spoke with reporters on his policy agenda.

>> good morning, everyone! good morning, everybody! good morning, everyone! we have a mic. my name is neil, the executive director and i want to welcome to the nhlp. i know it's a quiet season and many of you haven't been here recently. oh, that's the end of my jokes if you're not laughing.

neil: here, you can use this one. i'll lend it to you. glad we're all participating in it but i do want to go ahead and get started. so i want to introduce

republican presidential congressman vivek ramaswamy and ro khanna from california.

>> we are asking the participants to solve middle east peace, give their guardrails for a.i. or solve social security in 45 seconds or less. and if i may, we are also going to have a chance to be serious for once and flush out some issues. so honor their commitment to do something different and better, i'm going to make my own similar lar commitment as a moderator today. there will be no process questions. no political horse race questions. no got you questions and i will not make a single question or reference to donald trump. you may, that's fine, but i won't. i want to go quickly how this hour will proceed. thighs these gentlemen have identified five topics they want

to discuss. the economy, foreign affairs, political reform, climate change and the future of america. we're going to stay roughly 10 minutes with specific questions for me. at the beginning of thunderstorm watch segment, i'm going to ask one question to one person and they're going give about a minute answer because i want to get to the back and forth. and then the same person gets the same question. and as to that, there's an issue, they can issue with what mr. khanna said or back and forth. i will also ask an opening and closing question. during this procedure in the next hour, you may see a timekeeper, caroline. she's going to try to keep us on track to get to as many issues as possible. so with that, you heard, we're going to try to keep applause to a minimum during this debate. so for once, could we just give a round of applause for these two gentlemen for doing that?

[applause] very good. let's get that out of our system. all right. opening question. we're going to go to you, mr. congressman khanna. you guys want to go big. so i'm going to go as big as possible to start this off. what is the most important thing going on right now either in america or the world and why? >> first, james, let me just say why we're here. you know, to recognize we're going back and forth on twitter, exchange some barbs on identity, race, foreign policy, and i thought instead of just trying to score rhetorical scores online, why not have a civil discussion about the future of someone in america that we disagree with? and james, i appreciate you doing this. you're one of the best political journalists.

it's great to be here. i think i just set a new honest about one thing. i want to stop getting confused at airports for you. [laughter] and i'm hoping that will clear that up. james: is it a different place? and i will give credit for him to come here where we're doing our time as well. >> i appreciate that. in seriousness, here's my hope. someone said what do you want out of it? i said why can't we do this in living rooms across america where you can have a civil conversation with someone you disagree with, you you can see where they're coming from, where you can see their common ground to find a way forward. you say what is the biggest

issue coming out of america? it's our inability to listen to each other. it's our inability to find common ground to move forward. i hope this type of conversation is a model for going forward.

>> i would be remiss if i didn't say what i think is the biggest single miss but i don't think leaders in either political parties are talking about and should be. i am deeply concerned that we are in a serious conflict that we have become complacent about that that can't happen. it's slowly happening before our own eyes and we need a commander-in-chief who is expressly committed to keeping us out of world war iii to avoid making some of the mistakes we made in the post-9/11 era with iraq and afghanistan.

james: the first segment is on the economy. this question is for you. when we talk about -- when we talk about different ways of measure negative economy, there are a million different ways you can use. the unemployment rate, with the dollar stands, average income, inequalitily gaps, g.d.p. what is the single most important metric you use to figure out how the economy's going? rep. ramaswamy: well, i'll make it very simple here's what's

wrong with the economy. you get a lot of statistics from the white house that will try to teach you that we're doing great in terms of the economy and bidenomics has been a success. prices are going up. interest rates that include mortgage rates to buy a new home or otherwise. they're going up and rages have remain flat. what do you do to address it? it's not that complicated. increase the supply of everything that's worth producing in the united states. increase the supply of energy, drills, fracks, nuke energy that brings costs down and drives economic growth. bring housing costs down by increasing the supply of energy so people can build more new homes, bring the price of housing down. same thing with respect to food. and the net result is going to

be net result. those regulations coming have constrained the production of energy, the production of food, that's driving prices up. it's constraining economic growth. we know how to do this. the climate agenda or elsewhere but the clear problem is high prices, high interest rates, stagnant wages. get the regulatory state out of the way. take the wet blanket off that economy. stop paying people more money to stay at home instead go to work. and the ultimate depressing factor here against the structural issue is the $33 trillion national debt. the interest rates on that national debt are going become the single largest line item in just a few years. and in this case, we need to bring zero base budgeting. i don't know where you are on this. start with not last year's budget, start with zero as the baseline and then ask what's

necessarily necessary. c.e.o.'s like me, that's how we run our businesses. that gets us out of our economic malais and people tend to be proud of the country. james: what's the biggest metric for you? rep. khanna: the working class and the middle class doing better? but first, let's talk about the success of this president. its subjective process. you have 13 million jobs created, which is the largest ever in any administration. i'm glad they were recovered. yes, 70% of those jobs were recovered within two and a half years and that was because of the american rescue plan. but because we're having a disagreement, identify areas where vivek and i disagree what i call economic patriotism. they have been hollowed out in

north country, in manchester, we lost textile mills. we lost factories, we lost steel. why did that happen? it's because other governments were willing to fight for those jobs. they were willing to say we are going to put money in with the private sector and labor to build industry that's how we built america, with hamilton, with lincoln, with f.d.r. that's what we're going the chip sec. that's how we're getting semiconductors back into ohio. for republicans, some of the views we've adopted, they see any problem and they say let's cut taxes let's deregulate. how is that put the steel plant up in johnstown, pennsylvania, by cutting taxes and deregulation? it hasn't happened in 40 years. the deficit was caused by three things. by reagan's tax cuts, bush's tax

cuts and trump's tax cuts. take that back. start investing in american industry and that's what's going to have broader economic growth. that's what i call economic patriotism. i love patriotism. so we're not going to have patriotism if we don't have a vision for economic empowerment. if we don't have a vision for people who don't have health care get health care. where people have a shot at the american dream. just saying let's study the founders, let's ophelia to rhetorics isn't going to give us a point. rep. ramaswamy: i do think that for somebody and we have this in common who is opposed to term limit, it is regrettable to be carrying the water of joe biden when everyday americans know they're suffering at the hands of policies that came from this administration. i know you said you opposed fracking.

