but president moon, that he was prepared to denuclearize. the north koreans understand what that means. there is no mistake about what the scope of denuclearization looks like. we need to see chairman kim do what he promised the world he would do. not very fancy, but it is the truth. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you. announcer: as part of our year plan, busthe seas ,ade the journey to juneau alaska. this weekend on book tv and american history tv, we feature our stops across alaska, showing the states natural beauty and delving into the history and culture. back temp to welcome

chapman, the director for heritage action for america. let's talk about the organization. heritage action is the sister organization and started in 1973 in washington dc. it is a conservative leaning think tank for decades. we started a sister organization in 2010. we did that because we started to notice people on capitol hill were not voting on the merits of a piece of legislation. legisla. they needed political incentives. we needed a political organization to advance the policies of the heritage foundation. we are a 501(c) four so we can get involved at the grassroots level and in elections if we want to. host: let's talk about the midterm elections. we have learned you have targeted just over a dozen house

races. walk us through some of them and why. picture, this is the first time heritage action has ever been involved in elections. we have always been involved in politics. we have pushed policy at the grassroots level but we have never gotten involved in backing specific candidates. this year we will back specific candidates because we think ultimately you need more carots to pass legislation on the hill. you need to have members of congress see your they're pushing them across the finish line. when you do that, you can go back to the same member of congress and say we will ask you to take tough notes in 2019. were are a lot of policies think need to be passed. idea is to build coalitions on capitol hill that can advance your legislation. we will be in over a dozen districts. the way we are thinking about this is looking for members of

congress who say -- we make the argument that they are conservative and in trouble. there are a lot of conservatives that do not have a tough race and we will not be in those districts. number three, can they help us if we are able to hold the house this year, can they help us in future years advance legislation? there are races like dave brat in virginia. he was famous for knocking up eric cantor. he was a tea party candidate and shocked the world by doing that. conservative member of congress for a long time and a reliable guide to partner with. he is under a lot of attack and his opponent is raising a lot of money. he will have a tough race so we think we need to be there. there are other people like the representative in ohio, a reliable conservative, has always voted for the policies we care about. the same dynamic is occurring

there. perry in -- pennsylvania 17. that is a district where the special election happened where rick saccone lost to conor lamb and the democrats one that district in a special election. people considered it a bellwether for the midterm elections. we want to be would go back and help a guy who is solid. ourre going to build all of interactions in these districts around the tax law. heritagesee the foundation is doing a fantastic study that will be released on the 23rd that will show, district by district, the impacts of the tax law. you'll be able to click on pennsylvania 17 and see that in that district the average return was over $1700 for a family in that district, 70 3% of filers in that district received a tax cut. you will be able to extrapolate

that over 10 years. the money starts looking real when you look at these 10 year figures, most are between $25,000 and $40,000. we are able say this is mattered for the district and your pocketbook. conor lamb being elected will be another vote for nancy pelosi. nancy pelosi has made it clear she intends to try to repeal the tax law. that is what she would like to do. i think will we want to say is we want to make this permanent. guy like not reelect a keith, you are threatening the permanency of that return. has been enough forget of trying to bring down government spending. one of the complaints of the tax bill is it is going to increase the debt and deficit in the country. are you prepared for that argument from democrats who say

what this tax bill will do is jack up the nation's debt higher? guest: absolutely. we are concerned about the deficit. heritage has long argued that we need to cut federal spending. we believe you need to cut federal spending while reducing tax liability. host: republicans are not doing that. guest: no, they are not. we are the biggest critics of them. we voted against a bba that sent spending levels higher. we fox republican leadership on that. we have voted against multiple spending bills. the spending levels are insane. but the taxpayer should not be on the hook for the lack of washington's fiscal responsibility. we need to fix that at this level and keep pushing. when i'm talking about engaging in the midterm elections, the

