damn congress or a war when congress was saying please don't go to war. this is a case where congress was attacking the executive for being to be passive and allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. there was a fair amount of agreement in 2001 to be aggressive taking the fight into the afghanistan and against the terrorist. i don't see this division of authority tobetween the preside and congress. we obviously have it now and have since 2004-2005. i don't think the system broke down in 2001 and i don't see congress trying to stop the war. they had ample power to do so but instead they passed the amuf from 2001 which was broad authorization to use force. >> i need to give a counter example because this is important of the model for government service. this is my involvement in watergate and there became a time -- >> your example is yourself. >> no. i was at the justice department during watergate and the president of the united states thought fox could be fired, the special prosecutor, who was getting close to uncovering criminal evidence against the president

in his first, i think, speech to congress, address to congress, president clinton called on congress to take back those 37 square miles and reincorporate them into the district. obviously it didn't happen. yes? >> not mention s word, slavery. of course, washington was probably the largest american slave trading city prior to 1850. how much did slavery influence whether the capital should be relocated? >> i did not see any evidence during september and october of 1814 that the issue of slavery in any way played a role. i did not see any evidence one way or the other in 1790 that it played a role in the location, but it was the decision to locate here. it was as many historians of the early republic pointed out. it was the bull in the china shop. it was the ching you didn't mention. it very well may have been people, northerners, who were opposed to slavery who saw this as an opportunity. as an opportuni opportunity, but i don't see it actually in the sources. and by the way, since you mentioned washington and george washington, it gives me an opportunity to say because i'm trying to m

congress hasn't also been this dysfunctional. congress can do a great deal of good. in the 1950's the republicans and democrats worked together to build the highway system. and they passed the higher education act so millions can afford the higher education that their parents and grandparented only dreamed of. it led to the enactment of social security and medicare as well. it brought us the civil rights act and voting rights act 50 years ago. in 1990, congress came together to pass the americans with disabilities act and open the door of opportunity to millions. they worked on a bill to balance the federal budget and created unprecedented surpluses. five partisan compromises is no myth. it happened. it worked. it can work one more. american people deserve a congress that tells the middle class we are on your side. as voters prepare to elect the next congress they have a clear choice. maintain a republican house majority that made obstruction and partisanship its policy. or elect a democratic party and end the gridlock and make progress. we need to make progress. acc

congress, that we swung too far. and that i believe that we need to revisit those in particular for nonviolent offenders and allow more discretion for judges and, frankly, more discretion for the states to make determinations in terms of what are the proper sentencing guidelines for these things. i think we went overboard in terms of federal sentencing mandatory minimum sentences. i'm someone who believes in redemption and in reconciliation. and i also believe that we need to look at the prospect of banning the box in terms of checking after you've served your time and you have paid your price and in terms of time in prison for certain crimes and for certain jobs, you know, i don't think you should be required to check the box as a felon, which only increases recidivism. and i think if people have paid their debt to society, society needs to welcome them back into society and make it easier for them to come back into society if, again, for certain crimes and for certain positions. >> senator warner, same thing. >> i

to congress. if congress disagrees and doesn't support they can chose not to fund it. this is how the system for cia covert action works. the executive branch comes to the senate intelligence committee, they were briefed on the covert actions, and congress has an implicit check on every single one if they chose not to fund it, but you have democratic behavior between the branches and maintain the ability to act secretly at the same time. you could take the perspective that henry simpson once had as secretary of war. he found out the united states had an extensive program against germany and other countries. this was a hundred years ago. he said gentlemen don't read each other's mail and shutdown the program. i think that is a mistake. you could have that point of view. everything should be in public. we should not have an nsa or no secret parts of the government fighting these enemies. but i think that would lead to a decrease in the national security and wouldn't convince our rivals and opponents

