to have in all of the above policy because they need energy independence and right now he can't move away we can't move away from the energy sources that we have on any other renewable energy. that bridge i believe is being built on the solar energy, wind and geothermal. we will get there. it's going to take a while but have to have other sources as well. >> moderator: mcsally, same question regarding the renewable energy and fossil fuels. .. mcsally: i support aldinger keystone pipeline and getting access to the oil and gas reserves that we have an away that will help us. and i do not support the new apa rules that will have arizona

reduce carbon emissions by 52%. that is going to shut down some of our power plants here in southern dallas arizona and thas going to lose jobs in its reckless rule that is having oversight being provided to them by congress right now. we need a real all of the above strategy with the resources that we have that >> >> we will stay with the viewer question here about the situation of the middle east the is support the strategy for combating isis? ms. mcsally you have one minute ms. mcsally we

watched his regrowth and walk away from iraq as with fellow men and women in uniform we left syria into a failed state and obama leadership from behind is an oxymoron. he has failed to see the threat coming. it is now more dangerous than al qaeda ed before 9/11. and have 2 degrees and national security and also out that continent of africa from last job. islanders and we need all elements of national power. he is late to the game. this thread is very serious. nothing has been enough. queeney diplomatic economic informational instruments of power right now he is not taken seriously around the world the best thing we can do with background of national security that is what i bring because mr.

barber has no background. >>moderator: cd not agree with the president's current strategy? mcsally: he is late to the game and it is not enough. >>moderator: deal agree with the president's strategy aren't isis? barber: and since june of 2012 i have had the opportunity to meet with the chief of staff of the army air force and navy and marines. i know they have serious concerns about how we should proceed but before we left before the election season of bill to venture that this is the new name. what isis has done with the command structure and the many and 30,000 army that they need to be taken very

seriously. through tomahawk missiles and drones we need to do everything we can to dismantle and destroy this evil force in the world to make sure we protect the homeland before they come back here to do us harm. >>moderator: you agree disagree? barber: the president was late to the table quite frankly. is director the other day said we did not see it coming that we should have that is why we have to have vigilance and have a serious hearing questioning how we got to this point but absolutely we have to support what we do today the commander-in-chief and asks for our support in congress should come together in a bipartisan way to support the commander in chief.

is it enough? time will tell. i am concerned but we need to monitor and the president and department of defense on a short leash you have to come back before we do anything else. >>moderator: stay on isis. you disagree with the president's strategy what about boots on the ground? mcsally: it is the false discussion of boots on the ground we have them on the ground right now. to dividing the logistics' the advisory role we have got to be able to do what it takes. this is a false argument and talking about what he will not do is never smart talking about the enemy and they do have people fighting force we could provide air power to them from who they work with to make sure that they identify the target

with the damage assessments so we have got to address that in a way that allows them to take back their territory. after 9/11 i was overseas at the time we dropped in special forces to called the airstrikes with the indigenous forces. it is a false discussion and our commander in chief should not talk about that in front of our enemy. >>moderator: mr. barber? barber: you'll have to work hard to convince me to send men and women back into combat. this we have spent billions of dollars trying to help people in iraq. i want to see our troops come home. i believe we have to continue this strategy in

place to monitor closely. the department of defense are required to report regularly. let me say something else about the strategy. it is a multilevel strategy strategy, air attack to dismantle the infrastructure with the armor that isis has to prevent progress from iraq and syria. but we also need to stop the flow of money to teach -- isis caretaking $4 million per day by shipping oil we have to disrupt that. and then convince young americans they should not go there. >>moderator: you are out of time. we're getting a lot of questions on social media about the border. obviously where we sit right

now only 70 miles away. how would you define a secure border? be specific with measurable outcomes to define success and also the time table for reading that definition and mr. barber you have one minute. barber: the plan security committee that i sit on has already moved in that direction to get measurements in progress. the people i represent between douglas and the new mexico state line are at the mercy of the cartel every single day. we can change the strategy to get border patrol closer to the border in moving assets closer got 50 miles back that has to change but the act and i co-sponsored would say you must within a certain time come back with specific strategies and

measurements. but everybody has a different definition we need to have incredible congressional definition the only way is to talk to people who live on the border in the experience these issues every single day. if you don't have a strategy dubbed have measurements without engaging the ranchers and others of the border. >>moderator: what is a measurable success that would make the border secure? barber: the bill that we passed unanimously we needed the% control and to make sure we have close to 100 percent in those areas that is a very high risk area that is where we have to direct our attention to reduce illegal immigration. 47% on the southwest border of the tucson border that is

solely an acceptable we need to fix it when of the problems of the department of romance security and never has credible measurements. >>moderator: the same question so give us some specifics with measurable points. mcsally: as mr. barber said leading the effort to secure the border those ranchers that i talk to say he is feeling at the job you may have seen those commercials and they are tired and want something done. a border is not secure it is a safety issue in those ranchers are making their families safe so we needed different strategy border patrol is not at the border

with the assets that we have to monitor and intercept with manpower at the border. we do not even know the denominator is to get an operational assessment we need to rely on the local border residents and the ranchers. >>moderator: stay on border security for a moment you both call for better border security from drug smuggling and violence issues but it doesn't seem to address cheap labor what would you do about that demand? >> address saying's the root cause aside from the cartel

are immigration system is broken we have people and border communities who want to work then go back home at the end of the day but there is no easy way to do that the university of arizona professor was giving all ph.d. in science and technology 25 years and said there five u.s. citizens everyone else's foreigners but we train them here to compete we need to have a system with health or economic growth and we do that and address those root causes why we're in the situation in that we are we want to apply band-aids so that is what leadership will do. barber: you're absolutely

right there is the delivery of both drugs people paid under the counter the immigration border security bill that passed with bipartisan vote -- both is one that i could support of life to see a different aspect from our committee but i will take that bill bennett to the floor of the house that the leadership of the party we needed a temporary worker program i believe we need dead tree mac to come here to go to college or the military. to bring people out of the shadows to be paid legally with the background check that will make the budget

