they fought for regulations. what regulations are laws for corporations? .. >> >> we need a of a green deal

to put people to work to do it that is why we need to put people to work. >> moderator: the next question is for mike bost. >> much has been made of timber. >> i have to start to say as i noticed it is amazing that i do that all the time that i have only ran two times and my wife says she has bought me or ties than that. so i need to explain. maybe, just maybe, there are times when we need our legislators to stand up. i will tell you if someone

violates your right or on the house floor in washington or in springfield then they need to stand up for you. they need to stand up for you. that is what they do. or if they have rules that make it to where your representative, or any other representative, does not have equal time and the opportunity to represent the people that they need to be then that is the time you need your legislator to stand up. when the issue that everyone puts on the ads on the internet, we got calls from 50 states and six foreign countries to tell us that is the way i feel about my government. because nobody is standing up for us.

does that mean you go and deal every time? but the bill that i stood up and argued about so passionately failed. that would have taken the pension and shifted to every property-tax owner in this room. everyone. in the middle of the night 198 page bill. and angry? you bet. when things are happening in washington you ought to be angry to. >> i don't understand why a temper tantrum would get support from all over the country. i guess you could say it shows passion but if 80 year-old throws himself on the floor that is passion but you would not send them to congress. [laughter] it reminds me of people that

when the kids hit me or take me and they say boys will be boys. they don't have to act like that your kid is a brat because you let him get away with that. i think congress should be a place of dignity where people go and they have respect for the office and respect for the constitution. and i think it is interesting to talk about respect with the constitution when my opponents of seem to realize in the constitution or article one section the only congress shall declare war. and raise the armies and the fund for war. i believe it was you that if obama went to congress to start bombing syria or iraq it was political posturing and not the duty of the constitution. i thank you should send people to congress who actually know what the constitution stands for and knows the duties of congress

and would allow a president to taking into a war without paying for it to put on a national credit card, running the country into trillions of dollars of debt then say we have to cut health and education because we are so much in debt. but we are in debt because you're spending trillions of dollars on war in not paying for it that is congress's duty. and bragging about the strictest regulations in the country remember bradley's right about the strictest regulations in the country then turn around with cnr about half of those regulations they brag about. >> remember in my opening i talked about walking in the footsteps of giants? i think i tried to emulate their temperament.

i spent 35 1/2 years in the military and all the jobs they held from basic trainee you were given a mission coming given certain resources to get the mission done. get it done. that is the motto i took with me to washington d.c. it is a different job there because there you have to allocate resources between different competing priorities. in some ways maybe it is like fighting a flood because when you fight the flood with a sandbag and handed it to the next person in line you don't ask that person are you a republican? the person you to skip from does not ask our you're a democrat? what you're doing is working together as a team to get a job done. one of my commercials has a

line where i say you don't leave by shouting but by example. that is alive and over 35 years in the military. i think i have done that. for example, we have two new cybersquadron warriors coming to scott air force base. that will help generate $3 billion per year that the air force base provides economy and who better than someone serving on the armed services committee to help protect scott air force base? i saved over half a billion dollars over 10 years at of the defense department budget alone teeeighteen the next question is 49. >> political rancor has made headlines from washington into springfield and local

communities. in the interest of getting along, tellus one positive attributes about your fellow candidates. bradshaw:. [laughter] nice i -- tie. [laughter] and 84 calling for a fair tax and going back to full employment. [laughter] talking about the unemployment rate in the act of 1978 if unemployment goes above 3% that the so-called job creators or private sector and don't provide the jobs and the federal government comes and directly provides jobs that

living wages to people who need work. they can be put to work during socially necessary labor like building renewable energy, building a sustainable transportation transportation, uninsulated houses and all the things we need to save and provide energy so we're not dependent on coal or gas or foreign oil. that just leads down a path to merge global warming and me can base it when he is in congress and that is what we need to do. >> moderator: amanda representative enyart?

enyart: i really appreciate all of your years of service as said er nurse you have done a marvelous job to help care for patients and call your passion for the environment is unmatched by no one in the 12th country -- congressional district court revoice your concerns your up-front and don't hesitate to pete -- to tell people your beliefs. i congratulate you on that. i heard him say he could not get anything done so when he helped to build a the levees i was concerned and my carried the bill i came back

from washington d.c. to testify in favor of that bill the democratically controlled committee and wanted them to know how important this was for all residents of southern illinois and representative bost had the courtesy to show up at a press conference at the capitol in springfield and thinks meet to come back to testify to insurer in southern illinois got through the general assembly. thank you for that courtesy. i appreciate. bost: just running for office and to bring interviews florida i appreciate that. i really do provide appreciate your service in the military. and i also appreciate the fact you did come to

springfield and i appreciate that. now i do appreciate using the line i used in the paper if you don't care someone is stacking a sandbag you don't care if they are republican or democrat i first use that in the newspaper i appreciate you using that appear as well. [applause] but i appreciate that we don't see that very often that a congressman does come and i appreciate that. >> moderator: the next question is for representative enyart. >> who would like to see run for president 2016 and why? enyart: paula bradshaw. [laughter] k-12 like to see your to i think will run? i think we need someone running for president with

experience in foreign affairs the state of the world is very, very dangerous and in my many years of military service so whenever a stage was more dangerous with isis in the middle east it is a potential problem and don't forget about russia and speaking to the united nations association last night, one of the things i talked about was the ukraine. if you look at existential threats, i made a threat to destroy the united states of america as we know it. there is only one but the russian icbm. but you cruise missiles and there are those that can do damage but only one nation

could destroy us. that is russia so what president putin is showing in ukraine and russian troops it is of great concern. something that has not been talked about with the isis situation is now they're right on the border of turkey that is a member of nato and we have article six pledges an attack on any nato member is an attack on all of us and we are all required to defend that nato member if turkey is attacked by isil under the treaty we must defend turkey were free disavow the treaty obligations in the same thing in central europe refreshens continue to encroach poland is nato that russia is not. bost: i have one name because i watched the candidates the let me tell

you whether she or he he, whoever they are in need to be someone to lead ministry and keep control of their administration. we have seen enough problems with what we have right now and whoever is respected worldwide so when they say there is a red line is a red line. i want them to be a leader to a point because we are having a rough time right now. god bless him, i served in the military under jimmy carter and ronald reagan. but jimmy carter very nice man but we were in lots of situations like we are right now. we need that strong charismatic leader two-step

up and take charge. i will watch the field but i don't have one to pick yet. bradshaw: the last time we ran till stein she would never drop of redline 5,000 miles from our borders or on another country to tell them they cannot step over it. jules stein would not call in a russian aggression when what happened in ukraine is secretary of state assistant justified that the united states sent $5 billion for that overthrown elected government of ukraine into elected new prime minister. then they had a fake election where as a bunch put into the government and

they accomplished that and then started to make threats in the eastern ukraine against russia that the recalls the. russian and separatist there only put into the ukraine at 1920's. when the vote is in scotland was going on you did not hear that scottish people. scottish separatist in these are russians and who they put into power started to make it illegal for russians they have the gas prince is to threaten to kill every russian. they were alarmed to. what happened in eastern ukraine those people took up arms against the fascist in kiev and there is a civil war russia has not been involved. it only accepted 97% of the people of ukraine who said we want to go back to russia.