point is to try to put coalition together in 2019 and 2020 for legislative reforms. one of those will be significant reforms will be entitlements. we need to tackle the entitlement issue. things like welfare reform, spending, these are things we need to be able to tackle. it is not just the appropriations bills. discretionary spending is a big part of this, but entitlement spending is the bulk of it. we cannot put those coalitions together unless we are able to convince members we will get there back. -- we will get their back. anytime you attack entitlements, you will get attacked. host: the website is heritage for america.org. tim chapman serves as the director of that organization. are open andes where dividing the calls between democrats, republicans, and independents. i want to get your actions do it -- your reaction to an interview

with senator lisa murkowski. it is alaska weekend on c-span. we hope you tune in as our c-span bus makes its way across all 50 states. as part of that, our conversation with lisa murkowski. we asked her about the brett kavanaugh nomination. we will have that for you in just a moment. let me ask you in general about brett kavanaugh. will he be confirmed by the senate? guest: i expect he will be. i think he is a fantastic judge. has we have seen so far been a good reaction on the republican side for sure. senators like lisa murkowski and susan collins have expressed concerns but nothing that looks like a hurdle that cannot be overcome. what you're seeing on the left side is interesting. if you look at west virginia, a thatcame out two days ago

showed joe manchin had a healthy lead in that state, but the lead doubles if he supports brett kavanaugh. the lead shrinks to one if he opposes brett kavanaugh. it goes from a 10 point lead to a 20 point lead if he supports him and if he opposes him he is only up by one in that race. that is a significant and shocking swing in that particular race. see similarwill things in states like missouri and indiana and montana that lean republican. by and large, a lot of their voters want this president to be able to get his judge on the court. i think it is going to be tough for chuck schumer to hold these folks. is if you have anonymity on the republican side, i expected jailbreak from those red state democrats to vote for them. i think the political liability

for a vote against brett kavanaugh is too much. the angerunderstand that continues over merrick garland? guest: they feel like they got gypped. this is politics. we all understand it. if chuck schumer were the majority leader, do you think he would confirm one of the presidents judges? i think you would find a way not to confirm a judge right now. fartherld be a bridge than what mitch mcconnell did with merrick garland. merrick garland was an interesting circumstance. we had a supreme court justice prematurely died in an election year. we were very close to that presidential election year. given those circumstances, i think the argument was easier for mitch mcconnell to make. this is just sheer political power.

control whato happens on the court, you need the senate and you need the white house. the republican party won both the senate and the white house in the 2016 election. if the shoe were on the other foot i have no doubt that chuck schumer would not be confirming judges. host: if in 2020 there is a vacancy on the high court and the democrats have the senate, the same thing will happen? guest: i think if they held the senate in 2020 and trump was replacing justice ginsburg, their position would be not to confirm the judge. the question is can they withstand that politically? that would be an open question and a conversation that would be had across the country. politics are so polarized right now around the supreme court that all the pressure would be on chuck schumer not to move on a nomination. host: let me go back to senator lisa murkowski, our conversation with her as part of c-span's alaska weekend.

we talk to her about the brett kavanaugh nomination. [video clip] been looking at judge kavanagh and his record: stickley just like every judge i have had a opportunity to weigh in on. timeperhaps taking more than someone like me to. some on the right would say you need to be deciding right now that you're going to be supporting him. those on the left would say you need to decide right now that he is not acceptable. i do not operate that way. i will take my time. i will be thoughtful. , who ised with my son finishing up law school, that i feel like i'm back in law school because i am reading the opinions. i want to gauge for myself. -- i'm nots not going to be able to ask him a question on what would you do in

x case? i would not ask that question and he would not answer that question. what i'm trying to do is discern if judge kavanagh has the qualities that we are all looking for in a judge. the judicial temperament, the character, the intelligence, the , the desire to truly follow the law rather than to try to move things in a predetermined political outcome. republican lisa murkowski, part of our alaska weekend. we asked her about the news of this week and this summer with the brett kavanaugh nomination. tim chapman, as you listen to what this key senator says, and she is one of the senators that could determine his confirmation, what are you hearing? guest: i'm impressed with that