i don't think the constraints everyday americans. it's constraining our economy. that is what's driving inflation. the sector with the greatest growth in jobs is none other than government. so this is not actually driven by increases in productivity. it's taping over a band-aid and yes, i do agree. we need to stay out of foreign wars. $7 trillion of our national debt are attributable just to iraq and afghanistan. that is a disaster and i for one because i don't come from partisan policy have no problem dashing my own party when they're responsible for it. and we come around to supporting the same thing all over again and in afghanistan, 2.0 in the

middle east and we're about to make those same mistakes again. here's our economic malais, address it without those partisan felters and that's going to taking a c.e.o. to accomplish that. james: we are running overtime for the first 10 minutes. i do want to do one more question though. because you obviously both really disagree on this idea and i want to get into it. what are your proposals in the campaign. i'll ask you this, ro -- congressman khanna, is to cut the federal bureaucracy by 75% staff model. rep. khanna: yes. james: why? rep. khanna: it's a horrible idea because you need it to be able to build. that's how we're building the semiconductor industry. they said a couple -- vivek said

if you want to reverse the deficit, reverse the bush tax cuts, reverse the reagan tax cuts the second point is on economic growth. the growth that we're going to get is by investing in our people and investing in our working class. it's not by cutting the department of education you cut the department of education here and look at the impact on public schools in new hampshire with already those relying so deeply on funding for the department of education. you cut the department of education and what are you going tell the kids who gets some funding for public college or apprenticeship that already costs too much? let me just finish this which i've never understood. you're a thoughtful guy with great education. i never understood the obsession on fossil fuels and here's my point. it would be like someone saying

i love the risk watch. don't give me a -- wristwatch. don't give me a smartwatch. i love the flip phone. don't give me a smartphone. new hampshire pays $70 more on its electricity bill than any other new england state. you know why? the reason why you guys pay $70 more is because you get more of your energy from natural gas. and you don't sit on natural gas. you got to ship it all the way. if you had solar and wind, it would be cheaper. it would be saving new hampshires money. why not evaluate money on its impact. use it. no one's saying don't use any fossil fuels. i grew up here. rep. ramaswamy: i want to the administrative state point. to the fundamental education, you have a point to decide. $80 billion of our taxpayer money is going a agency when

federal education is -- we need to shut that down and return the $80 billion back to parents and states across this country. so every child and every parent is able to choose where they go to school. now, i favor school choice on steroids. here's the dirty little secret on education. how about this one. if you're switching from a poorer performing school to a better performing school, 90% of a time, that is to a school that spends less money per student. i think every kid and every parent should be able to take half the difference with them. that kid graduates from high school with a $250,000 graduation gift. it's not even close, which is a better head start then american dream rather than feed the teachers union bureaucracy or feed the federal employees union

in washington, d.c. so they should run the government not the bureaucrats. we're going to cut 75%. rep. khanna: i'm a product of public education and 90% of kids go to public education. there's only one thing i would ask people here to read. it is from jackson he did a study. it refuted the coleman report where he showed the more you fund public education, the more it increases test scores, the more it increases wages. it's so obvious that we want to fund public education. i was surprised someone had to study about it. but you do it and you do it in a way that is going to invest in our country. if we want to beat china and we're not investing in education, we got an $800 billion -- james: thank you for that. foreign affairs is next. ok. this question is for congressman

khanna. some doctrines, we can put on a bumper sticker. obama's pivot to asia. america first. didn't say his name. rep. ramaswamy: george washington would be his name. james: fair enough. ok. congressman, you were to simplify your vision of american foreign policy in a bumper sticker, what would it be? rep. khanna: responsible engagement. and i will tell you where vivek and i differ. i started my political care running against the iraq war. i got crushed. i was the first anti-iraq war primary. i opposed the extended stay in afghanistan. i opposed the strike to libya. i am not for overseas militarily that don't make sense in our strategic interest. and i love what bernie san, the effort on the war powers to stop

the bobbling. -- bombing. but that does not mean that we should not be involved. we need two involved -- need to be involved in that. james: bumper sticker. rep. ramaswamy: american interest here's the answer. i have one a moral obligation as a father and to my two sons to my family. have one a moral obligation as the next president and is to the citizens here in our homemade -- home planned period. we study history. world war i. major conflict across the world

that killed millions upon millions. so my view is that we agree on staying out of iraq or an extended stay in afghanistan but so many of the democrats and also republicans who may have agreed to that in the past are now marching us into those same conflicts just because russia's bad does not mean that ukraine is good. russian speaking regions that are occupied. either you believe in democracy or you don't. in the middle east, i worry about another conflict with u.s. presence. our top enemy is communist china. so so much my foreign policy in a nutshell. what reagan said about the ussr. we win, they lose. that dilute ours focus on what actually threatens the american homeland. avoid world war iii, declare independence from china and