that is when crimea was put into the ukraine. russia said okay. if you call that a russian aggression that is paranoid schizophrenic in my opinion. >> moderator: we have time for one more question we will have a one minute response. first to representative bost. >> proposals for raising minimum wage from anywhere from $10.10 up at $15 per hour to favor any change to the federal minimum wage and what should be? representative bost i . bost: i favor raising the amount of jobs then you raise the minimum wage. may raise the amount of work that is available to people than the natural thing that occurs is a raising of the minimum wage. the best example then when moving across the river in the unemployment rate fell at 2% you cannot find a

minimum-wage job their progress everyone salary going up based on the jobs available. bradshaw: that is one thing is it puts people to work get a living wage price support minimum wage at least $15 per hour plus single payer health care because what this was due to a lot of people is push them off medicaid to make them start paying for the private health insurance. idea for raising the minimum wage and a single payer health care and also of a new deal that the federal government would directly employ a people that would put competition into the market and indeed give workers a more level playing field. because right now with the 20 million people we have in this country you cannot talk about fair competition. the employers have all the advantages and the workers

have none they have to take whatever job they get the matter how dangerous or how low pay or horrible. >> moderator: time. enyart: i support raising the minimum wage and i think $10 and cents per hour is a good start. but the reason i support that is because the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. minimum-wage today once you adjust for inflation is less than when i was in high schools of public social security and veterans' benefits unemployment has not been indexed for inflation and we need to keep pace with inflation it is wrong people working 40 hours a week should still qualify for food stamps and then to keep pace with inflation this is not the

first time of being in minimum-wage you were quoted >> boating for -- routing for wages. [applause] bost: thanks to southern illinois for putting this on with the league of voters. and a service position that i talk before. i am now asking for your vote for congress and the united states. and my opponent mentioned several legislators he mentioned paul simon and

mentioned costello and i know jerry costello and he is no costello. i will tell you that keeping in constant contact with his constituents to be a true servant and we don't have that right now i don't think you're paying attention to what these issues are that affect us so much right here in southern illinois. i'm asking to serve people at this capacity. i am proud of my record even though sometimes it is distorted in these debates. i've booked them in the eye in a bipartisan manner. a majority of my votes he will find we work together for southern illinois been lined up instead with our

party said that the local level. my opponent of the other hand has a 9 percent voting record with nancy pelosi. i don't think that as well as southern illinois once. thanks for having is here tonight. enyart: thanks for sponsors for hosting this even. remember i ask you to sink about promises and performance. it is easy for politicians to make promises to measure the performance of a promised seven support illinois coal industry. i served as a chair of the coal caucus and i have the endorsement the layperson endorsed by the united mine workers and i promised i was aboard the agriculture economy of our district that

they mean the dead doctor once a year and undertaker once in your life but farmers three times a day. i have the endorsement deal layperson as i received support from the soybean association in miami also have the endorsement for the federation of teachers and i supported business that is why i have credit unions of america and i have fought for social security to protect medicare that is what i have the endorsement of the alliance of retired americans. but representative bost by the way you heard right have done for veterans during the course of this debate he voted against veterans he refused to go for a bill that would expand beds that the veteran illinois homes and voted against the minimum wage increase, and

he turned around to vote to raise his own pay nine .6%. i don't know how many people in this audience are in the broadcast audience received the nine .6% pay raise recently. i ask for your support. thank-you. [applause] bradshaw: it is time for a change. not from one politician into another but a real change. the republicans after 34 years of corporate welfare and deregulation when corporations are on a creed with the bankers and criminals, they continue to insist corporate welfare would trickle down to you. the democrats promise that they are therefore the workers and take the same corporate money to have the same corporate agenda. it is time for a new deal to

lead to a stable prosperity. we have known for decades to switch to renewable energy and my opponents acknowledge that that -- but llord may be chaste but not yet. that is how they are. coal mining is dangerous to the environment and dangerous to people and dangerous to the minors. global warming is a danger to everyone. we know we cannot afford to burn coal and oil anymore. queeney to switch to renewable energy and conservation to put people to work. there is no downside it increases employment employment, improves our environment and to the distribution of wealth here at home. i would ask people vote for their dreams and not their fears of the vote for your

hopes and not hate and i would ask that you would vote green. >> moderator: then end of the first congressional debate of the 2014 election thanks to the candidates representative bost challenger paula bradshaw and representative enyart. [applause] spinning reel think our panelist and also to the paul simon public policy institute and the jackson county league of women voters and our partners the second and final debate will

be on wednesday october 29 at 7:00 p.m. and will be light and air on friday to over 30th thanks and good night. ♪ ♪

at the age of 93. he ran the post newsroom 26 years including 1972 when "washington post" report had a store a connecting the watergate break-in to the nixon administration more than 40 occurrences are available on c-span.org

>> get a hofer's congressional district state representative shirley ringo and representative labrador met for a debate here at the state capital boise in the suburbs this hour-long debate comes courtesy of idaho public tv. >> moderator: idaho debate ellet get the candidate from the ballot a clever new project from the press club the league of women voters and idaho public television

their made possible by boise state university school of public service devoted to building community leaders through problem solving and real-world research here at the state capital. the idaho debates are brought to you by your contribution to idaho public television endowment. thank-you. >> moderator: this is the second of debates i'm sorry from the november 4th general of the action they took the stage to ask for your vote and west boise is just up the border and we have state representative ringo and congressman and labrador is seeking a third term in the house of

representatives and immigration lawyer previously serving '02 terms of the legislature's. >> representative t i as the joint oversight committee and a retired teacher of sight to thank our panel will ask the questions i and co-host of idaho reports here on an idaho public television each candidate will give a one-minute for opening comments and 94 close. congressman labrador you have the honor to go first. labrador: thank-you to have this opportunity to have this important debate today. thanks to the panel to be here tonight and let for to a discussion we will have it is a tremendous honor to serve here in washington d.c.. i ask you to send me to

washington. because i thought we were spending too much money and washington was a mess and decisions made were not made with idaho values in decatur me the opportunity and i am here to tell you in the last four years has spent less money in what we need to do to make washington is a place to work. so tonight i thank you will see a big contrast between the two candidates. thank you very much. ringo: as things to get into debates and the panel and those in attendance today. america has been the country that offers opportunities to

all. where the american dream is a real possibility. but we are not the country anymore. the issues are concentrated in the hands of the the tube while too many families struggle to put food on the table. special-interest and lobbyist to protect policies this is wrong that they care more than their own advancement. so to restore the american ideal we need to invest in people and help them prosper. and head start and telegrams and invest in safe roads and bridges and innovation reform. congressman labrador is not willing to make those investments i am shirley ringo and why i am running.