better. that is what i support that my opponent calls the mckean flake bill obamacare in the immigration that is mocking. >>moderator: what about the demand? barber: you have to crack -- crackdown on employers i believe we need to have more force meant for ice ages for those breaking though lot of the cave in flake bill would do just that but my opponent says she would not supportive but it is a good path for word ever leadership would only bring it to the floor. >>moderator: i will change topics going to medicare. with a key piece of the budget with the ryan budget and what it would do that

was your position as reported in 2012 but talk about it as you clarified earlier how do you reduce medicare spending? >> there was a bipartisan bill so when push comes to shove with nancy pelosi says yes you voted against it people who say one thing but they vote for something else the never supported broad the medicare plus $16 billion to pay for obamacare. when i called mr. barber he doubled down said those are not cuts to medicare is overpayments to the provider

he now knows he has a problem with seniors that is why he is on the attack. fisa for bringing the cost of health care down so it is affordable for us and i will do that when i get to congress. >>moderator: mr. barber she just said he will cut medicare you double down. can you defend that? had to reduce medicare spending? >> the false premise that my opponent put out one more time has to be dealt with. and the fact check organization it is absolutely faults -- falls below she repeated over and over. with the $716 billion cut she cannot have it both ways.

as far as what we need you do we have millions of dollars going out the door every single day because providers are fraudulent have to crack down like we did in florida not too long ago for those providers billing 500 million to medicaid. that is one way but we need to bend the curve of health care cost. look at the data clearly health care costs are coming down we will ruin this country if we don't bring it down. >>moderator: staying on health care, the key issue is veterans and the issue of veterans positions. are these issues that are your responsibility? what would you do to make sure that v.a. medical

system has more resources? barber: have taken that on no need to monitor the implementation of the veterans reform act that was passed close to unanimous by the house. we have done that. a guy with a lot of experience we need to make it more respective unresponsive. my father was the veteran to vietnam and world war ii he would be outraged if he was alive today at what we discovered in the phoenix v.a. system that was absolute corruption. people serving our veterans hiding them for bonuses. they've also given $10 billion to the v.a. system to contract out size of those living in rural

areas can get access to medical care in their community. it is not just talk but action. >>moderator: same question with veterans' health care. mcsally: for those who raise their right hand to serve of 85,000 others we have a covenant with them they put their lives on the line we will make sure we take care of them. what happened with the v.a. is dereliction of duty is that the national level. i get my a care from the health system and i get great care but the system allows the senior executives to benefit of veterans are struggling. serving in congress for three years under his watch that on memorial day said he knows that there has been systemic problems over six years. the people who complain and

know about them the leaders are those who act to get things done. we need to make sure we have more veterans in congress. less than 20 percent. i will go to congress to make sure veterans get the care they promised and deserve. >>moderator: staying with you as we begin to wind up up, you're recently endorsed by that and are a receiving the a rating. mcsally: imus the second amendment supporter i have shot, that we can agree we want to minimize and major gun violence is addressed in our communities. but the attacks in this campaign have been disgraceful their ads run by your ally that reconsidered viral and nasty by the

arizona republic we repeatedly asked you to stand up against them that you would not do it mr. barber day after day. they finally took the ad down because it was so horrendous. you have the opportunity to apologize and denounce that bad. day believe that was wrong? barber: i will respond with my time. mcsally: respond now. >>moderator: we have three seconds on the clock. what do you think of an ad and ownership of guns? barber: to be clear this is important to me with this second amendment and what happened to you more said it should happen to know woman i have two daughters and three granddaughters.

let me finish i want to make sure they're protected and you are protected. that add was not run by been. i will not talk about it but it was run by someone who is highly regarded in this community and that is gaby gifford. but that aside but she accepts the notion to have misdemeanors' stalkers from not having again but the problem is she still refuses to say we should expand background checks. 40% of the guns purchased are purchased outside of the background check system. >>moderator: now wrapping this up if congress continues to be unable to act or unwilling especially on things like immigration

should obama use executive power? one minute. barber: i believe there is way too much use not just by this president but presidents going back decades accumulation of power to take it away and congress allowing that to happen to you chip away at the checks and balances this country was founded on. congress has a responsibility to respond to the immigration and border security crisis. congress has to have their hands on it and do not believe the president should act alone he should come to congress and they should step up. john boehner neece to bring them became flake bill to the floor so that would pass in a heartbeat. and to put congress demands and any important issue like this. >>moderator: same question

mcsally: people a very frustrated what is going on in washington d.c.. it is so dysfunctional the president in both parties are to play my totally disagree with things that are but congress is willing to address these issues and the president is failing to lead. you then in congress three years people live very frustrated with that dysfunction people will make things happen instead of complaining with the leadership will do to make things happen to do the right thing to be a servant leader. all those a bit too decided they need to be hired or fired again we need to send people that will get things done. >>moderator: we have reached the end of time now

we go to closing statements that are 90 seconds. mcsally: washington is broken we can all agree on that. we change washington by changing to resend. also tonight tune out the attack ads to take a fresh look at your options. take a fresh look at me my background, my experience and what i have done to make a difference. take a hard look at mr. barber record. are you better off than you were three years ago? for most people the answer is no. it is time for change. character matters even those outside groups all you needed to do to say they were wrong. but silences consent but it is not just about issues but to say you sound like you want to get things done but how do i know you will not become like the rest of them

and buckle under pressure? candidate centcom will lot. when i deployed the my first six combat tours to the middle east i would walk by the duty desk and saw women muslim garb i started to ask questions for six years i fought on behalf of them. then they told me to sit in the back with the gurkha. i thought 13 months. >>moderator: you were out of time. barber: thank you for the media for having us here tonight in making an informative to the people in 2012 the city would be the independent voice in take

with almost lifelong time to be here with their roots to take better understanding with this district and that is why i believe i have done over the last two and a half years and would be deeply honored to go back and do with it again. the important thing is trust you know, who the candidates are. i believe people know who i am. a lot of different ways as a public servant people though ron. the misrepresentations. tuesday and was knighted meeting when i was? i have a document like to share it is the attendance sheet for the hearing of poland's security that she

says that was not present. clearly i was. this is the kind of misrepresentation my opponent has engaged in. i think the voters are smarter than that. >>moderator: we are out of time. thanks to both of you for coming. and to those of you to ending into night that concludes the your vote candidate forum for the arizona congressional district. have a good evening. ♪