congress must do this, must do that. you are in congress, mr. barber. congress is failing. i think the approval rating is down to family relationships and paid staff. it is time for us to change. we've got to bring someone who is actually going to lead. i've shown and gotten legislation passed myself as a private citizen related to the rules that they are making burkarvicewomen wear the in saudi arabia. i worked hard to write the legislation. i persevered for that to be passed. that's the kind of leadership i will show. >> follow-up on this -- how do you defend your record against mcsally?cism from ms. >> my opponent said it is all misunderstood, it is a lie about her position on medicare and social security. the need to go back to 2012, when she took positions to say we should privatize social security by having people invest in the stock market. that is privatization. when she supported the paul ryan budget, that would have voucherized medicare and changed the system forever. she supported the budget that would have slashed pell grant in our state. 23,000 arizona students

to congress. if congress disagrees and doesn't support they can chose not to fund it. this is how the system for cia covert action works. the executive branch comes to the senate intelligence committee, they were briefed on the covert actions, and congress has an implicit check on every single one if they chose not to fund it, but you have democratic behavior between the branches and maintain the ability to act secretly at the same time. you could take the perspective that henry simpson once had as secretary of war. he found out the united states had an extensive program against germany and other countries. this was a hundred years ago. he said gentlemen don't read each other's mail and shutdown the program. i think that is a mistake. you could have that point of view. everything should be in public. we should not have an nsa or no secret parts of the government fighting these enemies. but i think that would lead to a decrease in the national security and wouldn't convince our rivals and opponents

congress fixed that problem in 2006. it similarly provided in the same legislation review for recipients of section 215 orders. but it spoke not at all about review -- >> perhaps you can make clear how we're going to deal with the red light after 12 minutes. >> this is clearly a matter that will go on as long as at least we find it valuable to go on. >> i should warn you, i went on the c-span website, which that technical i am. and i went on for finding out what c-span stands for. which i would be happy to share with you at another time. but i found out that they, unlike what it says here, they have set aside two hours for this broadcast. >> we have something to shoot for. >> we will go on at greater length. go ahead. >> thank you. so i think what i was saying is that the legislative history of section 215 makes clear that the recipient review procedures did not decide the question at all about whether congress wanted the targets of 215 orders to have available statutory review. in that context where the legislative inte

congress fixed that problem in 2006. it similarly provided in the same legislation review for recipients of section 215 orders. but it spoke not at all about review -- >> perhaps you can make clear how we're going to deal with the red light after 12 minutes. >> this is clearly a matter that will go on as long as at least we find it valuable to go on. >> i should warn you, i went on the c-span website, which that technical i am. and i went on for finding out what c-span stands for. which i would be happy to share with you at another time. but i found out that they, unlike what it says here, they have set aside two hours for this broadcast. >> we have something to shoot for. >> we will go on at greater length. go ahead. >> thank you. so i think what i was saying is that the legislative history of section 215 makes clear that the recipient review procedures did not decide the question at all about whether congress wanted the targets of 215 orders to have available statutory review. in that context where the legislative inte

and they gave most of the power to the congress. the congress spends the money. the congress declares war or doesn't declare war. it has to sanction all of the candidates the presidents wants to put up for the cabinet and other important positions. there's always been required a lot of time on task for presidents with the congress. and i guess i'd say presidents can't meet with them often enough, but we also have charged the president to be in charge of foreign policy in a world in which you're on this little bitty planet. with today's transportation and communications, presidents are wanted to communicate with every other country in the world almost every day. so it is a really demanding job with demanding requirements. now, you always have to go to the personality of whoever is present e president. everybody is different. some presidents like meeting with congress. bill clinton was one who relished it. he liked it and he did a lot of it and i think he was effective at it. it could be that -- and i don't know, i'm not there. t could be president obama doesn't ha

congress had to face its implications. when they met that first week of december, they had reason to think, and rightly so, that word would come real soon than the amendment had actually been ratified. what next? it had become increasingly clear across the war that the abolition of slavery was a likely outcome. and of course, the objective of winning that war had always been a primary pursuit. suddenly, you get the two in combination, and each left a huge combination to be addressed. what would the now suddenly former confederate states be? and how to treat them. and who would the now-former slaves be? what should be their status. lawmakers, federal or state, had multiple models to work from as they tried to address the question of former slaves. one was white freedom. the same rights, responsibilities, and resources that accrued to anybody, regardless of race. not regardless of race. regardless of gender. never regardless of gender. of class, of locale, of all the kinds of things. but it requires the antecedent adjective.