>> congressman labrador the date nearly twice the average of other representatives serving and between 2011 and last month he missed 121 of one-hundred 27 roll-call votes that is 4.4 percent absentee rate with a u.s.-sponsored has become lawyers were not a leadership position if voters sent to congress for a third term but will you accomplish? labrador: quite a bit. it is less today because i am in washington d.c. the daschle have a lower unemployment rate. but i do have a family i of the august a member of the delegation by a long stretch.

and i do have to stay home sometimes for what my family has to do wryness 4 percent of my votes i would see some of those votes had to do something with the travel schedule. sometime shimkus votes your layover is delayed from monday night but i have done everything that i would do and i would change the tone of what would happen in washington. also look at what we have done. we had a big debate about immigration on the border. not because of me and my leadership passed out of the house. harry reid is not picking up anything in the out of the house is very difficult for republicans to get anything passed out of congress because harry reid will not pick those up. i am very proud of my record to help the people of idaho.

ringo: in 2012. >> when you were absent year told the idaho statesman you could get that number down the people of idaho do it -- hired me to do a job and i should be there. labrador: and i did. >> last year at% 5% or have you found a balance between family life and work life to manage to get there? labrador: i do have a family program have them -- five children three are still unknown they have programs and graduations and things that i do attend in my family is most important so i had this some votes for my responsibilities at home. with the people of idaho don't want to send a father with young children they have an opportunity but other than the media very

few people get upset with me because of that. i don't think it is an important issue. >> representative ringo you are a democrat and a very republican state with a joint finance appropriations committee you offered up in the nep on budget -- in the news the no vote that passed. you wrote it against a 1% for teachers because it did not go far enough and also voted against the constitutional defense fund because it would be be used for gay marriage you are still in a minority in washington d.c. how would you have better success than boise? ringo: thank you for the question. that depends on how you define success. i was a democrat in the idaho legislature and that means being outnumbered.

on the joint finance committee, sometimes i had to be the lone voice to stand up for what i thought was right. i may still be in the minority in washington d.c. but not quite to the extent in the idaho legislature. i will have more allies to work where it's. but the experience that i have in the idaho legislature was vital because i had no choice to work across the aisle to get things done. and to have some accomplishments that i think for very important and to shut down a government to cooperate to get things done

>> have you compromised to give up some things for the greater good? in what issue was important to you while campaigning? ringo: i believe most of us have thought about the important issues and know where we stand to develop certain values that are hard to deviate from time to time. but as people are representing we have to step back not only how i feel about that issue but what is the best way for the people that i serve? >> i have a follow-up. is there a time he might have led to compromise your

own relief to get something done for the people of idaho? ringo: i can think of many but on the joint finance committee that would be a case where i did have to compromise because the idaho constitution requires a balanced budget. and does the member of the joint finance committee to set priorities to give support in one area in order to regain support to something that might have been more pressing to that. >> congressman labrador the same question. labrador: it is the great question you don't compromise your principles but as a legislator it for what you can do to come down the middle. there are people that can be

allies on an issue. personally something it is not something we have trouble meeting but we have the opportunity of the people in the democratic party and a co-sponsor legislation and then we work with the other side. with and then with immigration to work with republicans and democrats for the things that are necessary. but talk about a question of principle you should not compromise but just like a conservative she will stand on her principles with the people of idaho would get all the different things from the campaign season she has not compromised her principles and i admire that about her.

>> the national g.o.p. launched a long-shot bid to become the house majority leader with california representative also brought to the g.o.p. convention in to see that. en to bring together the various factions but you were defeated there as well. with the political infighting with the platform votes so with that reputation is that hurt your ability to get things done in congress? >> first talk about their race and i space would lose that race i did it because i thought it was necessary for

it to be represented by to bring up the leadership but if you look at what happened the obviously lost that race but just two weeks later our party was completely divided on what was happening with immigration and was in favor to bring all the factions together and to bring a bill to the floor that past. in fact, the 94 then speaker of the house majority leader told the conference we would go home and we would not have the of bill. but because of my leadership many people said it was the

race because i had class and dignity and they had seen me in a new light they could follow me. sexually theories in the majority leader and you can ask anybody in washington d.c. but it helped me tremendously. ringo:. ringo: can i respond? i do have to take just the minute here because embedded in that nice complement was

branding me as the left-wing ideologue that i have to take some exception to. the reputation i have politically comes from my performance since the legislature that involve supporting schools, people with disabilities and working for equal pay for women and adequate pay for public employees and i don't think that quite measures up to what we call the left-wing ideologue. if i could continue come on the immigration reform i want to be careful that put a cover election time posture is not differ from the posture from the congressional session. the senate did pass a bipartisan bill on immigration reform that came to the house. i would have thought it would have given something to work with to move forward but instead he made such

comments as if the speaker brings this bill to the floor it should cost him the speakership. this is a good cause for republicans but not this year. though leadership was missing may be at the time it was critical. talking about leadership that you provided and who knows her that will go. labrador: of the reality is a use that model for the house of representatives but there was a problem it was the leadership of your party we have harry reid called the house democrats do not agree to anything more conservative and so it was impossible every time we get close to a compromise the leadership of your party decided they did not want to compromise and it happened

six months and then i get the democrats in the house and not to have any compromises we tried extensively. ringo: playing the blame game again. labrador: it is fax. ringo: the votes were there to pass the bill it could have gone to conference committee after that statement we have a question on immigration your appointed is an immigration lawyer pass what do you have to offer on this that he does not? ringo: would have to say i don't have the expertise that he has.

i would indicate some disappointment that this expertise was abused to move the issue for word better the four years he had to work on that. however i have spent quite a bit of time talking to people throughout the first district including the people in the latino community who have indicated to me that not only their disappointment with the congressman has done but to catch as many ideas as i can from then but would be hopeful about the type of law we need to move forward. >> in the thick of immigration reform talk nothing's happened pretty were again said dream act that was said me key to compromise many issues have been the same so we're able to make progress on issues to another term? labrador: absolutely two bills passed the house

because of the leadership by provided. we had one bill it is a complicated issue but the losses every country has the same number it of visa available with the war a spouse we passed out -- of the house a bill that shifted some of those visa to those a high of a high traffic like india and china and mexico. that passed the house because of the leadership by provided. the senate decided not to take it up because they wanted a comprehensive bill not step-by-step. i actually had a reform of the high-tech visa program and that went to the senate and they chose not to pick it up because they planted the comprehensive bill. i think the best approach for immigration reform is step-by-step it is one of the most complicated areas. and i have legislation and

of health legislation go through the house but it is the son and the refuses to take up any pieces because they want only one solution and it is not the solution we want in the house of representatives. ringo: is true that the senate once comprehensive immigration reform that is what the latino community that congress represents. labrador: i represent the first congressional district of idaho. ringo: their interdistrict and you should respond to them. but my concern of the piecemeal approach is if somebody is interested in border security, and that piece of the package passed i am not confident that what satisfied in individual they're willing to look at a broader package. it is much better to do a comprehensive approach for

then there was one with bipartisan support and it is the place. >> that is the problem for 20 years we have been trying to do a comprehensive approach and nothing has passed. we get things passed out of the house that would have provided a piecemeal step-by-step approach that would eventually lead to a comprehensive solution of the immigration problem. but one specific thing that would help the latino community there is a lot of people if they want to come back to the united states fell boss says i've proposed of getting rid of that what most agree with me i wanted that to be a stand-alone bill for something attached to a smaller bill and i cannot get the leadership of the house or the senate to agree that this would have helped 25% of the people here illegally. that is the problem we have a rational decision by the