>> in montana the seats at large have the first televised debate.

making it the largest congressional district with a population of just over 1 million residents. the republican is running against the democrat who was here is a brief look at that debate. >> my plan called for economic sanctions against isis. tell me how you put economic sanctions against the noneconomic state? maybe we should write a letter. the issue is isis is said danger and you need to have a three-pronged approach to shut down the southern border it is no longer immigration issue but a security threat a nation that can build a panama canal and the 19th century certainly can build a fence in the 21st. secondly unfortunately it will call for america to lead. you cannot control of isis by air alone. in the words of the

four-star general there is not a snowball's to hands and held that their operations will work and i agree. third also the limit to the ground forces and special forces to make sure the coalition's are inefficiently trained imminent involvement to make sure isis is destroyed. >> we already put to wars on the credit card would you be willing to support the war tax to support this perpetual war we are in? >> there are too clearly different approaches to this situation. i say we need to be responsible for this issue. no a letter will not get the job done but this is somebody who called for invading mexico a few weeks ago because there is an

american in jail in tijuana that is not the judgment i want representing me in congress. with the reaction to the president's announcement of air strikes to send more troops he also said a couple years ago that for the president announced women should serve in combat rules -- roles that is not the judgment we meeting congress. it is a good question how much will this cost? if it needs to be debated in congress. >> how would we pay for this? >> by having a strong economy. nav cost money. schools, infrastructure, tha t'll cost money and medicare and social security. we need a robust economy. i know you did not serve but

a marine has been languishing in a prison in mexico for over six months. every man and woman i have served and commanded both everyone a service in this country must ensure that america has their back and when they don't like in benghazi, like mexico it sends us symbol to every veteran america will not be there i did that advocate to invade mexico. i advocating for the president to do his duty to get the young marine back.

>> democratic governor governor hickenlooper and his challenger to a nine headed interview style debate. topics included the economy the gold marijuana use and minimum-wage it lists the race as a leading democratic. governor hickenlooper talks than economic record to reduce that unemployment rate than the 5.3% you have been critical of the record but what would be your first decision to reverse governor hickenlooper policies to go in a better direction? >> thank you for the

question but when i talk to people in colorado what holds them back they have clear answer of government it is of the people not buying for the people they consistently say regulation but also he has put on the books of with the federal government 100,000 pages of regulations per year if anybody wonders what is holding a cpac is we have not been regulated enough? i don't think so what we have to do first is freeze nonessential regulation if not public safety related if it is not pro jobber pro economic deeper taught -- opportunity get rid of it to say government is open for business by sending that message we can get all of colorado moving once more.

>>moderator: what about these? >> you cannot freeze the who regulation if you step back and we have now eliminated over 1500 to simplify over 5,000 regulations but we're trying to work with industry that they actually provide the safeguards that are necessary. i was the first day in america to regulate methane but we did not do that by imposing regulations that set down with the industry who agreed on definitions then have regulations that is a national model that is the challenge to have some regulation but how do you get rid of the red tape?

>>moderator: is nt write you cannot do that to alleviate that? beauprez: the governor of utah did exactly what i said frees money center regulations and that is what he has failed to do. we have grand junction and el paso county colorado springs had negative growth five years in to the us suppose it obama governor hickenlooper recovery we have had some decent recovery in the state a lot of the state is still wondering where is the recovery for them? five years later this ought to be a full employment economy and frankly we're to hundred thousand jobs short of normally where we would be with the full labor participation rate like colorado historically has but it has declined

2 percent on his watch. hickenlooper: you can measure the entire country with a slow and steady recession. but when you compare to the surrounding states that it is worse the opponents come down about four points the average of all states is 2.2% we are all performing them and in terms of new job creation for technologies or in colorado that is a remarkable achievement. >>moderator: moving into the next topic. to talk about common core mr. beauprez says it is too rigid one size fits all

education in washington should back off to give states to raise standards on their own mothers say they ensure it meets the high standards if you get a second term would you commit to keeping colorado in common core? hickenlooper: i call a colorado court the majority of the governors came together and said we need higher standards this is a part of no child left behind from president bush but we

>> >> we know they have a harder time catching up.

it will be fully funded this year then we will see improvement. to make sure every pediatrician in the state can give parents a matter the income level the senate visit the pediatrician and they get another book that i agree there may be too much testing you need to look at that that we need to look at those, and assessments if we pulled out of colorado court it would take millions of dollars to replace what has been done. >> ladies and gentleman had to explain to the 2 percent of children who cannot read at grade level?

please send gentleman it is a scandal going on too long give our kids a fighting chance. >>moderator: staying with education the board of education has a heated debate over about advance placement course material. with the respect for authority with civil disorder but to promote the good aspects of american history? >> bad as what is lost in the fight because children or teachers are not instructing kids.

between the school board elected by the people but they ought to resolve it as adults should and with schools and teachers and to have a curriculum over the voters or the parents that is what we have elections for to resolve the differences between voters and that elected group of officials. >> our system delegates authority to the school district is more about the students. and then to protest to 19 to the final test scores the parents are committed to

them but with every school district to judge what is history? we should be able to have our kids learn about the teapartier battle so martin luther king. you want the full range of american history the good and the bad. but to teach kids where we make mistakes and where we need to do better to sort through complicated information. >> there are so many approaches that are more than i would have gone for but i do agree with mr. beauprez that the school board responsibility to

manage that curriculum. beauprez: 2.0 one more thing on under its -- under the governor's term under the census department is 50th in drinking to get our federal tax dollars back to fund our schools we're concerned about funding we should get our dollar is back that we sent to washington that we have every right to expect to get back. >> those measurements on education funding $35 million for early challenge education what he is referring to is how much the state government spends and education but the more money is spent on education the better you do.

