no and then israel comes forward with either more money or temporary promises. and what i am, what i think we need to think about is, um, the way many which rebuilding -- the way many which rebuilding becomes an opportunity to renegotiate power relations if the state of israel and the u.s. are able to bring ngos in, there's a chance we could see the ngo-ization of gaza which would then allow for a parallel structure there with the west bank and as much as those ngos are terribly important for repairing infrastructure, they cannot stop the process of destruction. right? in fact, if anything, they're waiting in the wings to repair whenever destruction happens. and i see that some of them don't want to be complicitous with the process in that way, right? you're depending on us to

rebuild, it's always your prerogative to destroy. but i do think we ought to be paying attention to how that issue gets resolve ised because -- resolved because people will be brokering for power positions in the process of rebuilding, and it's a new way to establish dominance. and perhaps through the ngo-ization of the area to undermine popular struggles for political self-determination. >> in the corner over here. and then we'll come back. >> thank you very much for being here. i wanted to explore a little bit your discussion of working in solidarity with palestinians and, in fact, other oppressed peoples. from where you stand. as a, um, half jewish women with

a palestinian-american daughter who lived in palestine for several years but now living here in the united states, how does one do that with integrity? because, you know, as someone who's an activist, as a writer, i'm also aware of this concept and have, in fact, been told, well, you must work in your community. what does that mean to you? how do you as a woman of integrity work in solidarity with people that, who you're not one of? in other words, you're not a palestinian, but yet you want to work in solidarity with them. how does one do that? in your view? >> well, i think a lot of it depends on how you understand your community, and it sounds like your community is already a double community and an overlapping community. but if we think more broadly --

i'm a u.s. citizen, and i am at least partially responsible for speaking out about my own government's investments and its support of that area. so any u.s. person could and should have a view on this matter. and i'm an american jew. i don't have relatives in israel, although i come from a very strong zionist background be, and i've had to struggle with that and with my community of origin. but i have found some jewish groups that allow me to keep that more local sense of belonging but also to be part of solidarity networks. but if i ask the question who am i when i'm in a solidarity network, it's not just that i'm an american or that i'm a jew or i'm this or that, i could name other things that i am that would be not very interesting -- [laughter] but i also belong to a global community. i mean, no -- and --

[laughter] so, you know, i think the real question i have is where do people draw the line when they decide which community they belong to? and it's why the unitarian position never made sense to me. think about european refugees, palestinian refugees who are living all over the place and are multilingual or have, are truly many cultures, are truly from many places, are truly axilic in saeed's sense and yet also belonging, but having to decide what are the terms of belonging, and do i only care about those, or do i care primarily about those who are closest to me and defined in the same demographic way as me? what would that mean? isn't that part of what's wrong with the world, that we imagine, that we can only identify with and represent those who are like us? i mean, i find that worrisome.

i find that to be a refusal of difference and a refusal of the political and cultural and demographic complexity of the world we're living in. and because, obviously, we are also interconnected through economy and through militarization and through political and social institutions of various kinds, it seems to me that something called global responsibility is crucial. we may start from a specific place and we may have a particular path into that and our way of doing it may be inflected by all of that, but that doesn't mean we don't belong to those wider circles or shouldn't. >> go in the back here. gentleman had his hand up. >> thank you. ..

their inability to establish their own national borders, or to be accepted of full and equal citizens, say in turkey, has made them into a really important refugee issue. sometimes refugee issues have

been going on for decades and decades. they also become to a certain degree naturalized. we forget to see this as this is inequality, this is expulsion. this is the effect of noninclusion in those ways. i think there's much more to be said about that and i think much more also to be said about the vast number of refugees that are being produced every day in syria and outside of syria. it's really stunning. we're going to to be think about all that, and in relationship to the politics of israel-palestine as well. >> we will have one final question here. we are over on time. >> thank you very much for a lecture that it has gone beyond the issue by issue, event by event approach to dealing with

the context of the palestine israel situation t where i come from south africa i think which is even a great prefix it with the palestinians -- zionists, et cetera, et cetera. i often see more than it reveals because in a legal sense that is only mandela, the problem will be solved. if only, israel says but we are not racist because we're not -- summit i see there's an intellectual laziness sometimes although there's a shorthand that is useful from time to time. i thought after what you said there seems to be a very vicious triangle that is unraveling. i think on the one hand, how do we increase the palestinian eyes? and those of us who support the

palestinians -- in the process that we did divided between the left and the right within palestine, hamas and qatar, et cetera, et cetera. so we may contribute as to the apex of the triangle, by reducing -- it is not hamas and i am less worried about. i think a second point of the triangle that we need unraveling is how does one deal, the despite the fact they insist on using the two, how do we continue to insist on -- i were to solve this human from this general sub humanization that is going on? and what we appeal to an orca grow those kind of grassroots movements that you speak about, so i think that it is to increase the leverage of the human over the the human eyes --

dehumanize. and the third one is, particularly the west, resist this automatic -- [inaudible] that is transferred in time to today that continues to be a fig leaf for allowing barbarity? and how do we ensure that the battle -- that seem to be a vicious triangle that needs defusing. i don't think we have any ideas on that. >> i'm going to be brief because i'm we have gone over. but let me just say this. that i think the effort to establish solidarity with the south african example, if i make

him has more to do with the definition of apartheid. i think there are two very interesting and complex views on that, at least, but one of them is oh, whatever is happening in palestine is not quite the same as what happened historically in south africa. so the analogy doesn't quite work. or to look at that genocide has actually -- not genocide, i'm sorry. how apartheid has been defined legally, and see that the legal definition of apartheid applies to very different historical formations of apartheid. at which point we could say that there's apartheid in palestine and it was apartheid in south africa without saying that south africa and palestine armed -- are the exact same. he wanted this culture specificity to be preserved but he wanted the residence and he

wanted the possibility for a comparison to take place without everybody ending up being an exact same situation but i really think that's what he called for. that would also be true for ideals of self determination. we may agree that what happened in south africa with the end of apartheid, was a partial liberation, right? and was a pretty rotten deals made. so we didn't see economic equality achieved. we didn't see the end of racism as a social and economic reality. so there's that. i do think that, but there are two issues on the question of being, of the jew and israel. and one of them of course is that the state of israel wants to claim it represents the jewish people. and anybody who speaks to criticize the state of israel is

at risk of being told that they're involved in anti-semitic enterprise. that's a trap if you're colonized and you're trying to object to colonial rule, and jerk called an anti-semitic when you're trying to object to colonial rule. so i think, on the one hand, that claim needs to be stronger but it's like we're not objecting to jews, not objecting even to the future possibility of some kind of israel. what we're objecting to is the continuation of colonial rule. militarization, and be very, very specific about it. i do think that hamas should get rid of its charter language. i don't buy the argument that it doesn't really matter, it's just on the books, they don't use it. i don't care. i think hamas should give it of its anti-semitic rhetoric and it would be a huge symbolic importance but it would allow people to like a just and possibly hear what's going on in

a different way. i think it's wrong and i think it should be taken away. i also think, you know, there are major efforts on the part of various jewish communities throughout the world to establish independent jewish organizations that are critical of israel and that allow for a solidarity. they can be let's zionists, they can be anti-zionist. they can be pro-boycott or anti-boycott but they are to the left significantly of how israel is defining that. i also think there's room to think about jewish values and how jewish values have to be reclaimed from the israelis hate. i think there many ethical resources we can find any jewish tradition for the critique of militarization, for the argument for equality, for the valley of co-habitation. and the preciousness of life, right? we are all taught that. our morning practices, even the

most -- of life is worthy of greek. let me just say this about victimization. it is true that is i.e. that one just to find ways of representing collective suffering. and wanted us to do in comparison with a number of different groups so we could see what the alliance is our but also so because of the possibility of moving out of it are. and less loss is acknowledge it seems to me it's very hard to move forward because if we take the victimization to be permanent or if we take the losses -- if we are number two the losses, it's all mortal losses, right? we don't have that affected basis to say this is an outrage, this ought not to have it and i will struggle to make sure it does not happen. we don't have a collective -- seemitseems to me that morning t stop with morning. morning is part of outrage and the articulation of ideals that

we want to see embodied in the world. it has to take that, it has to convert it has to convert into action, and again. for those whose losses are to losses, who don't exist or on not recognize, or whose agency is being transfigured and pernicious ways, it's very hard to get, to break out of that slim to come to break out of that stereotype, to show what legitimate resistance is and why it is legitimate. that's perhaps where a line with historically and in a contemporary way with other anti-clinton struggles may well be a great support. i thank you for your -- [applause] >> thank you, professor. thank you very much. thank you all. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you can access this program anytime at c-span.org. we have more live programming coming your way in about 45 minutes but with an update on the u.s. army's total force policy which integrates the army, national guard and

reserves into a single force. this is part of the association of the us army annual meeting coming up at 3 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. turning to campaign 2014 coverage, a number of live debates on the way. part of the 100 we're covering this campaign season. >> i mark pryor and i approve this message spent on the direct of a 24 hour emergency domestic violence shelter. we've got to do something to break the cycle of violence and tom cotton is not doing anything to help. congressman cotton voted against protecting women and children from domestic violence. he was the only republican or democrat from the state of arkansas to vote this way. he voted to cut the funding to shelters. there's a big difference between

marmark pryor and tom cotton. >> i'm according. i've never been political but it's hard to ignore the senate race at the more i read, the more i'm concerned about tom cotton. did you know he voted against equal pay for women? he thinks women should be charged more for health care than men. cotton was also the only arkansas congressman to vote twice against helping women who are victims of domestic violence. it makes you wonder, what's cotton got against women? spent on tom cotton and i approve this message spent my husband and i started this business on a leap of faith. we have everything from a body shop guy to mechanics to cleaning crew to the dispatch, the drivers. obamacare has already raised the premium tickets already costing us a fortune. it's not only hurt our business, it's hurt our employees. it was supposed to make health care a lot more affordable.

it has done everything but make health care affordable. next year we might even be able to afford coverage at all. our hands are tied. it is frustrating to realize that your own senator cast the deciding vote on obamacare. we told him personally how this would affect our business and our employees. i wish senator pryor had listened to us when we told him how about you would affect our business and wish he would've voted against it, but you didn didn't. >> arkansas debate at 3 p.m. later today more live coverage of campaign 2014 debates.

>> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow was on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, media clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing over 100 senate, house and governor debates and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter at c-span him and liking us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. >> new york's 21st congressional district, democratic aaron woolf, a lease symphonic and matt funiciello met last week for the first debate in that race. the 21st district is located in the northeastern region of new york and includes clinton, franklin and washington counties. the income, bill owen is not

seeking reelection. the rothenberg political report rates the race as a tossup. we will show as much as we can in advance of expecting live coverage of the association of the u.s. army, coming up scheduled for 3 p.m. eastern. ♪ ♪ >> hello and welcome to time warner cable news. the 21st congressional district debate. i'm liz benjamin that i'll be serving as moderator along with my time warner cable news colleagues brian dwyer who covers the watertown area, and matt hunter who carries -- -- this entry covers more square miles that any other in the state that it includes all or part of 12 counties. it is currently represented by democrat bill '01 id decide not to seek reelection. three candidates hoping to replace them. elise stefanik, aaron woolf and

matt funiciello. all three are participating in this debate. it agreed to the following rules. the debate will be one hour long be will include as many questions as we have time for. the candidate will be given one minute to answer and their opponents will get each 45 seconds to respond. rebuttals would be allowed at the discretion of the moderator. halfway through the candidates will each be allowed to ask one question to one or both of their opponents. and later there will be a lightning round to everyone's favorite with the candidates will only be allowed to answer yes or no. each candidate will get one minute for an opening statement and one minute for closing statement at the chance as the other candidate one question. the order for the opening statement was selected by a drunk. up first is elise stefanik. go ahead. stefanik: thank you so much. i want to thank time warner news for the opportunity to purchase the in today's debate. i want to take a moment to thank congressman bill owens. while he and i may disagree on certain issues i came into force public service and his

constituent services representing the 21st district to for the viewers this evening, my name is elise stefanik uprights us born and raised in upstate new york. i grew up in a small business family where i learned the challenges of creating jobs in today's economy. i was first them of my india family to have the opportunity graduate from college and after graduating from college i worked in washington for six years focus on public policy. i chose to move him to the north country to my family's small business growth. and over a year ago i announced my candidacy for congress. i'm running for congress because washington is broken and we desperately need new ideas and a new generation of leadership to focus on creating jobs and serving the economy right in the north country. standing up for constitutional liberties, especially the second a minute and replacing obamacare with commonsense health care reforms that put you in charge of your healthier. i thank the other kids are here to see a note for to the next our to debate.

funiciello: my name is matt funiciello. i guess i'm running for congress as well on the green party ticket. i am speaking right now two people are watching the debate, the electorate. the green candidates are often not allowed or encouraged to participate in debates with mainstream media and i would like to thank very much time warner cable, but also the republican and democratic candidates for graciously allowing us to participate. it is rather historic but i would also like to see -- to say that as again on the only candidate born in addition, raised in the district, who lives in the district, who works in the district, employs people in the district, and basically is native to it. i don't think that's the only thing that's important in a congressional race but i think it's very important in sending a post to congress that actually represents you as part of the working class. thank you. >> moderator: mr. woolf.

woolf: thank you to my colleagues. it's an honor to be. my name is aaron woolf and i have had a home in elizabethtown since i tested it. warehouse burned at we rebuild it with would we build on the property and with help of lots of friends and neighbors. rebuilding the tome was an investment, not only the future of my family but in our place in the community. over the years i've helped build trails, served on committees and conservation board, so that issued the products from local farmers. glasser i probably work for republicans and democrats to help save 10 small town movie houses and the jobs they support. my fathers at our ashes are in additioaddition to my gosh this friendship addition to my daughter's best friend is your and my dad picked her up and dropped her off at school. i am running for congress because i want her to be able to have a future as well. to do that we will have to fight for the top quality education, fight for our veterans, make sure our local businesses have the tools they need to succeed. we have to make sure people who work for a living not only can survive and thrive.

there's a lot of dysfunction in washington and i know to make things better their we wanted independence, she response build and hard work, the very things i learned growing up your. >> moderator: thank you all very much. the first question asked goes to you, mr. woolf, and i will be asking you. the u.s. again is involved in military action in the middle east. this time in the form of airstrikes against the group known as isis, or the islamic state. president obama says no boots on the ground, and instead he wants to armed syrian rebels so they can battle the militants. would you have voted in favor of that proposal? and also what you think the country's long-term strategy in this region should be? woolf: those of you following know i don't like to engage in hypothetical question. clearly this is a volatile situation or i'd like to preface it by saying i'm not privy to all the information that president obama or even congressman owens has about this. i am deeply skeptical about

boots on the ground. i think airstrikes may be an important step and may help to weaken the isis but i think we should think about our allies in the region. we have turkey, saudi arabia, jordan, all of which of standing armies of hundreds of thousands of men and women i suppose, and they should absolutely the in the first line. we should work in concert with other nations in the region. i also like to point out that my opponent, elise stefanik, was a director of the foreign policy initiative, one of the most hawkish foreign policy think tanks in washington and the advocate right now for boots on the ground. i think this is something the voters deeply do not want. stefanik: were in this position today because of president obama's the leadership. my opponent here aaron woolf is another vote for the failed foreign policy of is obama. even as obama's on second a defense and suggested that he should have acted sooner editors the issue of a rising isis. we are in this position today

because of the week commander-in-chief. i would defer to the military commanders advice and that's what we think we need a strong commander-in-chief who speaks good and with conviction about what the u.s.'s role in the world is. i also think of the commander-in-chief has executive authority to take these actions i think he should go to congress anytimany time there's a discusn when we're engaging around the world. it's important in this district as the homeport, 10th mountain division, the most important division and u.s. army, these considerations is taken strictly. funiciello: i think the port for us all to remember that george w. bush and his administration put up in the middle east unconstitutionally congress did not declare war on afghanistan or iraq. we bombed and occupied two sovereign nations and we did not do so according to the laws of our own country. we have continued since world war ii to defy the constitutional doctrine that only congress shall declare war. my answer is simply to whether

or not we should be taking isis as a serious threat or involving ourselves in the middle east is that no personally we should be less congress is going to declare war. authorization to use military force are questionably legal. there's no decision to be made when it comes to whether or not they are legal internationally. they are not. we are defiling international law as well as her own constitution. i would never do that. i would never vote for a you in the and i would hope neither of my opponents would either credit for fair enough. thank you very much. >> speaking of military issues, for trump is a big topic of conversation towards the economy and what it does. we all know the impact it has over $1 billion economic engine for the north country. we have seen the study, worst case new study done that proposed 16,000 soldiers if you can't, what would happen to the result came out it would be disastrous for the north country. we all know fort drum and all

that. mike which of you about that though is as a congress members would be the new person on the block, the new kid on the block for congress. what have you done to make sure your voice would be heard in congress as a new person to the people who ultimately will be making a decision whether or not fort drum space lacks. stefanik: protecting and strengthening fort drum has been a cornerstone of my campaign. i'm the only candidate standing on the stage this evening who was a proven record of fighting back against the sequester which is guiding our nation's military. i was part of the coalition called defending defense fighting back against the sequester which has led to losing ever get at fort drum. my commitment which i talk about on the campaign trail and with people in the fort drum community are i would request to serve on armed services committee. i would work in a bipartisan basis with other members of the new state delegation. senator gillibrand and senator schumer, a real opportunity work

on bipartisanship to strengthen the military post in her district. i also would insurance in discussion for east coast missile defense site that fort drum be considered for the. given this commitments on the campaign trail there will be no greater advocate of protecting and strengthening fort drum and fight against the sequester than myself industries. funiciello: thank you, brian. we have used the military and the united states for a number of decades, really post-world war ii as economic development which is a travesty. the united states military is there to defend the united states if it is under attack. the bottom line is fort drum has economic element within this district, obviously unbelievably important. the fact is then when we the federal government threatening cuts, should we hide our heads in the sand and pretend one congress person is going to save it? or should we talk about an intelligent adult transition, something else that could allow us to economically thrive? i would point out that

mr. mccue was certain not against having the private air force base in the midst of his congressional district before redistricting. it's a corporate the federal government decides what is going to do, they are going to do it. a backbencher from either major part is not going to fix the problem, neither is a brand-new green candidate either. what we need to look at is a transition to sustainable jobs that pay a living wage. woolf: interestingly fort drum has been a leader in ideas about sustainability. and the military knows better than anybody about how to use fuel efficiency. it's something they have to use all the time. i would be proud to follow in congressman mckeon and congressman owens footsteps in promoting fort drum as a partnership that is there. i think i would applaud the recent contract with the energy to provide sustainable home-grown energy which could even expand the economic partnership that fort drum