democratic party is the senate bill or nothing and we could fix this problem with a step-by-step approach ringo: the item that the congressman mentioned certainly would have been helpful to many people. however there are many there that just cry out to have something in the way of a path to citizenship and that needs to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. >> the next question is for representative ringo. >> the voters of idaho decided to define marriage tween a man and woman. presumably that was will love the people of idaho what point you concede even if you don't agree with them? ringo: that certainly is a good question. that was the decision as somewhat surprised me given

that libertarian tendencies that legislators should cross the line choose somebody's bedroom to tell that person what to do. and whether or not that is constitutional and it appears we definitely moving in that direction that it was not a constitutional decision. we certainly cannot put ourselves in a situation where the people override the constitution. >> how you balance the rights of states to set their own path with the civil rights citizens in that state? should the government even be involved in marriage at all? >> adam think the government should be involved in that particular situation.

we can look at the ways some people were affected by that decision looking at the veteran who does her partner 25 years and the idaho constitution at that time was preventing her from making arrangements to be buried by her partner because of the decision the state had made. but what we have to look at in this case is the power of the state's does not override the united states constitution that is the decision made. >> you issued a statement this week that said unelected judges should then do the will of the people by undoing the state began on marriage but they have stepped in before to protect the rights of minority populations how do you balance that the with separation of powers

inherent the way the country is structured? labrador: nothing in the constitution about a marriage where traditional marriage. decided the courts should be deciding where the people. idaho decided 62 percent that they want to have something in the state constitution that traditional marriage should be protected. maybe the people would disagree. >> neece said states should be able to define marriage banal our state centric like federal tax filings are directly affected by marital status of how was a marriage in oregon different than idaho? labrador: the people should decide the u.s. and important question if the states should be involved at all. that is something we should start considering its policy makers if we should have the benefits based on marriage

status. many should back off to decide but that issue should not be involved at all. >> how far would you extend that stance? ringo: briefly. we may have a state-by-state decision and to have them recognized that marriage that is something that just would not work from a practical point of view but it is true over the history of this country we have not accepted discrimination minority groups and that applies here. >> i have a question the situation they you brought up with the woman not being able to be buried with her partner at what point do you address the pain involved in these decisions?

the human effect of these policy decisions? labrador: let that situation to decide why should the state decide who should be buried in that plot? why can't she be buried with the sibling or someone that she decides? you can look at some of those issues. also a get contracts to decipher being in hospital and who can be present in the hospital? there are several remedies we can resolve the issue without having to change the years and years of tradition on what the marriage should be defined as. ringo: my response would be the civil remedies still results in treating different groups differently that should be the arrangement that we have. >> we have to move on.

>> moving onto the debt and representative ringo security and medicare are those things are willing to address? to reduce deficit spending? ringo: it would be my strong opinion and practice we should protect those programs. however for example, i would not consider weakening the ability for any senior citizen to get health coverage through medicare. do you want me to continue? i can tell if you have another question but the congressmen had a proposal like a voucher program to allow senior citizens to apply many from the

government to go purchas his or her own insurance. that would introduce differences in coverage that i think aeronautics of double. we need to keep medicaid and medicare in tax for senior citizens and we definitely need to keep social security intact i will stop there for further questions. >> representative ringo how big of the deal is the debt and what would you cut? ringo: it is a huge steel and threatens the future of this country so we need to give it a great deal of attention. my differences with the congressmen and we have noticed a few is his approach is to slash across the board indiscriminately regardless of who was hurt by the cuts. the only responsible way to address the data as a must

be addressed is to combine certain cuts to be carefully chosen with other measures such as tax reform and if we work on full employment with individuals getting a livable wage we can find that also takes pressure off a program supported by taxes. to provide more energy for business because people have discretionary money to spend it is a culmination of efforts on several fronts to successfully address this problem without putting too much of the burden on the population. >> very briefly what are some things you are willing to cut? ringo: for example, defense is one area i would be willing to cut.

we know when we got into the war with iraq was justified on a thin promise it turned out to be wrong and cost us a great deal of money that we had to borrow to fund the war and paid along with interest between 2.4 million and $3 million and as we withdraw from iraq and afghanistan we're careful about things meet engaging in the future that we can control that budget. >> congressman labrador i know this is an issue you're interested in as representative ringo said uc and your web site you support significant across-the-board cuts to federal spending. i am curious how far that extends? doesn't extend to military? labrador: right now in this

segment you saw the biggest difference between the two candidates she did not mention this single thing she would cut except military the one thing the constitution provides for the american people she will cut back but not anything else she talked about tax reform which actually means tax increases should increase taxes so we can't do nothing to do change the drivers of our debt to increase taxes as a less productive society. i will touch everything across the board in fact, i have voted against increases of spending for military and voted against increases just about every area i have even been criticized as spending for some programs that are here based in idaho. it is important to look at all the programs to put everything on the table to be serious what we're facing in the next 20 or 30 years

we will have enough revenue to pay for social security, medicare and the debt that is all we will have money for. freedom and have changes we will have a nation that is bankrupt what has ruined nations in the past has not been military conquest but the inability to pay for the government it is really important that it is the number-one issue the number one national security threat we face as a nation to make sure we do something about that. . .

to. >> i think that this addresses this particular issue. and one of the things that they did was hold up approval of the senate bill. because food stamps are sufficiently deep. and in idaho we have 200 30,000 better individuals on food stamps. and clearly this is something that i hope as we need this kind of support. 22% of idaho children are defined as insecure. so if we are able to get more revenue by closing loopholes and

we are able to use some of the revenue to give needy people the support that they need, i would certainly do that, it's going to take a study with what revenue we have to reduce them, and we are certainly not going to balance the budget on the backs of the media. >> moderator: the next question is for congressman labrador. >> the recent study for the alliance for justice society found that the cost of living for a childless adult was 1457, almost double the federal minimum wage. and that is for child free people, not taking into account where some may stay at home. so at what point do you balance that with federal minimum wage? >> i think the misnomer as that the minimum wage would increase the wage for a lot of people

permanently. and we need to actually give people the opportunity to get better jobs. my mother lived on minimum wage for a long time and i was raised by a single mother. she actually lived on minimum wage for a long time and what she did for herself was to the advantage of opportunities to go to school and to get a better education and to encourage me to actually go to school so that i wouldn't have to live the same kind of life and as she was living. and i think unfortunately will be did is try to fix this problem by encouraging people to raise the minimum wage. but also to show that if we raise this what we are going to do is lose an entry-level job that people need to be trained on, so that they actually advance. i worked minimum-wage jobs as a young man at the age of 14. so i can actually get the skills and ability that i needed so that i could be successful. the minimum-wage job that i had, my mom actually instilled this enemy, it allowed me to have a better life as an adult and i was able to get out of this title to my mother was in when