and the financial success of the state and the lack of funding. >> 1/2 to respond to that. the reality is with average household income it has fallen by $4,000 in the last four years. in real not talking about dollars or since britain's of millions of dollars the difference what you have every right to get back but the reality is colorado gets $0.84 on every dollar we send. >> with the issue of fracking and the control of oil and gas to engineer a of a compromise about measures

that legislative session as well. what would you do governor? what are the limits you would set? hickenlooper: it is fair to go back to look at that negotiation in the first place and mr. beauprez said he wanted to keep that on the ballot. we would have a 15 million-dollar food fight. what we have no -- now is the citizens to look at that conflict with the issue of someone's right for someone who has private property and

millerites had rebalance those? there are ways to find compromise solutions to mitigate the impact with the enjoyment of their home. with texas and wyoming to sit down both sides of the table. >>moderator: before i move on but what would you do? with the commission if they cannot be two-thirds of the majority to recommend legislation will be the majority and minority opinion it is part of the

economy to be put to rest is every their business and state would you commit to listening to that commission even if it calls for not strong local control? hickenlooper: solutions are part of the problem with this is right disagree strongly. by doing what he did he perpetuated uncertainty for several years. that is what is chasing investment out of the state not just oil and gas but in general with overregulation and uncertainty. redistricting is that. we referred earlier to the labor department said in the five states surrounding us are better than ours.

part-time and unemployed. colorado lags behind part of the reason is what he refers to right now and said he would create regulation that they will find something. that is exactly the problem. regulation after regulation after regulation. with that investment to go somewhere else. >>moderator: is there a limit how close? >> we have done this and i personally have done this we have solved these problems historically for decades in almost one century. to sign memorandums of understanding to meet in the middle but it is done by community by community now we try to regulate not better regulate the chase the industry out of the state.

ladies and gentlemen, we could never harvest resources safer wiser more efficiently than we can right now and we should be celebrating at not punishing it. >>moderator: 86 major industry and of the state? hickenlooper: next year will be the largest year of investment in the oil and gas industry in the history of the state. clearly the negotiation was done with the industry side by side talking back and forth to make sure the compromise of the commission had a chance to succeed perk trust me the largest operators the handful they do support the commission when henderson they do not believe it is over regulating they support the messines regulation. we will be the most pro-business state in america with a high standard.

the way to do that is to get both sides of industry and the nonprofit community side-by-side in the same room to level sides have their share. where they feel they have succeeded. >> historically we have done that. he did bring a couple of big into the room but it is the small independent ones that need a voice were thrown under the bus. i will not do that in colorado. those little guys need a chance. you'll have that with governor mr. beauprez. >>moderator: with reform here in the state to deal with the legal immigration is the centerpiece of the effort you said in a radio interview that if washington does not act if they would

pledged u.s. jan brewer did in arizona it required the state officials to look at the immigration status of anyone they stopped in to see if they might be here illegally. would you try to enact a similar law here in colorado and house specifically would you target undocumented immigrants? beauprez: i was referring to property rights of people on her border nothing to do with legislation. my political opponents decided it does but it did not had to do with her standing up to the federal government for farmers and ranchers on the southern border whose riches became uninhabitable because the federal government failed to secure the border. not only that governor

brothers said wait. do your job. that is the problem with illegal immigration for both parties. there is a lot of dialogue and back-and-forth for political gain to get votes but a complete lack of will to solve the problem. the governor said four years ago when he campaigned he with the march on washington to resolve the problem. but we have had absolutely no solution. i think governors are fed up with washington and will demand that washington once and for all solve a problem. >>moderator: will you do something similar to arizona? beauprez: that answer is space never reference though i was talking about her protecting the private property rights of persons on the border. hickenlooper: i am not sure if he said that before but he did say the 12 million

undocumented people shall have to leave the country first before any process goes forward. even if families want to stay together even the families should be like a term of cleansing was used. to take away the driver's license to repeal that, utah has a driver's license it is a crucial part of a highway safety. there are four key ingredients with that national agreement. i am working with the governor with the national governors' association to make sure there are consequences for people and to have a guest worker system. not just for technology but agriculture and those who have trouble to fill those

jobs. but i think we're not like congress we work together pretty well. i can sit down to talk about immigration to move forward. we can pressure congress and i think we will make progress. >>moderator: day follow or agree with that policy they should go home? beauprez: that is not necessary at all with america today. when i talk about frequently is shame on all of us and for allowing this to last over the last three decades at a state as great as colorado. >>moderator: how do you deal with illegal immigrants? you heard me say that forcing pieces of the puzzle secure the border, but monetize and enforce the employment laws than a

system where people can suffer identified, apply for legal status and pass the background check and pay some sort of restitution we can resolve that problem. but you have to start by securing the border so employers and immigrants can get an answer. hickenlooper: we worked very hard to put together the colorado compact. i don't thank you signed that? but denver metro chamber and farm bureau and others have basic core values. if we want to get to a solution we have to come together. >>moderator: why didn't you sign the colorado contact? beauprez: i went to ask him a question.

[laughter] the president had a democratic senate and house in favor all fired an interested to solve the problem as he said in 2010 wise is still out there? it is the failure of will we can talk about after the election we will fix it. it is always after the election then people forget. this is an issue ameritech is better than in be better do it in every. and the big influential position as the national governors' association share would thank you could influence the president the we have no movement but just a lot of talk. >> i want to ask him a question. [laughter] >>moderator: moving on the states looking at what colorado has done with recreational marijuana in

district of columbia what is your advice? should they follow the colorado model to create jobs in the new industry? >> when i have advised other governors, i oppose it almost every elected official opposed it not only the first date but literally the first country. copenhagen and amsterdam never legalized it but there are serious challenges building from scratch. with other states should do is take:long slow look we continue to be very concerned with young people no data shows said diane spike of adults that we are worried teenage brains are

still maturing in there is no longitudinal study yet from the narrow scientists they're very concerned thinking there is a high probability even once a week with high t h. see to have a probability to diminish long-term memory permanently. . .

