[audience shouting] maybe it was the question everybody got upset about. let's go to another question. if elected mayor what will you do to address gentrification in ward 8? catania: i think there is no stopping process. what we can do is a better job of setting up to succeed and compete. i think after 40 years i want to put some specifics out there we are in the middle of an average household income of $40,000. in the number three hits over 200,000. in this one there are 17.5% unemployment and an a number three is two and a half. only 12% of the adults have bachelors degrees and in ward number three it is 83%.

the most surefire way of making sure our residents can stay here if i given them a high-quality education and setting them up to succeed with college so that they can come home and stay here. that's the only long-term solution. short of that the only way to make our city affordable is to make it unsafe and no one wants to make it unsafe. [applause] schwartz: i have a specific plan and that is to bring back number nine. in my affordable housing position paper which you can find on the website either spelled out or the number four you can read the whole thing and i call for a tax credit for those individuals who used to live here and many of them left either because of education or affordable housing.

he will know what i mean by ward 8 don't you? i want to bring them back and with a tax credit that they will have to show that they were here and how long certain links you will have had to be here and that they would have had to be okay so that we don't have some developers jumping in and grabbing them. but i think that we will bring it back with incentives such as the one that i've proposed. >> moderator: ms. bowser? bowser: i believe it hasn't had the investment they need. i think it hasn't had the private investment and it hasn't had the public investment and i am committed to getting that investment in seven and eight and two appointing a deputy mayor whose job is to focus on closing those gaps. the income gap, the educational achievement gap and the economic development gap in the seven and

eight. [audience shouting] >> moderator: we have specific questions from the audience we would like you to address. the city has experienced over 2500 murders since 2000 and that is a small neighborhood with a disproportionate number of current east of the anacostia river. if elected mayor or do you do to stop the violence and the murderous? go ahead. schwartz: i want to get the police force to the authorized 4,000 but i want them out of their cars remember when you used to have foot patrol we used to have officer friendly programs? we had metropolitan police boys and girls club so that the police officers and young people got to know each other so there wasn't this confrontational thing going on.

they actually established relationships. i'm also glad that the police chief is doing these cameras so that we don't have a ferguson going on and i'm afraid sometimes we think we do. but those cameras are going to make sure that everybody acts the way they are supposed to. i think having foot patrol, bicycles and not just driving around cars with their windows i drove here in a convertible. i always drive here in a convertible whether it is night or day time and i think that we all need to be walking the streets and being on the streets will also help the criminals in the houses. catania: murders are up in this war. there've been 3300 homicides and before that there were 22. that is a 50% increase in one

year. we know 26% of the crime in the city happens on 4% of the blocks. she's right we hired a number of officers in 1989 and 90 and we have about 1500 that are eligible for retirement in the next two years. we have an immediate hands on deck issue we have to do our best to recruit both new and horizontal but there's something else. there is a sickness in our community when it comes to violence and it is pervasive and has to be confronted. part of the measure i worked on was to make sure that we built up our total capacity in our schools and as a result of 90 schools with full-time health professionals to help our young people work through the violence and hopelessness that often leads them to the violence that afflicts all of us. [applause] bowser: thank you for the question because in many parts

of the city, and i think it's been said already that people feel safe. but into many parts of the city people feel more unsafe than they ever did. we know in this community only recently that a young man was gunned down right in one of our local establishments. and so we know that people don't feel safe. i am going to support a very robust police department but i don't think that is half of the equation. i actually think that focusing on community groups working with young people that understand when the violence is about to happen and can work hand-in-hand with the community to stop it before it ever happened that as a missing link is a missing link right now in our public safety strategy. it's been a cleanout turned to closing arguments ended and the order was decided by. ms. bowser: you are first for closing arguments. bowser: i want to think of ready thank debbie for coming

out to listen and for bringing their questions and concerns and aspirations for the district of columbia. it's been my honor to campaign for the last 19 months in every neighborhood of talking to people about how we can move forward together. this is indeed a very important election for the future of the district of columbia and my pledge is to make sure that we continue our prosperity and build on our prosperity and make sure more people are included in that prosperity. we get there by equalizing our school investments and with a strong plan to build our middle class with schools and jobs and affordable housing and by building a government we can trust that is inclusive and reflective of our own beautiful city so that's why i'm asking you to come out and vote on november 4. i will be a mayor for all eight

wards. >> moderator: one minute for closing statements. schwartz: may i have your attention please? thank you very much. i think many of you in the audience have known me for a lot of years. i served you well in the board of education and test scores went up three i served you well on the council for several decades and things got better and taxes got lower. now i'm asking you to bring me back to run our city with your help. many of you even when i was a republican and now i'm an independent, i am meeting you halfway i'm hoping -- and i want to also say i married a democrat and i raised three or you should be tolerant of me.

but i am asking those of you in the audience who given me your vote for mayor one time before to join with those who haven't given me your vote and sometimes wish you had and those that have missed me in the years i've been gone as you've all joined together i will try to be a very good mayor for all of us. thank you. [applause] catania: i want to thank everyone for coming out. but there is no question that this war but has yet to see prosperity that experienced throughout the city. and in 40 years of promises, 40 years of promises made and promises broken, the only way we are going to actually bring opportunity is if we elect a mayor who can get things done. when you look at 17 years on the

council extending to 30,000 people, 37,000 children the list goes on and on, not to mention the 100 million-dollar investment in the hospital of the road that others had given up. we need a mayor that has his heart and a job that will get up every day and keep his promises. for 17 years i've done that and i'm asking for your consideration this november. thank you very much. [applause] >> moderator: mr. catania as schwartz schwartz companies bowser, thank you all for coming and we would like to thank all of you for what chang. monday starts early voting n-november for the get out and vote. have a good night. ♪

republican tom reed is running for reelection against democratic challenger martha robinson and the two are

debating tonight at seven eastern and you can see on the companion network c-span. earlier this month the democratic congressional campaign committee canceled plans to spend $465,000 on tv ads supporting the campaign to the but the candidates are still running campaign ads and here's a look at a few of them. >> martha robertson's agenda is already hurting us. robertson opposed raising the power plant with natural gas and when she didn't get her way, her supporters sued to shut it down. her friends are willing to sacrifice our jobs, communities, raise our taxes and utility bills because of their radical ideas. and that is exactly why her agenda is wrong for us. he put himself first by putting for 200,000 in wealthy people.

martha robertson will cut taxes for outsourcing. it's time to put these people first again. >> i martha robertson and i approve the message. martha robertson is an extreme liberal that supports obamacare, higher taxes and nancy pelosi and her votes to double the property taxes and spend that money on the fourth for three races and 110,000 for herself to the same extreme story. so so whether we take her word or her vote for it the story remains the same. martha robertson is an extreme liberal and is too radical for us. >> false-negative tea adds that the facts have to matter. the aarp says the plan, quote,

removes the medicare guarantee. it's a fact. and he voted to raise the retirement age for social security. another fact. why? to pay for the votes to give tax rates to millionaires like himself. that is a sad fact. >> i'm martha robertson and i approve this message. i will protect the promise of retirement with dignity. that is a fact. here are a few minutes of the debate between the two governors.

are you saying there is a many racists in the party you couldn't remain a republican? >> i'm saying that element exists. my mom and dad are republican and they don't have a racist bone in their body. it's a pretty simple thing. if you ever back in may of 2008 and some of the e-mails that were distributed about the president by some members come and not all they were not exactly flattering. and i think you probably can research and find out what i'm talking about, but it wasn't right. and i can tell you that the reactions i've gotten from some in the republican party, leadership wasn't tolerable to me and it was pretty clear to me that it wasn't just because i was going to work across the aisle with the democrats to get the recovery funds to come to florida. it was also pretty apparent to me because it was the first african-american president. i don't enjoy saying that. it is and what's fun to say that

i'm going to tell the truth and those are the facts. scott: you're a mudslinging or in a divider and the entire time that you've been in politics what you've done is millions and millions if you could. you are a divider. we live in a wonderful state. we are the best melting pot in the world. we have so many wonderful people here that come from all over the world and you want to try to divide people. i want everybody to have the same shot i had. crist: nothing could be further from the truth. i worked with the president to get the funds. as governor, governor rick scott won't work with the president even to get high speed rail which is so important to central florida and the state and would have been $2.4 million.