protect the homeland in the u.s. from border defenses to cyber to missile defenses. that's what we're missing and that's where my focus would be. rep. khanna: i don't want to be like nikki haley and just put you down in some way. i want to engage you to try to understand -- convince my point of view. americans' interest requires american leadership. i believe you're sincere about not wanting china to win. you know, i ask to meet with our c.i.a. director. and i know you don't love the agency. williamsburg is respected across the aisle. the biggest deterrent in china is what's happening in ukraine can. you want us to win and prevent china from saiding taiwan, we need to make sure that ukraine isn't gobbled up by putin. now -- rep. ramaswamy: i did let you

get away with that. rep. khanna: i want you to respond because this is a deep difference and i want to engage instead of just saying someone doesn't know foreign policy. here is the point on ukraine. if you allow putin to take some of ukraine, what are we going to do? should we sarajevo ping take some of taiwan? of course not. but you have to look at the condition that we're there where nixon did that. the soviet union had 39 battalions on kind's border. they had a border war in -- rep. ramaswamy: i know history. rep. khanna: there was a totally different concept. right now, you've got putin saying that gigi ping -- ping, the idea is that china's depending on putin for energy

and the idea that appeasing putin by giving up ukraine is going to get him out of the china alliance go to the united states is just not realistic. rep. ramaswamy: so here's where i think it takes an outsider. here's how we're paving for china to go after taiwan. put yourself in ping's shoes. russia and china are in a military alliance with one another. russia has greater nuke capabilities -- nuclear capabilities. let me finish. this is an issue i know a lot about. a 2001 treaty of cooperation. they have a no limits partnership running joint exercises today. back to the point. ping's bet right now is that the u.s. won't want to go to war with two allied nucleared

superpower at the same time. and ping will have to think twice before he goes after taiwan. so my view is that we can use the end of the ukraine war as a chance to do what we should have done long ago, pull russia apart from china, say that n.c. state will never -- nato will never admit ukraine to nato. nato would not extend one inch past east germany. require in return that russia and china split up their kinks in their armor. not allowing china to fash railroad. there are kinks in that armor. but it's not going to come from somebody in the establishment of either party. it's going to taken a outsider to get that deal done. james: we got to move on a little bit quicker. i do think -- rep. khanna: we've been very

quick. james: to both parties. rep. ramaswamy: what needs to be done? that's what we need to be done. rep. khanna: i just think you should at some point get a briefing because you're running. get a briefing. they will tell you that standing up to putin and not appeasing him is the biggest deterrent for ping. they studied this and the idea that ping who is saying that there is no more intimidate friends than putin and putin who harbors resentment with the united states, the idea that we're somehow going to split his friendship ping and get him to be friends with us without compromising every value america has is --

rep. ramaswamy: this is how we're going to advance american interest. instead of -- james: this is so good. i love this. we're way over time. so less contentious issues. israel. [laughter] mr. ramaswamy, i hear repeatedly again and again you are saying people do not listen to your position. so, again, can you quickly get into what should america do as relating to this israeli-hamas war? rep. ramaswamy: so being that our time is constrained,

everybody take a look at the speech in las vegas. it is more pro israel view than anybody the republican party. but it's different than the standard party approved talking points. my view is israel has an absolute right to its own national self-defense. that's the answer. that's what the founder of israel, the george washington of israel would tell them. the u.s.'s job is to provide israel a diplomatic iron dome so israel can pursue its own national defense. but without the u.s. getting militarily involved in this war which is going to be good for neither israel nor for the united states getting our ground troops involved in yet another prolonged no win war for the u.s. in the middle east. that's how we keep our lines clear. give iran an ultimatum. let the idea do the job on its

own. we shouldn't be there in the first place. if we have no strategic reason to be in iraq or syria, follow through and get them out so we can focus on the real issues here in our homeland and with china. james: go ahead, congressman. rep. khanna: i agree in one part after the brutal attacks then innocent civilians israel has the right to go after the hamas perpetrators. and it was the viral quote that you said. you said you want the hamas leaders on stakes and at the gaza border. rep. ramaswamy: if israel wants to do that, they should be able to do it. rep. khanna: we have a difference in terms of leadership you. said oh, i'm carrying the water for biden. i view the world in more nuance. and we need that nuance on

foreign policy. he didn't want to incite more violence against america or the world. and if we were to put hamas leaders on stakes -- if israel were to do it, we should tell them absolutely not. because already, christopher wray is saying there are heightened threats to muslim americans here. you have a very important platform, vivek. i think you should take that back or at least call for some kind of reason. one point though on israel and where we do disagree on the involvement, i agree with you. we should not get involved in the war we need american leadership we want need the leadership that your party, actually, james baker started. if america is involved and we can move to a two-state

solution, bill clinton almost completed it at camp david we ignored the palestinian issue. and we tried to do the round of palestinians, that is not a plausible solution. i don't want china leading in the middle east. i don't want russia leading in the middle east. i want our aid to israel and egypt so that america leads. i don't know if it'll be joe biden but an american president is the best shot for peace in the middle east. rep. ramaswamy: my goal is to lead here at home and i do not think that further deep engagement the middle east advances our interest. so israel is an ally. what does that mean? you let an ally defend themselves as they deem fit. so my point was i laid out an array of options is i wouldn't get in israel he's way? they wanted to pursue. but our objectives are how do we protect our homeland here? is it that can happen in israel and that was a security breach