>> i think that maybe he agrees with me on this, but the big piece of the puzzle will be educating our citizens about the consequences and i think that that is part of the discussion that we have to have. and i know the governor doesn't like me going there but i saw the lead story in the denver post this morning and it brings up an issue that i think needs to be debated and needs to be part of the selection. as the denver post pointed out, we are turning some very violent criminal, very violent and it

has to happen on his watch. and his staff asked him not to print the story and apparently you don't have the right to know the truth about who is being released into our neighborhood. >> this has been an issue that has been going on for a long time. >> moderator: it sounds like the we are going to do a little bit of evolving in the debate. and the first i heard of that was the employee was evidently worried about alarming people and it's not something that we tried to do. but this has been a problem in every state and all over the country. when someone served their time come you can't keep them. we tried to get a law passed last year. and we couldn't get it through for a variety of reasons.

that challenge, whether we give alerts or not, right now there is federal law limiting how many of these he we can send out just like any governor dies. >> moderator: following up with john hickenlooper, chris christie double down on his criticism about this, what is the quality of life here, he said for the people that are enamored with the idea, seeing if you want to live there, seeing if you want to live in the majors if he in colorado where there is hedgehogs popping up and people flying into airports just come and get high. you agree with that? with chris christie? [laughter] hickenlooper: i'm glad that he has come back to colorado and seems to want to invest in colorado's future and.

beauprez: i certainly appreciate that he is chair of the national governors association. [laughter] >> moderator: now is your question and answer time to question each other. maybe this time you guys can respond. [laughter] and so first, over to you governor john hickenlooper, ask your question and then you have about 60 seconds to respond, bob beauprez. hickenlooper: i guess i would ask why we haven't discussed right now, the opposition to some of these statewide initiatives in sort of others. you opposed referendum d and d, which were a housing act and in each of these cases you oppose giving a compromise solution for the ballot initiatives and he said he wanted them to stay on

for you to get a resolution. those seem you are not taking into consideration the long-term consequences and i wanted to ask you about that. beauprez: someone sat on my moms or dads side that i don't have a long-term interest in colorado in my heart and that's not very well true. i do have a long-term interests at heart. referendum john a was part of t. i thought that there were other options and very good options, such as utilizing money that could otherwise go back to the citizens. that is the difference of public policy and you seem to have had a habit of getting paralyzed by what you call as collaboration

or conflict and i do not. i do not have a problem looking at this issue, sometimes very difficult issues making a decision and then leaving. that is what i would've done on these energy initiatives. i would've vetoed it back once and for all and created certainty in the marketplace which has been desperately lacking and that is where we disagree instead of kicking the can down the road and perpetuating uncertainty. i would like the results. >> moderator: your turn to query the governor. beauprez: picking up on the point that we were just asked, it strikes me as curious that when you took some exception with what your spokesman said in a newspaper in what they said about your office, you said you were that you were not trying to keep this evidence and information about parolees, violent parolees away from the public, but in fact kirk mitchell from the denver post said the your office try to keep

them from publishing it and he said he didn't know anything about it, but they said that you were not available for comment on this in your own spokesman was on record as contradicting what you did and said that the department of corrections had said that legislative fixes really were not on the agenda and certainly not the year. and so why don't you just tell us where is all that? because it alarms me that these are not isolated incidents of great concern for the citizens of colorado. when people this violent, once they get out they will commit mass murders as the newspaper chronicle this morning. this is a very serious public safety issue and i think that sentencing and parole violations do need to be addressed. hickenlooper: we have been certainly addressing parole issues and the things like solitary confinement more

aggressively and i don't -- i think someone in the public corrections department said they hope to work with us. and i have talked to rick and he this concerns them as much as anyone. but i will go back and i will get a gun and kill people. well, that's a threat when people make it to take seriously great but the district attorney, there are so many threats coming out, especially the ones that have mental illness challenges that they are having a hard time to work through that and is there a way to do legislation that they can address that? there might be and i'm happy to look at it. you can accuse me of taking too long or why i haven't done before, but deliberation is not necessarily weakness. >> moderator: moving to a topic

that interests the room. a number of republican governors have moved to weaken the power of labor unions with bargaining restrictions and turning those states and right to work states. if you win, would you push to amend the state constitution to make this a right to work state? or is the current system working? hickenlooper: i have always favored right to work and i wish that colorado was a right to work state. i don't know that it's a top legislative priority right now, that's a bit of a political reality. but do i favor a competitive work environment? yes, i think it will benefit the colorado business community and colorado's economy and that includes job creation and growth and opportunity. >> moderator: he would not make that a top legislative priority? governor john hickenlooper, at the "denver post" last week you

said minimum-wage increase right now is about $8 per hour for the adjustment requirement and of course democrats and washington want to increase this. if you could expand your thinking on this, would you push your political capital on the line, pushing for a change truth increase this? hickenlooper: i'm not sure that i would push for it. there's a lot attached to that and that colorado we have our own system that has been our constitution and so it didn't really attach to our processes in colorado. but how do we get more people as consumers, and if you're going to have that, how you make sure that young kid have an allocation with that first job.

sixteen, 17 years old, getting jobs out of school. maybe they should have the opportunity to have a lower wage. one of the state issues that went into this, a lot of us restaurant folks, a lot of us have high paid employees in our staff and the federal minimum wage means that it's essentially half of what the other minimum wages. and i think that that opportunity, we just kind of watch right over that. and the increase wasn't included which means when you're trying to pay more money to the people who work in the kitchen which almost all that i know are worried about this, your hands are tied and that is something that i would certainly work on. >> moderator: in your rebuttal,

i'm wondering if about the philosophical objected to the wage, do you agree with that criticism and do you think that it can even exist? >> i certainly would not increase it. the reason is because the evidence is overwhelming and that every time you increase it actually do just the opposite of what the stated objective is instead of creating jobs, you release the number of jobs. beauprez: here's another thing of reality that is important. i've talked a lot about where we are at. and the fact that we are supposed to be five years into recovery and we still have negative growth and parts of colorado. i looked a little deeper in some of those numbers and this includes the governor pledging

to help law people and especially women and minority communities. that is where the jobs have been the slowest and the data is pretty clear on that and i think that that is a tragedy, increasing the minimum wage may be a good window dressing, but it's very counterproductive. what we have to do is get the whole economy moving again and if we can do that, we do that by incentivizing investment and growth and not by punishing. and we have had quite enough punishment. >> we are almost out of time, so then it's time for closing statements. you have won the drawing and so you get to go first. beauprez: thank you very much for being here today. not only the ones in this room, but all those who might be watching or reading about this. colorado is a special place and i think that we all agree on that. and we say, we are doing pretty good, we are in colorado, after