she was living in one of minimum-wage jobs. i think we need to do as policymakers is the reality is that if we don't improve the ability for people to get better jobs in america, we are going to have a lot of people that generation after generation are going to be living in those minimum wage jobs and we can raise and however it however much we want, but if we continue to live under that, they won't be able to provide for their families. >> he responded to an accident i would like to respond to that. there are situations where studies have been made about raising the minimum wage and those that do not. certainly in the state of idaho we have this, washington was minimum wage that is much higher where it's impossible to study this using the animal wage and one not. there has not been evidence of

some dire consequences for the carson mentioned here. so frankly the federal minimum wage is $7.35 an hour. that is not an amount of money that anyone can support a family on or anyone can actually live on. and in some ways that makes it immoral. so then we need to look at how that is improved. >> i don't want people living on minimum wage jobs so that they can actually did higher wages just like my mother did and just like i did. >> very briefly, how you do that? >> you do it by increasing the economy and improving the economy. one of the things i want to do is get rid of all of these loopholes of these corporations that they have so that we can actually encourage big companies to come to the united states and stay in the united states instead of going abroad to other countries. and another thing i would love

to do in idaho is to have more control over federal land. one of the things that we have is the richest areas is where we had harvest. and not so difficult that you actually need a college education to make a good wage. you can actually make a good wage out of high school if you work in mining in this area. but it's actually made it more difficult for young people in the state to take advantage of those jobs. and that is what i want to do. i want to make clear this will allow people, with some limited high school education to actually get a high-paying job. >> moderator: the next question is actually related to this. >> idaho has a wealth of natural resources in the first district of personal easy agreement over how those resources should be handled. the payment and lower taxes was extended for one year as part of the 2014 farm bill.

but it still leaves rule counties were a huge portion of the land is in federal jurisdiction in limbo, wondering how they are going to replace the funding if it expires next year. and if so, where should the money come from? labrador: it's an obligation of the federal government to this day. you have to distinguish from the sexual rule and it's supposed to be a ten-year plan or something like that. but it's actually because the we are not using the federal land. i would advocate that we need to use the federal land and if you talk to the county commissioners, they would agree with me. if they have the ability to use the land, they're going to need less and less than the from the federal government. it's one of the reasons that i introduced legislation that would allow you control 200,000 acres in idaho. and the state management will

still remain under the ownership of the federal government. we can control it under state management rules. if we topped all those people in the region, they understand they are not dependent upon the federal government and they don't want to be dependent. they actually want to be able to be independent and use natural resources so we can create jobs and wealth in idaho. >> given the precarious nature of this currently, is it ever the obligation, should the counties ever start looking for alternate sources of funding? >> yes, they should. the counties came to us and asked to have the opportunity to manage these lands at the state level. this idea actually came from the county county commissioner who is actually looking for his many as possible to make this in the county. >> moderator: the next question. >> we have the same question for you. should we have a permanent funding source. if so, where should the money

come from? ringo: first of all, there's always been a lot of discussion over the years about state management in federal land and it's something that the attorney general has had is not feasible. so i think that we need to do is to look at how to make the current system better. we need to reform this national system and work harder on the federal lands that we have here in idaho and in addition there are two sources that you mentioned. it's a very important source of funding of the federal government owes us because of this and i do think that that needs to be part of this. secondly, we used to have a law that was passed in 19 away.

the county share the revenue on federal lands to use for schools and that was essentially nonetheless a very important source to help support the schools and so i think that that funding is a been there for going to make this system work, a we have to have the federal government have that kind of funding for both of these types of things. >> okay, talking about this for just a second. the attorney general has never spoken about my plan, but spoke about ownership of state land by the state. federal land, i mean, by the state. my plan is actually managing federal land from the state management practices and i don't think the state attorney general has over spoken to the issue is actually one of the things that they talk to me about because

they realize how difficult that it is and ron wyden from oregon who is a democratic senator, he is looking at something similar as well. >> i was talking about shifting that federal land management to the state. it's been discussed for so long. >> moderator: representative ringo, you talked about needing a permanent funding source and you also talked about learning how to operate as best as they can within the current status quo because it sounded like you said that they have to start working with what they currently have in addition to using the federal cofounding. what are some ways they can do that? can they really replace that?

can they focus their effort without managing those federal lands? and how would they do that? is it that the structure? what needs to happen? >> i'm not sure that i heard myself say that. but in regards to the issue, i will say that in order to make the system work more appropriately, we need to have a reform and they're supposed to be the multiple use provision which they talk about the opportunities for the income that can come off of that. and i think i might have actually heard the congressman say that. and i could be wrong. [laughter] labrador: something different than what i heard. but that is okay.

[laughter] >> moderator: okay. moving on now, mrs. whether concerning isis or another entity, there's a very good chance that this can be an ongoing war and this can be a lot at stake with global peace and taxpayer dollars. the question is whether this is something that we could actually win. what do you look at to make a decision like that to . >> it's a great question. one of the most important that we can make is members of congress. i have advocated for us to go back to congress are making it this job done. i don't think that we should be waiting for the president to call us. we should make a determination whether we need to use force, how much and how extensively the force should be. we need to look at what the intelligence community is saying

about isis. one thing that concerns me is we continue to make decisions based upon the probable attacks were possible attacks. but when you look at the intelligence committee and they are currently not planning any attacks in the united states, we balance that with a desire to keep america safe and we need to make sure that if we are going to go in, we go in with a specific mission in full force. it's one of the things that i disagree with the president. he went in with have forces that are full worse. if we want to destroy isis, we need to go in with full force. and then we have to make a clear exit strategy. among them we going to be their? what is going to be the mission on the ground after we leave this area? those are things that have not been answered by congress or by the president and his security team. so i think that we should have a debate about this and i have been critical to both republicans and democrats.

they say that the president has the authority to use force and i disagree about that. i don't think anyone had any indication that we would be going to war in syria in 2014. >> the same question. >> okay, so the situation in the middle east has been very difficult for years and years. when we went into iraq, it was partially like stirring up a hornets nest and one thing that we absolutely have to realize is the imposition is going to be very long-term. that's one thing that concerns me about the exit strategy if we go when. we have to have a definite exit strategy but i don't think that we will be able to achieve what has been called mission accomplished. i very much want to stay out of war and i think that it is a

serious thing to commit our people and our resources to that kind of thing. and no doubt isis is barbaric terrorist move and not a state to deal with. no person like osama bin laden takes credit for some of the atrocities committed. but we know that that first and foremost poses an immediate threat to the people in that area and we know what their ambitions are. and so those individuals that live in that part of the world have to be very motivated to combat this threat and i think that we can provide information and we can provide support and i hope very much that we won't have to be drawn into the world from the ground and we need to work with with the international

community is to try to come to a solution. >> the next question for the representative, please. >> in a time where terrorists have access to technology and the government relies on data mining, have you balance the fourth amendment rights with national security and protecting american lives two. ringo: that's an interesting question. because back when the patriot act was passed, i said that we passed some lines in terms of giving up things that we shouldn't give up and in terms of our rights, in order to feel safer, and that is something that we have to balance. i was on a panel where we both talked about those types of provisions to the patriot act. so i'm really not willing to cross the line where we have the government snooping on private individuals and that is a line