some say 60,000 jobs. he will not lift a finger to get medicaid expansion done and as a result of million floridians watching tonight aren't getting healthcare again today as a result of that in action on rick scott plus it would bring 120,000 jobs. scott: first off, do left me with a $3.6 billion budget deficit and broke $9 billion. you borrowed everything you could could add a new budget project on the table that would cost billions of dollars. then you want to talk about medicaid. you were governor when it passed. why didn't you think it would pass right then and expanded rights and? crist: i actually have worked for the federal government as an example something that you wouldn't do. we sold over the everglades. you wouldn't lift a finger.

coming up in under an hour and hour at 4:15 the defense secretary and south defense

secretary and south korea defense minister will hold a press conference at the pentagon. we will have that live on c-span and again that starts at 4:15 eastern. in idaho first congressional district incumbent republican paul labrador is running for reelection and the democratic state representative e-echo political report rates this race a solid republican. >> welcome to the idaho debate and look at a candidate on the $2,014. the debate is a collaborative project of the idaho press club, the league of women voters of idaho and the idaho public television. the debate is made possible by the boise state university school of public service devoted to building civic and community leaders through interdisciplinary problem-solving, real-world research and policy studies and hands-on experience you can only get here at the state capitol. the debate also brought to you by your conjugations to the idaho public television.

thank you. >> moderator: hello and welcome to the idaho debate at the public television studios. this is the second of seven debates we are hosting before the may 24 -- the november 4 general election. tonight the candidates for the congressional district one take the stage to ask for your vote. a congressional district stretches from west of boise at the canadian border and includes and i want to welcome the candidates congressman raul labrador and state representative shirley state representative shirley ringo. congressman raul labrador is seeking his first term in the house of representatives. he's an immigration lawyer who previously served two terms in the legislature. representative shirley ringo served in the house of representatives since 2002. she cochaired the joint oversight can be answered on the joint finance appropriations committee and the retired teacher. i also want to thank the panel of supporters that will ask the candidates questions. rebecca is the associated press,

jessica robinson with northwest news network and kelsey with the idaho press tribune. i'm the cohost of idaho report here on public television. i'm moderating tonight's debate. each candidate will have one minute for opening comments in 90 seconds per close. we flipped a coin to see who would go first, and congressman labrador, you have that honor. labrador: thank you, melissa, idaho public television and the league of women voters for having this opportunity to have an important debate tonight. thank you to the panel for being here tonight and i look forward to the discussion that we are going to have. it's been an honor for me to serve you in washington, d.c.. four years ago i asked for your vote and i asked u2 sent me to washington, d.c. so we could change the way things were being done in washington. i asked you to send me because i thought we were spending too much money and i felt that washington was a mess and that the decisions being made were not the idaho values and then you gave me the opportunity to go to washington to change the way things were done in washington and i'm here to tell you that i've done exactly that. in the last four years we have

spent less money and we brought the unemployment rate down and we have done the things we needed to do to make sure washington, d.c. become the place we can work. there is much more to be done and that's why i want to go back and continue to do the work you sent me to do so tonight i think you will be seeing a big contrast between the two candidates and you'll be able to you will be able to send me once again to washington. >> moderator: representative ringo your opening remarks. ringo: thanks to those in attendance tonight. america has been the country that aspires to offer opportunity to all wear where the american dream is a real possibility. but we are not that country anymore. the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of an elite few while too many families struggle to put food on the table for their children. a special interest special-interest money buys elections and lobbyists to maintain and protect policies for the rich.

this is wrong. we need leaders who care about the people they serve more than their own advancement. we need to work on policies to restore the american ideal. we need to invest in people and help them prosper. we need to invest in programs such as head start and pell grants and invest in veterans invest in safe roads could invest in safe roads and bridges and immigration reform. congressman labrador isn't willing to make those investments. i am shirley ringo and that's why i'm running. >> moderator: thank you. the first question is for congressman labrador. >> during your time in time in congress you been absent from voting nearly twice the average of the other representatives currently serving in fact according to governor track between 2011 and last month, you missed 121 of more and 21 of more than 2700 rollcall votes created it's about a 4.4%

absentee rate. you don't hold any leadership positions in that nothing you've sponsored has become law and many of the bills introduced in the last term were repeats of the bills that you tried and to get past the first term. if the voters send you to congress for a third term but will you publish? labrador: and like i said in my introductory statement we have a higher -- were unemployment rate because i'm in washington, d.c.. i do have a family. i'm the youngest member of the delegation by quite a bit, by a long stretch and i do have to stay home sometimes for some of the things my family has to do. i missed about 4% of my goats come i go to washington, d.c. and some also have something to do with the travel schedule. sometimes you miss those because you're traveling on a monday night and your layover is delayed but the most important thing is i've done everything i told the people of idaho that i

was going to do, that i was going to change things in washington. you also need to look at some of the things we have done. just two months ago we had a debate about immigration and what was happening at the border. it was because of me and my leadership we passed something out of the house of representatives. the reality that harry reid isn't taking up any of the things passing out of the house is very difficult for republicans to get anything passed out of the congress because here he reid isn't taking up any of those things so i'm very proud of my record and i will continue to fight for the people of idaho. >> moderator: do you have a follow-up? in 2012 when you were absent for 4.7% of the votes you told the idaho statesman who would get the number down saying the people of idaho hired me to do a job and i should be there. labrador: invited. >> last year you were absent for 5% of the votes. do you still think you need to be more present work have you

found a balance between family life and work life and managing -- labrador: i did miss as many but i do have a family. i have five children and three that are still at home and sometimes they have programs, graduation coming in for me the most important thing is my family, so i have missed some because my family activities and my responsibilities as a father. if the people of idaho don't want to send a father to washington, d.c. that has young children that their opportunity that i can bet i've had very few people actually get upset with me because of that so i don't think that is as an important issue. >> moderator: the next question is for representative ringo. >> moderator: you are a democrat in a very republican state. on the joint operations committee you ended up in the news as the lonesome no vote on

appropriations that nearly always ultimately passed. for instance you voted against the rays for idaho teachers because you said it didn't go far enough and you voted against sending $1 million to the constitutional constitutional defense fund because the money would be used to defend the ban on marriage. you will likely still be in a minority the minority of viewers and to washington, d.c.. why should we expect you to have better success than you've had? ringo: thank you for the question. i think it possibly depends how you define success. as you know i was a democrat in the idaho legislature and we know that means being outnumbered by about 4-1. so in my role on the joint finance committee i had to be sometimes the lonely voice standing up for what i thought was right and you mentioned two of those things. when i go to washington, d.c. i may still be in the minority but not quite to the extent that i was in the idaho legislature.

i will definitely have more allies to work with than i did there but i think this experience that i had in the legislature was very valuable to me because i had no choice other than to work across the aisle to check to get things done and i did manage to have some accomplishments with what i think were very important and when i go to washington, d.c. rather than shut down government unable work to cooperate with the people there to get things done. >> moderator: the next question is from jessica for representative ringo. >> how do you compromise, that is when the you decide you want to give up something for the greater good and when an issue is too important to give up anything? ringo: thank you. i believe most of us have thought about the important issues and we know where we

stand. we develop certain values growing up that are hard to deviate from from time to time but as people that are representing individuals that have elected us, we have to step back and think not only how do i feel about the issue but what will be the best for the people that i serve and that is where sometimes we may give up something on what our strong individual values are and work to serve people. >> i have a follow-up. can you think of a time in the legislature that you might have had to compromise your own belief to get something done for the people of idaho? ringo: i can think of many of them but probably on the debt finance committee would be some of the cases where i did have to compromise because as many of you might know, the idaho constitution requires the balanced budget and so as a member of the joint finance

committee, it was necessary to set priorities and perhaps not be able to give support in one area even though i considered a very important in order to give support to something that i thought might have been more pressing than that. ..