all. and it is great and that's the only home i've ever had. my wife and daughter and two of her granddaughters are with us today. when i ask people how you're feeling about colorado, and they say you know, we don't feel as good as we normally do. and why is that? it's because we've kind of turn things on its head. the state where big dreams always happen, dreams that we never imagine dreaming came through for us. people tell us that that will be the future of colorado. teachers, small business people, large business people, farmers and ranchers like we are, governments getting in our way, holding us back. and then on the governor's watch, this has all happened and it wasn't supposed to be like that. we didn't veto a single bill in 2013. people called it any we have

sheriffs to want to talk and he says he doesn't know or even want to speak. colorado county said they didn't want a renewable energy mandate and he is signed it anyway and then apologized for the inadequate legislation folks, governors have the ability to know where they want to go and how they want to get there and we may not always agree with that, but you will know where i stand and i will assure you that i will make the tough decisions and lead this state. with your help and the grace of god we can be great again and start very soon by doing one profound thing. by believing and trusting in people rather than believing and trusting in more government. god bless you and thank you very much for allowing me to be here. >> enqueue, governor john hickenlooper.

[applause] >> when everyone got laid off, we did our best and we started right from the beginning getting restaurants and hotels to work together, trying to work as a special place. it still took more than five years to get some momentum and i think that's a little bit like this today. when i left there in 2003, we started working in the suburbs and we got all 34, two thirds republicans and funding was blocked from union station, i was the one who tried to solve this 375 million-dollar impact. we were 40th and job creation in 2010 and we had a billion dollar deficit. we created statewide economic development and created a state

plan. and then we had 13 federally acquired disasters, more than any in the country, in the middle of every single one. we had shootings were i visited almost every hospital room. we stayed focused. we simplified over 6000 regulations, and when major challenges appeared like last summer's challenges, we did everything possible for as long as it took to get that off the ballot creative process that could actually have the potential to create a lasting solution. colorado, like denver, is a place that will be defined more as it focuses around innovation and collaboration. we are now for the job creation, the number one fastest growing economy in america, but we need to be the number one job and the

number one state and the number one state in education achievement. and we need to be the healthiest state in america. and i think that we will. if we can continue to keep the focus and keep that collaborative spirit together, we will. better not to change horses when crossing streams. >> thank you, mr. governor. thank you, bob beauprez. [applause] [applause] >> pennsylvania's republican governor tom corbett appears to be trailing behind tom wolfs.

you can watch live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and then tomorrow, it is the illinois governor's debate. and the statewide poll edging ahead of his republican challenger. c-span will have live coverage of tomorrow night's debate. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, a memorial service for president reagan's press secretary, james brady on saturday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. former secretary of state colin powell talks about world affairs and sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. on q&a, this author talks about how as a marine in vietnam a landmine explosion nearly killed him and changed his life or it friday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2, activist ralph nader calls for an alliance between

parties to take on the issues that plague america. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. on booktv "after words", on why he feels medical science should be doing more for the aging. and then free-market capitalism and its impact on climate change. friday at 8:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3, curator and director of the cia museum explains the museum's mission of preserving and presenting the agencies his worry and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the war of the 1740s and how it helped the american colonists gained valuable fighting experience for their own revolution. and sunday night at 8:00 p.m., the congressional testimony on the knicks imparted on our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202626 ###-3400 were

sent as a tweet at c-span hash tag comments. >> coming up next, kay hagen and challenger thom tillis held their second debate last night. the post reports more. here is a brief look. >> the problem that we have at washington is that it is broke. people are not communicating. senator hagen has not authored a single bill over six years that has gone to the president desk and that is a problem. we need people that are going to bring them together. in areas where we can agree, don't take the time and move into areas where we can agree, find policies that can create

jobs like obama dead. 600,000 jobs of the epa and let's create jobs. that is something that i believe we all have to agree on. >> which issue would you take on your party's leadership? >> i don't know at this point, it's kind of hard to say because in the senate, and not to the house, harry reid has an all-out anything to be passed. george, you know this better than most people. you only have a few dozen bills in the house and only a few dozen votes in the senate come it's hard to figure out where the differences would be because they are not debating. and senator hagen has understood to shut down the senate. and we need to understand delaying the mandate and delaying amnesty are all election issues that are on the

ballot and we have an opportunity to stop it. hagen: the keystone pipeline. i think we need to build the keystone pipeline. i have voted against the trade deal because they sent to many north carolina jobs overseas. they have two deeper cuts to the military. but speaker tillis would've supported a budget that would turn medicare and would have supported sequestration and supported a government shutdown. in north carolina when that took place, it was the height of the season out west and our fishing season in the east. that is what he would've done. >> a combination of the latest opinion polls in north carolina show kay hagen leading thom

tillis by an average of four points. you can see the entire debate at c-span.org. >> the 2015th studentcam a competition is underway. with nationwide competition and 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming and show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> an update now by treasury secretary jack jew about his recent trip to australia to meet with other g20 finance ministers mr. jack jew spoke at the peterson institute for

economics. this is about a half hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the peterson institute for economics and it has been our privilege to support and to encourage high-level discussion of policies, particularly every year in the run-up to the imf spring meetings. i am delighted to host this and today we are particularly pleased and honored to have with us the honorable jack jew, the 76th secretary of the united states treasury. he was confirmed every 27th of last year and previously had

been director of the office of management budget, and before we turn it over to him coming the first joined the obama administration is secretary of state. and of course, the secretary well understands the importance of the international sphere thank you and other budget people have to make and it has been our privilege to work with him in a number of his colleagues on a number of issues and we are delighted that he will be with us today to give his news at the imf meeting. we are breaking a little bit with her usual choreography today and we will be moderating today and he joined the times in mom by after working at the dallas morning news, which is

certainly a change of pace. i will turn it over to the secretary from here on out. and with that i would like to invite secretary lew and mr. vikas bajaj to please join us. [applause] [inaudible] >> when it comes to the g20, there is a lot of economic things coming in, not looking very good for the eurozone and for china and japan. what is your assessment of the state of the international economy today? >> first, let me thank adam posen for hosting this morning. and thank you, vikas bajaj, for joining in this conversation.