number one most effective member of congress of 75. we were ranked number one because we moved legislation through and got things passed. we want more high paying jobs and less government. you know, we need washington, d.c. to look more like montana. we don't want montana to look more like washington, d.c. several months ago, i was at the yellowstone county fair and ran into a cowboy from eastern montana. he had leather hands and was over 90 years old and had hunched back and a cowboy hat on. he said steve, i fought in world war ii in europe. i fought for my country but frogrew up in eastern montana and i am glad to be here all my life. and he said with tears in his eyes i have never been so afraid for my country. we need a new washington and a new president and i will stand with the people of montana and i will not stand with president obama. i will thank you for coming tonight and i will kindly ask for your support on november 4th. >> amanda curtis, your time is now. we will give you all the chance to applied at the very end that >>

and it has to be, because the congress gives money. the congress declares war or not war. the congress sets up the gab -- approves the cabinet and other important positions. so there has always been a lot of time on task for presidents with the congress. and i guess i would say, presidents can't meet with them often enough. but we also have charged the president to be in charge of foreign policy in a world in which you are on this little bitty planet today. with today's transportation and communication, presidents are expected to talk with almost every country every day. it is a demanding job with demanding requirements. now, you always have to go to the personality of whoever is president. you know, everybody istive. some presidents like meeting with congress. bill clinton was one who relished in it, and he liked it, and he did a lot of it. i think he was effective at it. it could be, and i don't know, i'm not there, it could be president obama doesn't have that exact personality and he wants to do other things that he thinks are equally important. i'm sure he has more th

they're pointing guns in the windows of congress. members of cing congress. and congress is inside trying to figure out what do. the e can do is appeal to government of pennsylvania who tells me it's not problem. and would he capitol only get it back under a new government. congress decide dodd is they would flee like a group of to prince ton, new jersey and reconvened in james madison's old dorm in prince ton. one of the most important issues that madison mooned row had though deal with in their time both in the virginia legislature was the question of the mississippi. the spanish were of a belief. port of new ed the orleans they were entitled to the mississippi river. james madison pointed out that international law that existed at the time that free and peaceful people could move international boundaries without impunity. so why should the american not at war with pain be more restricted than other place. imagine what losing mississippi the growth appened, of the american west. it's unimaginable had we given wouldn't are e gotten it back. there was a north

guest: is universal the voters dislike congress. when each party's voters look at congress, they look at the op is it obstructionists -- at the opposite of structuralists. obstructionists. no one is getting what they want. brand is more damaged, the republican brand or president obama? the republican brand is still slightly more damaged than that of democrats and president obama, yet the election is a referendum on the president. that is typically the case in a midterm election, unless the party out of power does something to steal the spotlight, as we saw with 1998 and the impeachment. caller: good morning. we have a pretty interesting race in california, demaio and peters. have the debates on our website, c-span.org, if you're interested. caller: i would like to see that. issa doesn't need our vote, but demaio does. do you have an opinion if that is close? is peter's in trouble? guest: is one of the closest races in the country. it could go either way. scott peters is a freshman who won his seat in 2012 after serving on the san di