i've also worked on other legislation like immigration and others were unable to work with republicans and democrats. you don't always get what you want but you can get a consensus of the things that are necessary. but i think when you're talking about a question of principles, i think should never count my sure principles. that's one thing i like about surely. she's an ideologue just look on the conservative and she will stand on her principle. if they're different from the people of vital but even if you look at her literature and alter the things she's been saying during the campaign season, just not cover my sure principles and i admire that about her. >> moderator: you had a follow-up. spend both state and national gop has been in turmoil lately. earlier this year launched a longshot bid to become house majority leader angel lost to kevin mccarthy. you also brought in to the state of idaho gop convention to

oversee that with support hoping you would bring unity to idaho's various factions in the republican party that you concede defeat there as well when things broke apart and there was political infighting and it ended without any new chairman and without any new platform votes. so in short you have developed a bit of a reputation as a contrarian. does a search ability to get things done in congress? labrador: . not at all. let's separated those two events. first let's talk about the race as majority leader. i knew i was going to lose that race. i did it because i thought it was necessary for the voice i represent, or conservative faction, to be represented. and also to bring our leadership somewhere in his of some of the problems that we are having as republicans, nationally and at, in the congressional action. if you look at what happened, i lost that race for majority leader but just two weeks later

it was an issue on immigration where party was completely divided on what was happening on immigration. i was the one is able to bring all the factions of the republican party together to have success and to bring a bill to the floor that past. in fact, the night before is able to do that, the speaker of the house and the majority leader told the conference we're going to go home and we were not going to have a bill that was going to pass the house of representatives. it was because of my leadership that is able to bring all the factions together. many people said it was because of the race i had just entered into because i have acted with class and dignity during that race, and it seemed in a new light that they were able to follow me. selection i think the race for majority leader was good for me. you can ask anybody in washington, d.c. whether it helped me. it helped me tremendously. >> moderator: i have to move on. next question is -- please

respond. ringo: i do have to take just a manager because embedded in that nice government that the congressman gave me was branding me as a left wing ideologue, which i have to take some exception to. the reputation i have politically comes from my performance in the legislature which involves such things as supporting schools, supporting people with disabilities, working for equal pay for women, and working for adequate pay for public employees, and so and. i don't think that quite measures up to what we would call a left wing ideologue. if i could continue a bit. on immigration reform thing you're a want to be careful that our election time publisher doesn't differ from our posture during the congressional session. and the senate did pass a bipartisan bill on immigration reform which came to the house, and i would've thought they

would've given you something to work with, but you could move forward on. and instead he made such comments as if the speaker brings this bill to the floor, it should cost him his speakership. and this is a good cause for republicans but not this year. the leadership may be was missing at the time that it was critical. and you're talking about leadership that you provided at the end of the session, and who knows where that will go. labrador: if i could respond. >> moderator: place to. labrador: the reality is i did use the model of the senate bill to try to craft legislation would pass and the house of representatives but there was a single problem. single problem with the leadership of your party. you have president obama and we harry reid who continuously called the house democrats and told them do not agree to anything more conservative than we passed in the senate. every time we ar were getting ce to a compromise in the house of

representatives, it was the leadership of your party that decided that they didn't want any compromise. to them it was either the senate bill or nothing. that happened for six months. i was almost, every single day in meetings with six months and we cannot get actually democrats in the house who wanted to reach a compromise, we could not get into greater anything because their leadership was telling them not to agree to any of the compromises that we wanted in the house. so we tried and we worked on it quite extensively. >> moderatorextensively.. ringo: . there you go playing the blame game again. the votes were there to pass the bill and it could've gone to conference committee after that to get a compromise. >> moderator: we have another question and immigration just for you. your opponent is an immigration lawyer who specializes in this issue. one of the baltic issues facing this nation but what do you have to offer on this that he

doesn't? ringo: i sort of hav had to sayi don't have expertise that he has. i would probably indicate some disappointment that this expertise wasn't used to move the issue forward better in the four years that the congressman had to work on that. however, i have spent quite a bit of time talking to people throughout the first district, and that includes the people in the latino key nerdy who have indicated to me, not only their disappointment in what the congressman has done, but i try to get as many as ideas as i can from them about what would be helpful about the type of law we need to move forward. >> moderator: the next question is for congressman labrador. >> in the thick of immigration talks and nothing is happen. you against the d.r.e.a.m. act which democrats is key to compromise. many of the issue going to immigrant workers have been the same for decades. can be realistically so you're able to make progress on

immigration reform if elected to another term? labrador: absolutely. there were two bills that passed the house of representatives because of the leadership i provided in the house of representatives the weird one bill that is accompanied issue but the law says one country is the same number of visas that are available to them when you try to bring somebody, whether your spouse or something like that. we passed that out of the house of representatives, a bill that would've shifted some of those visas to countries that have a high traffic immigrants to the united states like india, china and mexico. that passed the house of representatives because the leadership i provided. the senate decide not to take it up because they wanted a comprehensive bill. they didn't want a step-by-step approach. i led an effort to have comprehensive reform of the high-tech visa programs, and i begin went to the senate and the senate chose not to pick it up because they wanted the comprehensive bill. i think the best approach for immigration reform is doing a

step-by-step approach to immigration is one of the most complicated areas of law. i have led on this issue, i put legislation. i've helped legislation go to the house of representatives but it's the senate refuses to take of any of those pieces of legislation because they want only one solution. it's not the solution that we want in the house of representatives transfer would you like to respond to that? ringo: briefly. yes, it is true that the senate wants comprehensive immigration reform, and as the medevac that's what the latino committee that the congressman represents labrador: i shall represent the fifth district of the state of idaho. ringo: you should respond to other want done. my concern about the piecemeal approach is if, for example, somebody just as interested in border security and that that piece of the package passed, i'm not confident that once satisfied once an individual be willing to look at a broader package.

i think it's much better to do a comprehensive approach and this and did have one that had bipartisan support, and it was certainly a place for which we could've started. labrador: the problem is for 20 years we've been trying to take over its approach and nothing has passed. we got things that out of the house of representatives that would've provided a piecemeal approach, a step-by-step approach that would eventually to a comprehensive solution of the immigration problem. i will give you one specific thing that would help elect energy nerdy and immensely. there's a law that bars people want to do it the legal weight if they want to come back to the united states, there's a law that says if you want to leave the united states and come back, you have to remain in your home country for 10 years. i propose getting rid of that. most democrats agree with me. i wanted that to be a stand-alone bill or something attached to one of these smaller bills and i couldn't get the leadership of the house and the senate democrats to agree to this thing that would've helped

25% of the people that are here illegally. that's the problem. we have a rational decision by the democratic party for them it's either the senate bill or nothing and we could fix this problem in a step-by-step approach. ringo: the item the carcass been mentioned certainly would have been helpful to many people in the community. however, there are many there that are just crying out to something going in the way to the path of citizenship and that needs to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. and that was part of the senate bill. would have helped many people as well try for the next question is from rebecca for congresswoman ringo. >> in 2006 the voters decided to define marriage between one man and one woman. presumably that represent the will of the people of idaho. at what point do you concede to the will of the people even if you don't agree with them? ringo: well, that certainly is a

good question. that was a decision that somewhat surprising given that labor trading tendencies of many people in idaho and that they would think that legislators and others should really cross the line over into somebody's bedroom and tell that person what to do. the question now that's up for discussion is whether or not that's constitutional. that's a point where decision needs to be made, and it appears that we are definitely moving in the direction of time than the fact that that was not a constitutional decision. we certainly can't put ourselves in a situation where the vote of the people override the constitution. >> how do you balance the rights of states to set their own path with the civil rights of the citizens in that state? should the government even be involved in marriage at all?