so let me start with the united states. even since the g20 meeting we have seen continuing signs of strengthening u.s. economy. a recent that is my first job, to focus on the u.s. economy. one of the things it was quite clear at the g20 meeting is that the whole world is looking at the u.s. to continue being a strong propeller for this. some of what i've pointed out at this meeting and quite a number of these meetings like this is that while we are determined to have u.s. economy grow strongly, the rest of the world also has to accept and make sure that growth continues to accelerate. i don't think there's a secret as to why the u.s. economy is doing well. it starts with a very resilient people and a very resilient economy and it also started with policy. we took definitive steps beginning in 2008 with a

financial crisis which took more steps in the rest of the world. we took the opportunity to get demand going and now we are reaping the benefits of that. we have seen other countries that there has been a less determined response to their own economic conditions. as we have made the case quite probably that there is a need to do two things at once, we need to focus on growing short-term demand and focusing on long-term structural reforms and long-term growth. it's quite interesting if you look at the paper that the imf put out this week in advance of the meeting. they did a paper on infrastructure that makes the case quite compelling. and if you invest in the right things now it leads to a stronger economy in the future and as a byproduct almost it grows demand in the short term. it was a big topic of conversation at the g20 meeting. i think there's a need for more action and quite a few parts of

the world and i don't think that the united states alone can put the global economy where it needs to be. >> are you worried that the u.s. economy with all through if they went back into recession with its major trading partners? to the u.s. economy is part of the global economy and while in the four corners of the economy, we are on the right sustainable and increasing growth path. we are not immune to impact from the rest of the world as demand falls in that has a spillover effect. i don't see any immediate risks for the u.s. economy. we are at eager to have the highest possible growth rate and a high impact and i'm hoping that we can avoid this in other parts of the world trade i think each of these countries has a fundamental reason is we take a hard look at their policies. are their own domestic reasons they need to grow and have their

unemployment rates come down, they need to have a stable foundation in the future and it's not just developed countries for the emerging markets and we have seen countries that have had the right balance are doing better than countries that do not. and so we have many challenges in the united states and i don't pretend that we've tackled every long-term problem that we have had. but we have the right mix think about how we grow the economy in the short-term, builders were stable economic growth, keep these longer-term issues through the ongoing debate. and i think that it would be a good thing for the world economy if we saw more of that in other places. >> at the moment it is perhaps interesting to see these occurrences elsewhere in the

world, to help do that just as you said, to bring the rest of the world up with it. >> as i said a few minutes ago, my first job is to make sure that we have is our economy. i think we do have a strong economy and i think that our economy is doing better relative to other economies in many instances. you know, and i think like all of my predecessors i believe that we need to be strong in the united states and i believe first and foremost we have to focus on the fundamentals of the u.s. economy. that means not just saying that we've come along way since 2008. so what do we do to build a nation that helps us lift up the economy as we go forward. the president spoke about last week. ..

>> >> many times back-and-forth through infrastructure republicans or democrats it never has been a partisan issue what is challenging how to pay for it and break

the gridlock. the president has proposed something i think is the right way to get this done to take to problems out of the same time with broken business tax code and infrastructure by doing business tax reform to take the one time revenues and using that as a down payment for infrastructure. a business community knows that is what they tell us most often they need for strong future for the u.s. economy to deal with immigration reform. these are all issues that i think it is even urging bipartisan view. look at the president's outlined it lapsed by 80 percent. with get interested funding infrastructure obol sides. even with the immigration reform and they know it is

the right thing to do. i will always remain an optimist our system in government is the right in the world people though it is the right thing to reduce of this president will spend the next two years working every day to get these things accomplished and i will be there to do with him t-72 worry with of predictions that your job will be much harder if the predictions come true? >> guest: i will not comment on the elections the great thing being secretary treasury there is no politics of think there has never been a two year period they have never sent officials to washington and to get the work done to make as a stronger country and that is the potential to get things done in.

>> host: with the imf one of the things a lot of members are interested, what is your view? >> i share their sense of urgency it is important for the world economy for the imf reforms it is a matter of utmost importance making that clear to leaders. actually we have gotten to aquantive conversation with congress there is a broader understanding why it is important. the situation in the world today with various tensions for u.s. leadership is called for to have the u.s. play a leadership role is critically important they are designed to bolster that will to carry it forward.

the alternative is to weaken the role that is bad geopolitically as well as economically. the rest of rock -- a fairly broad understanding nothing over the last two years i remember earlier in 2009. the challenges to get to a place to get it through the end it is very important if we make every effort to get it done with a lame duck session. >> host: yesterday the imf put out a statement to say they support the changes of the contracts as a response to the previous case what is the u.s. position? out important are these changes to this national system? >> going forward we have made clear it is important

there be commonly used cutback provisions to eliminate ambiguity with financial transactions. the imf working in the independent committee has done very important work and we're beginning to see these provisions show up. the clarity of the contract in which the financial markets rely should be beyond question. and we are as committed to an up process. >> recently you made changes to prevent aversions there was talking about the ireland and apple tax ruling.

what can you do to make sure companies are paying some tax somewhere and they're fair share not just a nominal amount there is financed by taxes? >> guest: the international community has been facing a russian we have been focusing on the issue in the united states. from a u.s. perspective what we do the most advanced would be tax reform if we lower the statutory rate right now we have a high a statutory rate in the developed economies. the average rate is average because of all the loopholes and deductions and credits that are not reflective of current policy priorities and they monodic good idea in the first place. if we could do business tax reform really take away the pressures that drive companies away.

i never said there is not economic benefit or question the legality it is wrong for a company to have the business in the united states with the best markets , the best workers workers, most stable rule of law infrastructure that gives them what they need to thrive there are a lot of reasons they continue to do business in the united states to change their address for a tax jurisdiction is wrong though law should not allow it. that is why we propose a statutory change in the president's budget. i call on congress to act on legislation and when it didn't we were wondering about getting provisions

together administrative leave. it takes down the economic value but the issues in europe are matters within europe between the governments of europe. so i will not comment specifically on that. but i do know what we need to do as a nation is make sure we do our own work to make the tax codes such it does not drive people or companies to look through these avoidance devices. but also a play a race to the bottom that make it attractive. >> host: on tax reform to you agree with the republican position it needs to be revenue neutral?