represents. but i also think it's important to remember that fort drum issue need from other military facilities in one of the way. there's no on base hospital, no on base school. we have military families and civilian families interacting come integrating with each other. to me that's a model were able responsible military should go. it's an example of how when we give to make a sound decision to send of fighting men and women into combat, we're doing it now with some other, but with people that are in our midst, and are committed to this is what is unique and this one of the ways i think i can defend it effectively. >> a major issue in any race across this country at any level of government. according to last month's sienna college live poll, the number one issue for likely voters in this state think when you look at the latest unemployment numbers in new york state, by and large most of the counties in the 21st district that are performing well compared to the state average here in the

capital region, although mostly to the north and west are performing worse. we will start with you, victor funicello. what could you do as a member of congress to ensure that this job growth is more equitable throughout the district? funiciello: first off i think it's important to note that for many, many years now the lobbying that is going on to our congresspeople who are in washington, d.c. have caused a situation or where corporations are deciding much like web with centralized farming what areas of the country one of what types of industry. this has created an unbelievable, and unbelievably microcosmic circulation of the very small amount of capital. when you look at global foundry setting up, when you look at industries like farming which is going on at a small level at the adirondack park, you're looking at examples of decentralized versions of economic develop an that actually works. my whole point would be very simple. if you are going to establish a

congress that's going to create jobs, then you should do so using business people. i would say that again that's not really an answer that i'm 100% satisfied with, but my time is up talked about on the rest of it. woolf: look, i'm incredibly proud to count on the support of small business council of america. they see on the only candidate on the stage that is made real recommendations for how to the small business in terms of tax cuts. ms. stefanik has spoken about tax cuts globally. on talk about a 20% tax cut for any small business that hires a new employee or expands payroll. i think everything that's important to remember is we can promote small business by with raising the minimum wage in this toshiba i've can operate from in support of my opponent ms. stefanik has refused to take a stand explicitly either way. she says we can have a conversation. in fact, we've been having a conversation for years on this asia. i'm in favor of raising the minimum wage.

i think it's good for small business. what we have to do is level the playing field. we have 25 of the 50 biggest corporations in the country that they no tax at all. and less ms. stefanik and mr. funiciello going to agree we need to level the playing field for small businesses, we're not going anywhere with promoting jobs in the district. stefanik: jobs is a one way for number one issue as i travel across this district. my family business can we do business with hundreds of small businesses throughout the 21st district, where the lumber companies, furniture manufactures or cabinet makers. we understand firsthand the challenges of employing people in the north country. i believe we need to put in front of the taxes for go out the tax code and start from scratch and get rid of all special interest loopholes so there's a flatter, thayer samper tax system that incentivizes hard-working families to save more of their money, invest in the future generations but also incentivizes small businesses great those jobs and grow. we have to address the regulatory regime coming from this administration to its

journey small businesses in the district and hurting our family farms. we need to address health care cost one of the fastest rising cost for businesses in this district to my family's business after health care coverage canceled. we've seen agreement increased of up to 30% in an additional 50% heading into next year. i think when you dress is issued i want to take a moment to respond to the minimum wage issue. credit for the next question is on minimum wage. mr. woolf jumped a little bit ahead but that's fine. will talk about the minimum wage all of it more. it is a priority of the obama administration, and the real question is how do you do this without hurting businesses? the national federation of independent business said it would lead to job cuts, lead to small businesses closing the doors. how do you strike a balance between forcing folks to increase their hourly wage and also protecting jobs?

>> on even "the wall street journal" which is not a liberal publication has stated in a series of articles that the biggest thing that a slowing our crawl out of the recession is our wage inequality. we need to give all americans a raise and this is good for small business. is particularly good for regional businesses on main street. that's why you have businesses like mcdonald's and subway and dairy queen. these our franchise owned, small family-owned businesses. all of them have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage because they know they need to give their customers a raise. the customers a raise will put more cash struggling in the economy. it's a really important thing to do and has the same effect as closing the gender gap in paychecks. my opponent was the wreck of the 2012 republican party platform which explicitly omitted closing the gap for before we get there, when you talk about small

businesses voluntarily raising minimum wage comp is it fair to include franchisees when those decisions are made higher up the food chain? the question is how do small businesses get protected? you hear from them a lot that they will not be able to afford it when health care costs are rising as well. transit health care costs, i lament this stuff on it family situation with the affordable care act . stefanik: not just my family's business but it's across the district. when it comes to the minimum wage -- >> moderator: hold on. finish that thought, mr. woolf. woolf: the fact is health care costs are rising more slowly than ever have since it's been measured. and premiums are rising more slowly. and clearly there is some in equity and how that has been affected businesses. it's something we clearly need to work on and i'm very sorry about your business, but i think that this is actually a time in

which it is going to be easier for small businesses to provide insurance. >> moderator: okay, ms. stefanik. stefanik: i was in the primary -- i'm open to raising the minimum wage to i believe instead of focusing on a national corporations that we need to make sure our small business have skin in the game. my family's small business, we pay $4.50 of up to all of our employers but we make a conscious decision as a small business that we want to attract the best workers. i know matt funiciello does the same at his bakery and of a tremendous amount of respect for the. i do have one question for every. you know the minimum wage in europe state? >> moderator: hold on. you will have that opportunity. stefanik: it's important to note in new york state the men which is different than i should you know what the minimum wage is for this district? >> moderator: ms. stefanik and we will have the opportunity to ask questions to her about later on. that's we want to go, that's fine. okay? great.

mr. funiciello. funiciello: i want to apologize for my previous -- answer the last question and go on. the green jobs program, talking about basically taking a lot of jobs better for my economic element at the moment, transitioning them into sustainable and renewable energy jobs, infrastructure jobs that would be paid for federally. when it comes to minimum wage, there's a simple answer to $15 an hour. night of my opponents are making $15 an hour right new. they don't know what it is to live at that level. i do. i also don't have health care as a small business owner. i live with my workers. henry ford once said very clearly, i'm going to take my assembly line workers enough money that they can all buy a model t. what happened to the robber barons of yesteryears that knew they had to take care visit were going to be there force of labor, and a force of consumption. nowadays we're letting wal-mart and mcdonald's decide how much we will make. i read a piece yesterday that by 2040 almost half of us will be in the service industry.

aaron once give you $10.10 an hour purchase of to get you off all your subsidy programs, housing, food stamp to, food stamp to i want to give you $15. that's what we deserve. >> moderator: i think we will move on. >> another issue that's been talked about is social security. the possibly of raising the retirement age has come up in those discussions as well. there's been some confusion over the various answers of the candidates in this discussion. ms. stefanik, can you clarify for us first whether you support the higher retirement age and if so what it should be? and also a little bit about your social security program. stefanik: social good is an incredibly important program and what i think socia socials couli think of not only seniors today but also future generations but as a talk to seniors, they're not only concerned about this program for themselves but also for the grandchildren. my position is clear. i will make no changes to those programs for those 50 and above but we have to be honest bu thae

are facing tough decisions that do nothing approach of my opponent would bankrupt which is good and won't be there for people in my age group and for future generations. if i'm the only one who has the courage to not stick my head in the sand that work on a bipartisan basis to talk about how we can fix these programs for future generations, and i think everything should be on the table. so for those who are 50 and above, no changes. they are honest the government needs to be honored. >> the question also could about the higher retirement age. stefanik: for young people i will have a longer work span. i think you should consider that. spent essentially there's a simple answer to social security and we all know, h.r. 1029. it takes a tax cap which is growing at $117,000. it raises it to $250,000 which should fund social sturdy for the foreseeable future. the reality is there's little sponsorship for this bill. it probably will be removed.

i would ask why, why wouldn't they support that? i know what my answer would be. if the republicans are looking to privatize health care, they're looking to privatize medicare, looking to privatize social security. we need to be careful of that because how do make something more efficient by taking money out of a fund that's already been built that is owed to us, it's our money? how do you make more money by building a profit margin is something that is currently not profit with the democrats raised because many of their donors as with the republicans are very wealthy people who are saying we don't want to pay the extra money. just like corporate america, pay your share. >> mr. woolf? woolf: thank you, matt. not just republicans but the republicans here on this stage want to privatize social security. she has said something different on the campaign but she says a lot of things that don't represent what she has done. as the director once again at the 20 will republican party platform she directed the plan to privatize social security. she also recommended voucher rising medicare.

which i would love to know your position today if you want to tell us. stefanik: i do, and i'm going to respond -- >> moderator: hold on. answered the question about raising retirement age, i will not raise the retirement age and i would like to know a summary by her definition who is at or near retirement what happens to somebody who is just a year younger than me, a 49 jeweled has been paying into the system since they were teenagers? when can they retire? elise stefanik has lived a very white collar life. i don't know if you've ever worked manually for a living like i have, and i'm certain that probably has. if you can say something to 49 euros who is working with the body with her hands, it's a different thing than sitting down the desk and operating a computer. spent if you want have a chance. stefanik: absolute i want to respond to my needs on the ballot and it is 2014. you and i both know i didn't write the platform and i've been very specific. motorist or i stand on these issues.