of a large scale we have not seen in 50 years. it was something that israel missed. if israel can miss that, that can happen right here at home in the united states of america. so i can care less about leading in the middle east. i care more about protecting americans right here at home. and the last point is on engagement in the middle east. we screwed up and here's something that maybe you agree with me on this. but neither party is talking about and both parties need to own up to. almost undoubtedly and one of the catalyst, they won't tell you i'm wrong about this either. one of the catalysts for what happened was the u.s. led by biden but republican senators along him, leading discussions about nuclear technology transfer to saudi arabia badly upsetting existent balance of power in the middle east. the fact that that happened this summer and on october 7, you have an attack on israel. we have to confront the reality that every time we stick our

nose in the middle east, it's like somebody walking into a glass shop. it's a bull in a china shop. and we leave a mess behind. that's afghanistan and that will not happen again on my watch. so this responsible engagement, i believe that you can come from a good place. i really do believe that and it is earnest but that has become the consensus of both parties in washington, d.c. it's going to taken a outsider for call ought the truth for what it is. our engagement in the middle east has been horrific and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. let our allies defend itself and move out for what protects the american interest. rep. khanna: there is no excuse. there is no justification. there is no policy failure to explain hamas's brutal terrorist attack on israeli civilians.

biden's has nothing to do with republican policy. that is has to do with hamas's terrorism that needs to be condemned. i'm not in favor of the saudi nuclear transfer but i don't think that justice -- rep. ramaswamy: of course it doesn't justify it. rep. khanna: let me just say. let me finish. not in the concept -- rep. ramaswamy: we can't talk about it. rep. khanna: but let me point this out. i believe you love this country can. rep. ramaswamy: i think we all do. that's why we're here. rep. khanna: but why do you have such an impoverished vision of america that the only thing america is going to do is a provincial of its own interest? i don't think it's in our own interest. but don't you think america has an obligation to care about human rights? when we're seeing the bombings of people in gaza dying and don't have food and water, shouldn't that be an american

obligation? your republican speakers putting up a bill and not a single dollar to people in gaza. you know what makes american great? we believe in the dignity of human rights of people around the world. if that were different -- rep. ramaswamy: we are in that example at home. rep. khanna: but you're taking foreign policy blunders and i agree with you on those blunders but the answer is not to retreat into isolatism. the answer is not forget what we did in the cold war. it's standing up for freedom. it's to say let's learn from the mistakes of not overextending -- rep. ramaswamy: the george washington vision is 1796 farewell speech is the way we set an example for the world is to be that example right here at home. what hope does the free world have is america itself is weak at home as we are today? it borders crisis proportion.

an economy that is struggling since the jimmy carter era. a dependence on china for a modern way of life. so we need to be that shining city on a hill. and the way we need to do it is being strong at home and setting an example at home. that what is makes america great and that will make george washington proud and that's the standard i use. whether the founder of this this country, would he be proud or would he will appalled? rep. khanna: this is why you should switch to the democrats. as the person who did both was fdr. he could walk into -- at the same time. that was a democrat, by the way, who led the free world and got us out of the depression because he believed in having the state

work with the private sector, industrialize america and american values should be held abroad and he fought for the human rights. he was the most, successful president of the 20th century. james: your difference is very different on the economy and foreign policy. one area that you do agree on is political reform. congressman khanna, off new bill out last month. you can go to them quickly and we can discuss it. rep. khanna: no, i agree it and i appreciate vivek's support of this. this could be bipartisan. it's pretty simple. get money out of politics. no lobbyist money. no super packs. have term limits. have members of congress not become lobbyists. have some term limits for supreme court justices. there's a senator here, a great senator jeanne shaheen who

opposed an amendment so that you wouldn't have thank you super p.a.c.'s that will bloody you up. i'm hoping maybe you'll support the sheheen amendment. that would get rid of the super pack and i appreciate your support. rep. ramaswamy: $3300 for a person in the primary. and most of the money being spent in this primary right now in the republican primary is being spent by super p.a.c.'s, billionaires that other candidates are liking the boots of every day. every politician and i'm sure you'll agree with me. basically every politician dances to the tune of their

biggest donor. and that's why i'm able to say this. we should end the super p.a.c. if you're going to advocate for specific candidate, then you're subject to the same $3300 limit. if you want to advocate for the general issues, you have free speech in this country. it's easily fixable. no lobbying for at least 10 years until after you've left. i wish every politician who leave office, just do it by building your own business rather than using your own government connections as they do today. so, the only thing i would say is on term limits. this is one that we can get done and i would encourage you to at least elevate even with the democratic party a discussion about term limits for the bureaucracy. this is something i can get done as your next president. it isn't going to happen because it requires the very people in congress who benefit from that corruption to pass and that's what's not going to happen.

but here's what i can get down the president. as the next president, we can implement eight-year term limits a as norm for most position necessary federal bureaucracy and it makes sense. if i can't work for you for more than eight years as your next president and i believe is a good thing, then neither should most of those federal bureaucrats reporting in for me either. the people who we elect to run the government, they're not even the ones exercising political power. that keeps the lifeblood in washington, d.c. fresh. it's going to take a c.e.o. in the white house to be able to implement that but that should be something that would make our founding fathers proud because the administrative state wasn't written into the constitution. and that's the kind of political reform that i do think we can get done with the successful election of the right president in 2024. rep. khanna: i have to add that quote.