a congress that is broken. despite the low pool ratings, the economists had an article that said the turnover rate in the united states congress is less than european monarchy families. we saw the revolution over this. these things weren't supposed to be lifetime estates. thomas jefferson said members of congress ought to return to their communities and live under the laws they passed. tonight, i ask not just for your vote, i ask you to join our campaign for change. we want to invigorate our politics with new ideas, new vision. we want to bring something different because we have gotten so far astray from our founding ideals. i want to work, to help make the american dream possible for the next generation. the dream that inspired my parents to immigrate to this country in the 1960s. thank you. >> congressman honda, two minutes for your closing statements. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you, raj, the panelists. i want to thank nbc. and our audience here and the viewership. i want to thank them for tunin

congress spends too much time deciding who should get the credit. >> what does congress been too much time talking about that's not a real issue? >> certainly, naming post office. my focus reaching across the solutions, i'mng proud of my record on veterans issues and making sure that this --ion audits the obligations this nation honors its obligations. >> that was kind of a meaty first round of short answers. we'll do better with questions, and you will do answers -- do better with answers from here on out. can you name a democrat you voted for? >> a democrat i voted for? when i was overseas, i voted for -- ison for president cannot remember his first name. >> you're talking about against reagan? i don't think that he was a dem. >> he was an independent. >> mr. romanoff, a republican you have voted for? >> no, i cannot recall. >> when was the last time you fired a gun, and can you tell us what kind? >> i think in high school, we had rifle practice. 16i just fired and in sharpshooter -- m-16 .harpshooter >> everything going on has us thinking about the issue of civil disobedience. have

is congress keeping up on technology? >> yes, i think congress is keeping up on technology. that does not mean we will not have to continue to keep up with technology, because technology advances so quickly. but i think it is the responsibility of the energy and commerce committee to take the lead in this regard. staff.rely on expert we also allow the testimony of those who appear before us in the technology area. and we want to make sure that the united states continues to be the leader in the world in technology. and the various centers of that. i live outside new york city. the area i represent is an area of expertise. certainly silicon valley in northern california. inas near boston, areas north carolina, and other places as well. it is the responsibility of congress to make sure that the fundamental laws of the land reflect where technology is. >> finally, congressman lance, net neutrality. the fcc is working on it, the energy and commerce committee is working on it. what is your general view on how that should be approached? >> i really think net neutrality is somethin

now, i'm sad to leave the congress. i love the congress. and i'm delighted that my lovely wife is running for the congress because she's smarter, decent and certainly much prettier than i am. i am concerned that my sadness is mediated by the poison atmosphere that we see in american politics today. so while i'm troubled in refocusing its efforts on the important matters at hand, i'm comforted to know that they can only improve. so when the dictionary defines the word congress as a coming together, it also defines the very way we can emerge from this current mess. first and foremost it will take a congress willing to put aside petty differences and willingness to live up to the word that compromise is not a dirty word and it is not an evil thing. conciliation is not a bad idea. cooperation is not an unspeakable act. the sooner that the congress realizes this and that american sit zcitizens realize this and begin impressing this view on their candidates, the better the situation is going to get. so then the congress can begin to focus more on

in any debates in congress that suggests this is what congress was intending. there were a lot of debates obviously about the bill and tax credits and the credits were always discussed in terms that made clear that income not state of residence was the qualifying criteria. contrary to what professor said, there was widespread awareness at the time that states might not set up their exchanges. there was not surprise there would be surprise in opposition states. this was generally understood. despite this, everyone assumed the credits would be available to all on exchanges both state and federal. there's lots of evidence of the record, the brief discusses this. one example, there was a march 2010 fact sheet issued by the three house committees with jurisdiction over the aca. it explained how exchanges would operate. it expressed there would be federal and state exchanges and zru no distinction between them. that's not surprising. members wanted those to be available for the simple reason subsidies were essential to effective operation of exchanges. eliminating th