this is exactly what people are so tired of, partisan political attacks. and i have the courage to work on a bipartisan basis to help fix these programs can voters deserve better. seniors deserve better as their focus on ensuring that the grandchildren have better opportunities and that these programs are there for them. and regarding whether i've had a job, you are the only multimillionaire running for this race. i'm proud of my experience working in my family small business. we sell plywood. our troxel five days a week -- our trucks are loaded. i'm proud of my work experience and i think it speaks for itself. >> i'm going to change focus a little bit. residency is an issue that is gained plenty of attention in this campaign. i lived something all of you if i'm not mistaken brought up in your opening remarks. national campaign come in particular criticized both you, mr. woolf and ms. stefanik are

growing up outside of the district until recently not living in the district. this question we'll start with mr. funicello, but should voters have any real concerned about supporting a candidate who hails from outside? funiciello: i have to say that having met both aaron and a lease previously and having spent time with them, not in a social circumstance and is very artificial circumstance of being on television together, being in public forums, they are both human beings. i'm sure that in their own way either of them would be perfectly able to represent you in congress. question becomes what does that mean. mia better represented because i was actually or here and live and was raised here and they weren't? a word from 40 miles away, 200 miles away. they were from 1000 miles away. we've developed a system whereby a congressional seat has become the norm. you just have to ask yourself this question, does it matter, do we have a unique perspective, unique voice is people who are born and raised in upstate new

york, and is that voice could be well served going to congress and just becoming one of a group of democrats or a group of republicans were either individual voice will be totally lost? my supposition will be noticeable, national media will pay attention. we can talk to issues that matter to workers. woolf: if you walk down the street in elizabethtown and asked almost anybody can they're likely to become and that's not just because i'm an for congress. my family has had a home in elizabethtown since 1968. my father's ashes are there. i've also been there in every season for years and years but i rebuild my home there. i think that kind of work that i've done for the 20 in the north country is so, sets me apart from my republican opponent. community work, conservation work, helping to create jobs. it seems kind of, i'm glad matt is open-minded about this idea

that we're all humans, but for me this is where my heart is and that's where my home is. no, and what happens on november 4, i'm going to be in elizabethtown but it's the best place in what with the best people in the world and i intend to stay there. stefanik: that, first of all of which the i look forward to hanging out socially. funiciello: i do want you to know that i am involved. stefanik: that was unexpected. anyways, i was born in albany county. my up on the democrat ticket was born in maryland. i went to high school at albany academy for girls, 30 miles south of this district to my family has owned a home since i was three. this is why the home. i've outworked both of the candidates in traveling this issue. more important matt funiciello, we work with people in this district on a daily basis with my family's visit to focus on what my ideas are, represent this district which are quitting jobs and growing our economy, standing up for constitutional

liberties, always protecting our farmers and giving them the environment to grow and thrive in standing up for servicemen and women at fort drum. woolf: you know, i'm very proud of the work i've done in the community i'm mostly proud of helping to save the small town movie houses and to of been evolve on a community level for decades. to me, dropping off my daughter at school is about a big accident as i commit to the future of our district. again i'm going to be there no matter what happens on november 4 and will continue to do working in the comedic. >> moderator: we switch gears and at this point. this question is for you, mr. woolf. you know the number of colleges and universities in the district. they played a vital role culturally and economically. there's a problem of sexual assault on college campuses in immediately to the obama administered is trying to address a. in new york we are trying to address the financial benefits and increased reporting, talking about all these things.

not all college officials are on board and they say it can potentially hurt them going forward attracting students. what is your position on how to handle this issue? woolf: universities can be very close communities, and they like to thank that they can be self policing communities. sexual violence on campus is a growing. there's an astounding number of women who are affected by it and i think it's important that we be proactive as a society to say that self enforcement is not working. unfortunately i think that's also true in the military, where we have to look at the examples senator gillibrand idea of taking sexual assault cases outside of the command so they can be some objectivity. this is the within the military structure but it's creating an opportunity to have some objectivity. in both of those communities you see a lot of ranks closing and i think that's really unfortunate. it's something we need to address 168 republicans voted against the violence against

women act. this is pretty basic stuff for how we look to take care of ourselves as a society, and certainly addressing on campus along with senator gillibrand is something i would like very much to do. stefanik: as a woman, sexual violence and sexual assault is a really important issue and it's an issue i would urge our colleges and universities not only fan on campuses but i think we need to address this at the federal level. i would support initiatives to increase reporting requirements. i think they should not be tolerated, and for all the young women out there who are watching this today, this is one reason why i'm running for congress is we need more women from both sides of the aisle to have a seat at the table to take on these tough issues. i would break with my party and i would vote for the violence against women act. i hope to be a strong voice for women not just in this dish it but across the country. >> moderator: mr. funiciello. funiciello: i would have to agree with both of the other candidates. i mean, i think it's easy to

split this issue into two separate things. want is security on college campuses. community policing is something we are trying to reenter checked into the discussion when it comes to some of our larger urban centers. i think we're doing that with marginal success. we've seen an increased example as we're militarizing our police forces of excessive force, brutality and even outright killing. we need to make sure that our police are actually members of our community. this is an important idea. it goes back to the 1960s that i think he needs to take root once again. if we are on a college campus and we start as aaron was suggesting, look at outside forces come in as gillibrand is suggesting with the military to investigate these issues when they happen. but the other is a cultural issue, and the app justification of women, we need to take a strong stance on schooling at a very early age so we are raising men and women who respect each

other and don't sexualize their relationships. >> moving on to issue that's kind of unique to our area. earlier this year the international joint commission decided to endorse a water level plant, which basically kind of restores the water level to a more natural health, i suppose to it's been championed by most everyone in new york 21 but there are those on the southern shores of the lake were outraged, worried about shoreline erosion. could cost millions of dollars. there's money to help with that but they're not happy with the plan. what's the correct course of action here and how do you prioritize the needs of what new york 21 once but also neighbors who completed want something different? ms. stefanik, let's start with you. stefanik: i think a 2014. is a great example of bringing environmentalists, conservationists and small businesses and members of the economy at the same table to discuss these issues. i support the 2014 plan to

return of the water level to the saint lawrence seaway to historic levels because not only is a good for our environment, it's good for economy which is so dependent on a clean environment in this district. i also support having fled insurance protection for the southern region that you were referring to. i think that the next representative for this district must advocate on behalf of our economy and how we're going to great jobs, and we did a bike lane at the apartment and begin returning those water levels. so i support that the 2014 plan. i think it's where we should have any future. i joined joined congressman owens been supporting that plan. funiciello: i personally don't have a scientific opinion about which is the correct way of addressing the water levels in this saint lawrence but i believe we need to respect the opinion of the to live and work in the region. there's a similar issue going on in the northern part of the district with a rooftop highway. there are a number of the federal ideas to become state ideas. you begin to use public money to

participate in what can often become a boondoggle. because this is an environmental issue on top of everything else, we interject the idea of science but it's not just a whether the rooftop highway is a good idea or not. we are talking about the erosion of soil, talking for mine, about where people are living and whether the houses are going to slip into the st. louis or not. this is a catastrophic issue. the whole point is why would we live to the federal government to decide? funding should come from the federal government by the regional government, regional representation should be the ones to decide what the answer is to the problem. not congress. woolf: for years i've attended meetings of a group called common ground alliance but it is an amazing group that was born around 2000 brings together conservations, towns and villages, small businesses in the north country. for years we fought in the adirondacks a lot about conservation issues and they were the kind of built-in contentiousness. usage of in the adirondack people would rather fight than

when. that's changed a lot and one of the things we are seeing is this idea that conservation and best practices in agriculture as well can be an economic driver and not an impediment to growth. i embrace plain 2014 because i think it's on the right step and i don't agree with ms. stefanik and bringing together those groups is something we do really well in the north country. i agree we should compensate the lake ontario homeowners with flood insurance but i do think representing our district, this is a win-win. it's good for business and it's good for the environment, and it's a great example of what we've been able to in the north country that really stands in strong contrast to what happens in washington. >> thank you very much. >> agricultural is certainly a major interest in the state. given the district's size, quite a large percentage of new york state's farms. we are finding many of the farmers throughout the district and edward else are reaching old age and are now struggling to find second generation our next generation farmers to look after

their properties and keep the family enterprises going. so what as a member of congress could you do to make this a more attractive and a more viable industry for young farmers? we start with mr. funiciello. funiciello: we put congresses scope of reference he really has more to do with the fargo than anything else. we should as many critics have said because the food bill. it is about commodification of food, about how we have subsidized farming and decide upstate new york is only suitable for dairy farming and that's all we're going to do but even though we will do it on a mono cropped level, going to use fertilizers and pesticides, going to grow licensed and franchise forms of corn and hay. we're going to plug ourselves into system that allows us to be in a death spiral if we are a dairy farmer. it's a terrible system and produces food that isn't edible. want you to ask itself is would we rather have that farmland being used for the major model crop centralize agriculture farms, or would we rather grow

wheat in watertown north country farms? would rather go to a small farm league -- family farm? what do we not subsidizing the tractor for the husband and wife were 25 years old and want to start farming their parents property? because we have no vision at all. we all want good healthy food but congress has to say we will give you some of the money to capitalize making the food. we don't do that right now. woolf: i think matt is right on track with a lot of his ideas. we really do want . funiciello: then you should vote for me. [laughter] woolf: they really want to see a lot more diversified of the culture operation. want to see greater emphasis on value added products but i personally look at agriculture issues long before i ran for congress, for those in know about my work. and i supported and sold and distribute the products go but farmers in new york 21st. there are ways we can greatly

improve a lot of agriculture in this district. one of those is to look at some of the environmental regulations i think have been overprescrib overprescribed. intermittent bottles and ditches as part of navigable waterways to me is laughable. when you farmers at the table. passing coverage of immigration reform, something republicans have refused to do for a long time is one of those aboard things we need to do for our dairy farms in this district. stefanik: agriculture is the backbone of our economy in the 21st district. i've traveled to many farms across this district ranging from dairy farms to organic farmers to apple orchards. i agree with aaron that we need to address overreaching federal regulations, but a vote for aaron is another vote for president obama in nancy pelosi's overregulated agenda. i think we need to address the regulation of all some of them back, addressing the clean water act which has bottles of water

that are not navigable. i think we need to cut taxes. part of it which was how do you hand down farms from one generation to the next. our farms in your get some of the highest taxes in the country. my opponent wants to raise taxes on some of the family farms in this district. i want to cut taxes to make it easy to keep these farms in families and in the north country but i also think we need to have a representative who can roll up their sleeves and have a seat at the table in on the ad committed to negotiate a foreign policy. when it comes to labor i do think we do need to address our visa program and make sure there's certainly for dairy farmers in this district so a three to five year program is legalized and pursued separately. he needs to be in the interest on a bipartisan basis. >> we would like to give mr. woolf a chance to respond to the comments regarding taxes. woolf: i think umbrage at your accession of want to raise taxes on family farmers. nothing in my record or my statement would possibly indicate that your.