answer. that is the right way a senators should approach this. i do not think it is possible to be asking for an outcomes guarantee from judges. we want judges to be impartial and approached the law with humility and an open mind. i think that is an impressive answer. i read the tea leaves from that is that she is open to this. that is confirmed by what i am hearing with our folks on the hill. i think she will get to guess on this but she is being thoughtful. she should be. this is supposed to be the world's most deliberative body. they should take their time and work through all the opinions they have. collar from cottonwood, idaho, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you to c-span. i would like to say i appreciate everything c-span does. however, i do think when you read all the different

newspapers and opinions, the majority is definitely against what our president is trying to do. if i could slip in one comment about the last segment, i think everyone has forgotten what we were counseled by one of our presidents in regard to our enemies or what we conceive as thatnemies such as russia we need to speak softly and carry a big stick, not speak roughly or rudely to our enemies. i think that is exactly what president trump is trying to do. he is totally misunderstood in his handling of vladimir putin. i think we need to step back and allow him -- we do not know all of the facts and it is hard to judge what he is actually doing when we do not know all of the

facts or his reasoning behind what he is doing. i applaud our efforts to balance our budget and be conservative in that way. look what happens to the conservatives when they try to do that. look what happened to president bush when he tried to reform social security. backnk we need to all step and try to be reasonable and try to understand each other rather and even animosity civil unrest our country that is going on right now. host: thank you for the call. just to get your earlier point, this program is a reflection of what is being written about. we both the wall street journal, the new york times, the weekly standard. your call is part of that dialogue and conversation. what we are trying to do is present to you what many nor -- what news organizations are saying.

did you want to respond? guest: i think that is a fantastic observation. it is hard given the kind of 24/7 news media coverage and the hysteria that follows it to see what is actually going on. i take your point. i think that with regard to the current topic where everyone is covering the helsinki summit, we should pay very close attention to what was actually agreed upon. there is a lot of noise, as you point out, but aside from the noise, there is what was agreed upon. none of the sanctions were lifted on russia. this administration has still been tough on russia. you have people like john bolton who have been a huge russia critic. we have installed diplomats, we have closed embassies. there are things that are happening and then there is the veneer of what is being covered

in terms of the conversation and the demeanor of the president. i think the things that are happening are important. i will back up and look at what came out of nato. i do not like the way the trump administration or the president is talking about our nato allies, but what he is doing makes a lot of sense. getting our nato allies to up spending is a huge contribution to the stability of the world order, and a major threat to russia. theave to try to separate height -- the hype. it is indeed important how the president talks, but let us look at what is actually happening. host: we welcome our c-span radio audience. is tim chapman, executive director of heritage action for america. jerry from mississippi, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning c-span.

good morning, mr. chapman. i have a question about entitlement reforms. i'm a conservative leaning , but these house races -- ife talking about entitlement reform is a big thing they may be in a losing situation. people -- there are ways to [indiscernible] i do not believe a non-us citizen should be getting any entitlements at all. guest: thank you for that question.

i think you're right. i think it is a tough sell politically. i do not think that is true across the board of entitlement reform. look at welfare reform. what we did in the 1990's on welfare reform where a conservative congress and a democratic president signed a sweeping welfare reform legislation into law, that was a -- that was hugely popular politically. what that bill did, and i think we need to do this again, we have lost a lot of the gains we have made, what that bill did was put a huge emphasis on putting people back to work. there were work requirements in the bill. the idea behind this was to give people the dignity of work. there is something that saps the individual when they're receiving federal handouts and there is no work involved in that. we want to do that kind of work again. we want to do those kind of

