and people realize for firearm. things like improving the mental health system. he had 23 actions. we continue to see these mass shootings across the u.s. president is saying he will go back to those executive actions they took. there were a number that they decided not to take for various legal or practical reasons. you can go back to that list and see if there are other things that he can do. host: our guest is gregory korte . ourphone lines are open -- phone lines are open. you can also share your comments on our facebook page or send us a tweet. let's look at the federal government in its contracts awarded over the last couple of years. 2008, $541 billion in federal contracts awarded.

in 2010, 500 $40 billion. --in 2010, 500 billion.on -- $540 500 billion. guest: you are a federal agency and you have to balance your budget rather than laying off federal employees, they are clamping down on subcontracting. that is probably the biggest thing going on. host: good morning, independent line. i am a i just wondered, world war ii veteran and i want to know why the president on the executive order refused to pay when they killed them

marines. they never got the money and the money was available. maybe your listeners could give me that answer. about three weeks ago, a lot of congressmen turned it down. i want to know why. guest: i have to admit i am not familiar with the issue. it sounds like a congressional issue the way your framing it. it is something congress had to appropriate the money before the president can end it. -- spend it. host: good morning, you are on the air. caller: my question to you guys would be why is it that every time washington journal talks about the issues pertaining to what our government can do, you will never hear a president own up to the destruction he has done in a country that he is

still serving under occupation. as an indigenous person from , senators are here to meet with the school, but they will never meet with people that are poor. these are the kind of issues that need to be addressed. i know mr. obama did say he was going to make indigenous issues a priority. the man has never fulfilled that. that is my comment i would like you to address today. thank you and have a great day. host: thank you for the comments. not a question. guest: it is not about executive orders but i did a story a couple of weeks ago about the hearty peak. administration did use executive authority to rename mount mckinley in alaska in september. it was a much vaunted decision.

it opened the door for other questions of other features that were named by native americans and then renamed by white settlers. there are indigenous groups that want to rename the peak. it does create a dilemma for the obama administration having renamed mount mckinley to denali to please the american indians in alaska. to do the same around the country, that is a dilemma he is facing. they're absolutely are much broader questions of american indian policy. obama is considered the friendliest residen president te american indian community that the country has had in a long time. there obviously are still severe issues of poverty and related issues in american indian communities. host: a lot of interest on our

twitter page, including this. guest: they absolutely are. there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about an executive order. every president has used them back to george washington. we only started numbering them more recently. every president has certain inherent powers that he can use to declare an executive order. congress gives the president authority. one of the things about an executive order is if you read any executive order, the very paragraph, the president will find the claims he is using under constitution or federal law to issue that executive order. very many times, there are disputes about what the boundaries of the executive authority is. that is part of our system of

checks and balances in the government believes it ought to have more power. the president believes when the congress does not act, he should be able to act. we have this with gun control policy, immigration policy, where thee, and areas president uses his authority and congress disagrees. host: another viewer says we war.this to avoid a guest: that is an entirely different but related in interesting question -- and interesting question. i have written scholars that -- read scholars that come down on both sides of this. what brought the irradiance to the table were sanctions enacted .y congress

that gave the president the authority to oppose sanctions in executive order against iran to get them to come to the table on this nuclear agreement. said i would in first day of office abolished the obama executive orders. those include the sanctions that congress wants to keep in place. in terms of whether it is a treaty or executive agreement, that is something that is very much disputed. host: and if people want to -- are theon twitter hundreds of pardons given out by outgoing presidents considered executive orders? guest: they are an executive action but not an executive order per se. he has constitutional power to give pardons and retrieves for people convicted of federal

crimes. that includes pardons. what president obama is doing is to try to increase the number of clemencyhe actions -- actions. you have seen him in the past -- it started over the summer. under -- president obama has been the least recycled president since james garfield. he has issued the fewest pardons. he is starting to catch up. given that heng is pushing the boundaries of his executive authority in so many other areas. this is one area we talked about there is a dispute with the congress or the president should have the authority.

this is very clearly a presidential prerogative. he has been reluctant to use it. it will be interesting to see in the last year of his presidency whether he begins to use his power more forcingly. colorado,les from republican line, thanks for waiting. good morning. caller: how are you today? guest: morning. host: we are fine. caller: i am trying to understand everything that is going on. i am a republican. i think everything that is going on today as far as the executive is gone because no other president that we have had in my 70 years that i have been around has had an executive order to go against congress and against the

american people. i think he is wrong in all of his executive orders. he lets 6000 people out of prison without congress's approval. he is going beyond the law. he is going against the constitution. i think somebody needs to do something about it. if he cannot go by the laws of the land is that of making his own lands, he needs to be taken out of the office. that is exactly the way i feel about it. guest: i think that is a common perception of executive orders. i think it is frankly incomplete. he is not the first president to use executive orders. i think we are talking about them a little more often than we used to. because of the nature of this government, weized see both sides really testing the boundaries of that relationship.