ringo: i don't think the government should be involved in that particular situation. we can even look at the ways that some people were affected by the decision, as a matter fact, looking at the veteran who lives with her partner for 25 years, and the idaho constitution at the time was preventing her from making arrangements to be buried by her partner because of the decision that the state had made. i just think that what we have to look at in this case is that the power of the state does not override the united states constitution, and that's the decision is being made and appropriation be made. >> congressman condit issued a statement this week that said unelected judges should be on doing the will of people by offering the states ban gay marriage but courts have stepped a local issues or to protect the

rights of minority populations. how do you balance that view with the separation of powers that are inherent in the way our country is structured? labrador: look first to the constitution. there's nothing about gay marriage, nothing about traditional marriage. you need to decide whether that's something that courts should be siding or the people should be siding. the people of idaho decided by 62% that they wanted to have something in the state constitution, and that traditional marriage should be protected. that may change. if we put it about again maybe the people of idaho will disagree with that but i don't think it should be unelected judges who should be making those decisions they make you said states should bill to define marriage for themselves but not all marriages are state centric, like federal tax filings are directly affected by marital status. how is a marriage in oregon in a different then imagine i don't? labrador: because the people should decide. you asked an important question to shirley and that's where the state should be involved again

at all. that's something we should start considering as policymakers is whether we should have all these benefits based on marriage status. may be the state back off a little bit and decide that there shouldn't be, that it shouldn't be involved at all in marriage. >> moderator: how far which extended . labrador: it's something we need to start discussing. ringo: if i can weigh in briefly. we can still awkward it would be to have the state-by-state decision on this were a couple could get married in idaho and in good oregon and have them not recognize that marriage. so that's something that just wouldn't work from a good point of view but it's also been true over the history of this country that we have not accepted discrimination against minority groups, and that applies here. >> moderator: congressman, a question for you. the situation with a veteran who wasn't able to be buried with her partner. at what point do you address the

actual pain that is involved in these decisions? the actual human effect of these policy decisions. labrador: i think you should look at the situation and decide why should the state decide who should be buried in that plot? those are things, why can't she be buried with a sibling or a somebody that she decides? you can look at some of those issues. you also have contracts where you can decide for, for example, the situation being in the hospital. you can decipher who can be present in the hospital. there are several remedies and simple ways we can resolve this issue without having to change the years and years and years of tradition on what marriage should be defined as. >> moderator: did you want to respond to that? ringo: well, my response would just be that those civil remedies still result in treating different groups differently, and that should be

the arrangement we should have. transfer we have to move on. the next question is from jessica. >> i would like to move on to the debt. are social security and medicare things that you're willing to address? to reduce deficit spending. ringo: it would be my strong opinion and practice that we should protect those programs. however, we can. and i would, for example, not consider weakening the ability for any senior citizen to be able to get health coverage through medicare. are you -- do you want me to continue there? i can't tell if you have another question, but for example, the congressman had a proposal, something like voucher program that would allow senior citizens to be able to apply money from

the government to go purchase his or her own insurance. that would introduce differences in coverage i believe that are not acceptable. i do think we need to keep medicaid and medicare in fact for our senior citizens, and we definitely need to get social security contact. i'll stop there indication of a further question. >> representative ringo, how big a deal is the debt? where would you can't? ringo: well, that debt is a huge deal and it does threaten the future of this country. so we have to give it a great deal of attention. and i thought about it quite a bit. my difference with the congressman here, and we've noticed a few as we've gone along, is that his approach is just slash across the board indiscriminately regardless of who would be hurt by those cuts.

i think that the only responsible way to address this debt as it must be addressed is to combine certain cuts that would be carefully chosen with other measures, such as tax reform. and if we work on full employment with individuals getting a livable wage, i think we can find that that also takes pressure off of programs that are supported by taxes. and provides more energy for business because people will have discretionary money to spend. and so i think it's a combination of efforts on several fronts that's going to successfully address this problem without putting too much of the burden on anyone part of the population. >> moderator: what are some things you be willing to cut? ringo: i think that, for example, defense would be one

area that i would be willing to cut. we know that when they got into the war with iraq, that was justified on a very thin promise -- premise that turned out to be wrong, that it ended up costing us a great deal of money. we had to borrow money to fund that war. and as we sped up the cost we paid along with interest in the future, their estimates it costs us between 2.4 million-$3 million. and as we withdraw from iraq and afghanistan, and hope are careful about things we engaging in the future, that we will be able to control that the budget for one example. >> congressman labrador, i know this is an issue you're interested in, and has representative ringo said, you have said and you say on your website you support significant across-the-board cuts to federal spending. and so i'm curious how far that

extends, does it extend military cuts ask. labrador: right now in the five minute segment use of the biggest difference between the two candidates. she hasn't made it a single thing she would cut except the middle to the one thing the constitution provides for the federal government to do for the american people, she wants to cut that bush is not going to touch anything else. she talked about tax reform which in her lingo actually means tax increases but she's not talking about tax reform perch wants to increase taxes so we can do nothing to change the drivers of our debt and i to increase taxes we can have a less productive society. i am going to touch everything across the board. in fact, i have voted against increases in spending for the military. i voted against increase in spending in just about every area. even i've been criticized for voting against increases in spending for some programs that are here, based here in idaho. i think it's important for us to look at all other programs, put everything on the table and be

serious about what we are facing. at the next 20 to 30 years we are going to have enough revenue to pay for social security, medicare and the debt. that's all we will have money for. if we don't do anything to change the drivers of our debt we will have a nation that is bankrupt. what has actually ruined nations in the past has not been military conquest, has been the inability to actually pay for the government. i think it's important, like mike mullen said, the debt is an issue, under one national seek a threat that we face as a nation and we need to make sure we do something about that debt and deficit. ringo: i think is very nice of the congressman to explain my tax reform plan, but i would like to go a little further and just i would probably be willing to look at increases in what is paid by the 1%. but i think most of it can be done by closing loopholes and doing away with corporate

welfare. it's a very complex situation with a number of facets but it's not true that when i say tax reform, i mean increase your taxes. labrador: make sure i didn't understand. i believe we should close the loopholes just like you do. we should use it to lower taxes. in your website of the statements you've made you believe we should close the loopholes so we can increase spending. i think that's a major difference between this. in fact, you have over the last six years three-tenths proposed in the idaho legislature that we increased taxes so we can pay for spending. i just want to make sure i'm not misunderstanding about what i've seen about your record is that you want increased taxes to pay for spending. want to close loopholes just like you do but i want to do so we can have a fair and flat tax for all americans. ringo: is it okay if i answer his question? that's not the usual routine if that's all right. >> moderator: please do that. ringo: the congressman, let me

just give an example that i think addresses this particular issue. one of the things the congressman did is hold up approval of the farm bill. because cuts in footsteps weren't sufficiently deep. now, in idaho we have 230,000 of our individuals that are on food stamps. clearly this is something in idaho which is a low-income state that we need this kind of support. 22% of the idaho children are defined as food insecure. so if we were able to get more revenue by closing loopholes, and if we could use some of that revenue to giving you the people the support they need, then i would certainly do that rather than lower taxes. it's going to take a study of what the needs are and what revenue we have to resist them, and we are not going to, in my