i ale agree with you. [laughter] rep. ramaswamy: critical. rep. khanna: if you got behind something like that, that will get rid of the super p.a.c. here's the thing on the civil service though. too many people in this country are beating up civil servants. i know it's not popular to defend staff at the homeland security. first of all, we need people more than eight years to understand what's going on in ukraine and china can. i've been on the armed services committee. i've been there seven years. i learned so much. so much for the civil service. and they're not making the millions of dollars in silicon valley that some of my constituents are. they're downing this because they love the country. i just want to stand up for them because i know it's popular in terms of demonizing them. rep. ramaswamy: i'm not demonizing them. rep. khanna: no, no. rep. ramaswamy: i'm not demonizing anybody.

then you ebb to a false debate. can a bureaucracy compromised of good people still be waste. at a scale that leaves americans holding the bag? and i do not think it's the job of our federal government to provide employment opportunity for millions. they should fill the open jobs in the private sector, reduce the size of that federal bureaucracy by 7 # 5% and everybody will be better off. rep. khanna: if you expand silicon valley said good leaders take people and recruit great people. great leaders take people and make them great. what we need is presidents who will inspire the essential federal workforce and i think they can. when we've had great presidents like john f. kennedy and fdr and brahma, they've seen that talent -- barack obama and they've seen that talent. james: climate. there was a recent poll from

yale and george mason found that republicans found cite are shifting and one out of three republicans think that climate change should be declared a national emergency. are they right or wrong? rep. ramaswamy: i'm not one of those three republicans. james: one out of three. rep. ramaswamy: so i believe fact matter here. ok? are global surface temperatures going up? yes. is that owed to some man made causes? likely. however, this is not an existential risk to humanity and eight times as many people are going to die this year of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. in the 1970's, the warning of climate change was an ice age. look at the cover of "newsweek." today they won the other direction. the number of people who died from tornadoes, heat waves and so on. down by 98% over the last century. why? owing to fossil fuels. the earth is more covered by green surface area coverage today than it was a half century

or a century ago. why? because carbon dioxide is plant food. so what we have to do is confront the fact and ask ourselves are the climate change policies hurting us more than climate change itself? and i think they are. and so my view is this. yes, we should ask what advances human prosperity, human flushing. don't ask what minimizes our impact on the climates. ask what -- even in the face of changing circumstances including the climate itself and that means using all of american made energy including fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas and i will not apologize for that. rep. khanna: it requires a livable planet. that's the premise of human flushing. we need a -- flourishing. i need a planet. i had one of the young folks say ro, you don't have to convince people in new hampshire that climate change is real or that it's an existential threat you

all know you saw the flood in new hampshire and vermont. this is not anecdotal, by the way. the american scientific has shown that the extreme weather evene e cause of increasing temperatures. you know what they'll do to new hampshire and to tourism here. you think new hampshire's scene is going to be around? you know what they will do to dairy farming and productivity. you know what lit do to your electricity bills. people saw what it did in maui. i mean, we don't have to convince the american people that climate change is a major threat. if you're a data person, read the deloitte report. $14 trillion. first of all, we have the record oil production right now under president biden. that's just a fact. so what policies are we talking about that have impacteded adversely? the ira hasn't even started to be implemented.

all i'm saying is we can disagree but maybe we can disagree. you probably won more fossil fuel infrastructure. but can you at least acknowledge this? that we should be open in a $9 trillion energy market to innovation and if we can come up with new technology that is cleaner and better, why not? and why would we want all of that to go to china? i'm opened to some forms of nuclear, but you keep saying the nuclear, nuclear, it will be 20% and most of it is not economical. so here's i guess is my question. why do you have a problem with america also leading its solar in wind, in clean forms of energy? rep. ramaswamy: i do. i think that there's an opportunity here for innovation. i love innovation. natural gas and fracking, horizontal drilling was a great source of american innovation that's been a source of prosperity to when we export natural gas but the real

opponents are the ones who oppose to natural gas. i consider a clean form of energy. i've developed five -- i love innovation. a lot of the mistake in policy. here's my issue with the climate change agenda. it has nothing to do with the climate, actually. and i could prove that to you. the same people who will howl about reducing carbon emissions scoped three emission caps the united states saying nothing as shifting to products to china. chevron is bought up by petrol china. last time i checked, it was supposed to be global warming. i will tell you this. even if you subscribe to the core tenants of this, methane leakage is worse in china than it is here. not only is the net neutral is worse, and do i think it's

hypocritical that many of the opponents of fossil fuels, are also the biggest opponent of nuclear energy which is the greatest form of carbon-free energy known to man. the nuclear regulatory commission since it was created, we have not seen the creation or the construction of a new nuclear power plant the u.s. the only country is in china. so this is hypocrisy all the way down and we have to ask the question of what advances american flourishing will advance human flourishing rather than measuring one metric of carbon emission? [applause] rep. khanna: president biden inflation reduction act and infrastructure bill gives a lot of money to develop nuclear technology. and actually helps expedite it. if you read the bill. it calls for -- the problem isn't regulatory. it's easy to just say the

problem is -- the problem is the economics. rep. ramaswamy: ro, read the facts. rep. khanna: the problem is the economics and i guess my point is the panel of climate change, president biden, myself there, are a lot of people who believe in climate change who are open to nuclear. and tomorrow, we had fusion, elon musk said we have fusion. it's called sun. if we have fusion, great. we've been chase thought holy grail for 50 years. let's develop all of the alternatives. rep. ramaswamy: i'm not against developing an alternative. rep. khanna: that's what president biden's inflation act does. rep. ramaswamy: i think this could be useful in washington. three to five years with the time it took to construct a new nuclear power plant. that's how long it takes in places like japan and france today. after that body was created, it's 25-40 years. that is not because you all