that i think that we have crossed. >> moderator: congressman, same question for you the one i think that we need to have a reasonable search and teacher. we need to go through the legal process and the judicial process. it's important that we distinguish between u.s. citizens and people who are not u.s. citizens. so having access to the records of terrorists and other organizations, when they know that they are no threat to the united states, we need to be very careful when we haven't gone through the legal process to look at their records. labrador: >> moderator: allall right, it's time for closing comments. and congressman tremont, you're up. labrador: thank you, we have seen a clear difference between shirley and myself. i believe in less government and

less spending and more responsibility. i want the economy to grow and i want the economy to actually reach this so we can all feel prosperous, i don't want the government to management those things. i don't want them to pick the winners and the losers. i think it's important for us to decide whether we want somebody in washington dc who will fight for the people of idaho. i had a good friend who passed away yesterday and i heard this great story today. one of my campaign workers have been working on a project and then asked her if she was going to become a member of the establishment and she said, of course i'm going to become a member of eight establishment by working for the people of idaho. and those are the people that are listening to the message that i have.

and i want to continue making a difference fighting for less government. thank you for the opportunity to go to washington dc and represent you. i hope in november you can continue to watch. >> thank you so much, congressman. >> moderator: representative ringo, your remarks speak to thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions this evening. sometimes i use to tell them that if their arm more ways than one to solve a problem, it's often the case that one of the ways to solving the problem is more elegant than another. the congressman, for example, in trying to solve the problem of the deficit, trying to make across the board cuts regardless of how individuals are affected.

as i discussed i would have a multifaceted approach where we would have tax reform and try to improve the economy so people can get other jobs with more pay so that we can fit together to improve this so that we can balance that and not solve the problem on the backs of a certain vulnerable part of the population. and this has been affected by various government programs. and through that program caps were taken off of insurance so

that people who knew certain procedures could get a program. >> moderator: i'm going to have to cut you off but thank you to everyone at home and here for watching. you can learn more about these candidates and more at our website. collections/2014. just a reminder, thank you for watching and have a great night single micro- ♪ on the next "washington journal", midterm elections. the center for responsive politics and daniel garza discusses the issue of importance to latino voters. and then the october 3 cover story, looking at the white house. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 p.m. on

c-span. be sure to leave us your comments on facebook and twitter >> with the 2014 election less than two weeks away, the campaign debate coverage continues. wednesday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, the 11th district debate between michael graham and his opponent. also, the florida governor's debate with governor rick scott and former governor charlie crist. at 8:30 p.m., the illinois 10th district debate with fred schneider and bob dole. followed at 9:00 o'clock by the new york 18th district. then at 10:00 o'clock, the 13 district debate with rodney davis and anna callis. live at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the iowa fourth district debate between stephen king and others. campaign 2014, more than 100

debates for the control of congress. >> california's 21st congressional district in the central valley, including the city of bakersfield. we have tremont, whose challenger is amanda renteria. they have their first televised debate. this is under one hour. >> now from your local election networks. tremont and amanda renteria. jim's got and evan on stock are your moderators. your local election headquarters debate starts right now.

>> welcome to the debate. as you can see in the bakersfield area and the bakersfield and central valley area. i am jim scott and my partner is evan onstot. we are welcoming tremont and amanda renteria. >> moderator: for reference sake, let's take a look at the 21st congressional district. located in the southern half of california's central valley, comprised of kings county, fresno county, southwestern tulare county and brief background on our candidates. david valadao was born and raised in hanford and his family immigrated from the islands of portugal to the united states in 1969. he attended local schools and

graduated from hanford high school in 1995 andlater attended the college of sequoias. his father started a dairy farm in the central valley in 1973 that has grown to over 1000 acres of farmland. he's taken on leadership between the dairy trade association and he was also left did as regional leader council chairman for the land o lakes inc., a fortune 200 company. >> moderator: amanda renteria was raised in woodland, a small town northwest. she's a former high school teacher and the first latina in history to serve as a chief of staff in the united states senate. she graduated high school as class valedictorian in 1992 and she went to hanford where she earned a ba in economics and a ba in political science with honors. she also has a masters degree from harvard business. she served as chief of staff for

debbie stabenow from 2008 until 2013. >> moderator: a quaint tossed determining who will go first. >> moderator: those will be 90 seconds long for the opening statements. each candidate will have 60 seconds and then get 90 seconds to answer each question. the other candidate will then have 60 seconds or a rebuttal. >> thank you, everyone. thank you for being here. thank you to all tuning in. on this wonderful night. as i said earlier, i was born and raised in california in the central valley and i became the first woman from a high school go to stanford university. i went on to harvard business school and most recently in the

chief of staff with the chairwoman of the agriculture committee, it's a real honor to be here. the reason i'm running is that it's not about being first in all these instances but about making sure i'm not the last. making sure that we can dream big and do whatever we choose to do in life. i've gone around knocking on doors and it's not quite as easy anymore. we have a water crisis and an education crisis and immigration issues and job issues. the reason i know i can make a difference is because i tried my best to get the experience needed to truly bring people together and solve the problems. i ask for your vote tonight, but make sure that we can actually solve these issues and take the central valley in a good direction. thank you for having me.

valadao: thank you all for hosting this event. my name is david valadao and i have the honor to represent this area the last two years. i've taken some important steps to make sure that we solve the water crisis. we worked on getting a this on the president to ask. i've also been a family man and i worked on making sure that my kids are very happy and well taken care of and i've done my best to be a good father and spend time at home with my kids. when you look at the opportunity that we have in life, we want to make sure that we do everything for children and for families to make sure we have the best opportunities. when my parents came to the country they did this for us. part of the business, running a business is part of my life. and also someone that has employees like family. some of that we work with and spent a lot of time with.

and i have the opportunity as part of that in their set policies that can make sure that happens for more. >> moderator: thank you very much. there's a considerable amount of national attention on this race which is rare for the central valley. c-span is actually going to carry this said debate tomorrow and that is something. but this is one of the few contested races. ..