so, meaning that when preferences in congress change, when congress gets more liberal or conservative, you can see the court's decisions, even in constitutional cases, you can see them following congressional preferences. and one time period where it's real -- you can see it clearly is during the rhenquist court from 1986 to 2003. what is nice about the rhenquist court, you have a court from the very beginning had a majority on the court appoint by republican presidents. so fairly conservative majority on the court. and throughout the 1980s, there was a lot of concern from liberals in the country that this was a court that was going to erode many of the protections for civil rights rights and libs established by the warrant court and held in place by the burger court. this is a court liberals were worried about. and 1986, 1987, 1988 passed and nothing -- the rhenquist court was not really taking on the liberal precedents, and by the end of really 1993, after the court has upheld roe v. wade, and upheld race and redistricting, preserved a number of the policies that liberals were worri

congress came back and amended the statute. what you have in this statut statutory situation, they created the free exercise of religious in prison institutions. what i find intriguing about it is that the court in the hobby lobby case last term indicated that they would interpret the statute to create a high hurdle on any government from imposing any kind of restriction on someone's ability to practice their religion, and the key in this case would be was that just an aberration that concerns an aspect of obamacare or is it really going to be enforcing that very high standard across the board, which would be significant in other areas. >> we'll have more inside story in a moment. when we return from the break did the supreme court rule by not rul ruling? circuit court decisions were clamoring to be taken up by the high court. the court refused them all. couples in five more states will soon start getting married. stay with us. >> i lived that character >> a hollywood icon forest whitaker >> my interest in acting was always to

when i was in congress before i worked on that.or the past 15 months i have been talking about reducing the outflows from folsom dam because of the very real possibility that we are going to need that water in here we are. we need the water. congressman bera has declined to make any effort to reduce the outflows from folsom dam. he has today were recently at least come out in opposition to the tunnels which is in opposite of what he was in 2010 when he was in favor of the tunnels. my problem here is we need solutions. we have got to protect our water resources and stop spending -- stop sending it south. understand please, additional releases from folsom dam constitute taking our water and sending it south to los angeles. congressman bera has not spoken up on this. he has not picked up the phone, talk to the bureau about reducing outflows. that's why we are sending out thousands of feet per hour or more flowing into folsom. that has to stop. >> moderator: congressman reducing outflows. your chance to respond. bera: and january 30 ca

florida congress to have the effect on us. that is of bad thing. the justices are very fine to in that they should have been left alone. so we would all like to be left alone of that dictatorial issue but that is not the way the constitution is designed. and part of the book is historical when i go back to look at the writings. said john adams was not at the constitutional convention but his work was cited and well-respected and he said very simply the judicial branch should have the check but the whole point of checks and balances there is no single body or institution that was unchecked by others to ensure that the justices could be removed it can happen and it has not very often but the salaries are elected by the democratically elected branch said to have an interest to secure their independence but i would say that is not have a constitution works there is a theory in the 1990's when the speaker of the house representative tom delay went on a crusade about the supreme court's they had a conservative majority but not enough for those in congres

these are the names of congress?nik: yes and i have taken a -- funicello: not until we address the seniority system. >> moderator: mr. -- miss the fun it would -- make a good u.s. attorney general? >> yes. >> yes. >> moderator: have you ever climbed the peak's? stefanik: i have climbed the cascades. woolf: ivan had the time to do that. i've been working. funicello: heavy or been to a fish concert? woolf: no. stefanik: me neither. >> moderator: mr. woolf? funicello: have you ever experienced or been to the thompson park vortex? stefanik: i follow the news clips about it. if you were state legislator would you have voted for -- absolutely not. >> no indeed. motzert leave over governor cuomo november? >> yes. >> no. >> oh god, no. >> did you vote for him in 2014? >> i wrote an expletive. >> should roger goodell stepped down as commissioner of the nfl? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> moderator: we are going to go to closing statements and that begins in one minute to remind you and mr. woolf you first. a. woolf: thank you for