service in congress, we are certainly not going to balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class. >> moderator: the next question is from kelcie moseley to congressman labrador spent a recent study for the alliance for justice i found that the cost of living for a childless adult was 1457 which is almost double the federal minimum wage. that's for childless people, not to get to get families where one parent might stay at home but can't afford to. as a proponent of family values at what point do you balance that with your view of the federal minimum wage? labrador: i think the misnomer is the federal minimum wage is going to increase the living wage for a lot of people eminently. what we need to do is give people the opportunity to get better jobs. my mother lived on minimum wage for a long time. i was raised by a single mother. she lived on minimum wage for a long time and what she did for herself what she took a bishop opportunities to go to school to get a better education and then to encourage me to actually go

to school so i wouldn't have to live the same do not like she was living. i think what we do is we try to fix this problem by encouraging people to raise the minimum wage when the round is all steady sure if we raise the minimum wage what you will do is you lose the entry-level job that people need to be trained so that they can actually advance in life. i worked minimum-wage jobs as a young man since the age of 14. so i can actually get the skills and abilities that i need so i could be successful. that the minimum-wage job that i had was the ability to go to college, my mom is still in the was what allowed to have a better life asset ago. i was able to get out of the cycle my mother was in when she was living in a lot of minimum-wage jobs. i think we need to do as policymakers, we can talk about feel-good legislation but the reality is if we don't improve the lives and ability for people to get better jobs in america, we are going to have a lot of people that for generation after

generation are going to be living in those minimum-wage jobs. we can raise that minimum wage however much we want but if we continue to live under the minimum-wage, they will not be able to provide for their family. >> moderator: would you like to respond? ringo: there are situations where studies have been made between states that raise the minimum wage and those that do not. certainly in the state of idaho we have a contiguous state. washington with the minimum-wage is much higher in places where it's impossible to study those side-by-side states, one raising the minimum wage and whatnot, there has not been evidence of some of the dire consequences that the congressman mentions. and, frankly, currently the federal minimum wage is $7.35 an hour. that is not an amount of money that anybody can support a family on, that anybody can actually live on.

and to the that makes it just a moral. if someone's a business plan involves being able to take somebody, poverty wages, then we need to look at how that needs to be improved. labrador: the difference is i don't want people living on minimum wage jobs. i want him to improve their lives so they can get higher wages. just like my mother did and just like i didn't. >> moderator: very briefly a question for you congressman. how do you do that? labrador: by increasing the economy. one of the things i want to do is tax reform. i would give it all these loopholes these corporations have so we can encourage big companies to come to the united states and stay in the united states instead of going abroad to other countries. another thing i would love to do in idaho is to have more control of our federal land. one of the things we have right now is the richest areas in idaho used to be where we had timber harvest. now it's a difficult to do timber harvesting that you need a college education to make a good wage. you can make a good wage right out of high school if you work

in timber, in mining and in those areas by the federal government has made it more difficult for young people in the state to take advantage of those jobs. that's what i want to do. i want to create an economic boom that will allow people, even without a college education or with some limited after high school education to get a high-paying job track for the next question is related to this from rebecca boone for for congressman labrador. >> ayatollahs a wealth of natural resources, particularly first district but there's no agreement come easy agreement over how those resources should be handled. the payment in lieu of taxes was extended by the temporary extension still he drove counties, idaho county for a huge portion of their land is in federal land jurisdiction, leaves them in limbo wondering how they will replace the funding as it expires next year. should be a permanent funding source? where should that money come

from? labrador: i think it should. it's an obligation of the federal government to this day. you have to distinguish that from secure role schools. srs was supposed to be a 10 year plan for something like that. the government owes us the money because we are not using those federal lands. i would advocate for us the allowed to use those federal lands were and if you talk to the idaho county commissioners they would agree with me. if they have the ability to use the land they're going to need less and less payment from the federal government. it's one reason i introduced timber legislation that would allow us to control 200,000 acres in idaho understate management rules that would still remain under the ownership of the federal government that we can control understate management rules. if you talk to all those people in those regions, they understand they are not dependent on the federal government. they don't want to be dependent. they want to be able to be independent and use those natural resources we can create jobs and create more wealth in

idaho. >> given the precarious nature of the can is an avid obligation, should the counties ever start looking for alternate sources of funding? labrador: yes, and they are. the counties came to me and congress and asked for them to the opportunity to manage these lands at the state level. this idea came from the county commissioners. i think they are looking for as many ways as possible to make ends meet in the counties. transform the next question is for rep ringo. >> same question for you. showed a have a permanent funding source? where should the money come from? ringo: yes. first of all, there's always been a lot of discussion over the years as the state management of federal lands and it's something that our attorney general even says is not feasible. so i think what we need to do in

order to be productive is to look at how to make the current system work better. we need to reform the national forest system and work hard on the multiple use aspects of those federal lands that we have here in idaho. and in addition there are two sources of funding that are important, it's a very important source of funding that the federal government owes it to us because of the tax base with the federal lands to edit do think that needs to be a source of funding, yes. secondly, we used to have the law that was passed i think in 1908, the counties share of revenue on federal lands to use for schools. that was essentially replace as i stand by the safe and secure rules school act. nonetheless, that's a very important source of revenue for our world counties to help support their schools.

i think that funding is important and difficult to make this system work as it should, we have to have the federal government have that money for both those programs. labrador: the attorney general has never spoken about my plate. the attorney general has spoken about ownership of state land by the state. i meet up federal land by the state. my plan is managing federal land under our state management practices and they don't think the state attorney general has ever spoken to the issue. it's one of the things the county commissioners brought to me because they would prefer the ownership of the land, but they realize the difficult that is. they thought this was something and effect ron wyden from oregon who is a senator, a democratic senator, is looking at something similar like my trust idea. ringo: and i will say that i was

talking about shifting the federal land management to the state. it's been discussed for so long and not the congressman specific proposal try for you had a follow-up rebecca. >> representative ringo to utah to needing a permanent funding source that you also talk about counties on how to operate as best they can within the current status quo because it sounded like he said they have to start working with what they currently have in addition to using the federal funding. what are some ways that they could do that? can they really replace that -- do they really focus their efforts, without managing those federal lands? and how would he do that? i become an increase infrastructure? what needs to happen? ringo: i'm not sure i heard myself say that, but let me just address the issue.

what i will say i thought under to make the system work more appropriately, we need to have a reform of the national forest system, and there's supposed to be the multiple use provision of these lands which does give the opportunities for the income that can come off of those lands. and so that would be a piece of it. i don't think, i think i might've actually heard the congressman say that. and not myself. i could be wrong. >> moderator: the next question is from jessica for congressman labrador. >> i want to move a broad net and whether concerning isis or another entity. there's a very real chance in congress that is going to be about ongoing to war and there'll be a lot at stake.

human lives as well as global peace and taxpayer dollars. is also the question of whether it's something come a conflict we could actually win. so what do you look at to make a decision like that? labrador: that's a great question because one of the most important decisions i think we can make is members of congress. in fact, i have advocated forced to go back to congress to get this job done. i don't think we should be waiting for the president to call us. but we should as members of congress make a determination whether we need to use force, how much, extensively the force should be. first thing we did look at is what the intelligence community is saying about isis. one thing that concerns me is that we continue to make decisions based on, you know, the probable attacks or possible attacks. but when you listen to intelligence community, they're saying they're currently not planning any attacks in the united states. we have to balance that with a desire for us to keep america

safe. so we need to make sure that if we're going to go in, we need to go with a specific mission. we need to go with full force. it's one of the things i disagree with the president. he went in with have force instead of full force. if you want to destroy the isis because they are threat, we need to go in with full force. we need to have a clear exit strategy. how long are we going to be there? what would be the mission on the ground after we leave those areas? those are things that have not been answered by congress or by the president, by the president and his national security team. i think we should have a long debate about this. i have been critical both republican and democrats, even my speaker of the house is saying that the president has the authority right now to use force, and i disagree vehemently. out of anyone who voted for the use of force in 2001 had any indication that we're going to be going to war in syria in 2014. >> same question for