elected congressman who voted for that policy. it's because somebody who was never elected decided they don't want nuclear energy in the united states. it is about flogging ourselves in what has become a modern cult, apologizing for your modern way of life and that's what it's going to take to revive this infrastructure. james: we're out of time. i want to get to the future of america. this last topic, you guys wanted to address. what do you fantasize america looking like in 2050? by 25050, texas will be the largest populated state in the country. it will be a majority minority country. more of the ethnic. clearly we have two indian americans on the state. american indians with kamala harris and nikki haley in the race. asians are the fastest growing

segment in the united states. what does the future of america look like? i believe the question goes to you. if you had your way. rep. khanna: i'm very hopeful about the future of america. i'm hopeful and i see the young people. i'm hopeful when i think of my own life story. when i was growing up in bucks county, pennsylvania, my parents could not have met a staff member to a member of congress. today, there are five south asians in the united states congress. this is a country of progress. but you know what i think we need over the next 10, 20 years? we need an american production renaissance. if we revitalize our economy in this country, if we bring back the new deal that's also going to have lower carbon footprint, we bring back the modern aluminum production, new technology jobs to historically black colleges, if we bring economic opportunity to every community so they can build wealth and people can live in

places that they love, they can make us a preeminent economic leader and i want every american the chance that this country gave to vivek and i. my parents were middle class. my dad was an engineer and my mom was a substitute teacher. i could go a good public school. i got lucky and went to silicon valley and did well. but i had the basics. why can't we do that in this country? medicare for all. free public college. how are you going pay for it? reverse praying, trump, bush tax cuts! put their money in giving and working middle class family a shot at the american dream. that's how we bring this country together. rep. ramaswamy: i'm glad to hear that we also may share at least a longer run bright future for america even if we disagree about the path that get us

there. we're taught to believe that we're this nation in decline, that we're at the end of the old romaine empire and we have to fight over the scraps of a shrinking power. i don't think we to will be be ancient rome. i say this as young person, as a nation, i think we're really just a little young right now. actually going through our version of adolescence. we're going through hard times. it's not morning in america. it's not. but it can be again. i think we can still be a nation in our aconsent and the way we're going to get there is reviving this thing called merit in the united states of america. what is merit? each of us has a god-given girlfriend. they're not the same. we have different god-given gifts but america allows you to achieve the maximum of your god-given potential without anybody standing in your way. so what's my dream for 2050?

that we'll tell our kids and our grandkids that the united states of america is still the nation where no matter who you are, or where your parents came from or what your skin color is, or how long your last name is, in some of our case, that you still get ahead in this country with your own hard work, your own commitment, your own dedication, and that you are free to speak your mind at every step of the way and yes, that is the american dream. and it is not alive and well. it's on life support right now but it will be alive and well in 2050 again. it will be sooner if we all step up and do our part. i want to thank you for engaging in that discussion. thank you. james: thank you. we have one more question. this has been awesome. this has been really great. the audience agrees. this has been awesome. [applause] rep. ramaswamy: thank you. james: one last, a few seconds, closing statement. what do you want to polarize

america to take away from this past >> here is the thing. i think we would celebrate our diversity and differences for so long, we forgot all of the ways that we are the same as americans. found by a common set of ideals. we hate -- we have the same state ofmelanin.on this stage diversity only matters if there something greater that unites us across that diversity. without that, we are to leg and higher mammals walking some geographic space mccauley country, doing what our iphones tell us to. america is a vision of what our place can be. e pluribus unum means from many,

one. i believe those ideals still exist, even though i disagree with my friend here on a lot of things. i believe in his heart and the people who voted for him share those basic ideals. we might disagree on corporate tax rates but we agree on meritocracy, free speech, the pursuit of excellence, self-governance over aristocracy. i'm calling the bluff on the artificial myth of national division. those of you in the audience are not nearly as divided as the media in the back of this room would teach you to believe that we are. we share the ideals of the american revolution in common. it is up to us to move beyond celebrating diversity and celebrate the ideals that unite us. that is why i am optimistic we will succeed. thank you. [applause] >> i love the media.

[laughter] let me thank you because you have lived up to your terms of keeping this a civil conversation. i think we need to do more. it was a risk to do this, running, and i appreciate you and james. i guess what i would say is, i do not think history started with you or me. i have the same aspiration, but recognize the struggles of race and the struggles of people who have fought for that more perfect union. if we were going to teach history properly in america, and one reason we should -- some of you have heard me say this, i would lead with a speech by red rick douglas -- frederick douglass. after 20 years of being enslaved , chooses not to speak out for black americans. he chooses to speak out for chinese-americans in 1869.

he says i believe in the free era where people can come from all different backgrounds, faiths and cultures and we will become a composite nation. since then, we have heard -- we have had the internment of japanese americans. we have had our parents not being able to come here, profiling of african-americans -- profiling after 9/11. two young people, we have come too far to turn back. we have come too far to turn back when i look at the young people in congress. maxwell frost, jasmine crockett, it gives me hope. when i look at this young generation, it gives me hope. our work is hard, but our work is to vindicate douglass'vision and the more conversations like this that we have, the better shot we have of doing that. james: gentlemen, thank you very

much. [applause] [indiscernible conversations] [indiscernible conversations]

[indiscernible conversations]

[indiscernible conversations]

>> do you wish the rnc would allow this to happen? >> my general rule of thumb. the more, the better. more speech is good. the answer to bad speech is not more speeches. [indiscernible] >> thank you so much. >> i appreciate it.