you are hearing about executive orders and they are not unique to president obama. this decision last week to free 6000 federal prisoners was something very explicitly authorized by congress under a sentencing act passed a few years ago that gave the u.s. sentencing commission the power to redefine the guidelines from sentencing and to go back and we sentence people -- resentence people. the use of the power to shortly sentences of 6000. the usa today, he is the white house reporter. among his expertise is executive orders. good morning independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

my question revolves around the federal reserve and inflation. i am retired. years, itast seven seems to me that everything i purchased is doubled in price. according to the fed, there is no inflation. i don't believe the government figures. it seems to me that they are constantly doing qe. they have 0% interest rate. if you are a little guy with money in the bank, you are getting nothing for your interest. social security never goes up. all because there is supposedly no inflation. just about any food products, any washing machine, anything i purchase seems to have almost doubled in price of the last seven years. butt: i am not economist, just yesterday or the day before i was time to explain the concept of inflation to my six-year-old daughter.

i was barely able to explain to her how it works and federal monetary policy. she got the fact that things cost more overtime. that is where i lost her. the consumer price index is based on a basket of goods. they may or may not reflect the actual goods the actual americans buy. the husband a long debate -- there has been a long debate about whether that should be changed. the monetary policy, we certainly have been a period of zero interest rates for a long time. that cannot last forever. it lasted a lot longer than anyone expected. host: the front page of the "washington journal" today

indicating that will not raise the rates anytime soon. guest: every time we expect after each meeting of the open market committee, we expect an announcement of when that will happen. hint at it they then walk back. host: good morning. my question concerns the tone of this conversation about the president's use of executive orders. it seems to me that when you have a congress and senate that has deliberately made a position they will not do anything in support of the president and the republican-controlled, literally what alternative does the president have other than issuing executive orders? i can understand their being --

an examination of what executive orders the president has been distributing. but the fact of the matter is if you have a senate that does nothing and a congress that is nothing and a president that is nothing, it seems everyone suffers. host: thanks for the call, which is also the sentiment of this tweet. guest: it is the flip side of the argument we heard him some republican callers this morning who say everything that obama does by executive order is unconstitutional. it is not entirely accurate to say that the president can do anything via executive order if congress does not act. gives congress the power to tax, spend, set certain policies. if congress does not act, that

is the choice the congress is making. doing nothing is a policy choice that this particular republican-controlled congress has made on a number of issues including minimum wage, nondiscrimination of gays and lesbians, including paid time off. they decided not to act because they believe those policies are bad for america, whether you agree fo with that were not. -- that or not. host: and we have some praise for you. guest: i will have to retweet that. host: let us go to lee on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: we are fine, thank you. guest: morning. caller: my concern is the .xecutive action wi it seems that president obama is

constantly saying i have a en and telephone and can do what i want. it seems a personal ideological theory on his art. i remember when he was a 90% of, he voted present the time and he accuses congress of not acting. even though he has less executive orders, it seems they are more encompassing a detriment to the american people. when we think of things like securing the border, he is deficient in wanting to do something that would help us in terms of helping his personal feelings about things. can you answer that for me, please? host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. guest: it has been interesting to watch the evolution of president obama from senator to president. as a senator, if you were to

many reporters did over his campaign about how he views executive power, he seemed to have a much narrower view of executive power than what he is exercising today as president. a couple of things have happened. after the first few years of his presidency where he had a democratic congress and was able to pass the affordable care act and recovery act and other legislation, he has come up against a republican congress that is not want to enact his legislative agenda. he had to resort to using executive tools rather than legislative tools. every president once they get come to seel office becomes the presidency as a tool for good. humank it is a natural tendency. host: following up on that

caller, and other viewers saying on our twitter page -- the debate now comes to what are those lines of authority and that is where we have a number of debates. .ost: was go to cheryl good morning. caller: i just want to make a quick comment. i do not understand why he is not impeached. if you took a poll tomorrow, i think you would find 85% do not want him anymore. doubtran deal, i have no they were not behind the world trade center going down. the only thing i will say if he continues to be in office before the end of his term, i don't think there will be another election because this guy will start a world war. as far as i'm concerned, he said