representative ringo. ringo: the situation in the middle east has been very difficult for years and years and years. when we went into iraq, it was partly like stirring up a hornets nest. one thing that we also have to realize is that any solution there is going to be very long-term. that's one thing that concerns me about the exit strategy, if we go win. we have to have a definite exit strategy, but it don't think that anybody reasonable period of time we will be able to achieve what has been called mission accomplished. i very much want to stay out of war. were. i think it's a very serious thing to do but our people, our resources to that kind of thing. so we must approach it in a carefully. no doubt i so is a savage, barbaric -- isis, not a state to deal with. no person like osama bin laden

that claimed credit for some of the atrocities that they have committed. but we know that that group poses first and foremost an immediate threat to the people in that area, and we know what their ambitions are. so those individuals that live in that part of the world have to be very motivated to combat this threat. i think we can provide information and we can provide support. i hope very much that we won't have to be drawn in to the war. i don't think we should send boots on the ground. too often these things become our war and we need to work with the international community to try to come to a solution. >> moderator: the next question is for representative ringo from kelcie moseley. >> in the time or terrorist give access to technology and the government relies on data mining to monitor citizens, how do you balance fourth amendmen fourth s

with nash is good at protecting american lives? ringo: interesting question, because back when the patriot act was passed, i felt that we crossed some lines in terms of giving up things that we shouldn't give up in terms of our rights, in order to feel safer. and that is something that you do have to balance. in fact, i was on a panel with the governor where we both oppose those types of provisions of patriot act. i am really not willing to cross the line where we have the government snooping on private individuals. and that is aligned i think that we have crossed and we need to back away from that. >> moderator: less than a minute. same question. labrador: it's important we follow the constitution. i think we need to have a reasonable see jenn sterger. indigo through the legal process or the judicial process but it's important we distinguish between

u.s. citizen and we just think which but when you citizens the people who are not u.s. citizens. so they have access to the records of terrorists and other organizations. when they know, if they are known threats to the united states. we need to be very careful when talking about u.s. citizens that we haven't got to the legal process to snoop and look at the records transfer all right. it's about time for closing comments and congressman labrador can you're up first. labrador: thank you for being here today. it's been a wonderful back and forth on the different issues that we're facing here in idaho. i think we've seen a clear difference tonight between shirley and my so but i believe in less government, less spending and more responsibility of what the economy to grow. i want the economy to reach every single idaho in so we can fill prosperous. i don't want the government to manage those things that i want the government to decide and pick the winners and losers. i think it's important for us to decide whether we want somebody in washington, d.c. who will

fight for the people of idaho. i had a good friend who passed away yesterday, dan simmons, the son of steve sims. i heard this great story today. one of my campaign workers had been working on a project with and then come and dan asked her if she was going to actually become a member of the establishment. and she said, of course i'm not going to become a member of the establishment. i'm going to continue to work for a joke and work for the people. and he said, keep on fighting. i think that's a great story because those are the people that i think are listening to the message that i have. people like dan sims who are making come have made a difference in idaho and continue to make a difference. i want to continue to make a difference fighting for you, fighting for your rights and fighting for less government and more accountable to thank you very much for the opportunity to have a good washington, d.c. and to represent you. i hope in november you can continue to send me to washington, d.c. have a good evening. >> moderator: thank you.

representative ringo, your closing remarks. ringo: thank you. thank you again for the opportunity for us to get together and after these questions this evening. sometimes i wish that i will laboratory had been my math student a few years ago. i used to tell them that there always will more ways than one to solve the problem. it's just often the case that one of the ways of solving the problem is more elegant than another. congressman labrador, for example, in trying to solve the problem of the deficit would make a cross the board cut, slashing programs regardless of how individuals are affected. i on the other hand, as i discussed would have a multiple faceted approach where we would have tax reform, we would have, trying to improve the economies through people getting better jobs with more pay, and several

pieces that would fit together to improve our revenue and so that we could balance that with cats, and not solve the problem on the backs of a certain vulnerable part of the population. i believe that my solution is much more elegant than his. i might also talk about individuals around the district to whom i spoke that have been affected by various government programs. one of them is our health care program where we made the effort to ensure the people of access to insurance. and through the program caps were taken off of insurance so that people who needed certain procedures could get them. >> moderator: i'm going to have to cut your. figures which were time tonight and thanks to the reporters for the great questions and to our viewers at home for watching. you can learn more about these candidates and more on our website. just a reminder, our previous

scheduled debate was postponed. thanks for watching. have a good night. >> we take you live now to the pentagon for a joint briefing by defense secretary chuck hagel and south korea's defense minister, ham min koo holding a joke on 10 -- holding a joint press conference. >> [inaudible conversations] >> and c-span to live at the pentagon a wedding a joint briefing by defense secretary

chuck hagel and the defense minister of south korea. "the wall street journal" reported this week that the u.s. and south korea are negotiating an agreement for south korea to take control of his military in the event of the war on the korean peninsula but if a war broke out under the current agreement between north and south korea, the u.s. would be in charge of military operations on the financial. the details of the plan to chance or military control to south korea have yet to be publicly announced. again, you're watching live coverage of the pentagon right here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i appreciate this opportunity to welcome minister ham to the pentagon. this is his first trip to washington since he has been minister of defense. so we are particularly pleased to have an opportunity to spend the last two days with him and his delegation. i also want to acknowledge retired colonel william weber, a distinguished career in -- korean war veteran who is here today and will receive special recognition from the korean

government. thank you, colonel weber, thank you for your service to our country, and what you did and continue to do to strengthen this friendship and this partnership between the korean people and the american people. this is the 46th security consultative meeting between our two nations, and today minister ham and i were joined by general dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral locklear, our pacific commander, commander of u.s. forces of korea, and their distinguished korean counterparts. i want to thank all of our participants, both the koreans and the americans for a very

productive and direct exchange of ideas and thinking today. and look forward to continuing our discussions later with secretary kerry, and foreign minister. this special annual event highlights the enduring bond between our military's, our governments and our citizens. it reminds us of our nation's shared history of sacrifice, commitment and partnership. and it reinforces the strength and resilience of the korean-american alliance, which has contributed to stability and prosperity for over six decades. this afternoon, minister ham and i began our meetings by focusing on the bedrock of our military allies and our combined forces on the korean peninsula. we signed a memorandum of

understanding that outlines a conditions-based process for transferring a wartime operational control from our allied forces. while this agreement will delay the scheduled transfer of operational control, it will ensure that when the transfer does occur, korean forces have the necessary defensive capabilities to address and intensifying north korean threat. reaffirmed the train it commitment to our alliance and to the defense of republic of korea, i also reiteratereiterate d our policy of maintaining our current force posture on the korean peninsula. and continuing to strengthen the u.s. military's readiness and capabilities across the asia-pacific region. this now includes the rotational presence of combat ready u.s. army soldiers, which began

earlier this year when men and women from the first cavalry division began a nine month rotation. this innovative program is already enhancing our combined defense posture, and a second rotation is now under way. our alliance commitments are as important as ever. because north korea's de-stabilizing policies and dangerous provocations continue to pose a grave threat to security and stability in northeast asia, and around the globe. north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs require our alliance to maintain robust and credible deterrence. the minister and i reviewed the implementation of our tailored deterrence strategy, a strategic framework that minister ham's predecessor and i signed in seoul last year. i emphasize that the united states remains committed to

using all our military capabilities, both on and off the korean peninsula, including conventional strike missile defense and our nuclear umbrella, to ensure that our extended deterrence is credible and effective. and the minister and i endorsed our new operational concept to detect, disrupt, destroy and defend against north korean missile threats. ..