congress has not given a plan. he did not recognize that for congressional republicans a commitment to extend the war was a plan, was the plan they were offering. they had gaveled out and would extend the military powers over the south and see if the public would defend them in the november election. in a sequel i won't go into, when they returned, in december of 1866, they once again struggled over whether they should give any terms of peace at all or whether they should now extend terms that would depend upon african-american enfranchisement. even after that the question of ending the war and letting it continue to endure continued through 1868 and 1869 and even 1870 and 1871 as war powers and something that echoes throughout american and other nations' histories once found to be useful proved to be extremely difficult to let go of. but those are stories for another time. i'll be glad to go into in questions. thank you very much. applause] >> greg, that's a terrific paper. it makes me think of, you can tie an ex

congress acted to combat this? >> this is one of the major threats that we had on committee, this is a major ofeat to the united states america. you know, what happens is, when you go in and you start talking all overferent threats the board, you know, you have too many people that don't that this is factual. this is factual. it is real. we need to make darn sure we do everything. some people worry about spending money on things like this, but this is the right make darn sure that we're defending and protecting our areas. stuff thats is major could cause people to not have water or not be able to get the grocery store. this could be very detrimental to the united states of america and we have to make sure we have people in congress that are moving forward to make sure these are very, very well protected. >> mrs. bustos? >> we do have experts looking at this. i would approach this no than what we've been talking about, whether it be a ebola,ealth threat, with or the threat that isis presents, what you do is you talk

electedlmers was first to congress in 2010. before her election, she served as a registered nurse for more than 20 years. she was active in the chamber of commerce and planning aboard. ellmers serves on the house energy and committee and is the congresswoman of policy committee. and aiken are vying for votes in the second congressional district which stresses into nine counties. from wake to randolph counties, down to cumberland, covering for to break in here in moore county. in mooreragg and here county. thanks to both of you for taking time to be here at addressing the abuse issues for the voters of the second district. talk about foreign policy because it has bubbled up in a way will not seen. the world now has a new enemy, isil, isis. two parts. do you support what the president is doing thus far with airstrikes in that region of the world? -- were called upon to vote, would you send ground troops? we start after beckley and start with clay aiken. >> thank you for allowing us to be here. do i support every single part plan?

so they worked in tandem with the friendly congress. much of the book is lays out the evidence for the claim that the supreme court is more democratic and responsive than maybe we thought. the second thing is was this a good thing or bad thing? having a more responsive court as opposed to an independent court. that is the most interesting and policy questions, i think. what kind of a court do you want? in addition to teaching our children and our students that the court is independent we generally teach them that is a good thing if the court is independent. but you know, we would have fewer rights and liberties in the united states if we did not have our independent federal court. the last part of the book investigates that claims and looks across nationally at data on rights and liberty protections around the world. we have variations in how independent statistics are. we can look at that and see if is true. there is a different stery for democracy and non-democracy. in democracy, countries like us, it isn't the case that independent c

that is not what i want representing me in congress. his announcement to the president having airstrikes was let's send in more troops. and he announced when it was said women should serve in combat roles he said that is certain to cost lives. that is not the judgment we need in congress. and it is a good question. how much is this going to cost? it needs to be debated in congress and authorized. >> how do we pay for this? >> by having a strong economy. a navy cost money, bridges, schools, infrastructure -- it all cost money -- paying for medicare, social security, we need a robust economy. and john, i know you didn't serve but there is a marine that has been in a prison for over six months. every man, woman and i have served both and commanded both, everyone in the country makes sure america has their back and when we don't like benghazi, like mexico, what happens is it sends a signal to every veteran fighting you know what, america is not going to be there. i didn't advocate invading mexico but i said the president should do his role

cuban-american elected to congress. there's only, there was only three of us. and after 22 years there's only nine us. but let me just tell you that the women who are in this room are dynamic leaders. and they are truly helping to move us forward. [applause] >> and i think, and they just want to say as a senior member here, that we need the support not only of women but also of our mail allies. because it's going to take a partnership between both the men and the women to move the agenda forward, and so that someday we as women will not be an afterthought, will not be considered second class, and we have to remember that when we're talking about advancing women, it's not just that we want women in there, but we have qualified, talented women that have the ability to lead and in many cases, let me tell you, and this is a reflection on my male counterparts, can excel and even do better than many of our male counterparts who are now in those positions. [applause] >> thank you so much. to be fair, i think we have to cover t