stefanik: attack site, racist taxes in clinton county was one the most important employers in the agriculture industry. battled on farmers but on manufacturers in clinton falls which is a women's owned business travel let's let mr. woolf rebut. woolf: i be happy to discuss that. it is one of the ways i proposed raising revenue. i'm the only candidate on this podium, this stage that is taught the ways of raising revenue. but we need is a better infrastructure. we need better roads and bridges, world broadband. everybody on this stage has talked about that but nobody dares to say how we can possibly raise the money but i think the buffett rule propose the millions and billions pay their fair share and don't pay a lower effective tax and the people that work for them. to me seems absolute fair and absolutely necessary read for so now we're at the point where you have the opportunity to ask one another question.

you have a lots of questions. you only get one. you can ask one question of one candidate or one question for both candidates. mr. woolf, you go first. woolf: i take umbrage my opponent's contentions out of washington and everything that obama and pelosi say. i think that i stand by my film work which always brought all sides to the table. i dealt on issues about liberals and conservatives to the table. i've always done that. i've done that, saving the movie theater project -- >> moderator: is this a question? woolf: the question is, you know, you keep running away from your record as director of this platform. as a film director i take full responsibility for all the things in my films. you were a director, you put your namon a document that sought to the constitutional ban on a woman's right to choose even in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

you put your name on that. you need to take responsibility for the. even if it was only two years ago. you a run for office the and it seems like you are saying whatever you want and what if you think the voters want to hear. my question is, were you being disingenuous then all you being disingenuous now? stefanik: this is an important question. for the viewers who are watching, my name is on the ballot in 2014, aaron, you and i both no, i did not write the platform nor did i have editorial control but it was voted on by the delegates that i was not a delicate in new york state. this is part of the reason why i'm running for office, to put forth on ideas because i think we need new leadership in washington. i've seen firsthand how broken leadership is in washington. you're asking what my position is. i'm pro-life with exceptions, rape, incest and life of the mother i do support the violence against women act. i'm running as a lease stuff on it and you play more of a partisan political attack. i hope the voters are paying attention to what my ideas are

for this district while you are lobbying attacks and running from the obama-pelosi agenda which you will be another vote in favor of. >> moderator: just to reiterate, mr. funiciello come you're going next, a question to one or both of your opponents turn for i have a question for both -- i will call them running mate, even though they are opponent. it's less uncomfortable. bottom could ask something somewhat uncomfortable to both of you. i'm a working class person to i make less than $40,000 a year. i don't have health insurance. i choose that because my workers cannot afford health insurance for i'm not going to live off their backs. both of your from unbelievable means. that's just reality. i'm not saying that makes you a bad person. one m. saying is that if you look at congress right now it is made up of nothing but people of means. don't you think that congress would be better represented if we are to have a voice of the working people in congress as well? since 96% of us work for a living on a daily basis need to collect those checks. why should we put more very

wealthy people in office? your latest third quarter report showed that both of you got almost 70% of your money from outside the district. how can you represent the district as working people? that's what it is made up of if you're getting all your money, people come outside of the? woolf: i think matt has asked a very good question and i think the role of money in politics is corrupting. i think there's a lot of it, and i am deeply troubled by it. unfortunately, we're living in an era in which money is being used in all sorts of ways. one of the biggest examples is more than two indoors and outside groups hav that have ben supporting a lease stuff on its campaign and has chosen as a kind of favorite, favorite representative. i think that that represents the fact that she is being invested in by some of the wealthiest people in the country, by some of the people who are the biggest donors but she will come out and say anything against oil

subsidies because the people who donate to crossroads are some the biggest oil companies. i think matt asked a really good question but the fact is, i did grow up in a middle-class family, with a handful of teachers and i think i do understand that one of the best things maybe we can do is change the system and begin to look at the role of money in politics in a serious way. stefanik: i'd like to address the accusations and the negative campaigning. aaron woolf is the only millionaire on this stage from manhattan to aaron woolf is the only candidate who is self-funding the majority of his campaign. he has put in over half a million jobs -- half-million dollars today. i worked hard to raise money. i've been blessed with opportunity my life but my parents didn't have the same opportunity, and so when the rest when i was seven, they risked everything, signed their names on the dotted line to start our families and small business. i'm proud i grew up in that type

of environment where i've seen your work ethic matters and did not the time you dedicate to building a business pays off. i am the first number of mighty meet family to have the opportunity to graduate from college. i want to pursue policies so that more people have those opportunities so that people are incentivized to start small businesses and grow their businesses. but with all due respect, aaron come you're the only millionaire running in this race. i am concerned with the role of money in politics, but you are so funny over half a million dollars. >> moderator: you have the opportunity to ask questions of your opponent. stefanik: sure. my question will be to aaron woolf, and i would like to know come to know the minimum wage for new york state and you know the minimum wage for your workers at the grocery store in brooklyn? transit is $8 in your state. the workers i put in brooklyn get $10 an hour. stefanik: $10 is lower than the minimum wage. it is $11.90. the marriages raise that to

$13.13. so do the voters were paying attention this evening, i no matter the and answer to this question but it's important to note -- traffic i didn't know the nuke city amateur. stefanik: it's important discussing the minimum wage of a basic understanding of the policies. as i said in open to raising the minimum wage but for the record aaron woolf does not know what the minimum wage is for nuke city. he may pay lower than the minimum wage. that's what we're running out of time. went to move on. want to cover as many things as we can transcend nothing takes away from the fact my opponent will not commit to raising the minimum wage. stefanik: you don't know the minimum wage of your own employees. transit we can put money into customers hands. >> moderator: we will move on. ms. stefanik, this goes to you. this has been a battleground as all of you well know for several election cycles now. national parties spending big to help the candidates as mr. woolf mentioned. you have been a beneficiary to

the largest degree of that outside spending. there's been a lot of negative attacks from all of these sides, from outside coming in. has this limited the discussion of local issues and distracted voters from the actual imports of what's going on in new york 21? stefanik: i'd focus on my campaign and what i can control. be as we run our focus on the issues and not engaging in the negative attacks. i believe we need more transparency in politics today. i believe we should know we are -- where all the money is coming from so that is 100% transparency to the voters. i focus my campaign on doing the hard work of traveling digester, showing the type of engine i will bring to the table. and i think that's why you can compare both candidates on the stage, i have raised more money over the course of my campaign from the small dollar donors in the district. because they support new ideas and they're interested in her campaign. >> moderatorcampaign. >> moderator: to be coal yet not disavowed those negative

outside a tax? stefanik: i'd focus on my campaign and what i can control. i can't control the fact that outside groups have canceled advertisement for aaron woolf because it is a flailing candidacy. i'm focus on my campaign and raising the money from donors who believe that we need a new generation of leadership. >> moderator: mr. woolf dress of the day after the primary elise stefanik call me on my cell phone and she said i'm looking forward to a campaign that is just focus on issues. unfortunately, she is not telling the truth. when she says it's only been outside groups that have gone negative. she was the first to go negative. but she brought my wife into this situation by talking to her in an entity which i can provide a reference for. she has said over and over again i'm trying to run for congress to make a documentary film. i'm running for copts to represent the people of the 21st district. both of these people have said it, but ms. stefanik has said it on television and she's mentioned my wife on radio. into this kind of way of making

it about personal issues that i think is being used to distract from the real issues, the issue were taught about tonight and should be focusing on. it's i think one of the hallmarks of campaigning today but we have not done that but even on our website there are lies that the daily enterprise this challenge about me and my candidacy. funiciello: i think your initial question was about local issues. >> moderator: it was indeed about local issues. funiciello: i think that congress is actually come we are trying to represent as a congressional representative of the people in her district on national issues but we spend so much time talking and this is what i was getting tongue-tied but earlier, we spend some some talk about what congressman can do locally come look at our congresswoman to locally? the answer is nothing. i can go to a duck race and to your parade and you can feel happier with you and they're waving the flag event. they will vote on whether not you're making a living, minimum wage. the vote on whether not you get

good medical care. we pay with public money to free already paid for medicare for everybody in the entire country right now. we don't have a single-payer health care is on the table. are these people going to vote for it? no, they will not get if we can give and my. 27th of us are. 54 of us are. we need to start putting independence in the congress that don't make corporate money. will start to get the things i national level that we require. these are the issues that matter. >> moderator: okay. we are unfortunately we are out of time. we would like to get to lightning round. we have two minutes to do that. ..