how are you doing, man? pretty good. how have you been, man? thank you for coming out. thank you. i am going. yeah. have a good one. we will be there. we will not hold back. good to see you. >> my friend could not be here. could you record a quick message saying hi to him? >> ben, we will see you soon. thank you so much. oh, you did? good to see you guys.

yes, yes, we do right now. yes, absolutely, yes. [indiscernible conversations] >> thank you, i appreciate it. how are you doing, man? absolutely. thank you. how have you been, man? good to see you. one quick one. >> yeah, yeah. got to get out of here. [laughter] thank you for coming. >> i appreciate it. good to see you, brother. how have you been? good, good. we are going to do a little press right here. thank you. good to see you again, man.

who are you with? ok. thank you. speak freely and stay proud. [indiscernible] >> thank you man, i appreciate it. thanks for coming. i appreciate it. good to see you, man. i appreciate that. means a lot to me. we speak the truth and it means a lot to me to earn your trust.

let me get a picture. it means a lot. thank you. are you going to join us for the interview? first endorsement to us. thank you, thank you. >> i just have to tell you, superquick. >> yeah. i just need to bring him over. i am bringing them over one by one. let's start by you. >> good to see you again. what was this conversation up here like today? >> a continuation of what we are doing this entire campaign. talk to everybody. i do not just talk to people who agree with me. i am a free speech supporter. i am grateful. it was a great conversation that shows we americans in this country share a common value at

our core. we disagree on the details. we have vigorous disagreements. i will talk to left or right, it does not matter. that is what it is going to take to revive this country. >> you said during the debate, you had seen bipartisan ideas in washington work. that is basically saying, progress cannot happen. which specific ideas? >> look at the iraq war. it was a partisan. look at the extended stay in afghanistan. it was bipartisan but added that and cost. i am not going to repeat those mistakes in the future. i am in this to put american interests first. there are people outside of politics who are in favor of that vision, to. >> i will keep us out of world war iii. i am worried we are marching into major conflict. my foreign policy is, keep

american interest first. that is what it is going to take to unite this country. we are seeing many independents, they do not want war in either. >> you guys disagreed on middle east policy. if elected, how would you work with congressman the like ro khanna? >> i think i persuaded him of a few things today. i think we are going to bring along people who thought they believe in one thing but realize that it was not the right policy to get to the shared goal of what advances american prosperity. many people we are seeing in this campaign are college students. we are bringing young people along at a scale we have not seen in the republican party. that is what makes this opportunity unique in this campaign to do something traditional republicans have not done. i am proud to have earned my friends endorsement today. he switched from another candidate to me. >> i'm switching my endorsement.

i believe he is the right man. keeping us out of these continuing wars. it might be trump back in the day, but much more well spoken, more intellectual, he does not want to keep us in ongoing wars and he is following reagan's commandment. i do not see him trashing other republicans. i am tired of hearing us republicans trashing each other. vivek is doing a great job. >> after pulling 4% in iowa and new hampshire, how do you turn the tides? >> my campaign, we have not spending at a scale of airwaves, television advertisements, the super pac's are buying for other candidates. i am a candidate who is not bought and paid for by the super pac. the super pac's are a cancer on american lives. we are entering the couple final

months of the race. we have got to step up the investment and investment of time, the grassroots movement that we have laid the seeds for. that is going to pay off as we head into the final two months. i have confidence we will be successful in iowa and new hampshire that will lead us to success nationally. our primary base is hungry for an outsider. i think will become the party that regularly puts an outsider in the white house. i think poll numbers miss the vast majority of people -- especially in iowa, people who have never participated in a republican caucus before are not the ones who get cold. we are going to deliver a surprise result. i think that is going to propel us to success thereafter. >> a few others will not be on the debate stage. does that help you? >> i hope so. i called for the debate field to be thinned out.

we have a lot of people represented -- representing sherrick conservative -- bush era conservatism. debates are more useful where we are smoking up divisions on policy and the republican party. i have a clear vision of where we are going to lead us. there is a choice between the past in the future. i am leaving us to the future of the republican party, the future of this country. it is going to take a different generation. i think somebody with fresh legs, from outside of politics to lead us there. that is what i am doing and i look forward to the debate next week. >> you just debated someone who was not running for president. tell us about why you chose to do that. >> my general policy is practicing what i preach. what i preach is, talk every buddy. he challenged me on twitter, my

general view is, i say yes when asked for more conversation. more conversation is good for our country. we need more of it within the republican party. i do not think it is a good move the rnc is trying to have -- i do nothing it serves voters. my philosophy is more conversation is better. i think we need more open debate, not less. i can't say that while not practicing what i preach. when he asked me to do this, i said as long as he was able to logistically make it work and have a discussion -- we are not having a conversation like that in either political party. i think it is the formula to reviving our country. >> you think -- >> i think the climate change agenda is a hoax. i said the climate change agenda is a hoax. among vested interests include

china who is using this to constrain the united states while being unshackled in its own right. this is one of the levers that china is using to catch up to the united states and close the gap of economic progress between the u.s. and china. it appears to be watching -- it appears to be working. [overlapping conversations] >> virtually every other party in the world believes in climate change. why is it that it is different around the world? >> i am not a product of particular partisan assembly line. i am giving you my independent perspective. i think there is a disconnect between the consensus of the ecosystem and actual science. starting with the science, how much is carbon dioxide contributing to global surface

temperature increasing now versus 50 years ago. it flattens out. there are other ways we can measure the impact on human forcing. >> you feel like you know more than the scientists? >> i feel like i know more than the media and the political class consuming with the media feeds them, rather than going to the original sources. take a look at steve kunin's book. it is called unsettled. >> kind of the outlier, isn't he? >> alex epstein to steve kunin, read the actual science rather than skewing back an echo chamber in the media the political class has fallen for. i prefer to state the facts. i graduated the top of my class in molecular biology from harvard. i think there is a big disconnect between what the political class has to say versus what the facts support.