in the obama theory of constitutional war powers, congress gets a vote but it's one vote, one congress, one vote, one time. maybe two times. the president identifies two possible sources of statutory authority both over a decade old and both passed by different congresses for different wars. one of those is the iraq war resolution passed in 2002 to authorize the president to disarm saddam hussein. interestingly in a blast from the past, obama is not the first president to argue that old aumfs never die. as it happens, the bush cheney tried a similar trick in the run up to the iraq war 12 years ago. this article from the "washington post" in august of 2002 lawyers for president bush -- permission remains enforced from the 19 # 19 to their credit i suppose they dropped that argument after about a week and a half and sought congressional authorization. but 12 years later the obama administration is arguing that the regulation that gave us gulf war two still has now have life left in it to support gulf war three. what's wrong with this argument? you start with the title. authorization for

i was elected to congress and served in the congress. when you serve in the congress coming your responsibility -- in the congress, your responsibility and the oath you swear is to protect the country. you don't do things to deliberately hurt the country. >> what changed? havelot of things contributed to this. a lot of people are asking that question. there are a lot of factors. too much money, redistricting that creates safe seats. a media that engages in soundbites. >> you are saying this now. [laughter] >> there is a lot of emphasis on the conflict rather than the people that resolve issues. thereesult of all that, is a sense of not taking the risks you have to take to govern. frankly, leadership is all about risk. your own jeopardizing political position in order to do what is right for the country. >> some people say the defense budget is too low when you look at the challenges we are facing. is the i am scared about uncertainty in washington with regards to the budget. right now, instead of developing a budget, they have kicked the

more than 100 debates for control of congress. debate forona house the second congressional district. the incumbent faces republican challenger martha mcnally in the rematch of the 2012 campaign. this includes southeast arizona. tomorrow in washington journal, the national journal looks at campaign 2014 key house and senate races. discussing public policy issues and higher education. and we take your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern it c-span. democratic challenger clay aiken met in their first and only debate for north carolina's second congressional district. they have found the race to be safe for republicans. this courtesy of the north carolina's bakers association and is about an hour. >> election 2014. the candidates for the second congressional district go head-to-head in their first and only debate bothered by the north carolina bakers association. >> thank you for joining us. we look very forward for spending the next hour here at pinehurst with the candidates. two-term incumb

congress. >> o.k. >> that's what elections are for too. >> 58% of americans say a third party is needed because they are already dissolutions with the performance of the two major parties. is that poll the canary in the coal mine? >> a third party. i'm not sure that's a solution. you get a third party out there, you got one in -- all it does is split off votes from one of the other parties. but this again reaches toward this idea almost of some kind of coalition government different than the system -- our system is breaking down. >> let me give you -- how many many americans are responsive to their needs? according to gallup -- only 35% -- that's about a third say the two parties were adequately representing the public. that is the lowest percentage since 2008. what do you think of that? >> i think there's an absolute lack of trust among the american population. you see that in the rise of chris christie and hillary clinton is more aggressive. taking advantage of that. people have an appetite f

cuban-american elected to congress. there's only, there was only three of us. and after 22 years there's only nine us. but let me just tell you that the women who are in this room are dynamic leaders. and they are truly helping to move us forward. [applause] >> and i think, and they just want to say as a senior member here, that we need the support not only of women but also of our mail allies. because it's going to take a partnership between both the men and the women to move the agenda forward, and so that someday we as women will not be an afterthought, will not be considered second class, and we have to remember that when we're talking about advancing women, it's not just that we want women in there, but we have qualified, talented women that have the ability to lead and in many cases, let me tell you, and this is a reflection on my male counterparts, can excel and even do better than many of our male counterparts who are now in those positions. [applause] >> thank you so much. to be fair, i think we have to cover t