the drought here in california that is now being passed in both the house and the senate. the house bill was offered by you, sir. the senate bill by dianne feinstein. now, amanda renteria, you have been critical of the congressman's bill. why is that? renteria: you know, when you look at this bill, he likes us to believe he is a leader on water. there are couple of issues with it. first of all, there is zero funding in the bill. when it was first introduced it was totally partisan, and senator feinstein, someone you need in order to make sure we get a water bill called it dishonest and irresponsible. what i have learned in my time and working in the united states senate is, you have got to bring people

together, and you cannot start off a divisive and partisan. it truly needs to be bringing everyone together. i have had experience doing that. when the auto industry was having a tough time going through a crisis, what i saw, what i was a part of was bringing people together and making a case of the country of why it mattered. that is what we need to do on the water, bring the delegation together, shall, really show this country that this is not just a central valley problem. it is a state problem, a country problem, and a world problem. at the end of the day, if you are eating food we are a part of it. i look forward to being able to bring those skills to make sure that we actually have a real solution. >> moderator: congressman, she said that your bill -- valadao: that is interesting. if you look at the the record it was a bipartisan bill. my bill is controversial to the some of those in

sacramento, but the issue that really strikes me is the fact that the only part that is controversial is the part that helps the people the most. when you look at the east side of the valley all the way up to fresno, all of those communities rely on the san lockean canal. we lost that water because of a lawsuit that was funded by environmental attorneys. they finally gave up. they could not afford the fight. we are now seeing that water being diverted. not to these communities. anyone who believes this bill is divisive is because they do not care about the communities along the side of the valley. make sure that those communities have water. if we're going to continue to watch farmers suffer, go broke, families not have water for their household and the communities in general. raise the water rates to pay for it. those are all things happening because of that

lawsuit, and my legislation fixes that. so to the people that live here in the that water, it is completely reasonable. >> moderator: let's be clear here, if we could. your bill is really not about the funding aspect as it is about, perhaps, easing some of the regulations and possibly reforming policy with respect to the endangered species act. is that what your bill is really about, and that is worth the fight will be, is sent. valadao: the problem i have had with washington is the way they solve their problems is delineate. my bill brings common sense, more pumping of the delta and stops the ridiculous san lockean river settlement for the quarter to come along and take care of the communities. it is reasonable. i have an inclusion for reservoirs and plans to help address the issue with what is happening. so it is a comprehensive bill that takes care of all sides of the argument can't

anything that is looked at as divisive i would challenge to point out specifically what is divisive and what the solution is to fix it, not just use talking points. >> moderator: why don't you answer his question. what is divisive specifically? renteria: it is about the process actually. when you bring people together you have got to bring them together at the very beginning. that is where believe. this could pass. i'm all for it. if the bill can bring a large swath of democrats and republicans from all sides and all different regions, i'm for it. if congress @booktv the congressman's bill was an answer for years ago when he joined the assembly, right when he got to the house of representatives, i would be all for it. the problem is it is not. has not brought as a single drop of water. and i have gone around and asked people, do you want to solve this problem, from the beginning it is not throwing

rocks at one another. and on that note, on that note, and any member when i was working on the automotive crisis, congressman from detroit throwing rocks and a congressman from some other place in michigan we would be buying cars in china right now. instead, there were leaders that from the very beginning brought everyone together to solve the problem. valadao: my favorite part about this is, yes, had democrats involved, yes i reached out, and they voted for it. they like his policy. the way you fix problems as bring ideas to the table. don't just talk about sitting around a table. bring ideas, but among the table, show us what you believe, how you want to fix the problem, and then negotiate. i believe that is the way it works in the real world. talking about it through a feelings or how well we get along is find a we had a bipartisan bill that passed. we are negotiating now. there is our real pull from

both sides of the aisle working together, but you have to start with ideas and solutions. >> moderator: when i interviewed you a couple of weeks ago and you said back in the you do not care about the little fish. i want to know, do you care about the big fish? you're talking about the delta smelt. do you care about the big fish like salmon? i ask because these bills call for maximizing water deliveries across the delta through the crust of the canals are channels. to the extent that it could impact my grading patterns for salmon, which is a pretty big industry in the delta, which use and support that to back and if so, how would that place you -- where would that place you with the environmental lobby , the bay area democrats in your party who are staunchly opposed to any kind of intrusion of the

endangered species act whatsoever which is really sacred. renteria: let me first talk about when i talk about coming to the table and having a discussion it is actually actionable. it is truly saying how to solve a problem, and i have been a part of doing that. i would like to mention that. now, the big fish and a little fish, i actually am not worried about either one. when i think about this, it is the wrong question. the right question is, and can get it done. you can make sure that we can have real solution. i have no allegiance. that is the word a lot of people like to say. i believe in having solutions. it is what have done. i know that we can do it if we have the right kind of leader who can bring people together. that is what i have done and what i will again. valadao: there is a chapter in my bill that helps protect the fish. large mouth bass and striped

bass are invasive species that have been introduced in continue today to eat @booktv and delta smelt. for those who are concerned you should like my bill because we do address, we do bring a solution to the table and say here's i will fix it. this invasive fish that has been introduced for recreational purposes, and it helps address the issue. again, a solution on the table that we can talk about that makes sense and solves problems. >> moderator: we have to go to break above but yes or no answer here, do you favor california's water bond? valadao: yes,. renteria: i was the first one to do so, yes. >> moderator: we have to take a break. we will come back and move on to immigration right after this. @booktv thank you. ♪ ♪ >> welcome back.

year on that 21st congressional debate. congressman valadao and amanda renteria joining as. we also have fewer questions we asked our viewers. joy asks, in regards to it immigration, and the middle-class single woman, and i am tired of the amount of taxes i pay to watch some of it going to benefit given to illegal immigrants. like to know what the word illegal means to you. congressman, we will start with you. valadao: someone who came to this country without documents, and it is pretty clear. a problem that we face today is we have an immigration system that is to be fixed. again, i have been one of the ones that has come out of work on the issue and continue to be one of the few that ought to work across the aisle to make sure we resolve this issue so we have a system that works, that is fair, a border that is secure in a system that is fair for all of the american workers out there so that there not worried about someone

undercut it -- undercutting and. at the same time you have to make sure you have a system that works, and we suffer for years because back in the 60's the program that was your was taken to wearing, and we have never had a replacement. so we will continue to work to find the system that can work for our agriculture. >> moderator: would you like to answer the question, what does the were illegal mean to you? renteria: it means there is no legal basis for your presence here. the problem is we have an immigration system that has been broken for a long time, and so we need a system that works and a congress that works soda can pass this legislation. i was a teacher here. i tell the story, when i was a teacher at a student at kick up to me and said, it does not matter if i graduate. as a teacher you go, no, i need you to graduate, especially in this district. he said, here's the problem.

for me every day is just a step closer to being deported to a country have never known. when you think about that as a teacher and think about that impact of lost hope and look across, it affects every single person in that classroom, our entire district and truly our entire country. there are two problems with congressman valadao on this issue. you voted against the california dream and taking help from kids going to college because it is hard to read the second is when there was the moment to sign for immigration reforms to vote on the immigration reform, he chose not to sign and when you think of that and you think of the effect and impact it has on our communities, businesses, families here, it is just not someone i can trust on immigration reform to do what is right for all of our families. >> moderator: would you like to respond? valadao: yes. h.r. 15 has my name on the bill. what she is talking about is a political game that was

done than democrats continue to do that in washington with their discharge petition. at the end of the day everything that happens with immigration has to be done at the federal level. what happened in sacramento does not matter. what happens today is that the federal government does its job and make sure that we pass a system that works. i have been a leader of the issue, i am one of the ones that is approached by both sides of the aisle. the democrats are willing to work with me, as was seen here a year ago when one of the members of congress that i don't get along with a lot because of politics, immigration, we do well, he came here to a town hall in the district for me to talk about immigration and how we can work together. it is impressive because not many places you can point to an example of democrats to mature republican district and saying good things about them, but that happened in my case. it is an issue that we can work across. >> moderator: house majority leader reports --