entitlement reforms again. there are hugely popular when you talk about work requirements for welfare. that is in the present issue. i think -- that is an 80% issue. i think there are ways you can enter into the conversation that make sense and can be locally popular and are not completely sweeping that begin to get us on the right track on these issues. host: the next call is ron from south dakota. independent line with tim chapman. good morning. says they areroup conservatives. i'm not sure what that means today. in the past, we have a federal deficit and we had a federal debt. much of the federal debt is republican debt. host: how do you respond? guest: i agree with you. one of the things that happened with our group is we began to receive -- our membership

numbers started skyrocketing from 2000 to 2010. it was a very interesting dynamic because during those years you had tom delay and dennis hast are running the house. you had karl rove and george bush in the white house. we had massive fights with them in the 2000's. i remember in 2003 going up against tom delay and karl rove and we are against them on the prescription drug bill because we thought the creation of a new entitlement would be unsustainable fiscally. those kind of fights were things that were happening throughout the 2000's. we were on the outside of the republican party during those fights. we were opposed to the party in the direction the party was going. conservatives should be fiscally responsible. the party has lost that mantra over the years and frankly even right now. as we discussed at the top of

the hour, it has been hard going to get the party to embrace that. the president himself, we need to work closer with the administration to convince the administration to take these steps on entitlement reforms. we are working on that. host: our guest has spent time on capitol hill working for republican senators, don nickles of oklahoma and jim demint of south carolina. mike is joining us from florida, democrats line. good morning. great: i am calling republicans always say how they are conservatives. they want to cut entitlements. social security and medicare are not entitlements, they are earned benefit programs. if they want to start cutting government spending, they ought to start with the trump administration. it seems like everyone there is using public money for their own personal use. i do not yet know. the military.

there is so much money. ohio that factory in is making tanks for the military that they do not want, just to provide jobs. i think they ought to start with the government and work their way down. host: thank you. guest: i hear you. we supported the rescissions package that the administration just put out. a very meager cut, but it was $15 billion in federal spending to be cut. we were not able to get that through the senate. we got a through the house. we were not able to get it through the senate. we need to start with baby steps. if you want to take on entitlements, you need to build up goodwill. do your point about social security, i agree. that should be there for you. the ripoff right now is people who are paying into social security who are younger are never going to see a dime of that. that is a travesty and an injustice that is happening. we have to find a way to shore

up the program which might mean reforming it. it does not mean cutting the benefit, it means reforming it. host: we will go to new york. you're next. independent line. caller: good morning. that is nitro. like in tnt. i have had anger problems before . i do not want to have an anger problem now. host: we are glad to hear that. i wish no hatred or violence on anybody. i'm 68 years old. this is not the america i grew up in. i grew up watching george reeves, the original superman in 1955 standing there in his kate talking about truth, justice, and the american way. i believe in that. 21, 2010, wheny

the supreme court decided that corporations have a heart and the soul. they cannot have children. nobody's ever going to jail. they go for two or three years for murdering people -- let me not get ahead of myself. what i am trying to say is this is not america when the leader of this country -- i'm not going to use the words he uses. people and hebs is the biggest -- he should grab himself because he is the biggest. he said that nobody is ever stood up against the russians. i grew up during john f. kennedy, the cuban missile crisis. john f. kennedy stood strong and russia backed down. itro, thank you for the

call. let me take this point and ask you this question. will trump be a benefit in the midterm elections or will he hurt some republicans in these key house races? guest: it depends on the districts. the districts that are conservative districts, he is hugely popular. if he engages in those districts, he will be a huge benefit for those candidates. there are districts that are more swing districts, the suburban vote is the vote to get and there are independence in those districts. he will not be effective there. i think you will see the administration engaging, you will see this white house political operation engaging strategically and where he is most effective. they understand the strengths and weaknesses and it depends on where he goes. host: announcer: as part of our alaska

weekend coverage, michael doyle talks about federal proposals to change hunting regulations in alaska. amy carter on climate change and how it is affecting alaska and other parts of the united states. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal saturday morning. join the discussion. coming up tonight, "newsmakers" is next with jim condos. , a look at telecommunications and health care innovation in alaska.