he believes in god, by do not believe he does. this country was built on god. and i knew this i would never have voted for him. host: he never said he is a muslim. we need to be clear about that and deal with facts on this program. we will give our guests a chance to respond. guest: i am glad you corrected that before i was going to because i was going to make this interactio the same correction. the constitution says the president can be impeached for heart crimes and misdemeanors. it is a very high bar. president clinton was not impeached or what many considered the federal crime of perjury in a deposition. calls ton, we have had impeach george bush and president obama. i think that is a nonstarter at this point. every time the word impeachment

is mentioned, millions of dollars are raised so you do not hear much talking about impeachment anymore. i do not think it is going anywhere. there are some very legitimate constitutional questions about the president's authority, congress's authority, but i have not heard many serious members of congress or legal scholars suggest impeachment. host: our guest is gregory korte of usa today. our next caller is john. good morning. caller: morning. my question has to do with whether the president has the authority to say the salton sea. it is california's largest lake. it is 365 square miles. it is in the southernmost part of the state.

it was created by accident in 1905. grownthen, farmers have all around the lake. beenunoff has pesticide-laden. it has been the source of live sincee lake a lo the accident occurred along the colorado river in 1905 that created the lake. since 1905, all of the wetlands have been pretty much paved over in california. sea is at the salton bird sanctuary for over 364 different species of birds. it is vital for them to stop ay. the pacific flyweigh

host: are you familiar with this? guest: i am not but it seems like there may be a number of issues with development and drought and a whole bunch of things. the president does not have the power to change the weather by executive order. he has used a nonexecutive order under the antiquities act of 1906. it was a teddy roosevelt-era bill passed by congress that gives congress and the president the ability to declare national monuments. president obama has been particularly aggressive. he has declared more acreage to be protected than any other president. he is still looking at areas to use this tool. he has done it in california. not knowing the particulars of what it is endangering salt and light, this might be a tool available to him. mississippi, buford's

next. good morning. caller: good morning. amazingst saying it is how so many people are misinformed about a lot of things. i used to vote republican all the time. i have been a republican almost all my life. now changing to democrat because of the stalemate we have in washington. people just don't want to listen. you have these hard-core republicans runnin. friend of mine the other day and all he could talk about was i will never forgive hillary for this. there has understand nothing been proven that she has that anything wrong. they keep harping on it.

they have a stalemate up there now and they do not want to fix it. very intoare residential politics but i'm not sure there is a lot i want to say about hillary's it and the controversy around her that has not been sent thousands of times before. host: and more to come. from virginia beach, virginia, john is next. good morning. caller: good morning. obama has done many great things with his executive orders like cut down on coal, which will give a chance for something else to come up to boost the economy and clean up the air. first time he has given stimulus to individual people and helping small businesses. limitsnot got over his

but there is more talk about gay marriage and abortion. would disagreely with that analysis a little bit. i have heard very little from republicans on gay marriage and abortion up until this summer when we had the planned parenthood controversy with the release of the videos that appear to show officials of planned parenthood and something to sell fetal tissue. i think the republican party since 2010 has been dominated by fiscal conservatives by the tea party faction and is primarily concerned with the issues of federal taxing and bending more so --taxing and spending more so than what has been used to define the republican party. host: from st. petersburg florida on the republican line, good morning. caller: the guy that said this

country was built on god. it wasn't built on got. -- god. they had slavery and they took the land from the natives. i just want to quote him on the. godly when they were doing whatever they wanted to do. stop so much being a player hater with obama, get out and vote. november as next month. that is right around the corner. host: thanks for the call. guest: just the presidential yearion is a from next month. there are some gubernatorial elections in states . president obama has proved it be a historic president in many ways. he has also been a controversial president in his own time.

we will have to leave it for the future historians to sort out exactly what his legacy has been. host: will we see more exit of orders with regards to guns in the coming weeks or months? guest: there are a number of things under consideration. one of them is an executive order to use the power of the purchaser to try to push the gun industry a certain direction. the federal government buys tens of thousands of firearms every year for the military and law enforcement agencies. that gives the federal government a tremendous amount of power to dictate what kind of goods they want to buy. governor o'malley as opposed this. a number of other people would sign an executive order that any good should have certain safety features and perhaps a serial number that is hidden that cannot be filed off so it is

easier to trace the gun back to its original purchaser. president clinton used this exact tool. law tos would not pass a require trigger locks for firearms. president clinton said every gun purchased by the federal government must have a trigger lock. five or six months later, date major gun companies announced they were voluntaryily complying with that for all guns in the united states because they had to supply the trigger lock for so many guns from the federal government. it made sense for them to do that. and in congress eventually law.d the trigger lock it is a classic use of executive order to persuade congress and gopush then to action. interestin