>> i thanked the minister for the republic of korea's partnership in the global effort against ebola in west africa and in the broad multi-national coalition fighting isil. we discussed korea's other important contributions to global security as well, from counterpiracy to peacekeeping to counterproliferation. and we took stock of our broadening cooperation to address new and emerging threats in space and cyberspace. last month our nations concluded a new agreement ons spails -- space situational awareness. in closing, let me thank minister han again for his partnership, his leadership and his friendship, and let me also acknowledge the united states' new envoy to the republic of korea, ambassador mark lippert,

who i have some association with, is a trusted friend and adviser. we're proud of ambassador lippert. he goes to seoul at a very critically important time. i know, the president knows, we all know that his leadership and stewardship there as he continues to work to build a stronger alliance will do nothing but strengthen the bonds of this alliance in the years ahead. thank you very much. mr. han. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this is the minister of defense of the republic of korea. this year's scm is very special in that it marks the first year of another 60 years the alliance will enjoy following the success of the first 60 years. north korea is continuing to launch new types of provocations including an additional nuclear attack, development of new be

mrls and tactical missiles, infiltration by miniature uavs and machine gunfire. as such, the security situation on the korean peninsula is more precarious than ever. in light of this, secretary hagel and i discussed diverse topics and ways that the alliance may cooperate to respond sufficiently to north korean threats and provocations as well as maintain peace and stability on the korean peninsula. we achieved significant results through these discussions. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first, secretary hagel and i agreed on a conditions-based up-front transition. we agreed that considering the heightened nuclear missile threat and the fluid security situation on the peninsula this would insure a stable transition that enhances the alliance's response capabilities in addition to strengthening a combined defense force led by

the republic of korea. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the republic of korea military will target the middle of 2020 in order to secure the core military capabilities that would be outlined by the postponement of the transition. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this would be able to insure a stable transition given the security situation in the korean peninsula in a way that contributes to the combined defense posture. >> [speaking in native tongue] as the, as korea and the united states agreed on a condition-based op con transition, we also agreed that

until the time of the actual op con transition, we would maintain the headquarters in its presence location. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we believe that this would be able to deter north korean provocations as well as contribute to peace and stability in northeast asia. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: secretary hagel and i believe that the rotational deployment of battle-ready u.s. forces will be able to support stability in the korean peninsula. and also the combined division will be able to contribute significantly on a tactical level. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in order to more efficiently respond to the long range artillery threats by north korea, secretary hagel and i agreed to, agreed on force augmentation plans to be completed until 2020.

we also agreed that five brigade would remain in its current position in relation to this project. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: secretary hagel and i also reaffirmed the united states' firm resolve towards extended deterrence to korea. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: furthermore, we highly appreciate the joint efforts to come up with detailed implementation plans for the tailored deterrence against north korea. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in light of the increasing threat of north

korean ballistic missiles and in order to respond efficiently to them, korea and the u.s. agreed, highly appreciate the principles and concepts of the comprehensive counter-missile operations of the alliance. secretary hagel also commended the republic of korea's contributions and efforts to support reconstruction in south sudan, participate in psi and other efforts for world peace and stability. we agreed to continue cooperating closely to respond to regional and global security challenges. secretary hagel and i highly appreciate the practical cooperation in the cyber domain between the republic of korea and the united states and agreed to further promote space and cyber cooperation between the ministry and the department in the future. finally, i assessed this year's 46 scm as having been an opportunity to further consolidate the alliance and

would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the pentagon officials who offered a heartfelt welcome. we will continue to cooperate closely for another 60 years so we can grow into an even stronger strategic alliance. before we move on to q&a, we would like to commence with the alliance awards ceremony. [inaudible conversations] >> this year marks the second alliance -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> his sacrifice and such dedication -- [inaudible]

to the foundation upon which the republic of korea now stands in free democracy. has been serving as the president of the foundationing for over 20 years -- foundation for over 20 years. [inaudible conversations] through various projects including construction of korean war memorial and the wall of remembrance for 40,000 men who die in the korean war. colonel, please come to the podium, please. [inaudible] republic of korea and honored secretary of defense of the united states will present the award. [inaudible] this contribution to the

development of the -- [inaudible] u.s. alliance, thereby becoming an example for both the rok and u.s. military. [applause] >> now -- [inaudible] remarks. >> obviously, i'm humbled by this honor, and if i am deserving of it for that which i have done, i promise i shall continue that effort until the day i die. sadly, in american history the

korean war is really ju a minor footnote when instead, it should be a benchmark that we should take pride in as a people. for just as surely as we fought world war ii to save the world for democracy and its people, so too did we as a people fight in korea to save the world from enslavement from communism. there ought to be something in which our nation should remember and honor every moment of its existence. to my comrades from the republic of korea and to mr. secretary, as i said, i'm humbled and honored, and i thank you so very much. [applause] >> colonel, thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i have a gift for the colonel, but i'm not going to impose on him to take more whaird home now, but i i -- hardware home now, but i will give it to him. [laughter] i know you've got some questions. so, colonel, i've got something for you, but that's okay. [laughter] nothing as fancy as a medal like that. [laughter] but none theless, sincere tribute on behalf of the men and women of the defense department and all of america, we will give you something we think is very special and, again, thank you for your service to the country. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> we have time for just a couple of questions, so we're going to start on the korean side, and then we'll go to the american side, and i think we're only going to have time for one each today.

>> [inaudible] >> none for the minister. [laughter] >> what about the south deployment and the other one is the u.s. force in korea. specifically, are there signs that the u.s. is considering deploying -- [inaudible] because he made such a request during his government. so where are we right now in terms of the process on that -- [inaudible] and what's your position about the deployment? and the second question is secretary of state john kerry said the u.s. is ready to reduce the american forces in south korea if north korea rejoins the denuclearization talks. so can you tell me what your own position is about the -- [inaudible] and what's the position of the

u.s. government? thank you. >> thank you. but may i have some clarification? your first question, was it about the -- [inaudible] >> very different. >> yes. i've got it. i've heard. [laughter] thank you. thank you very much. first, no decisions on fad have been made. there have been no formal consultations with the korean government and the american government at any level. obviously, all options are always being explored with allies, but no formal consultations, no decisions have been made. as to your reference to secretary kerry's comments, i think i made clear, i hope i did, in my statement that we -- the united states -- do not intend to change our policy on deployment of our forces in the

republic of korea. in fact, i think just, it was just the opposite of what i said, we continue to strengthen and advance that policy we've had for over 60 years. we are upgrading it, adjusting on deployments, on rotational deployments. we think there's more stability, more security, more continuity in those deployments. >> next question will be jennifer griffin. >> minister han, do you still think that kim jong un is fully in control in north korea, and have you seen in recent weeks any opportunity for a warming of relations? and, secretary hagel, if i could turn your attention to iraq for a moment. the ya sizties are again surrounded in sinjar, 80% in under control of isis. this morning you spoke with iraq's new defense minister, and is he's willing to take the fight to isis. are you confident that u.s.