speak, congress has an 8% approval rating. is calling card of congress partisan gridlock. this is a new -- this is a do-nothing congress prayed why do you want to join this esteemed group? what do you bring to the table to change this culture that has our country stuck on hold? >> thank you. i want to thank montana new stations for hosting this debate. when i first got in this race i gave a speech, one of the and ist events i did, talk about my past experiences and things i learned while working on legislation while trying to help veterans. experiences i had fighting for montanans. someone said i respect your past experiences but i am interested in the future. ideas you have to get congress working for montana. how you are going to be part of the solution. campaign ona montana ideas. we have released plans for accor culture. for energy prefer public land. that is what i want to see congress do. work on solutions to move montana forward. congress has a 9% approval rating. i read that cockroaches and wrote it -- root canals have a higher standing. i am a concerned father. i

congress needs to become the deliberative body of our government. have a native instinct as an attorney to help people dig into details and reach common ground. if you look at our records you'll see a distinct difference between the candidates on our ability to work across party lines. i will put utah first, think about the hardworking middle class families, and will not go to washington to vote a party line. >> mr. owens, you have the first opportunity to respond to this next question which comes from michael in south jordan. this comes from a small business owner who maintains that government regulation is a significant challenge. he asks each of you have you learned of a regulatory burden currently placed on businesses that you would like to see changed or repealed? what would you do to help small business owners like me make it in this economy? >> that is a great question. i have been a business defense >> by the time it hits the back of the business here it causes unnecessary consternation, waste of money and doesn't fill the point it was launc

why am i running for congress?'m running for congress this november for because i think we need a change of direction, not a change of pace. i am telling you, people are hurting in west virginia. it is the policies of barack obama, nancy pelosi, and their faithful soldier, nick rahall, who has caused us such despair. it is time for a change. we have somebody who has been in office 38 years. i've represented west virginia. we have done a lot of good things here. we brought autism coverage for children here in west virginia, and standing up to the insurance industries. we have fought the drug abuse crisis. i was the lead sponsor of the taxpayer's bill of rights that make sure you got your tax refund in a timely fashion, and if they did not, they have to pay you interest. i got an e-mail today from a gentleman. he said, you know, evan, there has been a lot of talk about coal and things that are critically important. he said, don't forget, this is the house of representatives. he underscored representatives. that is wh

congress. of the 125 ballot initiatives in 41 states that will be voted on in a week and a half, here is a sample as listed by the political newspaper. item. medical marijuana. >> we know that cannabis is medicine. >> medical marijuana advocates in florida are hopeful legal medical marijuana in their state will be a reality. the initiative needs 60% of voters to pass. item, recreational marijuana. in the wake of colorado and washington state, where recreational marijuana use is now legal, voters will decide in oregon and alaska whether their states will follow suit and okay recreational marijuana. item, minimum wage hike. get this. republican heavy states alabama, arkansas, nebraska, south dakota, voted for mitt romney in 2012 although the minimum wage issue is one democrats seized up. item, guns. washington state has 2 initiatives on the ballot that contradict one another. i.594 would stipulate universal background checks. but nish negative i-591 prohibits background checks. majority favor bot

majority on the court but it wasn't conservative enough for many of the republicans then serving in congress. there was talk about impeachment. there was talk about using the salary power. there was talk about cutting the budgets for clerks and the justices responded with outrage. how dare you and i remember thinking at the time well this is why -- the constitution gives to the elected branches these powers precisely so our elected representatives can check the court if they want to so they dared because they are given a constitutional power. >> host: does this extend down to the circuit courts and i'm thinking specifically about some of the marriage cases that are moving around in our country today and it seems to be coming to the supreme court. does your supposition -- >> guest: solo the way article iii is written it applies to all the federal courts in the sense that all federal judges have the same tenure. they have the same compensation clause of article iii which says that congress cannot diminish a judge's salary and office. that applies to all federal judges and justices. the lower f