supports a step-by-step process. you have parted ways with him and a number of his colleagues when it comes to securing the border first. where do you find fault with that approach? valadao: i do not have a problem with securing the border first. the legislation i son not to that has compounded the starts with border security. but the step-by-step approach is because they want to take each chapter on its own, which is fine. my problem is, we have to start taking those steps. i have been putting pressure on leaders. we will walk through it and make sure we continue to pressure so we can finally take the steps. renteria: i would like to respond to really important things that were said. hearing california dream act does not matter is incredibly scary. we cannot get those kids back. i know how hard it is to go to college, and to not have that kind of financial aid to get you there, there are a lot of families in this

district, that is everything for a lot of families that is our only way of the economic ladder. it does matter, congressman. it does. i also will talk about people making promises to the communities and saying, i will do everything that i can. that means signing -- even though it might get your friends of said, citing frustration reform. it is not a political stunt when you're showing the community they care about them. so i will certainly. >> moderator: you obviously do not think he has done enough when it comes to influencing people on his side of the aisle. renteria: right. and the proof is the result. how many friends as the congressman brought to sign this bill to back you know, he talks about having influence or working on it, but i do not see it. that is one of the reasons why the fresno bee commented that he was more interested

in his and partisan politics than really understanding the needs of the constituents. valadao: the funny thing about this is, as soon as i signed on to that i was attacked from the left. i assumed that people would want to work across the aisle. a lot of the supporters came out and did ads, protests, lot of things which should the rest of congress, the ones that were considering, they're not going to work with me. their is a reason to go down this path. it is too bad because it is a real issue. one of the guys that is in the forefront. it has to get done for the right reasons, not politics, not because of a campaign issue, but because it is the right thing to do, and it has to be done right in through the legislative process. >> moderator: immigration is a political football that has been kicked back and forth by both sides of the

aisle. so let me see if i can tell you down on a time line. we both agree comprehensive immigration reform in that context what do you do first? some say we have to secure the border in order to prevent another wave of immigration without a secure border, a wave of immigration. so where do we start? what is your time line for a comprehensive approach to immigration? what comes first, securing the border, defining the legalization process and the path to citizenship or what? renteria: this is exactly why h.r. 15, the bipartisan bill done in the senate -- i think this is why it is so important to pass because you have people working under for decades trying to get everyone together into the timing right so that when you read the bill of look and of the different

steps from securing the border to the penalties, to making sure you have the appropriate praise to the place in line to that is why it is important to keep this package. if you did crop verses crop or said, we will do this program for these guys first and then that fifth, it would fall apart. the beauty of this bill and the reason why it needs to pass and needs to pass now is because everyone is together except for we do not have a leader can go out and get more prince to sinon, give more people, be effective in making sure people really understand what is going on the ground with our families, our economy, and our businesses. that is where look forward to doing. >> moderator: congressman, we have to take a break but do you want to respond. valadao: it is a clearly defined bill that was changed before introduction in the house-passed bill as the timeline set in place where security has to be the first place we start. i also believe in fixing

these as a guest worker programs. this has to be the second thing. the and we will have to go into the last. >> moderator: thank you. back with these candidates right after this. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: and welcome back. you are watching a live debate between the two candid it's with a 21st congressional district in the central valley on tv 17 in bakersfield ksev in the fresno area. have you ever question that comes from gary core bell, and he asks, what will you be specifically to eliminate the partisan stalemate that is entrenched itself so firmly in politics in washington d.c.? and please give specifics. i will start with you, amanda renteria, because you have talked extensively and

of building coalitions. give us some specifics. renteria: well, i said this on the campaign trail. it starts right now, and it starts when -- you know, during this campaign -- and i had a camera follow me while i went down the aisle and knelt down to pray. i said, wait a second, we have to have aligned. this is going beyond a line. we have got to respect each other. what i expected was for my opponents as a committee aqaba that is crossing the line. but what he did not it is tough, that is the latest. you have got to start it now part of this is making sure that right now we stop this. the other piece to it is to my was part of the steering committee in the senate. we got together, talked about these issues. sometimes it was me out and getting to know each other. that is why want to do to the kind of group and folks that i know i can get together to work with.

the next thing is, it is important, just like it was in the farm bill, when you see there is an opportunity or issue to work across the aisle, let's cut together and talk about it. i have had the experience of doing that with committee members. i have had the upper edge into to work across the aisle are ready. for me, this is not a new thing. >> moderator: you have experienced the polarized nature of our congress. what specifically would you do? valadao: obviously we have been doing, groups like the one i am a part of, a group of us that get together every so often to make sure that we talk and get together and agree on some issues were topped three shoes. specific to an example of stuff that has actually happened. farm bill is a great one. it had not been passed in seven years. are we were debating the farm bill their is a tough portion that we struggled with. i get -- i get along with

the ranking member, and the the highest-ranking member of the other side. the most powerful democrat. and when it came to some of the most controversial portions he asked me to come out on the floor and introduced me on c-span on camera and said this is the gatt and understands the issue in this up to work through it and i want him to speak with us on this issue. i mean, this is a public forum on national tv, a democrat saying, this is a guy that is the issue, understands the issue but also is willing to work with us to get it done. a pretty awesome experience to have because there are not a lot of opportunities. a lot of other groups i am not part of. another one where we get together regularly for breakfast and tart three issues. >> moderator: a good dealer question. congressman valadao, they came out and endorsed amanda

renteria senior have fallen short of meeting the needs of your constituents. not to go back and immigration, but the bee editorial staff pointed out that your failure to deliver on immigration reform. does that bother you? valadao: not really. i would through the whole interview. pretty harsh. but it is too bad. again, to have one of the guys that actually does reach across the island get things done. prove to them that this is important and have dinner cress wrote for stuff and even through the process of what happened in washington through of a legislation, the 387 that are now sitting in the senate, the vast majority are bipartisan with support from both sides of the aisle. a lot of the amendments offered to the appropriations bill passing through the house have more amendments offered by at democrat member that every single partisan republican

combined. so we have been bipartisan, done a good job, and they chose to ignore it. there's not much we can do. >> moderator: renteria: the president endorsed him last go around because he said he was going to be able to work across the island get things done. i think the reality is, you have got to be effective. i know the the congressman is trying. this year car can you get it done to my be effective. the question that they were working on really asking was that effective? and they voted for that shut down. was it effective in bringing more people to the immigration reform? and you cannot. i play sports. at the ball goes in or does not. in this case i think what they saw is the inability to be effective in that role and how much we need someone here to really solve these

problems. >> moderator: you mentioned the government shut down. and what is will bring this up. people read both camps press releases they can get confused because i believe that your camp said that he voted for the shutdown. reading your press release that he voted to keep the government going. who is telling the truth? valadao: i say read the bill, not the press releases but the actual language. no such bill ever passed to shut down the government. it is a political attack. we are asked to go fight for constituents. a lot going on in washington. they want us to do our job. we have offered multiple different times, 20 or 30 different bills introduced and passed with bipartisan support. harry reid chose not to end it is sad because there are 300 some bills sitting out his desk today. it is frustrating because when we come back to

district they want us to fight. they want us to say, what did you do for us on obamacare? ..