>> m oderator: have you ever been to a phish concert? funicello: no. i'm sorry, i don't like jam bands. stefanik: me neither. >> moderator: mr. woolf? woolf: what do you think? stefanik: i have not experienced it, i've followed the news clips about it. fiewp fiewn i have not experienced it. >> moderator: would you have voted for the safe act? woolf: no. >> moderator: mr. woolf, will you vote for governor cuomo in november? stefanik: no.

funicello: oh, god, no. >> moderator: did you vote fur owens in 2012? woolf: no, i did not. stefanik: no, i did not. funicello: i wrote in an expletive. >> and should roger goodell step down as nfl commissioner? >> moderator: okay. we hoped to get through more, but we don't have time. it's been a very interesting experience. we're going to go to closing statements, and that begins one minute to remind you, mr. woolf, you first. woolf: thank you for the opportunity to be here. it's an incredible honor to be a candidate for congress in the 21st district. i think we have a lot to be proud of in our district, and we're seeing the seeds of a new economy in so many places. small scale manufacturing in warren county, the ag revival in champlain valley, the cutting edge energy provided for fort drum. i have such faith in the future of our economy in upstate new

york. but dysfunction and inaction and partisan extremism in washington have been a major, major block. they have been a stall on our economy, and they have been a paralysis on our progress as a nation. i'm the only candidate on this stage that is not beholden to a conservative ideology or a liberal ideology, and i will work for good legislation for the new york 21st district, and i don't care if it comes from are a republican, democrat or green. i am incredibly proud to be standing here today and would be incredibly proud to serve you as your next congressional representative. >> moderator: thank you. stefanik: i want to thank congressman owens. i think it's very important to acknowledge his service to the district and his track record of working on a bipartisan basis. i hope to be able to fill those big shoes and work on a bipartisan basis on so many of the issues that we're facing. it's clear to me that president obama's economic policies have failed this district. while my opponent supports, is

another vote in support of president obama, i bereave we need to have new -- i believe we have to have new ideas and a new generation of leadership to unleash job creation and promote economic growth by cutting taxes and overhauling the tax code, by investing in our infrastructure, by continuing to work with canadian businesses as partners. i also believe that we need to insure that our farmers have a brighter future in this district, and i am committed to always fighting on behalf of our brave servicemen and women and fort drum and our veterans in this district. i entered this race over a year ago, i'm excited about the momentum and support our campaign has gained x i humbly ask for your vote on november 4th. >> moderator: mr. funicello. funicello: i was born and raised in wilton, new york. i have liveed other places in my life, but my home is definitely in c.d.21. i live in it now, i run two businesses there. my family works here, we play here, we play hockey here, we

hunt here, we farm here. this is my home. it's not the only reason why you should vote for me. it's because i want single-payer health care, and that is -- the reality is we already pay for it, and we're not being given that health care. we're not aware of it. we need to start being aware of that. we need $15 an hour. we need a raise. we need to elevate workers because of corporate welfare. we're never going to stake away all of that entitlement that those people are getting for us in the form of economic development or pork which often comes from congress. what we have to ask ourselves is how is that going to happen. in 46 years what has congress done for you as a worker that you liked? i would say nafta and gat are really good examples of what they do when you vote for a lesser evil. stop doing it. start voting for someone who is actually from your home and wants to represent you, not lead you. >> moderator: okay. that concludes our debate between the candidates. i want to thank all three of the candidates for participating.

i'd like the thank you at home for watching. you need to remember the election is november 4th, be sure to get out and vote, and please stay with time warner cable news for all your decision 2014 coverage. have a great night. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage and engage. follow us on twitter @c-span and like us at facebook.com/c-span. we'll take you live to a discussion on the army's total force policy which integrates the army national guard and reserve into a single force. this is part of the annual meeting of the association of the u.s. army. the discussion's been underway for 15 minutes or so, we join it live here on c-span2. >> which required the army to man, train and equip its active and reserve components as one

integrated total force became clear. since that time, the need to manage the reserve component as part of the operational force and to insure the reserve component capabilities are interoperable with the active component have also become very clear. if we are to insure predictable recruiting and sustainable capabilities, we must not only insure that the total army remains an integrated and operational force -- all components -- but the total force policy remains as part of the army's strategy and planning for meeting the needs of the nation going forward to include future decisions on force mix, roles and missions and total army training integration. the army reserve supports the army total force policy and the chief of staff of the army general ray odierno's prevent, shape and win strategy through our readiness model that we call plan, prepare, provide. regional alignment and position of army reserve forces to support army corps, combatant

commands as they seek to shape the global environment to prevent conflict. that's the plan part. in fact, the army reserve, the only component of the army that's also a single command, is integrated into every co-com around the world. it maximizes our unit readiness, though, through total force integration and training, and that's the prepare piece. and general miller will talk more about that, i'm sure, as he talks about the important role the first army has in helping insure that we have total army train aing. and then -- training. and then it becomes necessary to engage the enemy or meet requirements globally, we can meet the army's these and to win decisively and dominantly, as general miller clearly articulated. another way we generate readiness outside of the plan, prepare and provide model by

recognizing the army reserve is the most closely-linked service and component to industry, in my opinion. almost all of your army reserve are technical enablers. most of the hard technical skills that we need in our army day in and day out predominantly rest, that capability, in the army reserve in service to the total army and the total force. so as traditional reservists, where do they maintain their skills in the technical community? they do it in the private sectors. doctors, nurses, lodge stickses, civil awares -- affairs, lawyers, whatever requires those hard core technical skills, most of that resides in the army reserve in service to the total force. and we have to recognize how do we leverage that relationship with the private sector to help generate our readiness? we do this through what's called the plan, prepare, provide and private/public partnership initiative where the army reserve builds upon our relationships and agreements with over 6,000 firms from

fortune 100 companies down to small companies, and they use their resourcing to help us train and generate better individuals, soldiers and leaders in terms of readiness using a private sector approach. merging the best of army training with civilian professional development expands the skills and core competencies of our soldiers at both the military and civilian level. p3i brings together the best of civilian and military communities through a unique program. the army reserve provides the highly skilled and educated employees, businessmen and women needed to succeed in competitive marketplaces in return for civilian opportunities to enhance those skills of our soldiers. then they put those skills to work in executing real world missions that only advance the goals of our partner organizations, but support the strategic and operational roles and responsibilities of our army in support of combatant command. they help support those

combatant commanders when the decision is made to execute lethal operations and win. for example, the collaboration we have with u.s. water partnership and the u.s. institute of peace addresses the issue of water, access and quality and the significant security issues associated with water around the many regions of the world including those strategically important to the united states. other projects that we have ongoing include issues like medical capability and the independent state of sew moaa which also strengthens u.s. relationships with show ma and new zealand. the republic of congo and throughout all the countries of africa, providing long-term training opportunities for the army reserve in support of mission requirements for the combatant commander of africom in partnership with requirements in the state department. or a more technical mission we have ongoing with general electric where we have biomedical repair teams that'll expand the skills and hands-on experience of the army reserve soldier and enable them to become real leaders this their field technically and couple

them with their military skills to be great leaders in our units. so the plan, prepare, provide readiness model and the initiative together generates that readiness, so whether it's contingent or combat operations, the army reserve can support our total army and the total force. final point that i want to mention is soldier for life. when we think about being a soldier in our great army, we have to remember that soldier for life is not about the regular army, it's about the regular army, the army national guard and the army reserve and then our great ea human knew or -- alumni or retirees from the army. and we want you to stay a soldier for life. particularly now during these challenging times that the have to downsize -- the army have to downsize, it's important to recognize that we want to capture that ac to rc as we have great men and women leaving the regular army, we need to benefit and recognize that we have a place for them in our reserve

component so they can continue to be a soldier for life. be i look forward to answering your questions and having great discussion here on importance of total force. thank you. >> okay. i'm going to change the order. judd, do you want to go next in. >> sure, sir, thank you. thank you, general millie. it's an honor to be included in the panel of distinguished leaders and especially to be able to share with you all the army guard's experiences thus far in implementing policy. so i'd have a few points. first, i'd like to emphasize that developing the total force policy has been an open and collaborative process for the army guard. we have been engaged in the meetings, council of colonels, general officers steering committees and other working groups in the pentagon and out in the major command. first army and other commands have made a real effort to engage with the agitants generals and get state input. in particular, general allen, when he was the forcecom commander, spent a lot of time socializing the interim guidance that general millie talked about

for implementation with thage taxes generals in getting their feedback. second, one of the most tangible early wins in total force policy implementation has been the unit partnering that general millie mentioned between the components. our divisions have been partnered with active component corps, and our brigades, starting with the write quaid combat teams and now we're extending that into our functional and multifunction al-bahary gaze are partnered with their active component counterparts to insure that all of our units are able to plan partner training events and provide leader development opportunities. our army national guard positions that are aligned with component corps do so for the duration of a cycle so that the divisions can alternate between a homeland defense mission set such as our command and control, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear response element or otherwise known as

c2cre bravo, and an expeditionary mission set during the course of that cycle. our pri divide combat teams have each been aligned with active component brigade combat teams based on type, location and existing relationships. the partnering of our functional and multifunctional units is mostly complete, and we're starting to see the fruits of some of those partnerships. and i'll highlight a couple of examples for you. the 101st airborne division conducted a screaming eagle summit in may with army national guard brigades that are partner with the the 101st brigades. so that included indiana, kentucky, wisconsin, illinois, iowa, arkansas, ohio and tennessee. similarly, the tenth mountain division and the 42nd infantry division conducted a planning conference this past august to pair up brigades under each division's command. we have the 50th ibct from new