i do not prepare for this one. i took a short nap on the flight over here. that is what we have been doing this campaign is open conversation. frankly, it was a move that is not a conventional one but ro asked me on twitter, do you want to do this? my philosophy is, more conversation is better. talk to the other side, smoke out where we disagree and in some places like political reform, even areas we agree, that is what it is going to take to revive the country. i think the republican party needs to break out of the shell of 30 years ago and become a party where we are actually independently asking the question of how we lead this nation forward. how do we keep us out of world war iii?

how do we keep us out of foreign wars that do not advance american interest? i think it is going to take a different generation, a leader from that new generation, to lead us forward. i am proud to have earned a new endorsement today. >> you earned it. we got a switched endorsement today. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i do not know if you want to say a word about that. i will continue to do what we have always done, get to the bottom of my own convictions, have open conversations and probably get to miami tuesday night, we might do an event before hand. i do not believe in staged, orchestrated, prepping of individual positions. i would rather share my own convictions. i think i will be best off on that debate stage if i am unrestrained. that is when i am at my best. you can count on me to be unrestrained on that stage next week.

>> that has what i have seen with vivek. he knows the answers, he does not have to regurgitate old talking points. he is on top of it and intellectual and knows how to lead us forward. that is why in changed my endorsement to vivek. >> who were you previously endorsing? >> i was endorsing ron desantis. i have seen too much. i would call it vitriol, but i am tired of the republican party not following reagan's 11th commandment, too much attacking, good people and i have seen with vivek, he is not attacking. he is working through the problems, he is giving us the answers for the long-term and he is not a war hawk. he is going to keep us out of world war iii. it is one of the things i like about president trump and you like about president trump. he kept us out of war.

there is always little skirmishes. the whole world seems to be on fire now and we do not have to be concerned about that if vivek is president. >> why not endorse donald trump, then? >> vivek is the new leadership. he is intellectual. he does not have the problems that president trump is going through right now. he is going to be able to lead the country without baggage on the side that he does not have to fight off. people see vivek as a new candidate, a new face, fresh ideas, he is the man for the job. >> it is an important point. this is the divide in the republican party. foreign policy and the proclivity to war. do you want to go the direction of the past? dick cheney and gorge bush led foreign wars, escapades and i rock, afghanistan -- and iraq and afghanistan that added debt.

do you want thousands of innocent lives, people our age -- do you want that from the other candidates? i am not going to give you that. if you want a future where america advances out on interest in the way we serve the rest of the world is by setting an example and being strong at home , it is going to take a new generation of leadership to get us there. i said that on stage, i will say it here. i have one moral obligation as the next president to the citizens of this country. i think there is a divide and good people on the other side, earnestly have a different view of this. i think ro khanna is a good person. my view is we each have a moral obligation in our role. my responsibility to my family, my job as the next president is exclusively to this country.

that is how i am going to lead us accordingly. a few more questions and we will wrap up. >> used at the beginning of the debate, some of the worst ideas in washington rv park are -- some of the worst ideas in washington are bipartisan. >> the deep divide in american politics today is not between black and white, not even between republican and democrat. it is between the bureaucracy and the everyday citizens. as i said, the real problem in washington, d.c., the people we are electing are not making policy. it is the administrative state. that goes beyond political partisanship and it is going to take somebody coming from the outside. i am not a partisan hack. i voted libertarian in my first election. i am coming at this from the standpoint of how we revive our national identity. who are we as americans?

that goes beyond black, white, red or blue. i think i will be in the best position of anybody in either party to reunite this country. that is how we take our america first agenda to the next level. not even bipartisanship in the traditional sense, let's advance that to the next level. next question. >> you are going to hold more events in january and february. can you be more specific about what that is going to look like? >> we are going to stop at nothing until we went. it is going to ramp up. stay posted. it is going to be the tip of the iceberg is what you have seen so far. between now and january, i am confident we are going to be successful here and hampshire, giving us the momentum needed to carry this to the finish line. stay tuned. stay tuned. it is coming.

thank you. thank you. thank you. i appreciate that, i appreciate your trust. i am not going to let you down. you make your own, independent decision. that means something. we are not just playing a standard. [indiscernible conversations] >> thank you. i appreciate that. thank you. thank you very much. [laughter] good, good, good. tell her thank you. i appreciate that. thank you. i am glad you are here. [indiscernible conversations] >> good to see you again, man.

where are we going? [indiscernible conversations] you have been staying relaxed? good, good. >> i am sure you are crazy busy. >> thank you. i appreciate your voice here, man. where do you live again? >> south of boston. >> the wind in new hampshire here is going to be refreshing -- win in new hampshire is going to be refreshing. [indiscernible conversations] >> the only one i personally manage is my twitter. take care. yeah, sure.

[indiscernible conversations] [indiscernible conversations] >> bring him back. i would love that. tell your family hello, as well. >> can i grab a picture? thank you. caroline. >> you were great. thank you caroline. super proud of you. you did great. how are you doing? >> i am with ro. >> are you kidding me? where you do go to high school? >> north hills. >> you went to the smart school.

[laughter] >> got a little bit of everything. thank you. what was your name? appreciate you, man. i appreciate you. thanks a lot. take care. [indiscernible conversations]

>> thank