ground gassers, forward -- forces, forward operating forces wouldn't make a difference in this fight? do you think it's time to reconsider that policy, those constraints on u.s. ground forces? >> [speaking in native tongue] >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: on the surface it seems that kim jong un is effectively controlling, exercising control. however, it's diplomatic isolation and its chronic economic crisis will in the long term increase instability. and there are many different threats that can arise from that instability, and the korean government and military are fully prepared against such threats. >> on your question, well, let

me begin with my conversation, as you noted, with the new iraqi defense minister this morning. and i think admiral kirby read some of that conversation out, and as you said, one of the points that he made when i asked him what his priorities were, getting the iraqi security forces in a position to take the offenseive, and in areas they are. so that's accurate. second, i think we have made it very clear and i have and i know president obama and others that this is a long, difficult effort. we believe that our strategy is working. we think that the progress that is being made in iraq is mixed, yes. but reality is, is that isil has

controlled and still does control a significant amount of ground in iraq. and i don't think it's any different from any complicated, difficult contest that there will be mixed and various outcomes daily. but this is not a daily measurement. this is an overall strategic, longer term measurement of how well they're doing. so, no, we're not, we're not changing our policy. we think it's working. i think many of you heard general austin's analysis of where we are last friday when the press had an opportunity in a press conference to ask him some of these questions. we were with him again last night and got an update which we do almost daily on where we are. where he thinks we are based on our field commanders. so that a's the way i would

answer the question. >> why wouldn't forward operators make progress faster? >> well, i think general dempsey and our commanders have said that if they feel that that would be required or necessary, they'll make that recommendation. they have not made that recommendation. i've not had any discussions with any of the commanders based on that. they feel confident that what we're doing is working and, as i said, you heard probably directly from general austin last friday on this. >> thank you very much, everybody. that's all the time we have today. >> thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] measure [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> in new york's 23rd congressional district, republican tom reid is running for re-election against democratic challenger martha robertson. the two are debating tonight in el mire rah, new york. it starts at seven eastern, and you can see it live on c-span. earlier this month, the democratic national campaign committee canceled plans to spend $465,000 on tv ads supporting ms. robertson's campaign, but the candidates are still running campaign ads themselves. here's a look at a few of them. >> i'm tom reed, i approved this message. >> martha robertson's extreme ithaca liberal agenda is already

hurting us. robertson opposed refitting our power plant with natural gas, and when she didn't get her way, supporters sued to shut it down. robertson and her ithaca friends are willing to sacrifice our jobs, our community, raise our taxes and utility bills because of their radical ideas on global warming, and that's exactly why martha robertson's extreme ithaca liberal agenda is wrong for us. >> there are those who put country first, put communities first. tom reed put himself first by voting for $200,000 in tax breaks for wealthy people like himself. then tom reed voted to raise middle class taxes on us by $2,000. martha robertson will fight to cut middle class taxes and to protect our jobs from outsourcing. it's time to put these people first again. >> i'm martha robertson, and i approved this message. >> i'm tom reed. i approved this message. >> we know by her words martha

robertson is an extreme ithaca liberal who supports obamacare, higher taxes and nancy pelosi. and her votes to double your property taxes and spend that money on four pay raises and $110,000 desk for herself tell the same story. so whether we take her word or her vote for it, the story remains the same. martha robertson is an extreme ithaca liberal who's too radical for us. >> tom reed is attacking martha robertson with false negative tv ads, but facts have to matter. the aarp says tom reed's plan, quote: removes the medicare guarantee. it's a fact. and reed voted to raise the retirement age for social security, another fact. why? to pay for reed's rotes to give tax breaks to millionaires like himself. that's the sad fact. >> i'm martha robertson, and i approved this message. i'll protect america's promise of retirement with dignity. that's a fact. >> you can watch the debate between republican incumbent tom reed and democratic challenger

martha robertson live tonight on c-span starting at seven eastern. and then at eight eastern, a debate from iowa's fourth congressional district where steve king is running for a seventh team. his democratic challenger is jim mowrer, iraq war veteran. and in new hampshire, jeanne shaheen is running for a second term. her challenger is scott brown. here's a look at a few minutes of their recent debate from new hampshire. shaheen: in some ways i approvee and some things i don't approve. [laughter] you know, like both questions that we deal with as policymakers, there aren't simple answers yes or no. >> moderator: well, let me put it this way, you have said that you're the candidate for the citizens of new hampshire. scott brown often says -- i don't need to tell you -- that you vote with president obama

99% of the time. because obama's approval ratings are at an all-time low in new hampshire right now, 38-40%, how does your voting record sort of jibe with serving the citizens of new hampshire? shaheen: now, i work for new hampshire, and scott brown talks a lot about one survey and 99% of the time that i voted with the president. but the numbers i'm proudest of are the 359 -- 259 people who are now working at the berlin prison because i was able to get the prison open after it sat open for two years, the 1200 people who were being foreclosed on in their ohm homes who our office worked with to keep in their homes, it's the the 9,000 veterans -- 12ed ,000 veterans who can now get care close to home because of the legislation that senator ayotte and i got into the veterans reform bill. what we need is a senator who's going to work from new hampshire, who's going to make sure we address the concerns

that we hear from our constituents, who's going to be willing to work with democrats, republicans and independents, anybody in washington who can help us get the job done for this state. >> moderator: senator brown, you get 45 seconds. browp browne well, she just described me, because i i was the most senator in the united states senate. every survey that's come out has senator shaheen as being one of the most partisan senators. she has, in fact, voted with the president over 99% of time, and what does that mean to people in new hampshire? it means she was the deciding vote for obamacare. she did vote against every ability for us to keep our doctors, our hospitals, our care facilities that people trusted and loved. as a result, deductibles are going up dramatically, and costs are going up. care and coverages are going down. she's also voted to put in place a system where, you know, we have more and more gridlock by voting with her party over 99% of time. so that's part of the problem right now. we need to have an end to that gridlock.

>> the 2014 midterm elections just a week and a half away, our campaign debate coverage continues. today at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of the new york 23rd district debate with congressman tom reed and martha robertson, and live at eight the iowa fourth district debate between congressman steve king and jim mowrer. at nine, the west virginia third district debate with congressman nick rahall and evan jenkins. and at ten, the utah fourth district debate between mia love and doug owens. friday night at eight eastern, senator jeanne shaheen and former massachusetts senator scott brown. at nine, jeff america key and monica wavy, and then at ten, the louisiana fifth district debate between seven candidates, congressman vance mcallister, harris brown, ralph abraham, zack dasher, clyde holloway and jamie mayo. c-span 2014, more than 100

debates for the control of congress. two-term massachusetts governor deval patrick is term limited. democratic state attorney general martha coakley is running against republican businessman charlie basic. they debated earlier this week. from boston, this is about an hour. ♪ >> wgbh news and the boston globe present a live gubernatorial debate from the w tv-8 studios in brighton, here are jim rowdy and marjorie eagan. >> good evening. it's two weeks until election day, and we hope the next 60 minutes will help you decide your vote for governor. >> we intend to cover a lot of ground, and the only thing we can tell you about the format is that there isn't one. it's just a conversation with the two leading candidates for governor. >> and please feel free to talk to each oh as up as you like. >> we'll also be going to questions from our partners at the boston globe.

they're already talking, so, charlie, martha a, we appreciate you joining us tonight. >> you both have plans, but, martha, you've been working in the public sector for 28 years, obviously, not creating private sector jobs there. so how do you convince people that you can to this for them in the private sector? >> first of all, what's been really important in my experience is seeing what barriers are to job creation in the private sector, how overregulation or energy costs, health care costs are barriers to that. i've seen that as attorney general, and i also understand what the state has been able to do like the governor has with investments to spur job creation, to work as a good partner with schools and to provide for the growth in the economy that we see happening already. and i think one of the differences, i think, between the two of us is i see the need to keep those jobs going, but also the real need to invest in our work force so that our kids and people will have the jobs and the job skills to keep them

here. >> so, charlie, what do you think of that plan? >> well, i think the big issue we do face is jobs. i mean, it's the number one issue for people everywhere we go. and as i've traveled around the commonwealth, it's very clear to me that some parts of massachusetts are doing really well and other parts respect, and a big part of our economic development plan is focused on those regions and those communities that have not done as well as others. and that's why we've been talking about building economies based on the jobs that are already in certain parts of massachusetts, and it's why, for example, my first campaign event was at u-mass lowell at the emerging technology center, because that is a great public/private partnership between the plastics and polymer manufacturing industry up in the merry mack valley, and it's created this really terrific, virtuous circle between a higher ed institution that provides research and product development can expertise to a bunch of firms that want to be here and want to grow here, and it's a great pathway for kids to go through that school