jersey, new york's 27th infantry brigade combat team and vermont's team that were paired with the first and second bcts out of tenth mountain. each partnership brigade team met to discuss their planned training over the next 18-24 months and the potential for collaborative opportunities. we've had army national guard brigade combat teams from idaho, florida, tennessee and virginia that have worked with their active component partners to receive op-4 and observer carommer support -- controller sport for combat training capacity or xetc as well as our war fighter exercises that our guard bcts are undergoing. this is all happening without additional funding. now, certainly funding for efforts like would enable more events, but we all know that funding is scarce particularly in fy-15, so it's encouraging to see what is being done. the final point i'll make about total force policy

implementation is how encouraging it's been to see that all major exercises will now be multicomponent. it's already starting to pay great dividends for our formationings as we train, as we fight. this past fiscal year, fy-14, 42 army national guard units supported the active component ctc rotations for brigade combat teams. and in fy-14, we had seven rotations that integrated an active component battalion with an early national guard brigade. looking ahead in fy-15, approximately 80 army guard units -- around 6,000 soldiers -- are supporting 13 active component btc/ctc rotations. so we think that's a very good start. the army guard's glad to be part of the effort. we may want to talk next about what the next logical step is perhaps in the employment of those forces. so there's significant opportunity for partnering, pairing and mission sharing within our current operational

environment and the army national guard stands ready. >> sir, thank you again for allowing me to take part in the panel. >> thanks. mike? >> thank you, sir. back in 1993 the congress passed a national defense authorization act that told -- that required the secretary of the army to stand up an active component force with the intent of reducing the time it takes for post-mobilization. that's a title xi force, and that's the force first army is today. however, the last 11 to 12 years, first army has not had much time to spend in the business of premobilization, and mobilizing up to 90,000 a year sustained we had very little time, but only to push out units to get them ready for combat and postmobilization. the intelligent of the ndaa was to shape in order to lessen the amount of time it takes for post mobilization. as the army told first army last november to shift our focus from a primary effort and post

mobilization to begin efforts in premobilization which is more akin to, you could argue, the ndaa of 993, we did a total mission analysis at first army headquarters. and our mission analysis we determined that, obviously, our mission had changed, our -- [inaudible] had changed and, therefore, our tda was no longer able to support the mission we had in premobilization. that specifically, that 74% of the cs and css forces in the total army, you had very little existed in first army. and so we had to change first army. and that's one of the major efforts in what's called operation bowl shift is two lines of effort; a bold shift to premobilization training, we still have to do post mode, but a shift to premode training support, and then get our tda correct so that we can be dressed for the dance, so to speak, so that we have the css and css observer, coach and

trainer population in order to meet the cs and css mos skills that are predominantly in the reserve component. and so what first army is doing is reducing ourself from 16 brigades, no two are alike, down to nine brigades. those nine brigades will be organized into six combined arms training brigades all teamed with cs and css and adequate combat arms octs much like an ox group would be at a combat training center. we're also reducing our number of battalions from 102 to 49 battalions. but these organizations, although the numbers are going smaller, the size organizations are becoming larger and much more versatile. and so that's the, you know, in the business of executing total force policy as the executive agent for forces command, that's, that's where we're going with bold shift in order to

create these integrated training events. of which, by the way, there's about over 30 a year that the army conducts. these training events come in the form of combat training centers, rotations, war fighter rotations both brigade and division, they are xctc rotations, five or six a year, cx/tx rotations and war ex rotations with the army reserve. all of those, first army's charged to insure those are integrated. the army is organized, trained and equipped, manned in order to fight as a total force. we never go to war as one component. we go to war as a multicompetent force always. so the secretary's intent with this total force policy in the role of 2012 that's been talked about quite a bit, one of his intents is that if we don't have this policy go into effect and if we don't continue to integrate our training together, we'll go back to our stove pipes. and so we can't allow that,

because we have to train as we go to combat, and we go to combat as a multiforce which has been mentioned several times. so the way we organize that is through two venues in the army each year, okay? well, actually, they happen four times a year. the first is a training support sin onization working group, and this we put up the -- there we put up the lists for all these groups i just mentioned to you, about 30 a year. and we are in the room with all of the operators and planners when the army guard and army reserve and forces command, and we begin to plug units into these exercises to insure that we have a total integrated exercise, all right in and then that becomes what's called army synchronization resource council which is hosted by forces command which follows two months later. we do that four times a year so that these exercises stay synchronized and get totally integrated, and that's how we integrate total force policy.

but, of course, we need a tda structure in first army that is manned so that it has the type of skill sets we need. for example, we're standing up 12 brigade support -- 12 brigade engineer battalions and 15 brigade engineer battalions in first army that don't exist right now. and we're doing an entire transition. in 18 months, we'll be complete by the end of '15, question into '-- correction, into '16, and it's neutral. we've had to shuffle the deck chairs to create a neutral solution with a tda that will match the mission set that's been given to us in november which has been hard government work. and if you're a force manager, you're our friend, because we've been spending a lot of time with you lately. and so the order that's going to execute bold shift will be published by the army tomorrow. and it's been a long road, but we're excited about operation bold shift and our ability to help the forcecom commander execute the secretary's total

force policy. thank you, sir. >> okay, great. and, paul. osd perspective. >> thank you, general millie, and i'm very glad to be here with all of you representing the acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, richard whiteman, and, of course, our big boss, if you will, the understood secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, the honorable jessica wright. on a somewhat humorous note, it's always difficult to be the last person that speaks for two reasons. number one, you may forget what everyone else has said, but you might remember what i said, so i might get a lot of questions afterwards. [laughter] and secondly, when you hear what everyone else has said, then, you know, you may hear something -- i've been feverishly trying to edit my remarks so that i don't repeat what my fellow panelists have already said. but nonetheless, let he break into -- let me break into my comments. first of all, i want to give you a brief description of what osd

reserve affairs does, and then i'm going to give you some examples of what we do to support total force integration. and since this is a forcecom-sponsored panel, the examples that i'm going to give will be focused on training, integration and the all-important readiness mission. the core mission of osd reserve affairs is to develop policy and legislative initiatives that affect all the reserve components in the areas of manpower and personnel, readiness training and mobilization -- which is the directorate in which i work -- and finally also material and facilities. and in many cases these policy and legislative initiatives set the conditions that will enable routine use of the reserve component as part of the operational force. caveat, the services make service-specific policy plans and programs. so we cover all of the reserve

components, not just the army. two recent examples that i want to give you as i mentioned before of policy initiatives that are related to training address the burden for both active and reserve components presented by common military training which as you may know by its old title ancillary military training, and separate and related to this initiative, a policy that addresses the use of electronic-based distributed learning outside of the drill weekends to accomplish some aspects of individual training as well as professional education. now, you may ask what do these individual training enhancement initiatives do to affect the collective training mandates of the da and forcecom total force implementation guidance that general millie mentioned earlier. well, they do that because their goal is to enable reserve component unit commanders to

achieve a more productive weekend drill and to be able to devote more weekend training time to collective training on metal tasks. this in turn increases unit readiness within the statutory budgeted 24 drill days, therefore, fostering also a greater focus on collective training goals at annual training. and, of course, it goes without saying that it's critical in an increasingly constrained budgetary environment to drive mission operations readiness efficiencies and cost effectiveness from 39 statutory training days that are available to the reserve component. and meeting points and being a ready and trained force is a basic criteria for the army to consider to plan and program for use of its army national guard and army reserve formations as part of the operational force. so i hope you would agree that reserve atears is doing its -- affairs is doing its part to insure an optimally ready total

force with these policy initiatives not only for the army, but for all services. let me conclude my remarks with a strong endorsement of first army's bold shift initiative. the advantages of first army's partnering and engagements with the army national guard and army reserve in premobilization assessment, training plan development and postmobilization training in preparing units identified for mobilization for combat over the past 12-plus years in afghanistan and iraq are well documented and brought the level of total force integration to unprecedented heights. bold shift maintains this critical first army role, but expands it in two very important ways. first of all, first army training support shifts to include premobilization, as general tucker mentioned, and not of all units that are above battalion and higher formations. not just those that are

deploying. so you could look at bold shift as a continuation of the patch chart concept that we're so familiar with for scheduling deployments of army ac and rc formations in support of centcom in iraq and afghanistan. but now the training support encompasses the entire multiyear readiness generation cycle, and instead of a deployment to theater, the deployment is a culminating training event at a ctc or a cstx, war ex or a home station equivalent event. secondly, first army plays a critical role in supplying all army rc training by bringing to bear all the assets of forcecom to insure optimal training in an efficient and cost effective manner and to standard. this encompasses not only training support personnel, facilities and equipment, but also brings together combat, combat support and combat service support formations as

was mentioned earlier from all components to train as you fight. and the partnering initiative that was mentioned between ac and rc bcts institutionalizes year-round training of army active and reserve component combat formations, adding another layer of death to a c/rc integration. all of this results in an optimally-trained and ready total force. for example, ac/rc partnering and integration and mutual support occurs throughout the training readiness process, a more ready rc force whose progressive unit collective training and staff mission battle command readiness is acknowledged and recognized while readiness is generated during the premobilization training. thus, forcecom decision makers are more likely to consider the army guard and reserve unit formations as a viable sourcing solution to meet mission