that is the bigger opportunity to raise money into the future? >> guest: looking at the president's framework together we found to bring the rate down a 28% we need to do it on a revenue neutral basis. , was hard to get it at 28 percent. the president's budget proposed not losing any revenue with tax reform. that is an important principle. its technical because when you lose the money matters in the first 10 years over the life? we took the view that tax reform has to be revenue neutral over its life you cannot get one time revenue the first 10 years to make it look neutral done over 30 years it loses revenue that is exactly that gives us the one time savings for infrastructure. you have two choices for truly never revenue neutral to either spend money on one

time things like infrastructure or reduce the deficit both of which are legitimate. what i don't think is acceptable to use the one time savings to artificially lower the rate to the unsustainable level over the new life so there is a loss of revenue. >> host: it is time for questions. my colleague will manage the questions just to be clear. please identify yourself and please make it a question not a speech. >>

[inaudible] i'll ask you on the currency side if we see significant moves in global currencies so of the saw the results of the divergence of the underlying economies between the u.s. and the arizona and japan but we have also seen policy makers in particular, europe who make explicit calls that name their view is appropriate their currency should depreciate against the u.s. dollar. are you comfortable with that and do you believe as long as other policy makers restrict their actions through domestic assets and don't get engaged sterilize currency intervention and then it is acceptable within the rules of the game?

>> in the context of the g-7 and g20 we have had the discussions of the g-7 principles agreed to that the right formula domestic tools for domestic purposes is one we continue to believe is right and the nations of the world continue to articulate. i think it is wrong to get into exchange rate competition for the purpose of promoting advantage over the heather but we have called on many countries to take decisive action to get economies to grow the language agreed to in the g-7 meetings in the beginning of 2013 was the right formula and we should stick to it.

>> if you don't mind i will follow-up with the other exchange-rate question which is china. for a long time the u.s. has held a position as i a understand it that china's currencies to appreciate further and i would be interested in your thinking. >> guest: we have been clear we continue to believe there is a need for the appreciation in 2010 no doubt they are still undervalued there is appreciation and the need for a policy to let it get to the market level without intervention and the kind of pressures we have seen in the past. the strategic and economic dialogue in july in beijing

we heard discussions on this with significant progress on a conceptual basis to limit intervention and an agreement to get through the process to come within the imf transparency protocol. we need to cnn to interventions on a routine basis and also more transparency. the message of that it has been inconsistent for many years as we try to recognize that to deal with shocks from of the external transactions coming into china's economy we see it as

a move to permit the market termination of their currency we're not as pleased when we sought intervention where it appeared the strength was driving down the exchange rate over the last couple months that has subsided. we need is sustained path with of market exchange rate. as a world economic power to except the worldwide currency this is one of the prerequisites. well we think it is very important for a fair environment in traded as also in the long term interest and hopefully we're

making progress. >> i know china related question the chinese had begun planning the creation of asian infrastructure do you regard these as challenges to the international economic order to do you think in for imf reform adding to use the of the tests to look to alternatives as a pander stand it the chinese has the infrastructure being from the outset what is your

response of that is correct? >>. >> what i said in public and private is the same. with the superstructure investment with the financial agreements that provide ample opportunity to do that. and if there are new approaches to they follow the same practices that work to help economies grow and a strong and stable foundation? will they follow the same considerations in terms of sustainability? do they have the same kind of consideration with regard

to environmental and labor issues? is a competitive financial window to make it easier and drive down quality of investment? i make that bilateral conversation. for those enterprises those that choose to participate as the same kinds of questions it is very important with the imf something congress should look at with geopolitical terms and i don't think it is just with regard to competing is to ship is. but to influence within the existing institution it is

an enormous mistake. and to enact with the imf reform. >> after the continued resolution had uss a complete statutory law in december? >> we have more then cut the deficits in half we were on

path to have a sustainable levels of finance. and in the long term the urgency in 2011 is different because we have taken a lot of action we have not done everything but frankly to take the back seat with the progress that we need to make in a collaborative bipartisan way. 18% of the economy to drive long-term spending concerns it made enormous progress with the rate of growth of

health care cost the lowest rates of increase in 50 years. due in part to the measures of the affordable care act and we don't know yet fully of the substantial changes we made of the health care system in the long term. before remake those dramatic changes assuming the way it was in in 2008. and october 1st was the beginning of our fiscal years we did not have a discussion to deny your concerns to have a sustained long period to take the trauma and out the wasn't good for the global economy and hopeful we can continue

on the track we are on to make progress with the basis to make real bipartisan progress. >> one more question over here. >> mr. secretary of interested in your assessment of international sanctions and also around the world. >> guest: go back first why we do. over the last six years to blow the world economy to grow the economy the last thing is to take actions that could create headwinds. and russia's behavior

demands a response is unacceptable with the sovereignty of a neighboring country. with a domestic situation from the ukraine and immediately to get the clear message from the world community would not be tolerated. economic sanctions put in place are probably the most sophisticated than has ever been designed it was quite deliberately set up to put maximum pressure up -- pressure on russia and succeeded in that russia and the economy. all the assessments i see from those experts predict dire consequences if they're

current sanction regime stays in effect. to date we have seen individual firms with business dealings but not in a macro sense in europe for the united states obviously europe's economy is more integrated than the u.s.. and for the exports to russia that there is no consequences in europe so if you compare the impact it is relatively moderate. the goal here is to create a path of ukraine's sovereignty to engage in the

efforts their. em whole fall the current cease-fire in recent recent-- provides the opportunities to step back. the alternative is there will have to be tougher sanctions not weaker sanctions. it gets harder and harder to manage the spillover one thing i can say is the determination because those countries of the world to send a strong signal to russia this is unacceptable behavior and it passed to change. . .

>> secretary john kerry met with philip hammond and talked about some of the challenges facing our country. next we will hear from colin powell. later, a panel discussion on university elected officials and then a debate plan open house seat in new jersey's third district area. on the next "washington journal." a guess from "the wall street