requirements for combatant commanders in peacetime and, in turn, plan and program for their routine use as part of the operational force via 12304 bravo authorities. this holds equally and especially true for the or use of army reserve components as part of the operational force to provide responsive surge capacity to the active component for emergent contingencies, disaster response and humanitarian assistance operations. and the benefit of reduced postmobilization training requirements that bold shift yields will make the reserve component even more responsible under these emergent contingency scenarios. so it's osd affairs' conviction that the 2014 bold shift goes much farther than the bold shift initiative that was mentioned earlier from around the 1994 time period. it's the right thing to do for training readiness and total force integration now and into

the distant future. thank you. >> okay, thanks, paul. and then at this point we can open it up to questions. i've asked nicole to the kind of call on folks in the audience. i think there's some kind of rules of engagement. come to a microphone, if you could, because this is being broadcast. we want to make sure your question is important and it's captured for the audience that is out there on the internet and on tv. so questions from anyone about anything, we can talk about anything from the red sox to the -- [laughter] new york national guard to the 82nd airborne division. your call. >> please state your name and your organization, please, as well. >> yes, sir. lieutenant john mcgill began, general carroll and my day i job is totally separate, but i'm also a co-chair of the guard reserve committee of the military coalition, a powerful lobbying group on the hill, represents all service members, veterans, their families. so we're tracking big issues like the commission on

retirement compensation, and we're also looking at the army structure. my question for you is a little different, about the use of the reserve components in coordination with the guard units to respond to domestic emergencies. what's the real timeline for when the policy's going to come together to be able to activate reserve components with all the capables we have? >> let me make sure i understand the question, the use of reserve components to deal with domestic energies and what is the timeline associated with that? >> yes, sir. >> okay. why don't i let jeff field that first then go over to paul. >> okay, thank you for the question. it's a good question. short answer is we already have that authority, national defense act of 2012. you know, the reason the national defense act of 2012 provided the authority for federal reserve -- not just the army reserve, but the federal reserve -- to help support the

homeland was because secretary stockton, who came from california, stanford, specifically on the an appointed undersecretary for department of homeland defense got tired in california seeing complex catastrophes or challenges happen in california and the federal force, federal reserve force not being able to be utilized to help the guard address those issues. so the national defense act of 2012 provided that authority. those authorities were utilized in superstorm sandy. the army reserve as a command and a component has the authority, and i've delegated this cg, that authority down to the command team level, company level, for immediate authority to save life and limb. so right now as we speak anything happens anywhere in the homeland, a company commander, detachment commander of the army reserve has the authority given to him by me under the immediate authority for up to 72 hours to launch personnel and equipment

to save life and limb. if it goes beyond that a, we need a different authority. so going back to superstorm sandy, general jacoby requested forces, the army reserve responded within 24 hours and had forces moving to the east coast, and i provided dewatering units, aviation assets to help the national guard, and it worked just fine. break. go to dod, fema, emergency preparedness liaison officers, 100% of the uploads for the army are provided by the army reserve that are embedded in your fema regions. so the army reserve is utilized routinely to help defend the homeland in terms of complex catastrophes as we support our guard brothers and sisters, and that all happened in the national defense act of 20 the 12. >> thanks, paul, before we go over to you, judd, can you talk that from a national guard angle? >> yes, sir. in addition to what general talley mentioned about

authorities being in place, a unique aspect of the army national guard and the air national guard is our ability to operate under state active duty can underneath the funding and control of our governors. and so immediate response capability exists in state active duty status. we see that time and time again across the 54. the additional authority that general talley mentioned, and i might also add in terms of command and control construct as we envision and have in the past utilized both title x and title 3 ii forces is the dual status commander whereby in consultation with the governors and the department of defense, a dual status commander will be the usual and customary med of employment -- method of employment of those forces together underneath one commander with authority to issue orders to both chains of responding forces. so state active duty, authorities mentioned by general

talley in ndaa 2012 under the usual and customary command and control of a dual status commander when those title x and xxxerer forces are operational. >> i think part of the question -- thanks, sir. i think part of the question that was asked was also in terms of response times, if i heard that correctly. and general talley mentioned also we have something called the stafford act which i allows an immediate response of not only now the federal, you know, the federal reserve, but all reserve organizations to respond quickly to save life, limb, property and so forth. but that's only for a limited period of time. at some point they would have to be put on orders. we have policies for accessing the reserve component. they are based on a deliberate mobilization, timelines with

notice of sourcing, mobilization alert and so forth. but these are policies, they're not laws. and if an emerging requirement is done, is needed, then reserve component could be mobilized very quickly both for emergent contingencies as well as humanitarian assistance both overseas and in -- [inaudible] we initially probably would be looking to rely on volunteers because getting them on board is a little bit easier. but involuntary mobilizations are also possible. and this is where friends of the 12304 alpha authority that general talley mentioned would come into play. >> yeah, go ahead. >> an example of what paul said, it's not just alpha, but bravo, but also just 12304. so not that long ago there was a weather event that significantly impacted the philippines. so we get a call from u.s. army pacific that we need lsvs,

logistic vessels, in the water that i have in honolulu in support of u.s. army pacific, and i needed them same day launched, and i needed a two-star on the ground to support general brooks, u.s. army pacific cg in the philippines. i was the authority for that as the cg. they left the same day. that's how fast we can respond. >> thank you. next question. >> we have a question on the left. yes, ma'am. >> my name is audrey peterson, i'm with the national guard association. one of the concerns we have is the future of funding for training, and my question is, will your fy-16 budget request include funding for the division and unit partnering initiative that you have mentioned? >> well, a couple comments. one is the partnering piece is not specifically a line item, as

i understand it, in the budget. i'll go back and review that. i've been in command a little over six weeks or so, so i will go back and specifically see that. but it's my understanding that the partnership, the active component partnership with the reserve component, the national reserves is not specifically funded. however, because they're geographically located near each oh and -- other, and we've done in decades gone by as well, it shouldn't be difficult, nor expensive -- in fact, it shouldn't cost any money -- to partner on a variety of exercises. so if i'm running an officer or noncommissioned officer, professional development class and i ask it be located in state x and also in state x is a national guard division or brigade and they happen to be 15 miles away from me, then i should -- if i'm the active duty guy -- extend an invitation to

that national guard brigade to say i am having an officer or noncommissioned officer opd. and the date is such and such and the location is going to be such and such, and the topic such and such. and any or all of your people are certainly welcome to attend. so it won't be everybody, but those with scheduled permits can perhaps make it. or i am running an ftx, and i've got, doing company live wires. i've got ammunition and time and space to run some of your squads or fire teams or perhaps even individuals to augment these company live wires that are going to occur throughout the next six weeks. and i call up my local national guard guy and say it's an opportunity for you if you want to take advantage of it. and we try to do it ahead of time. is there specific money to do that? no. but nor does there need to be a lot of money associated with something like that. that is just a couple of examples of how it can be enhanced at low cost.

and i'll flip it over to judd if he wants to discuss any other issues of the budget specifically related to training of the guard. and you were specifically interested in guard, or do you want to talk reserve as well? >> both are great. >> both? okay. so we'll go to judd first and then jeff on the money piece. >> yeah, thanks, sir. you know, as we look ahead particularly i think the question was about '16. '16 is submitted. you know, fy-15 is a tough year for the army national guard. in terms of both pay allowance and o&m. it's about a billion dollars less than this was in '14. as we look to '16, we hope to see that increase and on a rise throughout that pom cycle. we're getting ready to get into '17-'21, so we want to talk about those issues. but as general millie said, i

think the root of the question is it's what you go beyond a statutory -- once you go beyond a statutory training period of 15 is days. so if you're a typical ctc rotation, extra days both on the rotation itself, and there's travel. and there's cost associate with the that. we have to capture those in our pom efforts as we do war fighter exercises so that we can allow a division commander and staff to execute training events in conjunction with war fighter exercises and maximize those opportunities. where that increases above and beyond a statutory annual training period, i think, is the crux of the issue and how do we capture that in the process so that we can maximize each and every one of those engagements. and i think that's just, that's a function of around the ticklating the requirement -- articulating the requirement and

capturing it in the pom process, and we certainly want to do that. >> excuse me, sir. having said that, we have scheduled right now for the national guard specifically two combat training center rotations this year, '15, two division war fighter exercises, six brigade national guard brigade war fighter exercises and six xetc exercises. so that's 21 exercises that are going to involve the brigade or above formation. and as you well know, since january our combat training center rotations, the echelons above brigade logistics are being provided by cssbs. so that's an entirely, that's a huge formation and a real game changer in terms of getting us off of contract and logistics support to the rotation on unit in the box. so now you've got a cssd that's really flexing their muscles in

an effort that's so realistic, it's almost better than combat because the environment is in play here, and it's a big, large, huge learning curve for us. tremendous exercise. >> so the short answer is if you're looking at in the case of the army reserve has a plus-up for training dollars above the 39 training days a year, 40 divided by 3, right, a year -- 2 right, a year. the answer's no. or in '17, the answer's no. the answer in '15, the answer is no. and the reason is because of the budget control act has taken effect, and so it's going to affect our ability to generate readiness. now, don't confuse that with us not being able to meet readiness challenges because, remember, the readiness model that we use in our army to generate readiness regardless of component says not every unit needs to be ready all the time at the same level. so we have to generate the right

level of readiness at the right time to meet the response. the way we do that in the army reserve, and it's pain. , is i have to take money and resources dedicated for other units and push that forward or to the right to make sure i'm focus ld on getting the unit out the door for contingent or a combat mission. ..